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

THE

responsible to its authority. Such officers had been
found most valuable in miming out the bankruptcy Itw
'which h., had pa,s-d, and he was satisfir d they
be equally useful for the purpose he now contetc-
plated. As to another
,point connected . with the
practice of the Court of Chancery, be did not see
why the examination of wituesses before that Court
should not be vied voce, as in tha other Courts. The
present system of written examinations was full of ab-
surdity and mischief, and pregnant with expense and
elelay. A set of questions were drawn up for every
witness, without the possibility of knowing what the
answers would be, when perhaps the very first answer
would render the next ten questions wholly unnecessary.
In oral examination, if a witness, on being asked Do
you know Mr. So and so," replied, " No, I don't,"
there would be an end of the matter as regarded Mr.
So,und-so; but the written examination, after the
witriess had said " Nit, I don't know Mr. So-and se,"
would go on. cone the less gravely, with a series of
questions touchi:tg Mr. So-and-so, and the witness who
does not know him, as: " When did you see him last?"
and so on. The Noble Lord said he hud many other
points on which he might observe in connexion with
this. subject; but he would not, on the present oc-
casual, press them upon their Lordships' attention.
Among them was the subject of appeals before their
Lordships' House—a resource at present attended with
such enormous expense as to render it, for all but the
rich, a mere mock-ry. In conclusion, he earnestly imm
plored their Lord.hips to give most serious considera-
tion to the subject which he had thus breulht before
them. Toe present were not times in which Govern•
ments c,eild safely refuse compliance with the just ee-
mandS of the people they governed. On all sides we
witnessed the progress ot convulsion: in France, a dy-
nasty demolished in one brief hour; is Germany, throne
after throne menaced; in Au.tria, the supposed peren-
nial empire of the Caesars tottering to its tall. South-
ward, the janitor of the Alps opening the gates of Italy
to the Gsu'; still more south, the Eternal City shake n
to its foundation, and the successor of the Borgia., rs
ambitious as they, but unsustained by their gt nius or
their courage, taking refuge in the form ss of St.
Angelo from the tury of the faithful —(liesr.) These,
be would repeat, were times and these were circum-
stances which should warn the ruling powers in Englau d
to amend the institetions of the country, in every 1.. a
lure susceptible of impriert meet, and to amend in time.
lie had every confidence in the innate forceot our insti-
tot .. end in Lie to)shy 01 our ple ; but rely ueon
it that the better our law, and the cheaper, and the mote
nearly it sirs breue.ht to the doors ot the people, and
the plainer it was 11:14de for them to read, ant the easier
to comprehend a d to di.est, and, consequently, to
ehev, the more secure you made property. and the inor.-
facility you gave for its transh-r, so as to render it inure
available tor the purposes of eiv 1 life. The more Y""
took away those shoals and quicksands ot which Locke
speaks, rely upon it, tl-e purer and heartier would be
the love, and the mere vigorous and unsw.rvmgthe
support which you would secure to tte Insti ns
vontio
from your virtuous and hone-t and gallant
jeets. It was these views that in lb2B he had urge(lt, it
another place, the law reforms which he had then in rod
duced and it was with undiminished, nay with increase
earnestness, that he now urged turther reform of th.e
n that august assembly, the judges by v./hom,
law upon
the last and hignest, resort, that law was administered.
He implored their Lord-hips to aid him th the
. task he
had thus undertaken, for the purpose of giving
. mereased
strength to the noble constitution under which we lived.
The Noble Lord then laid his Bill upon the table,
which was read a first time.
The House adjourned at Thirty five Minutes after
Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12.
The SPEAKER. took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from
places in Lancashire against the sale of spirituous liquws
on Sunday.
Mr. WILSON presented four petitions from places in
Yorkshire sgaln.t any alt. ration in the navigation-laws.
Mr. SPOONER presented petition,: from places in
Sty herlandshire against the Diplomatic Relations with
Rome Bill.
Viscount CASTLEREAGFI presented petitions from
places in Down aninst the Bill for the amendment 01
the law of imprisonment for debt.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. _ .

Mr. 'F. O'CONNOR brunght on the Friendly Socie-
ties Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read
a second time on Wednesday, 14rh ot June.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. STUART moved. pursuant to notice, that it be
an instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern
Railway (Isle of Axholme Extension) Bill, to hear the
Company of Proprietors of the Swinforth and lieadlq
Canal Navigation on the matter ot their petition against
the a 'id Hill, which was presented upon the Ist day ui
this instant May.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE objected to the motion, and
after a few observations trotn
Mr. STU AR r in reply,
The House divided, when there appmred—
Fur the moi.ion
Against it
Majority against it —sB
DU

... 69

Mr. REYNOLDS mt,vud that the evidence taken be-
fore the surve)ine; ..fficers upo,t the local inquiries held
in Dublin, upon the subject of the applications to Par-
liament for the Dub in Improvement Bill ,rl.l the Datilin
Consolidation Improvements and Water.orks Bill, ID,-
aid ott the tAI.• in'•rtu.
