The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-23 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. O'CONNELL would take that opportunity of ad-
verting to a breach of privilege in the Times newspaper,
which he had brought before the House on a previous
evening. What he had now to state would create no delay
in the business of the House, and he felt anxious to
tuentio■ it. The House would recollect that the com-
plaint which he had made was in publishing in the
Times newspaper, as his speech, sentences that had never
been uttered by hint. At that periad the Speaker had
been pleased to intimate to him front the Chair, that if he
was disposed to make any motion on the subject of a
breach intentionally committed, he ought to throw aside his
private feelings. To that decision he (Mr. O'C.) entirely
bowed. He bad made inquiries on the subject, from
which he was perfectly convinced that not the smallest

blame attached to the conductors of the newspaper in
which the speech he had complained of appeared.
Nor bad they been guilty of any neglect. lie had, also
seen the person who had reported the speech, and he hid
most satisfactorily explained the subject -to him in such a
way as that he would venture to pledge himself to the House
that no disrespect whatever was intended towards it or any
body else. He was quite satisfied with what had been
stated to him, and should press the matter no further.
Sir H. PARNELL had a complaint to make of a para-
graph which appeared in the Morning Chronicle, which
stated that they " understood it was the general im-
pression of the Committee appointed to inquire into the
disturbances in the Queen's County, that those distur-
bances arose in consequence of the authorities impro-
perly executing their duty." The Committee considering
such a statement wholly unfounded, had come to a re-
solution that the statement in the Morning Chronicle was
a gross misrepresentation of facts, and had r. quired him
or the Chairman of that Committee to communicate that
resolution to the House for the purpose of contradicting iu
the most decided manner the statements that had been put
forth. Ile (Mr. H. Parnell) would undertake to say that
the evidence which had been adduced before the Commit-
tee, would not warrant any such statement.
Sir R. INGLIS considered that the R;glit Hon.
Baronet in merely mentioning the subject to the House,
had done either too much or too little. Some proposi-
'ion should either have been brought forward, for bringing
the printer of the Paper to the bar of the House, ,or no
notice should have been taken of it.
Sir IL PARNELL, as Chairman of the Committee,
did not feel himself called upon to pursue the course sug-
r,,ested by the Hon. Baronet below him, considering he had
done his duty in putting the House in possession of the
eolut:om

Mr. BRISCOE deprecated the time of the House
ilistillutiou.
occupied in such irregular discussions, thinking, it bard
fsfitooLtoencidsioet
tiv,yetrohatell
upon lion. Members n•ho, by. the deci-io❑ of the ballot,
urn
were entitled to present petitions.
The SPEAKER observed that breaches of privilege
,41Aisitsre J.
Ireland,‘VYlE praying presented
petition
repealpetitionsfr
always
inflow-glass;
ldro.svt-oligol akus s?laclepsdoeo:erciene
presented
thea other
subject juei

