The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUO UST 23.

Shortly after Three o'clock the SPEAKER took his seat.
Colonel EVANS gave notice that on Monday, Septem-
ber 5, he would move an Address to his Majesty for copies
of correspondence between this country and Poland, and
this country and Russia, relative to the differences between
Poland and Russia.
FEES ON SHIPS UNDER QUARANTINE.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON rose to present a petition
from the ship-owners of the port of London, relative to
the fees charged upon vessels upon being released from qua-
rantine. Those fees amounted to no less than 51. 148. 6d.
upon each vessel upon being released from quarantine,
whether she had been under quarantine one day or
for the pet iod of six weeks. The Hon. Alderman conceived
this to be a roost grievous and unjust impost upon
the shipping interest, already overburthened with duties.
The ship-owner sustained a very heavy loss in the deten-
tion of his ship under quarantine, but of that he did not
complain, because it was for the good of the community;
but he complained, that in addition to such detention,
together with the support of the crew, and the loss occa-
sioned by the vessel being prevented going on her
voyage, the owner was obliged to pay 5/. 14s. 6d.
before his vessel could be released. His Majesty's Go-
vernment ought to take immediate steps not only to
abolish this unjust fee, but to refund those already paid
In France, Denmark, and Sweden, to which vessels from
the Baltic and other places arrived, no such fee was de-
manded by the quarantine departments. The Hon.
Member for Middlesex had already moved for the amount
of the fees paid in respect of vessels being released from
quarantine, and he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) intended
to move for the manner iu which those fees were appro-
priated, and to follow that up by moving a resolution to
abolish the fees.—(Hear.)
Mr. Alderman COPELAND supported the prayer of
the petition, and thought that some steps should be imme-
diately adopted to relieve the ship-owners, who were
already suffering from accumulated burthens. He did
not complain of the laws of quarantine, which were made
for the purpose of protecting the public against the con.
tagion of disease, hut he complained that vessels so de-
tained, and for public benefit, should be subject to such a
fee as that now complained of.
On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,

Mr. HUME said, that in order to show this most oppres-
sive tax in its proper light he would read a letter from a
gentleman from Dundee upon this subject. He had al-
ready presented three petitions from Scotland, and he had
one from Montrose to present, all complaining of this
quarantine fee. The letter to which he alluded stated
that a vessel had arrived at Dundee from Hamburg, and was
ordered to petform quarantine; her whole freight only
amounted to 161. 11 s. 2d.and yet she had to pay to the qua-
rantine department 5/.141.61 being one-third of the whole
freight. These fees were paid into the public Exchequer,
and it was in the power of his Majesty's Government, it
they wished to do justice, to remit those fees, and snake
them payable by the Public, for it was a case in which the
public were deeply interested. He (Mr. Hume) was sorry
that none of his Majesty's Ministers were present; he had
presented three petitions—he had presented three memorials
to the Treasury, and he had spoken to the head of
every department upon this subject, but had not been able
to obtain any satisfactory answer.
Mr. ROBINSON considered the detention of the ships
a sufficient hardship upon the owners, without throwing
upon them the expense of the quarantine establishment.
The petition was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON then moved for an ac-
count showing how the quarantine fee of 5/. 148. 6d. was
appropriated, to whom paid, and for what purpose.—
Ordered.

The Hos. MEMBER next gave notice that he would,
on Thursday next, move a resolution declaring the inex-
pediency of demanding this quarantine fee.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON then presented a petition
front Mr. John Williams, of Cornhill, stationer, complain-
iug of the Government Stationery-office, and praying for
its abolition. The Hon. Alderman stated (as he had told
the petitiof7,,r) that he could not concur in the prayer of
the petition, as Liz believed the present mode of con-
ducting the business of that establishment was highly sa-
tisfactory.
Mr. HUME would not be against receiving the peti-
tion, but he declared that the mode pursued by the
present Ministry, in respect to the supply of stationery to
the Government offices, would have the effect of saving
the iissmtry 20,000/. a-year, and still have a more bene-
ficial effect tic the paper trade than formerly.
Mr. BAINBRIDGW, presented a petition from the
poorer class of voters in the tourr; of Taunton, praying for
a continuance to themselves and their dzs:...eodants of the
elective fwanohise.
Mr. WYSE pr;:se,nted two petitions from Galway, re-
lative to the Galway frai.chise ; a petition complaining
of the mismanagement of the filo& aigropriated te charit-
abiii oducatima in Ireland ; also a petition from Dublin,
complainiN' Of the drawback on the malt duty, and a peti-
tion from Tipperary relating to the education of the Irish
poor.—Ordered to lie on th; 41!)le.
THE REV. ROBERT TI!,//,OR.

Mr. O'Ctisr,i,,YEJ.,L presented a petition numerously
signed front Nottiagi.cp, complaining of the prosecution
instituted, against the Rev. Mr. Taylor, for what the peti•
tionets *ited were religious opinions. They prayed the
House to addr.;r4,. his Majesty to release Mr. Tayih.. from
his confinement, and tc repeal the laws upon which these
proseentions were founded. This petition, Mr. O'Con-
nel said, ceuinced hint of the of prosecutions
of this kind, for thy (Tamed the objects of ti.etn, instead
of being subjects for ridica,:e., ,t 9 be regarded as martyrs.
Ha trusted his Majesty's Goveramant Mould restore this
person to hia former insignificance, by turning him out of
gaol.
Mr. HOME was ..-,p2psed to the punishment of
perso,ic who, like Mr. Tayior, invited discussion in
a private room, and there delivered theii. opipions. He
was of opinion that ti-Aeke ghould be an entire freedom of
speech and discussion. If such meetings took place in
the open air, or were a Willi: nuisance, then and then only
would he consent to the parties being prosecuted.
On the motion that the petition be prin te.l,
Ur. -O'CONNELL repeated his former objections to!
such
significant Pr‘ec;ettis9orinB' aanndda dmesiisgclit.eaatendt. Mr. Taylor as an in-
when he was interrupted by a
was proceeding
Nilii‘le'kHEß.Ldo.llDS
The Hon. Member
of
FROM MESSUAsh9erEo
d at h
The Deputy
liar, and mum-lona! the House to attend iPnPetahre'Houset otf*

Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to
several Bills. The Speaker, attended by a number of
Members, left the House to proceed to the Lords. On
their return the Speaker read a list of Bills to !which the
Royal Assent had been given. The subject of Mr.
,O'Connell's petition was then resumed.
On the motion that the petition do lie upon the table,
Mr. HUNT could not but express his regret that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Kerry had, in presenting a
petition in Taylor's favour, denominated that unfortunate
individual a " miscreant." He (Mr. Hunt) had never
beard a sentence delivered by Taylor, nor had he
ever read a page of his writings—he did not at all
care for his opinions, but the language of the Hon. and
Learned Member for K-rry reminded him of this—" oi,,
there is a mad dog ! Oh, poor dog, he is mad ! Knock
his brains out! "—The petition was ordered to be printed.
The HoN. MEMBER then presented a petition from the
trustees of thirty Roman C itholie orphan schools in Ire-
land, praying that in the public grants for the education of
the poor in that country they might participate. Also
two petitions from two places in Donegal and Cork, pray-
ing that Catholics as well as Protestants might be ad.
mitted to the benefit of grants made for public education,
which were ordered to be printed. The Hon. and Learned
Member then presented a petition against the grant to the
Kildare-street Society, signed by four Archbishops,
and twenty of the other Roman Catholic Bishops
of the various dioceses in different parts of Ireland.
The petitioners considered the grant inconsistent with the
provisions of the Relief Bill, partial and unjust in principle,
that it was perverted to the purpose of proselytism, and
engendered a system of misrepresentation, falsehood, and
strife. They therefore prayed that that Honourable
House might so regulate the grants for education in Le-
land, as to make them available for all without religious
distinctions.
Mr. LEFROY had been for a long time a member of
the Kildare-street Society, and knowing how the system
of education was then conducted, lie could not allow that
opportunity to pass without adverting to the charge that
had been made against it. The Society had been charged
with proselytism. He would not answer that by
an appeal to his own testimony, nor by a reference to that
of twenty-four Catholic Prelates; but he would refer to the
better testimony of the witnesses examined upon oath before
the Commissioners appointed by that House to examine
into the manner in which the Society had been con-
ducted. The effect, however, of their evidence was
that, although the Society bad been repeatedly accused
of proselytism, they saw no reason whatever for be-
lieving that there was any foundation for such charges.
After a few words from Mr. SHELL and Mr. O'Cox-
NELL the petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented two petitions from the
parishes of St. James and St. Mary, Dublin, praying for
the repeal of the Legislative Union.
The HoN. MEMBER also gave notice that on the House
going into a Committee on the Irish Reform Bill, he should
move for a call of the House.
Lord KILLEEN, in presenting a petition, the purport
of which we could not catch, asked when it was the inten-
tion of Government to go into the Irish Estimates ?
Mr. S. RICE observed that it was his intention on
Friday next to move the Charitable Estimates for Ireland.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS presented a petition from Kirkcud-
bright, praying that that place might be removed from the
district in which it at present stood, and be placed in the
Galloway district. The Hon. Member gave notice that
when the Scotch Reform Bill was taken into consideration
he should move the House in accordance with the prayer of
the petition.
Mr. CAMPBELL brought up the amendment of the
Law of Inheritance Bill ; a Bill for the amendment of the
law respecting dowers; a Bill for the limitation of actions
and suits relating to real property: also a Bill for amending
of the law relating to tenants by courtesy in England ;
all of which were respectively read a first time, and or-
dered for a second reading on the 30th of August.
GREAT GRIMSBY.

On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Town-clerk of
Great Grimsby was called to the Bar of the House, and
was questioned by the SPEAKER to the following effect :
You are Town-clerk of the borough of Great Grimsby?-1
am. This HousP, Sir, has been informed that at the termina-
tion of the election for Great Grim•by, the indenture was
entrusted to your hands for the purpose of handing it to the
Mayor ?—lt was. When did you receive it, and what
did you do with it ?—I received it on Wednesday evening,
at seven o'clock, as soon as the election was over ; but
from the multiplicity of business that had accumulated
during the period I was in London, in consequence of a
severe family affliction, I forgot to de iver it in proper time,
and have to ask the indulgent interference of the House;
I can assuie the House that I have not done any thing
wilfully and intentionally to delay the forwarding of the
indenture ; and I can appeal with confidence to the Ho-
nourable Members for Great Grimsby whether my conduct
at the election was not such as entirely to do away with
any supposition of that sort. On the Sunday after
the election, on looking into my papers, I found the
indenture and counterpart, which I sent to my clerk,
with directions to forward it immediately _to the

High Sheriff of Lincoln, together with a letter I
had written. On the Monday morning I was called up
by my clerk, stating that be had, gteat difficulty in finding
a person to go with it, but that he had ultimately suc-
ceeded. When did the Under Sheriff receive it ? I believe
on Monday. Did the Under Sheriff give any receipt for
it ?—He returned me for answer he could not
send back the counter part as the High Sheriff
was from home. You know from the state of his
answer when he did receive it ?—He received it on the
Monday. How long have you been Town-clerk ?—Since
1824. You have been Town-clerk, then, at former
elections ?—Yes. What course did the returning officer

then pursue with the indenture? How has the indenturebeen
forwarded to the Under Sheriff on former occasions?—The
election before last took place on a INlonday, and
on the Thursday following I forwarded the inden-
ture. That was at a general election?—Yes. What
has the course in general been when vacancies
have taken place at a general election 2-4 have never
known an instance of that kind.

By Sir GEORGE CLERK—Had the solicitor fur
the sitting Member any conversation with you
relative to the return of the indenture ?—I had no
conversation with any party whatever about it. Did
Mr. Acton make any inquiry when the return was
despatched from Grimsby ? Mr. Acton never
made any inquiry from me to that effect. To the
best of my recollection the only inquiry he ever
made was when I came up to tender my vote.
Was the messenger that was despatched with the return
on horseback, foot, or what was informed by my
clerk he started on foot, but would be in time to overtake
the mail. What time were the Members chaired after
the election ?—I did not see them chaired, but I
think, from the best of my recollection, it was about eight
o'clock in the evening. What was the reason they
were cima'red at so late an hour. Was any reason
assigned ?—None whatever. Some said that they had
better be chaired in the morning, and many called out
let us chair them to-night. No reason whatever was given
for it. Was a hand-bill pasted about, stating that the
Members would not return back to the electors in conse-
quence of their anxiety to be in London ?—I do not know.
What time does the mail leave Great Grimsby for
Lincoln ?—At half-past eight o'clock. I directed any
clerk to transmit the return to London on Sunday
evening at eight o'clock, and the reason it was not
delivered on the Monday morning was, that the
mail from Grimsby to London was only a horse mail.
Did you read the precept from the Sheriff?—l did. Did
you read the words " That the Mayor was desired
11 to make the retnrn immediately after the election
has concluded ?" Cannot be sure that it was
immediately, but I believe it was forthwith.
Did it not occur to you that it was your duty to make
the return foithwitia did not give the subject suffi-
cient consideration. To further questions the Town-clerk
answered :—At the last election I voted for the sitting Mem-
bers ; w hen I tendered my vote I was questioned, and said
that I acted gratuitously as agent for one of the Mem-
bers. I have been examined as a witness by one of the
Committee, but I had no interest in delaying the return
of the writ. It was entirely through inadvertence. On the
evening cf the election there war: no conversation respect-
ing the sending off tip: retort} cn the following morning.
I did not give it consideration, om.- I would have sent it off
inuntliately by my own servant. On the Sunday, when I
went to look at my bag, I found the indenture of the return
and the counterpart. I thought I had given directions for
their being despatched.
The Witness" was then ordered to withdraw.
On the motion of >iir p. CLERK,
Mr. J. Acton was called stated that imme-
diately after the election he saw time return to the
writ signed by the Mayor, and asked the Town-
clerk if every thing was completed. Ile replied yes, an ,l
that it should be sent the following morning. There
was great confusion at the time in the ;.al;.—The witness
was then ordered to withdraW.

