The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-19 00:00:00

THE SATIN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARI 19. 1846.

Bengal, and the directors were daily waiting for the result of
their application.
Mr. CHRISTIAN said that before the report was adopted, he
wished to know what course the directors intended to pursue
with respect to the shares which had been allotted, but not
paid up on. He had himself purchased 75 shares at 255. pre-,
noiuru, but the party of whom he had bought them refused
to sign any deed or paper which would make the purchaser
entitled to the certificates, without a bonus of 51. This he
(Mr. Christian) refused to give, believing the claim to be
nothing more or less than a dishonest extortion. He now
wished to know whether the directors would take the
bankers' receipts in exchange for certificates, from those par-
ties who were not original shareholders.
After some conversation, the CHAIRMAN replied that every
facility would be given by the directors for the certificate of
the property of the Company to those who were entitled to
it, and the matter dropped with that assuranee.
On the propolition of the CHAIRMAN, J. A. Arbuthnot, Esq.,
Lieutenant-Colonel Abdy, N. B. Ackworth, Esq., and IV. S.
Binney, Esq., who should retire in rotation, were re-elected
as directors.
Some objection was offered by Mr. LtrinxiA, to the re-
election of these gentlemen, on the ground that they were
not practically acquainted with the working of railway com-
panies. and had been parties to an unnecessary expense in
the complete registration of the Company, which was not re-
quired for the transfer of the scrip.
The CHAIRMAN explained that the directors had consi-
dered themselves liable to the provision of Bth and 9th Vic,
the Joint-Stock Companies Act, and their proceedings,
therefore, would not have been legal without complete re-
gistration.
Several shareholders expressed their perfect conviction of
the eligibility of the gentlemen for the office they sought,
on the ground that the business of the Company had been
well managed; that Mr. Arbuthnot and Mr. Binney were at
the head of large Indian commercial firms, that Mr. Ackworth
and Colonel Abdy had both had great experience of Indian
affairs,—the former as a member of the bar of high standing,
whoktnesewwtehree country well.osl
and
A t.t theer
thoselatter
oohs s
ea
rva to militaryo
tinheanC ondida
elected.

Captain Ommaney and Mr. Gowan were re-elected
auditors. By the statement of accounts distributed at the
meeting it appeared that the amount received for deposits
was 1,6751. 10s., and the expenses 2341. 15s. 2d., leaving a
balance of 1,4401. 14s. 10d. to be carried to the next account.
Thanks were voted to the Chairman and Directors, and
the 'nesting separated.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

Lord DACRE presented a petition from (as we un-
derstood) the county of Hertford, praying the House to
interfere in order to prevent the influence of the
Anti-Corn-law League at elections. He (Lord Dacre)
thought that this petition was deserving of the greatest
consideration. The petitioners prayed that their Lord-
ships would be pleased to institute an inquiry into the
practices of an association calling itself an Anti-Corn-law
League, in order to prevent their improper interference
at e!ections.

Lord KINNAIRD said that this was the second time
the Noble Lord had called their attention to the
proceedings of the Anti-Corn-law League. Those pro-
ceedings were not private ; the Anti-Corn-law League
courted inquiry, there were nothing secret about them as to
the mode, to use the common phrase, in which they got
hold of the counties ; and he could assure the Noble
Lord that there was no danger of the 40s. freehold
electors being in any way assimilated to the 40s.
freeholders of Ireland. Men professing every shade
of politics, men belonging to every party, had bought
these freeholds, not for the purpose alone of furthering
the objects of the League, but because they wished to be-
come voters in the counties with which they wereconnected.
If the Noble Lord wished to go into an inquiry he would
be glad to do so. The Anti-Corn-law:League were only
acting legally and constitutionally in their present pro-
ceedings, and not like others who created votes and ex-
ercised influence in elections for far worse purposes. Was
it not notorious that Buckingham bad become a nomina--
tion borough though on • prorrie or having purchased a
gre st number of houses to extend his influence ? If the
protectionists proceeded in their present course, and sue-
ede_il in g,•tting a di's'ilution of Parliament, they might
succeed, through their nomination boroughs and county
in obtaining a party adverse to free-
trade; but if they did, let them depend on
it, that .ini,tead of having a legal and con-
stitutional body like the Anti-Corn-law League to
contend with, they would raise into existence far worse
political bodies, and bodies that might seek to change
the constitution of the country.
MINISTERS' MONEY.