uhabitanta of Nottingham and neighbourhood, complain-
ing of the conduct of the visiting Magistrates and Gaoler
of that town. He said this was a very singular petition,
and it had been in London for some time—it had even
beco iu the hands of several Hon. Memhers of that House,
and among others in that of the Hon. Member for Kerry.
He would not complain of that Hon. Gentleman for not
presenting the petition, for he believed be had never yet
been in a gaol, and of course was unacquainted with the
tortures that were there put in practice.—(A good deal of
conversation was going on while the Hon. Gentleman
was speaking, in consequence of which he turned round
and said)—He was well aware that many of the Members
of that House were Magistrates, and he always found that
when the conduct of brother magistrates was brought
under the notice of the House, there was very little atten-
tion paid to the speaker ; however, on this occasion 11.-
entreated that they would give him their attention for only
a short time, because the complaint he had to make was
one of no common description, and more resembled the
practices pursued in the days of the Star Chamber than of
the 19th century. The Hon. Member then read a state-
ment made by a prisoner in Nottingham Gaol,
awed Cutts. He said he was taken up en suspicion
of having set fire to Nottingham Castle, he believed, upon
the information of a convicted felon ; that he was confined
for five days without water to drink, and that when be
asked for it, be was told that if he would confess, he
might have as much as he wished, and would also be
kindly and well treated beside. That on the fifth day
he was obliged to drink his own urine, and after all he
was liberated without even the form of a trial, being told
that there was no charge against him. This con-
duet was most infamous, and called for vigilant in-
quiry. The petition had been in his hands for
ten days, and be would have presented it sooner,
but having given notice of his intention to the Hon.
Members for the County, he had fixed it for to-day, and
he was glad to see those Hon. Gentlemen in their places,
as well as the Honourable Mesiiher for the City of
Nottingham. He (Mr. Hunt) would perhaps have
acted like the Honourable Member for Kerry, bad
Le not himself been the inmate of a gaol, and seen
the cruelties that were committed in them; he had
even exposed them, and proved before a Commission of
the Crown that cruelties were practised in some gaols that
would have disgraced even an inquisition ; therefore he be-
lieved the statements made in the petition, and could have cre-
dited them even had they not been confirmed by upwards
of 3,000 of the inhabitants of Nottingham. He hoped
that the House would not allow such a case to go with-
out inquiry.

Mr. A. DENNISON thought very much discretion
was to be exercised before Honourable Members engaged
to present such petitions as the present. Every proba-
bility existed against the truth of the allegations it
contained, because in the first place, independent of the
character of the gentleman against whom the charges
were made, the Corporation of Nottingham had denied
their truth, and the public Press of that part of the coun-
try had also disclaimed any knowledge of the transaction
alluded to. But in the second place he held in his hand a
statement of the most convincing character which, being a
lette- from the solicitor of the prisoner himself, flatly
contradicted the libellous charges which the petition con-
tained. The letter stated that the writer having conversed
with the prisoner on the subject, ascertained that no tor-
ture, nor privations of any kind, had I een used for the pur-
pose of extorting confession, and that in fact, on the
contrary, he desired him to express his grateful ac-
knowledgment for the humane kindness he had in-
variably received.—(Hear.) The letter went on to re-
fute at some length the various charges which the peti-
tion alleged. If it appeared at all probable, after such a
statement to the House that the allegations were true, he
should be the first to second the proposal for inquiry.
But considering the statements unfounded and libellous,
he would oppose the printing of the petition.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think the
petition at all entitled to further publicity, because he
had no doubt that the charges were untrue. Among the
numerous individuals who had signed the petition, not one
of the names of the supposed victims of the injustice was
to he found.

Mr. LAMB thought the course which would have
been most satisfactory, would have been to have informed
him, on affidavit, of the particular facts of the case, in
order that he might have made the necessary inquirits.—
Bat certainly he had never heard more improbable, nor
indeed more libellous, charges in any petition. The
inquiries and investigation which had tAten place, as
to the Ilche•`er transactions referred to by the lionourtib'e
Member (Mr. Hunt), had completely satisfied his (Mr.
L.'s) mind, that the charges then made were wholly false.
He was wiling to make inquiries into the truth of the
allegations contained in the petition, but felt himself
called n to resist the printing of it.
Sir E. SUGDEY gave credit to the Hon. Member for
K rry fir having exercised a sound discretion in declining
to p -esent the petition without satisfactory evidence of
the truth of its charges.—(Hear, bear.) He utterly
disbelieved the statements, but at the same time
considered it impossible that the matter could rest
where it did. A petition containing, like the present, the
most serious charges against those who had the care of pri.
soners,offered to be proved by affidavit, properly prepared and
tendered, and refused by a Magistrate, deserved inquiry,
in order that if the facts were untrue, an exposition might
take place of the scandalous conduct of the propagators,
and if true, that condign punishment might be visited on
the heads of the guilty.

