The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON; SATURDAY; APRIL 16, k3(3,

detain the House with any lodic (422..,:i of the eleetiolit tilt f ,::tehiioti 'liftitly Lints, to prove to the House that that
borough prior to the Bill. That 11;11 rieirpr considered the case of Stafford con-
HOUSE OF LORDS, Aran 15. have been eet to have an effect there., hat Ile clide , t.. lorther agree', with ply Noble
The Loup .CHANcELLOI4 tools his seat on the Woolsack ,to say it gm none, In f;vct it wet in .videric'e Oen cloth. rrao has just addreste the tnise: I cannot agree to
the usual hour. anAting, less 'Mee in tts.'e ,leaseanStituency than in the pass this Bill unless evidence is produced at the liar of }'our
BI AM AND GLOUCE ST ER RAILWAY aid one. la v'enteaffinte o a petition presented to the other Lordships' ijoun,tpi4lii'dtltiatO the Charges Upon WhiCti it
BILL. Ikonse, sel:,,,e't Committee was appointed to inquire into le , ,
Lord E LLENBOR DUG 11 presented a petition from the tllstallens contained in the petition, and, a liklaiiV4 Ord 1-10 LL AND said ibis was net a question of private
Cerporatirat and inhabitants of Giouces.tsx in favour of \vas passed. That select cpnynittOs .lade a report i.iterest, but of vast public importance.—( Hear, hear.) If
—the report which corstairSisd tne foundation of the state- then they would save the House of Commons horn becoming
Gloucester Railway Bill.
meats on whieh V.lti present Bill rested. The report con- a repository of bribery, corruption aetl they
The Nlarquis of SALISBURY presented a esstltlon from
the bankers, merchants, and inhabitants et 13irmingharn, to c104.cl tiltrs—" Ycur committee think it their duty to state as would „paAs 4itlfranOiiiiAelit a the bOrotigh
the same effect. On the motion of the Noble Marquis. the their deliberate opinion that corrupt practices havc, prevairtAl lhatr44, i.4.•!•.51i such vagrant delinquency had been
Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be comonttesi on tor a long series of years in the riettienl,i'4 lkte,tte'shVitill He thought lie could show to their Lordships that
Tuesday. Stafford." The Ctm.Htisse nib tiaVA thlti 111 its opinion, the custom which prevailed of hearing evidence at the bar
grist'S,tnik '§ysseniati bribery and corruption had pre-
STAMP DUTY ON NEWSCAPERS. general, slriginated. in a mistake, by the first Bill of this nature
Lord POLTINIORE presented petitions from Devonshire, , sidled. This Reports he should contend, was of „as having
praying for the rereal of the dutv on newspapers. cient to justify the house in agreeirss: io the Bill. He could bnenein mixedilli upi witha a real Bill of pains and penalties,
c..arue_ Certain persons with a crime, named
,It IRISH MT:,NICIPAL COR.PORATION BILL. not coattive upon what grounds a °shadow ef roast tenid he the persons so Charged', and allotted the ptinlshmenti not only
The Archhishop at ARM AG H presented a petition from thrown upon the testimony given beteiro Onnntittec of the by the loss of fraiieliise—(" Hear, hear, hear," from the Op-
' • 'Armagh, asainst the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. House of Commons.) Tir how the Repcirt of that Committee positiOn.) Noble Lords cry out "Hear,"—they would do
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. could have lest any of the sv'eigit't and importance which at- well to heat me out.—( A laugh.) The loss of franchise, the
Lord SE GRAVE begged to call the attention or the Noble tacked to it when it was first laid before the other House of Noble Lord continued, might be a punishment, though it was
Lord on the Woolsack to a petition he had to present from Parliament ; and ao clearly did that Rerett operate upon the not the loss of property. lie never would allow that the
the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, and a number of House that the 'Bill for the disfraphisement of the borough of franchise was property, and the argument which maintained it
magistrates and inhabitants of Gloucester, praying that the Stafford; which bad been Ntlherly opposed, was permitted to to be property would be the greater inducement for the adop-
trial of criminals might be transferred. from the Assizes and pass almost without tlttiervation. tion of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. It was not
Quarter Sessions, to the jurisdiction of the magistrates in their Lord E MCINBO ROUG H—lt fit elved considerable property, but a trust; and, without referring to the Reform
local districts. After the petition had been read by the Clerk amendment in Committee. Bill, but referring to the Crown itself—referring to the House
at the table, the Noble Lord stated lie should withdraw the Thu Marquis of CisANRICARDE—Yes ; but not in the of Commons—it was clearly proved that a trust was revocable
petition, on account of an informality in it, there being no House. It wars however, admitted that evidence had been upon gross and frequent violation.—( Cheers.) If this mea-
snsnatures on the first sheet of the petition. given which proved that bribery and corruption had been car- sure Inel been a Bill of pains and penalties, it would have been
Lord LYNDHURST thought the prayer of the petition, reed en to the greatest extent for several years in the borough in this, as in all other cases, the undoubted right of the subject
if complied with, would have the effect of abolishing trial by of Stafford, and the Report to that effect was unanimously to defend his property.; but it was not one of that nature, and
jury in many cases. agreed upon. Upon what grounds then could further evidence fortunately not so, because, had that been the case, that House
Lord SE GRAVE had already stated his dissent from the be sought T Could any one 'doubt the facts of the case? If might have been held out as the great obstacle to getting rid
views of the petitioners, and his wish to withdraw the petition their Lordships were to eatne to the determination of hear- of bribery and corruption.