Lord CAMPBELL gave notice of his intention to
present a petition from the city of Cork in focur of the
abolition of Ministers' money.
CORN LAWS.

The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition in fa
your of the total and immediate abolition of the corn•
laws.

Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from North-
umberland in favour of protection to agriculture, signed
by upwards of a thousand persons, and in doing so said
he wished to make a few rercarks on what had fallen
from the Noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) who had ad-
dressed the House. He (Lord Redesdale) was of
opinion that the Anti-Corn-law League was an
unconstitutional body. Though its proceedings might
be in agreement with the letter of the law,
they were contrary to the constitution of the country in
endeavouring to return county representatives to
Parliament. Was it not unconstitutional for residents at
Manchester seeking to return Members for Cheshire?
When he saw a body in London interfering to secure
the return of a Member for Hertfordshire, be said that
was an unconstitutional interference, and unless some-
thing was done by Parliament to check this, they would
have a number of persons creating an influence in the
different counties of England, contrary to the intention
of the Legislature, and contrary to the spirit of
the: constitution. He denied that the manu-
facturers of Manchester had a right to inter-
fere iu the election of a Member for a county,
That this interference was going on was as notorious as
the creation by the Duke of Bedford of the faggot voters.
He subdivided his property, so as to produce a number of
votes, and that was held to be an undue influence with the
electors of Huntingdon. Suppose the manufacturers of
Manchester came forward and swamped the constituency
of Huntingdon. That constituency would not then be pro-
perly represented. If they permitted this in one case
it would ultimately extend to every constituency
in the kingdom. Unless Parliament took proper
step:—should the matter not naturally drop—the
consequence would be that Parliament would
cease to be the most important body in the country. A
great deul that was going on in Ireland and in this coun-
try had a great tendency to lower Parliament, espe-
cially the House of Commons, because that was the body
more immediately attacked. It might be said, that it
the wants of the agitators were granted, this matter
would drop of itself. But that was not the answer
that should be given to such a case as this.
It was because they knew that their constituents were
against them that they endeavoured to deprive them
of their constitutional and fair rights, and the effect
of conceding Irish measures would only be an encourage-
ment to other agitators to look for the same. For
Parliament to be influenced in such a way, and by such
a cour,e of proceeding, was contrary to the spirit of the
cony titution.