The SPEAKER said the evidence was already on the
t4ble, and the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. EW Ala presented a petition in favour of fret
sites beinp; grunted (or Scotus') churchcs.
Mr HUME presented a petiti froth s congregation
in Newcastle El. the same effect.
Mr. COI3i)EN presented a petition fr,m Nottingham,
praying tor a reduction in the taxation and expenditut,
of the state. Ihe petition was si:oied by the mayor and
upwards of 2.000 it.hahitants of the town.
Mr. HILDYARD presented a petition from White-
haven az,alitst the -ale of intox.cativg drinks on Sutid ty.
Mr. P. HOW ARD presented a petioun from Carlisle
against the central clause of the Health of Towns Bill.
Mr. COW AN presented several petitions from Scot-
land in fay.ur of the Fr.e Sites for Church..s Bill,
Mr. FORBES presented a petition 'Against the Diplo-
inlOc R. httons w I h the C..urt of home 8.11.
Sir R. H. INGLIS present, d a petition against diplo-
matic relations vs itn the Court of R-me.
THE RF.PRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.
Mr. 'HUME said he had already given notice
that he untended. on the 23d instant, to submit a. mo
Lion, and to call the attentiAl of the House to the state
of the representation of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The
terms of the motion which he intended to submit on
Tuesday week were to the tollowing'etfect :—That this
House, as constitut,d, does not fairly represent
the property, iatrllig,nce and industry of the ctuntry,
in consequence of which great discontent had arisen in
the minds of a great portion of the people, and with a
view to amend the national representation leave be given
to bring in Bills for the foll,wing purposes : —First, that
the elective feancnise be extended to all householders;
that votes be trig n by billot ; that the dera:ion of Par
liaments do not exec-el three years ; and that a more
equitable apportionment of the population to the number
of :ilembers to be elected Le adopted—(Cheers)—or,
in other words, (qua) electoral districts.—(Hear.)
LONGFORD.

Mr. BOUVERIE read the rep.,rt of this Committee,
which was to the effect that Mr. Fox had been duly
elected. The report complained of the deirctive state of
the registration in Ireland, and recommended the House
to devise a remedy.
NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. B. COCHRANE inquired whether information
had been received at the Colonial office to the effect
that the secretary of the colony (a very valuable officer)
had been induced to retire upon an allowance of only
400/. a year ; whether the judges of the courts were
liable to be displaced simply by a petition to
the Colonial-office from the assemblies, and
without any specific allegations being assigned
against them; also, whether the salary of the Governor
bad been reduced from 3,500/., within allowance of 4001.
for his eecretary, to 3.0001., with 2501. for his secretary ?
Mr. HAW 1 S (w wds very indistinctly heard in the
galler)) was understood to 51 that the secretary had
resigned urn the allowance mentioned att. r a service
0, five yews, but he held another office which yielded
censid.- ruble ette Liraetie The salary of the Goveruer,
which was vot.-d with the civil list, would b. reduced as
stated. lie should feel happy to lay any papers on the
matter before the Hauge.
THE NATIONAL LAND COMPANY.
Sir 13 HALL wished to a'k the Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Notaitiahatn, a qaesti• 41 with respect to a
Bid wnich he had introduced. He found that a great
number ot pvra..ne had joined it as aubseribera.
• • • Whst he way 4trxiatis to know sees,. wh..n the Hon. anti
Le a n- d Member intend• d that the company should be
pin in stem a pteition that 11,', as 'mete the prorate.• rs of
the company, should be able to take out a certificate of
registration?
Mr. F. O'CONNOR would answer the questions of
the Hon. Baronet wish great pleasure. As soon as this
company was establehed application was made to Mr.
' Till Pratt to-reeister it, and it was then discovet.td
that, in cons- qttence of several jwigteents of alr. Just:ce
Wigh man,. Mr. 'nu Pratt could not c .mpletely register
the cenaptit y. He then had the company provi-
registered, and having proceeded to a certain
extent, it was found th tit the expenses of complete
teiti;eration weultt be so enormous teat he had con
• sid''r'd it to be his duty to s. e if he could not
mate'rially - after, if te.t do away with, those
in that
diyexia.
'lis'44attog:
rether to render it. unnecessary to
hove ei,m9l
gistration. That Bill he had
• broti4ht i 1 ; it hid been read a first
and ord.-TM t
14th of June , to
bl
" read a second time on the
could assure the Honourable
Member that if the'tu se refused to pa3d tni. Bit, it.
wa.., his clete,m nation
i)rteecute the matter to com-
plete regis;ratite, andnothing
would give him great ‘r
sari4actlon than to be ditte.hsr
that
tut,/ dp,,,,hred P ,iro eriffrom the onerous duty
—(llear, hear.)
