The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING-,

the candidate might be ignorant of what occurred ; but
those instances were few, and in the great majority of
cases it was notorious that the candidates had the

power, if they chose, to analyn the details of their
election bills, and ascertain whether there had been

bribery or not.—(Hear, hear.) The Legislature, there-
fore, must direct its efforts to check the conduct of
the candidate and not merely the conduct of the voter.
It was for these reasons that he had ventured to propose
that no man should take his scat in that House without
making a public declaration at that table, before the
House of Commons and the country, that so far as he
was concerned he was personally guiltless of all these
corrupt practices. He was aware that this decla-
ration might be considered only as a trap for tender
consciences. He trusted no Hon. Member would vote
against his Bill on that ground. If any doubt was en-
tertained upon the subject, then let them look to the
declaration itself, and then they would see that no such
danger was likely to arise. He was aware that the
subject was surrounded by many difficulties, but he
thought that some such rule ought to be adopted,
even if it were only for the protection of the
candidates themselves.—(Hear, hear.) If the House
would allow the Bill to be read a second time, he would
propose that it be referred to a Select Committee, because
he was quite aware of the great difficulty of the subject.
He was told yesterday, by a gentleman extensively con-
nected with elections, that the principle of the Bill was
the cnly one by which they could hope to stop the
practice of bribery. It never would be suppressed until
the feelings of the parties who bribed were excited, and
until they were impressed with the conviction that their
own honour and character wore involved in the course
they took. He would appeal to the House whether,
for the protection of the candidates themselves, this
measure was not desirable? Gentlemen of honour and
character went as candidates to boroughs where these
practices of bribery had long prevailed ; and they soon
discovered that they had no option between complying
with those practices or at once retiring from the place.
But, protected by such an enactment as that now pro-
posed, those gentlemen would be placed in a different
position, and they might say to their agents—
If you practise corruption you must do it at
your own peril; I have this declaration hanging over me."
and believing that the malpractices to which he had al-
luded had brought a great scandal upon the country, he
felt deeply impressed with the necessity of adopting some
such plan, and he should, therefore, only now propose
that, in addition to the declaration in the House, there
should also be a right, vested in the electors
themselves, to demand from the candidates on
the hustings a similar declaration, so that when
men of respectability and standing went down to any
place, they should find it prudent to abstain from bribery
altogether, lest they should be placed in the position
either of acknowledging their guilt, or of perjuring them-
selves.—(Hear.) The next enactment was, that where
parties had been reported to the House by name as
having either taken or given bribes, ?hese parties should
be disfranchised for life. Constituted as Election Com-
mittees now were, it might be justly assumed that no
person would be so reported unless the case was clearly
established. This was the only disfranchisement he
contemplated. The only remaining material enactment
in this Bill was in another direction—he proposed that
the bribery oath should be altogether repealed. He re-
garded that oath as being entirely a trap for the voter.
It was most unfair that a man who, in the first instance,
was corrupted by a temptation which he could not resist,
should at the time of the election, in the face of the
whole constituency, be called upon either to confess his
guilt or perjure himself. He was sorry to say expe-
rience proved too strongly which was the alternative
preferred. He would not trouble the House further with
regard to the details of the measure. Some objections
he naturally expected to hear, but he entertained a san-
guine hope that they would not be such as that the
Select Committee would not be able to remove
them. He had been told by some persons that
the only remedy against bribery was an extension of the
franchise. For his own part he was in no degree op-
posed to an extension of the franchise, but until he
saw that what his Hon. Friend, the Member for Buck-
inghamshire, the other evening very happily termed a
proper sense of the dignity of exercising the franchise, he
could anticipate but little benefit from any extension
of the franchise. He was anxious that the people
should regard the possession of that right as a great
public privilege, and not as a marketable commodity.
But could they trust to the enlargement of the consti-
tuency as a means of preventing bribery? Experience
and reason both told them they could not. Experience
would point to the cases of Nottingham and Norwich.
It was a matter of notoriety that, in days not long gone
by, the large constituencies of Nottingham and Norwich
were among the most notoriously corrupt bodies of
electors in the country. And did not reason tell them
that whether they were dealing with thousands or with
hundreds, if the parties were nicely balanced, there would
still be the temptation to the candidate to buy and to the
corrupt voter to sell, where a limited number of votes
would turn the scale one way or the other?—(Hear.)
