The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-06 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF CARRICKFERGUS.

Mr. HALCOMB presented a petition from the freemen
of the borough of Carrickfergus, complaining in strong
terms of the report of the committee appointed to inquire
into the franchise of that borough. The petitioners un-
dertook to prove the falsity of the charge of bribery which
had been brought against certain parties, and prayed that
an opportunity might be afforded them of establishing their
case before the House.

Mr. O'CONNELL said he had got very positive in-
formation that scarcely one of the persons whose names
were attached to the petition but bad been bribed.•--
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He understood that one of
the persons who signed this petition was John Legg, the
High Sheriff of the borough of Carrickfergus. He was the
principal agent in bribing at the election, and they had
made him high sheriff as a reward for his valuable
services.—(A laugh.):
Mr. GOULBURN said it would be scarcely fair to have
the claims of these persons prejudiced by an assertion with-
out proof; because an hon. and learned member had as,erted
the parties whose signatures were attached to the petition
bad been bribed, the house should not place implicit reli-
ance upon such statements.
Mr. HALCOMB thought that enough had been said
on the subject, and would not, therefore, provoke further
discussion. The petition was laid on the table.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the con-
gregation of an established church in Staffordshire, praying
that the religious liberty which they had enjoyed might
be preserved, and handed down unimpaired to their pos-
terity, in the prayer of which the right hon. gentleman
cordially concurred.
Mr. LITTLETON, in answer to a question put
to him in a low tone of voice by an honourable
member whose name we could not learn, said that the
returns adverted to by the hon. member, and which had
been moved for at the end of the last session, had been
made by the• principal part of the diocese of Ireland, but
they were not complete, and therefore had not been laid
before the house.

Mr. W. ROCHE understood the right hon. Secretary
for Ireland intended to propose some alterations in the
Irish Reform Bill, when the English Reform Bill came
to be amended ; and he wished to take the opportunity of
suggesting to the right bon. secretary the absolute ne-
cessity there was for introducing a clause to ob-
viate the necessity of Roman Catholics being compelled to
take the oath of allegiance upon registering themselves as
freeholders, a thing that was not imposed upon any other
class of his Majesty's subjects, and which often afforded a
great advantage to popu'ar candidates, because many Roman
Catholics would not take the oath on such an occasion.

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move the second reading of
the Carrickfergus Di•fr:nchisement Bill. In doing so, he
was exceedingly glad to congratulate the house on know-
ing that those who objected to some of the details of the
bill, did not object to the principle of the measure,
and, therefore, that this reading of the bill
would not be opposed. This obviated the necessity
of his tresp issing at any length on the attention of the house.
This much he desired to say, he had not volunteered this
task, as he had not sought for the contrary, lie
had desired to avoid it, but it had been forced upon him
as an imperative duty, in consequence of his having bee❑
the chairman of a committee which decided that Mr. Dobbs
had been returned as the representative of Carrickfergus
by bribery and corruption. In the course of this duty he
entertained not the slightest party feeling. The bill he
brought in was simply for disfranchising the borough
of Carrickfergus, without proposing any substitu-
tion.—(Hear.) He did not, however, think it would
be doing Ireland justice to take away one of her small
portions of representatives without substituting another
in the place of that abolition ; and, in his opinion,
if a substitution should take place, that substitution
' ought to be given to another part of the province of
Ulster. He had understood it was the intention of the
hon. member for Donegal to nominate another part of that
province to which the franchise should he given ; should
that hon. member do so, he should feel it his duty to
support such proposition. At present his bill was purely
for disfranchisement without regard to any substitution.
In stating the grounds for his motion he should be very
brief. In that election to which he had alluded,it was proved
that the practice of bribery was rooted in that borough,
and that it had been of long standing. The contest
appeared to be between two noble families, who sti uggled
for the supremacy, and it appeared, that whoever suc-
ceeded, did so at an enormous expense. After the
passing of the Reform Bill, there was in most places a
strong contest between reformers and conservatives,
but in Carrickfergus there was nu struggle of that kind.
In Ireland there was generally a struggle of a different
kind, namely, upon the subject of religious differences ; but
at Carrickfergus there was neither a religious nor political
distinction, for it was generally a mere question of pounds,
shillings, and pence, and whoever had the longest purse
carried the election. He took this opportunity of totally
acquitting the electors of Carrickfergus of allowing any
political or religious opinions to influence their votes.
There was one family, in order to increase their interest,
made fifty-three tenements, with three potato grounds, '
worth someA, 41., or 31. a year, in fact as tenants at will,
hut apparently in perpetuity, although it appeared that
at the last election only seventeen of those persons voted
for the person who gave them subsistence; therefore there
must have been a very strong reason for the others
voting against th- interest of the person who gave
them bread to eat.—(llear, hear, hear.) If the prac-
tice of bribery were confined to the poorer classes,
there might possibly be some amelioration of the crime,
but it extended itself to other classes. One man, it was
proved, took the bribe, and promised to vote a certain
way ; th it promise was alive until the man went to
the poll, but when lie was offered the bribery oath,
he refused to take it. Those who tendered the bribes were
men of rank and fortunes, and to what a condition did
they reduce a man when they brought him to the wretched
alternative of either not taking the bribe, or of sending
his soul to everlasting perdition ? To show how far
the public mind i❑ Carrickfergus bad been contami-
nated, he would appeal to the evidence of Mr.
Brierly (or Burley), a magistrate, an active partisan,
and one of the committee of a candidate, who was
examined before the committee appointed by the house.
—(Hear.) That gentleman denied every thing, but in
the course of the investigation a letter from Mr. Brierly
was read, dated from the election committee, referring an
elector to the agent, Mr. Legg, which agent offered the
man a bribe of 61., and it also appeared that Mr.
Briefly accompanied the agent to the elector.—(Hear.)
He was sorry to be obliged to mention the name of an
individual who was, through the nature of his education,
a gentleman—Le meant the Rev. Mr. Cheyne of the esta-
blished church ; but the house could estimate what was
the state of the public mind in Carrickfergus, when
that reverend gentleman held in his bands a sum of money
which he knew was to be distributed in bribery ; there was
no doubt that it was for such purposes. Plow contami-
nated must have been the public spirit when no species
of shame Wii3 attached to such proceedings, even in the
person of a clergyman ! The words of the witness
before the Commissioners proved that the only feeling
which existed was one of regret on the part of those who
bad not the means of being corrupted, because they had
not a franchise to sell. After the first examination that
took place before a commission of that house, in
which he (Mr. O'Connell) was Chairman, the
corporation demanded a re examination. That was
granted to them, and what was the evidence
after all ? Why, by the report of the committee, it was
pronounced to he a case of the most just disfranchise-
ment.—(Hear.) He would trouble the house will one
fact more. The corporation of that town actually wanted
to take the franchise into their own hands ; and he (Mr.
O'C.) would prove that the sum of 450/. was subscribed
towards disfranchising their own freemen. Mr. David
Legg, who was the acting man at that moment
in London to prevent the disfranchisement of this
borough, was the agent of the corporation upon the
occasion he alluded to. The same Mr. Legg swore that
he only bribed five persons ; but Mr. James Legg, his
brother, concurred with a Mr. Cohen in the bribery of
14 persous. That gentleman, who was so active in the

