The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-29 00:00:00

110ROUGEI OF LAUNCESTON.

Mr. C. BULLEII presented a petition from the elec-
tors of Launceston, in the county of Cornwall, complain-
ing that bribery had been used at the last election for that
borough, and that they were only prevented from proving
it hefore the Haase, by the enormous expense which at-'
tended the taking of evidence before election petitions. He
disclaimed all feeling of personal hostility against the
Gallant General (Sir H. Hardinge), who had been the
succe.ss.ful candidate for that borough. He was most
also to give any pain to the Noble Duke
(Northumberland), who was said to nominate for Laun-
ceston. His sole object was to show that there existed

what the petitioner. comndered a great COnOutional
The first statement in the petition was highly deservint
tee attention of the House, that in consequence of tlo
great and enormous expense which was incurred by election
committees, they could not prove the existence at the last
election of the bribery which the petition alleged. Thr
petition then went on to pia), that the constituency might
he increased by extending the limits of the borough. Th-
petition also prayed that a commission should be sent down
to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election,
and that the evidence might be taken on an economical
',elle. The Hon. Member, in supporting the prayer of the
petition, stated that he was aware he made himself
obnoxious to those who advocated the "finality" of the
Morin Bill ; but be considered that measure would be a
mere mockery to the people of England if it did not, to use
the language of Lord Grey in the House of Lord., " put an
end to the system of nomination," and introduce in its room
that o! representation. It was not, however, against the
Reform Bill, but against the Boundary Bill, that he urged
obj2etions. He almost wished that no assertion had been
made as to the existence of bribery; as he wished to con-
fine the attention of the House to a single question of fact,
whether Launceston was still a nomination borough.
regretted that the vote by ballot had not been carried on a
late occasion—(Hear, bear)—as he was of opinion that
would have given the voters some effectual protection.
But, from the votes on that occasion, he did not think
that the voters of England would be long excluded from
that benefit. Thn Hon. Member then insisted on the nc-

cessity of enlarging the extent of this very limited borough.
He did not ask for the commission solely on bebalf of the
electors of Launceston, but on behalf of the people of Eng-
land generally, who were so deeply intere►ted in the a)stem
of representation, of the state of which the petition fur
nished some evidence. He asked the House if it wished
that the people of England should, by their complaints,
force them to adopt a much greater change than had been
effected by the Reform Bill.
Sir H. HARDINGE thought the speech of the Hon.
Member was not so much for the purpose of doubting the
legality of the election, as it was to exhibit a desire to
attack the Reform Bill. With regard to the Reform Bill

he (Sir H. Hardinge) had opposed it to the tibmost ; but
as it was now the law of the land, he should do all he
could to remedy any defect that it had.—.(He +r, hear,
hear.) He did not, however, agree th -it it was
necessary on all occasions on which the petitioners
had ben defeated, that they should claim a large exten-
sion of boundary. The petitioners were those who op-
posed him, and the first signature was that of Mr. Howell,
whom he defeated, and the next that of Thomas Pearce,
who was Mr. Howell's electioneering agent,—a gentle
m.n who, on a recent occasion, declared that he had
redeemed sixty yeses of Toryism by three of Radicalism:
He (Sir H. Hardinge) most distinctly denied on behalf of
himself, his agents, or his friends, that there was one single
instance of bribery or corruption at his election. The
House would recollect that a petition had been presented,
charging him, his agents, and friends, with bribery, and
yet, after waiting three months, and Mr. Pearce being
the agent--
Mr. BULLER interrupted the Hon. and Gallant
Officer by saying that there was no charge of bribery,
indeed he believed that there was not the slightest suspicon
of bribery against the Hon. and Gallant Officer.
Sir H. HARDINGE read an extract from the former
petition, in which himself, his agents, &c., were charged
with bribery and corruption. He declared that he held
the off nce of bribery in so odious a light, every voter
being obliged to take the bribery oath, that sooner than
have subjected the voters to the offence of perjury, he
would have lost Ye electian.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Although the former p"titioners had had three months,
1 they failed to enter into the requisite sureties, and he (Sir