Sir G. CLERK stated that that it now appeared there
was considerable confusion, and that it was extraoldi-
n.ry that a person who acted as agent fur one of
the Members, giving his service gratuitously, and
holding the situation of Town-clerk, should have neg-
lected fin• so many days to make the return. The law,
however, knew In other person flow the returning officer.

who was responsible for all the delay. It appeared the
Mayor had entrusted the return to the Town-clerk, in
accordance with the usual practice, and it was probable
that the neglect arose solely from the hurry and
confusion of business in the Town-clerk's office.
Under these circumstances the Honourable Baronet
was disposed to proceed no further in the matter,
hoping that the notice already taken of the neglect would
be deemed a sufficient caution.

Lord ALTHORP concurred in the view taken by the
Hon. Baronet, and hoped this would operate as a caution
to returning officers to attend to their duties personally.
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the order fur the fur-
ther attendance of the Mayor and Town•clerk was dis-
charded.

Mr. ROBINSON postponed his motion respecting
Newfoundland to Tuesday, Sept. IS.

DUBLIN CITY ELECTION COMMITTEE.

Mr. IL GORDON having risen to bring forward hi,
motion to propose resolutions founded on the city of Dub-
lin Election Committe,,

Mr. DENISON begged the Hon. ➢lember would cot
press his motion on the consideration of the House that
night. It might be a subject of importance, but could
not he compared in point of public interest and import-
ance with the all-absorbing question of Parliamentary
Reform ; they should endeavour to economize their
time ; the time of that House was the property of the
public, and should not be consumed upon subjects of minor
importance, to the exclusion of others of deep interest to
the country. The House should recollect that yesterday
several motions of importance were deferred ; these were
postponed while a question of greater importance to the
country and to the whole world was pending ; the ques-
tion of finance last night occlsioned the postponement of
the Sugar-refining Act,—a question of considerable im-
portance to those concerned in the sugar trade, besides
other measures. He hoped i❑ consequence the Hon.
Member would not press his motion, and thereby occupy
the attention of the House with that measure to the ex-
clusion of other important matter.

Mr. GORDON said he could not conceive any measure
of greater importance than one which had reference to the
privileges of that House.—(Loud cheers.) He thought
he had already postponed it too long. He could not con-
sent to defer it any longer, and in making that declaration
he felt it necessary to say, that he considered it a duty
which he owed to those with whom he had communicated
on the subject, to bring the question forward without
any further delay. Ile should therefore bring it on, not-
withstanding the urgency of the question which was to
be brought under consideration that night. He felt the
delicacy of the position in which he was placed in ad.
verting to the circumstances of this case : it was always
a matter of peat difficulty to deal with a question of de-
linquency. In the observations, however, which he
should consider it his duty to address to the House upon
the subject, he would must anxiously avoid stating any
thing which would not be fully borne out by the evidence
which had been given before the Committee ; and he felt
that course the more necessary on this occasion, as the
question must, in some measure, assume a judicial cha-
racter. The charges which he should prefer against the
p trties in this case lie would divide into two classes ; one
of bribery and corruption, the other of undue influence.
Before, however, he should bring forward the principal
characters who had performed in this election drama,
he thought it but right to say that the parties con-
cerned were greatly ben,fitted by the very able and
ingenious advocacy of Mr. Serjeant O'Loghlen, when
they were examined before the Committee ; for he
(the Learned Set jeant) contrived to puzzle the witnesses
so completely, between committee-rooms and tally-rooms
(the locality of which it was very difficult to discover),
that it would he an ingenious person who could discover
who were most bewildered—the Committee or the wit-
nesses Mr. Hudson appeared to be the chief agent in
the distribution of bribes. Mr. Jones also had some

share in these transactions ; it did not appear, however,
that he gave more than 20/. The great purse•bearers
did not appear—they were not known. He hoped, how-
ever, that we should have no more bribery when the great
measure of Reform should be carried. He would next call
their attention to the receivers of the bribes; they were
divided into two classes—the freemen and the freeholders.
Between tl.ese classes there had always existed consi-
derable jealousy ; but both parties were equally open to
the so't persuasion of the election principles. In referring
to these parties lie would give the precedence to the free-
men. To induce these voters to come to the poll, dif-
ferent persons were appointed to canvass the seven'
guilds : among these a person of the name of Gallagher
was very active ; it appeared he was clerk to the corpora-
tion of joiners ; this man was introduced to a Counsellor
Iludson, to whom he showed a list of persons whom he
stated he could influence. He exhibited a list of these
persons, and was paid for that list. Previous to corn.
tnencing his canvass among the freemen it was thought ad-
visable that he should himself vote, and he slid accordingly
vote for Perrin and Harty on the Monday following. In
these transactions Mr. Hudson appeared to be the purse-
holder. Gallagher met a man of the name of Brice, wham
he induced to vote, and paid him 4/. or 5/. On another
occasion he gave 71. to a person named Edwards, to vote

for the Reform candidates. This man was at work at

the Phoenix Park, but being a voter, he was brought to
Dublin. Before, however, lie would consent to go to
the hustings, be required to be attended by an escort, anti
refused to be brought to the hustings by any other person
than Mr. Plunkett, the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ire-

land. The reason he assigned was, that if he met Mr. Alder-
man Perrin, he would not be accountable for any other
man he should vote. Mr. Perrin was one of the Com-
mittee of the other candidates, and a terror to the rats;
but under the protection of Mr. Plunkett, this man was
shielded from violence. The next person who received
money from this man was Kurtland. There was also an-
other fieeman, one Chartman; he should like to see that
man, who, though he was in London, was never brought
before the Committee. Then there was Robinson, who was
applied to in order to induce him to vote for the Reform
candidate ; but Robinson was a man of high principle,
and he declared stoutly that he would not sell his con-
science, not even for 51. His principles, however, did not
stand the test. Kurtland, who was the agent employed
to catch this voter, possessed a very insinuating and win-
ning manner of bringing freemen to his way of think-
ing : he holds up his hand and shows its contents; the
attraction was too great for Robinson, he loses his
public virtue, and becomes a Reformer.—(A laugh.)
Many men besides Robinson changed sides, and became
Reformers, now that the measure had become fashionable.
Mr. O'Connell also appeared upon the stage. He would
not say much of the Hon. and Learned Member. It
appeared, however, that he was equally divided between
the parties—be was with one party at one time, and
with the other at another; in fact, he was looked upon by
some as a spy. Having said so much of the freemen, he
would next draw their attention to the freeholders. The
House would recollect, that when the Bill for the emanci-
pation of the Catholics had passe], it was accompanied
by another, by which the 40s. freeholders were disfran-
chised ; that did not, however, extend to cities : it was
thought adviseable, on that occasion, to retain that class of
vote's in towns as a counterpoise to the influence of the
corporations. He should not assert any thing with refer-.
ence to these men which would not be found in the evi-
dence. Of these voters John Grantham voted out of a
piece of land which he represented not to be larger than
the room in which he gave his evidence ; be held this land
for about live or six years, and was to receive 21. ss. per
annum for this land, which was paid him in one sum at
the election, being the rent for five years, this he denomi-
nated having the hold in his hand. Mr. Berwick, Mr.
Grattan's agent, was his tenant ; he received 101., and re-
turned 71. 15s. ; theme were several other voters of the
same description, whose preference for the different candi-
dates was decided by their readiness to pay their rent. By
reference to the evidence of Hicks, who was employed by
Mm. Perrin to canvass the voters from Cold-blow-lane, to
eighty or ninety of these men he gave 2/. each by the di-
rections of Mr. Hudson. Mr. Perrin and the Lord Mayor
had been guilty of bribery by their agents : it was not his
intention to propose any criminatory resolution respecting
them. They had done wrong, and had already paid the
penalty of their transgression. Ile had done with time
first part of the question ; but this he would say, that he
never contemplated such instances of bribery with any
other feeling than that of disgust. He had been for twenty
years a Member of that House, and had always opposed
every species of jobbing. That system was, however, shortly
to be put an end to. The Noble Lord declared that he
would not govern the country by patronags, god had given
suggested (when
t h eine
time best proof of his sincerity by introducing the Reform
Bill. It had been insinuated that he would impede the
progress of that measure by bringing forward this mea-
sure ; but he was well convinced that the
that
te
Billya
land wrious ould
elvat?fh trivialtlmem toin
importance
cief
night after night) they shou:d sug:i_:r a case of such egre
gious bribery and corruption to pass unnotiee(i. He was
disposed to accelerate the progress of that measure ; but
that feeling should not prevent him from endeavouring to
enable those who enjoyed the elective franchise at present
front exercising their privileges without being prejudiced
by corrupt practices. Bribery was an evil of the greatest
magnitude ; it was twice cursed,—it curseth him that
gives, and him that takes.-._(A laugh.) Money got in
that way never came to any good ; it was no profit
whatever to those who received it. Ile was proud to say

'that Cricklade had reformed itself from its corrupt prac-
tices, and held out an excellent example , and he was
well assured that if they had formed an arrondissement
round other boroughs, as they had round that, it would
have been attended with the m ,st salutary effects. Cold-
blow-lane consisted of two acres, and on these two acres
there were no less than 252 voters. Before he proceeded
to the next part of his subject, he would read to the
House the resolution which he proposed to submit re-
lative to the part of the case which lie bad now gone
through. He should submit a resolution to this effect,
" That it appears, in evidence before the Select Com-
mittee appointed to try and determine the merits of
the petition of James Scarlett, David McCleary, and
others, severally complaining of an undue election
and return for the city of Dublin, that a practice of
creating fictitious freeholds has been carried on to a great
extent in the city and county of Dublin; that such prac-
tice has been supported, particularly at the late election by
pe. jury ; that such practice is against the purity of elec-
tion, and a direct infraction of the law ; aro: that it is the
duty of the law officers of the Crown to take immediwe
measures for the punishment of those who have partici-
pated in such illegal practice." He now came to the other
part of his subject, which regarded the undue influence
that had been exercised at the late election for the city of
Dublin. He must first, however, request that the clerk
would read the resolutions to which the House had come
on the 10th of November, 1779, and on the 10th of No-
vember, 1807.—[The clerk then read resolutions against
any Minister or servant of the Crown using the power of
his office in elections.] He confessed that he thought this
part of the subject—the undue influence—the less impor-
tant of the tmo ; for there was no moral guilt in it, and he
did not think it near so injurious to the purity of election
as bribery, to which, however, all must admit that moral
as well as legal guilt did attach. He considered, there-
fore, the bribery part of the case to be of paramount im-
portance. With regard to the undue influence, the Com-
mittee found themselves placed in rather an awkward po-
sition. The Committee were sworn to report upon the
matter of the position, and the petition not only complained
of undue influence, but the leading Counsel scarcely spoke
of any thing else in his opening speech, having no
notion, it was clear, that the bribery case would
come out so strong. Under these circumstances,
the Committee felt that they had no option, and
that they must report with regard to the undue influence.
The difficulty which the Committee felt resulted from the
fact, that no Committee appointed under the Grenville Act
had ever before reported respecting undue influence. The
principal actors in the exercise of this undue influence
were Captain Hart and Baron Twyll. He should confine
his observations to these two gentlemen, beciuse he dis-
carded altogether the case of John Bassegiu, the Sergeant
of die Battle-axe Guard and chief orator of the Guild of
Barbers. It was quite clear that some persons had put a
quiz upon this person. Captain Hart was acting Comp-
troller of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. It
might, indeed, be said, as he believed was true, that Capt.
Hart was not appointed to that office until June, while
the acts complained of took place before. It was known,
however, that Capt tin Hart was to be Comptroller, and
that gentleman, therefore, had quite as much influence as
if be had really been appointed. He made this observa-
tion on account of what had been said of that unhappy re-
solution of the Committee—that certain individuals hold-
ing official situations in Ireland, or "considered to be
connected with Irish Government," did, at the last elec-
tion for the city of Dublin, use undue influence. When
that resolution was read, every body said, " Can anything
be more vague than this? Considered to be connected
with the Irish Government ! Did ever any Committee
report so before?" If, however, Hon. Members would
take the trouble to read the evidence, they would find that
the Committee were perfectly justified in so wording their
report. He ought also to add, that the Committee felt
some doubt as to whether Baron Twyll was a person
holding an official situation. Baron Twyll, however,
was paid by the public. He would now proceed to call
the attention of the House to the conduct of these two prin-
cipals in the exercise of the undue influence complained
of. Captain Bart, it appeared, had applied to the trades-
men of the Castle, and if Captain Hart had confined his
solicitations to this class of persons, he (Mr. Gordon) must
say that he should be very unwilling to bring Capt. Hart's
conduct before the House. A person in the situation of
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland must necessarily have a certain
degree of influence over the tradesmen he employed. He
believed it was well known that in the city of London the
circumstance of a person filling the office of the Lord
Mayor at the time of an election would command him as
many as 1,000 votes. He must, however, say, that at the
late election in Dublin, this influence was exercised in the
most clumsy way passible. Captain Hart proceeded to
Mr. Long, who was a most important witness before the
Committee. Mr. Long's evidence was this :—" Captain
Hart said he came to me on the subject of the election : he
wished to speak to me respecting it. I asked him what
he had to say ? lie said that he had been directed to come
to me by the Lord Lieutenant, and that hie Excellency had
directed him to request my vote for the Reform candidates
at the election. I asked, if I was to understand that lie
came to me officially, and he said yes : I said I was sorry
I could not comply with the request, inasmuch as I was
very much interested for a particular friend of mine, who
was one of the candidates, Mr. Shaw : he said that he was
sorry that I was not able to do as required, inasmuch as, if I
did not, he had to be the bearer of a disagreeable message,
and he would rather be the bearer of an agreeable than a
disagreeable one ; he said that he was ordered to tell me that
if I did not vote as he required, I should be discontinued
coach maker to his Excellency. I said I was sorry for it.