TREATY iiETW D.IURKEY.
EEN RUSSIA AN
r. QUH A RI said it had been runuet
th
had been concluded tbaen-
offensive and (let-naive treaty
•• Russia and Turkey during the absence of Sir
Majesty's Government
SA.atford Canning;ant oat her
had permitted that treaty to he etie-red into. He wished,
therefore, if the rumour was untrue, that her Majesty's
Government would contradict it.
Lord PALMERSTON said, as far as the information
of the Government extended, they had no kilo
wledge of
anY' treaty having been made - between 14.
--ussia and
Turkey, and certainly they had given no instruc-
tions to Sir Stratford Canning on the subject.
AMERICAN POSTAL REGULA LIONS,'
In answer toat question from Air. W. BROWN,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that negotiations Were
• - pandirli'betvieee- her • Ilsjestft ;Government and 'the
American Government relative to the Pita. regult.

tons with the United States, and when they were con-
cluded, the Right HAI. the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would be prepared to explain the reasons for the course
he was persuing.
ME I ROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
Sir R. INGLIS, pursuant 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
Blackfriars (to effect which a Bill was introduced) ; an
embankment on the upper part of the river from
Vauxhall to Chelsea ; an improved commu
nicatiin between Pimlico and the west front 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 13,0001. towards eff.cting im•
provements in a particular locality. One reason of his
asking these questions was on account of tha injury
which those who had property in these localities, which
was stated would be required for the improvements, were
suffering from the delay that had taken place, as they
could nut let or dispose of it.
Los d MORPETH said the improvements referred to
bad been carried out to the utmost extent within the
powers of the Commissioners, and they were only now
retarded in cons, quence of the Couhnissioners not
having sufficient funds at their disposal to proceed
with them as ranidly as they could wi h
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The motion -that the House at its rising adjourn till
Monday was then acre' d to.
S I'ANIFORD ELECTION.
Mr. WOOD then moved for the appointment of a
Select Committee, to inquire into the allegations
contained in the petition of certain electors
and Inhabitants of the borough of Stamford.
the late and
of
fof
MarchL
tr
hd
sw.l:tic.hoiwchapsilair,:ishegatedof upon thientelr4fethrendcaey
e.
the saw
E4N,tre'rourcil e"enj'aenilt.'e of
ef ottnheestecroo'f"anMtYP'eleCNer°:trf t ttathine3l: ter:r:el ma
ft:or
borough. He expressed his regret that the
grievant,
he petitioners complained of involved charges againstpurpose
person who was necessarily absent; but it would b.
bicee. in
as
and
thatiincliin
the his
tours motion
of
t hwiass
ssaftodrairedt
et
fnimoaq:uhttihatr
eyeh,
pe
c4h,e)
utirdabt he
byo any
wa of the
at hrge
ucwhearir‘ges only,m petition it
,Landing the conclusion that if the case for inquiry
should be established and borne out by the evidence it
would be necessary for the Ipletituitsie, to apply a remedy.
tchiemld inet.s that if the Com-
He had been assured by
establishpetition emanated
theireman sattaetde ni
fromt t
undoubtedb,u,3tif.ett-''tehi rteif gthrae"nwileolniteehet:leTethoeral body of Scam.ord, and
was signed besides by 183 non-electors. The petitioners
dated the interference with
now
it
was
onhiy
the freedom of election in
Stamford ,o far back as 18t30 The number of voters in
1831 was 750;
595. Of these 190 were
tenants of the Marquis of Exeter, 194 who had signed
he original petition; leaving 211 out of 525 who prayed
that_ they should either be protected or disfranchisd,
declaring that this petition was not founded on party
politics, and thtt they had no wish whatever to interfere
with the rights of landlords. The iron. 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 his 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 el, ctors who
are his tenants that they shall be discharged from such to
nancy if they do not so vote; and by fulfilling the promises
and threats so made in his name. That the said Mar-

quis, by such his interference, infltugices 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 return*d
Are the representatives of the alarquis, and not of the
electors of the said borough. That such interference
vio!ation 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
the meaning an intent of the laws in force against theta.