Yet he would wish it to be understood that he was by
no means unfriendly to an extension of the franchise, so
soon as it could be shown to him that it might be safely
ceegeled to more numerous hands. It might be said that
the severity or 10‘,R decisions of the Committees of last
session would put an end to bribery. Some of those de-
cisions were in his judgment too severe, but although
they would have their effect he did not believe they
would check bribery ; they might prevent the presenta-
tion of election petitions. It had been pointed out to
him as a defect in his Bill that it did not touch the of-
fence of treating. In dealing with one difficult subject
he naturally avoided encountering another; but the sub-
ject of treating could be considered in Committee, and,
if thought proper, could be included in the BT.
He appealed to the House not to reject this Bill; but,
at all events, if they did so he should have the satisfaction
of knowing that he had made a single-minded attempt
to check what he believed to be a great
growing and increasing evil, which was sapping
the very foundation of our representative system,
which had been the boast of England and the admiration
of the world. They were justly proud of the purity of
public men.
Colonel SIBTHORP—Oh, oh ! Nonsense, ridiculous.
Sir J. PAKINGTON proceeded—But let him
warn the House that if they valued the purity
of public 'men in public offices they might
endanger that purity if they did not maintain an equal
degree of purity amongst the constituent body.—(Hear,
hear.) Now he asked the House to give this Bill a
second reading. He did not hold out to them that this
was a measure by which bribery would be prevented in
all cases, but if they adopted the principle of
the Bill it would put an end to all those
gross and wholesale cases to which he had to-day di-
rected attention, and he did hope that the House would
pass some legislative measure upon the subject. They
were bound to make an effort to remedy the existing evils,
and it was to give the House an opportunity of making
that effort that he moved the second reading of the Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP said, when he gave notice of
his intention to move that this Bill be read a second
time this day six months, of course, he was not led to
expect, but certainly, he did not know that the Hon.
Baronet proposed that the Bill should be referred to the
consideration of a Select Committe.—(Hear, hear.) He
now knew what the Hon. Baronet's intention. was, and as
he had no objection to the course the Hon. Baronet
proposed he should abstain from moving his amendment,
but certainly not from saying a few words upon the sub-
ject.—(Hear, and laughter.) If he entertained objec-
tions to the Bill when he gave notice of his amendment,
they had been increased tenfold by the speech which
the Hon. Bennet had made in support of it. Where
the Honourable Baronet obtained his information
from he could not for the life of him make out.
He presumed it was not from Droitwitch, nor could he
believe that the Hon. Baronet had given the informa-
tion upon the ipse diva of individuals. It appeared
rather to be the result of some secret inquiry, and he
should always oppose a Bill which was based upon in-
formation derived from secret sources.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Baronet then talked about the purity of public
men. Good God ! the purity of public men, where
was it?—what was it?—(Hear and laughter.) He had
always thought and now boldly declared that the Trea-
sury bench was the seat where, above all others, the
grossest corruption prevailed.—(Laughter.) But he
had heard with infinite satisfaction that the Honourable
Member for Hull, who now occupied a seat on the bench,
had refused to take office if he were not permitted to
pursue what course he thought proper in reference to the
navigation-laws, and they had received an intimation
from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government—
the Member for the city of London, which was all
purity—(Laughter)—that he had absolved the Right
Hon. Gentleman from voting against the repeal of the
navigation-laws,libervtovoteasbuht hetlie Nkedoube Lord
plone verydidothneort
qguiveestihoim
n.
No, the Noble Lord was too cautious for that. He said
the navigation-laws was an open question, but ques-
tions might be open out of doors but not in the House.
An open question out of doors was a very different
thing to what was considered an open question in
Downing-street.—(Hear, hear.) The purity of public
men, indeed ! Faugh ! Stuff 1 Itwaswas mere moon-
shine.—(Hear, and laughter.)impossible for
them to be pure. Bribery and corruption was
part of their system, and their impunity was ;as noto-
rious as the sun at noon day.—(Hear, and laughter.)