work of corruption, instead of being tarnished for so doing,'
was rewarded by being appointed to the office of High
Sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus.
The same gentleman would probably be mayor in some few
years hence, and on a future occasion that house would
have the pleasure of seeing the gentleman take his seat
as member for the renovated constituency of Carrickfergus.
He (Mr. O'C.) had to apologise for having troubled the
house at such length, but he considered it his duty to put
a firm hand on bribery, and seek the only remedy that
was left to purify a corrupt constituency.
Mr. EMERSON TENNANT said that so far from op•
posing the motion of the lion. and learned member, he
should give it his most cordial support.—(Hear.)
He was prepared to visit, to the extremity of severity
which that house was authorised to exert, every and
any individual who might be convicted of violating or
abusing his elective franchise. He was as anxious as the
hon. and learned member could be to see every individual
who had been guilty of bribery at the late Carrickfergus
election disfranchised. It was for the purpose of carrying
that into effect he was willing to vote for the second reading
of this bill. But he did not hesitate to say that he
differed altogether with the hon. and learned gentleman, as
to the extent to which be wished to carry his propositions.
He was willing to admit that bribery had been carried on
to a certain extent by one class of the electors, but it did
not therefore follow, that that bribery had extended among
them all. He was prepared to show to the house,
on the committal of this bill, that the Carrickfergus con-
stituency was a constituency unimpeachable. The hon.
member for Dover had a motion, he believed, with rega rd
to that business before the house. He hoped that the
hon. member would see the propriety of withdrawing that
motion, as he (Mr. Tennant) should, for one, oppose
it, and he should oppose it on the same principle as he
voted for the second reading of the bill befure the house.
Mr. HALCONIB, in rising to propose an amendment,
would only say, that with regard to whit had fallen from
the hon. member who had just sat down, and who was un-
known to him, it appeared to him (Mr. H.) that hon.
member had taken an extraordinary course in declaring
what his vote should be upon a proposition, the merits of
which be at present must be perfectly unacquainted with.
it was inconsistent with his (Mr. H.'s) notions of legisla-
tion, that any hon. member should state that he should
give his vote against a proposition to be submitted
to the house, before he bad condescended to
attend to a single observation, or before that
hon. member had had any opportunity of addressing the
house. With regard to the amendment he bad now the
honour to propose, he could assure the house that
he made this proposition to them after much and
anxious consideration—after full examination of the
course which had hitherto been pursued by the
house in furtherance of just objects, when they were
sought to be enforced against boroughs alleged to be in
circumstances that entitled the house to deal with their
elective franchises.—(Hear, hear.) He would be per-
fectly satisfied it the house would allow him to
stare to them the great and important steps which
were taken in reference to any borough accused of m's-
conduct in the exercise of its elective franchise.
By pursuing such a course, the parties would have an
opportunity of defending themselves at the bar of the
house, and he thought that the house, and not the com-
mittee, or the chairman of the committee, or the council,
should decide on the merits of the borough to be disfranchised.
Where five or six committees were sitting at the same time
upon different boroughs, one might take one view, and
another another, and the proceedings of the house would
be involved in contradiction and absurdity. Looking at
the report of the committee on that borough, it was ad-
mitted that the parties bribed were the lowest class of voters,
and if the freemen we re disfranchised, there would still
be a sufficient and respectahie constituency. There were
similar cases ; fir instance, that of Liverpool, where the
house eves proceeding by a distinct bill, not to disfranchise
the borough but the guilty parties. It was not for him to
say which would he the proper course. He had no
right to dictate to the house, but it was imperative
upon them to consider what was the course they ought to
pursue. He thought that when parties were accused they
should form themselves into a committee of the whole
house. They should hear the evidence, and give the
accused parties that which by law they were entitled to, an
opportunity of answering the charges brought against them.
He was sure the feeling of the house was with him in
this suggestion, and it was under this feeling he proposed
as an amendment that the house should give the parties
an opportunity of being heard at the bar, before they
proceeded to disfranchise them. It would be shown
that the charges against upwards of forty of the
freemen could be satisfactorily refuted.—(Hear, hear.)
Whether that was the case or not, was it not enough
that he was addressing those who were the conservatives
of English liberty and rights—was it not enough
for him to say, that the parties said so? Out of re-
spect to the house, be would not think of trespassing for
a moment upon it—(Hear, hear)—unless he had well
looked into any case which lie brought before it, and
was satisfied of i:s justice.—(Hear.) In every bo-
rough that had been disfranchised before the great
measure of reform, the reason most relied upon
was, that no party should be declared guilty without being
afforded an opportunity of proving their innocence. He
called upon the house to pause before it committed itself
to a step which would inevitably involve it in a
series of judicial inquiries—it was not with re-
spect to the five or six boroughs that were now
before the house, but with the fifty or sixty which
would unquestionably be soon in the same state. They
were now proposing to do that which had never before
been done by any House of Commons befure the Reform
Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.) How stood the case?
Why, upon the petition of two or three individuals, a com-
mittee was appointed to inquire into the general charge
of bribery; a report was made, making serious charges upon
individuals that had never been before it, nor in the nature
of thingscould have been,yet theywere to be punished without
at all being heard in their defence. He then held in his
hand a bill introduced by the noble lord the Paymaster
of the Forces which would show the opinion of govern-
ment upon a question of such a nature, and to that
opinion they were bound to defer. He was glad to see that
noble lord in his place, as, if he acted at all consist-
ently, he (Mr. II.) might calculate upon his vote.
The house might not have perused this bill, they might
not be aware of the intention of his Majesty's ministers
and the noble lord, but he would tell them.—(Hear, and
laughter.) Tbe bill allowed parties to come to the house for
the appointment of a committee, with a view to examine
witnesses, and if the parties were not satisfied with that
examination, they had the liberty of coming again. The
noble lord also proposed that the power of the house should
be delegated to tree barristers, to be paid three guineas
a day.—(Hear and laughter.) Ile was not to be deterred
in consequence of that--(Hear, bear)—from offering ob-
servations to the Louse which he was sure were well
worthy the attention of a deliberative assembly.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) No cheers or laughter would
prevent him from pursuing that course which be felt
it to be his duty to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) He offered
no opinion upon the bill.—(Hear, hear.) If the house
would not take his caution, he thought they would
soon become a refuge for the destitute. The lion.
member, after adverting to the parliamentary history of
the country, mentioned the opinion of the late Mr. Can-
ning who had forewarned the house not to tamper with
the electoral franchise, lest they should be urged on
by party spirit to deal unjustly with it.—(Hear, hear.)
He concluded by moving as -an amendment, " That this
house will on the 19th day of March instant, resolve
itself into a committee of the whole house, for the pur-
pose of taking into consideration the reports and evidence
of the two select committees respecting this borough, and
that, in the mean time, the further proceedings upon this
bill be suspended."
The SPEAKER inquired who seconded the amendment?
After the lapse of a short time, an Hose. MEMBER. (we
believe Sir R. Vyvyen), seconded it.