itself, on the ground of informality. ing evidence at their bar, in addition to the evils of delay and Lord ASH BURTON• said the Noble Lord who had just
The LORD CHANCELLOR said if the petition had not expense, a very had moral effect would he produced; and an sat down was quite ready to pass the present Bill, with no furs
been withdrawn he would feel bound to express his dissent impression would be conveyed abroad that there was a desire ther evidence than that taken before the committee, arid the
from the prayer of the petition. on the part of their Lordships to screen the borough of Staf- general notoriety. That was a conclusion to which he (Lord
BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY RAILWAY. ford from the consequences of that dilemma in which it was Ashburton) at least could not come, and to which, likewise,
Lord H :s.T HE RTON presented three petitions from Bir- placed, and that that House was accustomed to look with a their Lordships, he was sure, would not assent. The Noble
mingham, Tamworth, and Burton on Trent, in favour of the more lenient eye upon such offences as those of which the bo- Lord had argued that this Bill was not a Bill of pains arid pe-
Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway Bill, rough of Stafford had been guilty than the other branch of nalties, not a Bill to deprive a subject of his property. Kit
OR the motion of the Noble Lord the Bill was then read a the Legislature. were not that, it was a measure which would deprive many in-
secor.d time. Lord LYNDHURST entertained no wish to screen Staf- dividuals of what was of much more value than property, in its
ford from any punishment which might be the just consequence more vulgar meaning, as connected with the pocket. If a Bill
of its own delinquencies, The object for which he then par- were brought into Parliament to divest their Lordships of their
' ticularly rose was to request of their Lordships not to depart in titles and dignities, with what reason could it be argued that it
the present instance from the usual course which they had been did not take away any of their property, that it was no Bill of
in the habit of pursuing in respect to all Bills similar to the pains and penalties? His main object in rising was to learn
present-( Hear, hear).—because, if they did depart from that what precisely was the state of the town as respected its inha-
course, the prom:tiling might hereafter he brought forward as bitancy, and the possibility of framing a proper constituent body
a precedent to guide the House in cases which might be very —to learn, supposing the delinquency to be proved, whether
different from that which was supposed to be the case with re- that was the proper remedy which was proposed by the present
spect to the case with respect to the borough of Stafford. Bill. Under the old state of Parliamentary representation,
Their Loreships had never been in the practice of proceeding whenever cases of bribery in the close boroughs were brought
on any occasion with Bills of this nature except upon evidence before the House he almost invariably voted for the disfran-
upon oath, taken before the bar of the House ; and their Lord- chisement, which he thought then a remedy applicable to the
ships would moreover remember that that there was now upon evil ; but he entertained now, under the new system, very
their table a petition from this very borough, praying to be heard great doubts as to the propriety of such a course ; because the
by counsel at the bar in opposition to this Bill. The Noble rich man, who took down into the country 3,0001. or 4,000/.,
Marquis had said that there were two sources of evidence to would then have it in his power to place any town in England
support the first, the report of the Committee of the House in the same predicament as the borough of Stafford. The Le-
of Commons, appointed upon the subject , and, secondly, the gislature dare not deal with cases of large towns as Liverpool
evidence taken before that committee. The first answer which and Manchester; to them it could not apply the principle of
suggested itself to him (Lord Lyndhurst) upon the point was, disfranchisement. If, then, all those towns, thus open to every
that the evidence was not upon oath ; and, that evidence not rich tempter, were to be disfranchised, the House of Commons
being upon oath, he, for one, could not proceed to disfranchise would be left composed of the Members of counties, and of
the borough unless the charges against it were clearly substan- large manufacturing towns, without that exceedingly useful
tiated upon oath. Another ground upon which he could not part of the representation, the Members for moderate-
think of proceeding with the Bill without further evidence sized towns. He (Lord Ashburton) had no doubt that there
was this—that he had frequently seen cases of bribery and cor- had been great bribery in the borough of Stafford. He would
ruption made out most clearly in evidence before committees not say that his feeling was one of such strong conviction as
of the House of Commons, but which, having been sent up to to render further evidence unnecessary; but he did entertain
that House, and afterwards investigated, had come to an en- very serious doubts as to the fitness of the remedy proposed.
tirely opposite result.—(Cheers.) The very last case which He had been extensively concerned in electioneering proceeds
had been before the House, the case of Warwick, was one ings ; and in the western counties of England, where great
directly in point. Never was a stronger case made out than corruption had prevailed, he had seen towns entirely con-
that of Warwick before the committee of the House of Corn- verted, and become afterwards as pure as any in England—
mons. Yet, after the matter had been brought to that House, towns which, if they had been proceeded against, as it was
further evidence heard, and the case thoroughly sifted, there desired to proceed against the borough of Stafford, would have
