The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-13 00:00:00

THE _STJNI LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 13, 1848.

tions with the United States, and when they were con-
cluded, the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would be prepared to explain the reasons for the course
he was pursuing.
METROPOLITAN INIPROVEMENTS.

Ileman nodded assent, from which he (Mr. D'Eyn-
court) inferred that the Right Honourable Gentleman
meant to contend that the Noble Marquis had not done
anything which the law condemned, and that the Noble
Marquis had only exercised his right as a landlord, and
that by law he had a right to turn out his tenants, pro-
vided they did not vote according to his wishes. This
question, however, he was happy to say was now brought
torward neither as a matter of privilege nor as a com-
plaint in reference to the last return, but it was sub-
mitted to the House as a great constitutional question
which ought to be determined on that ground alone.—
(Hear, hear.) If the House refused to accede to the
motion of his Honourable and Learned Friend, they
would become parties to the transactions at Stamford,
would mix themselves up with the conduct of the Noble
Marquis, and give their assent to that which he believed
to be one of the grossest violations of the constitution
that could possibly be exhibited to the Legislature.—
, (Hear.) Ile (Mr. D'Eyncourt) felt it his duty to come
turward as a witness in support of the case suumitted by
his Hon. and Learned Friend. He (Mr. D'Eyneourt)
had been a candidate for the representation of Stamford
in 1830, and, after a severe contest, be that year had
lost his election by a minority of 20 votes. After that
election the Noble Marquis in question gave notice to
quit to no less than 37 tenants, who had gone against
n
rasnl3oe(:ud)trret.e
not
Brsa
d3e
streets.
somesnsh.
less
ei d
This
ash tgaet ansui.
mtsodheutenoststfte 3
n
presented
proceeding
o:the,hie3tweiOtmosheis:eni
sfiegrr, e
had
uuarldtni
tmtbuaeret
eel y
nirreei
into the
a 1
.---to(Hr'
thee enhecatre'ir)s In
f
Stamford, when that noble-reitided constituency returned
aim, though they knew he was favourable to the Reform
Bill, which, us it then stood, would have annihilated
their franchise. They, however returned him by a
majority, and yet the petition now under consideration,
ify some extraordinary omission, was silent as to the
proceedings which followed that election in 1831, when
a 1 those wino had voted for him (Mr. IYE)ncourt), or
who hid abstained from voting, or who hait voted
against Lord Thomas Cecil—in tact, all who did not
vote for both the nominees of the Noble Mat quis had
neon evicted or si-rved with notice to quit. '1 his was
repeated in 1832, and again, he learned, in 1848. If the
present motion was rejected, it would efford a good
argument for the Hon. Member for Montrose, when he
wrought lot w,,rd his motion for the general amendment
lit the law relating to the representation of the people.
After the election of 1831, and when the reform Bill
was under discussion, a large district, of which nineteen-
twentieths was the property or the Marquis of Exeter,
was added to the berongh, the Ministry being bound by
certain str;gent rules to increase the constituency, and
by adding this district in conformity with those rules
the borough had been wholly handed over to the Noble
dieted that the time would come when it would be
necessary to add twenty or thirty more boroughs to
Marquis. At that time he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had pre-
schedule A. But before this he (Mr. D'Eyecourt) held
that the constituencies were entitled to protection in the
exercise of their elective franchise; and as the Noble
Lord now at the head of the Government had been a
party to carry out the stringent rules to which he (Mr.
the Ref
D'Eyncourt) bad alluded ia reference to in urn:
Bill, he appealed to the Noble Lord to acquiesce the
right to
which they had a
inquiry now prayed, as a means of atlordiee the electors
of Stamford that protection
demand at his hands. At all events he trusted the House
would not hesitate to accede to the motion.
The Marquis of GRANBY Said, he was anxious to
take the earliest opportunity in his power of answe.ing
the allegations contained in the petition, in order that
the House might be enabled to come to a fair and proper
conclusion upon the whole question. He did not com-
plain of the tone in which the motion had been opened,
but he must complain that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber had not so tar assieted him (the Marquis of Granby)
in his task as to have separated the wheat from the chaff
comprised in this very lengthy petition, which contained
so much matter of no importance that it was difficult
to select its really important portions. The
petition mentioned that the freedom of election
in the borough of Stamford had been ob-
structed and interfered with by the Marquis of Exeter,
who was the owner of a large property in the borough,
a; considerable portion of which property was occu-
pied by persons who by reason of their tenancy were
electors. The petition then added that the Marquis of
Exeter intertered at el, ctions by authorising and sanc-
tioning promises to many of the electors that they shall
occupy as his tenants eligible property belonging to him,
provided they will vote for the candidates nominated and
selected by him; and by authorising and sanctioning
thr, ats to his tenants if they did not vote for such candi-
dates, and that he discharged from their tenancy thiese
who voted in opposition to his views and wishes. With
regard to the allegaiion that the Marquis of Exeter, as a
Peer of Parliament, had intertered at tne late election, it
sad been given up by the Hon. and Learned Member tor i
oxford as a ground for moving for this Select Com-
eittee. In this respect the Honourable and Learned
.Member had taken a correct view of the question
becauee the resolution of the House against the inter
erenee of a Peer at an election had never been put in
:One, and never would be so utile! it was mede the
few of the land.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Marquis
,t Granby) rested the defence of the Marquis of Exeter
en a different basis, and he contended that even if that
iesolution was now law the Noble Marquis had nut vies
aced it. He a emitted the allegation of the letition
which stated that the Noble Marquis poss.'ssed extri
.ale property in the borough of Siututord, arid he con-
i.ended that that property gave the Noble Mai quits a
proper and a constitutional influence in the borough—mu
todoence derived from a high power and noble source.
he denied the next allegation, that the Marquis of Ex •
i!ter had nominated or selected the candidates at the last
election; and he also denied, on the best information,
.hat the Noble Marquis had let his houses with the un-
derstanding or agreement that the tenants should vote in
lecordence with his views and wishes. He also gave the
110 St positive contradiction to the assertion that promises
had been made and threats used previous to the last elec-
tion.—(Hear.) The petition further alleged, that without
ference to the Marquis of Exeter's opposition as aPeer,

Sir ii:lNGLig,—puisuant to notice, wished to ask
the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests in

what state are the several improvements recom-
menled by her Majesty's Commissioners of Metropo-
litan Improvements in their successive reports.
The improvements that had been recommended were
these—an embankment from Westminster•bridge to
Blacktriars (to effect which a Bill was introduced) ; an
embankment on the upper part of the river from
Vauxhall to Chelsea ; an improved commu-
nication between Pimlico and the west faint of