That the said :Marquis, by so interfering and concerning
himself in the said elections, elm) contravened the re-o•
laden of your Honoureble !louse on that subject, anti
use th-reby infringed the liberties of the Comm-ins of the
United Kingdom. In verification of the feregoing state
inent the petitioners then state several facts as having
,*ecorred at various elections in addition to which the)
foubt not that they will net able to adduce other facts
and circumstances tending to the sane conclusion,
.nquiry b.. granted. That none of your petitioners desirt
in any manner to interfere with the rights of a land
lord over his tenaros, i.r to disturb what the said Mtr
quis has thought to do with his tenants. That the)
hi no. complain of the ordinary influence which pro
spry giv• s to its owners, arid that it the election ha,
iner,•ly determnied by the tenants of the sail Mar-
pis voting it their oan free will, in accordance witl
ne supposed epititoes of their landlord, your petitioner:
.sould not hare complained of the result, but insist th
ai electors ought to be subjected to seen itifbience anc
a lercion as is practised in the borough of Stamford b)
tie Marquis of Exeter. That the elective franchise it
the borough of Stamford is by reason of such interfe
ence a burden upon a large number to the electors, whe
aelieve themselves under an obligation to vote according
their own views and (Onions, and seriously prejudt
;161 t.i their L•cal and pecuniary interests; and the pre
judice and loss so individually sustained by many of th.
teeters is net compensated by any public ad
vantage, but, on . the contrary, there results
-rom 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
nes 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 artist:
in the last sessien 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 successtully opposed
by the said Marquis, after he had tailed in obtaining
from the railway company a large price demanded b)
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
-uccessfully exercised by the said Marquis in the
return of the Members serving for the said boroueh
vas to place them (the inhabitants) in a worse position
!ft Rirliainent 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 preventing the said Marquis from
euntrolling the return of Mttrnbers for the borough, or
for disfranchising the borough altogether. That your
petitioners, therefore, while they desire to leave the vine
;fieation of the freedom of election and of the liberty of
the Commons of England to your Honourable House,
ny the ad-ption of such measures as to the House in its
greet wisdom shall seem fit, submit that it the grievances
el which they complain cannot be otaerwise redressed,
the borough ought to be disfranchised, and the elector,
d from th-• burden and loss to which many of their
number are subjected by possession of the franchise.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honour-
ante House to inquire into the truth of the statement•
of this tneir petition, and if the said statements shall la,-
established, then that your Honourable H--use will
adopt such resolutions, measures, and proceedings as
shalt in your judgment be necessary and ex-
pedient for maiataining the freedom and purity to
election in the said borough, and for vindicating the liber-
ties of the Comm,,ns of England ; or if the right freel)
to elect their representatives cannot be secured to the
electors of the sand borough, then that your Honourable
Reuse 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
been an invasion of that treed-ma of election which weak
render it impossible, if not corrected, to suffer that
borough to send a representative to that House. If they
could not find a remedy one way, they ought ai,other.
The intimidation cum
*Med of could be prevented by
Lty
they
o,uchld cheers) But r
oßt
eit their
tthtr e
sii r
• •
lectors—and
ethat was to disfr.nehise them —(Cries of
-• Hear, hear.") The light of election in the torougti
was at present only a
mockery. a delu-ion, and
a snare—(H.m% hear)—and if left .in that condition the
eetitionera claimed, tie far preferable, to be whet'Y dis•
franchised. He conceived V*e present to be a most
• favourable moment for entering upon the inquiry sought.
Certainly the present was not a time to muse inquiry
into the purity and independence of the returns of Melm-'
ers of Parliament. Oa public grounds he felt the
deepest interest in the success of his 'notion, for'hia con-
scientiou* belief was, that the true Conservative view of
tt.is matter was to institute an inquiry with a view to
remedy
the
.grievance of which the petitioners corn-
!ined and, by preventing a recurrence of this formid-
P•l - ' Lion and intimidation, add further
able system of corrup
to the felicity arid prosperity of the empire. The Hon
and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that a
Select Committee be appin
ted, to inquire into the alb--
cetain el.s and
ng of
ga
(ens contained in the petition of
ector
inhabitants of tt.e tli cumtat
borough of Stamford, p
the interference of the Marquis of Exeti r, a Peer of the
realm and L)rd Lieutenant ut the county of Northamp-
ton, at the late and former elections of Members to serve
for the said boreugh.
Mr. I)'EYNCOURT 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; for
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 nut as the choice of those
highminded individuals of Stamford who had sent him
here in 1831. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman deny
the.. facts as stated, for upon them rested the whole
,ease? Did he mean to defend the course taken by
, the Noble Marquis ? .11110 sight , Hononpible Gen-

tleman nodded assent. from which he (Mr. D'Eyn-
court) inferred that the Right Honourable Gentleman
meant to contend that the Noble Marquis hr.d not done
anything which the law condenni, and that the Noble
Marquis had only exercised his right as a landlord, and
that ny 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,
ould mix themselves up with the conduct of the Noble
marquis, and give their assent to that which he believed
co be one ut the grossest violations of the constitution
that could possibly be exhibited to the Legislature.—
(Hear.) He (Mr. D'Eyncourt) felt it nis duty to come
forward us a witness in support of the case suumitted by
his Hon. and Learned Friend. He (Mr. D'Eyucourt)
had been a candidate for the representation of Stamford
in 1830, and, after a severe contest, he that year had
lust his election by a minority of 20 votes. After that
election the Noble Marquis in qaestion give no:ice to
quit to no lees than 37 tenants, who had gone against
tits candidates. Of these 37, 30 Here ultimately evicted,
and some turned out with their furniture into the

e tlltoBr3essl h.