He could not help thinking that the Hon. Baronet who
introduced the Bill would have done much better had he
delayed the second reading of the Bill until the House
had seen the information which the Hon. Baronet said he
had read. Besides, there was a Bill coming from another
place, and he should like to know before they disposed
of this one what that Bill would be. A Bill was also
introduced last session into the House upon the subject,
to which great attention was paid, and which incurred a
great amount of expense—a waste of time, printing, and
paper—and yet it all ended in smoke.—(Hear, and
laughter.) And then the Noble Lord followed it
up with another Bill, which he managed to get
through the House ; but when it got up to
another place, the other place wanted to shut up them-
selves, and they kicked out the Bill.—(Cheers and
laughter.) But now it seemed another Bill was rising
in the other place out of the ashes of the Bill they
had knocked on the head last session. Now he would
not say anything against the other place,
but he always understood that the House looked
with eyes of jealousy upon intermeddling of the
other place ; but, be that as it might, he for one
did not like this interference of the other place. Why
did they not mind their own business? But it might be
possible that there was not too much purity in the other
place, although it contained a mitre.— (Hear.) What had
bishops and priests to do with this question? What had
Christian members of the Church to do with it? Why,
nothing at all; and he hoped they would (though he hardly
expected it) abstain from voting on the resuscitated Bill.
If this Bill were passed it would destroy that good feel-
ing which had so long existed between the higher' and
the lower classes, and it was well known what care
the wealthier classes bestowed upon their humble
dependents.—(Hear, hear.) If, however, there
was to be a searching inquiry into all their

acts—if secret machinations wore to exist, no man would
be sac°. Bribery and corruption had existed, and,
doubtless, would exi:A. He ;hoped at least, however,
that he had never been guilty of-a:;y such acts ; he was,
therefore, altogether free from the charge, but
if eight or !pine Bills had been introduced
since 1841, for the purpose of altering the present state
of things, and yet had proved inoperative for that pur-
pose, he should like to know what chance the present
measure stood of success. He hoped the Bill would be
rejected, because he believed that every man ought to
do what he liked with his own.—(Laughter.) At least
allowing a man that permission was but carrying out the
much vaunted principle of free trade ; but he supposed
a free trader (a hair of whose head he would not hurt)
could not bribe; it was quite impossible • he was too pure a
being to do so.—(Laughter.) He believed the Bill to
be absurd, to be full of equivocations, and that it would
prevent the purest and most honourable men from
coming to the House and conscientiously taking the
usual oaths. Nevertheless, as the Honourable
Baronet had consented to have the matter re-
ferred to a Committee up stairs he should not
oppose the Bill in its present stage not wishing to thwart
fair investigation. He trusted, however, when it came
down again, if it came down at all—(Laughter)—that it
would do so in a far different shape. He saw no reason
why they should pass a Bill of this character, because
Mr. Tompkins or_Mr. Jenkins was dissatisfied with the
result. It was an attempt to catch them sleeping, and
he advised the House to take care that its silver spoons

were not stolen.—(Laughter.)
Sir J. HANMER said it was perfectly true that
former attempts had been made, as had been
stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member who had
just resumed his seat, to suppress the corrupt practices
which had been so long carried on at elections. He
hoped, however, that the present attempt of the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington),
though he (Sir J. Hanmer) was not able to give his support
to all its provisions,would be successful. He was glad he had
expressed his readiness to refer this Bill to a Select
Committee up stairs, and trusted, through the searching
investigation and praetical„suggestions of that body,
that the House would be enabled to pass a mea-
sure to put an end to those evils which
threatened, unless at once checked or restrained, to sap
the foundations of Parliament itself. It was true that,
heretofore, the attempt of unofficial Members to stop
the evil had proved abortive, but he assured the House
that unless a remedy was devised without delay
that the day of vengeance was at hand. After the vast
quantity of evidence that had been collected on oath, he
confessed that he was at a loss to understand why a Bill
of this kind should have to encouunter so manydifficulties.
As the Committee was to take into its consideration
the subject of treating, the motion of the Hon. Baronet
should have his support. The Gallant Member had
said, that if the Bill were passed, no one would be
safe. Had he been in his place he should have
asked him if aay one was safe at the
present moment. No one, in his opinion, would be safe
until the law with respect to bribery and treating, and
their punishment, was placed on an intelligible footing.
The difference between treating and bribery was by no
means clearly defined—(Hear, hear)—and a va-
riety of opinions existed on the subject. He need
not go any further back than last session to find instances
of this difference of opinion. No less than three dis-
crepancies of opinion occurred last session on the subject
of treating. Mr. Hodgson, who had been elected
for Carlisle, was unseated because treating had been
carried on by his agents, but without his knowledge
and consent. It was thought he had a right to contest
the seat again; he did so and was elected, and no doubt
sat in that House with great advantage to the city.
The other cases were North Cheshire and Horsham.
