The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-19 00:00:00

CHURCH REFORM.

Lord STANLEY he had a petition to present which
he was most unwillingly induced to bring forward, because it
contained charges of a very serious nature against a clergy-
man of the Church of England—against a gentleman who
was then suffering from bodily as well as pecuniary dis-
tress.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time he felt it to be a
duty incumbent upon him to call the attention of the House to
the statements which the petition contained, because his con-
stituents considered themselves aggrieved, and also because it
afforded sufficient grounds for insisting upon that real and
substantial reform in the Church which all so much desired
( Hear, hear.) The gentleman to whom the petition referred
was Dr. Webber, who is a Prebendary of Westminster,
Dean of Ripon, and parson of Kirkham, and was for-
merly Chaplain of the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
'His parishioners complain in this petition of misconduct that
they conceive him guilty of. The parish is one of rather an
extraordinary description, and is so circumstanced as to render
it impossible for any man adequately to discharge the duties
that necessarily devolve upon him. It contains 12,000 inha-
bitants scattered over an immense agricultural district.
It is 130 square miles, and is divided into 17 townships. So
long ago as the year 1636 an inquisition was held respecting
it, and a report was made 'recommending the division of ther
living !nto several parishes. At present the parish church is
only sufficient to accommodate two of the townships. The
emoluments of the vicars vary from 501. to 150/. a-year. Eight
of these townships receive no religious instruction whatever,
and the House would bear him out when he stated that this
was one of the strongest cases that could be instanced in sup-
port of a salutary reform of the Church. From parish church
to parish church there was no less a distance than twelve
miles. A portion of the great tithes was appropriated to
Christ Church, Oxford. In 1814 Dr. Webber was inducted
into this living, and obtained possession of the great and small
tithes belonging to it. Previous to that period the income of
the Vicar was 2501. a year ; but on the induction of Dr. Webber,
who, as he (Lord S.) had mentioned, was Chaplain of the House
of Commons, the parishioners voluntarily raised it to 1,0001.
At that time Dr. Webber expressed his gratitude for their
liberality, in letters which he ( Lord S.) had in his possession,
and voluntarily stated that no alteration whatever should take
place in the amount of the tithes, and that nothing under the
sun could induce him to reside out of the parish. From 1814
to 1829, Dr. Webber resided amongst them ; but at the latter
period he was presented with a prebendary of Westminster.
Unfortunately for his parishioners, he also got the deanery of
Ripon, and from that time never set his foot in the parish, not-
withstanding that residence was one of the conditions of
the obligations he voluntarily placed himself under.—( Hear. )
In the present instance, one of the persons employed as curate
by Dr. Webber was a gentleman of the name of Mathews,
who, was also Master of the Grammar School, one of the
fundamental regulations of which was, that the Master should
attend to no other business, but should attend wholly to the
business of the school. The appointment moreover was pro-
tested against by four of the visitors, and yet this gentleman was
chosen by Dr. Webber to fulfil the parish duties. The petitioners
further complained, or rather they wished to make an appeal
to the liberality and justice of that House, with regard to the
impropriate tithes of the parish, which amounted to 3,5001.
per annum, as they conceived that the small tithes, looking
at the enormous extent of the parish, were not adequate to
fulfil the object for which they were received, subservient to the
due performance of religion. In 1650, the great tithes were
left to a person of the name of Clifden, a Papist, whose
descendant was at this moment the High Sheriff of the
county. What the petitioners complained of was, that
while 3,5001. was raised as great tithes, the principal
benefit arising from them was enjoyed by the college of
Christ Church (Oxford), which- held an intermediate place
between the impropriate rector and clergyman of the parish ;
and the great object for which the tithes were instituted was
in a great measure neglected—they state that if the Col-
lege of Christ Church would adopt a different mode of plac-
ing the tithes, it would be for the great benefit of the parish,
and that the College had received for a renewal of a fine for 7
years a sum of not less than 10,000/.; they state further that if
this system were altered, there would be an adequate main-
tainence for the Clergyman of the parish. In 1833
Dr. Webber, as he before stated, returned to
the parish, but he returned under circumstances not
very flattering. He returned, notwithstanding the agree-
ment in the year 1814, feeling it to be his duty, and he
(Lord Stanley) believed that he did feel it to be his duty to
his successor and not to himself, to set aside those modusses
with which he was before perfectly satisfied.—( Hear.) The
parish resisted, as was natural, this attempt to increase the tithe.