A discussion ensued between ti e SPEAKER, and Mr.
HALcoms, in which the right hon. gentleman intimated
his opinion that Mr. H. was irregular, and could not
make a motion so worded.

At length the amendment was thus formed : That
this house will, on the 19th of March instant, resolve it-
self into a committee of the whole house, to tike into its
consideration the reports and evidence of the two select
committees respecting the borough of Cat rickfergus."
Sir JOHN BYNG congratulated the bon. member
who had just sat down on becoming the legal champion of
boroughs that had been convicted of bribery and corrup-
tion.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER was quite sure that the right
hon. gentleman did not mean to address any thing either
personal or offensive to the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down, and he would, therefore, no doubt direct his
observations to the Chair.

Sir J. BYNG hoped the hon. member woull excuse
him in not following him through the speech he baJ
made. It was impossible for him to support the amend-
ment which had been moved, but he felt bound to give
his unqualified support to the second reading of the bill,
as a case more imperiously calling for such a measure
had never before been brought before the notice of the
house.
_ _

Mr. TODD made a few obeervations which were per-
fectly inaudible.
Sir R. PEEL felt the house was now called upon to

discharge an impartial duty, and for his parthe could not
satisfy his mind that he ought to concur at present in the
measure now proposed. He bad no interest in Carrick-
fergus more than in any other town that might be
named which ought to induce him to oppose its
disfranchisement.—(Hear.) He looked to the measure
simply as regarded its principles; and he had to ask
those who were about to pronounce an opinion upon the
principle of the measure which was to destroy for ever the
right of voters in a respectable town, had they that informa-
tion before them upon which they could satisfactorily decide
this judicial question? If it were a question of private
right, would the house feel itself in a situation
to pronounce its judicial opinion ? Here he
felt bound to remark, that if the hun. gentleman behind
him conscientiously felt he ought to call the attention of
the house to this question, he surely ought not to he
open to the sarcasm of being denominated the cham-
pion of corruption and bribery.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He was of opinion that if corruption prevailed to
such an extent as to render that borough incapable
of discharging its franchise, he would ronstnt to
sacrifice it altogether, and make a public example
of that borough. Certainly there were some of
unimpeachable character, and who were entitled the more
to praise from being contiguous with corruption ; there
were those who would suffer a private wrong, yet he (Sir
R. Peel) would overlook the injury done them, in ccnsi
deration of the public good. He (Sir H. Peel) wished to
ascertain in what proportion corruption and honesty
existed .

Mr. O'CONNELL—There were 885 freemen and 10i
freeholders in that constituency. The freemen were uni-
versally allowed, with few exceptions, to be all corrupt.
Mr. EMERSON TENNANT said, there was evidence of
240 having been bribed out of 885; but of the rest, with
the exception of seven, there was not a tittle of evidence
against them. There were 140 householders, and, with
one exception, there was no evidence of corruption against
them.