Mr. Cornwall Legh, who had been elected for South
Cheshire, and Mr. Fitzgerald, who had been elected for
Horsham, were unseated for treating by ;their agents,
though they declared they had nothing to do with
it, and that they, therefore, were not reponsible.
The Committee said an action at law could not be main-
tained against Mr. Cornwall Legh, and therefore he was
most tightly permitted to retain his seat. The very same
question occurred at Horsham, where all the elements
vent to show that Mr. Fitzgerald did the very same thing
when he stood in 1847. The Committee declared
there that he was not duly elected, and not capable of
sitting. Therefore, on the very same question having
been referred to a Committee in room A, concerning
the North Cheshire election, a gentleman was now sitting
a Member of the House, and on the very same question
bring referred to a Committee in room B, a
gentleman was not sitting a Member of the House;
and he was, be (Sir J. Hanmer) believed, incapable
of sitting again in the present Parliament. Surely it
was time for the House-to define what was the law, or
what ought to he the law. There was another, though
an incidental, question arose in the Horsham Committee.
They not only decided that Mr. Fitzgerald, who had the
majority of votes, should be deprived of his seat,
and was incapable of sitting, because at a previous
election !some treating had been carried on against his
instructions and without his knowledge, but the Com-
mittee decided that another Noble Lord, who bad the
minority of votes, was duly elected. Now that
question arose incidentally, but it was a very
important question, and he hoped that if the
Bill of the Noble Lord was to be referred to a Com-
mittee up stairs, the terms of reference would not be
small and narrow, and that the cases in which existing
decisions of Committees of the House conflicted with
the decisions in the courts of law would be submitted to
that Committee, and that the House might
arrive at a state of things such as the Hon.
Member for Lincoln so much desiderated,
viz.—when the country would get a good, plain, and in-
telligible law on the subject of bribery. He had fault to
find with other parts of this Bill. On account of the very
great and pressing importance of the subject, and be.
cause he was well aware that the attention of the country
was directed to this great and crying evil, and that
the House ought not and should not be content with the
present state of the law, he did hope that the Bill would
be referred to a Committee, and that gentlemen would
not be too anxious to find fault, but would say
hero was a great evil, here was a Bill that proposed to
amend that evil, and let them take it into their whole
consideration. But, at all events, only for God's sake
let us have a Bill in the present session, by means of
which the election of members to an important branch of
the Legislature might be pure and satisfactory.
Lord MAHON thought that the course which
the Honourable Baronet had taken in referring
this Bill to a Committee up stairs was most pro-
per, though he (Lord Mahon) thought there wire
difficulties and doubts connected with the Bill which he
was anxious to suggest, not in a spirit of hostility, but
with a view to amendment. At the third clause he found
it proposed, that any Member who should, by a report
of a Committee of the House of Commons, be
declared to have been guilty of bribery shall be for
ever hereafter incapable to be elected a Member
of Parliament. Now he wished the House to consider
how dangerous was such an enactment. Let the House
just consider how it would have operated in former years,
when the great party leaders were in array against each
other, when the exclusion of one of those great party
leaders would have been considered an object to one of the
opposite parties. Let them take the case of Pitt and Fox.
Would it have been right for this House to put it into
the power of any five of its Members to declare that any
of those great party leaders were incapable of ever
again hereafter sitting in Parliament? Let the House
consider what a temptation they held out to party spirit;
and let it consider this case, not in reference to
the present moment, but in reference to those
periods of great political excitement. By the second
clause
it was enacted, that any person whom a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons should declare to have
been guilty of receiving a bribe shall forfeit his right of
voting. He (Lord Mahon) was a member of the
Committee which sat on the Borough of Lancaster
Election Petition. It was proved on the clearest evi-
dence that several voters had received bribes, and the
Committee were in the painful position, that the writ
had to issue and the election be determined by the very
persons whom the Committee bad to report to the House as
having been guilty of bribery.—(Hear, hear.) There,
again, as in the former case, there might be a danger
of party spirit intervening. With respect to the gene-
ral subject of declarations, it was one on which he
wished to reserve his Opinion. The Noble Lord con-
cluded by saying be would have the greatest
satisfaction in vcting for the second reading
of the Bill, and for referring it to a Committee.