Dr. Webber then made a proposition that he would abstain
from legal proceedings, if the parish would pay all the ex-
penses, provided also that they would pay a certain sum for
the improvement of the rectory house, and that they should
raise the tithes from 1,0001. to 1,6001. a year. Upon this
condition Christ Church was willing to enter into terms
for dividing the parish, but not otherwise. The pa-
rishioners felt themselves deeply aggrieved, and thought
that the College, in conformity with the spirit of the original
grant, should make a more liberal appropriation out of the
great tithes to enable the parish to be divided. The peti-
tioners prayed for the interference of the House for two pur-
poses ; the first was, and he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers
would attend to it, that this House, and more especially where
the clergy were adequately provided, would strictly enforce re-
sidence. The next was, and he was aware of the difficulties at-
tending it, that the Bishops of Dioceses should have power to
render it imperative upon impropriate Rectors and Vicars to en-
dow chapels of ease where necessary. He was aware that there
was great difficulty here, and he was therefore the more
anxious that the College of Christ Church should take
up this case, and seeing the representative of the Univer-
sity of Oxford in his place, he urged this request, as he
conceived it to be a reasonable one, and he could cite an
authority in support of it, the validity of which he was sure
his Hon. Friend would admit. It was the authority of the
Protestant James the First, who, in the year 1603, in a letter
addressed to the University of Oxford, stated " that there was
no one thing that more impeded the progress of religion, than
the want of a competent support of the clergy, and that
this could only be remedied by restoring the impropriate
tithes to their original purposes ; he therefore advised that
the Chancellor, and heads of houses, and other discreet men
should assemble with a view to a better appropriation of their
funds, so as to leave the Colleges what was necessary
for their own maintenance." He begged to recom-

mend this Royal recommendation of James the First,
and he hoped that House would endeavour seriously, com-
pletely, and effectually to remove those great and signal abuses
in the Church of England.—(Loud cheers.) He would not
offer any further observations, but begged leave to bring up
that petition.—( Cheers. )
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that as his Noble Friend
had so directly referred to him, the House would expect that
he should say something. The amount of tithes received in
a given parish, or their reasonableness, or whether the vicar
should receive 1,0001., and Christ Church, Oxford, 3,0001.,
was not now the question for the House ; the question was, whe-
ther a single shilling more than was due had been asked by the
persons entitled. With respect to Christ Church giving up part
of the income they derived from any parish for the furtherance
of religious instruction in that parish, he was sure that they
would be most willing to dals if his Noble Friend could
induce all other Corporations persons receiving Church
property to make similar sacrifices.—( Hear, hear.) He
apprehended the compact between the Vicar and the pa-
rish was this—if you raise my income to 1,0001., I will
undertake to receive it, and will not enter into any
. .

litigation to enforce my rights. If that had been the
compact—he believed it had not been complied with,
as many summonses had been issued—he agreed with his
Noble Friend that residence ought to be enforced, but he
thought that there was no parish in the North of England in
which the means of religious education were so well supplied
as in Kirkham. It was stated in the petition that the Vicar
was not resident ; now, in point of fact, from the time when he
became Dean of Ripon, he had duly discharged all the duties
of a resident incumbent, having regularly discharged his duties
as the Minister of Ripon, which was considered the Parish
Church of the district. With respect to the Curate being se-
parated, either by law or custom, from the Parish Church, he
was by the decree of the Court of Chancery compelled to preach
once a month at the least in the Parish Church of Kirkham.