Sir R. PEEL said that statement would guide them
in the course they were bound to pursue. The
house was called upon to affirm that gross and scan-
dalous bribery prevailed at the late election for the town
and county of Carrickfergus, and that a great part of the
constituency were influenced by bribery in giving
their votes. That gross and scandalous bribery did
prevail, he (Sir Robert Peel) could with a safe
conscience affirm ; but with whom did it prevail? He
thought the parties who offered the bribes, and not those
who received them, would be the just objects of punish-
ment, and he for one did not object to any punishment
that could he inflicted upon them. But the house
was called upon to dispossess the town of
its elective franchise. He should like to see the opinion
of the committee upon the whole of the facts of the case,
the extent to which the bribery prevailed, if the evidence
appeared to warrant the conclusion that it did prevail,
and there being two classes of constituency in that town,
whether the charge of bribery applied to both
((pally, or whether any one portion of that constituency
was corrupt.
Mr. O'CONNELL made an observation by way of ex-
planation.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The house should pause before
it proceeded to make a great public example of a whole
community. An election committee had reported that
bribery bad prevailed at an election for that borough, but
that the members were not implicated in the corruption.
—(Hear.) The house then appointed another committee
and, without meaning to cast the slightest imputation
upon that committee, be thought they had taken a tnis-
taken view of their duty. They had reported, that after
examining the whole of the evidence, they had come
to the conclusion th it the borough should be disfranchised.
He would wish his Majesty's ministers would give an opi-
nion upon the bill. Thee house was not in the habit of
setting so light a value on the franchise, as to deprive a
whole people of the privilege on the recommendation of a
committee. They in all cases reserved to themselves the
power of personally drawing the conclusions upon which
they founded their decisions. The hon. member then
alluded to the case of Sir Robe-t Walpole, in the proceed-
ingo upon which the house felt so strongly, that it induced
them to pass the Grenville Act. He feared that if the
house pr ,ceedeal to act in these cases without sufficient
authentic evidence, they might be guilty of great injustice
towards individuals with regard to particular terms, and
they would give the public very little confidence in their
decisions. He wished his Majesty's government to give,
not the details of the case, but the principles which it in-
volved, their fullest consideration. Public time had too
many demands upon it to allow them to examine wit-
nesses at the bar of the house. He therefore urged upon
them the propriety of establishing some competent and
efficient tribunal which should inquire into the details of
these cases, and report authentically their opinions to the
house. He desired only that justice should be done, and
if it were necessary to make an example, let that example
be made ; but no example could operate advantageously
upon the community, which was accompanied by indivi-
dual injustice.
Sir JOHN BYNG, in explanation, denied, that in the
language be made use of, he meant to call the hon. and
learned member for Dover, the " Champion of Corrup-
tion."
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that his Majesty's
Government should, in these individual cases, take part as
a Government, so as to influence the votes of the members
of that house. He certainly thought that if they did so,
the evil of giving party votes on these questions would be a
very serious inconvenience.—(Hear, hear.) As a member
of that house, he had for some time attended a good deal
to questions of this kind, and had gone into laborious in-
quiries respecting them, considering that few subjects were
of greater importance. The right hon, baronet complained
that there had been no examination at the bar of the house,
and that the examination before the committee was not
upon oath. With regard to the first point, the right hon.
baronet had said truly—answering his own objection—
that the time of the public was too much taken up to allow
of such an examination. That the evidence taken before
the committee was not on oath, he admitted to be a very
grave and serious objection, but it was the misfortune and
not the fault of that house.—(Hear, hear.) He had for
several years past proposed bills to that house which they
appeared most willing to adopt, for giving power to com-
mittees of this kind to take evidence upon oath, and to
summon all persons whom they might think necessary to
examine as witnesses, thus enabling the house to come to a
satisfactory judicial decision.—C Hear, heir.) A bill of
this nature was passed by that house only two years ago,
but was rejected by the House of Lords —(Hear, hear.)
He also brought in a bill of the same nature last year,
which underwent a very lull discussion berme the select
committee, as the hon. and learned member for Dub-
lin well knew. The committee approved of the bill, and
he only refrained from proceeding with it in consequence of
the number and importance of the question then before the
house. The House of Commons, it appeared, were then in
this situation—they had passed a bill to enable them to
have a grave and serious inquiry, and this bi.l having been
rejected,they were placed in the dilemma of either having an
inquiry in some degree imperfect, or taking the alternative
of sitting still, and allowing all these cases of corrupt bo-
roughs to pass unnoticed. To this they had been driven
by the decision of the House of Lords.—(Hear.) He
should at an early period re.introduce this Bill, in order to
avoid the very great inconvenience, for inconvenience all
must allow it to be to which they were now subject. He
hoped that after the sanction which had been already
given to this measure, it would now receive a more
favourable consideration from the House of Lords, and
that that House would no longer endeavour to impede
them in their endeavours to fulfil one of the first duties
which they owed to their constituents—that of preserving
purity of election.—(Loud cheers.) The committee had
made all the inquiries which it was in their power to
make, and he agreed with the right hon. baronet that it
would be better had they made a digest of the evidence,
and stated prominently those points on which they carne
to the conclusion that the borough of Carrickfergus ought
to be disfranchised. Nevertheless he thought no member
of that house was entitled to say that be had not read the
evidence, and therefore would not vote on the subject, it
being the duty of every member to read the evidence which
had been published. However, to avoid any doubts on the
subject he would refer, at the risk of being tedious, to
a few particulars which would, be thought, clearly
one
of establish the case. The noble_ lord here read several
portions
fwroitnniestshe
said
dintehde report.
ht oug th
In
re
uf
was as much corruption among the 101. householders
answers the
as amongst the freemen.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
It appeared, however, that many of the 101. householders
these
who were bribed, were registered al-o as freemen. The
question appeared to be, whether, considering the whole
of the circumstances, there would be, after disfranchising
those who had been guilty of corruption, a sufficient num-
ber of qualified persons to return a member to parliament.
If that were the case, it was the duty of the opposing
party to make it out, If it was thought they could prove
this, they were bound to offer it, and the house ought to
give them the opportunity; but in the absence of such an
offer, he thought it was the duty of the house to carry that
bill up to the other house of parliament. He should cer-
tainly vote for the second reading.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained, that the course intended
to be pursued was, if the house would read the bill a see
coed time, to consider this point in committee, in which

the bon. member for Belfast would move the introduction
of a elawie for continuing the franchise to those who were
innocent, leaving the franchise in the hands of the house-
holders, as if no freeman had ever existed.

to disfranchisbreeifbraacr:
Mr. TENNANT was understood to say, that there was
‘tevoi sse make great
universal—(Ole
nvt e ere as
onomf tnh. e
Carrickfergus, ta
se om f eophfroo lion ,iateffilgai
;petitionthe disfranchisement.
frrtuosmldo ftmhc aeoekrne.
t. householders
T hre
be
3f oiur.n d
JtAosfloEr form awpouu
safoiriant(coohbi:eelil believe
ethxtaetnasivseuffiacsietnot
render
uitndubpreirobnw.o:vdii
constituency.
t consentituency.
impossible.—(Hear, he)a—r.
pure
de
and then there would be
end of bribery, for no man bad a purse long enough to
bribe a whole community.—(Some member here said,
r" Liverpool.") He was certainly aware that most extensive
bribery had been carried on at Liverpool for some years
past. It was carried on in 1812, when the present
Lord Chancellor went there.—(Laughter.) The freemen
of Liverpool were certainly very corrupt. He was a
freeman of Liverpool himself.—(A laugh.) A bill of
disfranchisement was, in his opinion, a partial and unjust
measure, because it confounded the innocent with the
guilty.
Mr. AGLIONBY was a member of both committees.
In coming to the decision which he did, he asked himself
two questions; first, whether the infliction of a case of
individual hardship would be justified by the general
good ; and secondly, whether there was anything to bring
him to the conclusion that a full and honest constituency
would be left after disfranchising those who were guilty.
The conclusion to which he did come was, that too
much of the leaven of corruption would remain to permit
the continuance of the franchise.—(Hear.) The evidence
on which he came to this conclusion, was evidence given
before the first committee on oath. Still if any one
thought that a case to that effect could be made out, he
should be sorry to refuse permission.
Mr. LITTLETON had given very close attention to
the examination before the committee. He certainly re-
gretted that they had been so long deprived of the means
of obtaining that species of evidence which would be most
satisfactory, viz., evidence upon oath ; and he hoped that
his noble friend would not delay his re-introduction. He
certainly had some doubt as to this bill, and he bad not
hesitated to express that doubt in private. But on the
whole, from what appeare&in evidence, he felt himself
bound to vo.e in favour of disfranchisemen.. Still, if any
means of ascertaining the number of 101. householders
who were free from corruption, could be pointed out, he
should not raise any opposition.
Colonel LEITH HAY said the evidence taken before
the second committee was the same as that taken before
the first, which was on oath. He supported the second
reading, but should be happy to find that tbere was no
necessity for disfranchising the 101. householders.
Sir 11. PEEL begged it to he understood that he did
not stand there as the champion of the corrupt practices
of Carrickfergus ; but he thought it right to ascertain the
extent of the corruption before they were visited with dis-
franchisement. He did not seek an inquiry for the pur-
pose of delay, but he thought is desirable that a committee
should define the limits and extent of the bribery that had
been conunitted.
S r EDWARD KNA'fCHBULL contended that the
preamble of the bill had not been proved, and, therefore,
the bill ought not to pass. Even if the preamble of the
bill had been proved, there was no evidence to impeach
the lion, sty of the la householders. The persons who
had been found guilty of corruption ought to be found
guilty hy name, instead of disfranchising the whole borough.
Lard JOHN RUSSELL maintained that there was
quite enough of evidence to warrant the house in reading
the bill a second time. It subsequently a further inquiry
were required, he should not be disposed to resist it.
Sir R. PEEL, in explanation, observed that under the
circumstances of the case, he would not object to the
second r ading of the bill.
Lord SANDoN and Mr. KENNEDY each said a few
words.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, stated that he had un-
dertaken the conduct of the bill with the greatest reluet-
,nce, and that he was at any time prepared to give it up
with the greatest delight. As long, however, as it re-
mained in his hands, he was hound closely to prosecute
it; and to declare that he was ready to give evidence of
the grossest corruption existing in the borough in question.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on next Wednesday se'nnight.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, in tnoving the
second reading of the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill,
entered into a detailed statement of the corruption of the
borough, and contended that there was no nucleus of
purity left on which a fa'r representation was fountitd.
If they permitted so notorious a case to pass without con
dign punishment, the example would be in the highest
degree prejudicial.
Mr. HALCOMB argued that the house would be placed
in a strange predicament by agreeing to this bill, for how
were they to expect to maintain their character for purity
if they were to disfranchise the voters on the score of
bribery, and )et allow the sitting members to retain their
seats ?