Mr. O'CONNELL had been requested to present a pe-
tition, but felt surprised at having received a petition from
Nottingham of that nature, while two Members had been
returned for that place on the popular interest. He ex-
pressed great hesitation in believing that cruelties
of so outrageous a description had been perpetrated.
He had been asked by the person who brought the peti-
tir n whether, if he were satisfied of the truth of the alle-
gations in the petition, he would present it, and he said
he certainly would. The person then promised to send
bins soire affidavits of its truth, and he (Mr. O'Connell)
(omtnunicated to the Member for Nottingham, and for the
tount,, his intention, and also informed them that he
would forward copies of the affidavits which were pro-
mimed him. However, no affidavits were furnished him,
and he therefore felt disinclined to present the peti-
tion. It was said now that the Magistrates refused
to accept the oaths of the parties to the affidavits but if
the persons tendering the affidavits had gone to an at-
torney, or even asked him (Mr. O'Connell) they would
have been informed that they could have gone before any
Magistrate, or have got them sworn before a Commissioner
of the King's Bench. He hoped, however, the petitioner
would not be disparaged on his account, for he felt obliged
by the Hon. Member for Preston's presenting the petition,
and if an inquiry were moved he would vote for it.
Mr. S. LUMLEY was understood to defend the con-

duct of the Magistrates.
Sir R. FERGUSSON denied most strongly that the
Members for the town of Nottingham had been applied to
to present the petition, and that they had refused. So far
trona there being any ground of complaint on the part of
the convicts towards the magistrates, one of the Members
hid gone on board the hulks where they had been sent,
and most minutely inquired respecting their treatment, the
result of which was that no complaint whatever was made.
Mr. HUNT felt it to be his duty to move that the pe-
tition he printed. If he thought that the copies of the
petition were to be circulated throughout the country, he
would not make the motion, but he wished every Mem-
ber of the House to be in possession of it. As to the
promised inquiries by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Lamb), be (Mr. Hunt) knew what inquiries by Secre-
taries of State were of old.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Under all the circumstances, however, and upon an under-
standing that the Under Secretary would substitute inqui-
ries upon the subject, he should not press the printing. of
the petition at present. But if no satisfactory inquiry
was instituted, lie should certainly feel it his duty to
move for a public one.
A message from the Lords informed the House that his
Majesty would receive the address of both Houses on
Wednesday next, at two o'clock.
Colonel DAVIS brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on Secondary Punishment.
DIVISION OF COUNTIES BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the order of the day
for the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. DIXON wished to put a question to the Noble
Lord opposite. Ile was anxious to know whether his
Majesty's Government were aware of the distress which
the Orders in Council had produced in Jamaica.
Lord ALTHORP said that Government had received
no information whatever, to induce them to alter the
course they had adopted.
Mr. DAWSON wished to correct a tuistatement
which appared in the Times of yesterday. He had been
represented in that Journal as having stated that the most
shameful misrepresentations were made in Mr. Hansard's
Parliamentary reports. So far from having done so, he
had star d that he considered that they were the most cor-
rect that were published, and that Mr. Hansard deserved
the gratitude4ftivery Member of that House.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved some verbal amendments in
the Division of Counties Bill, which were adopted.
Mr. MORETON then moved, pursuant to notice, the
following amendment :—" That Wotton-under-edge be
substitu ed for Thornbury, as the place of nomination for
the wester a if:4u ict of Gloucester." He contended that

.

from its local situation, the former plsse would be mucl

more convenient than the latter.

Captain BERKELEY seconded the amendment.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET opposed the amend-

ment, and would take the sen'e of the House upon it.
Mr. HOWARD said that Thornbury would certainly be
the most convenient place I or the freeholders.
Sir B. W. GUISE supported the amendment.

Lord 37 RUSSELL would vote for Thornbury, as Le

had done before.
The Hou.e then divided—

For the Amendment
Against it B3
Majority
Sir R. PEEL moved that the poll for the southern
division of the county of Safford should l,e taken at the
ancient city of Lichfield, instead of at Walsall, as proposed
in the Bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL expressed himself ready to agri e
in the amendment.