Mr. AGLIONBY would vote for the second reading
of the Bill, but he was afraid that, like all that had
preceded it on the subject, it would be found to
be inefficacious. The only proper course to pursue
was to disfranchise the ancient freemen and enfranchise
them as householders.—(Hear, hear.) Give them vote
by ballot, and then matters would be put upon a proper
and sound footing. The matter should be met boldly,
and the country would be with them.
Sir G. GREY gave great credit to the Right Hon.
Bart. the Member for Droitwich for the motives that had
induced him to bring forward the measure, and be should
be exceedingly sorry to throw any objections in the way
of such a measure; but beforuhe consented to the second
reading of the Bill, ho felt bound to make some
observations upon it. If the House agreed to the
appointment of the Select Committee it would,
as ho understood, be assenting to its principle.
The question was, with respect to this measure, whether
it was desirable on the one hand to repeal the existing
law, and whether the House was at the same time entitled
to impose on Members of Parliament before they took
their seats the necessity of taking an oath or making a
declaration couched in the same terms as the bribery
oath, which he considered would tend more to the com-
mission of perjury than to the suppression of bribery.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said there were three
main points in the Bill; first, the declaration imposed
upon candidates before they took their seats
beenfofrouenvderguoilft
that they had not been guilty of bribery;
i secondly,n thethe Housedisqualification who iad to sityaofMbreimbebreyr
by a court of law, or by a Committee of the House of
Commons; and third, the repeal of the Bribery
Act. With regard to the first point, he had
beard nothing to convince him that it was necessary
to impose such a declaration. It would not prevent the
commission of bribery at elections, and would have
the effect of shutting out some of the most honest and
best Members from taking a seat in that House. The
l,lon. Member said if the House assented to the prin-
ciple of the oath or declaration by Members, he was
willing to amend it in the Committee up stairs; there-
fore ho (Sir George Grey) wished it to be
understood that the declaration was open to
serious objections, and that he was not prepared to
sanction it. With respect to the second point he enter,
tained the same serious objections, and thought it
most dangerous thing to impose a penalty which would
disqualify Members for ever sitting in the House again,
however desirous constituents might be that they should
represent them.—(Hear, hear.) He had no objec-
tion to the clause which altered the present law
on the subject of bribery, and therefore that
would not meet wish his opposition. He entertained a

great objection to the perpetual disqualification of elec-
tors. He would be sorry to oppose the general wish of
the House to refer to the Committee up stairs
the Bill in question, but he should he happy
to aid in introducing some more effectual cheek
to the commission of bihery, and he thought it his
duty at present to warn the House against sanctioning
the main principles of the Bill.
Mr. G. J. TURNER said he could not agree to the
sending of this Bill to a Committee up stairs.
He would just point out to the House with what ease
this declaration might be avoided. Why, a scrupulous man
would go to his agent and inquire whether any bribery
had been practised before he made any declaration,
whereas the unscrupulous man would make no inquiry
at all. If the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Home Department divided the House, he
should most certainly divide with him.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COCKBURN conceived that this Bill contained
so much that was good that it ought to go through a
recond reading. Whether there was the extent of
corruption and bribery at elections alleged,' or
whether there was not, they had at least this assu-
rance, that it was an attempt, and a wise attempt, to
stop an evil of very serious magnitude. Was not this
worth the while of a Legislature to stay? Why, what
was the case which the Hon. Baronet the Member
for Droitwich had adduced ? He had asserted that in a
constituency amounting to three thousand every one
voter in twenty-eight had been bribed to the amount of
tan pounds. Surely, then, this was a matter which re-
quired the instant exertion of the authority of Parlia-
ment to put down—(Hear.) By doing this they would
be bringing the conventional usage into harmony with
the strict rules of morality, and they would be doing away
with a mischief which was fast sapping the root of all
public virtue.—(Hear, hear.) By this declaration a
Member of Parliament would voluntarily incur the
risks of condemning himself, 'and thus expose himself to
all the risks of ignominy and disgrace .—(Hear, hear.)
Then, with regard to the penalties which the Bill pro-
posed to impose, he, for one, thought that they were
by no means too severe. The Bill proposed to
render the making of a false declaration an act of felony.
—(Hear, hear.) Let them believe him that all their
legislation had hitherto been in the wrong direction.