) Lord KINNAIRD said that it had been the practice
t for years to make votes in that way, and, in fact, the
watchword with many agitating bodies was " Register !
register ! register !"—(Cries of " near, hear.") Now
- be wished to know what the Anti-Corn-law League
- had done beyond that ? They attended to the
registry, and increased the voters, and the same
- was done by all registration committees.—(Hear, hear.)
' In Scotland it was only necessary to sell a property of
' 200/. value—reserving the title-deed—to make an agent
' a voter ; and such was certainly done by the Peers and
. owners of lat.d. Ile agreed with the Noble Lord oppposite
that such was an abuse that required to be reformed.
He did not think it right ; but ut the same time
the parties were justified in using all constitutional
means to effect their object.—(Hear, hear.) However,
he thought that all such practices would terminate with
a repeal of the corn-laws ; for, after that time it could
not be of use to any party.
Earl GREY concurred, to a great extent, in the
observations of the Noble Lord opposite, that the
existence of such a power as was wielded by
the Anti-Corn-law League was a very seri-
ous evil ; at the same time, he should say that
he considered it as nothing more than the
symptom of a greater and more serious evil—
a grievance against which they had found it necessary
to take fresh measures, as those the Noble Lord bad
mentioned, in order to.remedy it. The Noble Lord had
said, sr .d said truly, that the extent to which the
grievance complained of had been going on in
this country and in Ireland was calculated to
lower the authority of Parliament; and. he (Lord
Grey) should say that he cordially: agreed in much
that had fallen from the Noble Lord upon the
subject. But what he (Lord Grey) would say was this;
that it was Parliament itself which had in a great measure
caused the evil, and it was not by the means his Noble
Friend had suggested that it could be put an end to. It
was not by any meature of law that they could expect to
put down either the Anti-corn-law League, or
the Catholic association.—(Hear, hear.) The real
remedy for the evil lay in the hands of the
Legislature—by the Legislature taking the lead in pub-
lic opinion, instead of lagging behind. The Parliament
should not have waited, as it had done, to be compelled
byu the voice of public opinion to afford remedial measures;
redressed that the Parliament bawt.
lit should have been the first to have come forward
,sasi emove
.rhe evils complained of.—(Hear, hear.) It
by taking timely care that all real evils should be
than he did the r public,
need apprehend no turbu-
lence from the No man could feel more strongly
~,tieT increaseparliament
in modern times of the
difficulties by
they had drawn them upaorilliaent had been beset, but
themselvesth by delay, instead
ethohtaie,d the power to do
1
4, f using their influence while
so, to prevent their existence,
that it was owing to those courser, he would say,
asusd not. to the
NobleA Association that
Anti-Corn-law League, or the
tChea
the evils complained of by
gained existence. Lord opposite
Lord ASHBURTON said, that if such were the opi.
nion of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, it would
also lead to the conclusion that it was perfectly legal
and constitutional for the people to join together and
raise a great league for the purpose of disserninatiug the
opinions that body entertained. If so, then, the public
were all on one side, and if the Parliament had been
could result,
behind, as the Noble Lord had stated, no harm
result, for there was no necessity to urge upon
them to do anything while the the people did it for
themselves. According to the doctrine of the Noble Lord
the people, in doing what his Noble Friend near him
had complained of, were only exercising constitutional
right. But in his (Lord Ashburton's) opinion, if this
unconstitutional interference with other constituencies

by the League had not taken place, and other counties
were let alone, then the real opinion of those constitu-
encies would be known to Parliament.
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE postponed the pre-
sentation of the petition (of which he had given notice)
from the inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land, respecting
convict labourers, till that day week, by which time
their Lordships would have had an opportunity of read•
ing the papers which treated of the colony.
RIO DE LA PLATA.