asked him if I was to understand that I was thenceforward to
be discontinued? He said yes, I was, and he took his
departure, first having stated that it was not to me alone
he was to go, but to go to all the tradespeople ; and he
shaved me a list, which I did not read. He said it was
a list of the tradespeople he was to go to, according to
orders." Mr. Long further said, " I was dismissed from
the time of Captain Hart's interview; that was previous
to my voting." After this, Mr. Long was sent for by Sir
John Byng, who appeared to have acted, as every body
who knew Sir John Byng would have expected him to
act, with great propriety. Sir John Byng appeared in
the character of a peacemaker, declared his conviction that
Captain Hart had mistaken his instructions, and said that
he would speak to the Lord-Lieutenant upon the subject.
" I was grateful," said Mr. Long, " and asked to be
allowed to call again the following day. Sir John said he
had seen Lord Anglesea on the subject ; he was glad to'
tell me that Captain Hart had exceeded his instructions,
and he said Lord Anglesea, fearing he might have been
misunderstood in the directions he gave, took the precau-
tion of making a memorandum of the orders he had issued
at the time of giving those orders; and he said, to show
you that these orders were exceeded, he has given me a
memorandum to show you,' and he handed me a paper.
I read that paper twice." Now, he was sure that the
Lord-Lieutenant had given this paper with the most proper
views, and nothing could be more open and candid than
such mode of proceeding. Sir John Byng said, on being
asked before the Committee, " Can you say if there was
any threat in it (the paper) ?" "As safely as a man can
say, I think certainly not, for it was given me fur another
purpose it was given to me to do away with any
idea of a threat. That I can speak to as his intention
of giving it me, and of my showing it to whomsoever I
did. Whether I showed it to any other person than Mr.
Long, Ido not know." In another part of his evidence,
Sir John Byng said, " If there had been any thing like
a threat in it, I would not have taken the paper." Now
as this paper was lost, they could only proceed upon such
evidence as they had been able to procure with regard to
the contents of it. The difference that existed with re-
gard to it was the difference between the word " requests"
and the word " expects ;" it being disputed whether the
words of it were " Lord Anglesea requests," or " Lord
Anglesea expects, that the several persons employed by
him will vote," &c. But then Mr. Long said further, in
his evidence, "In consequence of what occurred subse-
quently with Sir John Byng, I went to Captain Hart the
next day, and said to him, ' I understand you have mis-
taken your hist; uctiont, and that I am not dismissed ?' lie
said his recollection of his instructions was exactly as he
communicated, end he lir,d received np orders to-reinstate
" Have you ever been re-instated ?" " No, never.
He said, he was positive he had communicated to me the
orders lie had received." Henry Kempston, the glover,
gave similar evidence to that of Mr. Long, with regard to
the interference of Captain Hart. He would say no more
about the tradesmen, but pass on to the transaction of
Baron Twyll, and the two Police Magistrates. The story
of Mr. Tyndul, one of these Magistrates, must, he thought,
have made a deep impreasion upon all who had read it.
Mr. Tyndal's evidence was this Baron Twyll said to
me that lie sent to me to speak to me on the subject of the
city of Dublin election ; that it was expected that gentle-
men holding official situations under Government should
vote for the Reform candidates. I said to Baron Twyll that
it was my anxious desire to obey any wishes or commands
of the Government, but that I would beg to state to him
the very embarrassing' situation in which I was placed with
respect to the Dublin election. I stated to him that I had
bee❑ recently elected to the situation I held by the Corpo-
ration of Dublin ; that they had given a very decided opi-
nion upon the subject of the election. I stated to him
that Mr. Shaw, the Recorder, was a candidate, that he
was my relative, arid the dearest friend I ha I ; that Sir
Robert Shaw, the Recorder's father, was my early friend ;

that I had served the office of Sheriff with bhp t; b I
had brought me forward in the Corporation, and!ritii
sisting rite in the situation I then hell ; that my 'a 01
was to have remained neuter at this election, not ti9ol
voted at all, and that I would respectfully requot y
lay a statement of my case before his Excellency ti'erio
Lieutenant, and I hoped I should be permitted to
neuter, and not vote at all on the election. Bo°
said he could not make that application, for if MY 1,6
were acceded to, gentlemen similarly circumstance°,
expect the same indulgence to be afforded to them• ,
he must say he thought this a very hard and a ver),
case Alderman Studdart ed h , taken 3

thevtet'l) ei:liniaveellitttertailreerttlae t:v°l4yeineat }I
°op
itpf:c.ll:f(
Twvi
resolutio
bet stated,
agreed to he

hourn.n dealt
_ appeared to have lafel ahoy the
tone than Mr. Tyndal, and to have observed, that , Whose f rat
been appointed by the Corporation and not by the !Ai then, re'h€
ment ; but to this it was answered—" Yes, but y-lo 1, precise
two gentlemen had declared, if they had not been tiii kr o t
paid by the Government."—(Hear, and a laugh.) fore.: nelOhtleterrese?,
vote otherwise, they should have voted for the MO,Ol the feSTA
form candidates. He thought it right, however, ti.il the
.aitangs
that neither of these gentlemen believed the Lord a the 'ell'aect
Hint would put into force those threats which werefa Hon. ousider
to them ; but still they voted under the influence 0 0 aoio
,Gentle
threats, one of them declaring, although he did 00f. he ag. intot tl
have the threats would be executed, yet he was tcs'da
to run the risk ; and the other, expressing the like ta he he_,a(le opt
lief, said, however, that lie did not like to make tbea of
p:i.aeted
riment.—(Hear, and laughter.) For his own Piaara lime "leo
to take! i it Lai ,4ed app
was quite sure that the Lord Lieutenant would n
ci i; taan
f"• stat
executed the threats that were held out, a°, at his co whirl
these gentlemen were worked upon only by 60'4 they °hot_ tnent
apprehensions of what was most improbable
syste.
But still they voted in consequence of those tbraits'e proceendaiater
the influence upon the election, therefore, was til-r0 Hon. a!`'
although a false impression had made that infloee at the ca. riend
cessful. The last case to which he should call theio, that lila to th
tion of the House was that of the eoal-meterfa Loa tattle ' Roo
two former cases, Baron Twyll had communicated Pro, tvhi4
,and i
other persons, or personally : but in this case he 's kept
_,ne hat
letter to Mr. Oultman, from the Castle, requestings, this
s'ilear an
Mr. Oultnnan would call upon him at the Castle. ai lithe jest
this was important, because, iir the case of Mr. Frei:a, Coos• tle s
Isom
o m clear
tidi
eistin privatectirm Laudsebeeonf darnawonffitemiatlvpeeerrisaonl:tatner odta
loaroti.idlvbehifcolir,
d 81. la 'Stara,
written from the official residence. The latter Was a
dered as an official communication ; the former rnila the „„--s'alt°l-11,
intended as a private one. It appeared that the cool-°: getbearaJect in
were considerably affected by the Bill which the P i of the diatine
Government had introduced respecting coals. Triat neparat"flaid(
lost much in consequence of that Bill, and they "5d that hte and
it into their heads that they were to have compennots!ai tions ts Hun.
:a e a , wai .
that loss. But there was also a certain duty wh'° 11
been the province of the coal-meters to collect- . 44ietotdi:reeLlire
collected it under warrants from the Custom-hell:a) Islet ad'
i were
was necessary that he should mention this, in 0'; t, oiiy
oft fields
the House might understand the- evidence. Well'holil mains • rjuhlii
time of the election the coal-meters of Dublin were
0,0 etch 'tined b)
meetings on the subject of their expected comael'itaa Oscar):
and it was under these circumstances that Mr. C/utiaa the c ins; and
who was inspector of the Dublin coal inetage, had ail ?aniait)",
interview with Baron Twyll, and, at hie interviesSiaba Jet to a toe
Baron Twyll, the latter was represented as having t°,,,,J" related was
that they could have no hope of compensation if t",;', Ina it at." "
not support the Government. " I mentioned,' la' did his 'leiroe pr
i,ent intende
Oultman, " that the meters did not wish to oPP°lOO'. proposed .
verrinient, as they were seeking compensation for ,aot, tlOO Whifor t
situation, and the injury they might sustain. He°, slat the forttchatv'
if they opposed Government they could not eqe,.°Jaa Were ir,"l
Government would grant them a favour. I said, I. 0, ?tiek,i;
,n°
conceive it a favour, but they were more likely fat ran' o 'e. oden,"„r" ea
of justice. He repeated again that they could not -of holders i story
that Government should support them unless theiai
ported Government." The second interview bey"
,Il),:insa,hner(Git::::re rrzl'l
Baron Twyll and Mr. Oultman took place in conirgor
of the letter of the former. At that interview, Jr.
1:41y-shill'. wh'
man sail that Baron Twyll said to him, " You will ti 'kn. rii Ins 1
lect, Mr. Oultman on the former meeting I held 4'7,i ti'N tehieleittut
threat to you." Now he thought this bad ; he a a iciintinet hea,oo{
like the expression of Baron Twyll, and he corileor" titioa, he ",
he thought it looked suspicious. However, thea ~S leavel to bra4°l
of the negotiation was, that a vast majority of taeta !i'aine in theng,
meters voted against the Government. Shortly IY f'ng at e„. '''
1a iVajesty• -
their having so voted, the warrants under whichott .reahola, -2'l°'
had collected the duty of which he had before sr, that poiiltuf Or
were withdrawn. The witness Oultman clearly ialdia 'alder,
ac• „a"
11;:gaer°:(litio the c,
to convey by his evidence that these warrants Were '',‘ arid he
s'ilAr lal ul
drawn in consequence of the votes which tbe .0' stß'itist the I
meters had given. This appeared in the oploofo
1,511 t pointetbril
warrants from them. He, however, had no hesitatitilsV!
1.4..6,,,
the coal-meters to be the cause of the withdrawal, ~ tererence toat
eveni
do.
dotted
resolution saying that he believed this opinion to be wholly tenet eke t° ano,,
and that it would be quite untrue to say that the 01301
were withdrawn for any such reason. He was Vita( t was no -t
Go the e 'oat
that the warrants had been withdrawn because the la "rse imp
ment had thought, and very properly thought, thaiii
collection ought to be made by the Custom-house, a°o' Withth the -" '
by irresponsible persons like these coal-meters. Reed h at they Ire",
posed that he had now stated enough to justify the 0' c4d, hter p::(1 1
tion which lie was about to propose. As this, how' a` i rieklat;,"en
a new case,—the first case in which an Committee undera, l tlateod bri',„ COO
Grenville Act had reported respecting undue influe";al 'le'et, and
4-gfilng
should wish to add a few observations to the stater°,ior iartlatittee , r,
litlitletltill,tlit i
had made. I Here the Hon. Member went into an aelkait
the case of Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester, and Sir Job° el°i: to4-te'd fan'
oonthoeui
Y hit eliti" of. th
ington, in which case the House of Commons had earloa
resolution condemnatory of the interference of the
jtillialo
pSriaryJionhgnt'shaetlechteiionm;aajersetsyol,u,toiounidfobreanplaedadserdesst:odtiiscoe
1,")0.1t
not of
Bishop from the office of Almoner to her Majestratii
. " One
in whir
sotti
Ra attended ,
prayer of which address was complied with, notwita'al ta,4,!e,al though
ing a remonstrance of the Lords; and a resolution traa q'to respect to
statt.ojrneyii-eGehriaedraal
alluded
dld
tporotshecisutceaaselr.bLeclaouysde, then!, 0 a f.aaernment wi
first in which the House of Commons had acted, alti } 7't with the
it had passed many bold and blustering resolutioan, jaealt6 4%ii,r system,
undue interference in elections. The House hat a aS, taitnsa too, he tr
very strong measures in that case, and so they "silaar 5417 Called upor
in other cases. He would not, however, trouble thasiihr,ttatnation
with the details of those other cases, although he he'‘,/oarl'e that tt
in his hared. In looking over those cases, he had el I i b'enthe
that the gentlemen in opposition invariably prenne Or' it guilty (a
decision upon them, while the Government and i° rid 'or and the
rents as constantly attempted to get rid of them bY,:ri•Sl, la to below),
wind. On the part of Government, either the Par (ti pr
ell
question was moved, or a postponement for three i ea' Ice; 'rave to tai
months attempted. In fact, all the difficulty in t!t'e aightaned 8401 as th
had resulted from the House not pursuing a livid, 13tr
teethes ra t° the eo
forward, arid honest course. He did not know Warilo'o,ted' toerefore,u
the resolutions which the clerk had read were wise :aught opa for it 81,0
proper resolutions; but he was quite sure that they - flekey'se that
so
art te ti
either to be acted upon, or erased from the journals' 100 oof t ot fort
had begun by stating that he should propose no ren°lit t[ aiestnalaaa, 14,,
which was not borne out by evidence. He thouaj v:jf then landed pro
House would agree with him that the evidence did a/ 1100, °Ppoaig., I,
out the fact that Captain Hart and Baron Twyll bad' 45 ti Friend at,
improper influence at the late election for the
roe; thal,°.4lit a
la a
Dublin. The only other resolution he should Yoir Aoae he aer
would he one to that effect. It mattered not to bi,leSii' hstii--t a ttill,YZ
to the House, whether that influence was or was Inf , his etio now
cised by order of the Lord Lieutenant, for in eit",eer, an loace so mo
the influence that had been exercised came within °per'. A ve4ehiev.ti, i`o
lieus of the resolution of the House. It was the ieoirSo tit lealtYattolusioa
of office which Captain Hart and Baron Twyll bafost 'la to.' upon al
cised. He should therefore merely propose a re'd, 1j °ll!),„4°eli ge„,
stating that such influence had been unduly exercise hi; a.) hislties-.wii
trusted that nothing had fallen from him in what to a se, had the
atated to the Ilouse which savoured of disrespeeteopt
Noble Lord who filled the office of Lord Li pfe 1114(1 i,:e ar, ace()
Ireland. He, in common with the world, had thery °l.j il)4t: ,°°, that
foundest admiration of Lord Anglesea's milltii a°, iltreo'' P'aced,
lents, and lie fully approved of the policy .° la his aeoce of an
Anglesea's administration in Ireland. Let hi° e Quiltof (
sag
red`{
dr/ P old t t
not be so far misunderstood as to be rartai ell co to, he give
to mean, when he complained of the jute; l' , Vi'h. InR up
of this Government in the Dublin electia /100'; :\Vhiat! is your
other Governments had not exercised similar iesai t, a'ae fro loterest 1
He believed that other Governments had eXer°!t eal; 'roisa 1101,71 it?"
same influence, and a very lamentable fact '.'rat` et?'' ',it?" a
for it ts as in vain to complain of juries and rni" 0, e 14,4 taa"td to
in Ireland being influenced by important motives'orleiot 411), anndale,,
such an example was set them in the highest (10-erc.,ol. (Chn Your fr
What would be the use of the Reform Bill if the b, fidilleiallyers and ia
of such influence were to be tolerated? The °,,a °,, trAt oeelvith the
and sensible course was fur the House to act araitiOlia' 1,1 lthotai4renrao
resolution of 1772, or to erase it from tlaeir i'gr7tar ad,
ta't'lled 7 that
ing that there nest he the exercise of such influx bale ad' jtet°l.lgh ov 'vas
that therefore they would not deceive the P°4oooioasees la ri various i
longer by pretending that the influence was oh:16, cas01)1 tins to asing, be
nay criminal. They made a law which disqualilli,e4:lo44,,, pen aiiioPharate ft
and excise-officers from voting at elections; a a of tia theler ato,,ltad a
should like to know, were the higher dependent! ?
il'iatait4isli r„ can
vernments allowed to retain the elective tranel'''eg° i a • but ''oaerri
Hoy ri 40, t slat t
should be glad to see a Bill introduced into that
werej plight first at taw
qualifying all pew!, who held office, and 1%1°1,a...A Vat A 'Pt. to be
movable at pleasure, from voting at electio.ae Jaarao tio"slr. 4‘.
which should put Secretaries of State and E7aLisiot }roil,: his a resolltS a
upon the same footing in this respe. t. He (ill dig' of sr hat !iota utioe,
how the Government would meet these resolutio gent,thlittlit, ;`taltiae
Proboaly they would, like their predecessors, tur)a.tb°so:olat,laas, to: his pi
f them by a side-wind ; but he hoped he slio,orsiauti'oc!tere'shataineY as pi
support of the House to the very moderate re 11°,001 414,,pe---,
which he was about to propose. He entreated
rtiaviiegr f,)_ kirettas
of there
to agree to that resolution for the sake of the P atle,alriai • 1-111solaa
the House, for the sake of the purity of electloaltdial attitai°Vertrt (da
the sake of proving to the. paorast and lirmibleic to Ydia rtai:a aoti'rEtent
in the country that they' would not 'llllo' arty s frothed titi v'y ativ,her
vent him, by intimidation or other illegal IneliDicii freeara'ttai,i.ary Alai s t
free exercise of the most glorious privilege wi ',ea 41 t Liars:illy
it w
dossessed. He would not detain the House far e:, TP
resolution which he had now to propose wire this

