The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-15 00:00:00

NEW WRIT FOR LEICESTER.

Lord J. RUSSELL wished to put it to his lion.
Friend opposite, the Member for Northampton, who had
a motion on the paper for to-night for the issuing of a
writ for Leicester, whether, under exisiting circum-
stances, he would press on his motion that evening. The
evidence taken before the Committee had been printed,
but was not in the hands of Members, added to which
the whole subject would be brought before the House
on Tuesday next, for which day the Hon. Member for
Droitwich had given notice of a general motion on the
subject.

Mr. STAFFORD expected that such an appeal
would be made to him from some Member on the
opposite side of the House. He must confess
that he could not accede to the request of the
Noble Lord. He considered that a most uufair and un-
constitutional course had been taken by some Members
on the other side of the House, the result of which was,
that the difficulties attending this question had become
greater and greater, and ultimately would become insur-
mountable unless some stop was put to the course that
was being adopted. He could not allow a single day
to intervene before moving the writ, and having done so
he would have discharged his duty, and made it
imperative upon the House to discharge theirs.
He moved this writ with more hope than he
had moved others, for he had invariably found
that a short recess gave Members a more vivid notion of
what was right and wrong than upon other occasions.
Let Hon. Members take the trouble to look over their
papers and see what they had done in the present
ses-ion. Since they had met in last November,
the number of Acts they had passed amounted to
eighteen. Of those eighteen, four were money Acts,
three amendments _ and explanations of existing
laws, two the famous coercion Bills, one the
Borough Superannuation Fund, another to facilitate the
progress of public works in Ireland,, another to extend
the time for the construction of railways, another for
making arrangements in the Court of Chancery, and
lastly,
the famous New Zealand Constitution Suspension
Bill. Such were the Bills they hadpassed this session,
course
aonfqthino theface of this experience what chance was there
Honourableoon Baronet's Bill passing this session?
But the the House was pursuing, so far from
punishing
(Hear, hear) bribery, was, in fact, encouraging it—
(Hear,
as the electors who had
hitherto been t
at the delay
abstained tro
hadwhicejosers of bribery had been annoyed
taken place, and now they al-
togetherpo olinxiaking complaints of bribery.
They had a
last Bewdley election, wile; in the proceedings of the
treating was freely resorted to, Was
of the return, simply bi.cause
openly avowed that
yet they had now re-
ceived petitions complaining
opponents of corrup-
tionhad determined •
the parties who were the
feltt that their
oit the siunsptehne-
in that borough natured
petitioning might ultimately L
sion of their motion altogether.
onned to
case of Kinsale, parties who
emigrate upon the proceeds of the previous election,
learning that another contest was to take place, quitteuelpohn
emigrant ship in the Cove of Cork, leaving their Wiveste
and families on board, and returned to Kinsale to do
last act of duty to their country in assisting to return
another Member to the Treasury benches.—(Hear, and
laughter.) Bearing these circumstances in mind, and
looking at the fact that the Hon. Baronet's Bill, repu-
diated as it was by the Government, and by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, had to fight its way
amongst 48 others, he really felt that it was impolitic
Lo delay the issuing of these writs any longer,
and he should therefore persevere in his motion.
Great distress was now existing in the borough of Lei-
cester, and the poor-rates were as high as 13. in the
pound. Consequently great dissatisfaction was expressed
with respect to the institutions of the country, and there
was growing up a terelency towards violence among the
people, and he would ask was it right and was it expe-
dient in such a state of things to keep the bo-
rough without a representative in that louse ?
The Hon. Member concluded by moving that Mr.
Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown
to make out a new writ for the elf cling of two burgesses
to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of
Leicester, in the room of Sir Joshua Walmsley and
Richard Gardner, whose election has been deter-
mined to be void.

The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. FREWEN rose to opp,se the motion. He said
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had told
them that he had no connexion with Leicester.—(Hear.)
A letter which he had received from a solicitor of much
practice in the locality, stated that he had put his motion
on the paper a ithout consulting auy one in the town with
respect to it. Now the House had to consider two things
the report of the Committee which was presented only