The amendment was then put and carried.
Several verbal amendments were then agreed to, upon
the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL.
Mr. BLAINIIRE rose to move an alteration in the
Boundaries Bill rel itive to the boundaries of the town of
Whitehaven. As those boundaries were proposed to be
fixed by the present Bill, there were certain rural distracts
which were proposed to be thrown into the borough of
Whitehaven, but which would only add thirty members
to the constituency of that borough. It appeared from
the report of the Commissioners that there were 500 voters
for the borough, and the number, therefore, to be added by
the rural districts would be very a mall, while the laws
which formed these districts were all the property of a
Noble Earl, and might, therefore, at a subsequent period
be made the means of giving him an overwhelming influ-
ence. He should recommend to the House that the
boundaries of the borough should be confined to those
limits which were described in the local acts of Parliament
relative to that place. He called the attention of the Go-
vernment to this subject, as there were reports abroad in
the town of Whitehaven that this scheme of the boundary
of the borough was the result of a compromise with the
other side, and that the borough had been thrown over
as a sop to that party. He felt himself called on to make
this motion, in order to satisfy his constituents.
Mr. JAMES seconded the motion, and observed that

the rural district at present contained but a small number
of voters, but might at some future time be made the
means of throwing an immense influence into the hands
of the Earl of Lonsdale, who would be able, if be chose,
to put his coach-horses into nomination for the borough.—
(A laugh.)—There was also a matter to which he wished
to call the attention of the Government, and that was,
that it was reported at Whitehaven that the settlement of
the boundaries as they now stood had been drawn up by
an agent of the Noble Earl, and had been signed in his
Colliery-office. So at least it was stated in a printed
paper which had been sent up to him. He asserted that
the present settlement of the boundaries would in fact
make Whitehaveu a close borough ; and be therefore
pressed upon the Ministers the adoption of the proposed
alteration.

Lord ALTHORP apprehended it was not necesssary
for him to give any proof that the Government had en-
tered into no compromise with the opposite party—
(Hear, hear)—for no ore who knew at all what was the
state of parties could possibly believe that any such com-
promise had taken place.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member
should at once be informed what were the grounds on
which the Government had changed their intentions with
regard to these boundaries. It hid been urged upon
them, that in adopting the boundaries they originally pro-
posed, they should be creating an anomaly in this particu-
lar instance, and deviating from what they bad laid down
as the principle of the Bill. They bad at first been in-
formed that the whole of Whitehaven was the property
of Lord Lonsdale, but they subsequently found that that
information was not correct, and that the influence he would
possess there was no more than what property was on all
hands agreed to be fairly entitled to. The objection which
they felt to fixing the boundaries according to these local
Acts to which the Hon. Member had referred was, that these
Acts laid down certain limits, subject to be altered by sub-
st quest circumstances ; so that boundaries adopted by them
would be perpetually shifting, as other places, under the
particular circumstances stated in those Acts, came within
their operation. With respect to the statement which the
Hon. Member for Carlisle said he had received in a printed
paper from Whitehaven be (Lord Althorp) begged to ob-
serve, that it was impossible to be correct, for the bounda-
ries were never decided on by the Commissioners, or at
least their decision was never known till they came to
London. He repeated, therefore, that the reports alluded
to by the Hon. Member were without foundation, and he
expressed himself satisfied that the boundaries decided on
by the Commissioners were the best that the cicumstances
presented for their adoption.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment
Against it St2
Majority against the Amendment -59

_ .
Mr. G. BANRES moved an Amendment in favour of
Dorchester, viz.—to extend the Northern Boundary of
the Borough beyond the river Frome, so as to include the
whole of the parish of Trinity, part of which divided by
the river, bad been excluded by the Commissioners.
Mr. PORTMAN remarked that the change would only
add one house. _ _ _

Mr. BANKES replied, that it would add three cons'
derable farm-houses.

