The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

the expiration of sometime, when he returned, he was actu- 1
ally besieged by the yeomanry tenants to give them the same
amount of money that they might pull down their cabins;also. He
complied and the tenements were handed back to the original
tenants, not one single one of them being turned out. The
agent's own statement of the matter was, that on afterwards
visiting the place the feeling there was quite otherwise
than hostile. He had about ninety men draining, and three
hundred men in Tullamore employed at the same work.
He thought, therefore, that the Noble Levi should have some
protection from those anonymous assailers who were ignorant
of his character.
Lord IN GESTRE rose to corroborate what fell from the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, and he could do so with
the more accuracy, as he had himself resided near the Noble
Lord's property in question, and had been an eye-witness of the
circumstances referred to. The Noble Lord then read a letter
from the agent of the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Water-
ford), in which facts similar to those read by Major
Bet esford were detailed, as also that every exertion was made
to give employment by enclosing slobs, &c. In addition to
this, it stated that several applications had been received
from cottiers, whose houses were still remaining, that
they would gladly pull them down on the same
terms as the others whose houses were pulled down. A similar
statement to that now made was made some time ago by
the Honourable Baronet the Member for Waterford,
which he (Lord Inzestre) contradicted at that
time. He could give the statement now made a
similar contradiction. Lord Waterford was employing 300
men on the river Suir, and had as many employed at Danger-
van, and wherever he had property the same desire prevailed to
afford employment to the working people. He was glad of the
opportunity which this circumstance afforded, to bear his testi-
mony to the conduct of the Noble Lord in gising employment.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said he thanked the Gallant
Officer for the manner in which he:had dealt with this subject in
reference to him.elf, and the manner in which he had brought
forward this charge. But with regard to the charge itself,
the Gallant Officer expressed his surprise at his (Mr. J. O'Con-
nell's) having adopted it, as he had done, without inquiry. The
Gallant Officer had, however, done him (Mr. J. O'Connell)
the justice to say that the charge had been before the
public for two or three days, and had not been contradicted.
Wi'h regard to other similar charge; they had met with prompt
contradictions, but the one now in question had not. He
was glad, however, that the Gallant Officer had taken
up the matter in this way, and had afforded the explanation
the House had just heard in reference to the conduct of the
Marquis of Waterford. He was glad also to hear such testi-
mony borne to the Noble Marquis as a resident landlord, and he
(Mr. J. O'Connell) could only wish that other Irish landlords
were like him.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the circum-
stance of the burning of his Lordship's stables and the poi-
soning of his hoands, he (Mr. J. O'Connell) had
heard that that was the act of a refractory servant, and
that the people of the district had expressed the strongest
feelings of annoyance at the circumstance.—(Hear,hear.)
After the explanation of the Gallant Officer, there was hue
one course open to hire (Mr. J. Connell), and that was to
express his sorrow for what he had said, and he had now great
pleasure in adding that he was glad to find he had been mis-
taken.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said he could bear his testimony to the
conduct of the Marquis of Waterford as an excellent landlord ;
and he had no power of language in which to express how
grateful the people felt for the kindness of the excellent lady of
the Noble Marquis.--( Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt
of it that the Noble Marquis was one of the best landlords in
Ireland, and it was in proportion as he was good that this
charge was the more felt. He was not only an excellent land.
lord, but his tenants were the happiest of their cla:s. But
with regard to the charge appearing in the newspaper, that was
he only source the poor had ; and when a charge appeared in
hat way, it could be the more promptly contradicted if un•
:rue, and in this case the contradiction would now go all over

the empire.
After a few words from Major BERESFORD in expla-
nation,
Mr. P. SCROPE said the House ought to draw a more'
from these cases of ejectment, and devise some means of de-
fence for the population. He should like to ask why the
House should have brought under its notice at all the ejections
of tenants by their landlords, or why the newspapers should
take up the matter, unless it was that the public sympathised
wi.h the parties so ejected? There was no other reason.