Captain CHETWYND submitted there was no evi-
dence which would warrant the house in proceeding to
such an extreme as disfranchisement, and that the. better
way would be to extend the franchise to two towns
(Stone and another), distant only six miles and a half from
Staff.a•d. He should, therefore, move an amendment,
" That a select committee should be appointed to inquire
further into the extent of the imputed prevalence of cor-
ruption in the borough of Stafford."
An Hose. MEMBER, whose name we could not ascer-
tain, seconded the motion.
Mr. ORD said the gallant mover of the amendment had
totally failed in his endeavours to impeach the credibility
of the evidence. By disfranchising this borough the
house would set an example which would have the best
effects.

Mr. FRYER hoped the House of Commons would
pause before it left the county town of Stafford without a
member, more especially if they could make the consti-
tuency just and pure. It Ives the county town.—(A
laugh.) If Stone and Eccleston were added to it, there
would be a most healthy number of voters. It was the
county town, and there were innocent men in it. Why
punish them with the gu Ity? By the addition of Stone
and Eccleston, they would not reduce the members of their
house. There were independent men in those towns, and
for their ir.corporation with the county town—(Laughter)
in erasing a member of Parliament, he (Mr. Fryer) should
give his most cordial vote.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER was well acquainted with
the borough of Stafford, and perfectly concurred in the
opinion, that equal weight was not to be given to evi-
dence not taken upon oath, as to that which was sworn
to ; but be could not agree with the hon. member for
Newport, that the witnesses were reluctant ones. The
fact was, that Stafford was the very hot-bed of di.eension.
They were there ready to tear each other to pieces, to
inflict death blows, for the gratification of their personal
animosities. Warwick and Stafford, it was admitted,
were equally guilty. Then, why should it be treated
with greater forbearance? Treating and bribery, he con-
sidered, were equally criminal. He saw no difference in
the shade of guilt of him who gorged himself with ale and
hot suppers, and those who felt the gold and spent it at
home. One, indeed, might be considered more brutal
than the others. In Warwick, 4,9901. was spent in 28
public-houses. Ought that to be passed unnoticed ? Was
it, indeed, because there was a noble lord in the case who
looked proudly from his castle walls on the scene of so
much corruption? who came, like Jupiter, in golden
ttnihooetn
be
eef
weddedgiiLeamingtonbau r h ot
neighbourhood
dt
the
ewith e
Stafford,rietp,i
ti
decrepitude
ewshhoi
should
uhal he e.pepv(oiLsneacue
hs
shoi.versupon it---(Hear)—who objected to the
adequateincorpora-
of gentlemanta
frdw. constituencybo had
ea dargui just.
taste and charity, for youth, beauty, and health should
finding
g hon.
thata neod rmi .s
n)e.
In conclusion, he (Mr. Buller), considering there would
tisffiAtcrßueDal ttymseiannidt the
franchisement.
bt
rea As
tnierocl
spoken alluded to the borough of Warwick, and con-
trasted
he framed from such contrast might be ingenious,
but then it made against himself. He agreed both towns
were as bad ; but then, if the house had not acted with
proper severity towards Warwick, it should improve in its
proceedings, and deal out a due measure of punishment in
its next decision.—(Hear.) When they looked into the
case of •the borough of Stafford, and saw so few of the
voters untainted with bribery, he thought that this cir-
cumstance afforded the house an excellent opportunity of
making one of those corrupt boroughs an example, which
would not fail to have its due effect on others. The
fact of its being a county town, was an additional reason
why the house should not be lenient towards it. He
gave his hearty support to the motion for the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. FORSTER rose to oppose the motion. The name
of Sheridan was associated with this borough, which
ought to be a reason that it should find some favour in
the eyes of the house. He concluded by saying that he
could not tote for the second reading of the bill, and by