Lord BEAUMONT, in rising to move for the corres-
pondent which had taken place between this and other
countries, with regard to the intervention in the affairs
of Rio de la Plata, trusted that he might be allowed
to place before their Lordships the circumstances
which had led to this intervention.—(Hear, hear.)
He was induced to review the motives which had
actuated England in this instance, because he considered
that the course the Noble Earl opposite (Lord Aber-
deen) had pursued was al most impolitic one, and at
variance with the principles which the Government of
this country had adopted. At the termination of the
war between the Brazils and the Argentine Republic,
a convention was entered into in 1821, constituting an
independent Republic, under the name of Uraguay. By
the terms of that convention it was agreed as been the
two Powers of the Brazils and the Argentine Confede-
ration, that Uruguay should be constituted anindependent
State. To that convention the only names signed were
those of the Minister of the Brazils and of Buenos Ayes.
He would now proceed to explain the proceedings con-
d with the pending dispute. This convention took
place in 1828, but subsequent to that period a serious
dispute arose between two parties in the Argentine con-
federation. A war in consequence burst out between
these tiro parties, the one of which were known
by the name of Unitarians, and the other
as Fet era istF. Geniral Roses was at the head
of the Federal patty, and the leader of the
Unitarians was Riviera. About this time it was
well known that the President of Buenos Ayres was
assassinated, and subsequently General Rozas, at the
head of the Argentine Confederation, attackgd Buenos
Ayres. Everything' was done to establish order
in the Argentine Confederation, as well as with Buenos
Ayres, but it so happened that a number of the
Unitarians under the head of General Rozas collected
and made an attack on Buenos Ayres. The Noble Lard
then proceeded to enter bite the particulars of the sub-
sequent dispatches between Buenos Ayres and the Ar-
gentine Republic, contending that the French had inter-
fered in a most unjustifiable and improver
manner. General Oribe, he contended, had
been freely elected the President of the
Baird's Oriental, and had interferee in the affairs
of that report, to please the mushroom party
who had fled from Buenos Ayres ; and, along
with some foreigners, had endeavoured to regain
their footing in the Argentine Confederation.—
General Reviere expected to come to terms of peace
with Buenos Ayres, but he did not do so. He continued
to invade the Argentine Confederation. He was subse-
quently defeated, and in a short time General Art-b)ere
succeeded in placing himself between Riviei e and
Buenos Ayres. Arebiere, certainly, invaded the
Argentine territory, but he did so for the sole
purpose of supporting the legitimate authority. It was
in this state of affairs that the Noble Earl opposite at
the instigation of the Viscount Abrantes thought proper
to interfere in this matter. The people of Monte
Video were in favour of the legitimate autho-
rity. The party in the town who supporLed
Riviere was composed of a few French Italians.
At one time there were only 180 of the inhabitants
armed, and shortly after that number was reduced to 50
but then England interfered. But for this interference,
a permanent peace would have ensued. Our interference
having come too late, the result was that we had
caused more bloody scenes than if we had not
stepped in at all. The object put for ward
by the Noble :Earl amongst others, was to throw open a
certain river—the river Canava—for the benefit of com-
merce. Now this river belonged to the Argentine
Confederacy, and if this country thought proper to in-
terfere with the rights of that country, the
Americans might turn round and say that
they would come (:own the river St. Lawrence. Again, he would wish to know whether there existed a
convention between England and France on the sub-
ject ? Could anything be more contrary to practice,
more dangerous than for two great and powerful State,,
naturally eupposedto be ambitious of conquest, to inter fel e
with States where the people were led to believe that tie re
existed no connection ? They acted without conven-
tion, or without any positive deed which could be shown
to be an instruction from the Minister. How %as
France bound by any deed that she did not possess the
same dangerous and aggressive object ? There might
be an understanding ; but if there was, let it be
produced. Such a course of proceeding wus most
ruinous to British commerce, as would be seen here-
after. He contended that such a course of proceeding
was followed up for the mere purpose of supporting a
faction—an armed ane rebellious faction in Monte Video,
who were getting up eoery kind of evil passion, and for
them atone had the British Government interfered
against General Roses and the state of Buenos A) res.

guardians of the West London Union against the esta-
blishment of district asylums.
Sir T. ACLAND presented several petitions from
several parts of Devonshire, praying that the House
would not sanction any measure for repealing the pro-
tective duties.
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented a petition, signed by a
large number of the inhabitants of the city of Win-
chester, expressing their satisfaction at the measure
then under the consideration of the House, and re-
gretting that the repeal of the corn-laws was not effected
immediately.
Mr. H. HINDE gave notice of his intention to put a
question to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade,
in order to know if it was the intention of Government
to make any proposition founded on the report of the
Gauge Commissioners.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. WOBEHOUSE said, that on Tuesday last lie
gave notice of his intention to put a question to the First
Lori of the Treasury on the subject of the proposed
new law of settlement ; and he had been given to
understand that the Right Honourable Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment was now prepared to give him an answer.
He wished to know %%hen the new measure alluded to
some short time ago by the Right Hon. Baronet, the
First Lord of the Treasury, was likely to be laid upon
the Stable of the House ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the Bill was alrcady
prepared, and it was his intention, at an early period, to
lay it upon the table of the House, but it was not his
intention to press it forward, or bring on the discussion
upon it until the measures relating to the food of the
people had been passed into a law.—(Hear,. hear.)
An Hos. MEMBER wished to know if the Bill would
provide if a Live years residence in a particular parish
would give a person a settlement.
S'r JAMES GRAHAM ilecliued to enter into par-
ticulars.