li. Hardinge) in conequence had never had an opportunity
to declare that he was not the guilty person he had been
accused of. He was prepared—and that was known to
his counsel and agents—to meet the charge, and to deny
and defy the proof that there was a single case of bribery,
and he believed that the reason the petition was not pro-
secuted was, that the petitioners were convinced they
could not bring forward a single case, and they were afraid
their petition would be deemed frivolous and vexatious.
For several weeks every Cornish paper had teemed with
articles calling for subscriptions, in support of the peti-
tions, in order, as they said, " to drive the Conservatives
from the Borough of Launceston ;" and with considerable
effect too, for they had got 5001. or 6001. in that way.
Ati Hon. Baronet's (Sir William Mole,worth) agent had
written articles of that kind in a Gavernm,nt paper.
Ha had now been returned to Parliament eight or nine
times, and he had never had any transaction of the nature
that was asserted by the Hon. Member. His agents and
counsel knew all the details of the case, he stated them
publicly, and they could catechise him if they thought
proper. With regard !o the influenc- that was complained
of, he begged the Hon. Member to recollect what was the
influence of the Duke of Northumherlani. Tne Duke had
by no means large pro?erty in that neighbourhood, and
therefore, the Duke's influence did not ari,e from
his having a large tenantry ; it arose from his
having been for many years a large benefactor to all
the public charities in that neighbourhood, and on the
occasion of the late contest, ne (Sir Henry) could only
state that such was the impression of the people of Laun-
c<ston fur his benefactions, and the generosity and

liberality with which they were dispensed, that an
accusation was made against Mr. Howell, stating
that he never made any benefaction to the town anti in the
year 1826 a review was taken of the benefactions of the
Noble Duke and Mr. 11. (the one living at a distance,
and the other on the spot), when it appeared that the
Duke of Northumberland in the year IS2B subscribed to
the public chanties, Sunday schools, and to the poor of
the parish 2131., and towards the improvement and re-
pairs of the town 334/., while in that tear Mr. Howell,
being a resident gentl ma❑ in the neighbourhood, there
was not one farthing subscribed by him. Now he would
state that it was not the influence of the Duke from pro-
perty, but it was the influence of a liberal and generous
Nuhl-man, exercised on the spot ; and if he were to get
into details to justify that Nobleman's conduct, of which
he was sure the Noble Duke would rather not have said
he WA., there would be enough to vindicate him, and
to clear him from all imputation.—(Hear, hear.)
Bur, be would say, the Duke of Northumberland bad not
in the town of Launceston one dt zen of tenants, and that

.. ..
he had not in the borough of Launceston one half of the
same proportion of tenants as the Duke of Bedford had
got in Tavistock—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")—
If the Hon. Gentleman wished to have examples to justify
him in calling for an extension of the con-tituency, he
should look nearer home, and he would find much stronger
ones. There was the borough of Tavistock, with its
population of five thousand six hundr,d, returned two Mem-
bers, yet it polled only two hundred and forty-seven votes
at the late election, while Launceston, with a population
of 5,381, had only one Member, yet polled 243 voters.
Knaresborough and Totness stood in the same relative
situation. He was quite astonished to find the state-
ments of the Noble Lord who introduced the Reform
Bill, that it would add to the constituency of the borough's
upwards of 110,000—there were 65 old boroughs which
at the late election had polled only 83,809, while there
had been cont sted elections in every one, and under the
old system they had polled 95,040, the very same 65 bo•
roughs. The corporation had also been charged with
using undue influence in having a power to license public-
houses. There had been only one gentleman licen.rd
since the passing of the Bill, and he was one of the per-
sons who had signed the petition.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said without au increase in
the ronstitu,ncy, Launceston would be a mere nomination
borough—this was not his opinion only, but that of 99
sot of every 100 of his constituents. He did nut accu'e
the Hon. and Gallant Baron •t of those practices, in tact,
he believed that he was quite unaware of them, but he
would assert that they were carried on, and that the Duke
of Northuinherlind was the arch-criminal.
Sir H. HARDINGE—It is false.—(Order, order.)
If the Hon. Member means to assert, and continues to as-
sert, that the Duke of Northumberland is the arch-crimi
nil in those demoralizing practises, I will again meet it
in the way I have done, and characterize such an assertion
as being false —(Loud cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER said that all the Hon. Baronet meant
was, that if such an assertion was made, he would deny
the truth of it in the strongest language that the forms of
I:tat House would allow.—(Hear.)
Sir W. MOLESWORTH would still assert that the
Duke of Northumberland was the principle cause of inti-
midation in the borough.
Sir H. HARDINGE observed, that if the Hon. Mem-
ber still persisted in that assertion, he must reprobate it
in the stroneest terms of inoigoation the House would al-
low hint to express.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH would still adisere to his as-
ertion.
An HoN. ME3II3F.It begged to add his testimony to that
of the Hon. Baronet, that Launceston was a nomination
borough.
Sir H. HARDINGE said, that with regard to an
statementssand paulantishhamdebnets7
thattl
nde as to
b ieetnitkilmelidilaottin,lot,had
he must
observe, that, at the late election, two memb•ra of M, .
Howell's Committee hail promised the Honourable
Baronet's custom to voters who bad already pro-
mised him their votes, provided be would break
his faith and tote fir Mr. Howell. \Vfth regard to the
notoriety that had been expressed of Launceston becoming

