The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-06 00:00:00

SPAIN.
In reply to a question from Mr. TJRQUHART,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the papers rela-
tive to the application made last year by the Govern-
ment of Spain, for aid under the Quadruple Treaty,
had already been laid on the table of the House; but
with regard to the supplies of arms and warlike
stores furnished by this country to Spain, they had
not yet been moved for. The correspondence
relative to the Spanish marriages which had been..,laid before the French Chamber was corre• spondence which took place between the French and
Spanish Governments, and he had no control over it
whatever.

liOriat HORSHAM.
OINROGUrnGe
ved t
Mr. GOBR M r spr
do issue
his warrant to the Clerk
of *
the Crown, to make out
a new writ for the election of a burgess
to nerve in
this present Parliament for the borough of Horsham,
in the room of John Jervis, Esqwh
has been determined to be void. "
ose
election
Mr. HUME said he was surprised at the motion
of the Hon. Gentleman, when there were two Bills
before the llouse, one for specially inquiring into the
case of Horsham, and the other for a more general
inquiry into cases of bribery at elections, and moreover
when it was known that only a portion of the bribery
and treating which took place at the Horsham elec-
tion was exposed before the Committee. He hoped,
therefore, that the Honourable Gentleman would
withdraw his motion, and if the Bill which he
(Mr. Hume) proposed to bring in for Parlia-
mentary reform were passed, it was his belief that
Horsham would not again return a Member, but
would be included in one of the electoral districts
into which the kingdom was to be divided.
Mr. ANSTEY thought that if they did not con-
sent to the motion the House would be creating a
dangerous precedent.
Sir JOHN HANMER thought it was rather too
soon to issue the writ after the cases of bribery and
corruption which had been proved before the Com-
mittee.
Sir R. PEEL said in 1842 an Act was passed for
the purpose of attaching penalties to certain customs
and usages which had long prevailed at elections in
particular boroughs, but he regretted to say that
Act had been almost inoperative. These acts
of bribery and corruption, however, were more
attributable to the conduct of agents than
to the Members themselves. He was prepared to
vote for the suspension of the writ until some inquiry
was made, but he did think it was the imperative
duty of the Government to press forward that inquiry
in order that large and populous places might not long
remain unrepresented.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth that the
writ should be suspended, but he did not think that
the other business of the House should be suspended
for the purpose of considering the subject. It had been
said that the suspension of the writ was without prece-
dent. He believed that there were numerous precedents
on the subject, and he should therefore vote against
, the motion for issuing the writ.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the motion for issuing
the writ.
Mr. BANKES said that if the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government would go on with his Bill he
would support him in it ; if he did not, he would sup-
port the issuing of the writ.
Mr. A. STAFFORD
said that the course that
had been adopted by the Government
l was not the one
calculated to induce the e.otEae to believe that they
were sincere in the desire') ;that they had expressed
to improve the condition of pheople.—(flear,
hear.) The borough of Horshame
near and dear relative of the Right retuGrnenedl a
man. His election had been g declared Gentle-
and and because Horsham could not do the Attorney - General, and his near
the
ford
dear relative, he had deserted his post in atille
House, and left the Noble Lord at rthe head of the
Government to vote and speak against the issuing of
the writ for that borough.—(Hear and laughter.)
Ho was delighted to hear from the Noble Lord that this
question was a question of growing importance, whether
writs should issue in these cases. He would give his
vote for the issuing of the writ, because no case had
been made out for disfranchising the borough.
Mr. MUNTZ said that he hoped an extension of the
suffrage would cure the evils which had been complained
of in this instance. What the people complained of was,
that there were Members in that House who bought
their seats, and did not represent the people. The num-
ber of voters in all these small boroughs should be ex-
tended, and that would put it out of the reach of all
those who wished to make a bad use of them from
doing so.
Mr. GOULBURN said the indefinite suspension of
writs was a great public evil. It was giving a tyrannical
power to the majority in that House. For three months
past this writ had been suspended, and yet no progress
had been made with the Bill of the Noble Lord, arid he
now declined to give any information about it.
Captain MANGLES said that the corruption which
had taken place in Horsham, and the districts round it,
was enormous. The whole country was flooded, with
beer.—(A laugh.)
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that three boroughs
had slipped through and got their writs, and he hoped
the House would not permit the further inconsistency of
issuing a writ in this case, especially while two pieces of
legislation were pending for removing the evil.
Mr. STEWART said that the principle laid down by
the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) should
guide their votes. There were no grounds for suspend-
ing this writ, then why suspend it? If there was ground
for charging bribery, they might suspend the writ, but
unless they had that, there was no ground for suspend-
ing the writ.
Mr. GORING said he was surprised at the conduct of
her Majesty's Government. They voted for a new writ
for Derby, where bribery was proved, and refused it to
Horsham, where no bribery was proved. He was not
surprised at the opposition of the Hon. Member for
Montrose to this motion, for he (Mr. Goring) had always
considered his opinions at variance with the best prin-
ciples of the British Constitution.—(Hear and laughter.)
The despotic spirit of the spurious liberality he advo-
cated now showed itself in its true light. He always con-
sidered that it was the principle of the British Consti-
tution to consider a man innocent till he was proved to
be guilty, but the Hon. Member for Montrose would not
only find him guilty before he was proved to be so, but
would inflict the heaviest penalty, namely, disfranchise-
mont.—(Cheers.) The country and the House would
see from this to what tyranny they would be subjected
if the Hon. Member succeeded, as he proposed, in up-
setting the established institutions of the country.
Mr. HUME, who rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke,"
said that he considered those to be the real despots and
destroyers of the constitution who voted for this mo-
tion.—(Cries of " Spoke," and " Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the issue of the writ ll7
Against it
Majority against the issue of the writ-114
ARREST OF COL. BRISTOWE.
The O'GORMAN MAHON wished to know from
the Noble Lord whether he had received any official in •
formation respecting the arrest of a British officer by
the Governmedt of Spain? The subject had excited
considerable interest.