Mr. PORTMAN contended that the river Frome was
the natural and definite boundary.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the inclusion of three
farm houses was not a sufficient reason for altering the
boundary as settled.
The Amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. BEST moved, that the Isle of Purbeck be
added to Wareham. _

Mr. PORTMAN admitted the claims of the Isle of
Purbeck, but thought that it would be better to give it a
separate member. He would rather suggest the addition
of Corfe Castle and Bere Regis to the borough of Ware-
ham ; but he doubted the necessity of any change, as the
inhabitants of Wareham were satisfied with the arrange-
ment as it stood.
Mr. G. ROBINSON thought that Core Castle had
been somewhat unfair!) overlooked.
Mr. W. BANKES was of opinion that the Me of Pur-
beck had claims to be included in the borough of Ware-
ham, from the connexion between the two in trade and
locality.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that the case of Ware-
ham was extremely difficult to be determined. If the
Isle of Purbeck were added, the effect would be, by the
number of voters, to swamp Wareham.
Mr. G. BANKES asked if the Noble Lord would
object, then, to the extension of the boundary of Ware.
ham, so as to include Corfe Castle ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, personally, he should
nor offer any opposition to such an amendment. He (Mr.
G. Bankes) was sure that the proposition for the addition
of Purbeck to the constituency of Wareham would have
the support of the Honourable Member for Middlesex, be-
cause it would render the representation more popular.
It was a strange objection to that proposition, to say that
Purbeck was under the control of the Tories.—(Hear.)
Load ALTHORP would not consider, in such a ques-
tion, what prticular interest might have an accession of
influence ; but be would object to the addition of Purbeck
to Wareham, as creating too extended a constituency. He
did not think that the addition of Curie Castle was liable
to the'same objection.
Mr. WARBURTON was understood to say, that the
addition of Corfe Castle to the constituency of Wareham
would be advantageous.
Mr. BARING WALL was more convinced, by the
discussion upon the present question, than he had ever be-
fore been, of the advantage which would have accrued
from the sending of the Boundaries Bill to a Committee up
stairs.—(Hear.) The questions which it embraced were
too complicated to be adequately investigated in a Com-
mittee of the whole House. But as that had not been
done, he would pot consent to the addition of Purbeck to
Wareham, because he thought it was inexpedient and unjust
to enlarge the constituency of any borough, and be thought
that no borough ougt to have a larger number of co9stitu-
ents than was necessary to secure its respectability.—
(Hear, and a laugh.) Indeed, he would say, that
small he
thought the constituency of a borough ougas ht to be as
possible.—(Hear, bear, and a laugh.) flat. truth as,
the Whigs had divided the counties in such
a way, a to
give to the Whig families a preponderating influence.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to the ad-
dition of Coale Castle to Wareham.
Sir E. SUGDEN would support an amendment that
should add Purbeck to Wareham.
Mr. CALCRAFT, having just come into the House,
was not aware of the arguments that had been brought
forward in support of the amendment.—(Chetrs and
laughter.) 'Whatever he should say, therefore, would be
merely the expression of his individual opinion.—(Hear.)
Ile thought that the addition of Cork Castle would destroy
the independence of the new borough, and would preserve
to the late proprietors of Corfe Castle—(Hear, Lear, and
laughter)—to the proprietors, he would say, of the late
borough of Corfe Castle—(A laugh)—the nomination,
which it was the object of the Reform Bill to dt stroy.
(Cheers.) If that proposition were acceded to, a consi-
derable portion of the other part of the county ought to
be thrown in, to give the Whig proprietors their fair share
of influence.—(Much cheering and laughter.)
Mr. WRANGHAM said, that it was unfair to the Tories

to iay that the proposition came from any Member be. '
longing to that party. The Member for Worcester, wh.
moved the amendment, was a constant and consistent sup.
porter of the Whigs.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that Purbeck was altogether in
the bands of Tory proprietors.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that the Gentleman who
had offered himself as a candidate For Wareham was pro-
prietor of Bere Regis.
Mr. PORTMAN believed that the statement of the
Noble Lord was correct ; and he thought, therefore, that
the boundary of the new borough ought to be left as the
Commissioners had settled it.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON was disgusted with the exhibition of
family and party polemics to wl ich his proposition had
given rise.—(Hear, bear.) In making his proposition, he
had not been influenced by any desire to support any party,
or to give new influence to any family, Whig or Tory.--
(Hear, bear.) The only object which he had is viov
was, to render the constituency of the new borough such
as should exclude either family or party influence.
_ .