COUNTY WORKS PRESENTMENT (IRELAND)
On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, this Bill
was read a third time and passed.
DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained that under the former
Act the assent of two-thirds of the parties interested in
the drainage of certain districts was necessary before a
plan of that purpose could be adopted. The Bill
in its original state provided that the onus
probandi should fall . on the dissensients. The
Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Kildare;
had, however, suggested, that the old plan should be
adopted, which had been agreed to, and a provision
to. that effect was introduced into the Bill.
INTERFERENCE AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. COLLETT stated that before he brought forward
his motion, of which he had given notice, he wished to
have the standing orders upon the subject read. This
request having been complied with, the lion. Member pro-
ceeded to state that he had always been an advocate for
short speeches,and upon the present:occasion he would not
act in opposition to his conviction, but as no other Hon.
Member had given aey notice upon the present subject
he considered the occasion opportune for trespassing a
short time on the attention of the House.—(Considera-
ble laughter was caused in the House in consequence of
the Hon. Member read* his speech.) The Commons
(continued the Hon. Member, glancing at his paper) had
suffered by the interference of Lords of Parliament, Peers
and Prelates, at their elections. He (Mr. Collett) assured
the House, that in default of a better man, be considered
it his public duty to call the attention of the Ilouse to this
infiingement of the Lords on the liberties, the
privileges, and the standing orders of this House.
—(Laughter and cries of " Order.") He did not
himself propose. any fresh remedy ; he considered
the law, as it stood sufficient for the purpose. He
had commonced by getting their clerk to read to them
the standing orders of the House upon the subjecs.—
(Consideruble laughter, in consequence of the Hon.
Member's continued glances at his paper.) He should,
upon this occasion. move for a Committee of privileges
to inquire Into this point, and report the result of their
inquiry to this House. He would then have an oppor-
tunity of showing the country the defects of the Reform
Bill, and also how the country was mocked by this Bill
in not obtaining those benefits which had been
presented to them by the Noble Lord (the
Member for the City of Lcnden). Numerous
instances were well known where improper use was
made by parties to influence others in procuring seats
in that House.—(Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER said, he hoped the Hon. Gentleman
was not reading his speech.—(Shouts of laughter.)
Me. COLLETT said.lie always endeavoured to check
wrcng by doing right. He was sorry to see a Member of
Parliament not returned to that House after vacating
his seat, while others more inefficieet succee, ed to that
honour.—(Laughter.) Her Majesty was pleased to ap-
point a certain lion. Gentleman to an office of
high trust and honour—he meant the Secretary
to the Colonies. He was a gentleman of much
distinguished ability and talent, and one who would be
very useful to the Right Honourable Baronet on the
present occasion in forwarding the measure now before
the House.—(Great laughter.) He would, however, give
his vote without reference to any party, as his object
always was, and would continue to be, the improve-
ment in the condition of all the lower and mid-
dle classes.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) But
" Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief
AnthoritT, plays such fantastic tricks
Before high Heaven, as make the angels
Weep."—(Great._ laughter.)
He asked the House, he asked the country, why were
they deprived of the presence of these Right Hon.
Gentlemen. Echo answered why? and the voice of nn
outraged country—(loud laughter)—demanded why Mr.
Gladstone did not come forward to represent Newark.
The answer was, that the Right Honourable Gentle-
man was in, opposition to the vie vs of the patrons
of Newark, and they had oruered their country
agent to look out for some more tractable Member
—(Hear, hear.) Nearly the same circumstances had
taken place in the representation of Chichester and
Buckingham, because their Graces of Buckingham and
Richmond were not the same way of thinking as the
Minister. They therefore returned two inexperienced
youths.—(Loud laughter)—and the country lost the
services of Sir Thomas Fretnantle, whose loss
seemed irreparable—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—at the
present moment, as he was preparing a number of Bills
that would confer vast benefits on Ireland. He would
now call the attention of the House to the bo-