a few days ago—(Loud cheers)—which set forth many 1
cases of bribery, and whether they would main-
tain that report or not. His (Mr. Frewen's) '
family had been connected with Leicester for
many years, and he believed it was as notoriously
corrupt a place as any in the
kingdom.—(Laughter.)
As an instance of this, he might state that in 1826,
bythrareoeneycamnduisdtatehsa,
have been
showed that
thwaetrerausetenot
of
that
spent in bribery. In 1839, when ho (Mr. Frewen)
most reluctantly offered himself as a candidate,
he told his committee that he would rather
lose his election than that there should be a single
case of bribery. The election went against him, because
his commitiee would not consent to spend 150/. in the
same way as a similar sum had been expended at the
previous election—in bribery. A certain number of
freemen tendered their votes to the committee
for 11. a head, 17s. 6d. having been the price at the
former election.—(hear, and laughter.) They shonld
either disfranchise the city or limit its boundary. Un-
less they took some decisive step the same system of
bribery of which he had spoken would continue. He
should therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. SEYMER, a Member of the Committee,
recommended the House to read the reports of
the Committee before they came to a decision.
If the Government proceeded with their Bill he would
vote for the suspension of sthe writ, but if they did
not he should feel compelled to support the motion of
the Hon. Member for North Northampton.
.After a few observations from Captain MANGLES,
r for North which were inaudible in the gallery,
Sir A C fil NG T 0 N
Northamptontrusted that hoius
would not
press
Friend
the Member J.
his motion for the issuing of the writ. Leicester was
one of the committees that bad made a special report,
and that report was entitled to the consideration of the
Reuse. Such being his opinion, he thought the writs
ought not to be issued.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered that the Honourable
Member for North Northamptonshire had accepted
this proposition he would have done far better for in-
' terest of those he represented than by adopting the
course he had of persevering with his motion for the
issuing of the writ.—(Hear.) He denied that the suspen-
sion of writs was an unconstitutional proceeding. Such a
course was warranted by the proceedings that had taken
pace in earlier times, when writs had been suspended
for a year, in consequence of bribery and corruption.
In the case of Bishops Castle, in the reign of queen
Anne, such a course of proceeding had taken place, and
numerous cases of a later date might be brought forward.
He thought, if the House approved of the principle of the
Bill of the Hon. Member for Flintshire it should be
gone on with, but if the House did not approve
of the principle of that Bill ; he would then go on with
the Bill with respect to the Horsham borough, and en-
large its provisions as the House thought fit.
Mr. BANKES said he was sure the Noble Lord
would readily admit that the times to which the Noble
Lord had referred were greatly disturbed by
party feeling,. which ran very high in the House
of Commons, so much so indeed, that it was
related in Lord Hardwick's life that the
House, on one occasion, voted that forty was a majority
on ninety. It was in that way the elections were con-
ducted then, and he was sure the Noble Lord was not
desirous that they should return to such a system as
that. With regard to the immediate question before the
House he thought these boroughs had been placed in a
very unjust position. They had no repret•entative to
defend them in that House, and the only way
in which they could support their case was by
sending counsel to the bar of the House,
which was a very inconvenient course. On the
whole, however, as this question would be resumed next
week, he would recommend his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for North Northampton not to press his motion now,
but leave the matter to be decided with the other cases
next week.

Mr. HUME said the motion given for Tuesday by
the Hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) for the issue of
the suspended writs, would have the effect of delaying
his motion for Parliamentary reform, upon which, what-
ever might be the merits of the motion, great anxiety
existed in the country. He, therefore, trusted that the
Hon. Baronet would not persevere in his motion.

Sir JOHN PAKINGT-ON said he had given notice for
Tuesday next, without the slightest reference to the
motion standing in the Hon. Member's name on the
Paper, and considering that the issuing of' the writs was
a question cf very great importance, he could not con-
sent to withdraw his motion.

Colonel SIBTHORk" trusted that the Hon. Baronet
would take the sense of the House on the subject.
After a few observations from Mr. ELLIO rT,
Lord LINCOLN said he quite agreed with the Noble
Lord, that it was most desirable that the Hous© should
agree to take at once a division upon the general prin-
ciple of the Bill brought in by his lion. Friend (Sir John
Hanmer), and if there was a majority in its favour, that
no further impediment should be thrown in the way of its
further progress. A private member could not pass a Bill
so successfully through the House, as it could be done by
the Noble Lord, who possessed so much influence
in that House. He hoped, therefore, the Noble Lord
would take the matter into his own hands.

Lor J. RUSSELL said he had given notice of his in
tention to do so.

Lord LINCOLN said people out of doors entertained
much objection to indefinitely postponing the issuing of
the writ. No doubt the majority of the House would
vote against the issuing of the writ, but he hoped
the Noble Lord would give precedence to the Bill on
Tuesday.
Lord J. RUSSELL had given as much assistance to
the Bill of the lion. Baronot, the Member for Flint
broughs, as if it had been brought forward by a Mem-
ber of the Government. lie should assist the
progress of the Bill to the best of his ability, but he
could not give up other Bills of public importance,
seeing that the Bill was threatened with much undue
opposition. _ _

Atter a few words from Mr. TROLLOPPE,
Mr. liUDSON rose, and was;

[LEFT SPEAKING].