The vicar distinctly stated that whatever increase he looked
for, should be for the benefit of the future incumbents of the
parish, and his only object was to prevent the rights of his suc-
cessors from being compromised. This principle could not be
objected to, unless it was contended that the rights of property
should be sacrificed, merely because the party had spiritual du-
ties to perform, and that the rule should be reversed where
there were no spiritual duties. He held a letter in
his hand from the curate, in which that gentleman
stated that he never heard of any opposition or
objection to his being appointed schoolmaster, until he had
seen it in the petition ; and he also bore testimony to the ex-
pense to which the vicar had gone in providing an additional
place of worship and instruction for the people. This was not
the case of a vicar deserting his duty without taking a cure of
souls elsewhere. This was not the case of a man neglecting
his duty, for he had two curates besides for additional chapel-
ries.—( Hear, hear.) This was not the case of a man seek-
ing emolument for himself, although he might do so in law,
but it was the case of a man stepping forward at a time when
the interests of Church property are threatened, and, without
any personal advantage to himself, preserving the rights of
others. When the rights of the Church had been once suc-
cessfully invaded, the popular party, gaining fresh strength from
their victory, would endeavour to assail property of other kinds,
and therefore it behoved Honourable Members not to allow
themselves to be led away by the specious statements
in petitions of this nature—( Hear, hear.) He thought
his Noble Friend was one of the last who would be willing
to sacrifice the rights of the Church to popular clamour. He
trusted he had said enough to satisfy the House that the case
was susceptible of a different version from that which the pe-
titioners had taken of it. The Vicar had not been neglectful
of his duties, and he had, in fact, sought less than he was legally
entitled to. The principle to which his Noble Friend had alluded
had been already recognised, and acted upon in one of the
colleges of Oxford, where a sum of 2000/. a year had been
surrendered, and the effect of which had been to enrich the
re.ree,ive livings to the amount of 8,0001.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY 5,.: Ca_ -asssu e 1,11.-ed of
the greatest importance ; but he could not help saying, that
if such a petition had been presented from the humble indi-
vidual then addressing- the House, they would have heard
of nothing but spoliation, &c. He would have been
told that he was taking some inyidious means for the
purpose of getting hia ends accomplished, while at the same
time he was afraid of grappling with the main principle. If
the House had not adjourned over the day on which lie would
have been, allowed to bring on his motion respecting
Queen Anne's Bounty, he would have shown that that
was not, as probably the Noble Lord and many others
in the House thought, a solitary instance in the Church, but
that there were many of the same nature; and that in some
instances the impropriators had even had the meanness to take
money from the fund created by the bounty. There was not
one lay impropriator to whom the letter of King James would
not be most applicable. He trusted that the Noble
Lord would not content himself with laying the petition on the
table, but that he would bring it forward in a more substantial
manner—if not, he (Mr. Harvey) would have an opportu-
nity of laying the whole matter before the House before the
session closed, by means of his motion respecting the Bounty
of Queen Anne.
An HON. MEMBER, whose name was not known in the gal-
lery, said he would not have said a word upon the question, but
that the parish in question adjoined the one in which his own
property was situate, and that he was one of the
visitors of the school of which he (the curate) was
master. He would only say, that when the tithes were
so much as 255. an acre for potatoes, they could not
be raised much more ; he would only further add, that the
visitors of the school were now debating whether they should
stop the money for the mastership; until the duties of the office
were better performed, because they had it not in their power
to remove him.
Mr. COBBETT knew a parish which yielded 1,7501. clear
tithes ; yet the parson had but a bare 151. a year, for though
at the endowment it was worth at the rate of 3001: a year, the
alteration in the value of money had reduced it to
barely 15/., and the people were taxed to support
the parson, while my Lord Guildford, who was the proprietor
of the living, as well as several lucrative posts in the Church,
put the 1,750/. into his own pocket.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
But the Church abounds with such instances ; and
those who complain of them are the true friends
of the Church. If the Church were overturned it would be
overturned of itself. If it were destroyed its dignitaries would
have destroyed it.—(Loud cheers.) In many instances
the Archdeacons and Deans had the sole appropriation of
tithes, as well as the revenues of the parishes; the Archdeacon
of Surrey had the tithes of five parishes all nearly joining
each other, while the Rectors of them had only a miserable
pittance. An application was made to Parliament to tax the
people to enable these parsons to live—he hoped
that the Noble Lord who talked of reformation on
this subject would come forward with a real reformation,
something tangible ; if he could he would save his Church ;
but if not, his Church could not be saved.
The petition was then laid on the table.
An HON. MEMBER presented two petitions from parishes
in Stafford, one praying for inquiry into the causes
for the dismissal of the late Ministers, and the other in
the support of the Irish Church, complaining of the con-
templated appropriation of the revenues of that Church to
the dissemination of the pernicious errors of Popery.—( Hear,
hear, from the Irish Members. )
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it would be more fitting in the
petitioners, whom the Hon. Member called respectable, to use
more decent language—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUND A S presented a petition from the solicitors of a
town in Gloucester against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.