They had only now begun at the right end. If they had
hitherto attempted simply to bring the tempted to
justice, surely it was but, wisdom to endeavour also to
place the tempter in the same predicament.—(Hear,
hear.) It was useless to make laws for the
object of abolishing an evil, the subjects of
which had placed before them a sum:which it was almost
beyond the power of a poor man to resist, in accepting
which, the gain was present and certain, while the pu-
nishment for receiving it was at the least remote and very
contingent.—,(Hear, bear.) Let this declaration be made
and the man who made it would have a right to separate
himself from the evil thing, and take his part in investi-
gating the conduct of those by whom it had been com-
mitted.—(Hear.) They all remembered the severity of
the inquiries of the Election Committees last year, and
certainly he was not one who complained of that severity.
All he wanted was a judge and jury, and when convic-
tion followed, he was prepared to permanently disqualify
the person so convicted from ever sitting in Parlia-
ment. The recent decisions of Election Com-
mittees had entitled them to the respect of
the House; but in times of strong party ex-
citement it was not unlikely they might be induced
thereby to act in favour of the party to which they be-
longed. The House should, therefore, be very cautious
how it extended the power at present possessed
by Election Committees. He doubted not that this
part of the Bill would be modified in the Select Com-
mittee. He trusted the Bill would receive the assent of
the. House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY said, if two Learned Members, like
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had last spoken
and the Hon. and Learned Member behind him (Mr.
Aglionby) could not agree as to the terms of the de-
claration to be made by Members at the table on taking
their seats, how could they expect unlearned Members
to make up theiri minds,,upon the matter?—(Hear,
offro thme Bill, he
sending
hear.) If the Committee, as he believed, was
could
dy
notto disagree
to: h
d
n leadingtage could
it to them. The Bill was so objectionable that the
leader of a party might be unseated in consequence of
the acts of two or more parties utterly unconnected with
ae
result
him. Believing the Bill to be useless, he should vote
against it.
Mr. HUME had had a good deal of experience of
the inutility of these Bills, but he wanted the law to be
simplified. Throw the responsibility and punishment
on the really guilty party, and where they found an
agent guilty of a dishonest act strike him or the rolls
if he were on any, or disfrancise him if he were an
elector.—(Hear, hear.)
tigft ds
Mr. HEADLAM could not support the Bill, Al-
though he was most anxious to put an end to
the system of bribery and corruption which pre•
veiled at elections. It was a continuation of
a vicious course of legislation on the snbject
doefclbarraibteiorn at the hustings,y.ltwasun so that fair to comp
be 4 : ilihstn afterwards
to make a
be indicted for the crime of bribery, ecause that
system involved a principle that was unknown
to the common law of the. land. The law
wisely said that no man could legally criminate
himself, and until the House established a different
mode of putting down bribery the crime would never be
abolished.—(Hear, hear.)
'Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD cordially agreed
with the principles of the Bill. He could not under-
stand upon what principle of equity or justice they re-
fused to inflict upon the Member the severe oaths and
declarations they imposed upon the elector, and he, for
one, trusted that the Hon. Baronet would persevere in
this measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR thought the principle
of the Bill was good. It assimilated the law of
bribery to the law applicable to other crimes, and
that was the only means by which they
could purify the elective system of the country. The
Hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill had made some
allusion to the former corruption of Nottingham. No
doubt Coventry was corrupt once, for when he put up
for that borough at the last election a deputation of
publicans waited upon him to know if he would
pay the expenses of the former contest on behalf of Sir
John Hobhouse. He was told that the arrears amounted
to 20,0001., but as it was his rule to pay nothing for his
return, he refused to accede to the proposal, and of course
incurred the direful hostility of the publicans. The Hon.
Member for Coventry had warmly supported the freemen
of this country, but the House must permit him
to say that he had no confidence in the purity
of that body, and he would tell them why. He re-
membered on one occasion, when he was addressing
a crowd of electors from a waggon in the market- place,
when he deprecated bribery and corruption during the
coming election, 500 of' the freemen came down in their
flannel jackets, and asked him if he was going to destroy
their freedom and their inheritance.
Mr. HODGSON defended the constituency of Carlisle
against any imputations of bribery. With respect to the
principle of the measure it was a matter of indifference
to him whether the Bill was read a second time or not,
for he would forego the honour of a seat in that House
rather than make a declaration such as was proposed to
bo taken by this Bill. He would, nevertheless, vote for
the second reading of the Bill.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON spoke in reply to the
arguments that bad been adduced in the course of
the debate. The principal observation he had to
make upon the debate was, that it appeared
to him, that excepting those objections which had
been made to the principle of Members being called
on to make a declaration on this subject ; the other
objections partook of the nature of verbal criticism
rather than serious objections to the Bill. The Hon.