The house then divided—
emzeportesosfingthheishroeng.reatodthgaat he couldllaotmezt u
member
jprpsortat
ffthoredcmodd
For the motion .............................. 167
For the amendment ........................... 5.„21
Majority .............................. . l'
elusion
obifllstwraansgetrbr f r
0(
na s,
twh ee ug
an
idl
ee
rr
ys t, oroerla)a,
gn
1 .titime.!et
WARWICK DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL-
When strangers were re-admitted into the galtileroy,a
his
Sir RONALD FERGUSON was discovereta a
com.
legs, moving that th- house do resolve itself ion, wareeick
pinittee on the bill for depriving the electors I
liameot. ld be surprised
eer.
al . HALCOMB said, that the house wou
which was
of the right of voting for the return of weathers to pa"
Ito learn some facts connected with the petitions
extend
found. He understood it to be a fact,
and proposed to
said to be so respectably signed,
the franchise! to Leamington. Out of 418 names wheel,
aduseerine
were subscribed to it, 280 were not any where t._10%
who were stated to have signed it, not only h!cl noth:es.
'o, hut had put their names to the petition against t 65
tension of the franchise to Leamineton. No less than .
of the petitioners were lodgers, Is were renters wises
101. a year, and there were only 35 who rented prernnee,
above that amount. Out of 850 householders, 750 had
signed the counter-petition. The mot prominent person , .
‘• n uch bad been
in getting up the petition, of whin" 5- nip
i; ' al 'Jai'
said,wl were two members of the Leamington Y 0.31 c . .
0 He woutei
to were journeym, n median' in
mechanics the tow •
ask the hon. and gallant officer if this report bad not beea
drawn up by Mr. Joseph Parkes, the Secretary to the
Birmingham Political Union ?
Sir R. FERGUSON said he bad nothing to do with
the petition.
Mr. HALCOMB said it must be owing to the hon.
and gallant member's deafness that he bad not understood
him.k
Ilite bad not talked of the petition but the report.
FERGUSON-4 know nothing about
that
Mr
• HALCOMB thought it very extroardinary the
hon. and gallant member, though chairman of the CO
mittee, knew nothing about the drawing up of the re'
port. The rental of the parties who signed the petitioo .
for the extension of the franchise was only 6331. a-year ;
that /7 ind.oole
the rental of the parties who signed the counter-petitloo
was not less than 47,0001. a year, the total rental of
Leamington bring estimated at 67,0001. a year. The
contents of the petition were simply to the effect that the in 4
habitants of Leamington did not desire the electivefranchiset
because their town, neing a quiet place, and totally free &too
the excitements attendant upon elections at present''
ofttimes resor!ed to as a place of refuge by those Who
wished to get out of the turmoil of an election, and
tl4l .
extension of the franchise to them would totally alter their
present quiet character. The committee which sat on 111
borough of Warwick petitions, had stated the co ten
the petition to which he just referred to be merely that tliS.
inhabitants of Leamington did not desire the frenchise or
Warwick to be extended to them, because, as they alreadi
had votes for the county, any further elective privilege
was unnecessary. Now, this statement was perfectlY 0?: ,
true, for tl e petition contained no such averment bad and Di
representing the petition in the manner which bad bee°
done by that committee, he could find no other terms t°
desigport than as a fraud committed on thi!
nate their re
House of Commons.—(Oh, oh.) He, however, could
trace the matter to the proper quarter; and when „:
mentioned the name of Mr. Joseph Parkes, he di" —Se •
think he was far wrong. The cute, however, Was °,O„
which certainly d: served the attention of a select CO`".
nfoarmtehtehoaseppwoihnotmielen appointment mittee, and he could cite several precedents, if needs were'
golinte;verelletheshfiotetelsd;
form that committee, of whom the chairman of t spar',,i
wick committee wa one ; the humble individual who
htnee_.
addressed the house another—(A loud laugh) --the
_en,
members who presented the respective petitions fronaveL, Lea
tnington, Viscount Eastnor, &c. He begged to rtr
ed to
.n amendment, that a select committee be ePP°lflact pee-
inquire into the circumstances attendant on the P_riiitants
ment of a petition purporting to be signed by the inha „„,i„.O
of Leamington relative to the extension of the ei'v
franchise to their town.
Mr. HARDY seconded the amendment. ad the
The SPEAKER put the original queethm a
amendment. the b°°'
Sir R. FERGUSON said that to the speech of
if
so
and learned necenb r for Dover, as far as he whatever'hee
personally concerned, he should make no reply ~eboo.
The house soul,' nut but see that the object of new to
tnember's amendment was to obtain delay, with 0 view
defeating the object of the bill upon which they were_e the
to obtain delay, with a view to defeating the object o.ttee;
bill upon which they were about to go into nom the
and he would therefore leave the matter entirely t°oo,
c insideration of the house as to whether they week'. 0.
sent to suffer such a proceeding to obtain their woo „a
Mr. HARDY said, that he had been induced t° 64°
beeit egre
the moil ,n in the belief that the houses dthe c 0.
piously impo-ed on with reference to the pon, 2ber
tents of w hide h eel been just stated Icy the boo. mew
peltstbrseornsoeo
far Dover.—(Loud cries of " Divide.")
; but the
The gallery was then cleared far a divisor', r return
public were, after a short time, re-admitted ; oil ou
we found 00juutee
Mr. GOULBURN had been speaking for soul:
, aloud"
to the effect that the house ought to agree to
tbd
at ode
went of the hon. member for Dover, and proc
to appoint a select committee. ht that the
Lord J. RUSSELL, on the contrary, thought
to
hon. and learned member had stated no grou 0g jaw
which the house could be justified in postnoninf,F,e,: for
the
committee ou the Warwick Disfranchisement.Delealajoge
purpo e of appointing a select committee on O._ a ray fit
ton petition. The question might certainly 7.ad with.,
one for examination before a select committeoe demand over
out denying the right of the hon. member t demands '
or even the expediency of acceding to that
Andsgal-
's bon. peed
should certainly vote for the motion of hi „0
lant friend, leaving it at the option of the hon. ane. 7... e de
member to bring forward his amendment in the ne/'
motion at a later hour of the evening. for DoVet
Mr. TANCRED said that the hon. membersvc.
ether
ought not to lose sight of the fact, that there
47_„e to
petitions from Leamington besides the perticul
.."t" the
found t" t
which be had referred, and it would be ~..
eagh, 00
Warwick committee treated them all alike. It ,
elec. com
e'
to he forgotten, however, that in case
the
bsecome th
mittee was appointed those petitions would
ticular 00e
fair subject of investigation, as well as the par
• s td
referred to at present. air. Squire ,
Lord EASTNOR knew enough of the return
vouch for his credibility, when he stated_
I h that
fLealOington,
made by him, as overseer of the pans- o
and the
were correct. it drawn, a
Tee amendment was ulti nately withdrawn,
k Disfranchise-
house went into committee or the %Venet .
the cbatr.the
ohoseo
ment Bill, Mr. BONHAM CAuTart in
Tree CHAIRMAN baying gone through all reed t°'
put the question that the preamble of the bill be ag be was
Mr. GOULBURN rose and said, that although .0 tbe
not prepared to deny that bribery had existed 1
gnat
borough of Warwick, yet it was by no means to 9° re-
an extent as to justify the house in agreeing to the Ftte,
sent bill. He had read the evidence before the e03,f,61 ore •
with great ears, and he bad not been able to n°,.",..- ne
than 21 cases of bribery, of which 10 had voted je;,:ted
side, and 10 for the other, the odd one not having who
at all. It was also in evilence, that the Perthtots of
were thus convicted of bribery were not inhe"-eertehl
Warwick, but only veted in riht of their holding -fair to
disfranchise
tenancies within the borough ;,and it was too un wbo i
franchise the whole borough for these perenn;'ht be ~
alone ought to be the sufferers He knew it ineriberf
said that although thet .1 21 cases of ,
~
.e were on y •IA have bee"
directly proved, yet hundreds more cases tnig
h did the, ''.
brought forward ; but if this were the Coe, svb y
.., were P°:
house appoint a second committee, and ” e the' t.
luced before
those additionalproofs of
corruption pro( . 1
taking ail
committee ? He entered his protest again' borough'
further proceedings in the disfranchisement of the
endow;
Sir R. FERGUSON said that the right bon. g
was the
opposite seemed to think that the crime of bribery
only one which, when .proved, could operate . again ir!
borough, leaving out of sight altogether the faect.l.:o agd,
the case of Warwick, the grossest practices of tr
040;euit 1 )1
pres.ent.making had prevailed up to the very differed 'll
testing the writ. He, however, totally ".00e03104„
opinion ore this subject with the right bon. g`„„ three' ~
and considered that even in the absence of so' dope' house
cases of bribery, enough was on record to jostle haeough.;
in proceeding as it was doing with respect to t difficult '
Indeed, when it was recollected how extretnelY
eriberYt 11,,e,
was to obtain proof of even a single case of u the bin
would put it to the houses, whether, even t3king bad beer' r
es cot
on. gentleman's own admission, that ten eas the pre ,
b
fairly established, the evidence did nut warrantov oroiden
bill. The hon. member had, however, whichoetefej weal
going into the collateral proofs of corruption
soteln,:#,
t,, be found in the evidence; for instance,the.,(arteiril-
intimidation which had been pursued by Lor aisfroo•
agent. He should, therefore, vote for the cola
Low tot
chisement of Warwick, and thought that, i
_Jog the cl
the house and the Country, that was the only
to nine. 11
should be adopted. Leamington was averse to Loos 1 't,,
tion with Warwick ; but it was the duty of the Poe sba ;1
act independently on such a question, and take pad, lia '
eech scenes of corruption should not be repeafrani the
i would only add that he had received a petitieu