Westminster Abbey, which would have led to the im
provement of a part of the metropolis, that was ill
drained and unhealthy; next the improvement
of a portion of the metropolis immediately
adjacent to the Eastern Counties Railway ; then
the proposed park at Battersea. He wished
to take this occasion to mention that the Duke of Bed-
ford had offered to give, 13,000/. towards eff-cting ins -
pro.veasents in a particular lucidity. One rea-on of his
asking these questions was on account of the injury
which those who had property in these localities, which
was stated would be required for the improvements, were
stuttering from the delay that had taken place, as they
could not let or dispose of it.
hal;bedenAcia()rirtiedPEoll'irti stoaidththee u fu.st
improvements
extent
powers of the Commissioners, and they were only now
retarded in cons• quence of the Cemesissto
referred
wiih in the to
ners not
having sufficient funds at their disposal to proceed
with them as reniaiy as they could wi h
adjourn till
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The motion that the House at it rising Monday was then acre d to. ,
Mr. WOOD then moved tor the appointment of a
the allegations
.selectmmittee, to inquire into
S l'A NI FORD ELECTION.
of
.!ontainiid in the petition of certain elector;
and Inhabitants
which was pr. sente(34. uptrtin_Le the
interference of thf:
14t borough
h day ofStamford. ch
Mar
iast, complaining of
Ntsrquie of Exeter, e, Peer of the realm, and Lord.
Lieutenant of the county of Northampton, at the late and
his regret that the
earner eleerionti of Members to serve for the sale
borough. He expressed
• I d grievant,
he petitioners complairied of my() ve charges against a
person who was necessarily absent; but it would be
borne in mind that his motion was for inquiry, and that
alone, and it' in the course of his statement he assumed
the truth of any of the charges made in the petition it
mould be by way o: argument only, and for the purpose of
founding the conclusion that if the case for inquiry
• should be established and borne out by the evidetice it
e
c essary
assured forby
thethe petitionersou setthat
o apply areemdoxliny:
raittee were granted they could establish their statement
wouldHehu Lad been
n
by undoubted evidence. The petition
emanated from
one-third of the whole electoral body of Stamford, and
was signed besides. by 183 non-electors. The petitioners
dated the interference with the freedom of election in
Stamford so far back as 1830. The number of voters in
1831 was 750; now it was only 595. Of these 190 were
tenants of the Marquis of Exeter, 194 who had signed
the original petition; leaving 211 out of 525 whoprayed
that Alley should either be protected or disfranchised,
declaring that this petition was not founded on party
politics, and that they had no wish whatever to interfere
with the rights of landlords. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then read the petition, commenting on it as
he. proceeded. It contained, amongst others, these
statements:—That petitioners are all either on the
register of voters for the borough of Stamford, or inha-
bitants of the said borough, and have a direct interest
in the due influence of the elective franchise by those in
whom it is vested. The freedom of election in the borough
is obstructed and prevented by the interference of the
Marquis of Exeter, who interferes by nominating and
selecting candidates to be submitted to the electors; by
authorising and sanctioning promises in. bis .name to
many of the electors that they shall occupy, as tenants.
property belonging to him in eligible situations in or near
the said borough, provided they will vote for the candi-
dates nominated and selected by him; by authorising and
sanctioning threats in his name to many of the electors who
are his tenants that they shall be discharged from such te.
) name
• • if they do not so vote; and by fulfilling the promisee
and threats so made in his name.. That the said Mar-
quis, by such his interference, influences votes, and pro-
cures them to be given contrary to the intentions and
opinions of voters sufficient in number to control and
decide the election, so that in fact the Members returned
are the representatives of the atarquis, and not of the
electors of the said berough. That such interference
a violation of the undoubted right of the electors freels
to elect Members to serve for them in Parliament, and
amounts to systematic bribery and intimidation within
ihe meaning an intent of the laws in force against them.
That the said Marquis, by so interfering and concerning
himself in the said elections; also contravened the re,o
tutien of your Honourable House on that subj- ct, unit
'iss th- rehy infringed the liberties of the Comment: of the
United Kingdom. In verification of the fisregoing state
tie et :he petitioners then state several facts as having
iceurred at variiius elections in addition to which the',
inubt not that they wilt tie able to adduce other facts
circumstances tending to the sane conclusion, ti
tiquiry bi- granted. That none of your petitioners trait.
ut any mann, r to intertere with the rights of a land
lord over his tenants, or to disturb what [tie said ILty
gins has thought fit to do with his tenants. That they
do no: complain of the ordinary influence which pro
party givt a to its owners, and that if the election hats
neen merely determined by the tenants of the said Mar-
quis voting of their own free will, in aecordance with
!ne supposed opinions of their landlord, your petitioner:
would not have complained of the result, but insist thst
no electors ought to be subjected to such influence and
coercion as is practised in the borough of Stamford by
the Marquis of Exeter. That the elective franchise in
the borough of Stamford is by reason of such interfe
rence a burden upon a large number of the electors, who
believe themselves under an obligation to vote according
to their own views and opinions, and seriously prejudi•
cial to their local and pecuniary interests; and the pre
judice and loss so individually sustained by many of the
electors is nct compensated by any public ad-
vantage, but, on the contrary, there results
from the same interference the corruption of the
public morals of the borough, as well as the
entire defeat of the objects for which the said franchise
has been conferred on the electors. That local questions
requiring the assistance of Parliament sometimes arise
in which the interests of the Marquis of Exeter and of
the inhabitants of the said borough are opposed to each
other, and in particular a question of that nature arose
in the last session of Parliament in reference to a Bill
prosecuted in Parliament for a railway to Stamford,
which Bill was
unanimously supported by the ,inhabi-
tants of the said borough, but was successfully opposed
by the said Marquis, after he had failed in obtaining
from the railway company a large price demanded Ii)-
him for land required for the said railway•, and
your
petitioners and the inhabitants of the said borough be-
, lieved, and still believe, that the effect of the influence
successfully exercised by the said Marquis in the
return of the Members serving for the said borough
was to place them (the inhabitants) in a worse position
in Parliament than they would have been in if there
had not been any Members serving in Parliament for
the said borough ; and petitioners submit that this is an
additional reason for preventina the said Marquis from
controlling the return of Members for the borough, or
for disfranchising the. borough altogether. That your
petitioners,
therefore, while they desire to leave the vin-
dication of the freedom of election and of the liberty of
the Comnions of England to your Honourable House,
by the adoption of such measures as to the House in its
great wisdom shall seem fit, submit that it the grievances
of which they complain cannot be otherwise redressed,
the borough ought to be diefranchiied, and the elector.,
reliev.-d from the burden and lo:s to which many of their
number are subjected by possession of the franchise.
Your 'petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honour-
isle House. to inquire into the truth of the statement•
of this'tneir petition, and if the said statements shall b
established, then that your Honourable House wilt
adopt such resolutions, measures, and proceedings as
shall in your judgment be necessary and ex-
pedient for maintaining the freedom and purity of
election in the said borough, and for vindicating the liber-
ties of the Ciitrita'ins of England ; or if the right freely
to elect thsir representatives cannot be secured to the
-teeters of the said borough, then that your Honourable
House will be pleased to relieve the electors from the
burden of the elective franchise." Now, it these allega-
tions were true, they clearly showed that there had
ei.en an invasion of that treedam of election whica would
render it• impossible, if nut corrected, to suffer that
borough to send a representative to that House. If they
could' not find a remedy one way, they ought another.
The intimidation complained of could be prevented by
the ballot !"tally applied.—(Loud cheers) But tile re
was another alternative—if they could not protect their
electors—and that was to disfranchise them —(Cries of
•• (dear, hear.") The right of slection in the borough
was at present only a mockery, a delu-ion, and
a ar, hear)—and if left in that
condition the
petitioners claimed, as far preferable, to be wholly dis-
franchised. He conceived the present to be a most
favourable moment for entering upon the
inquiry
sought.
Certainly the present was not a time to refuse inquiry
into the purity and independence of the returns of Mem-
bers of Parliament. Oa public grounds he felt the
deepest interest in the success of his motion, for his con-
scientious belief was, that the true Conservative view of
this matter was to institute an inquiry with a view to
remedy the „grievance of which the petitioners coals
Plained, and, by preventing a recurrence of this formid-
able.system of corruption and intimidation, add further
to the felicity and prosperity of the empire. The Hon.
and :Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that a
Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the alle-
gations contained in the petition of certain electors and
inhabitants of the borough of Stamford, complaining of
the interference of the Marquis of Exeter, a Peer of the
realm and Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Northamp-
ton, at the late and former elections of Members to serve
for the said borough.