se
tThisahgaani
nstymosputrerese
distinctno presented
proceeding c
himselfee times.d n been repeated
he enatro.)rs
In
nf
—t
(aidit
Stamford, when that noble-n.inded constituency returned
him, though they knew he was favourable to the Reform
Bill, abide as it then stood, would have annihilated
their franchise. They, however returned him by a
majority, and yet the petition now under consideration,
isy some extraordinary omission, was silent as to the
proceedings which followed that election in 1831, when
a 1 those who had voted for him (Mr. D'E) neourt), or
who had abstained from voting, or who had voted
against Lord Thomas Cecil—in tact, all who did not
vote fur both the nominees of the Noble Marquis had
oeen evicted or staved with notice to quit. 'lbis was
repeated in 1832, and again, he learned, in 1848. If the
present motion was rejected, it would afford a good
argument for the Hon. Member for Montrose, when he
wrought turw srd his matiou for the general amendment
et the law relating to the representation of the people.
After the election of 1831, and when the Peforrn Bill
was under discussion, a large district, of which nineteen-
twentieths was the property of the Marquis of Exeter,
was added to the barough, the Ministry being bound by
certain sir gent rules to increase the constituency, and
oy adding this amulet in confUrrnity with those rules
. he borough had been wholly handed over to the Noble
Acted that the time would come when it would be
Marquis. At that time he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had pre-
necessary to add twenty or thirty snore boreughs tlo
schedule A. But before this he (Mr. D'E)ccourt) he d
that the constitueucies were entith d to protection in the
exercise of their elective franchise; and as the Noble
Lord now at the head of the Government had been a
arty to carry out the stringent rules to which he (Mr.
D'Eyncourt) had alluded in reference to the Retorin
13.11, he appealed to the Noble Lord to acquiesce in the
inquiry now prayed, as a means of affordsot Stamford that protection which they had a right to
ng the electors
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 auswe in;
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,
out he must complain that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber had not so far assisted 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 bad been ob-
structed and interfered with by the Marquis of Exeter,
ho 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 ot
Exeter intertered at elections. by authorising and sane-
Eloping promises to many of the electors that they shall
occupy us his tenants, eligible property belouging to him,
provided they will vote fur 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 those
who voted in opposition to his views and wiatiese
regard to the allegicien that the Marquis ot Exeter, as a
Peer of Parliament, had interfered at ttie late election, it
:tad been given up by the Hon. and Learned Member tor
Oxford as a ground for moving for this Select Corn-
duittee. In this respect the Honourable and Learned
Member had taken a correct view of the question
because the resolution of the House against the inter
erence of a Peer at an election bud never been put in
*terce, and never would be so until it was made the
taw of the land.—(Bear, hear.) But he (the Margins
.if Granby) rests d tne defence of the Marquis of Exeter
on a different basis, and he contended that even if that
revolution was now law the Noble Marquis had not vio•
ated it. He a twitted the allegation of the eetition
which stated that the Noble Marquis possessed exten
sive property in the borough of Statutord, and he can-
-ended that that property gave the Noble Maiquis a
proper and a conentutiouel influence in the borough—au
ollaetice derived twin a high power and noble source.
He denied the next allegation, that the Marquis of Ex
.ter had noteineted or selected the candidate. at the last
ell (lion; anti he also denied, on the best information,
oat the Noble M aqui* had let his houses with the un-
lerstanding or a„:reement that the tenants should vote in
,ceordsnce with his views and wishes. Ile also gave the
eost positive cuntrad,ctien to the assertion that promises
lad been made and threats used previous to the last elec-
t tote—(lean) The petition further alleged, that without
r. ference to the Mar quis of Exeter's opposition as a Peer,
nip iutererence was a violation of the ut.doubted right
bi the elecees freed) to elect Members to serve them in
rartiaeteut. and amounted to the systematic bribery anti
intimidation ot the electors by him, withir. the meaning
old intent of the laws in force against bribery and hat
,uidation. If this were so, why did not the petitioners.