I

intabitants of Kenilworth, Who differed in opinion from
lilose of Leamington, and stated that, if the latter place
Ras averse to the franelii.re, they would gladly accept it.
Sir GRAY SKIPWITH said, as the people of Lea-
mington were averse to the junction with Warwick, and
should
'moldered it would be injurious to their property, he
joinmove as an amendment, that Leamington be not
ed to War„.irk.
The CHAIRMAN said the proper time to move an
amendment would be when the clauses of the bill came
to be discussed.
I• 11. HUGHES said a few words, but they were
llrndistinctly heard, owing to the noise which prevailed.
the • HALCOIIB next spoke, but was inaudible from
H cause.
t„. Ide• GOULBIJRN said if Members would not listen
to— aardeto:ent,it trouldbemuch wore becoming and proper
n the discussion.
reb RALCOMB said his chief object in rising was to
°llAhithe personal—he might say insolent attacks made
el by the hon. member for Cht shire.
11". IlEbelieve the member alluded to)
laid be had risenmoßnEß' (
a (we
emer occasion, and made some
• ;171:Z1'o purely out of admiration for the manner in which
'IL member had opposed the question. The hon.
01131trer bad, with the usual approbation and admiration
f 'e house, now spoken three times, and he anticipated
Ler°;:ll speech froth one who seemed to voltOntser his
in the cause of every delithought nonquent before the h ouse.
:41.' 011LBURN hon. member, in dis-
-1 ue" e a measure of that kind, was justified in making
plPeisonal remarks. The better course would be to
i-PtientlY, and then answer objections.
'rwtI,ALCOMB then defended the conduct of the Earl
otessaa ~Money, it was said, had been paid by his
psidr" for electioneering purposes, but that money was
bat the noble earl's brother, and surely there was no
"' HI one brother lending money to another.—(oh.)
fot4lll,e not a right to lend motley, though it. should be
u. electioneering purposes ?—(oh.) The influence of
`ThCastle, he believed, did not at all affect the election.b
10i:elks!: member for Banbury wished Leamington to e
abet Warwick, probably because he had property in
%tad:win. With regard to the charge of bribery,.lieto
l 467 say, most of the money spent had been paid
,
set clerks clerks and others, who had stopped for six or
log peke at the inn, drinking Champagne, and watch-
sfr.e registration of voters.
ha, mLANGDALE, in allusion to a remark made by an
re, Pot said Mr. Porker had not drawn up the.
be kst.sw, tie had been engaged as counsel, but (as far as
Sit flibad nothing to do in drawing up the. port.
'PHILLIPSon said there was a great disinclination
to
th- Part of the inhabitants of Leamington to b
Nape frandthe with Warwick ; but the house had a great
• 'Io shit
Id see no hope for the
isde,„o Y to perform, and he cou
elbgtoo7"me of the borough but from a union with Lea-
parE is attention should be
edo ASTINOR thou ht some
laett, the wishes of the people of Leamington, and.. a
their 40t pressed which they declared would injure
Pro
Sit 4Perty.
*bath INGLIS was of opinion, the question was not
of a erthe franchise should be bestowed upon Leamington
= Witi.-11);other place, but whether it should be taken from
'teelaith„.eic* The right of conferring the privilege of re-
sit,' member or
lba
6 a members to that house was one that
and 4,7 disposed of as a thing which was held in trust,
the • as 55 much property.—(Hear.) The. house was,
alid Present cote discharging a sort of judicial function;
44. it was,
t. in his opinion, by no means justifiable to
b,.l4ol.;ollipareouviesde a constituene • of 1,279, because bribery had
against 21 )of them. If, indeed,. the great
geost Y had been convicted of bribery, then might be
feting Motile how far this house would be justified in suf-
abl2 a Privilege to exist which had been so shamefully
the C But, in the present case, he again called upon
1,30:555 to recollect that, out of a constituency of nearly
kr. ~°,nY 21 cases of bribery had been proved.i
rthitelicot ~..,4sl°l.tVtVee-L;Ranwda,s understood to defend t ie. report of
in reply to the observation o
the
4tten, °b• baronet, would impress upon the boos,
" brrh_e °Acuity of proving even one, much less 21, cases
l'i;j7*--"( Hear.)
Ott._ tePort of the bill was then brought up and received,
,I,Loorne verbal amendments.
house then resumed.
111 -Viotti:TOOL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
onto ts.„,---•IETT moved that the house do resolve itself
ailmlitre on the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill.
kitteer- DON objected to the house going into cf.rn
twelve ant, that late hour of the night. It was then after
voting 4..,ed'ek, and the house were not in the habit of
.ithy spiuli7, any of the public money at such an bour,
liberty?....(HtioY vote away any portion of the public
Mr. 13,A, ear.)
BO lon '4.4ETT said, as the question bad been already
ther dgelbefore thie house, he could not consent to any fur-
questio delay,
Lord%• lie
feared it was sought to get rid of the
AntitsfrbelYoN"o the preset Bession.
vide the house ratbelv Co
move an adjournment, and di-
boar. go into committee at that late
th_After
.some conversation, Mr. BENETT agreed that
ilisetretion should be postponed till Wednesday, upon. the
du.s understanding that if the other public business
Aar
hi'llosed of before twelve o'clock, it should be then
t for fur d scussion without any further opt)...
aillihe',...llALCONlß gave notice that on the third reading
t
warwiek Borough Bill he would movef foarn
aalslee select
bp airtee to inquire into the circumstances o
lett;,": of privilege, as regards the signatures,. and t pgre-
tiglis-pa'M to this house, of a petition purporting o. be
foe r,7, by certain inhabitants of Leamington Spa, praying
tuitit"oen wens ion of the borough of Warwick to Lea-
tolkair G• FERGUSON obtained leave to bring in a bill
sire an act passed in the reign of George 111., to
tid;ra.ge the improvement of waste lands upon entailed
utvs In Scotland.
1111°UGHA.111 obtained leave to bring in a bill to
pti tish a general registry of all deeds and instruments
'Zing to real property in England and Wales.
su_r,• !MURRAY presented the Foreign Enlistment Bill,
,e__7 was read a first time, and ordered to be read a
.04rl time on the 31st inst.
1111,.01 11' GORDON presented a bill for the better ma-
Iheerit GORDON
the poor of Biadord, Wi
bootie adjourned as onef o'clock.lts.
Of
41S-