The tenants, when turned out, had no means of subsistence,
and they were left to starve, hence it was that the public took
an interest in them. He was quite convinced that the Marquis
of Waterford was an excellent landlord, still that was no reason
he should, under the circumstances, have acted as he had done.
It did appear a harsh measure that so many should have been
ejected, though it was said they went out willingly. He did
not think it was so, for though they received two or three
pounds, that was not the reason that induced them to leave,
but the knowledge that they would be served with an eject-
ment if they did not do so. As he before said, he should draw
a moral from cases of this kind, and give a defence to the
tenants and the population of Ireland such as the people of
England had enj iyed for centuries.
THE BRIDPORT ELECTION.
Mr. CHRISTIE wished to ask a question from the Hon.
Member for Halifax, the chairman of the Committee appointed
to inquire into this election. In the petition on which this
Committee was appointed, it was stated that the grossest
practices had prevailed—treating, bribery, and corruption—by
which the election had been gained. And it was further stated
that such was the extent of this bribery and corruption, that
not less than ninety-six individuals had been objected to
on the ground of the bribery and corruption alleged.
When the Committee met, after some skirmishing,
it was determined to bring the matter to a scrutiny, and the
result of that scrutiny was a transfer of one vote to the
opposing candidate. This was, in fact, effected by an arrange-
ment between counsel. An Act was passed in the year 1842,
at the instance of the Hon. Member for the City of London,
for the purpose of providing against any compromise by which
a case of bribery should be prevented from being brought under
the cognizance of an election Committee. Th impression of
the Committee in this case was, that there was a compromise
to prevent such an exposure. The first clause of that Act
provided that in every Committee for the trial of an election,
and in which the petition shall have been withdrawn, or in
which the eharge of bribery shall have been withdrawn, the
Committee shall have the power of examining into the case,
and calling such persons as would be likely to give any infor-
mation. The question he wished to as;; was, whether the
Committee had instituted any inquiry into the circumstances
under which the charge of bribery was not prosecuted, or
whether they had considered it necessary to prevent any further
inquiry into this case ? The borough of Bridport was the sub-
ject of one compromise prior to the passing of this Act, and it
was right that the pure and independent electors should have
the power of justifying themselves against the present imputa-
tion on their borough.
Mr. CHARLES WOOD said that he had to acknowledge
the courtesy of his Hon. Friend in giving him notice of this
question. His Hon. Friends who were present with him in the
Committee were not present, but he had no doubt that he
could say on their parts, that they had no objection to make the
fullest explanation. He was aware that an Act recently passed
prevented any voluntary compromise, but he thought that it
was the first duty of the Committee to do impartial
justice between the parties, as in a legal tribunal.
It was proved before them that a person who voted for Mr.
Romilly was entered for Mr. Cochrane. The number of voters
objected to amounted to ninety-six, some for bribery, some for
improper registration. He would now come to the question
as to whether they ought to have examined into the question
of bribery. He had never sat upon an Election Committee
in which there was not an allegation of bribery; so, therefore,
there was no particular value in the allegation of bribery in
this petition ; and there being no evidence whatsoever of the
existence of bribery, he did not think they were called upon to
inquire further into the subject.
Mr. BANKES did not rise to complain of the discretion ex-
ercised by the Committee as to inquiring or not inquiring itno
the allegations of bribery. He should hope, however, for the
honour of the county with which he was concected, that the
borough of Bridport was just as immaculate as any other
borough on the question of bribery.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )
He found no allegation of bribery in the petition. A vote was
tendered for one party and entered for another, and the Com-
mittee did not inquire into the question of bribery. That was
the reason why he wished the evidence should be printed. He
did not desire to offer any remarks on behalf of the Member
who had been unseated, nor had he any instructions to do so.