,dopt the constitutional, manly, and streightferward
eourse of nefititiniti4 against the return of the sitting
Members? No doubt tnere had been wise and prudent
eensieurations which had prevented the a4option of that
course; no doubt they remembered that recogniznnces to
answer costs must be entered into, and no doubt they
nad before their ryes the words " frivolous and vexa-
tious."—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the de
seated candidate, Mr. Bolt, was either unable or unwil-
ing to bear the costs of an election petition; but whe-
ther that was or was not the case, the electors, under
the Act of 1842, carried by the Noble Lord
et 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 lewd Exeter. That charge was, that at the last
election 27 tenants of the Noble Marquis, ar.d the son of
another tenant, promoted the election of Mr. Rolt, either
oy 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 fmlowing quarter-
day, discharges or notices to quit had been served by
the authority of the Noble Marquis on 22 out of the
27 tenants in question, while no other general change
tied been wade on the tenancy of the Noble Marquis's
property.—(Elear, hear.) It was further stated that
one of the 22 tenants waited personally on the Marquis
and explained that he had voted for Mr. Holt by mis-
take, in consequence of the contusion which prevailed
in the polling booth, and that the Noble Marquis
replied that he did not believe in the mistake, and
that he should not allow the notice to be withdrawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, he would suppose this
allegation to be strictly and entirely well-founded, and
he would ask the House if it was in their power to in-
,ertere if he showed that there had beets no threats,
promises, agreements, or intimidation, previous to the
election. The petitioners themselves negatived such a
notion, for they declared they had no desire in any way
to interfere with the rights of a landlord over his tenants.
But the facts set forth were greatly exaggerated. In-
stead of 28 electors who voted for Mr. Rule the number
was 29 ; and instead of 22 having received notice to
quit, the number was mils 14.--(Rear, and a laugh.)
tie wished to state the facts as they really existed.
['here ws re two teoatits who had received notices
though. they had voted for him (the Marquis of Granby)
and his Right Hun. Friend (:der Hurries), and there
were 13 who had voted for Mr. Holt, who had not been
served with anynotice whatever.—(Hear.) Other tenants
who had no votes had received notice us quit, and of the
14 already alluded to, two had been allowed to remain,
3.1 that only 12 who voted fur Mr. Ruh had been
disturbed in their bid bogs. It had
.beea stated that
toe Marquis of Exeter was making Stamford one mass ot
political eorruptitin. Now, if the Noble Marquis wissed
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 whe 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. Hit. Tttat
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. lie had received innumerable
revisers from the Noble Marquis, and, among others, had
received, in common with the other artificers, a hand-
some money present on the occasion of the present L ird
leurleigh coining of age. This man voted against him
(the Marquis of Granby)
and Ids Right lion. Friend
(Mr. Berries), arid it was true the Marquis of Exeter
felt the ingratitude of the man's conduct —(Hear, hear.)
hisuz;
h a
nrhi ss
ai dri eei ntn
that
ea
ht; a t odhnebthe
no cbiol
nene trmrearir
re
:le
du
sfe r
said
aemimd3atoions
.eh
to
But it was not true that the Noble Marquis had deprived
4tt
ehonea
a. mna at
yn
tehar
of
o
at the interview was, s• You had a right, of course, to
vote as y ou 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 virtuo receiving its just reward —(Hear, and
laughter.) Ilte 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
people of this country were ,by habit, nature, and in-
clination against the ballot, and would prefer voting in
the face of day and within the sight of their
fellow-countrymen. (Hear, hear.) Bet the wea-
pon the Honourable and Learned Member had
taken up cut two ways, for the petitioners did
zot. declare for-the ballot, but • for a teetrictiva
.of the

franchise, inasmuch as they wished to be relieved from
its burthen. But it might be asked how this petition
had originated. He thought he c,itild answer that in-
quiry. The last election had been a severe combat, and
by some naeani or other these oppr.ssi-d,
electors placed Mr. R ilt on the poll within 48 cf his
(the Marquis of Granby's) Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Herries). They had nearly reached the pinnacle of
their ambition; the prize seemed within their grasp;
and it must have been a severe mortification and trial
of their philosophy and temper to have been defeated at
the last moment. Hence, the temptation to revenge
was strong. Another allegation of the petition threw
further light on their motives—he alluded to that re-
lating to the railway Bill. Lord Exeter had withdrawn
his opposition to the London and Y. irk line, on their
undertaking to make a branch to Stamford ; in the

next year, 1846, the Syston end Peterborough line
propose& a branch to Stamford, which the inhabi-
tants approved, and which had since been constructed.
and opened. There was next proposed an atnalga•
matinn between the Syston and Peterborough, and the
London and York, which had been defeated, on public
grounds, by Lord Exeter and other landowners con-
cerned. Hence another ground of hostility against the
Marquis. A great majority of the inhabitauts ack now
ledged the beneierfitfseeinhlehgas.d cTohnefersrheadftsonaitmheedboartouLguhr
but a discontented minority had chosen this mode of
d
ter expressingwouldtheir
fall harmless; but if the House encouriezed
such petitions as these, no lion. Member, however un-
tarnished his character, would be safe ; and it might
happen that not being so independent in position as
Lord Exeter, he might suffer an irremediable wound.—
(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.)
