The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-26 00:00:00

THE SUB-LETTING ACT.

Mr. HUME presented a. petition from certain Catholics
of Ireland, 'against the Sub-letting Act.
Lord MILTON hoped, that whatever modification the
House might think proper to make in the details of the
Bill, they would firmly maintain the principle of the
measure.

Mr. BROWNLOW likewise, e;:pressed his approbation
of the principle of the bill.
Mr. DAWSON considered the petition as neither more
nor less than the petition of the Roman Catholic Associa-
tion; it was the petition of the middle men of Ireland,
whose interest it was intended t.► shake, while it pro-
tected the occupying tenant from their grinding influence.
Mr. NORTH expressed his concurrence in the principle
of the Bill.

Mr. F. LEWIS thought the best course to be pursued in
all cases was to assimilate the laws of Ireland as much as
possible with the laws of this country. The best substitute
that Ireland could have for a resident gentry was a well-
educated and industrious tenantry. The great want of Ire-
land was a connecting link between the original proprietor
and the wretched occupier of the soil. The Act, be thought
was calculated to diminish that evil by improving the state
of the tenantry. _ _ • _ .

Mr. R. COLBORNE suggested that the discussion had
already gone far enough, as they would soon have an op-
portunity of discussing the question when it came properly
before the House.

Mr. PEEL thought, that as his Right Hon. Friend was
prepared to submit some propositions at a future day for
the anaerulment of the Bill, it would be better to postpone
the discussion until then. He would make no observation
upon the petition or its object, for he thought the best re-
venge they could take for any intemperance it contained
was to apply themselves as earnestly as possible to the im-
provement of the Bill.
Mr. H. GRATTAN thought they were bound to at-
tend to the petition if they were desirous of doing their
duty. The Act was, Tr! maintained, little better than a
fraud. It was a mistake to say that the petition originated
in the Catholic Association.

Mr. HOME presented a petition from the Catholics of
Londonderry, praying for the repeal of the Sub-letting Act.

Mr. DAWSON would take that opportunity to repeat
that all these petitions came from the manufactory of the
Catholic Association. They had printed and circulated,
according to their own statement, 1,100 copies of it in
different districts in Ireland. _ .

Mr. HUME justified the conduct of the Catholic Asso-
ciation. He protested that if he were an Irishman be
should he proud of belonging to the Catholic Association.
The petition was then laid upon the table ; as were two
similar petitions presented by Mr. H. GRATTAN, from
Kilkenny West, and Berris, in the county of Carlow.
Mr. FAZAKERLEY laid upon the table a petition
from the mayor and other other tradesmen of Lincoln,
praying for the repeal of the Receipt Stamp Bill.
ENGLISH `CATHOLICS.

Lord NUGENT presented a petition, signed by the Duke
of Norfolk, by six other Peers, English Roman Catholic
Peers, 17 Baronets, five eldest sons of Peers, and also by
5,000 other individuals who professed the Roman Catho-
lic religion. They prayed not, as was usual in their
former petitions, for the repeal of the disabilities which
affected themselves, but for the repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Acts, and all other Acts which affected the rights
and privileges of Protestant Dissenters. He had the best
authority for saying, that there had been no communica-
tion between the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Dis-
senters on the subject of the petition.
The petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be
printed.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD presented a petition from the
Catholic inhabitants of Kilmurray and two other parishes
in Ireland, praying for Catholic Emancipation, the repeal
of the Sub-letting Act, and a grant of funds for the educa-
tion of the poor in Ireland.

Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the
maltsters of Bridport, for the repeal of the Malt Tax.
BOROUGH OF EAST RETFORD.

The order of the day for the second reading of the
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill being read,
Mr. TENNISON called the attention of the House to
the Report of the Committee, which stated that it was no-
torious that
.it had been a long continued practice for the
voters to receive 20 guineas from each • candidate for his
vote, so that when he voted for the two Candidates
lie received forty guineas. When he had the honour
of introducing 'this Bill to the House, he drew its at•
tention to the part of the minutes relating to the ex-
tent of the fraud, and the outrages occasioned by the
inflamed state of the town—riots which made it
necessaryto call in a military force to subdue them.—
now drawing again the attention of the House
to h
e demoralized state of East Retford, he begged
to observe that it contained about two thousand
persons, a moiety of whom were residents, and the other
non-reSidentsofthat place. With respectto the main charge,
that of receiving 40 guineas for a vote, to which the spe-
cial report of the Committee related, he satisfied the House
of the existence of that abuse, and of its tendency on all
occasions to corrupt the choice by which Members were
elected. On that occasion the House was as well satisfied
of these measures, and of the necessity of introducing a Bill
of this sort, as he was himself ; and he believed, as well as he
could collect the sense of the House, it would allow him to
have completed his measure without further examination.
But now these details were forgotten—impressions made
were worn off, and therefore, he felt it his duty new to read
this Bill a second time, and in going into a Committee
upon it, he should move that persons should he examined
at the bar, for the purpose of supporting the statements
of the petition; And the clause§ icy the Nil), His is-