his interterence was a violation of thi; undoubted right
of the electors freely to elect Members to serve them in
Parliament, and amounted to the systematic bribery and
intimidation of the electors by him, within the meaning
And intent of the laws in force against bribery and iriti •
inidation. If this were so, why aid not the petitioners
adopt the constitutional, manly, and straightforward
course of petitioning against the return of the sitting
Members? No doubt there had been wise and prudent
considerations which had prevented the adoption of that
course; no doubt they remembered that recognizances.to
answer costs must be entered into, and no doubt they
had before their eyes the words " frivolous and vela-
tions."—(Elear, hear.) It had been said that the e-
leated candidate, Mr. Rolt, was either unable or unwil-
ling to bear the costs of an election petition; but wi4e-
tiler that was or was not the case, the electors, under
the Act' of 1842, carried by the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, might have come by
petition against the return. He would not refer
to the previous elections, but proceed at once ;to
that which he conceived to be the principal charge made
against Lord Exeter. That charge was, that at the hist
election 27 tenants of the Noble Marquis, ar.d the son lof
another tenant, promoted the election of Mr. Rolt, either
by voting for him alone, or for him and one of the other
candidates, or by abstaining from voting at all; and that
since the election, and previous to the tOilowing quarter-
day, discharges or notices to quit had been served
the authority of the Noble Marquis on 22 out of the
27 tenants in question, while no other general change
liad been made on the tenancy of the Noble MarquiS'a
property.—(Elear, hear.) It was further stated that

neof the 22 tenants waited personally on the Marquis
and explained that he had voted for Mr. It by mis-
take, in consequence of the contusion which prevailed

in the polline: booth, and that the Noble Marquis
replied that he did not believe iu the mistake, and
that he should not allow the notice to be withdrawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, he would suppoie this
allegation to be strictly and entirely well-founded, and
he would ask the [louse if it was in their power to in-
eriere if he showed that there had been no threats,
promises, agreements, or intimidation, previous to the
election. Ihe petitioners themselves negatived such a
notion, ler they dechred they had no desire in any way
to intertere with the rights of a Landlord over his tenants.
But the facts set forth were greatly exaggerated. In_
Lead of 28 etectors who voted tor Mr. Holt, the number
,va4 29 ; and instead of 22 having received notice to
quit, the number was only 14.—(t--liar, and a laugh.)
tie wirhed to state the facts as they really existed.
['here we re two tenants who had received notices

though they had voted for him (the Marquis of Granby)
and his Right Hun. Friend (air kl• rries), and there
were 13 who had voted for Mr. Bolt, who had not been
served with anynotice whetever.—(Hear.) Other tenants
who had co votes had received novice to quit, and of the
14 already alluded to, two had been allowed to remain,
so that only 12 who voted fur Mr. Rolt had been
disturbed in their holdings. It had been stated that
the Marquis of Exeter was making Stamford one mass of
political corruption. Now, if the Noble Marquis wist‘ed
to make votes in the borough, he could easily do so, for
there were no less than twenty-seven houses which
would give the qualification in the borough occupied by
females, who could not vote, and who might, if desired
by the Noble Marquis, be removed to make way for
tenants who could exercise the elective franchise.—
(Hear, hear.) But there was, it had been said, one case
of great hardship, that of the tenant who obtained the
personal interview with the Noble Marquis, and who
stated that he had voted by mistake for Mr. Bolt. That
man had, for a great number of years, been employed by
the Noble Marquis as an artificer at Burleigh, at, the
wages of ss. per day. He had received innumerable
fßavuo:erisofreoommngtihe Noble Marquis, and, among others, had
received, in common with the other artificers, a hand-
some money present on the occasion of the present Lard
of age. This man voted against him
(the Marquis of Granby) and his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Herries), and it was true the Marquis of Exeter
tAt the ingratitude of the man's conduct.—(Hear, hear.)
But it was not true that the Noble Marquis had deprived
the man of his residence; on the contrary, he remained a
tenant, though his rent had been increased from 30s. to
40s. a year ; and all that the Noble Marquis said to him
at the interview was, " You had a right, of course, to
vote as you pleased, but I do not believe that you
voted in a mistake as you state." Such was the case
of grievous hardship which was put forth in this peti-
tion. He regretted that the Hon. and Learned Member
should have allied himself to this petition, the object of
which was to prevent property having its due influence,
and virtual receiving its just reward.—(Hear, and
laughter.) He believed the Hon. and Learned Member
had merely taken up this foundling petition in order to
hang the ballot-box about its neck; but he was sure the
peopleijnati ofon
against this country
the ballot,
tli
were
withinand
dby habit,wtohueldig iit nature,preferin f votingan dth
their
ininr-
e
the face 01 day a
fell.iw-coun!rywen. —(11 a r, hear.)l.:iit the wi.a I
.
pun the Honourable and Learned Member had '
taken up cut two ways, for the petitioners did
not declaim for the ballot, but for a re3trietion of the