_~~

it &hi,
tiiff with. hialnil dot,, mitt—ee afP'ats by evidence adduced before the Select Coin_
irporation, aa, " petition JaredaPP to
se of
_e
.... try and determine the merits of the
'sell ; that my ial-0,
thveeemitlly
„_ommplasinbincgaloleftta,
nll.,nil,liivaemeillel,`,Ctiolenarayn,danredttoutthiefros:.
is election, not.tkier,,
pectfully requeet'y eze . ol Dublin 0
his Excellency theo rcised by ti -tat official influence has been unduly
u t 1
~ . le Irish Government at the said election, and
be permitted to rrp.
cillaoriantniou,rac:vlyri,fliuence, as exercised by Captain Hart and
election. Roo° ,
0.
the
favour of tine late Membens, was in gross
ition, for if nil tel.
_tnateaventi_tn privileges of the HOURC, and in direct
sly circumstanced
• Me " of the law of Parliament as laid down hi
Horded to them.,
ci, beresolution of this House of 1779." The Hon. 11Iem-
y hard and a veil ~. agreedconclusion, to he should ove for leave to bring in a Bill to take
•e observed, that brt. wilt? the right
were of
from all freeholders in Dublin
and not by the Gef ; the se fre,holds
le of less value than 101. a year, putting
d---,‘ Ye.i, but yl.„ thensilttreerc(i.soeulynton the same footing with the freeholders of
a and a 1augh,),,;,1 1i eland.
The resolutions been read from the chair,
ty bad not beent°n
voted for the it°t" the'Al STANLIN
th feelings
sir
cp
.rose and said, that whatever might be
'ight, however, t°,ll, pinions of Hon. Members with regard to
the aubject •
nlieved the Loedl'id e - which the Hon. Member had brought under
reats which were, Ho consideration of the House, Inc thought that every
r the influence o h doing" Gentleman would agree with him (Mr. Stanley) in
though he did tiet
P hhdhim the •ustice to say, that in the mode in which
I, yet he was t°l
hhsed-nas.addeeaulptutvnitjli this case, and in the comments which he
:pressing the like the evidence by which it was supported,
like to make the ° of' rit,oadrijaactuteettian strict compliance with the ordinary course
For his own l'arl'bi
than
of
stating this case on the part of the Hon. Gentle-
held out, ao
~ his a°. which he could complain. There was nothing in
ion only by their theys coon Which
nprolnabie to taki at all
1,,,d _
peat asd he had just observed, upon tine facts as
11 devia!ted
fromßut while he was thus willing to give his
ale that infloenet,lt theu•sFertiuen.d.
theecrelit for the manner in which he had stated
le should call 0110; thatch i. n_t_h. House, he would at the same time submit
nt coal-meters.
thte made, un•Friend, both in the statement which he had
communicated
4 Whiot, ,and in the resolutions, with the proposition of
n this case he 'lr.'l kee'unlen,elrhaandiedoincluded that statement, ought to have
-2astle, requestiogi, tbiest
nth
raubject
WI 1
.•tinet, one from the other, two parts of
i at the Castle. ;
„e itch had no earthly connexion with each
case of Mr. Freest, t(iloir,'lviirilehshouldbei have kept quite separate, in the resolu-
mtween a letter Itliir
tad proposed, two points which, in his
htial person, and 8 vp • Stanley's)
was
(Add
The latter W 1,1 large`" fortified by the general opinion of the House at
the former nill therinb,hotad
not be considered at the same time, or made
red that the coo i ge!thier
trisettt nritatatuedr of the same decision, for they were alto-
-I°elisa'e consideration
which thernPetio
different, and however mutually worthy
Ling coals.
that
an'd" ion of the House, they should be taken as
Bill, and they to °r
ti_n his distinct Nun, questions. Now his complaint was,
have compeneatieat
rtain duty whicill 4°sts, whinutin
had Friend had mixed together those two ques-
resolu. nothing to do with each other. The
tern to collect. Ptintlthree
which were proposed by his Hon-
cape . .•
the Custorn•h , sett 'eat ~.., were to tthmenseffect that a direct system of fraudu-
tion this,
.i.nrerat;i
.._e;,):
of fictitious freeholders had been carried on in the
ridence. " led ' Inaintai Dublin ; that that -
of Dublin were
io(i, each
shed by
Per.system had been supported and
jury and bribery ; that the existence of
xpected com Peed elect- SYStern
us that Mr. °°' ft
Ilia the len
t and thatw" a gross violation of the purity of
?wishing
.n it was the duty of the law-officers of
nal inetage, had -41
iset
thing "thetpelreland to take the necessary steps for
at hie intervieteiljn
the rsons who thus offended. So far tine sub-
ated as having t°lt.,Jt related° which
npensation if thelij, in.t was
one and
proposed by his Hon. Friend
did
his
were ° the same, and the resolutions regard-
mentioned,' sefr,'
t wish to oPPe'eli pro_os I/00.
yrienyd connected together. But to what
go h 1 the next resolution which he
npensation for ,dry
ttiboeoPf:leidiehforwtabse:loption of tine House? Why to a clues-
: sustain. 11e sett Of together distinct from that relating to
could not eaPeils'
?WteirzaritnY-anhoilliZsfreeholders in Dublin, and in which they
eonded first calledeon
rour. I said, l'i ,'
1111,01,1tientrn5naintorny
Dublin,
..nne implicated or concerned. His Hon.
more likely for 11:f
a the House to pass certain resolutions
tbey could not tot' conduct of the forty-shilling free-
them unless theci
Irish tither reso,uolit,o and these resolutions he followed up
Ld interview b 1,0:
ertune 9nvernsnelnti, n. condemnatory of the conduct of the
k place in conreflo, in connexion with which it had no
t interview, Mr' ir fully 11"" whateve
im,
~
you
will frti licil:Shillio,.. r! namely, the alleged bribery of the
ters
Wi-,,,ientt freeholdersafter in Dublin.—( Hear, hear.) His
meeting I held lit t proposing such resolutions upon mat-
this bad ; he tin, 0 diatin whir ought
iutio et heads
concluded have been treated under separate and
and he contessesoi
leaveas he
ado_.e. by stating that should his reso-
However, the ii
..
..
.be i
et,to bringHouse,of in a Bill to •
the City
of
Dublin,
abolish the forty-shilling fran-
rent. Shortly fli -ag at and to make the right of vot-
ts under which yi free, elections
00 oul in that city for the future be derived from
he had before Si that . of not le.s
hnidePronet, as
well
a•
s than ten pounds annual value. Now
ltman clearly intrini the coaduct of the forty-shilling free-
warrants iveret: tod he
Surely should was
a subject
for
not have mixed it up with the charge
1 in the olii,°lfil tsnt point Irish
Government, which was also an impor-
the withdrawal 1 reteren'um that
to
other
should be considered by itself, and without
, had no hesitattty to
1: doe tnattets with which it bad nothing
to be wholly tnist3of eke t ' His
orr, ibe . 1,, Hon. Friend said, that Inc should
say that the e , tit jute w what course his Majesty's Govern-
1. He was quite,' 't was „ intend
aas
the c_ n 0 matt_
o_ pursue with regard to this subject.
In because the G° ri' hi,
A7a
.teSe intended ftsurprise that he should be ignorant of
erly thought, thatii,
o be adopted, when, up to a late hour
3ustom-house, aeon With tfll stY's Gov:
present
resrunittnent themselves were unacquainted
oal-meters. llej all
thee
culitions. It was not until five o'clock
n to justify the I', "ad bterY I:'ad been
understand
to him. He certainty
As this, howeve,ry -'rielci„; gLven to that the Hon. Member for
iyeomrnitteetoe h 14tend 0 Contrary. „ars jeat rinni__ to the opinion of the Committee, did
p undue lune 01 „ , and S ..g forward certain'
to the stateroe 1, v01n,,, affinuing
those
resolutions upon this sub-
gose which had been agreed to by the
siderit`ot!ttee
vent into an 00;1 ; hut the
the
Hour, were now brought under the con-
er, and Sir Job.r „ ibrAcediri of e a set of resolutions which em-
ir,
cot° ' vad far other to i
amnions had • even pes than those which the Committee
~ , oobdso, sad en decided
n•rence ()I tile ) Ithe ti , u,Poin Now, he should propose to sepa-
n address mane ji etcn , 10 questions w • •
hull had been thus mixed up, for
AO, re u'd not '
pleased to dis'", Ivgard ,
-o otherwise do justice to either of them. With
to her 31ajestYlopi , a,
nos, the conduct of the forty-shilliug freeholders, it
ri with, notwith'ol 'stet! . in which the Government were not at all in:l
though there was another branch of the subject,P'-
1 a resolutioo thlApt ‘‘'iti respect t to, which he was prepared to admit that the
fr. Lloyd, the /3'' were. deeply implicated. The House
t because it serod ~,eti then that would
, it would be impossible to mix the -
A had acted, alr” isj '''at • Govern-
. ..g$
~ 11,1 1 with the contamination ofthe forty-shilling fr
ng resolute:tea "v rt. ,
, 0 It,: e- "}stem, its fraud, its • ee-
perjury, its corruption'
'he House a had i a -4,e to
io?
4,11,
Called
he trusted, would bear in mind, that they. The
and so they
and
don to act judicially ; and if, upon full were
rer, trouble 091,1,1 ;;Unation a ull ex-
inquiry, it should be tine opinion
although be hell (re b "ae that of
A bst i y theHonourable
those forty-shilling freeholders re the
cases, he bat, ° iof b f nod to
variably preisv,Jr• tea
Lou be proved to have
nrument and its ,i,i ic, an., guilty of the charges brought
against them,
t, either the pr er (hi ”I•'!"conlpieil°,Ug, would afford every
lent for three° c 3,,. te leas:, 'skiing their punishmelit But he would here
difficulty in e"eb.orintrA',let such so ask, did the Hon Member suppose that con-
,n •" otr,,4' ed 'a' that f i• i .
,uing a oviu, beihe ra to the county of the city of Dublin ; and that it
sad were wise °' yet s4ed foe_tefore, to be inferred,that any remedy to be pro-
bey' e`' lie ,IPPose `it should be
sure that tconfined to that locality ? Did he
n the •ournols* iiesa ere 0 that such •