nomination borough, he ttiould !tied that that &role,
lot Nom the rent clicu,i,biances in whin', the horoogu
was placed, but in cou.equeriee of bis (Sir Henry
Ifardinge) having defeated the Whig candidate.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said, that if what the Right
Hon. Baronet had stated was the feet, he felt more in-
dignant at the use of his name than words could express.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER would assure Hon. Mem-
bers that although attached to the Whir party, he would
have as readily presented a petition of the same nature
from Tavictoek as from Launceston.
Mr. AIORRISON presented petitions fur the abolition
of slavery from several place. in Suffolk.
Mr. LEACH presented petitions front several parishes
;n Monmouthshire, for the better observance of the
Sabbath.

Mr. HUTT presented petitions from Barton, A1.11.m-
-rough, and other places, for the abolition of slavery.
ASSESSED TAXES.

Mr. HUTT then presented petitions from Kingston
upon-Hull and another place, for the repeal of the assessed
taxes.

Mr. BRIGSTOCK presented a similar petition from
Shepton 111411 et.

,40TiihtieonHoufpNi.salc11,,e,1::.x:::faoronmahlispsohinepprBoteeeont:At,ediNvanetpelt:st,iLtTiaoitnnyseerrttfonnr:
aattillnded
at aWolvrrtiproltuaocsne, and
al
sfor theopmeti t
petitions
Wesleyanfo r t
the
eMbee Methodists st
observance assembling
of
othe
s
the Sabbath, from Rohorough ; and a petition from Bath
against the Blark Dog Road Bill.
Mr. J. C. DUNDAS presented a petition from Rich.
mond, in Yorkshire, for a reform in the corporation of
that town, and for an extension of the frtnchise.—Referred
to the Committee on Corporations.
Tire HON. MEMBER. also presented three p-titions from
George-street Chapel, Greenwich; from William-streLt
Chapel, Woolwich, and from certain Methodists of the
same place, for the abolition of slavery.
Mr. PLUMBTRE presented petitions from Wigan, and
three other places, for the abolition of slavery; and from
Kingsworth and Bruckley for the repeal of the malt duty.
Mr. VIGORS presented a petition from thecongregt-
-

lion of Dissenters of York-street Chapel, Dublin, for the
better observance of the S4bhath, to the pr.yer of
which he was opposed.—(Hear, hear.) From the
parish of St. Pancras, for the abolition of the assessed
taxes ; from the same place, for the repeal of the Sep-
tennial Act and ♦ote by ballot ; and from the same
parish complaining of the immense expenditure of the
Trustees of the new Church, and praying red.ess.
The latter petition stated that, in order to
build a new Church, two Acts of Parliament had
passed, empowering the trustees, who were an irrespon-
sible and self-elected body, to raise two sums of 40,000/.
45,000/., and yet they had raised on the whole a sum of
not less than 250,000/.—(Hear.)
Lord OSSULSTON presented a petition from Ford, in
Northumberland, praying for the better observance of the
Sabbath.