tention was to abstain from observation upon all parts
of this Bill, except as it related to the Borough of East
Retford. The otherqarts he considered subordinate, and
whatever the House might choose to do with respect to them,
whatever it might think fit to propose as regulations for
future proceedings beyond the borough of East
Retford, he should be prepared to give his opinions
on such propositions at the proper. time. For the present
he thiiught it premature to enter upon such a discussion.
In confining himself to the Borough of East Retford, he
understood an objection was to be taken to the Bill in
limine ; he understood it was to objected that the corrup-
tions upon which this Bill was founded, were corrup-
tions not stated to have taken place at the last, but
at the antecedent election. This objection was to be
started in the first instance, and was founded on a
petition, presented on the Bth of February by the
Bailiffs, Aldermen, and Burgesses of East Retford. That
That petition set forth that the petitioners viewed with ex-
treme regret the introduction of the present Bill, that
they understood it was founded on the evidence taken be-
fore the Committee respecting the antecedent election,
that they would consider it a severe punishment, and
that it would operate as a warning to them. Ample
time had ben given them, if they had chosen to
have taken advantage of it, of denying the charges, the
foundation of the present proceeding. Not one of such
charges, however, had been denied. —(Hear, hear.)—ln
addition to the great body of evidence now laid before
the House, the Noble Member thought that the House
must take this petition as a tacit confirmation of all the
charges that must be brought forward, and could not
conceive the House would think it right to limit its punish-
ment to a warning. So glaring a case of corruption had been
made out, that he felt satisfied the House would feel
it imperative upon it to take such a step as would prevent
a repetition of such outrage. It was stated, that these cor-
ruptions not occurring at the last election, did not form a
sufficient ground for the present application, and that
there was no precedent. The Noble Member appre-
hended that every case must stand en its own merits,
and that he was not called upon to bring, forward
precedents : if, however, he were, the case of Shoreham
would be a sufficient precedent, and the riotous and out-
rageous conduct at the last Election, would form ample
grounds for bringing in the present Bill. But he stood, and
meant to stand, on what was stated in the special Report,
that receiving money bed been a long continued prac-
tice. It was notorious that this had been the practice, and
every witness to whom the question had been put acknow-
ledged it, anti that they themselveshad received the money.
With respect to the name signed to this petition, they com-
mence with the name of Mr.
,Lee, a Magistrate ; but the
evidence furnished by that petition was stronger than any
which could he eftered at that bar, that for years a noto-
rious and regular system of bribery existed in that borough,
and that the regular price paid to each voter, whether
there was an opposition or not, was forty guineas. After
the evidence afforded by that petition, in addition
to the evidence given by all the voters who were
examined, it was impossible to doubt that the sys-
tem of bribery was notorious, and had existed in the bo-
rough for the last 60 or 70 years. He understood that the
ground to be taken by those who opposed the Bill was, that
this system of bribery had not been acted upon at the last
election ; but he was satisfied that upon the evidence the
House would be satisfied the antecedent Bribery had re-
ference to the late Election, and was employed for the
purpose of corrupting the great body of the Electors.
In support of his opinion as to the object of the antecedent
bribery he should refer the House to the evidence of Thos.
Giles, a shoemaker and voter. In that evidence, which
was to be found in p. 14, Giles stated that the inducement
held out to him and another voter by the Agent of Mr.
Wrightson to give their votes to that gentleman, was,
" that they would be sure of their money if they voted for
Mr. Wrightson, but that as to Sir H. Wilson:_ lie
was a mean man, and they, would get nothing if they voted
for him," that they asked what sum they were to get, and
that the Agent gave forty guineas for each vote. Another
witness gave similar evidence, and. another witness, also a
shoemaker, for most of the voters appeared to be shoe-
makers, swore that he received the sum of forty guinea; after
the election in 1818, and that Thornton, (Mr. Wrightson's
agent) witnesses journeyman, had assured them they
were to have forty guineas each if they • voted for
Wrightson, bat that 'Sir Thomas Wilson was a poor
and shabby man, and would give them little or nothing.
Another witness, William Jackson, said that he voted at
three elections, including the last, and that at each of the
two former elections he had received 40 guineas, which was
the understood price of a vote. That witness beard
Thornton address the voters, and say, that if they voted for
Dundas and Wrightson, they would get their money, and this
Jackson also said, that he received twenty pounds, through
his brother, and that he was to receive twenty pounds more
to moke up forty guineas, the price of his vote, but that
he did not apply for the twenty-two pounds, because there
was a petition coming up against the return. The general
tendency of the practice was, to induce the whole body
to vote for the persons likely to be highest on the
poll, and best able to pay the voters. To show
that such was the ten deucy of the practice, he should
read to the House a letter written by the desire
of Thornton, the agent of Mr. Wrightson to one of the
voters. The letter was in these terms :