j ,f t not fort . practices were confined to Ireland ' .
ropose no rest" fltele "gland Y.-sidling freeholders created in every part
ice. He thotir (tot th st landed whenever it would serve the purposes of the
he evidence did ,j, lion 0 Rupri t •
j 0,, on ppos,_
i. e ois of the place ? With out,however,
iron Twyll hs .ffr au • I',ie '%, or even cam,- ' assmg the propositions of his
lion for the 7 th loeht "(I, he should
some just observe, that he entertained
be should Pr°tl i)o,,ouid b,
vest
remedy might be devised; and he
feted not to 10e, h ile•-•-a Bit] glad to ate a Bill introduced for that pur-
was or was note.' Ara to lir Lowe"
which,el he hoped, would extend
nut, for in eithe'pif 44-„et.ice ,ugland andr,lr and. The prevalence of the
canine within tigie't'' A ;Ilehi -Q„„l".ch complained of was as extensive and 1
It was the io"u, it ,7Y atuevtile la England as it could well be anywhere.
eon Twyll d :ill°
of °,l, s•ng and re.
001 „ o 5
vr von
t, markable instance was recorded .
propose a r ti, f Deputies en Re Popular eli ctions MEI. I •la
ng am , written
unduly exercise r S'l. gentleman—not.
theaunember of the Chamber
him in what itteol.,• Seth'isil bat
---with whom, this country, he (Mr.
of di,ffe,ret .Pl' 41 6r. att (I
the good t w
fortune to form a friendship. The
teo tr 1.1 gav ended
f Lord Lieu o tad ea_ an election f
the r,i th et, an ace or the county oneml,
vorld, bad • et, on that "unt of the examinati
on of of tine free -
;lesea's milit'dt, intiti '0 pia , Occasion, it was, of course, impossible
the policy °I to?') Ili' .el'ee of
an a French gentleman could be under the
ad. Let him, / 4 count 'thy Part
soil et 0 Could "of th Party feeling whatever, and certainly
s to be feel I
ie be , e exatnination
was as happy a descr;ption
if the in tl° ' Nioetning fiver, of a
the popular election. The freeholder
blin electio oe '' \%,"ere i uP to
floe .pf ti het s your f Pull, was interrogated thus •
sed sim exercised I, ve f_ linter_freehold ?" "It is situated s . o and
a had ofr Ye shotroe, c
,_, it ?,',t have you in 't
r. F___y
8.
..-7--what income do you de-
s fact it, test` ,',lt?,,ut it? ,
Lotl ‘‘ Lor"d" hillings."—" From whew do
ries and rn34''o,br k•t44Lansdale."—.'c Who is your
motives'ten-
seta' reu , 1.04,, ,( Loo,d.ii ,
-tent V tly o gales ,es steward."—" What are you ?"
the highest 4 epc
~. (ci n you livery se" mt e „
n 13ill die ° fel 'tie; , 'eel., e freehold ?" ' ' Have you been re-
the
if 11. All " Never was there in life."
my
ed ? Elie °IV 'at •With „,aughter,) Le, • !
t.ing the House to deal ju-
use to act oft° Or ilf sheuere .de
_present '
, .
otiho
00414.
°win uci,„ question, lie merely mentioned
p their jour
cen i ti, wised g that r!9440 that uotati T pti for the purpose
' such influenoic 10, . tough Of w 1
t•te had and
bie
i:etit
vatioa.
not
Confinedeorrupt eystero so justly coin-
rive the Pa" rising:is Parts
of
Enl to Dublin, but extended
ce was objectirtaa,:olsgvt.4B tg and as well. Idis chief ob.
disqualified ei,,,
~l' :,,'°o %;',Bnsiara be hail, he trusted, fully accomplished —it
ttions; and s/70r.arttpereh b each
a dents °V,"N • tie-, ati been other the two parts of tine sues-
r uepen ? ~, t Irish ,, can submitted ' 1 H
live rranchiseiejr,
04, but quve le he
show
bro tle —ouse. When the
be fully' prepared to defend
into that Ill'ure feid hitglit that rintrient, and tu justify their conduct through-
, who tce jr eeti e,.., was
asty
, and A 0 Oll. ' t() be subject with which the ma • tter which
at elections wand
.. Ai
e 6 tlin r JAs discussed and disposed of had no con-
and Excia---t loe h.-seit
He did "0 f il it'tt If restdut; ' GRATTAN
i Os° fi t't °n. ii ons Iv_ , hoped the consideration of
se resooti det qth tilt_ . tdati ouid he. post
Polled W 130 future day, as
,e,,,,r5, try t hate 00 Ot 44 '' te his ve, whom they
Ihe should jatii a.t'hlia tliat,, _ Place. Thee so much concerned, was
There was no doubt, lie believed,
moderate re'4ooo , Ct'h ,'''''')l4," 250 voters
the ,rI y,f I. e......,,,a, were made of
out a place in
entreated ~.deg, ~, ,rneans ea there derived the' • interests from a few
of the priv'.oA,Mr, I, of hui ,esituate--.and n
that that object was effected
of election!
frisiitlii:aelrSli (ii"oldierp )0-'•cttingi.
inutilPl ia, tO.Protte„'°4s, Veetituenusetved, that to 1'
lio,c any 00001, t it,,ikti,ily 411,1
whet ore: deep! • i nun it appeared that the
triplicated in those trans-
gSl means, 1.00°,4, ve,„atldre, t,' it came under
1 which ft tilde b. pla;-' the „Ouseu considerati
on, he should
Lege
itriheif'l3l express bra it with perfect
freedom,
louse farther:, ri,o,‘l
s opinion. II
With tine _ e should not
e was this' I subordinatts•-...he should pursue

' nobler game, for he thought that the head of the Irish
Government was deeply implicated.
Mr. RICE fully concurred with those who thought
that all which relatt d to the forty-shilling freeholders
could not be too strongly censured ; but it surely woul-1
be most unjust to put an end to the forts shi ling fran-
chise in the city of Dublin, merely on account of the
frauds practised in particular quarters—in Coldblow-lane,
for example. A Bill might be introduced which would
prevent a multitude of frauds, but which, he hoped, would
not he framed with any tendency to destroy the rights of
bona fide freeholders. He made those observations mealy
to protect himself from the imputation of supporting an
attack upon bonajide freeholders in voting for some of the
present resolutions.
Mr. R. GORDON intimated his intention, when the
resolutions were agreed to, that he should move for leave
to bring in a Bill for the purpose of disfranchising the
forty-shilling freeholders of the city of Dublin.
Mr. STANLEY observed, it was assumed that there
was evidence of gross bribery amongst the forty-shilling
freeholders of the city of Dublin—that surely was not true
of the great mass of the forty-shilling freeholders of the
city of Dublin : there were as many respectable, upright,
and incorruptible electors amongst the forty-shilling free-
holders of Dublin, as amongst any body of electors in the
empire. They were fully as deservinetf the trust of the
elective franchise as the ten-pound freeholders. There
were frauds no doubt, but what was the remedy pro•
posed ? To abolish the forty-shilling freeholders altogether.
Me would say, abolish the abuse, but go no further. Be-
fore he sat down he wished to state, that his Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, would move an
amendment to one of the resolutions, which he trusted
would have the effect of promoting all the ends of public

justice.
Mr. LEFROY contended that prosecutions ought to be
' instituted ; a double perjury had been committed by those
so called freeholders.
Colonel CONOLLY said the whole proceeding ought to
be subjected to the most accurate and minute investigation.
Mr. SHEIL objected to those resolutions, amongst
other reasons, on account of the ulterior objects said to be
in view. The constituency of Dublin was made up of
freeholders and freemen. There were 6,000 freemen
and only 1,500 freeholders ; thus the Corporation en.
joyed a great ascendancy in that city. There were re-
spectable men amongst the freemen, no doubt ; but it was
true of many of them, that they were brought up in the
Foundling Hospital, educated i❑ a charter school, and gra-
duated in the Corporation. At the time the Emancipa-
tion Bill was under consideration, it was proposed to
abolish the forty-shilling freeholds in Irish towns, as well
as in Irish counties, but they were preserved in the towns
on account of the necessity which there existed of main-
taining a counterpoise to the influence of the freemen.
Much had been said of the delinquency of the freeholders
of Dublin, but were there no others in the emnire whose
cases demanded a remedy? How many years had passed
away since the Liverpool election ? 'Were not the very
sources of freedom polluted there—were not largesses
openly given in the streets ? With those facts before the
eyes of the Hon. Members, he confessed it did appear
strange to him that Dublin should have been the only
place selected.
On the question being put upon that resolution which
declared that the Irish Law Officers of the Crown should
prosecute,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving an amend-
ment, said that the alteration which he meant to propose
would, he trusted, fully attain the objects which the Hon.
Member for Cricklade had in view ; but in point of form,
be did not think that the House could go beyond merely
affirming a breach of privilege. Public assemblies, and
especially that House, should be extremely cautious how
they pronounced upon the guilt of any person, or how they
gave any opinion as to matters of fact, or the nature of the
evidence by which those facts might be verified. The Hon.
and Gallant Officer on the other side of the House had
said that all blame lay at one door; he confessed he
thought the House ought to carefully avoid making itself
a party to any such assertions; and, -further, he felt satis-
fied the house would agree with him, that no vote of theirs
ought to convey any opinion respecting the guilt or inno-
cence of any parties whatsoever. I3esid,s, there was this
formal objection to the motion, namely, that it assumed
that the Law Officers of the Crown were bound in duty
to prosecute, whereas they had never yet been called upon
for that purpose. He should therefore move, " That an
humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying tha
he would he graciously pleased to direct that the Law Off