Baronet then briefly reviewed the objections to his Bill,
and concluded by stating that the main principle of
the Bill was the security which such a declaration could
give against bribery at elections, and called on the
House to sanction the second reading of this Bill, re-
minding them that the eyes of the country were looking
to them with some anxiety for a measure which would
put an end to the corrupt practices at elections.
Col. RAWDON begged to assure the House that, as
an officer in the army, he had received several commis-
sions in his life, and he was never asked to make a de-
claration, and he certainly never made one. He believed
every other officer in the House would bear him out in
that statement.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading . 110
Against it • • ••• 60
Majority ••• ••• --•...-30
The Bill was then read a second time.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
The Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill passed
through Committee, and the report ,was ordered to be
received to-morrow.
LIGHTHOUSES.
Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the report of Cap-
tain Bayfield, R.N., on the necessity of erecting a light-
house on Cape Pine, Newfoundland, and statement of
the measures that have been adopted by the Govern-
ment in consequence;; a statement of the progress
made in the erection of the lighthouse on the Island of
Barbadoes for which the Assembly of Barbadoes has
voted money, and for which, in the miscellaneous esti-
mates of last year, the House voted the sum of 2,0001.
also, statement of what measures have been adopted
respecting the erection, management, and superintend.
ence of lighthouses in the British colonies and pos-
sessions.
Lord BERNARD complained that the want of light-
houses in the north, western, and south-western coast
of Ireland was the cause of many shipwrecks.
After some observations from Mr. Duncan, Mr.
Anstey, Mr. Herbert, and Lord John Russell, the mo-
tion was agreed to.
UNION OF KENMARE.
Mr. NAPIER postponed till to-morrow, the following
motion of which he had given notice :—Copies
of the accounts of the union of Kenmore, from the date
of the last audit until the removal of the local guardians,
to show the state of the accounts as between the several
electoral divisions, and the actual debts of the union;
similar accounts from the removal of the local guardians
to the present time; entries in the ledger since March,
1848 ; registers of persors receiving in-door and out-
door relief, with their residences, as set forth in the
register kept in the workhouse ; entries on the re-
gister showing the number of paupers in the union work-
house, on the Ist of January in the present year ; en-
tries in the clothing book of the workhouse, and pro-
vision account books for the year 1848 ; and all entries
showing the state of the union during the year 1848.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.
a

ONE OF THE LATE Intsu LEADERS.—Mr. Eugene
O'Reilly, the young gentleman who Sgured rather pro-
minently in the councils of the late Irish Confederation,
has entered the service of his Majesty the King of Sar-
dinia as a lieutenant of Lancers, with pay at the rate of
180 f. a month.

During the sitting of the National Assembly on
Tuesday, after the discussion on the Electoral Law
had closed,
M. Ledru Rollin ascended the tribune, and begged
leave to address a few questions to the Cabinet rela-
tive to the affairs of Italy. A grave fact, he said, had
jrtst taken place in Italy. A Republic had been pro-
claimed at Rome, and the temporal power of the Popes
was at an end. This was glorious intelligence for the
friends of liberty.—(Loud murmurs. " No! no!" " Yes !
yes !") M. Ledru Rollin wondered at those interrup-
tions from a quarter (pointing to the Left) which had so
enthusiastically joined in the cry of " Vive la Repub-
lique!" Sinister rumours were in circulation which
afflicted the hearts of the sincere Republicans, at the same
time that they caused a rise in the funds. Various projects
of intervention were on the tapis; but, if he was correctly
informed. Piedmont was to invade Romagna, whilst Na-
ples was to enter the Pontifical dominions on the other
side. In the meantime, a French and English squadron
would give moral support to the Sardinian and Neapo-
litan armies, and another naval force would be stationed
at Genoa to awe the Piedmontese patriots, who would
naturally take arms.
M. Drouyn de Lhuis, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
said that M. Ledru Rollin had wondered at the mur-
murs of a portion of the Assemby, when he stated
that the proclamation of the Republic at Rome was
good news for the friends of liberty. No sympathy
need exist between the French Republic and all the
insurrections and revolutionary movements through-
out Europe. Before he cried Vive la Republique,
he shoud ask what republic was meant.—(llere a
member exclaimed from the extremity of the hall, " You
would prefer crying Vive le Roi !"—Murmurs.) "We
knew our republic," added the Minister' " we will defend
it, but we must be allowed to wait before we give
our approbation to certain republics. As respected
the intervention of Piedmont in Romagna, he
would observe to M. Ledru Rollin, that Ro-
magna and Piedmont are not contiguous. and that
they are separated by intervening states.—(Laughter.)