roughs of Buckingham, Chichester, and Woodstock,
and he would read a copy of his charges in reference to
them, but, for the sake of making the case plainer,
The Hon. Member then read the standing orders of the
House on the interference of Peers in the election of
Members of Parliament down to the 14th of December,
1699, and proceeded to detail the precedents which
the records of Parliament presented on the subject.
Oa the 18th of November, 1702, a case occurred,
when a charge was preferred by Sir John Paken-
ham against Dr. Boyle, the Bishop of Worcester.
The consequence of this was that an inquiry ass made
into the nature of the settlement inta which the Go-
vernment had entered, On inquiry, and under the cir-
cumstances, it was decided that the Bishop of Wor-
cester had committed a breach of the priviteges of
the House, and an address was presented to her
Majesty, the Sovereigu of the time, Queen Anne,
to advise her to remove the Bishop of Worcester
fom the post of Lord Almoner to the Crown. The de-
cision had been confirmed by:the Learned Attorney
General of the period. Another circumstance had
occurred which had respect to the Bishop of Carlisle,
and in which Parliament had felt it a duty to interfere.
In that case the decision of the House was shown
by a majority of 156 against a minority of 136. lie
might refer to a fuller case, of the Duke of
Chandos, where, in consequence of an interference
with the town of Southampton, Sir NiJames
Bridges had been deemed guilty of a breach of the privi-
leges of the House. This was allowed to be a breach of
the privileges of the House. lie trusted, therefore, that
that House would come to the same opinion which he had
already formed, and which was quite in conformity with
the opinion of the Attorney-General on the question.
He then came to the boroughs against which he brought
the charges. Ile had in his hand a book called "Docli's
Parliamentary Companion," in page 101 of which it was
openly and unreseri edly stated that the borough of Chi-
chester was under the influence of the Duke of Bucking-
ham. He found that theMembe:sett rued for this borough
e ere Gerd Arthur Lennox and John Abel Smith. With
John A. Smith he did not wish to have anything to do.
He believed that the diction of Lord Arthur Lennox
for Chichester in. 1841 was carried by the Couseruative
interest. The next election for Chichester was in the
last year, when Lord Arthur Lennox, doubtless in
consequence of his talent and qualification, was
promoted to the office of clerk to the Ordnance.
lie was again elected for Chichester without op-
position, at least hefound on the notices of the House,
dated January 22d, 1845, an entry of the fact
of Lord A. Lennox having taken his seat. On eivouA
have supposed tE at for that time the Noble Lord was
secure in his seat ; but no, he found in the returns that
he had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds on the 3d of Feb-
ruary, and the seat for Chichester was again vacant.
Now, with respect to the city of Chichester, he verily
believed that the rights, liberties, and privileges of the
Commons of England had been infringed by Charles
Gordon Lennox, Duke of Richmond, and Lord Lieu-
tenant of the county of Sussex ; fur, in the first place,
that noble personage had been Instrumental in procuring
the resignation of a seat in that Hcuse by the late
representative of Chichester, Lord Arthur Lennox, and
had been immediately concerned in procuring the return
of its present representative, Charles Henry Gordon,
Lord Lennox. Ho now came to another case, viz.,
that of Newark, and he found, in reference to that bo-
rough, " Dodd's Parliamentary Companion," page 17,
stated openly, unresrvedly, and directly, that the Duke of
Newcastle exercised considerable influence in the election
of its representative. Now, the Members returned by this
influence in 1841 were Lord John Manners and William
Gladstone, Elq., but the latter some short tuno ago re-
signed his seat, and John Stuart, Esq., was returned
by the same influence to serve in his stead.
—(Some impatience was here manifested by several
lion. Members, whilst others cried "Go on.") The
lion. Member then proceeded to complain of a
similar unconstitutional interference being continually
made by the Duke of Marlborough with respect
to the election of the member for Woodstock. In proof
of his assertion he quoted theinstance of Sir F. Thesigers
return previous to his appointment as Attorney General.
All this, he verily believed, he should be
able to prove ; and, in addition, that the Duke of
Marlborough's agent, whose name was Hewitt (as we
understood) had been appointed by that nobleman to fill
the office of a Magistrate and Deputy-Lieutenant of the
country, as a reward for aiding and obtaining Mr.
Thesiger's return for that borough.