Mr. D'EYNCOIi RT rose to second the motion, the
constitutional grounds for which had his full and entire
concurrence. The petitioners sought to vindicate
.their
right to select their own representatives, which, time
out of mind, had been interfered with, until he (Mr.
D'Eyncourt) had been elected in the year 1831. He had
been the only real representative for that borough; fur
the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Granby) and the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) must excuse
him if he said that they held their seats as the represen-
tatives of the Noble Marquis, whose interference was im-
pugned and called into question by the allegations con-
tained in this petition, and not as the choice of those
high.ninded individuals of Stamford who had ,ient him
here in 1831. Would rte Right Hun. G, ntleman deny
the facts as statvd, fur upon them rested the whole
case? Did he mean to defend the course taken by
the Noble Marquis? The Right Honourable Gen- ,

franchise, inasmuch as they wished to be relieved from - fectly true; but what a slur would it not be on the cha- 1
its burthen. But it might be asked how this petition ratter of the Marquis of Exeter if he had not influence I
had originated. He thought he could answer that in- in the borough.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected a por-
quiry.
The last election had been a severe combat, and tion of the speech which the Noble Lord opposite made
by some means or other these oppressed, landlord-ridden on the question of the Reform Bill which he had heard
electors placed Mr. Rdt nn the poll within 48 ef his with pleasure, and he begged to read it to the House.
(the Marquis of Granby's) Right Hon. Friend (Mr. The Noble Lord used the following language :—" It
Herries). They had nearly reached the pinnacle of may be said that one great and injurious effect of the
their ambition; the prize seemed within their grasp; measure which I propose will be, that it will destroy
and it must have been a severe mortification and trial the power and privileges of the aristocracy. This I
of their philosophy and temper to have been defeated at deny. I utterly deny that thie plan can have any
the last moment. Hence, the temptation to revenge such effect wherever the aristocraey reside, receive
was strong. Another allegation of the petition threw large incomes, perform the important duty of reliev-
further light on their motives—he alluded to that re- ing the poor by charity, and evince public worth
lating to the railway Bill. Lord Exeter had withdrawn and private virtue. It was not in human nature
his opposition to the London and York line, on their that they should not have great influence on public
undertaking to make a branch to Stamford ; in the opinion, and have at least equal weight with tethers
next year, 1846, the Syston and Peterborough line in electing persons to serve the country in Parliament.
proposed a branch to Stamford, which the inhabi- Though such may not have the direct nomination of
tants approved, and which had since been constructed. persons under this Bill, I contend they will have etieh
and opened. There was next proposed an ainalga- influence as they ought to have."—(Near, hear.) That
mati"n between the Syston and Peterborough, and the was the nature of the influence exercised by the Mar-
London and York, which bad been defeated, on public quis of Exeter, and it would be little to the credit of his
grounds, by Lord Exeter and other landowners con- character if he did not possess it.—(Hear, hear.) The
cerned. Hence another ground of hostility against the Right. Hon. Baronet the Member for Taenworth, in
Marquis. A great majority of the inhabitants acknow- 1846, declared also that Peers ought to exercise a legi-
ledged the benefits he had conferred on the borough ; timate influence in the return of members to Parliament,
hut a ' discontenttd minority had chosen this mode of and that it could not be extinguished in fact.—(Hear,
expressing their feelings. The shafts aimed at Lord hear.) He also said that the less Peers attempted to
Exeter would fall harmless; but if the House eneeuraetel exercise their direct influence the more anxious would
such petitions as these, no Hon. Member, however un- theil tenants be to consult their wishes. Such was the
tarnished his character, would be safe ; and it might secret of the Marquis of Exeter's influence. Because a
happen that not being so independent in position as particular party had been defeated at atansford it was
Lord Exeter, he might suffer an irremediable wound.— not fair to attribute that defeat to undue iiefluence. Ile •
(Loud cheer: from the Protectionists.) hoped the House, fur the reasons he had stated, would
Mr. COCKBURN said that the Noble Lord had in not listen to unfair arid unfounded statements, and that
effect admitted nearly all the charges made against Lord they would reject the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Exeter ; the remark that Hon. Members less powerful Member.—(Cheers.)
might be subjected to similar attacks, was wholly Mr. HUME rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide."
irrelevant. How could the Noble Lord, admitting He would admit that the Right Hon. Gentleman who
twelve charges out of the twenty-two to be true, de- had just sat down made the best apology he could by
nour:ce the
petition as false ?—(Cheers.) It was per- bringing forward matters which were not called in ques-
feetly idle to deny that the main allegations of the pets- tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke if the large
tion were made out; in fact, they all ought to be taken possessions of the Marquis of Exeter and his excellent
Noble Lord would doubtless state character. No expression had fallen from any of the
not believe to be true' ; hut where Gentlemen on his side of the House who had spoken on
?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord this subject against the character of that Nobleman.
asserted
nothing bseer theid s established.that
which
authority
he
many
did
of
e f
the allegations were unimportant; They did not object to the legitimate influence which
but this was not the case. He had read the very first belonged to great property and high station. What
allegation, but had not ventured to deny it, though no they c mplained of was the exercise of illegitimate and
man in the House could be more capable of doing so it improper interference.—(Hear.) He confessed he had
it were really untrue. As to the agreements with never heard a clearer and more convincing statement
tenants, the stewards would of course not act so absurdly than that of his Hon. Friend. It appeared to him that,
as to attempt to bind the electors by agreements which if all the allegations of the petition were not proved to
would be invalid on the face of them ; but who could be true, the statements made were such as required to
doubt that the tenantry perfectly well understood that be investigated. The Right Hon. Gentleman had con-
they must vote for Lord Exeter's nominee, whoever he tented himself with reading letters which had little to do
might be ?—(Cheers.) All the petitioners asked was with the question, whilst he eluded any response to the
inquiry ; and the House would surely not refuse it be- charges which had been made.
cause the friends of the parties charged denied some of Mr. G. BERKELEY said that he would not shrink
the allegations. The gravamen of the defence was that from doing his duty, which was, to inquire into what
this was not the proper cour:,e of proceeding ; but he was dune by a Peer in respect to a county election
denied that the petitioners could have had recourse to an before he looked at the conduct of a Peer in a borough
ordinary election petition ; for neither the sitting Mem- election.—(A laugh.) He had presented two petitions to
bers nor their agents were affected by the matters charged, the Crown, complaining of the Lord Lieutenant of a
hut the Marquis of Exeter alone. Then it was said they county. In every such case the rule had been to insti
might have proceeded under the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, tote an inquiry ; but in the case to which he alluded
against bribery and corruption ; but he much doubted no notice was taken of his petitions. lie was instructed
whether the conduct of Lord Exeter could have been to say, that had any magistrate done what the Lord
brought ender that Act, which had no reference at all Lieutenant had done he would have been removed from
to intimidation. It was must important that the con- the commission of the peace ; and if he hsd been an
duet of the Marquis should be token into consideration officer in her Majesty's service he would have lost hi,
ever since 1830, from which period the allegations of the commission. Although he should vote for the inquiry
petition dated. Nothing could be more clearly estab- into the conduct of the Marquis of Exeter, he must say
lished than that the notices served on certain tenants had that he thought the Government was not justified in
• been given in consequence of their votes at the election; refusing to a county that which they were prepared to
this was abundantly proved by the Marquis's own con- grant to 'a borough.
versation with the man who alleged that he had given Sir R.INGt4IS reminded the House that they were nut
his vote in a hurry and by mistake. Then the case of deciding upon the conduct of Lot d Fitzhardinge, but upon
the artificer, who had received 251. on Lord Burleigh a very different question; and he hoped they were pre-
coming of age, and had actually voted against the pared to do justice to the Marquis of Exeter by their vote s.
Marquis's nominee, was a strong proof of the real reason Let him ask any Member pi esent i f there had been one of ihe
why he had been ej,cted. It was perfectly monstrous principal allegations of the petition sustained during
that such a person should be considered bound for ever the debate of that, evening ? Was there the slightest
to his Lordship's interest----(Cheers.) If this petition proof oils-red that the tenants of the Marquis of Exete r
were true, could it be doubted that in repeated instances were compelled to enter into a stipulation to vote ac-
the rights and privileges of this House had been violated; cording to his wishes, or to lose their holdings ? He
and if so, could inquiry be refused?—(Hear.) There hoped sincerely that the House was prepared to reject
was no wrong without ii remedy, and the House would tee proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for
doubtless find one in this case. It was incumbent on the Oxford.
House to institute a searching inquiry, and to see that Lord J. RUSSELL said he felt it right to state the
justice was done in the matter.—(Uheers.) reasons which governed his vote on the present occasion.
Mr. HERRIES thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle- He had made up his mind on the subject, not without
man who last spoke had lost sight of' the real question considerable doubts. He should therefore vote in con-
before the House. It might be viewed under three as formity to the opinion which he had formed, af.d he by
pects. The first was the position in which the petitioners no me ans wished to influence the vote ot any utter Lion.
stood, from which he contended that they had not este- Member. The question had been brought before the
hlished any right to inquiry. Next he should maintain House upon a petition very artfully drawn, and entering
that the allegations were false; and this being so, that into minute details and reasonings, the petitioners stating
the House could not do otherwise than reject the prayer that they had no wish to interfere with the just right,
of the petitioners. Assuming for the moment that all or influence of property, and asking for the remedy
the:allegations were true, he would consider the late which they sought in language of great moderation.
election apart from all the preceding ones, which had The case had been ably stated and argued by the
been merely thrown in as a make weight; for it was ab. HAI. and Learned Member fur Oxford. The question
surel to suppose that the House should inquire into the was, whether any sufficient reasons had been stated to
election proceedings of 1830, 31, and 32.—(Hear.) But induce the House to grant an inquiry. The Right Hon.
it was distinctly alleged that at the very last election, Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herress) had in the most
the Noble Marquis had entered into engagements, and Powerful manner met and rebutted the allegations con•
had afterwards fulfilled those engagements made in his tained in the petition, and had stated very forcibly the
name, and hasi thus been guilty, as a Peer of Parliament, reasons for not going into an inquiry. The Right Hon.
,sf interference with the election whereby the rights ot Gentleman bad met the allegations on two grounds—