The Pope possessed a double power, spiritual and
temporal, and when he was obliged to quit his
dominions all the Catholic Governments and others
resolved to interfere in order to restore to him the
enjoyment of his double authority. France would not
remsin indifferent. Such was the opinion of the Go-
vernment, which had sought with the utmost solici-
tude to remedy the evil and re-establish peace in the
Catholic Church. It had accordingly concurred in the
plans suggested for the re-establishment of that peace
and order. France could not approve the Italian Con-
stituent. She would bide her time, and, it obliged to
act, the Cabinet would first apply to the National As-
sembly. This was the only reply he could return M.
Ledru Rollin."
M. Ledru Rollin, who followed, endeavoured to draw
a distinction between the temporal and spiritual power
of the Pope, and maintained, amidst the indignation of
a portion of the Assembly, that Pius IX., as a tem-
poral Sovereign, had forfeited all rights to the
esteem and affection of his people. Re then told the
Cabinet that it was bound to prevent all intervention in
Italy by the Constitution, the manifesto of the Provi-
sional Government, and the order of the day of the Na-
tional Assembly of the 24th of May, which had pro-
claimed the principles of the emancipation of Italy.
M. Coquerel, a Protestant minister, rendered full
justice to the Pope, and contended that if the French
Republic restored him to the enjoyment of his temporal
power it would be with his entire approbation. The un-
grateful Romans had not only banished the Pope—it
had banished the first friend of Italian liberty.

M. Poujoulat occupied the tribune at post hour.
It was rumoured yesterday in Paris that Prince
Schwartzenberg, the Austrian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, had directed Baron Thorn, the Austrian Mini-
ster at Paris, to lay before the French Government a
protest against the pretensions of the King of Sardinia.
In this protest Prince Schwartzenberg claims, on the
part of the Emperor of Austria, the full and complete
possession of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, as
secured to him by the treaties of 1815. The protest
adds further, that inasmuch as the Austrian troops in
Lombardy had been attacked without a shadow of jus-
tice by the King of Sardinia. and that victory has
crowned the Austrian arms, the Emperor considers that
he is entitled to be paid the expenses of the late war by
Charles Albert.

FIRE IN A COTTON-MILL.
(From the Manchester Courier.)
About twenty minutes past one o'clock this (Wed.
nesday) morning, a fire was discovered to have
broken out in the cotton-mill of Mr. Charles Pooley,
in Temple-street, Chorlton-on-Medlock. The alarm
was brought to the Town's.vard, in Clarence-street,
by a policeman in a cab, when Mr. Rose was quickly
on the spot with four engines and a body of the fire-
brigade. When first discovered, the flames were seen
bursting out of the end window of the third story, at
that end of the mill which abuts on the South Junction
Railway, and they were confined to the blowing•rooms,
which are situated immediately over the engine-house.
When Mr. Rose arrived the fire had extended to the
two upper rooms, and threatened the destruction of
the whole mill, but by the judicious exertions of the
firemen, the flames were very soon checked. Fortu-
nately a wall cut off the communication between these
rooms and the rest of the mill, and when the flames
reached the top story it was only to penetrate a cis-
tern on the roof, a rush of water from which mate-
rially assisted to check their further progress. Had
not this been the case, the entire mill must have fallen
a prey to the destructive element, when the loss sus-
tained must have been a serious one, as the mill is a
tolerably large one, being some 25 yards long, and five
stories in height. How the fire originated it is dif-
ficult to say, as the mill was closed at eight o'clock on
the previous evening, when all appeared to be quite
safe. There is little doubt, however, that the fire
must have been burning for a considerable time, from
the progress which the flames had made when first
noticed. As there was no private watchman employed
on the premises, it is possible that the fire may have
been smouldering since the time the engine stopped.
From all we could see and learn, we believe con-
siderable damage will be done to the engine-house,
whilst the machinery in the blowing rooms will be
totally destroyed. Owing to the brief time allowed us,
we were unable to ascertain whether or not Mr. Pooley
is insured, or what the damage may be estimated at.
Superintendents Saynor and Taylor were both in attend-
ance, with a body of police, but so few people were pre-
sent their services were scarcely needed.