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD, JUNE 14.—1 n a convocation holden this
morning, the University seal was affixed to an humble
address of condolence and congratulation to her Ma
iest3'; the address voted on the 17th having since been
somewhat altered, in consequence of the death of her
Royal Highness the Princess Sophia.
At the same time the Rev. George licit, M.A., fel-
low and tutor of Corpus Christi College; the Rev.
William Basil Tickell Jones, M.A., fellow of Queen's
College; and the Rev. James Peers Tweed, M.A.,
tellow and tutor of Exeter College, were nominated mas-
ters of the schools for the year ensuing.
In a congregation holden immediately afterwards the
following decrees were conferred, viz.:—
Masters of Arts—Charles James Stuart, University
College; Rev. John Horne, Balliol College; Adol-
phus Leighton White, ditto, grand compounder; Rev.
Charles Garvey, Exeter College; Samuel Archer,
ditto; Ge;srge Seton, ditto; William Keating,
ditto ; ; William Money Kyrie, Oriel College ; John
Burgon, fellow of ditto ; Chas. Crawley, ditto ; Rev.
James Elwin Millard, Magdalen College ; Rev. William
Harvey, Brasenose College ; Rev. George John Banner,
ditto ; Frederick Earnshaw Marshall, ditto ; George,
Wingate Pearce, scholar of Corpus Christi College ;
Richard Arthur Le Mesurier, scholar of ditto ; Wm
Trevenon, Trinity College ; Rev. Hinton Castle Smith-
Wadham College ; Simeon Sturges, Magdalen Hall,
grand compounder ; Henry LiAiers, St. Edmund Hall ;
Rev. Walter John Dare, New Inn Hall ; West Wyatt,
ditto ; and Rev. Arthur C. Saunders, scholar of Pem-
broke College.
Bachelor of Arts.—P. Oxendon Papillon, Univer-
sity College ; Henry Seymour, Balliol College ; Ed-
ward Parry, St. John's College ; George William
Pigott, Exeter College ; Thomas Owen Tudor,
ditto ; George Porter, ditto ; John Samuel,
ditto, grand compounder ; Charles Matthew Robins,
Oriel College ; Thomas Tuting, Lincoln College ;
Charles Arthur Molony, ditto; William Dunn Macray,
Magdalen College; William Molyneaux, Christ Church;
Montague Blackett, ditto; Charles C. Plowden, ditto;
William B. Findlay, ditto; Alexander J. W. Philip,
Trinity College; Juhn Edgar Gibson, St. John's Col-
lege; Howell Powell Edwards, scholar of Jesus College;
George Samuel Rees, scholar of ditto; Henry Hodgson,
Wadham College; Thomas Gale Curtler, ditto; Edward
Duncan Hale, Pembroke College; Henry Llewelyn Ro-
berts, Worcester College; Charles E. Freeman, Mag-
dalen Hall; Cladius Roberta Rowlett, ditto; George
Bishop, ditto; James John Chichester, ditto; Henry
Douglas Munro, New Inn Hall; and Edward Pallin,
fellow of St. John's College.
The Professor of Poetry (the Rev. James Garbett)
will deliver his terminal lecture, at the Clarendon, on
Thursday next, at two o'clock.

ELECTORAL CONSTRUCTION OF

PARLIAMENT.
(From The Trades' Weelky Messenger.)
"It is necessary to describe the present plan of
elective franchise in Scotland as compared with the
system that prevailed previous to the year 1832. In
the firt place, there is a very considerable difference
in the number of electors in the two periods. In
1332 the total population was 2,365,000 ; of whom
were male adults 540,000 electors, 2,340 ; or 1
elector to evory 1,000 souls; or 1 elector for every 230
men above twenty years of age. In 1842 the total
population was 2,620,184 male adults, 630,000 ;
total electors, 85,200: 1 elector for every 31 souls,
or thereby; or 1 for every 7 or 3 male adults; or in
other words, there are 544,800 men who live by food,
and of legal age, but who hare no voice, directly or
indirectly, in the choice and election of men to concoct
and enact laws of life or death—of peace or war—of
taxation and religion. Compared with the franchise
before the year 1832, there is at present a considerable
b
cinheisreelasaedoul thel
tm ael
atoadrtsit;o:rt.ault inhabitantsPe there, mp upl aart
iiesodny we
ti tmh
ut
ch
he
tuon
be
en fr
donea -
to
Englandards anin aluBg4lm
14,995,138
Of whom were male 7,323,587, and females
7,671,751
Male adults above twenty years of age
Men above twenty years of age who pos-
sessed the elective franchise (1842, 1843) 808,216

Unenfranchised men or fiscal states
The electors form one for every 18k of population o'
men, women, and children, or one elector for every 44
male adults.
Wales in 1841—total population
Total ma1e5......
Males above twenty years of ago in posses-
sion of the franchise (1842, 1843)
One elector for every 18i total population, or for every
44 male adults.
Unenfranchised male adults 185,105
Ireland in 1841—total population
Electors in 1843, 1844 117,440
One for every seventy, or thereby, of total popu-
lation.