COMMONS' SUMMARY.
The House met at Four o'clock.

Mr. T. O'BRIEN took the oaths and his seat for the
city of Cashel.
Mr. LOCKHART took the oaths and his seat forSelkiik.
Several railway Bills were read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed.

Various petitions having been presented,
Mr. HODGSON HINDE gave notice that to-morrow he
should ask if the Government intended to introduce any
legislative measure founded on the report of the Gauge
Commissioners.

Sir J. GRAHAM, in reply to Mr. WODEHOUSE, said
that he would place his Bill for regulating the law of
settlement on the table of the House on an early day,
but, that he would not press it forward until the Bill
regulating our commercial policy should have been
passed.

The County Works (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed. •
The Drainage (Ireland) Bill was read a third time.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved a new clause, authorising works
to be undertaken on the consent of a bare majority of
the proprietors, instead of requiring the consent of two-
thirds, as at present, and throwing the burden of proof
upon those who affirmed that the consent of the ma-
jority had been obtained.
The clause was agreed to and added to the Bill, and
the Bill was passed.

Mr. COLLETT then rose to move for a Committee of
Privileges to inquire into the causes that led to the
vacation of their seats in this House, by the Members
lately representing Chichester, Newark, Woodstock,
and Buckingham, to make inquiries as to the elections
of the present Members for those places, and to inquire
how far the standing order against the interference of
Peers in elections had been infringed. The Honour-
able Member commenced reading his speech, and was
met with loud cries of " order." He, however, con-
tinued to read amidst loud cries of "order," intermingled
with laughter, which occasionally rendered him in-
audible. The excuse for the old nomination boroughs
had been, that they insured seats for men of talent ;
but in these new nomination boroughs talent was re
jetted. Why, he would ask, had Mr. GLADSTONE
been prevented from coming forward as a candidate
for Newark ? Why, because he was a member of the
Government of the Right Hon. Baronet, and the Right
Hon. Baronet was opposed to the Duke of NEWCASTLE.
In the cases of Chichester and Buckingham, Sir T.
FREMANTLE and Lord A. LErestox had been compelled
to resign by the Dukes of BUCKINGHAM and RICHMOND,
and two: inexperienced youths returned by those Noble
Dukes in their places, and thus the House had been
deprived of the services of the best Irish Secretary at a
most important period. Now, by their own standing orders,
the interference of Peers in the elections of Members of
that House was declared a high breach of privilege.
The Hon. Gentleman then read from the journals sive-
ral cases in which the House had noticed the inter-
ference of Peers in elections. The Hon. Member would,
first of all, draw the attention of the House to Chichester.
On referring to " Dodd's Parliamentary Guide," he
found it stated under the head of " Chichester," that the
Duke of RICHMOND'S influence returned one Member for
the city. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, who had frequently
represented Chichester, had accepted office during
the last autumn ; he had been re-elocted ; had
taken the oaths and his seat on the 27th of January,
and on the Bth of February a new writ had
been moved for. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted
from various newspapers the accounts given as to the
cause of the resignation of Lord A. LENNOX, and the
election of Lord H. LENNOX, and declared his opinion
that the privileges of the House had been infringed upon
by the interference of CHARLES Duke of RICHMOND
in the representation of Chichester. In Newark,
it ss as stated in Dodd's Parliamentary conepa-
nion, that the Duke of NEWCASTLE'S influence
was great. The Honourable Gentleman then re-
lated the history of the last election for Newark,
and stated that he believed that in respect to that bo-
rough the privileges of the House had been infringed
by HENRY PELHAM, Duke of NEWCASTLE, who had
concerned himself in the election for Newark. He
next referred to Woodstock, and related the history of
the various recent elections for that borough, concluding
by declaring that it was his impression, and he ♦erily
believed the privileges of Parliament had been infringed
by George Spencer Churcnill, Duke of Marlborough, by
his having concerned himself in the election of Members
to serve in Parliament for the borough, all which charges,
if a Committee were granted, he verily believed he
should establish. He then referred to the case
of Buckingham, in which the Duke of Buckingham.