was not one Noble Lord who ventured to get up in his place been now locked out from any share in the representation of
and support the charge ; and he (Lord Lyndhurst) remem- the country. He thought the House ought not to proceed
bored well that the Noble Lord who was then on the woolsack without further information.
expressly stated that there was not one fragment of evidence Lerd HOLLAND said a few words in explanation.
to support the accusation.—(Hear, hear.) That, then, was The Earl of WINCHIL SE A said that no man or body of
one more reason why he could not be satisfied with the evidence men should be deprived of a great public right unless it were
that had been already heard.—(Cheers.) Another reason clearly proved that that right had been abused. He agreed
which influenced his decision was, that, however he might be with the Noble Baron (Lord Ashburton), that it was those
disposed to respect the opinion of the other branch of the Le- who tempted poor men with bribes that should be punished.
gislature, yet he could not place such implicit reliance The LORD CHANCELLOR was not aware that there
upon its judgment as not to seek information for himself; was at present any proposition before the House, except the
that, too, was a distrust founded upon very recent experience, Order of the Day.
for their Lotdshtps were aware that no further back than last Lord LYNDHURST had intended to conclude with the
session a committee of the House of Commons heard evidence following motion, which he should now submit to their Lord-
upon a question of bribery, and so clearly in their opinion ships :—That, before the House proceeds to adjudicate further
was the case made out, that directions were instantly given to in the case of the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford,
his Majesty's Attorney-General to institute prosecutions against evidence be taken at the bar, and the petitioners heard by
the guilty persons. Those prosecutions had lately been heard themselves, their agents, and counsel.
at the last Assizes for the county of Norfolk, and those against The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was rather an
• . isgiassaUsemoraygrlkArellssommitteo were .unfortunate case for those who argued that this was not a
s - s _ _ ..sa,,,,t,fasiie it had_ sawn hop
Jury was completely Satisfied, even without calling upon them dealt ,with as if it were—because those individuals woo hau
for defence, that they were wholly guiltless of the offences of to do with the borough of Stafford always treated the elec-
which they were accused.—(Cheers.) And yet they were tive franchise there as property. What did one of the wit-
called upon to vote for a Bill for the disfranchisement of a be- nesses, who had been examined, say in answer to a question
rough upon evidence such as that. But the Noble Marquis put to him? He said that he thought he should not be able to
had stated that there was further evidence—evidence before a select five electors in the whole borough who had given their
Committee of that House. Upon that point he could only say votes without a bribe. Another witness stated that the num-
that the evidence was liable to the same objection as the other ber who had been bribed exceeded 75 in every hundred ; but
evidence, because it had never been the practice of their Lord- he did not think they amounted to so many as 95 in every
ships to proceed to the disfranchisement of any borough, ex- 100. Now this was a pretty broad admission, and, if true,
cept upon evidence heard at the Bar upon oath. In alluding ought certainly to lead to the disfranchisement of the place.
to the evidence that had been produced, the Noble Marquis Whatever course the House might think it proper to adopt on
appeared to forget that the whole was an ex parte proceeding the present occcasion, there ought not to be auy mistake
—(Cheers)—that the parties who were accused were never left as to the terms used respecting the character of the Bill.
called upon, never had an opportunity of meeting the charge, It had been called a Bill of pains and penalties, but it was not
or of cross-examining the witnesses.—( Hear, hear.) Had such, nor had the House dealt with it as such. He was dis.
their Lordships ever heard of a criminal proceeding against posed to concur in the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord.
persons who had not the means of defence, with no oppor- After a few words from Lord Ashburton, the Lord Chan-
tunity of cross-examining witnesses—a criminal proceeding cellor, and the Marquis of Clanricarde, in reply,
upon mere ex parte evidence ? Was that the idea of jus- The Bill was read a second time, and the motion of Lord
tice entertained by the Noble Marquis—an hereditary Judge Lyndhurst agreed to.—Adjourned.
and legislator ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But further, who
were the witnesses upon whose evidence the charge rested ?
Their Lordships would be astonished when they learnt that he
had looked at the report, and had not been able to find the
name of a single witness—(Hear)—it was all anonymous.—
(Cheers.) He could never then bring himself to consent to
the disfranchisement of any borough upon evidence of that na-
ture. But what was the evidence itself? Why, in that evi-
dence a case of the grossest bribery and corruption was made
out against his Majesty's present Attorney-General (Sir John
Campbell.)—( Loud laughter.) Would he then assume that
charge, that accusation, to be completely established without
affording to Mr. Attorney-General the opportunity of appear-
ing at the bar of that House to defend himself from a charge
so grave ?—( Loud laughter.) He was making no rash and
unfounded assertion. The extract was to the following effect:—
" Question—Have you any knowledge of bribery having
taken place at the last or previous elections ?
" Answer--LNot at the last, but at Sir John Campbell's.
" Question—Did you see the voters paid ?
" Answer—l paid them myself at Sir John Campbell's
election.