the electors had been violated, and the Noble first, as to their truth; and; secondly, us to the main
Lord had rendered himself obnoxious to the facts upon which they turned. The impression which
penalties attaching to bribery and intimidation. he (Lord John Russell) had formed, as we'll from the
Bat if the petitioners supposed they coul I sub statement of the case as from precedents which
stantiate this allegation, why had they not brought he found in the books was, that supposing the
:he matter before the Rouse, under the laws recently Marquis of Exeter's tenants in some instances under-
passed, which it was perfectly competent for them to do? stood they were to vote fur his nominee, and afterward',
Where distinct acts of bribery were proveable, they were ejected for not having so voted—if these acts could
might clearly be inquired into by an election Committee, not be clearly and indisputably shown to have affected
Bee-ides, the Act of Lord John Russell. of 1842, speci- the majority of the voters, there was no remedy to be
fically provided for cases where it might be difficult to had against the Marquis before the Elec.ion Committee.
prosecute an election petition, and allowed parties, with• But the House was asked to institute an inquiry
in a reasonable time, to prefer charges of bribery before into the allegations of the petition. The first of
a Committee appointed in the Act prescribed, with those allegations was, that it was the practice to give
power to investigate the whole matter of complaint, the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter advantageous
But this Aet required recognizances to be given by the holdings, which they were deprived of unless they voted
petitioners, and exposed them to the punishment for per. according to his wishes. Now, the Right Honourable
jury, if it were committed.—(Hear.) It might be sup- Gentleman opposite had read a letter from the agent of
posed that the parties in this case had not been ready to the Marquis of Exeter, denying that any such under-
proceed in time under either of these methods, but it standing or arrangement existed. And it' he (Lord J.
was capable of proof that this petition was actually pre- Russell) were called upon to state his belief in the
pared before the meeting of Parliament. The principal matter, it was that he did not think such a statement
petitioner was the proprietor of a newspaper, and in could have been made if it was not true. He, therefore,
that paper he announced, eight days before the meeting
could not believe that any such restrictions were placed
of Parliament, that such a petition was in preparation, upon the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter. At the
and that the allegations were such that the sew Parlia- same time the petition stated such to be the fact, and the
went could not refuse to inquire into them. If so, why allegations were respectably signed, so that he did come
did they not demand such inquiry from the new Parlitt to the conclusion that there would result some advan-
wentxet
ir
?—why shrink from the ordeal which themselves cage from going into an inquiry, and from satisfying the
public mind that this allegation was not true. An(;
had proposed ?—(Hear.) l
clearly a right to expect that this Marquishispe
tition,oilf. foundedEer had
Cher allegation of the petition, which had not been su
fact, as they alleged, should have been presented imme- satisfactorily rebutted as the first, was that certain
diately on the assembling of the new House. The law tenants had been deprived of their holdings in conse•
having made distinct provision for dealing with matters quence of the votes they had given. Certain it was that
of this kind it was necessary that petitioners should notices to quit hal been served on some of the tenants
avail themselves of such provision. Was it not evident of the Marquis of Exeter, and they had afterwards been
that these petitioners had not dared to do so?—(Hear, carried into eflnt. The Noble Marquis opposite
hear.) Were the House now to grant an inquiry, they (Granby) had not satisfied him (Lord J. Russell) that.
would open the door to a perpetual renewal of these this proceeding had not been adopted towards the
irritating topics. Parties, either to cure their own ladies, tenantry. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Ate
or knowing the rotteness of their cause, would continually Herries), had explained that the results of' the sever-el
be demanding inquiries of this kind. He held this argte years past would show that removals of tenants had
moult to be quite conclusive against the appointment of taken place, and the removals of 1847 had not exceeded
the Committee now asked for. Let the House stand by in number those of former years. So that if it could be
its own law, its own decision, its own character.— shown that no greater number of removals had taken
(Cheers.) On these grounds—not for the sake of the Place than formerly, and that those removals differed in
Marquis of Exeter, but for the sake of honesty and uo respect from the character of former removals, the
truth—he contended that no inquiry could now take proceeding could not be blamed, nor could the right to
place. But justice both to the Noble Lord who was ac- act thus be contested. If the resolution of the House
cused, and to the majority of the electors who were to nominate a Committee of inquiry was to be construed
charged with corruption equally with the Noble Marquis into ahem paesed upon tne Marquis of Exeter,
himself, required him to declare that this minority had then wouid not vote for it, for the explana.
no right whatever to make these charges, which were Lion theot Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had con-
destitute of foundatiou.—(licar, hear.) The first and vinced him that the allegations of the petition could not
most prominent part of the charge was, that the Noble be
ared to havesustained as against
xgaeinestrdne Marquis of Exeter, for he
Marquis was in the habit of making engagements with
aPeewhich he was fairly ..ed n
It this allegation wag
other influence than that
his tenants to vote as he wished them. There was not a toentitled.
proved on inquiry to be false, the pulefic mind
would also
word of truth in this. He denied that there was even be lr,
satisfied. t, on the contrary, it was sustained, then
very understanding of the kind; and he denied it on the
the House would be justified in having gone ' .
very best authority, that of the person who actually let
quiry. On. the whole, he had come to the intoeithe
cien usion,
the Marquis's property to his 600 tenants in the borough
that as the allegations containedthe
of Stamford. The person employed by the Marquis of
respectably vouched for by the signatures of the parties,
Exeter to let the lands, without any communication from
it was right to institute an inquiry into them, rather
him, wrote a letter, which afforded the most explicit re-
of the charge which had been made. That gen
by a vote of that House to decide that no furth than
•
ceedings should be taken in the matter, The further pro-
• Marquis of
tleman stated, that neither he himself, nor any person
hi
t Exeer himself would derive much more advantage •
.
rho
House
were from to return a verdict
under his direction, had asked any tenant of the Marquis
lb. the inquiry, than
of Exeter to vote for the Marquis of Granby and / ,
without
havie made any examination '
g . into the facts
ilerries at the late election. As a proof of that, he re
alleged, Such being the impression which he enter-
wavering. fused to interfere with a voter who was supposed to be.
though notwithout • • el'
tamed, he should,
wavering. although the father of the voter asked him to
vote in favour of the inquiry.
doubts,
use his influence with him. With regard to the_ holdingee
Mr. BANKES had heard witn deep regret the speech
out of threats against the vote.rshesantedtthheawt
hh(e)leb
ofli believed Mr.
and the declaration of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord
no such thing ever occur Tell• andhad stated the doubt and difficulty which he entertained
Exeter in Stamford passed
property of the Marquis orespecting the allegations contained in the petition, and
s able to give a denial to the
through his hands,
be
was
was imposed upon the Yet he had determined upon proceeding into an inquiry,
allegation that any
condition
for the favourite of the there not being a single precedent to justify him in
tenants, that they should taking such a step. The question which the Committee
hear.) That was the letter
Marquis of Exeter.—(fleet, the Marquis of Exeter; and would have to determine was relative_ to a railway Bill
of Mr. Higgs, the agent of and an election petition. The village Hampden who
emphatic or distinct enial
he did not think that a more had brought the question forward, having been defeated
contained in the peti-
could be given to the allegations
the influence
the in his railway schemes and in his electioneering attempts
Marquis had
tion.—(Elear, bear.) If —ehad resorted to the present mode of attacking his sue-
toit
extent alleged, was natural
Marquis of Exeter to the cessful opponent. There was only one previous •
it to those
have stated
suppose that he would
the Now, it of such a course having been attempted, a d then
during p
election. so a the
were in his confidence
addressed at his instance, op
one to the Mayor of Stamford,
of the House was clearly against it; that was the
happened that two letters were;o rd
who was a Liberal, case of the Newark petition. If they combined with
'of his committee, but their new Bill for inquiry by a roving co • mmission into
and the other to the chairman
wasintended for the all cases of alleged corruption, an inquiry such as was
by mistake the letter which
and the letter now proposed, they would be taking his chairman,__ a course unpre-
mayor, was sent tocd tdandendwhich
was sent to the mayor— een e , the of could not be predicted,
intended for his chairman
not the least allusion Sir R. PEEL concurred with the Noble
. Lord that this
(Laughter)—but there
was
• fluence in that letter, question involved judicial aswell
to the Marquis of Exeter's influence
that the threats t •and in - approaching • as political considera.
ions,
-(Elear, hear.) It was 9 •
ection were afterwards elude all bias which might in •
that were held out before the el any way interfere with a
ow did the fact stand? judicial determination (Hear.) But it was because
visited on the tenants. Now,
.11.
sed. of these, the question did • '—
There were twenty nine persons dismis
sup tried becauseh was involve jndicial considerations—that was
twelve only had voted against candidatestheenut blind to the passing events to which
voted for them, two the Noble Lord
by the Marquis of Exeter, two bad had alluded, end to the temper of the
thirteen were not public mind,
had not voted, and the remainingthought the wisest and
the state of the facts, the safest
voters at all. It was not fair, on course would be not to permit themselves to be
Marquis of '
to draw an inference injurious to the
fair or candid Exeter.man involved in these temporary and transitory considers
—(Hear, hear.) He believed that no
thesepersons [ions; but that they should rather adhere to that prin-
would draw the inference from them that ciple which whit applicable to all times and all circum-
were- of Exeter because they stances, dismissed by the Marquis lt was of the utmost importance that the
e was supposed to favour. House should decide the mode by which•
voted against the candidates h •
of the twenty-nine •
when it appeared that seventeen out that House In was to be regulated. They had had
charge cou:d not ample ex eri , • p et.ce in the history of the past—he
were persons in whose regard theh
d stated was the
apply at alt—(Hear.) What he h
• might say of the corruption which resulted from
fact, and it would not support the inference [of undue permitting these matters to be decided by majorities
influence and intimidation which was sought to be drawn of the Ho
use in each case.—(Hear.) It was more than
decision from it. He should like to know to what a 100 years since the administration of Sir R. Walpole, •
facts. He
Select Committee could come upon these
found to bethe whose fall was produced by the constant conflicts which
believed that an arrear of rent would be
,____ , arose on the right to sit in Parliament; the decisions
cause of the disobey.. in most of these insttiat7.eps.,,ndfhere.- upon disputed returns being then
.taken,
.not on the
se as one truth, ut:i only tot' 'T."l'' c" .'"h''ll.7 ier Lend
that ri!,,r;:s (.f tii,V;.l;:cii, )11, but mild, ,übjc?t.ti ()I pa- ty coo-
A 213 the statement that the ,:i.tiquis ui O:,
great fist ire 1',41 li awelit, ill Whkil coeh par-,,y' w:Ls r,,,i1,;,;:l au-
of Stamford, and that Icording
to his party feelings. The vote which at length :
possessions in the neighbourhood
h. That Was
he had great influence in the boron per- determined the fall of that Minister was ini, the question