Mr. COCKBURN said that the Noble Lord had in
eff-ct admitted nearly all the charges made against Lord
-Exeter ; the remark that Hon. Members less powerful
might be subjected to similar attacks, was wholly
irrelevant. How could the Nub!e Lord, admitting
twelve charges out of the twenty-two to be true, de-
nounce the petition as false ?—(Cheers.) It was per-
fectly idle to deny that the main allegations of the peti-
tion were made out; in fact, they all ought to be taken
to be established. The Noble Lord would doubtless state
nothing which he did not believe to be true ; hut where
was his authority ?--(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
asserted that many of the allegations were unimportant;
but this was not the case. He had read the very first
allegation, hut had not ventured to deny it, though no
man in the House could be more capable of doing so if
it were really untrue. As to the agreements with
tenants, the stewards would of course not act so absurdly
as to attempt to bind the electors by agreements which
would be invalid on the face of them ; but who could
doubt that the tenantry perfectly well understood that
they must vote for Lord Exeter's nominee, whoever he
might be ?—(Cheers.) All the petitioners asked was
inquiry ; and the House would surety not refuse it be-
cause the trteeds of the parties charged denied some of
the allegations. The gravamen of the defence was that
this was not the proper course of proceeding ; but he
denied that the petitioners could hate had recourse to en
ordinary election petition for neither the sitting Mem-
hers nor their agents were etc_ cted by the matters charged,
hut the Marquis of Exeter alone. Then it was said they
might have proceeded under the Act 5 and 6 Victoria,
against bribery and corruption ; but he much doubted
whether the conduct of Lord Exeter comd have been
brought under that Act, which had no reference at all
to intimidation. It was most important that the con-
duct of the Marquis should be token into consideration
ever since 1830, from which period the allegations of the
petition dated. Nothing
.could be more clearly estab-
lished than that the notices served on certain tenants had
been given in consequence of their votes at the election;
this was abundantly proved by the Marquis's own con-
versation with the man who alleged that he had given
his vote in a hurry and by mistake. Then the case of
the artificer, who had received 251. on Lord Burleigh
coming of age, and had actually voted against the
Marquis's nominee, was a strong proof of the real reason
why he had been ej- cted. It was perfectly monstrous
that such a person should be considered bound for ever
to his Lordship's interest.—(Cheers.) If this petition
were true, could it be doubted that in repeated instances
the rights and privileges of this House had been violated;
and it so, cauld inquiry be refused?—(Hear.) There
was no wrong without a remedy, and the House would
doubtless find °he in this case. It was incumbent on the
House to institute a searching inquiry, and to see that
justice was done in the matter.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HER RIES thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who last spoke had lost sight of the real question
before the House. It might be viewed under three as
pects. The first was the position in which the petitioners
stood, from which he contended that they bad nut esta-
blished any right to inquiry. Next he should maintain
that the allegations were false; and this being so, that
the House could not do otherwise than reject the prayer
of the petitioners. Assuming for the moment that all
the:allegations were true, he would consider the late
election apart from all the preceding ones, which had
been merely thrown in as a make weight; for it was ate
surd to suppose that the House should inquire into the
election proceedings of 1830, 31, and 32 —(Hear.) But
it was distinctly alleged that at the very last election,
the Noble Marquis had entered into engagements, and
had afterwards tillfilled those engagements made in his
name, and ha thue been guilty, as a Peer of Parliament,
of interference with the election whereby the rights of
the elebtoris had been violated, and the Noble
Gird had 'rendered himself obnoxious to the
p nalties attaching to bribery and intimidation.
But if the 'petitioners supposed they cowl t sub
stantiste this allegation, why had they not brought
he matter before the House, under the laws recently
passed, which it was perfectly competent for them to do?
Where distinct acts of bribery were proveable, they
might clearly be inquired into by an election Committee.
B -sides, the Act of Lord John Russell of 1842. speci-
fically provided for cases where it might be difficult to
prosecute an election petition, and allowed parties, with-
in a reasonable time, to prefer charges of bribery before
a Committee appointed in the Act prescribed, with
power to investigate the whole matter of complaint.
But this Act required recognizences to be given by the
petitioners, and exposed them to the punishment for per.
pry, it it were coustnitted.—(liesr.) It might be sup-
posed that the parties in this case had not been ready to
proceed in time under either of these methods, but it
pared before the meeting ot Parliament. The principal
arelsww beforesiapus a actuallyl
)ptehr ree.