" Friend Joseph,—ln answer to your letter, I have most
sincerely to advise you to stick to Pandas and Wrightson ;
they are sure to be elected, come against them, -who will.
They have a hundred and fifty promises, out of a hundred
and ninety-seven Freemen with them, and those few Freemen
who stand out have already long faces. You may read
repentance its their foreheads. You are booked for Wright.son "

He now moved the second reading of the Bill, in order
that it might be committed, and that in the committee the
different clauses might be explained, which would obviate
the necessity of entering them into the other provisions of
the Bill."

Mr. P. CLINTON said that he bad been entrusted by
the Corporation of Retford to oppose the Bill then before
the House—a Bill which he objected to in principle, for
he believed the grounds upon which the present
Bill was introduced, had never in any instance justified
the disfranchisement of any place whatever. In common
justice, therefore, to the Borough of Retford, he felt
bound to state the reasons which induced him to refuse
his concurrence in voting for the second reading of the Bill.
The ground upon which the House had proceeded in the
cases of Shoreham and Grampound was totally distinct
from the present. In those cases the House had the plain
broad and intelligible fact, that the great body of the
Electors had been legally convicted of bribery, while in the
present case the Committee had acquitted the Electors of
bribery at the last election ; but they reverted to former
elections, which ought not to have been the legitimate
subject of enquiry before them. In the cise of Penryn,
there had been reports on reports before the House,
a proof of the same system having been continued for seve-
ral elections, and the House could scarcely help noticing
the continual repetition of charges of the same nature ;
but the present was the first charge that had ever been
before them, against East Retford ; and even this charge
had not been made against it, when, if it had been
false, its falsehood could be satisfactorily proved.—
He called upon the House to look at the hardship
of the situation in which the accused were placed ; no act
of bribery at the - last election had been proved against
them; the Committee had referred to the election of 1820,
and therefore the accused could not have the same "means
of defence as if the charge had related to the election just
passed. There were not above eight or ten witnesses who
had deposed to their reoeiving the eight end forty guineas ;
and though their evidence raight be very admissible against
themselves, he did not see how it could be received
as against others. Those who bartered their votes were
glad to represent such barter as being a common custom,
in order to lessen the odiuib which would otherwise
fall exclusively on them, and this was the kind of evidence
upon which it was sought to found a charge of corrup-
tion against the Borough. It was no part of the business
of the Committee to enquire as to whether the electors had
been guilty of Bribery or not at any other election
han the last; and they confined themselves to
that the persons before them might have dis-
proved the charge, but the difficulties were innumerable
if they resorted to a period so remote. The evidence came
casually and indirectly before the Committee, and those
who were interested had no opportunity of rebutting it.
If that Bill passed, it would establish a very convenient
precedent by which to disfranchise other boroughs. All
that had been ;done was to prove that bribery had been
used to at any election, however remote, and when proved, to
bring in a Bill similar to the present. It was admitted that
what passed at last Election, formed no ground for such
a Bill as was then before the House, and therefore he hoped
that the House would not now act upon what might have
taken place at a time so remote as that deposed to- by the
witnesses before the Committee. The Honourable
Gentleman bad called to his aid a petition signed by
certain persons, praying to have the franchise extended
to them, and surely when it was recollected that
some of those partits had given evidence before the Com-
mittee the House would pause before they gave implicit
credence to their testimony. He felt assured that the
House would not, at all events punish the innocent with
the guilty, for even allowing that some were guilty, there
could be no doubt bat the majority were wholly inno-
cent. He could Pt 41P viotiog tin wbok 13111

one pregnant with danger, and carrying with it the.starnP
of unnecessary severity.
Mr. STUART was opposed to the principle of the Bill,
and therefore moved, as an amendment, that it be read that
day six months.

Mr. N. CALVERT said, that the duty of an elector
was very similar to that of a Juryman. He acted not
for himself, but for the country ; and it was therefore ab-
surd that they should talk of their disfranchisement, as if it
were a serious injury to themselves.