of the right to sit for a small borough—he believed Lich-
field. The House at length became convinced of the
danger of allowing these questions to be determined by
mere party considerations ; and Mr. Gtenville, some
twenty or thirty years afterwards, brought in a Bill to
rut an end to the system; and since that time the con-
stant object had been to adopt precautions to prevent the
judgment of the House being influenced by party and
political considerations on such questions; and no one
had laboured more earnestly or more successfully to
elevate the character of Parliament in this respect than
the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The question then was, whe-
ther the tribunal appointed by Act of Parliament, and
which they had invested with powers which, without an
Act of Parliament, would be unconstitutional, sheuld be
superseded by a vote of the House. Aeribenal had peen
appointed to adjudicate on all such matters, with full
judicial powers to examine into alleged abuses, aid in
order to take precautions against groundl ss c mplaints
the partii s complaining wi re required te give a guaran-
tee of their sincerity. He could conceive nothing of
more importance than that Members of Parliament
should be allowed to exercise their functions free from
the threats of molestation on the ground of aueh accu•
sations ; and surely if there were any party to whom
the exercise of those functions free from such molesta-
tion was more impbrtant, it was to the ininurity.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time he admitted that it
any special or peculiar case was shown they were not
to be precluded by the existing law from perfiiimieg
those functions which the House, as a great tribunal of
the country, had a right to exercise.—(Hear.) But what
did the petitioners allege in this case ? The allegations
of bribery in distinct terms. And, further, it was al-
let ed that the interference of the Marquis of Exeter with
the undoubted right of the borough to elect Members
to serve in Parliament was such as to amount to
systematic bribery anti intimidation of the electors
within the meaning and intent of ihe laws against bri-
bery.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a mere general alle-
gation, for the petitioners stated that the Marquis gave
promises to certain electors that they should occupy
certain eligible holdings provided that they voted fur his
candidates. These were the material allegations, and,
according to the decision of the Committee in Mr. Att-
v.teod's case, this amounted to bribery.—(Hear, hear.)
But why did not the petitioners observe the law them-
selves, and resort to the tribunals to prosecute their
cases. And as they had not done so, was there no
danger, if they were now permitted to bring on the
case in the way proposed, and escape from the
guaramees which were required in all other cases,
that the Acts of Lord Grenville and the Noble Lord
(J. Russell) would be superseded ; and that instead
of a judicial tribunal they would again have these
questions decided by majorities of the House, with the
accompanying evils orparty confltct and injustice? He
might be told that the parties were pour; and that having
laboured under this grievance foe a long time, MA
having the means of appealing to the ordinary tribunals,
they now came to Parliament to relieve them. But Par-
liament had even provided for that in the Noble Luru's
Bill itr 1542. A clause in that Bill provided that if a
petition alleging general bribery at any election was
presented within three months atter the alleged acts of
bribery had taken place, the House might entertain the
petition, and appoint a Committee to investigate with
all the powers of an ordinary Election Committee; and
that if the Committees should report that there was rea
soneble and probable ground for the allegations of the
petition, they might order the Costs to be borne, as in
the case of a Committee appointed on any public matter,
by the House. The House then had taken every pre
caution to ensure a full investigation. Why then had
not these petitioners who alleged systematic briber)
taken advantage of the Act of Parliament, and prose
cuted it under the clause he had referred to? lie dis-
carded all considerations but those of a judicial charac
ter ; but feeling strongly the danger of great public
inconvenience resulting from a d, parture iron,
the principle they had in all such eases of late years
adhered to, and teaching parties to believe that they were
free from the stringent conditions Parliament had laid
down on persons rnakiug charges of this nature—feel-
ing that the House, if it agreed to this motion, would hi
at ones undertaking, not in its judicial, but in its politi
cal capacity, the teak of deciding upon the election of its
own lealbere—he should vote against setting an ex
ample which might be attended with dangerous comae
queoces.—(Hear.)
Mt. W. P. WOOD regretted that the Right Hon.
Baronet, without entering into the allegations, except as
to one point, should have th.ternained to vote against the
motion. Ttie question was not as to the right of any
Member to sit se that House, but whether the Marquis
of Exeter or the inhabitants of Stamford were to return
tee two Members for that borough. With regard to
what the Bight Hon. Baronet had said as to the peti
toning on the ground of, bribery, there was no case for
such a petition here, for the parties complained
against were neither the candidates nor their
agents. Again, with regard to the right oi
petition, within three mouths, in those instances
where persons had been placed in possession of eligible
holdings, on the understanding that they were to vote
for the Marquis of Exeter's candidates, it was well
known they must have occupied the holding twelve
months beture the election, or tney could not have voted.
Where, then, was the remedy ? A petition on the
ground of bribery was out of tee question. Again, in no
ease did the Act provide for the ease of a landlord who
said to his tenant, "If you don't vote for my candidate
you shall be expelled from your occupation." That was
not bribery—it was a species of intimidation for which
the 1 At, provided no remedy. Yet that was the allega-
tion on which almost the whole of the petition turned.