asodatpi meeting
preparation,
and spt petitioner capableapta ipit
Parliament,
weh
nee()
tsf ,
tpt
hhr
aoe
announced,topfsruotehphae that
petitionot: riht s o
days
petition
and that the allegations were such that the 'sew Parlia-
menttre.o) Thethe ordeal
Marquis
of Exeter
themselveshhad
could not refuse to inquire into them. If so, why
did they not demand such inquiry from the new Parlia
went ?—why
shrink
ea in
expect that this petition, if founded in
tact, as they alleged, should have been presented imme-
diately on the assetnbliug of the new House. The law
having Made distinct provision for dealing with matters
of this kind it was necessary that petitioners should
avail toeinselves of such provision. Was it not evident
that these petitioners had not dared to do so?—(Hear,
hear.) • Were the House now to grant an inquiry, they
would open the door to a perpetual renewal of these
irritating topics. Parties, either to cure their own lathes,
or knowing the rotteness of' their cause, would continually
be demanding inquiries of this kind. He held this argh
rnent to be quite conclusive against the appointment of
the Committee now asked for. Let the House stand by
its own law, its own decision, its own character.—
(Cheetrties.),foEnx(thteers.e grounds—thnot
sfaokre tohte.
hstamkeesotyf
atalide
Marquis
truth—he vitt-tended that no inquiry could now take
and to the majority of t
place. But justice both to the N:.bitthe
tLhoerNd ac-
cused,owbhleomwaarsqisuhe lectors who were
encleueallalyre that this minority had
chhimarsgeeldf, wnicithoicroerdruhpimtiotno
destitute foundatiou.—(fiear,
most prominent part of the charge •
was, that the Noble
no right whatever to make thesehecahra)rgeTs,hewhfiicrhstwaetirde
engagements with
his Marquis w u
t s a o
word of truth in this. lie dente
any understanding of the kind; and he denied it on the
to ivote n
the
a s habit
iwt fh
end them.kding that
There was not a
there was even
very best authority, that of the person
who actually let
of Stamford. The person employed by
t ication from
tnu
most explicit re
him, wrote a letter, which afforded the _
the Marquis's property to his 600 tenantsthine tmhearbrintritiisugoht
Exeter to let the lands, without any communication
That gee
futation of the charge which bad been made.
tl.-man stated, that neither he himself,
of Exeter to vote for the Marquis of Gran by and Air.
I-terries at the late election. As a proof of that, he re
tenant
toartahne ympaerro
cis
under his direction, had asked any uin
s
fused to interfere with a voter who was supposed_ t.o be
wavering, although the father of the voter asked him
Gut of threats against the voters,
use his iefluetice
and as the whole of the
no such thing ever occurred, d
with him. With
herseardrdthtoat thheeholieviegd
through his hands. be Vtlt.
leas unposed upon the
allegation that any condition property of -the Ntarqui
vote for the favourite of the
tenants, that they should s of
able to linveStaamdeknial Ptsos'tehe
of the arquts of Exeter; and
of Mr. Higgs, the agent
Marquis of Exeter.--(
hatic or distinct denial
he did not think that a more emp
could be given to allegations contained in the peti-
Elear,heari) That was the letter
the
itehad
the influence of the
peti-
tion.—(Hear, hear.)
to suppose that he won .
the election. Now, it so
were in his confidence during
Marquis of Exeter to
add ressed at his instance,
happened that two letters wereL.
tilhdfe ehxarWentstaaltlengdedit, it wag wtahsonseatwurhaol
one to the may committee,
and the other to intended for the
which was
by mistake the letter
chairman,and the letter
t to his
mayor, was teen was
sent to the mayor—
intended for his chairman
as
not the least allusion
(Lsughter)—but there
otrhoot
ehSatiaremnfaourd,ufwhhios
—(Hear, hear.)
It
ewes
she election were afterwards
that were held out before t s insafitudenctehatin
tthheat
thlertetaetrs
.
how did the fact stand?
Persons dismissed. Of these,
There were twenty. nine
.st the candidates supported
twelve only had voted
vtoisitthede Mon'rthcieuistetotafaiEtsx. e.
teNwr'ow,
remaining thirteen were not
had not voted, and the
by the Marquis of
'air, on the state of the facts,
voters at all. It was not f
s to the Marquis of Exeter.
to draw an inference injurious
that
DO fair or candid man
Exeter, two had voted for them, two
—(Hear, hear.) He believedt.otn
them that these persons
of Exeter because they
vwwoeoteruedl would
at dsgmraaitwn3ssettdht
hebey inference
te
id rs
Marquisti e
was supposed to favour.
when it appeared the charge could not
were persons in whose regard What
he had stated was
.the
apply at all.—(Hear.)
t the inference Hof undue
fact, and it would not support thatndSev3etenteen out of the twenty-nine
what decision a
from it. He should like to know _
upon these facts. He
Select Committee come
was the statement be found to be the
believed that an arrear of rent would
influence and intimidation which was
t 0
00ught tobedrawn
roost of these instances. There
cause of the discharge in inn . .
was one truth, and only
bpoessheasdsigronegaiat
inauthe
that the
-ushood of Stamford. and that
one truth, the petition, and that
Marquis of Exeter had, great
bOTOUgh. That
was per:
anneasighibuo
to