I.:TIP-ERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ALMSHOUSES.

Lord ASH BURTON presented a petition from the guar-
dians of the Parochial Union of a district in Essex, in favour of
Almshouses.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition
from an individual in the county of Down, against a clause re-
lating to Seneschals in the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, and
claiming compensation in case it was passed into a law.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented several petitions in
favour of the abolition of the punishment of death, except in
cases of murder.

LORD'S D &Y.

The Duke of CLEVELAND next presented petitions
from various Societies of Wesleyan Methodists praying for the
better observance of the Sabbath.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a number of pe.
titions to the same effect.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

The Earl of WINCHILSE A presented three petitions
from places in Kent complaining of agricultural distress, and
praying for relief.
AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, pursuant to notice,
moved for a copy of the instructions from the Admiralty to
Lord John flay, the commander of one of his Majesty's vessels
on the coast of Spain.

Viscount MELBOURNE thought the motion novel in its
nature, and directly inconsistent with every notion of public
confidence and policy, to ask th,:. production of instructions to
an officer—thus making them public, putting the enemy on their
guard, telling them of the force at his disposal, and the
extent to which lie 'would go. If there were Noble Lords
disposed to act 'with Don Carlos, he hoped the House' would
not give th.e.ir sanction to such a course, inconsistent as it was
with his, Majesty's recognition, the policy of his Majesty's
Govc.rnment, and the success of his Majesty's arms. „
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he understood
there was an objection to the production of Lord J. Hay's let-
ter, but none to the instructions given him at the Admiralty.
The Noble Viscount stated that he had no objection to these
returns being made. He had stated that in his usual off-hand
manner, without well-considering the point in'question.—(A
laugh.) But he (the Marquis of Londonderry) wanted to know
whether the Noble Viscount was really First Minister of the
Crown or not ? They had seen him giving answers in that House,
and then going to another place and taking hints from another
quarter. He wanted to know to what extent this country
was pledged with respect to the war in Spain, and he had a
right to call for that information. By the. Tripartite treaty that
precious document which had been laid upon their Lordships'
table, all the efforts of the allies were to be in common ; that
amounted to a declaration of war; and he would be
glad to know :f France was a party to that.—( Hear. )
-thrown out against-film by the Ninile Viscount, of taking part"
with Carlists. Would the Noble Viscount tell him that France
would go along with England in that war? He believed no
such thing—he was satisfied that Louis Phillippe knew better
than to follow up the mistaken policy of our Government. He
complained of the Noble Viscount comir', down to that House
and making statements, and then, after having been lectured
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, unsaying
them. He would rather have at once a declaration of war
than the discreditable and disgraceful manner in which the
system was at present carried on.

Earl MINTO regretted that he had been so unfortunate as
to have been misunderstood by the Noble Earl (Londonderry.)
He had risen to make two statements ; one was that the letter
to which the Noble Lord alluded was one of which he had no
official knowledge whatever, and further, that the very cha-
racter of that document rendered it impossible that it could be
produced.
The Earl of ROSEBERY corroborated the statement of
the Noble Lord at the head of the, Admiralty, as, from his po-
sition, he could hear every word that the Noble Lord said.
Earl HARROWBY was neither a Carlist nor a Christine,
and he wished most heartily that the country had never in-
terfered in the quarrel ;—( Hear, hear)—.it would have been
much better both for its interests and its honour.--( Hear,
hear, from Lord Londonderry.)
Lord MELBOURNE had not meant to throw any impu-
tation on any part of the House. He bad said that he hoped
the House would not co-operate with Don Carlos by in-
sisting upon the production of these instructions. —( Hear.)
There was no doubt but the country had passed the strict
line of neutrality. Such bad been admitted by the Noble
Duke. It was an armed intervention.—( Hear.) That was
a state of war, and pro tanto the party to whom we were
opposed were our enemies. All that had been done was
within the articles of the treaty ; how much further this country
would go was for the Government to decide, as circumstances
arose. The Government felt, that upon every consideration
of national policy, and with regard to humanity, they were
bound to put an end to the war as soon as possible.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose amidst loud
cries of—Oh, oh He wished to ask one question of the
Government, .in consequence of what had fallen from the
Noble Viscount. It might be answered or not ; but if not,
then he would draw his own inference. Was France a party
to the new arrangements which had been entered into?
After a few words from the Earl of MINTO and the Marquis
of LONDONDERRY.
Lord MELBOURNE said, having refused the instructions,_
they would not give the contents of them.
Lord FIT ZG ERA LD presented petitions from the counties
of Clare and Meath, praying that the expenses of the Irish
Corporations Bill may not fall on counties.
On the motion of the Marquis of L ANSDOWNE, it was
agreed that no more of the evidence taken before the Com-
mittee on American commercial intercourse should be com-
municated, except to the Members of the Committee, until
further orders.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AWL 15.

The' SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes before five
o'clock.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL brought up the Re-
port of the Committee on the Dublin Steam Navigation Bill.
Sir M. S. STEWART, Sir H. PARNELL, and several
Scotch Members, were desirous that the consideration of the
Report should be delayed till a late period of the Session.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not see any necessity for the
adoption of such a course. Ultimately it was arranged that
the Report should be considered on Tuesday next.
On the motion of Mr. GASKE LL the Wakefield Water
Works Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented petitions against the
Cheltenham and Swinton Railway Bill.
Dr. BOWRING presented similar petitions.
SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY ROAD.
An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition against the Sheffield
and Tinsley Road Bill.
Mr. PARKER presented petitions from Sheffield and
another place in favour of the Bill.
NOTTINGHAM CEMETERY.
Sir RONALD FERGUSSON moved the second reading
of the Nottingham Cemetery Bill.
HOLYHEAD ROAD BILL.
On the motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL, the Bill was read a
second time and committed.
SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY ROAD BILL.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND moved the second read-
ing of this Bill.
Mr. B. THOMPSON moved as an amendment that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. PARKER opposed the amendment, and thought the
Bill ought to be allowed to go to a Committee. He hoped
the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, and, if
the promoters of the Bill failed in making out a case, then let
the House reject it.
Mr. BLACKBURNE complained of the hardship of com-
pelling the inhabitants of the various districts through whose
property the road passed, to come before a Committee of that
House, and state the grievances to which that measure would
subject them. The Canal Company to which the Hon. Mem-
ber referred, received a tonnage upon all goods conveyed along
it to enable them to repair that road : that was why the town
of Sheffield was anxious to get rid of that tonnage duty, and
throw it upon the agricultural districts. If even every word of
the preamble had been proved, it would not justify that House
irr passing the Bill.
Mr. BUCKING HAM conceived that the Bill would give a
boon to the manufacturers of Sheffield at the expense of jus
tice. Ile would therefore cordially support the amendment
he Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there a
peared—