Mr. C. FERGUSON presented a petition from Glasgow
in favour of the Established Church of Scotland.
Mr. COBBETT said he was informed that in Glasgow
there was room in the Churches belonging to the Establish-
ment for 3,000 more than were in the habit of attending them.
The truth was, that the voluntary principle was getting ahead,
and the opinion of the people was entirely against compulsory
payment.
Mr. C. FERGUSON gave notice that on the 27th inst.
he would bring forward a motion relative to the duties on East
India manufactures.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from
the Presbyterian Congregation of the parish of Killileagh, in
the county of Down, praying for the extinction of tithes, and the
withdrawal of the regium donum. The petition was signed by
800 landholders of that parish who had been informed
that the Noble Lord who represents the county of Down
(Castlereagh) had stated in this House that the Presby-
terians of the North of Ireland were favourable to the
tithe system, and consequently they took this means of con-
troverting the statements of the Noble Lord. The inhabitants
of the parish were almost exclusively Presbyterian. The
amount of income which the parson received was 1,5331. a year,
and, for the two Presbyterian clergymen who officiated in the
parish, only 3351. was required. The opposition to the tithe
system was extending over the country ; and the opinion was
generally becoming prevalent that tithes should be abo-
lished not only in name but in substance.—( Hear, hear.)
He requested the particular attention of the House to this pe-
tition, which coming from a numerous and respectable body of
the Presbyterians of the county of Down, furnished an answer
to the statement of the Noble Lord, the Member for the
county, that the Presbyterians were anxious to pay tithes.
Lord C A STLERE AGH begged to doubt whether this
petition, coming, as it did, from two parishes in the county of
Down, did really represent the feelings of the Presbyterians
of that great county. He believed, nay, he was sure, that the
Honourable Member was mistaken on that point.—( Hear.)
He had hoped that the Bill introduced by the late Government
would have put an end to the complaints on the subject of
tithes, but it appeared that it had failed to do so. Now that
the Hon. Member had gone over to' the other side of the
House, he hoped he would give his consent to the Bill which
the present Government would introduce, containing of course
an appropriation clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL merely rose because the petitioners
had done him the honour to request that he would sup-
port the prayer of the petition. He did so the more wil-
lingly, because it would convince the Noble Lord (Castle-
reagh), that the agitation of the tithe question would not
have the effect of raising the " No Popery" cry in the North
of Ireland, and the selecting him (Mr. O'Connell) as their
advocate, was a pretty good proof that such would not
be the case.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said that
800 out of a population of 15,000, was no proof of the
sentiments of the people, but the House would recollect that
all those 800 men were landholders, claiming from the House
the benefit of the Christian principle, that one class of men
should not pay for the support of the clergymen of another re-
ligion in which they did not conscientiously believe.
Mr. FINN begged to state to the House the contents of a
letter he had that morning received from the North of Ireland,
and it would account for why there were not more petitions
upon the present subject from the North of Ireland. It was
dated ,from Londonderry, and stated that there had been a
meeting of the tythe payers appointed by the church=

wardens of a certain parish in consequence of a re-
quisition from 150 of the most wealthy landholders of the
parish. —( Hear.) The meeting was to petition the Legislature
for the total abolition of tithes, and was to be held in
the town of Ballykelly, and when the proceedings were
about to commence, a body of Orangemen marched in
military array, and armed with muskets, through the
town, and took possession of the market house, where
the meeting was to be held and fired off a number of
shots. The farmers immediately retired, and the Orange-
men went to a public-house,where they were supplied with whis-
key, but not at their own expense. It was afterwards discovered
that there were a great number of Orangemen dispersed in dif-
ferent houses through the town, and a concealed stand of arms.
The farmers were all Presbyterians, and it was important that
this should be known, to show that the circumstance did
not arise from the ancient feud between the Roman Catholics
and Orangemen. He trusted the House would take steps to
prevent armed Orangemen from interfering with one of the
most important privileges of his Majesty's subjects.
Lord C A STL EREAG H observed that these occurrences
took place in the county of Londonderry, with which he had no
connexion.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD then presented a petition from
1,500 inhabitants of another pairsh in Down to the same effect.
Mr. E. S. RUTH VE N supported the petition, which was
laid on the table.