cers of the Crown in Ireland do make inquiries into all
matters relating to forty-shilling freeholds in the city of
Dublin, and take such steps as the necessity of the case
might seem to require."
Mr. R. GORDON expressed his full concurrence in
that amendment, and his readiness to support it.
Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said, that the present was a
case of breach of privilege, and the House of Commons,
cnstead of addressing the Crown, should act for itself.
Sir C. WETHERELL—The Committee bad tried the
question, and had made a report, and he saw no reason
why that House was to delegate to two gentlemen on the
other side that which the House ought of itself to per-
form. He objected to the amendment of the Attorney-
General, because its effect was to nullify the resolutions of
the Select -Committee on the election petition, and because
it would he a mere mockery to undo their proceedings.
Mr. CRAMPTON apprehended, that the Committee
having made its report, all the rest of the affair was in the
hands tithe House, which could direct proceedings or not,
as it pleased, With respect to the perjury of the forty_
shilling freeholders, however, he apprehended that the case
was different, and that the House would not direct pro-
ceedings, unless the Attorney• General of Ireland found
ground sufficient on which to institute proceeding.. He
would be the last man in that House to defend bribery,
but he never would support one of these resolutions, if he
understood that either he or the House was thereby to be
pledged to the truth of the evidence that was adduced be-
fore the Committee. In taking up his stand on this
ground, he was only occupying the same position as that
of his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General.)
He begged likewise to observe, that with respect to the
evidence, only one instance of a fictitious freeholder had

been brought before the Committee, and only eight or ten
of bribery against the forty-shilling freeholders of Dublin,
while there were full as many cases against freemen as
against freeholders.—( Hear. )
Mr. HUNT explained.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT thought that if the evi-
dence given before the Committee on oath had been
laid before a Jury, a conviction would have been cer-
tain ; but with respect to any future prosecution, he
must say, that as far as the matter of form went, he
should prefer that of an Address to the Crown to that
of a direction of the House.—(Hear, hear.) With res.
pect to Mr. Grattan, he did not think that there was any
blame attaching to that gentleman ; for, having been
ill-
advised, he had had the prudence to refrain from using
the voters whom he had made ; and it had remained for
the liberal Members of Dublin to do that which the person
who had created the voters had been ashamed to do.—
(Hear, hear.) With I espect to referring the question to
the law officers of the Crown of Ireland, he thought that
that would be absurd, because it weal,' be calling upon
them to do what the Committee had already done.—(Hear.)
Mr. STRICKLAND felt bound to complain that they
were going to inflict an act of severity on a few wretched
individuals, who were to be crushed because they had not
any persons to stand up to protect them.—(Cheers.) If
he were able to t-,te in this proceeding anything like equal
justice, it should have his support ; but he thought that
its principle was just the contrary—(Hear, hear)—and
when. ire remembered how the case of Liverpord had been
passed over, he felt bound to protest against the proposition
that was made in the case of Dublin.
Colonel TORRENS said, that in the borough which he
represented, there had been fictitious voters, including
Clergymen of the Church of England, from time imme-
morial ; and while this was being done with impunity, he
could not consent to proceedings in the Dublin case.
Dr. LUSHINGTON would have the amendment limit
the laws of fines to prosecutions against those who had
been guilty of bribing the voters.=(Cheera.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then framed his resolu-
tion anew, remarking that the general feeling appeared to
be that he should confine it to persons who had been guilty
of acts of bribery, and of using fictitious freeholds.
Mr. GORDON—And of creating those freeholds.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That is no crime ;
the crime is in using them, He then proposed his amend-
ment as follows :—" That the law officers of the Crown
in Ireland do take immediate measures for the purpose of

bringing to justice such persons as may have been guilty of
bribing the voters at the late election in Dublin.".
Mr, Alderman WAITHM AN objected to such proceed_
tags, on the ground that such transactions. prevailed gene_

rally througl;itut the country.
Mr. WYNN preferred the amendment as it stoat] bef re
the last alteration.
Mr. G. BANKES thought that those who gave the
bribe ought to be punished ; but he also thought that the
other party ought to he punishe I al,o, though he had no
objection to leave to the discretion of the law officers of
the Crown in Ireland the question of who should be sei
lected for that purpose ; and as the givers of the bribes
probably could not be reach'ed without the evidence of
those who received, cage of course would be taken to ex,
dude those who were to give testimony from indictinatt

A very material part of the evidence, however, appeared
to him to have been overlooked—he'illuded to that which
went to implicate the Irish Government in what had
taken place ; and he was the more surprised at it when
he remembered the way in which the Irish Government
had, in the early pert of the Session, been defended, and
particularly when he mentioned what had fallen from the
Right Hon. the Irish Secretary on the subject.--(Cheers.)
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had al-
luded to the case of Liverpool, and bad regretted that that
case had been passed over while it had been proposed to
visit the Dublin case so heavily. But he begged to ask
whose fault it was if the Liverpool case had been passed
over? That case had been in the hands of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wiltshire during the whole of tl,is Session ; and it
certainly was no fault of the Hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr
Bankes's) side of the House—(Cheers)—that that ques-
tion had not been brought on. They had come down se-
veral times in the full expectation that the question would
be brought on ; and one night. when it actually was on,
it was stopped by the House being counted out.
Lord J. RUSSELL liked the resolution as it was now
worded ; because to punish the fictitious voters when they
could not reach the maker of these voters, appeared to
him to be the height of injustice; and, indeed, if the re-
solution had remained as it was at first, he could not have
given it his support. With respect to the Liverpool ques-
tion, he begged to state the postponement attached no
blame whatever to the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, as
that Hon. Gentleman had consented to that arrangement
at the request of the Ministry, who thought the question
of general Reform was of more importance than the one
individual case of Liverpool—(Cheers).—but as to any de-
sire of screening Liverpool from the consequences of the
election that had taken place there, he begged leave to
protest against such a supposition, both on the part of his
colleagues and hirnself.—(Cheers.) He had already ex-
plained the only motive the Government had in desiring
its postponement ; and, indeed, they would also have
been desirous of postponing the Dublin question also, but
for the attempt made to implicate the Irish Government
in the question.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. GORDON thought that the original motion
which he had proposed was better than that of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, which was confined to those only
who gave the bribe. He should therefore move, by way
of amendment, " That the law officers of the Crown in
Ireland do take immediate measures for the purpose of
bringing to justice such persons as may have been con-
cerned in such illegal anti unconstitutional practices."
Sir J. SCA RLETT thought that it would be bad for
that House to word a resolution for the purpose of screen-
ing any particular offenders, though it might be another
question who were the proper persons to be prosecuted.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile therefore preferred the amendment of
the Hon. Member for Cricklade, because it appeared to
him to meet the justice of the case.
Mr. J. WOOD would not have addressed the House
but for the allusion which had been made to him, he being
the person who had moved the counting of the House
when the Liverpool question was under discussion ; and if
any defence for such a course was necessary, he thought
that it might be found in what bad taken place that even-
ing-4 Hear, hear)—for since the beginning of the Ses-
sion it had been the object of a certain party to occasion
delay, cost what it would.—(Cheers, mixed with loud
cries of " No, no.") There were thirty-three of them
who had generally voted against Reform, and he mis-
trusted their new-born zeal. He had stopped the Liver-
pool case, because he thought that was a paltry case,
compared to the great cause which was then before
the House, and lie did not wish to see the time of the
House occupied with the discussion of a trifling cause,
while they neglected that which absorbed the whole at-
tention of the people. He objected to the resolutions,
because he thought the whole Liverpool case nothing
but a farce. They were called on to punish a few poor
men for receiving bribes, and at the same tune it was
known that Lord Lonsdale had created a great multitude
of fictitious voters in Westmorland, and bad driven them
up to the poll at Appleby like cattle.—(No, no, hear,
hear.) Wherever there was a small county, and a con-
test6cl election, votes had been made, and the voters
driven to the poll. It was a miserable waste of time to
inquire into petty, paltry cases, while Peers and Com-
moners received thousands of pounds for seats in that
House. It was right that the people should know in
what manner their representatives were occupied, with
quibbles, with paltry prosecutions of individuals for re-
ceiving a few pounds, while Lords and Commoners dealt
in seats fur thousands of pounds. It was a mete pretext
for delay. He could not congratulate his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Cricklade, on the new alliance he had
formed with the Anti-Reformer:;-..;;Hear, hear)—nor on
the mischief he bad done to Reform. His Hon. Friend,
he was sure, did not mean it; but the Anti-Reformers
had found no more useful ally, nor the cause of Reform a
more mischievous friend.—(Hear, hear.) He spoke sin-
cerely what he meant, though he hoped his Hon. Friend
would take no offence. He would not object to enter into
the ease of Liverpool and Dublin at a proper time, but
he objected to it then, because there v.as important busi-
ness before the House—because it would be used as a pre-
text to delay the Reform Bill—and because it would also
be used as a pretext to injure the present Government of
Ireland, which on account of its liberality, was obnoxious
to all the Anti-Reformers.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENETT reminded the Hon. Member who spoke
last, that it was on Wednesday night when lie brought
forward his motion, and that it was the act of the Hon.
Member who counted out the House which cause,l the
delay. He was chargeable for that and fur whatever delay
it might yet occasion to the Reform Bill. His own dia.
ratter was now implicated, and lie must again bring for-
ward the question. He was now attacked both by the
enemies of the Bill, who were his political enemies, and by
the friends of it, who were his friends.—(No, no.) His
motion must be brought on at the proper time, though it
should stop the Reform Bill —(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. WOOD explained. He was afraid the Liverpool
business teas to be like the East Retford business. That
had occupied Parliament four or five years, and he thought
it was very likely Liverpool would be as long.
Lord STORMONT reminded the House that on Wed_
nesday, when the Hon. Member for Wiltshire's motion
relative to Liverpool was to come on, the Ministers en-
deavoured not to make a House. A House, however, was
made, and then they saw the Members of the Govern-
uren
t ch ari
whippers u
etlrei r character,(Alaugh)—and u
ga
hn)d—instead t whipperso,eftfiv
became e
Mem-
bets were whipped out of the House into the lobby, where
out
remained
ttbeHotise‘hile the
.vlieaplo
pler:i. erretnbe
to
the
for
e House
Preston counted
ouseifhisstate
_
rnents were not correct ; and yet the gentlemen on the
other side, who were thus guilty of causing delay, who
withput offd
delaying
abgo
thesin e sbsu,s
isniebs:eoqfu tel eicohuasreg,
charged
andtb the
stopping° PP
°sit
hmez
Reform 13i11.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPRING RICE only wished to bring hack the
House to the question before it. He believed it was cus-
tomary, before ordering a prosecution, that the parties to
be prosecuted should be named, and not entrust the law
Officers with a roving commission to prosecute whom they

liked. But the Hon. Member for Cricklade had not
named any one person. It was said, too, that the law
officers should select some for punishment, and allow
others to escape. There were both an undefined offence,
and unnamed persons, and these were to be prosecuted.
He wished his Honourable Friend to reconsider his reso-
lution, and before the House proceeded it ought to con.
cider well what it was about.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS objected to the amendment of
the Attorney-General. The Committee had reported
against fictitious voters; the House, by its resolution, had
adopted that report. The Committee had also reported
against bribery ; and if the House adopted the amend-
ment of the Learned Attorney-General, they would leave
these two offences untouched. The House would not dis-
charge its duty if it did not adopt the original resolution.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished that the resolution should
be large enough to embrace all the offences committed at
the Dublin election. If the law officers undertook to
prosecute all the bribery, he would engage that they should
have evidence enough. The evidence given before the
Committee was confined to one side, and if the law officers
looked to both sides, they would have enough to do. With re-
spect to fictitious votes, it was true that the Corporation
had created 4,000 voters in one day, though the Board of
Aldermen would admit only fifteen or eighteen hundred
out of the 4000 ; they never seemed to doubt that they
had the power; and the men whom they created voters
never seemed to suppose that it was wrong, or they would
not have done it. He objected, however, to these triging
proceedings at that moment, it Was busying themselves
catching Hies when .hey ought to be striking down vul-
tures. The lion. Member eulogise 1 Mr. Perrin, the late
Member for Dublin, and described hint as having lent his
name and high character to proinote the gool cause of
Reform. Ile was a mar. nniverstlly esteemed, both in
I
profession and out of it. A more disinterested man
did not live. Ile was rather astonished at the language
of the lion. Member for Montgomery, who ,described
himself as having been for.thirty years an opponent of
bribery, and as having been always ready to punish it;
and what was the consequence ? Why it had got to such
a height that the whole nation no .v called out for Reform.
The Right lion. Member was always ready to prosecute
when the curtain was drawn aside, but that was seldom.
Such boroughs as Corfe Castle iyere not often unveiled.
—( Hear, hear.) There were some proceedings of the