" Question—ln what interest are you?
" Answer—Sir John Campbell's.
" To other questions the witness stated that out of 556 who
voted for Sir John, be (the witness) paid 531 ; that 31. 10s.
was given for single votes, 61. for plumpers ; that the voters
were paid directly after they had voted, but that the money
was promised before."—(The reading of this document occa-
sioned much laughter.)
That solicitor then clearly imputed to the Attorney-Gene-
ral the infamous crime of bribery and corruption.—( Laugh-
ter.) He would now read to the House part of the evidence
of another anonymous witness, described as a banker, long re-
sident at Stafford :
" The evidence of this witness was to the effect that at Sir
RAILWAY BILLS. John Campbell's election he (Sir J. Campbell) had drawn
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, as the resolutions of the largely upon their bank, in small notes and coin, and espe-
House of Commons on the subject of railway Bills had been cially in silver, altogether to the amount of between 2,0001.
presented, should move that the House do now adopt the and 3,0001., and that there had been at the time no entertain-
principle of those resolutions. The Noble Marquis referred ment to account for it."
to the suggestions contained in the resolutions, the first of So far, then, as related to the evidence itself it was impos-
which was that the Committee of the House should look at sible for their Lordships to proceed, upon it alone, to the dis-
the report of the House of Commons, and that if the proofs franchisement of this borough. Upon those grounds he could
given there were satisfactory. the House should be content not consent to the second reading of the Bill unless evidence
without any further examination. The next suggestion was was to be heard at the bar of that House.
that an engineer, either on the part of the Government or of The Duke of WELLINGTON said—Having been dis-
the parties interested, should examine every proposed line of tinctly referred to by the Noble,Lord for the part which I
road, and that these railroads should ultimately become the took with respect to a Bill introduced on a former occasion,
property of the country. In this last suggestion lie, for one, havinr reference to the borough of Stafford, I feel it to be
could not concur. Thy duty now to offer to your Lordships a few observations.
The Earl of RIPON said that at present all that was Te, A Bill was sent up to your Lordships from the other House of
quisite was, that a plan of the proposed line should be repo_ Parliament, to enable a Committee of the House of Commons
sited in the office of the Clerk of the Peace before 'Lie 30th of
to administer oaths to certain witnesses examined before the
November. This he considered a great injes::
ice on the pro., Cottimittce of the other House of Parliament appointed to
prictors of the land, and almost a fraud.. upon the persons in inquire into a matter of bribery in the borough of Stafford.
vited to subscribe. He hoped,
would be in order that 0 tl:,eref?re, that some steps. Your Lordships thought fit to send that Bill to a Committee
taken, .ae proprietors of the lands or above stairs, and I was one of the members appointed upon
of houses might have a suffi,Lient notice given them. Committee. Your Committee, my Lords, examined witnesses
Lord HATHER.TO'et said t}iat it was required that the in order to see whether it was fitting that they should recorn-
propoted line shoord
he advertised in every county newspaper, mend the' House to pass the Bill, which was no more than a
and the various ",oweships stated through which it would pass. Bill to enable the Committee of the House of Commons to
After a fdts, words from the Marquis of Salisbury, Lord examine on oath.
Abingert the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Hatherton, and A NOBLE LORD—To indemnify witnesses.
the Earl of Devon, The Duke of WELLINGTON—Yes, to indemnify wit-
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the parties messes—that was the object of the Bill. I had mistaken.
had a right to have an inquiry upon oath ; and he, therefore, Your Committee, my Lords, having heard evidence upon the
saw no reason why the House should proceed upon the evidence mater before them, agreed to the proposition made to them,
gig en before the Committee of the House of Commons. and the Bill was then sent down to the House of Commons.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that it was only in- That House, however, proceeded no further upon the Bill,
tended that if the evidence before the House of Commons and there the matter dropped. All I have to say then on
Were not deemed satisfactory, that then a further inquiryshould that point is, that I consented to that Bill, founded upon the
be instituted upon oath. , evidence which I heard given before that Committee ; but
The Earl of MANSFIELD should hope the consideration . if that had been a Bill of pains and penalties against the
of these resolutions would be postponed for a short time, and 1 borough of Stafford I should have required evidence to
lie hoped they would not be adopted until a Committee of the r prove the guilt of the borough of Stafford at the bar of this
House, evidence quite different from that given before the
House had bad the opportunity of reporting whether or not.
they were proper
a fewepv,e.r to be adopted. 1 Onnmittee. Subsequent to that transaction the House of
After 1 Commons sent to your Lordships another Bill, having for
deratood that the As from Lord HATHERTON, it was un_.
its object the prevention of bribery and corruption ; that
the consideration of
thearis of Lansdowne agreed to postpone -
Bill was likewise referred to a Committee up stairs, of
resolutions until Monday next.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. 1 which I had the honour to be a Member. The Com-
mi,ttee
.entered deeply and anxiously into the . question
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, in movinre the second.
readinc" of this Bill, should detain their Lordships'as briefly .a a' The Noble Lord then on the Woolsack, the
Vlti.scount opposite, the Noble Lord the President of
possible. The course which haeoltnvaes:ow pursuing_was, 140
knew, a novel one, hut one by
Stafford
pwpaosr t dby Tio e - t. tie
~ lie Council, and many other Noble Lords, were attached to
t Committee, arid they framed a Bill, by which a method
cedent. The case of the borough of Stafflu
to the nature and the extent completely
the. nointed out for trying the question of bribery in future,
unparalleled, not only as
Of the
bribery practised there, but also to the cHirecudmidsntante'A tinder avkn.acl
wA LC h contained a clause to enable the Commissioners ap-
lc .
which it came before their Lordships. . 4 under the Bill to try the particular case of Stafford.
ti intend to point() ,
. '

For the second reading
Against it lB
Majority -36
THAMES HAVEN RAILWAY
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from a lady of
the name of Baker, the proprietress of 8,000 acres of land on
the line of road, against certain parts of this Bill.
LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Islington in fa-
vour of this Bill.
CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.
Sir M. S. STEWART presented a petition from the Hol-
lin.ton Railway Company against this Bill.
c.
LONDONDERRY STEAM-PACKET BILL.
Sir R. FERGUSSON presented a petition from certaininhabitants of Londonderry against this Bill.
TEIGNMOUTH HARBOUR BILL.
On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER, this Bill was read
a third time.
NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Hunting-
field in Yorkshire, against certain parts of this Bill.
SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. B. Hov the Committee on this Bill
obtained leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the