7 (Tole T OF THE MINORITY
fling r 4 included), who voted againse the Second
of
For th
he Se Second fford Bo Disfranchise
r lough Disfranch:ient Bill.
t 67
Against it 5
BUffer Majority
F,. Total in the House 17°
gratkell, I:,,,North Staffordshire Halcomb, J.—llover
L °n",.Ca'u'''Wonlock
ktron HPL—statford TELLERS.
Orcestgiliree°l- H.—West Fryer, It.—Wolverhamptor!
Chetwynd, Capt. W.—Stafford
0( 27 -LIS I, _

OF H—E
MINORITY
(Tellers included),T
who voted at a quarttr past two
s' To eau. . in the morning,
tcl'tor the attention of the House to theoenafiseneodf 11,i ford 4" the Brighton Guardian,
A t.ettenrel: Inc.CCheoll'inens-,
itio4b7,li. 4Al'd to move for an Address for c a
remission of his
-4!.lelerk, cCel?,tirrn. 0F..12, BlZrer.e4 Aubrey
tulhin% sii 'le.Galway Co.
pleirre
thantles--teliesteard
Itarteie: if rt---11P--Ye
itsl, e-.-31----ret Sussex
441....5tn0i1, c. r13.F.,--.Brighton
I;ir:h4---, Dublin Co.
mtleftrleVvyt• 11.--Newport, Isle
talor, p:a glt--Middlesex
torPli, taunt halFetgaaCdoivisic
Itiezills at the late hour of half
the
e+ c' J°llo Russell Howl(
reajZod, Sir J. Graham.
gain..,.._st the motior.
_____„......................
kr. wily --------
, renre-
formerl) r
Foil N . d Smith,
ant who d of Mr.
Po °Mich in Parliarnent, and was the frier!
grelynnud !he
f his principles for a
consistent supporter o
the sepli
Pot% ttlir of years, has lately addressed a
.letter to the
ratio tant dissenters, dissuading them from urging
tut 1:1 of church and state in their petitions to the legisla.
thee' 1%.1r. Skiith urges with great truth that.
Inertts of
mind is no
Prepared f_, the question may be, the public whatevert
institutions of the
couotet, for sa great a change in the
ilnpir." " the overthrow of that connectionins
would
kr,
thatith GI,G.--A Correspondent observed
getnie t tapb,ogy for the recent appointment of this
of 1)i:11V ,4 chaplain to a Military Hospital,
believe 7'4 been originally in the army. is the fact
we
. soortly after h•
he wrote his celebrated story of
IS return 0 baltern ;, and
hiore recently from the Penlitnswuasla:that
4 still hi or another work, which has obtained _
" The ou
ensioner: er
degree of fame, namely, for bins
club f •
i'' 4 series of tales supposed to be written by a
"The Chelsea kr oh retired officers. These tales form, we observe, the
e_
Estaereainnumoienhetr of the Naval and Militaf ry
tLhiehrfetterlylionf
°I the eheiv‘
14_ no, publishing monthly, a ter
r .0 I.

Lennox,LordW.—King's Lynn
O'Connor,;Feargus—Cork Co.
O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda
Ord, W.H.—Newport, Isle of W
Pease, Joseph—South Durham
Ruthven, K S.—Dublin
Ruthven, Ed.—Kildare
Roebuck, J. A.—Bath
Vigors,:N. A.—Carlow
Walter, John—Berkshire
Wason, R.—lpswich
Wallace, T.7-Carlow

I- TELLERS.
Kemp, T. IL—Lewes
Wigney, I. N.—Brighton
on of interest to the Ministry.
(past two, Lords Althorp, Pal.
Lck, and Duncannon ; Messrs.
l, and Sir F. Burdett, voted in
-1 to move for a Committee.