House which would put an end to bril ery ; he alluded
to the motion of the Noble Marquis, the Member fo,
Buckingham, who had separated voting from tenure, and
that separation would infallibly lead to the vote by ballot,
which would put a stop to bribery.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. LOWTHER spoke from under the gallery, and
was scarcely audible. We understood hint to deny that
Lord Lonsdale had created votes and driven freeholders to
the poll, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Preston.
If he had so conducted himself, he would have been liable
to be impeached. The votes the Hon. Member alluded to
were legal votes; and the practice to which he alluded had
been begun by the opposite party.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to recall the attention of
the House to the question before it, which related to or-
dering the law officer to institute a prosecution ; and in
discussing that he should not, like the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who deprecated delay, suffer himself to be se.
duced into discussing the general measure of Reform, and
the effect of the amendment of the Noble Lord, the 'Mem-
ber for Buckingham. He would apply himself strictly to
the question before the House. The House had agreed to
a resolution, that the system which had prevailed at the
Dublin election was an infraction of the law of the land
That resolution had been passed. It was then proposed
to follow that up by another, to institute a prosecution;
and two resolutions hid been brought forward for this pur-
pose—the original resolution and the amendment of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman. An objection had been
raised to the whole proceeding, which would be of some
weight, were the course of proceeding without a precedent.
It was stated by the Hon. Member opposite, that no pro-
secutions were ever ordered without naming the indivi-
duals. He believed that objection was not well fout.ded.
In one important case, at least, the House had proceeded
without naming any individuals. When the House agreed
to address the Crown to prosecute the rioters in 1780,
the address was vague and indefinite. No individuals
were named, but the Crown was addressed to order the
prosecution of all concerned in the riots. That was a
precedent; and he considered the objection of the Hon.
Member of no force. Passing that by, he should object
to the wording of both the resolutions. One said, prose-
cute the guilty ; that was settling by that House that the
parties were guilty before the prosecution. He suggested
that the words " charged with bribery" should be sub
stituted. The Right Hon. Baronet made some further
observations on the verbal meaning of the two resolutions,
and suggested that the resolution should be—" That the
law officers he directed to prosecute such persons as appear
to them liable to prosecution."
Lord ALTHORP admitted that certain resolutions had
already been passed ; but it was not a necessary conse-
quence of those resolutions that the House should direct a
prosecution. There were two distinct offences; and ac-
cording to the resolution of the Hon. Gentleman they
would punish the lesser offence, and allow the greater
offence to go unpunished. That was an inconsistency,
and on that account he preferred the resolution of his Hon.
and Learned Friend. As to the word guilty, he con-
ceived it of no importance. The law officer might be
instructed to prosecute the guilty, as guilt was always im-
plied in all prosecutions, without inconsistency. The
creating of fictitious votes was not a legal offence, but it
was a great moral offence. If they were to direct the law
officer to prosecute, they could only direct the prosecution
of the legal offence, and the greater moral offence would
escape. He should vote for the motion of the Attorney-
General.
Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the Noble Lord de-
scribed the fictitious votes as the greater moral offence. It
was perjury; and if the House consented to the resolution
of the Attorney-General, it would order a prosecution for
bribery and allow perjury to escape.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said the creation of fictitious
votes was not an illegal offence, and using them was not
punishable by law. He should oppose the amendment of
the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir ROBERT PEEL had not proposed, lie had only
suggested an amendment.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL supported, by a few
words, the view taken by Sir Robert Peel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had framed his amend-
ment in agreement with what he thought the sense of the
House, and had confined it to those acts which had been
illegally done.

Mr. C. W. WYNN defended the course he had pursued
as to boroughs found guilty of bribery, and in this ease re-
commended inquiry at the bir. He objzcted to the present
proposed Reform Bill, that it did not contain one word
against bribery, while it created a large constituency among
that class of men who had on all occasions been most guilty
of hribery.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL would vote for the largest prosecu-
tion, for his object was to prosecute, while that of others
was to protect.

the
Which
eii:aetUst
treated
t ettdhn
eewa
Hon.ni
tt tog r speakei‘ ai
te
tsncboeor
rn: a thisfor
dr
cKostn. u7beyjme cia,tnt
.id_n_s(ptiiteea
Preston,ro
and a laugh.) The lion. Member for Preston charged
other people with creating delay, but in what he said and
did he denied the imputation.—(Hear, hear.) He rose to
put the House to rights.—(Great laughter,) He was one
of the Committee, and had no doubt of the people having
bees guilty of bribery ; but he did not think that any Jury
in I,eland would find them guilty. The people acknow-
ledged, when they were asked, that they had received
money ; and those who gave the money acknowledged
that they had given it. While such cases were brought
before the House, whatever might be said by the friends
of Deform, the House must notice them. It was said,
that such notice was only taken to create del ty ; he denied
the imputation with scorn. If the friends of that mea-
sure thought it would prevent bribery, they were mistaken.
When the Reform Bill was passed, bribery would take
place to a greater extent than ever was known.—(Great
laughter. ).—On the Hon. Member resuming his seat,
there were loud calls of " Question !"

and T
inhe
confusionordered
ebnentaleelaur cleared
consequent
fora a
tdheiviwsiiotnh.;
' drawal of strangers,
Mr. R. GORDON said (as we understood), that he
approved of the verbal amendment recommended by the
Hon. Baronet, and was willing to adopt it.
The word " charged" was then ordered to be substi-
tuted for the word " concerned," and the House divided,
after some further diseussion,while strangers were excluded.
For the Attorney-General's motion ...... 224
For Mr. Gordon's amendment.............. 147
majority ................................. --77
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. STANLEY observing, that the time was now
arrived when, without mixing up the question of the ex-
tent of the bribery which had been committed, they were
at liberty to enter into the promised discussion on the con-
duet of the Government, of which, whatever might be
said, it was clear to him that the language of the resolution
contained a strong expression of disapprobation. The
lion. Gentleman had observed, that he (Mr. Stanley) was
probably the only person in the House who thought there
extraordinary was anything or ambiguous in the language
made use of in the report of the Committee. He must
say, however, foil
• it did appear to him, that in the report
of a Committee of that House, appointed to inquire into the
proceedings of an election, there was something very ambi-
guous the declaration,'cthat certain persons holding
officials '
situations in Ireland, or supposed to he connected
guon
with the Irish Government, did tiFs undue influence, and
'teonon," But lithe report contained any ambiguity, and in-
tional ambiguity upon the part of the Committee, which,
while it spoke of undue interference, did not designate any °
particular individual, nor could it be presumed that any
particular individual was intended to be designated, he
could not avoid observing, that even a greater degree of
ambiguity existed in the report as to the persons it pro-
posed to designate. He was then in the very disagreeable
state of doubt that in rising to defend individuals attached to
the Irish Government, he knew not who were attacked.
The Hon. Member who introduced the resolution, as he
said, with great pains, distinctly stated tha,t 1 did not
mean to bring forward any charge against Lord Anglesea ;
but the other 'ion. MeMber of the Committee who se-
Contled the motion, On the contrary declared, that lie was
of opinion blame did not attach to Lord Anglesea. The
upon himself to 'Say Who Were the
resolution of the Committee decided, that officia,l influence
had been used from some quarter, it was not stated what.
The Hon. Aler..;ber who introduced the question did not
That there was a strong opinion on the part of the Go-
guilty persons.
tiernment in favour of the Reform cand;4atea had never
been disguised—for the Tr:et-Atka then pending was consi-
dered not cril:( as involving the existence of the Govern-
ment, but of the country itself. One thing, he main-
tabled, was quite clear, that up to that rinment there
take
never was a Government which ;icon more clear of inter-
ference with FAecticr.s :hail at present.—(A laugh.) The
course of proceeding adopted by the Committee on the pre-
sent occasion was, he contended, a singular one, and if it
was, as he maintained it was, a singular case, he trusted
lie could show the Hou.::to they ought -not to found a pre-
cedent upon it. ta.‘ the first place, he objected to the
Committee's having gone into the question of interference
upon the part of the Governma-.it at all, because this in-
terference could not vitiate the return of Members. This
was the law laid down this thy; and in a particular case
to which the fl.on. Member alluded, he stated that it had
been decided, that, although cornipt practices had occurred
between a Noble Lord ~4d the 'Corporation, and although
it bad beel proved that the candidate had gone down with
a letter from the :Noble Lord, that, nevertheless, the

return had not b.en vitiated. He knew it might b
said that this allegation of undue interference on the part
of the Government had Keen made part of the matter of
the petition, and that, therefore, the Committee were or
this account bound to consider it ; but as the words se
the Grenville Act expressly d'-cla rtl the Committee wet,
only to consider such matters as shauld affect the election,
and as undue influence on the part of Government did not
affect the election, he submitted that it should not hay,
been considered. As a matter ofequity, he submitted that per-
sons should not he condemned upon evidence taken in theit
absence, and upon the allegations of witnesses whom they
had not the power to cross-examine. He did not deny
that individual cases might not arise in which undue in-
fluence might be alleged, and which it would he necessary
to go farther to investigate. But this was not one.
On
the first day the Counsel for the petitioners announced
'hat he did not intend to go into a scrutiny, but deter-
mined to depend altogether upon the bribery and undue in•
terference. If he had insisted on the scrutiny, the ques-
tion of undue interference would have come in as an essen-
tial matter, as regarded the vote of each individual ; bur
having abandoned this, there was no ground upon which
undue interference could be considered at all. Now,
touching the evidence of the first person who was brought
forward, and who had been brought forward on two sac
cessive days, he was a gentleman who had voted for the peti-
tioners, and to whose vote not the shadow of an objection
had been taken. He was accordingly placed in the dif-
ficult position of being obliged to argue upon evidence which
had been improperly taken by the Committee. He was not
afraid to argue the case, because, if he showed that the evi
dence was not such as to affix the fact of undue influence
upon the Government, it would be sufficient. The first wit-
ness was a Mr. Long, who stated he had a conversation
with Captain Hatt, whom the Committee did not know
to have an official situation in the Castle at the time, and
who actually had no situation whatsoever. It was not
denied that the Marquis of Anglesea had expressed
'strongly the wishes he held on the election; and if any
person would look to the state of the country, and to the
state of the Government at the period, he could not shut
his eyes to what the wishes and the strong wishes of the
Government must have been. Mr. Long stated, that
Captain Hart had called on him, and said, "that if I did
not vote as he required, I should be discontinued coach-
maker to his Excelleney. I said, I was sorry for it.
asked him if I was to understand that I was thencefor-
ward to be discontinued ? He said, yes, I waS, and he
took his departure, first having stated that it was not to
me alone he was to go, but to go to all the tradespeople."
It came to the ears of Lord Anglesea that such a report
had gone abroad ; with a readiness that did honour to his
feelings, he desired that the assertion might be contra-
dieted ; and to explain his views and feelings, had other
and private documents, in which lie had set down the sen-
timents and line of conduct by which he intended to guide
himself, communicated to Mr. Long. This might have been
indiscreet, but it certainly resulted from the impulse of a
manly and generous mind, which was incapable of resting
quiet under so foul an imputation. Now what did Sir
John Byng say upon this subject, when Mr. Long hail a
conversation with bins upon the subject ?—" Sir John
said he had seen Lord Anglesea on the subject; he
was glad to tell me that Captain Hart had exceeded his
instructions, and he said Lord Anglesea, fearing he might
have been misunderstood in the directions he gave, took
the precaution of making a memorandum of the orders he
had issued at the time of giving those orders ; and he said,
' To show you that these orders were exceeded, he has
given rue a memorandum to show to you,' and he handed
me a paper." Now the Hon. Member (Mr. Gordon) had
said, that but for this paper, there would not have been
the shadow of an imputation on Lord Anglesea and he
(Mr. Stanley) asked if it was riot hard that a communi•
cation made with motives so generous and manly, should
be turned to such account ? He objected also to Mr.
Long's remembrance of the contents of this paper having
been taken in evidence, and remarked that he had rattier
strangely forgotten the last sentence of the communication
in which there was an important qualification. He likewise
remarked that it was on Wednesday Mr. Long had the
conversation with Sir John Byng, and that it was not until
the Saturd iy, alter being so advised by one of the candi-
dates, he took down from memory the terms of the
Lord Lieutenant's letter. It was also to be remarked
that Mr. Long had admitted himself to have been
a partisan of the Recorder of Dublin, and to have
been concerned in getting the witnesses together to
appear before the Committee. lie considered, therefore,
that Long's evidence should be taken with suspicion.
The next witness was Mr. Kimpton, a glover, who, it
appeared from his evidence, was in his heart favourable-to
Reform, and who, when relieved from the apprehension
that he was to suffer by his vote, yet was glad to make
the promise which, on the first intimation of the Lord
Lieutenant's wishes, he had given the Lord Mayor a pre-
text with the Corporation for voting as his inclinations
did really lead him. The case of Mr. Baseigeo he dis-
missed as altogether ridiculous—he supposed it had been
only introduced by the Hon. Gentleman to soot!' the pain-
ful feeling which affected him in bringing forward the
motion. He next came to the cases in which Baron
Tuyll appeared, and here he was under a great difficulty,
for he really knew not whether the charge was brought
against Baron Tuyll as an individual or as an agent of the
Lord Lieutenant. He contended, however, that no act of
Baron Tuyll's could implicate Lord Anglesea, for whatever
he had said or done was as a private person. It was true
that Baron Tuyll happened to lie Lord Anglesea's pia
vote secretary, but he had been in Dublin on a former oc-
casion, anti had many acquaintances there—and moreover
entertained a personal friendship for oire of the candidates,
and had, therefore, a perfect right to canvass in his behalf,
and this without in the least compromising the Govern-
ment. Much stress, he remarked, by the way, had been
placed upon Baron Tuyll's letters having been dated from
the Castle; but the fact the Baron had no private
house in Dublin, and lived in apartments ut the Castle.
The evidence he had to refer to in this case was that of
two police Magistrates—Alderman Tynclal, who was
unfortunate enough to fail in the wine trade, and
was afterwards made a Police Magistrate by the
corporation, and Mr. Studdart. The whole of the
evidence here, he begged the House to remark,
rested upon vague statements of conversations hold by
the Baron with a single individual ; and lie observed that
he (Mr. Stanley) triad recently been in communication
with Baron Tuyll, and had been informed by him that
there was just enough of truth in the statements to prevent
him from absolutely meeting them with a charge of false-
hood, though they were in sonic parts misrepresented, and
in others most highly exaggerated : so that they were
made to convey a meaning which had never been intended
upon his part. Mr. Tyndal said that he Was anxious to
vote for the person through whose influence 7,,,pseas ap_
pointed, but he feared that if he did he chould be- dismissed
by the Government. In fact, the questiaa with him was.
whether he should otLnd the Corporation or the Govern-
roeot. In expressing that doubt to Baron Tuyil,, the latter
answ,red, that on that subject his lips were. sealad. He
now came to the evidence of geo,rge Studdart. That
person said that he was appointed by the Corporation. It
was clear that they were strong upon the Anti-Reform in-
tercet; they declared the interest they felt in the question
and exercised their influence; they weate generally very
liberal in the use of it (that vise undeniably true), and
witness stated that be slsoahl be voting in this instance
against the Corporation, if he was to support the I:l,efam
Car,dicia'4es. To that statement Baron Tql:i answered,
that he was Lware that the witness ad been elected to
his situation by the Corporatio;:‘, Cut that he was paid by
the Government. 7'\-cw a great deal of obsaerva,tion
had been mad.) upon that answer. But tukeli tinere was
,an who could call it a threat, sat: 44 attempt unfairly
and improperly to inflitenee t,,e vote of an elector; it
I was merely a stetement of the exact position in which
the witneaa stood between the two parties. All thia aaan-
- vereation was perfectly possible; but sure:ly, is seid not
form a ground fora serious charge of exercise of Go.
vernment influence. Upon croaseexamination, this wit
ness was asked whethee he bath ever said that the conver-
sation bet,.7eera bins and Baron Tuyll hail made no Lin-
; pression on his mind as to the consequerseea that would
result if he had voted any tithes- -Io said that he
did think a good deal uzine ie He was asked if he had
ever spoken akTsat it ? Ile answered, that he had ,A ;a he
could nof :suppose, that if he had gone the ntsisse way, it
would have had the effect of producine-it his dismissal. Ile
was asked if be had ever said that more than once? He
answered, that he tl'at not think the Marquis of Anglesea
would tw.•,cs visited dismissal on him fin- en sluing ; but
he did not'like to try the experimeref,....ear, hear.) He
was then asked whether h; ,-;,ilew Mr. Jackson and r.
Horn, and whethate these twin gentlemen, who, seteee as-
sistant tat risters, had not voted at the last eleati,on against
the Government candidates? Ile said he was not aware
of the fact of their having ea -siased. The truth was, that
those gentlemen, •larnei voted against the Reform candifAares;
yet thy had apt been dismissed ; they hat', slat incurred
the displeasure of the Governmerstar indeed was there
any individual who 110, been so visited, On the eont.;ary
there was er, order sent out through him (le.. aritardrY)
to the constabulary of Leiuster, .74i:fig that tine Lord
Lieutenant had. been ph!,:.:.ed to direct, that any
person connected with that body, who had a right to
vote at the election, and who wished to exercise
that right, should be allowed the indulgence of
rbsence for that purpose, There was a second order
efterwareis issued, upon) the Government coming to the