The admission made by the Right Baronet the Member
ior Stamford and the Noble Marquis proved his (Mr.
Wood's) case. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Stamford a witted that fourteen electors had been ejected.
but by a sort of inferential circumlocution insinuated,
that, having been ejected with others, they might have
been ejected for different reasons. It would have been
much more satisfactory if the Right Hon. Baronet had
been able to declare positively that they had not been
ejected on account of their having voted for particular
candidates.—(Cheers.) Upon that broad fact alone he con•
sidered that the petitioners had made out a case fur
inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) It had also been insinuated
that the mover and seconder of this motion had been
concerned in the drawing or the petition. It was just
possible it had been drawn under legal advice, but if so,
it did not say much fur the legal ability of those charged
with that duty. Ho could only say for himself that he
had never heard of the petition until a day or two
before it was placed in his hands, and he believed the,.
the Hun. Seconder had never known of it until shown tt..
him by him (Mr. Wood). nighty as he might think of a
Nobleman against whom, he admitted, no case had been
established in proof, he must nevertheless chain, more
for the petitioners than what, the Noble Marquis seemed
willing to accord to them, whets he stated that they did
not themselv,s believe what they stated. He conceived
that the petitioners were as fully entitled to credit as the
Noble Marquis.—(Hear, hear.) The only way to decide
the question was by having it investigated, and he con
fesaeti be should have thought that every friend of tin
Noble marquis would have been the foremost to support
a motion fur inquiry, that be might, it in his power, dis-
prove the allegations made against him.—(Ch.:ers).

