The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-03 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Mr. HENCE:IT, from
places in Ireland, in favour of tenant right ; by
Mr. FERGUSON, from Carlisle, praying for the abo-
lition of church rates ; by Mr. OuvEtse, from New-
market, praying for a reduction of the duties on wine;
by Lord D. STUART, from a place in Wales, approving
of the war, but expressing a hope that ample guarantees
would be taken against any future aggressions of Russia,
and that at the conclusion of peace Russia would be made
to pay the expenses of the war ; by Mr. B. DENISON and
other hon. members, from various parts of the country,
against the opening of the public-houses on Sundays ; by
Mr. LAYARD, from the Aylesbury Board of Guardians, in
favour of a national poor-rate ;by Mr. R. LOWE, signed
by 3,700 inhabitants of the colony of New South Wales,
against the constitution agreed to and sent home by their
Local Legislature. On the motion of the hon. member, this
petition was read by the Clerk at the table.
WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
14 On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was agreed
that the house at its rising should adjourn until Thursday
next.

NEW WRITS.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that in the cases of the city
of Canterbury and the boroughs of Cambridge, Kingston-
upon-Hull, Malden, and Barnstaple, where the seats of
members have been declared void by election committees
on the grounds of bribery or treating, no motions for the
issuing of new writs shall be made without seven days'
previous notice being given in the votes. .
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY contended that it WAS highly un-
satisfactory to allow these cases to remain in their present
position. He was chairman of the committee which sat
upon the Barnstaple petition, and the bribery and corrup-
tion established in that case was of so glaring a character
that steps should be taken to put a stop to it in future.
In 1819 this house passed a bill to disfranchise the borough
on account of its corrupt state, but the bill was thrown
out of the Lords. Tho same parties who carried
on tho bribery in 1819 were also the parties guilty of
the corruption in 1852, and sometbing ought to
be done beyond merely suspending the writ. He
wished, therefore, to ask the noble lord if the Government
have any intention to propose any further measures for
the repression of bribery and corruption in those boroughs
which have been the subject of inquiry under commis-
sioners specially appointed ; and if they propose the sus-
pension of the writs until any such measures shall have
been considered by the house.
Mr. BUCK thought the Conservative party of Barnstaple
had been very badly treated by the house. Attempts
had been made to establish bribery against them by means
of perjury which was wholly unnecessary, because at the
commission 240 electors came forward voluntarily to con-
fess their past faults, on the understanding that
they would not be punished for the confession.
An effort had been unsuccessfully made to break
that pledge, but now that the bill was withdrawn
which was to have accomplished that, he hoped the house
would let byegones be byegones, and consent to issue a new
writ for the borough.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought the house was taking an un-
constitutional course in delaying the issue of these writs.
Mr. L. KING moved, as au amendment, that no new
writ should issue in any of these cases, until the 30th of
December next.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the original motion but at
the same time he announced that at the expiration of the
seven days notice ho should not be prepared to consent
to any further postponement of these writs.
Mr. BOUVERIE reminded the house that the course
they were taking was likely to be attended with great in-
convenience, because in consequence of this seven days'
notice, the motion for issuing the writ would take the
motion out of the category of a question of privilege, and
it could not be brought on at an early period of the even-
ing, but could only be taken in its turn. He should there-
fore move that when the motion was to be made for the
issue of one of these writs, it should take the precedence
of all other.businoss.
Mr. GOULBURN should object to that addition to the
motion.
Sir E. DERING supported the original motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the issue of these writs
ought to bo postponed until the noble lord's new reform
bill was introduced. (A. laugh.) These were such gross
cases of corruption that there was no getting to the bottom
of them, and to allow these writs to be issued without
first taking steps to prevent a repetition of such abuses
would be simply absurd. It would be tanta-
mount to telling the country that the house was
not sincere in its desire to prevent bribery and cor-
ruption. These boroughs had been convicted of in-
sufferable corruption, and now the house shrank
from the task of inflicting upon them the punishment
which they so well merited, namely, to disfranchise them,
and establish new constituencies. The war could
not I sst
for ever, servo
though no doubt this year it would tae
purpose of defeating all measures of social reform , but
let the war be brought to an end, in any, measure
of Parliamentary Reform would remainu popular
house, because the house was not in earnest in either that
or this matter.
Mr. BRIGHT had no difficulty in
.saying that tho house
ought to agree to the original resolution. The pun
inishment
al
of bribery as inflicted by the house was most effectu
for its purpose, and since there was no means of meeting
these cases of bribery the most prudent and con-
stitutional course for the house was
disposed
of these cases in that easy way, it would then be open to
the house to consider what steps should be taken for the
prevention of bribery, and then he should be prepared to
urge V. ballot as the best remedy for the evil.
J. V. SHELLEY also believed that bribery would
never be put an end to until the ballot was adopted.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to Mr. STANLEY'S ques-
tion, stated that it was not understood to propose any
fresh measures with regard to these boroughs ; but he be-
lieved if the writs were delayed until a now law of bribery,
which was now being investigated by a select committee,
there would be seine chance of the abuse being checked at
the next election.
Mr. J. HUME asked if the new law in contemplation
failed, would there be any objection to try the ballot.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that if the new means failed
the Government would be prepared with some other
remedy.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original
motion was agreed to.
NEWSPAPER STAMP.
Mr. M. GIBSON. gave notice that after the recess he
should ask the Government what course they intended to
take in consequence of the resolution which the house had
come to on the subject of the newspaper stamp.
SALT MONOPOLY OF INDIA.
In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Sir C. WOOD stated that a correspondence had taken
place with the Government of India on the subject of the
salt tax, and an inquiry was now going on with the view
of ascertaining if the duty could not be collected by way
of excise.
An Hon. MEMBER asked when the Indian biAdget
would be. discloggd.
Biz C. WOOD Gould sot bring it Ward 1144 10 re