STAFFORD ELECTION.

An HoN. MEMBER, whose name was not known in the gal-
lery, moved for a new writ for the borough of Stafford, in the
room of Sir F. H. Goodricke, who had accepted the Chiltern
Hundreds.

Mr. DIVE TT said, that as one of the Committee on the
Stafford Election, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion.
That Committee had come to an unanimous resolution that
the borough was so corrupt that it should be visited with the
highest punishment possible, and that the Chairman should
bring in a Bill for the purpose of disfranchising the borough.
--(Hear, hear.) Had the Parliament which then sat been
still in existence, he would not have said a word
upon the subject ; but as there were many new members in it,
he would state a few of the facts of the case as presented be-
fore the Committee. From the evidence then adduced, it ap-
peared that there was a system of corruption and bribery in ex-
istence in that borough, and that whenever a candidate presented
himself, it was the custom to pay from ss. to 10s. to all who
thought proper to wait upon him at his first meeting.
The Honourable Gentleman then went at considerable
length into the evidence, from which it appeared that
more than two-thirds of the electors were corrupt, even
after the passing of the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) Now,
after having thus stated that the writ for the borough of
Stafford ought to be suspended, he would maintain that the
perseverance in such a system would destroy the purity of elec-
tion, and that no other means than the suspension of the writ
would be effective—for the House was well enough aware, that
by legal chicanery, by prejudices existing in this and the
the other House of Parliament, it would be impossible to
disfranchise the borough. He would maintain there was no
ground for issuing the writ on the present occasion, but luckily
he had a precedent in favour of the course he recommended. He
instanced the case of Liverpool as being one perfectly in point.
The Right Hon. Member for Montgomeryshire ( Mr. Wynn)
on that occasion recommended a similar course„ and he ( Mr.

D.) was happy to he enabled to quote so excellent an autho-
rity. He ( Mr. NV. ) then stated that the House was limited only
by its own discretion. Other Members gave expression to simi-
lar sentiments, and the question that elicited them was not
taken up by them as a party question, but as one in which all
who were desirous to promote and maintain the purity of elec-
tion, were deeply interested. The persons who objected to the
disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford, when that subject
was brought under the consideration of Parliament, were the
M.srphs-- of the county s‘n I or the borough, who were its guar-
dian angels in its decay. He next referred to the case of the
borough of Grantham, which was also conclusive in support
of his argument, and concluded by stating, that the course he
proposed, was necessary to maintain the character of the
House of Commons, the purity of election, and the best inte-
rests of the country. He hoped he would have the support
of the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite ( Mr. Wynni, when
he moved that the Writ for the borough of Stafford be sus-
spended until Monday, the 22d of June.
Mr. CHETW YND had listened with considerable atten-
tion and surprise to the arguments of the Hon. Member for
Exeter; he listened to hear what were the overwhelming proofs
that were to induce the House to suspend the issuing of this
writ. He had listened with surprise to the Hon. Member, be-
cause he looked upon him as one entertaining Liberal opi-
nions and professing Liberal principles—as anxious to give
the people every opportunity of exercising their privileges.
A great part of the arguments of the Hon. Member, so far
from producing the impression that they ought not to issue this
writ, were with him (Mr. C.) most powerful reasons for
issuing it.—( Hear.) If the borough of Stafford was upon
its trial, if accusations were made against it, it was only
fair that it should have every advantage and indulgence, and
the full privilege of two representatives, in a case in which
the character of the borough was involved, in which its
interests were attacked, and its elective franchise assailed.
He put it to the House, and to the Hon. Member for Exeter
himself, whether it was fair play or common justice to
the constituents whom he repres'ented, to throw the
whole responsibility of a case of this magnitude upon
so humble an individual as himself. Should it be said that so weak
was the case against Stafford, that that House was to take advan-
tage of his Hon. Friend's resignation, and his (Mr. C's) inability
to defend his constituents, what would be thought of a
judge who, upon the eve of trial, should send away one
of the Counsel, perhaps the leading Counsel, of the
party accused ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) He felt confident
that that House would not think of passing sentence
on the Borough of Stafford before trial, for though alle-
gations had been made on a former night he had re-
futed them, and he was still able to do so. —( Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, he called upon the House, in the
name of those constituents whom he represented, to give them
a fair trial.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Exeter
said on a former occasion, when he brought forward his Bill
for the disfranchisement of Stafford, that his object was to
produce purity and morality at elections. The House
must be aware that there had been a general election when
these allegations were made, and he would state distinctly that
out of the 456 electors who did him the honour of returning
him, there was not one to whom he had ever given, who
ever expected, ever thought of, either directly or in-
directly, the slightest gift, reward, bribe, or advantage
whatever, and he was ready to prove this upon
oath.—( Loud cheers.) The most influential men in
the town of Stafford had formed themselves into a committee
to support liberal candidates upon liberal principles, and he
would assert that the Members of that borough were returned
as constitutionally as any other Members of that House.