The house—dtvided, when there appeared—
Fur the motion ••• ••• ..• 178
Againit it ... ••• ••• ... 177
••• ••• ... —1
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord MORPE ru said he would go ou with the Public
Health Bill ou Monday. alter the stateteuut of hi. Rigiti
lion. Friend upon the Navigation Laws.

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was only intended to sub-
mit the resolutions on the Navigation La,ws on Aliadal,
and postpone their further consideration till Friday.
Mr. LABOLICHERE said that the resolutions would
be framed so generally as hot to commit any 1.1.t..n. Mein
ber beyond this—that it was fitting to amend the Navi
gatiim Laws; but a Bill would be subsequently' propo,ed
and circulat.•d, that the country might understand the
nature of the measure.

Mr. HENLEY ci,nsidered that in submitting his reso •
lutions the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite should at
li wit give an outiine of what he proposed to do. It
would not he fair for the Right Hon. Gentleman to make
a speech, and then to leave his speech, unanswered at
the time, to produce an ex parte effect upon the country.
Sir R. H. INGLIS suggested that the Right Hon.
Gentleman could lay his resolution on the table without
any speech.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not assent to so unusual a
course.

Alderman TUOMPSON quite concurred in the pro-
priety of the suggestion thrown out by the lion. Baronet
oppotitte.

Mr. WAWN thought that further inquiry was neces-
sary, the inquiry betore the former Committee having
been prematurely closed.
Mr. HUME denied that the labours of that Committee
had been abruptly concluded. Their investigation had
been of the most complete and searching nature.
Mr. M. GIBSON fully corroborated the statement
that the inquiries of the Navigation Committee had been
of the fullest character.
Mr. NEWDEGATE was of opinion that this impor-
tant subject should not be unduly hurried forward.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he was ready to make
the arrangement that, after stating his resolutions on
Monday, the further consideration of them should be
postponed until the following Monday.
Mr. S MARTI said he believed that the Govern-
ment did not themselves know what the measure was to
be, or why did they not give an outline of it?
Sir G. GREY asked, did the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman want to have a discussion on the subject forth-
with?
Captain HARRIS said that there had not been suffi-
cient inquiry by the, House of Commons into the ques-
tion how far the navy was manned from our commercial
marine. He had reasons to know that two-fifths were
derived from this source. He called upon the Govern-
ment not to proceed with this subject till they had before
them the report of the Lords' Committee on the subject.
Mr. BIUGHT sail that the Navigation Committee of
that House had most laboriously examined into the
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged
the House to adopt the mode proposEd 0y his Right
Hon. Friend, and to abandon the altogether irregular
and most desultory discussion in which they were then
engaged.
Alter a few words from Mr. WAWN, which did not
reach us,
Mr. RICARDO defended the proceedings of the Com-
mittee, which he contended had been conducted with
perfect fairness on the part of Hon. Members on the c.ppo-
site side of the Ilonse. The Committee had most assidu-
ously prosecuted a laborious inquiry, and on no day un-
til the last of their meeting had they been unable to make
a (1.1.9.1111. 1k delt!i.d t thu C• e had brtailiht
.• ••
,•1,.1t booed to
do t.141i lsi4ll4li. L.l. 114, CiAle aliilol to
mislead the House.

Mr. HUDSON was still of opinion that the Committee

had been broken Up in a manner neither satisfactoil
themselves nor to the House.
Att.'. a short deeultory conversation 038 matter
chopped.
Lord G. BENTINCK inquired whether the Riiht
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade
would have any objection to permit the resolutions .10
intended to move on Monday to be printed with the
votes? Such a course would give Hon. Members ftl.
notice of the matters they would on Monday
discuss.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would consider the
proposal of the Noble Lord, but could not at preseni
pledge himself to its adoption., sl
On the motion of Mr..LABOUCHERE. the forto
ba. re 'w
resnution that the House would. on Monday neat' re.
solve itself into Committee of the whole House,.
,or
the P"P",e of taking into consideration the navigatTill
laws. was then agreed to, and the House adjourned
a Quarter past T., (Ave. o'clo,:k.