House.
Mr. S. LEFF, VERB resented a petition from South-
ampton against several clauses in the Southampton Docks
Bill.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL moved the third read-
ing of the Dover Harbour Bill.
Mr. FECTOR felt called upon to say a few words upon
the Bill, for, in his opinion, the Dover Harbour Bill was one
in which the public had a very great mterest. He bad already

given. notice of his intention to move for the appoiritilidflt
S'Aect Committee on the Bill, and such being the case, he
wopld suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the propriety of
Pc-'i,'9,l!llt?tlte motion Wednesday, as it was his intention
to move f-o,r et g ',.einct Committee to inquire
into; thg. Dover Harbpqr .111)1, nii,Tu'e4da'y teR:
L. ~could 4gice°,tic; tib'e stilt es `sbYr
1 of th'u !!eit ,fot 1306, dad the Houie.

would agree to his motion: -
Mr. HUMP, did, not see any notice on thd .14.11bYkt.or th'e:
Doy 4 harbour in the order paper, directly or indirectly, ail
he flierefOre toad of ,ktio~y
ihiow tVis matter went forward.
It was a subject in W tiidii Ve fens. a! Oieth iVteles'i,,lia*ipg been
Chairman of a Committee where it was iii.dL4.2flit 1011 - 64-
videration. The shipping interest was subject to heavy
in this port, and the House should see that they were relieved.
The Commissioners, as far as he could learn, had given any
thing but satisfaction, and he thought the suggestion of the
Hon. Member for Dover ought to be accceded to.
Mr. PLUMPTRE, asone of the' Commissioners of
Dover Harbour, bad reason to complain of the insinuations
thrown out against the Commissioners, because, on h
former occasion, when reference was made to this subject
asked if there was any charge against the Commissioners, and
none was made, he therefore thought it rather hard to ave
such insinuations thrown out. lie humbly submitted thath the
Bill should proceed in its regular course.
Sir J. R. REID would second the motion for a Select Com-