knowledge that some of these persona had abused the in-
eulgence thus given them, and had become partisans in
the contest. This second order declared, that although
they were permitted to give their votes according to th -ir
eonseience, yet the Goa eminent did not mean to allow
!hem to :let as oertieans.—(Hear, bear.) This was the
sort of influence which the Government exercised over a
body of men, over whom, in fact, they had the right of
isiingine into operatien a positive and active controul.—
(He r, hear.) He came now to the last case, which w.s
that of Mr. Oultman. The evidence of that witness tv..s
itterly incredible in many points, and in many others it
.vas demonstrably false. After an attentive exatninafon
if Mr. Oultman's evidence, he had no hesitation in say-
ne, that he would net believe the statements contained in
ir, en the unsupported testimony of that person. Mr.
Oulttnan was at the head of the coal-meters of Dublin,
end B iron Tuyll had written him a letter in the follow-
i‘nig
r. toerumitsn:,a—n,"anßiairzllTiu)selgl
lapdreoefenatsfot minutes'
.ation with him at the Castle to-day, before three o'clock."
That letter hid been mach commented on, but it did not
appear to him of very great importance. In that conver-
sation Mr. °Libman reeresented that they spike about the
(Urtnitespli..ments to
conver-
coal-meters, and that Baron Tuyll said he believed that
they bad, on a former occasion, supported the Govern-
ment, and be wondered why they would not do so now,
particularly as the Corporation was supporting them.
The witness said the coal-meters were not under the go-
vernment of the Corporation, but under the Guild of Mer-
chants ; and the majority of that Guild were opposed to
Sir R. Harty and Mr. Perrin. He sail he believed he
had some influential persons supporting Government, and
one of them was Mr. Latouche. The witness said he be.
lieved Mr. L. had not the smallest interest in th . Guild of
Merchants. He asked who had ? Witness said Sir Abra-
ham King. He said Sir A. King had been written to,
and they expected him over to support the Government.
He must say, that after a statetnent of that kind, he dis-
credited the whole of the witness's assertions; and he
thought the House would do so too, when they found hien
thus pretending that Baron Tuyll had told him, a Dublin
man, that the Corporation and Sir Abraham King were
supporting the present Government.—(Hear, hear.) That
witness had asked Baron Tuyll about putting the coal-
meters of Dublin on the same footing with those of Lon-
don. The Baron refused to make any promise on the sub-
ject ; in fact, he could make none, fur thr Irish Govern-
ment possessed no power in the matter; but be (Mr. S.)
helieved, that haul such a promise been made, they should
have heard nothing of Mr. Oultnian's evidence. The
Committee had asked the witnesses whether those persons
who voted against the Government candidates had not suf.
fered fur their votes? and they were told in answer, that
A part of the coal-meters had had their warrants with-
drawn from them. Now the fact was, that the war-
rants in question had been withdrawn, not from some,
but from all—had been withdrawn by the Board of Cus-
tonlB in London, because the reduction of the coal duties
had rendered the labour performed under those warrants
unnecessary ; and had been thus withdrawn, too, by an
order issued from London before the Dublin election
began.—(Cheers.) On this part of the case, therefore,
there was not the slightest evidence to support the impu-
tations cast by this witness on the Government.—(Bear,
hear.) The House had always been tender in its proceed_
logs against Peers on cases such as these. What were the
proceedings in the famous case of the Bishop of Worcester
in 1702 ? That case came before the House on the Report
of a Committee of Privileges, and the enormity of it was
such as to require strong proceedings if they were ever
adopted. The person who brought the matter under the
notice of the Ilouse said " He sent to me to desire me to
desist from standing as a candidate for election as Knight
of the Shire; and he said, that if I did nut desist, he
would speed against nee to his Clergy. He'sent letters to
that effect; among them—he aspersed we to his Clergy
branding me and my ancestors with vices, and at his Con-
firmations and Visitations he threatened his flock with his
displeasure if they should give me their votes : in the same
manner he threatened his tenants with his displeasure, and
said he would not renew their leases if they voted for me,
and that he would prevent them num getting their leases,
renewed afterwards by his successor." Now in that ease,
thus brought before the House, and supported by evidence
which made out these allegations, what had the House
done? They had interposed with an Address to the Crown
to remove the Bishop from the situation of Almoner.
What was dune in 1779, in the famous case of the
Duke of Chandos? That Noble Person was the Lord
Lieutenant of the (',aunty of Southampton, and he was
declared by a Committee of Privileges guilty of
having concerned himself in the late election of a
Knight of the Shire, and of having committed a
breach of the privileges of that House. What was
the mode he had taken to do this ? He had sent three or
four hundred letters, in which he called on the freeholder,.
to vote for a particular candidate. In that case what had
the House of Commons done ? The question was put, on
the motion to confirm the report of the Committee, that
that report be confirmed that slay four months, and the
amendment was carried by 87 to 34. Again, in the Nei-
stun case, nothing had been done. The House had been almost entrapped into a vote, and his Right Hon. Friend
the Member for Montgomeryshire, with the skill which
on these points always distinguished him, told them that if
they had been entrapped into confirrniug the resolution of
the Committee, they would have been obliged to take
ulterior Incisors, as the consequences of that confirmation.
—[ll'''. C. WYNN denied the word " entrapped."] In that
case the Committee resolved that there had been a corrupt
agreement betweea the Duke of Leeds and the Corporation
of Helstuto If the House of Commons had adopted and
confirmed that resolution, it would have been neces-
sary for them to adopt ulterior proceedings. In the
same manner, if the House should now confirm the
resolutions at present submitted to them, they would
put themselves under the necessity of taking ulterior
tessasures, which, in this case, slight and trivial as it was,
if indeed it could be considered as having been made out
against any body, would be certainly objectionable. It
could not be disguised or denied that the Government had
been naturally anxious that the views which they took of
a groat political question should be supported by their de-
pendents; and he thought they had a right to expect the
support of their dependents. It might not be very dis-
creet for him to express himself in that manner, but he
would trot disguise the truth, which was, that all Govern-
ments whatever thought they had a right to expect from
all persons immediately employed under them the support
of their measures as far as those persons could support
them.—(Heae, hear.) He said that, not only fur the
sake of the Government, but for the sake of those persons,
themselves, for otherwise there could be no stability for
the Government, and consequently none for those em-
ployed by them.—(Hear, hear.) The Government would
indeed he @very moment in danger of being undermined.
All Gaverements whatever had acted on the same prin-
ciple, and he would venture, without fear of contradic-
tion, to assert that they had all carried to a greater extent
than the preaent the tight be was now claiming for them.
He repeated, that no case had been made out against
that Government, and nut the shadow of a case against
his Noble Friend personally, and he should therefort
meet the rerolutiona with a flat negative.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUNT defended the Couunittee for all t'aey had
dons in this case, and asserted, that had they done less,
they would not have yeti:mused their duty. As to the
Right lion. Secretary, he (lid not deny The facts, but man-
fully said the tonduet of Government was defensible, and
that all "1,-.Sesvernments had done the same. Mr. Hunt here
referred to that part of Vet evidence which showed that
' the Government had sent round to influence the votes of
their tradesmeo, whoa' he strongly distinguished from the
persons etvOoyed under them ; though even with regard
to those. he said, that the defence of the Right Hon. Gen-
'', dew.an, was the introduction of a new doctrine into that
1‘
iliasatl said
ioepdueLsatoeirrel,—ddt tradesmenLci( nHi:e u)ettatialert%ien,,naalnenieeta;er.,
Hart
e dHal
pie,aeldribiseiu:eotkxlaicnongeendhe
dwity:evtdwleui
nhanttedhneteihrltti
turinhe:efties
artruec. mattercii withinstructions
i:o:y_df
stances, a strong cam of the exercise of undue influence
was fully made out.
Mrs STANLEY explained respecting the non-arrival of witnesses, and particularly to the refusal of the Committee
to receive the evidelme of Mr. 11I`Causten.
Lord UNIIRIDGE contend:el that the report of the
Cominietee did not deserve touch respect, if it were true,
as the Chairman of ii had said, that it was difficult to de-
termine whethee the Committee or the witnesses had been
most beeieiklered. He had it under the hand of the
lqatvis of Anglesea, that he had not wished a single in-
dividual to he coerced; sad although it might excite a
sneer, he (Lord 'Uxbridge) believed that the city of Dublin
was dissatisfied that so little influence had been used dur-
ing the election. As to. the Marquis of Anglesea not dar-
ing to turn out Polioe Magistrates, he would only say, that
the Marquis would dare to do whatever was his duty.—
(Chee.o4) Having known hien from his youth, he bore
teetimony to the unimpeachable character of Baron 7.1.7.11„
who had acted at the election only as a fressnan
be had
nut,:
•Ind had stated from beginning to end, that. li
.t
had, and eyelid have no communication with the Marquis

of Anglesea. The Baron was not tia. * agent for the Afar-
lois; and if he had
thought 5.t to dnmrthute 500/. among
the voters, it would be most uninst that hia conduct should
implicate the Lord Lieutenant. Common kietlSe revolted at.
un argument to the contrary. Baron Tuyll had distinctly
told hint (Lord Vabritlise) that he had never used the 11410 t