The House then divided :
For the addition of Corfe Castle to Wareham
Against it
Majority

Mr. TENNYSON then rose, in pursuance of the
motion which he bad given, and having entered into some
details connected with the borough of Stamford, he pro-
ceeded to state that the electors of Stamford, in attempt-
ing to effect their independence, had been turned out of
their houses, and otherwise prosecuted, by the Marquess
of Exeter. In reference to the boundaries of Stamford,
as proposed by the Bill, by which it was intended to add
the parish of St. Martin, in Northamptonshire, to the
borough which «as in Lincolnshire, the lion. Member
reverted to a petition which he had presented some time
since on the subject, in which the petitioners prayed that,
should this addition to the borough be carried into effeet,
the House would disfranchise the borough of Stamford
altogether, and that they would enfaanchise some other
borough where the constituency might be rendered in-
dependent. He had hoped that his Noble Friends
would have listened to this remonstrance on the part of
his constituents, but in this hope be had been disap-
pointed ; not, however, that he imputed to them any im-
proper motives ; he knew they were incapable of them ;
nor did he attach apy blame to the Commissioners, who
had, no doubt, done the best in their power. But it
was open to, and it was the imperative duty of, the House
to correct any of the arrangements which had been made,
and which did not secure an independent constituency.
The old borough contained 6,000 inhabitants, and having
ner4iy.soo 101. houses; St. Martin's contained 1,200 inhabi-
tants, and sixty or seventy 101. houses. St. Martin's was
almost entirely the property of Lord Exeter, and the addi•
tion, therefore, would immediately enable him to over-
power the newly redeemed independence of the borough.
It could not give representation (which is the pretext)
to St. Martin's, but it would deprive Stamford of the re-
presentation it had now acquired. St. Martin was totally
distinct from Stamford, nut being subject to the same mu-
nicipal government, or the same local rates and burdens.
It was a well-built village in Northamptonshire. The
Right Hon. Gentleman having entered into some other

local details, then stated that the borough of Stamford was
surrounded by commons and fields, that the Marquess of
Exeter, who was lord of the manor, had refused to allow
them to be enclosed, lest the creation of separate property
should emancipate the borough. If he were told that in
boundaries prescribed by the present Bill the Noble Lords
adopted a general rule which they had laid down, be de-
nied the fact in this instance, and the effect of the pro-
posed boundaries would be to cramp the independence of
the voters of that borough. The Hon. Member then pro-
ceeded to draw a parallel between the cases of Windsor and
Stamford, and said he was quite at a loss to understand
why the same principle was not adopted in both cases.
It was as obvious to have added Eton, and more so than
St. Martin's. In a measure which pretended to amend
the representation of the people, no borough should be
retained which could by possibility become a noniina-

tion borough. If, indeed, it were the determination
of his Majesty's Government to adhere to the Boun-
dary Bill, it would be necessary to have a new Re-
form Bill, or else to have another schedule A intro-
duced into the measure. It Was to he recollected that the
voters in this case who had returned him into Perliament,
were scot and lot vote's ; and they had returned him to
that House for the purpose of supporting the Reform Bill,
and he bad hoped that the Bill would have left them an
independent body of voters. It was with grief, however,
he found that, after all the suffering they had endured,
they were to be placed under the nomination of the Noble
Lord to whom he had alluded. When he looked around
to the noble sacrifices which had been made by the owner.
of nomination boroughs, they did not expect that the
names of nomination boroughs would merely be changed
when they offered them on the altar of their country. It
might be true that he stood there as a suspected advocate.—
as having a personal interest ; but he could truly say, that
in all his political career he had never been actuated by
personal or unworthy motives. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving that St. Martin's be excluded from the