What he wished in making those remarks was to exculpate
the borough from the charges made against it. For that pur-
pose, he begged now to move as an amendment that the evi-
dence and the decision of that Committee be printed.—(lt was
ere intimated to the Hon. Member that it was not competent
for him to do so.) Then he would give notice that he would
make a motion to that effect to-morrow.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he would suggest that it would
be well if the House did not interfere in this matter at all.—
( Hear, hear.) If decisions of Committees were to be mooted
in that way in the House, and discussed here after they had
been arrived at, the result would be th at Election Committees
who decided upon their oath would nave no effect on public esti-
mation.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said, that two charges had been
made, one, that bribery had taken place, and the other, an
attempt to compromise the charge. Now, the fact was, that
the allegation of bribery had been aenied altogether, as well as
any attempt at comproa ise. It was true that four or five
thousand pounds had been expended in the progress of -the
election, but that was merely to carry it on.
Mr. CHRISTIE said he had not made any charges, he
merely alluded to the decision of the Committee.
Mr. BRIGHT said' hat in respect to the election at Wigan,
a case somewhat similar arose. In that case the charge was
extensive treating ; in that of Bridport, the charge was ex-
tene.ve bribery, and he believed there was some reason for be-
lieving the charge was correct.—(Cries of " Oh, " and
laughter.) He hoped there was not; but if there was, nothing
was proposed to be done in the shape of a remedy ; and so
long as this state of things continued, the returns to this House
would be little better than a mere farce, for a long purse was
the test of admissibility to this House. He did trust before
long the Government would look into this matter, and bring
forward some measure which would reflect credit on the House
and the country.—( Hear, hear.)
Several Hon. Members having risen simultaneously to ad-
ress the House,
The SPEAKER cried " Order," and said—l hope the
House will see the inconvenience of discussing three or four
questions at once.—(Laughter.) The order of the slay is the
tirst reading of the Bill for the better protection of life in Ire-
land, and I have called on the Hon. Member (Captain Co-
nolly) to address the House, and he is, therefore, in the
possession of the House.— (Hear, hear. )
Captain CONOLLY stated he wished to make some ob-
servations with respect to the statements of the Hon. Member
for the city of Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien). That Hon.
Gentleman had stated in the course of this debate that seven
families families or persons had been ejected from the estateseo!
Francis Hopkins very recently. Now he (u.
Conolly) held in his hand a letter fro matt
stateat gent;
man totally denying the truth thment.
Sir Francis Hopkins had caused a search to be made if any
ejectments had been made during hismnority, and he declared
that • during that time, there were two cases of ejectment, in
which five individuals were removed. He (Captain Conolly)
thought the Hon. Member (Mr.%T. O'Connell ) had, however,
brought it forward under the impression that the information
he had received warranted him in doing so.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he had no reason to complain of
the Gallant Captain. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had given full
notice of his intention to bring the subject forward, and the
Gallant Captain had a perfect right to defend the gentleman
referred to. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) said the circumstances
referred to had aepeared for a long time; and the other night
he read a list of ejectments, but he did not comment on any-
thing in ref rence to Sir Francis Hopkins. He had moved for
the returns before Easter, in order to bring the subject for-
ward, but he had put it off till after the holidays, in order to
get information from parties who promised it. Most parties
had not yet furnished it, but whenever they did so, and he
brought forward his motion, the Gallant Captain would have
the fullest opportunity of meeting anything that might be
brought forward.
OUTRAGES IN SHEFFIELD.

Mr. CALEB POWELL said that he aseured his Hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield, that in the question which
he should presently put to the Hon. Gentleman at the head
of the Home Department, he had no intention to urge
the Government to take any proceedings contrary to the prin-
ciples of the constitution, but he merely wished to display to
the House and the country the great disparity between the
treatment of the people in England and Ireland. The other
evening, when he took the liberty of addressing a question to
the Right Hon. Gentleman, calling his attention to a state..
went which appeared in a local journal, and which accidentally