Lord PALMERSTON said he had received informa.
tion to the effect that Col. Bristowe had been arrested
and expelled the Spanish territory. No reason, as far
as he knew, was assigned for that expulsion. Ile
thought it his duty to make inquiry on the subject,
and as yet had received no satisfactory answer.
THE SPANISH QUESTION.
Mr. BANKES rose to move as an amendment to the
order of the day the resolution of which he had given
notice:—

"That this House learns with deep regret from a corre-
spondence between the British Government and the Govern-
ment of Spain, now on the table of this House, that a pro-
posed interference with the internal concerns of the Spanish
Government, as conducted under the authority and with the
entire approval of her Majesty's Ministers, has placed the
British Government and our representative at the Court of
Madrid in a position humiliating in its character, and which
is calculated to affect the friendly relations existing between
the Courts of Great Britain and Spain."
Amongst the singular events which distinguished the
present year, it was not the least singular that a British
Minister, perhaps for the first time, had been expelled
from a friendly foreign country by the Court to
.which.
nh
ies
hw
the
e singularity accredited, a
on
fd
dteogorebesertevnedtehde tmo.adnimnel;
in which that fact had been received by. her Majesty's
Government—the complacency, the quiet and. tranquil-
lity, they evinced in regard to it. And yet, it was ut-
terlytheir
answersunexpected
te questions
stthi
oenms,
put. because,tot hae few days t
hdeay's subject ago,
were to the effect, that notwithstanding any transac-
tions which had taken place, the friendly dispositions
of the two Courts were in no degree disturbed. So
little emotion did it excite in their minds, when on
a sudden they received a dispatch, informing them
of the extraordinary event, that were it not for pies.
tions put to him in that House, the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs would not have thought it neces-
sary to make any communication to this House, and they
should have learned this transaction for the first time,
as they had learned all other transactions relating to the
foreign diplomacy of the country, from the columns of
foreign newspapers. It did seem surprising that no
member of the Government, on receiving the report of
a transaction so utterly unexpected by them, should have
thought it right to give some explanation on so anxious
a subject—anxious to all who felt interested in the
honour and character of the country; and that it should
be left to a Member of the Opposition to give the Go-
vernment an opportunity of making this explanation. It
was asserted by the Duke of Sotomayor, or in the papers
before them, that the Cabinet of Great Britain did not
justify the conduct of their Ambassador. The Noble
Lord would now have an opportunity of stating
whether or not the Cabinet of Great Britain had given
authority to the Duke of Sotomayor to make any
such assertion. The Noble Lord ought to thank him
for giving him the present opportunity of making ex-
planations with regard to the real state of the question,
because he was greatly mistaken if he supposed that
there was any want of spirit in this country to resent
an affront to it in the person of their ambassador, or
that it would endure an injury of that description.—
(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that instead of being
premature, this debate was too long delayed, and that
it was due to the character of their ambassador that as