mittce.
Mr. ROEBUCK complained of the irregularity of the
course adopted ; no notice of the motion appeared on the paper.
The SPEAKER said that the course adopted was in per-
fect conformity with the Orders of the Ilouse.
Mr. HUM E submitted that, agreeably to the regulations of
that House, although the question had been postponed, it was
necessary to give notice. If the present system was adopted,
questions might be passed-over, and again brought for,vard at
more favourable opportunities.
Sir E. KNATCHBUI,L explained.
Mr. ROEBUCK, complained of the manner in.which the
House had been taken by surprise, by bringing forward the
question at a time when no notice had been given.
After a few words from the SPEAKER in explanation of
the forms of the House,
Mr. JERVIS objected to the Bill being committed. It
would invest the Company with an unlimited power to borrow
money which. they at present did not possess, and on this
ground he should oppose it.
After some observations from Mr. Fector, Sir Edward
Knatchbull, and Sir Thomas Trowbridge, strangers were or-
', dered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Motion
For the Amendment 5B
Majority for the Adjournment —l2
WRITERS TO THE SIGNET.
Sir G. CLERK brought up the report of the Committee
on the Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Bill.
CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. CRIPPS this Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Lord J. RUSSELL being called upon by the Speaker,
said an Hon. Friend of his had given notice of a motion rela-
tive to the aggressions of Russia, which was to be brought
on on the reading of the order of the day. He begged
to ask whether it was his intention to persevere.
Mr. P. M. STEW ART said he certainly would.
MILITARY FLOGGING.
Mr. DUNCOMBE hoped, before going into the public
business, the House would favour him with its attention
for a few moments while he made a statement rela-
tive to what had fallen from him last night in the
discussion of the question of military flogging. He then
called the attention of the Noble Lord, the Secretary at War,
to what took place in the army after the restriction of the
number of lashes to be given by a Court Martial. The state-
ments which appeared in the newspapers were correct, and he
would take the liberty of reading the report of his speech
which appeared in one of them. The Hon. Member then
read that part of his speech which charged some Colonel
with inflicting the lash at minute or half minute time.
This statement was in substance perfectly correct, and he was
prepared to stand by it. When called upon last night by the
Honourable Member for Nottingham, he then declined
giving the name of the officer, because he had no
opportunity of communicating with the party from whom he
derived his information ; he had not since seen him ; but he
had no doubt he would come forward when the proper
time arrived, and substantiate the truth of his statement. The
name of the officer was Colonel Arthur—( Cries of " Hear")—
and the name of the person on whom the punishment was in-
flicted was Ingram, a gunner in the Artillery. Colonel Arthur
wrote a letter to the officers composing the Court-martial. The
result was that Ingram was found guilty, and was to receive
200 lashes. The man was in a bad state of health at the time,
and when the Court-martial took place, he was declared
by the surgeon unfit for punishment, and ordered to the
hospital.—( Hear.) When he recovered, the trial took place.
He was then brought before the Court-martial, was found
guilty, and sentenced to receive two hundred lashes. That
sentence was carried into execution ; and Colonel Arthur
in a most unusual manner, came down to the parade to see the
NOciiinte iinntßiCre74 (1);!ii aiimlPgatfeletrheed ttallaacti 1 triliee E tritillivih. The
Major held his watch in his hand, and it required no less than
one hour and a-half to inflict the punishment.—( Hear.) He did
not want to have Colonel Arthur cashiered or dismissed, but
after what he had stated and could prove, he dared the House
to the trial of Colonel Arthur.
Mr. C. FE RG US SON said he would never give his advice
that any officer should be dismissed without an opportunity of
being heard. He could not, however, but remark, that it was
extraordinary, that among all the complaints that had been raked
up against Col. Arthur, the present had not been brought forward.
He had supposed that this was a recent case—that an indi-
vidual commanding a regiment had, in order to defeat the order
for restricting commanding-officers from inflicting more than a
particular number of lashes, prolonged the sufferings of an in-
dividual having no opportunity of inflicting what he thought
a sufficient number of lashes. But he found now that
the case occurred in the year 1820, at a time when command.
ing officers had a right to inflict any number of lashes. Under
these circumstances he hoped the matter would be allowed to
drop.
Sir H. HARDINGE, though he had no personal know-
ledge of Colonel Arthur' yet from what he had known of his
character as an officer, he was sure that he would not allow an
hour to elapse, after he had heard of these charges, before he
came forward to rebut them.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir G. GREY, Mr. HUME, and Mr.
GOULBURN, the subject was allowed to drop.
MARRIAGES BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very anxious to bring for-
wards that evening the Bill for the registration of births, arid
the Bill for the celebration of marriages, of which lie, before
Easter, gave notice that he would that evening move the second
reading. He hoped, in order to do that, that his Hon.
Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. P. M. Stewart) would
give way and allow him (Lord J. Russell) to bring forward
this measure.—( Hear.)
Mr. STEWART said that notwithstanding there bad been
two discussions the case was now much altered, and every
day new circumstances were occurring which would make it
imperative on the Government to take upon themselves
the responsibility of the consequences that might en-
sue from some settlement of the question. Notwith-
standing that there had been two discussions, no practical
conclusion had been come to, and his endeavour would be to
bring the question to a practical issue. If it was the wish of
the House that he should withdraw his motion—(Cries of
" Withdraw, withdraw.")
Sir ROBERT PE EL thought the Honourable Member
had stated a most conclusive reason for postponing the
motion, because, if there had been two ineffectual dis-
cussions ; and which had not led to any practical
vote, he thought it would be better for the Hon. Member to
give notice that he should move a resolution, by which the House
might be able to come to some determination upon the subject.
He entreated the Hon. Me:nber to give the House two or
three days notiq, in order that they might know what the
precise course. he intended to take was. He deprecated a de-
bate upon Foreign policy, on the House going into a debate
upon the Registration of Births in England.
Mr. STEWART said after what had fallen from the Hon.
Baronet, he was not disposed to take up the time of the
House. If the Noble Lord would name a day in the following
week he would pledge himself to give a specific notice. He
thought to-night a most appropriate opportunity, as it was ap-
pointed for the discussion of the civil contingencies.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would take care to give
the Hon. Member notice when the Civil Contingencies were
likely to be brought forward.—( Cheers. )
Mr. STEWART wished a day named when he might bring
the subject forward.
Mr. ATTWO OD said that when he left Birmingham there
were several 200 and 250 pounders preparing—he supposed to
complete the fortification of the Dardanelles. He hoped his
Majesty's Secretary at War was not asleep ; for it was quite
clear the Emperor of Russia was wide awake.
In answer to a question from Mr. P. M. STUART,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the first day of Supply
in the second week would be the most convenient day for his
motion.
Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH reminded the Noble
Lord that the Irish Tithe Bill was fixed for that evening.
Sir R. PEEL said the English Registration Bill was fixed
for Monday. The question was which was to have precedence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was most im-
portant that the Registration Bill should be proceeded with in
the order in which it was set down.
Mr. HUME submitted to the Noble Lord, whether he
would not postpone the question of agricultural distress for a
week at least.
The Marquis of CIIAN DO S said that having notified to
the whole country that the question would be brought forward
on Friday next, it would be impossible for him to give way.
Mr. HUME—Then we stand where we were.—( A laugh.)
Sir R. PEEL believed the effect of the Bill was to leave
the registration of baptisms and marriages in the Church of
England as before. He begged to ask the Noble Lord if that
was the case ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as we understood, replied in the
affirmative.
Sir R. PEEL had no objection therefore to going into
Committee to consider the provisions of the Bill ; but many of
its details required much consideration.
Mr. WILK S supported the Bill.
Dr. LUSHINGTON objected to this measure being re-
ferred to a Select Commitee up stairs, as a Committee had
already sat and reported upon the subject. ,
Sir R. ING LIS maintained that the great body of the mem-
bers of the Church of England were satisfied with the system
of registration as it at present existed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the Bill,