borough of Stamford.
Mr. WILKS had been requested to second the motion,
but if he had not been requested, he should have done it
most cheerfully on behalf of all the constituency of Eng-
land. He would resist to the utmost of his power, an
attempt like this, to frustrate the triumph of Reform. He
opposed with reluctance those he was in the habit of sup-
porting; but in this instance they appeared to oppose
themselves. Is the borough of Stamford there was a
sufficient number of independent voters to entitle that
place to retain its Members without adding St. Martin's
to it, which would expose them to a repetition of those
harassing and degrading contests to which they had been
long subject, and from which they had almost emanci-
pated themselves. The proposed union was only calcu-
lated to deprive the electors of Stamford of the privileges
they had long enjoyed, and most honourably exercised.
He cordially supported the amendment.
Lord ALTHORP thought it was impossible that the
Commissioners could decide otherwise than to add St.
Martin's to Stamford. They only followed, in doing that,
the general rule. If they had not followed that rule, it
would not only have been because Lord Exeter had in-
fluence in St. Martin's ; but to have acted so, it would
have been contrary to all the principles professed by the
Ministers. That was the only ground alleged by his
Right Hon. Friend for his motion, and it was so contrary
to justice that he could not support it. He would not be
a particeps criminis in such injustice, and would give his
vote for adding St. Martin's to Stamford. He thought,
however, that the boundaries were too extensive, and
his Noble Friend meant to propose an amendment to that
effect.

Colonel DAVIES meant to support the amendment of
his Right Hon. Friend.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought, if the Commissioners
had gone into inquiry into the influence poss. seed by in-
dividuals in particular places, and bad recommended the
boundaries accordingly, this Bill would have been one of
tie most partial and unjust that ever was presented to
Parliament. Lnoking at Stamford, without reference to
Lord Exeter's interest, it was found that St. Martin's was

actually a part of Stamford united with it at least by the
Militia Act and by the assessed taxes. It was a part of
the town which had grown out of the borough. If the
Commissioners had consented not to unite St. Martin's to
Stamford, because it was Lord Exeter's property, they
would have acted most improperly. He acknowledged
the integrity and honour of the electors of Stamford, but
adhering to the principles of the Bill, he should certainly
oppose the amendment of his Right Hon. Friend.
Mr. WRANGHAM opposed the amendment. He ex-
pressed his surprise at the new-born zeal of those who now
objected to the influence of a Tory Nobleman, though
they had never found fault with the influence of a mau of
property when he was a Whig. The case of Sudbury
was a case in point, and he thanked the Noble Lord for
admitting that the Hamlet of I3allingdon was a part of
Sudbury—a fact which lie had in vain endeavoured to
urge upon the Noble Lords formerly, to prevent the un-
just disfranchisement of Sudbury. He gave his vote for
adding St. Martin's to Stamford, became the Commis-
sioners had recommended it.
Mr. C. PELHAM opposed the amendment.
The House then divided on the amendment—
ti Less l9
172
Majority against Mr. Tenny6on's amendment --153
On our readmission to the Gallery, we found Mr.
SANFORD, as we understood, objecting to the boundaries
assigned to the city of Bristol, but the Hon Member Was
i
n thellulpdrai.br
tiLe in
0I
fT TtthlLel Gallery.
Mr. OhlalNebry
its there
of
ants t teas
district
di s s a tis
generally,f ac t o
though there might be some individual objections. The
inhabitants of the district proposed to he included wets
closely united in interest with the other inhabitants of
Bristol.
Several other verbal amendnients having been agreed to,
the Bill passed.
SCOTCH REFORM BILL.
The report of this Bill was taken into further consider-
tion, and the third reading fixed for Wednesday next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring
in, and subsequently brought in, a Bill to abolish the
punishment of Death in cases of Forgery.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and at a Quarter past One this morning, the House ad-
journed.