He had previously refuted most of these charges, and he did
not see why they should be again revived. There was no
petition against the return of the members at the last election.
There had been no unjust or unconstitutional proceedings at
that election—in fact, nothing but the most constitutional
proceedings had taken place in the borough of Stafford.
Should the Bill for the disfranchisement of this borough come
to a second reading, he would then be prepared to refute the
charges which had been brought forward against this borough.
It was but fair that an opportunity should be afforded him of
replying to the allegations that had been brought forward,
and that would be best done by affording him a col-
league.—( Hear, hear.) There was much difficulty in the
case, and the greater the difficulty the greater the necessity
for allowing him a fair and full opportunity of defence. He
appealed to the justice of the House, and he was satisfied that
he would not appeal to its justice in vain.--( Hear.)
Mr C OBBE TT happened to be in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of the borough of Stafford at the last election.—
( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Although he did not interfere
in the business of the election in any way, he heard a good deal
about it, and it was universally believed that with the excep-
tion of the 33 men who voted for Sir Charles Wolsley_
( Much laughter)—all the rest were bribed.—( Continued
laughter.) The whole body of electors were corrupt, but he
was sure this was without the knowledge of the Hon. Mem-
ber.---( Hear.) The bribery had been carried on in the roost
shameful manner; genteel women were seen in their carriages
sending in for their 71. or 8/.--( Laughter.) In fact, the
bribery practised there exceeded any thing ever known or
heard of in the world.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE had the session before
last introduced a Bill for the disfranchisement of this bo-
rough, and he had since then seen no reason to change
his opinion. Having been in the last session connected
with Government, he had thought it improper that the weight
and influence of that Government should be thrown into the
scale, in bringing forward a judicial bill of pains and penalties.
He had transferred it to the Hon. Member for Newport, who had
for the same cause, now transferred it to the Hon. Member
for Exeter.—( Hear, hear.) His (Sir T. Fremantle's) opi-
nion, therefore, remained unchanged, and unless he heard
something now that would change his opinion, he would give
his support to the Bill for the disfranchisement of this borough.
He believed that the House, almost uniformly, when a Bill
was instituted to disfranchise a borough, objected to issue the
writ.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He felt great satisfaction at
the statement of the Hon. Member for the borough, that
the last election had been carried on with the greatest pu-
rity—( Great laughter)—but he was afraid the Honourable
Member's recollection had failed him upon that subject.
He hoped he had convinced the House, that although
he did not bring forward the Bill in the present session, his
opinion remained unchanged. He should vote for the suspen-
sion of the writ.
Mr. E. BULLER thought if the writ was suspended
it would be productive of great and inconceivable con.
fusion.—( Hear, hear.) He " thought all the evidence
that had been taken before the Committee last year
and all the charges contained in it ought to be well weighed
before such an extreme step was taken as to suspend the writ.
Mr. FOSTER did not think that the charge of bribery
could justify the House in taking away representation from a
large body of the constituency of Stafford, against whom no
charge whatever existed.
Mr. WILLIAMS said a few words to the same effect.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought these questions ought not
excite party feeling ; he had voted in a majority of 98 for the dis-
franchisement, and he had voted for the resolution that there was
notorious corruption practised. The House had passed that Bill,
and supposing that there had been no resolution, he could
not see why a general election should make such a great
difference that they should alter their opinion of those
proceedings.--( Hear, hear, hear.) The refusal to issue the
writ does not altogether decide the question. The
issuing of the writ would give a new vested right
to the electors, and if they intended to disfrarieSise
the Borough, it was not consistent with a permanent diss
franchisement to invest it with the exercise tg the trArichiw on