Mr. GEORGE BANKES hoped there were other ob-
jects in desiring to retain the elective franchise besides the
wish to render it profitable. He could not admit that the
feelings of the parties interested were not to be thought
of. Though the franchise was a burthen, -it ought
not to be removed, if the parties who supported
that ituirthen desired to retain it. He could not assume
that the parties were guilty, and only deserving of punish-
ment. The witnesses produced to support the charge of
corruption were not to be credited. Had they
been credited, the sitting Members would Wave
been unseated. He contended, the witnesses were not to
be believed ; but if they were believed, they were not suffi-
ciently numerous to act upon their testimony. The evidence
of 10 or 12 persons was not sufficient to prove that the
Borough should be disfranchised. He (Mr. Banks) did not
mean to oppose the motion, for he understood the Ho-
nourable Member (Mr. Fergusson) to pledge himself
to produce more witnesses. He admitted it was
a fit occasion for the inquiry of the House ; but if there
was not further inquiry, the House might decide rashly,
and deal unjustly.—(Hear.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that if the House were this
night to decide upon the disfranchisement of East Retford,
and to decide whether the innocent should suffer for the
errors of the guilty, he (Mr. Peel) should vote
against the second reading. But if he understood the
Honourable Member rightly, he only intended to have
the formal acquiescence of. the_ House that a prima facia
case of suspicion had been made out, which called
for further inquiry. Me thought a case of suspicion had
been made out which justified further inquiry. Upon
those grounds he gave his formal assent to the second read-
ing, to give the Hon. Gent. an opportunity of bringing fur-
ther evidence to the bar. This was not the proper time to
consider where the franchise to be taken from East Ret-
ford should be transferred. That part of the Bill
which he (Mr. Peel) disapproved most of was
the transferring the franchise to Birmingham. It would
be proper to have decided to what place the transfer
should be made, before the. Bill was sent up to the
House—(Hear, hear, hear.)—but there certainly was
no necessity for coming to that decision on the secoiad
reading of the Bill. The House should, - however,
first determine whether the franchise should be taken
away before there was any consideration as to the place to
which it shopld be transferred. If the transfer to Bir-
mingham had not been mentioned, Hon. Members would
come to the consideration of tI4 subject less influenced by
local feelings. Notwithstanding this objection, he would
give his vote for the second reading on the under-
standing that further evidence would be adduced;
but in doing so he felt some degree of difficulty, because
it would be registered in the Journals of the House,
that he gave his vote for the second reading of
the Bill, under the impression that there was evidence
brought to prove that the borough of East Retferd was
so corrupt that it ought to be disfranchi4ed, and however
formal his assent was, this conclusion must be drawn
from it.

Mr. LITTLETON was ready, upon the evidence now
before the House, to agree to the. Rill, and he trusted that
when the guilt was hrotight home to the parties, thiey
Would not be alloweil to escape by any jesuitical evasion.-
.:Mr. BATLEY opposed the Rill because he did not
think that a. sufficient case of corruption had been proved
against the East Retford electors.
After a few words from Mr. SLANEY, the Bill wa
read a second time, and ordered to he committed on Mon-
, day next.
The debate was not concluded till twelve o'clock.
• The-House shortly after Adjourned.

WAKEFIELD AND FERRYBRIDGE CANAL-

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Ste—The navigation between Wakefield and Ferry-
bridge is, in a commercial point of view, the most im-
portant in the kingdom, connecting the ports of Liverpool
and Hull, and giving a vent to the manufactures of Lan-
cashire, as well as those of Yorkshire, to the North Sea;
by this navigation also, this peat znannfacturing district is
supplied with corn from the agricultural counties. Not-
withstanding 'this, there has been no other cominunication
between Wakefield and Ferrybridge, except by the 'Ayer
Calder, I9i miles in length, very circuitous, and subject
to floods, with all the consequent delay and danger, made
navigable under certain Acts of Parliament-, vesting the
sole right to the tonnage in the Aire and Calder Company,
who, Since their first establishment, have received from.
the public upwards of two millions in tonnage. After re-
peated demands by the public, the Aire and Calder Com-
pany,. .
propose to shorten this navigation six miles, by
making cuts at some of the most circuitous parts of the
river, but still leering the length ISi miles, and a great
part of the old river navigation remaining.
Notwithstanding their proposal to shorten the naviga-
tion, they have the assurance to introduce clauses into their
intended Act of Parliument, enabling them to charge the
public for the whole length of 194 miles. This boon even
they attempted to withhold for many years, and it is now
to be set up as a miserable subterfuge to deprive the public
of a safe and entire canal, 121 miles in length only, which
the Wakefield and Ferrybridge Canal Company propose to
give, charging tonnage only on the length of the canal.
Is it to be endured that a body, enriched with the pub..
lie money as the Aire and Calder'is, should be allowed to
impose d tonnage to the extent of six miles more than
their own navigation, and seven more than the canal pro-
poeed, by the Wakefield and Ferrybridge Company ? The
country has only to be informed of this fact, and the public
voice will resound with " shame" &ern one end of the
kingdom 'to the other. Petitions are pOuriag,,in from all
parts., and some of the most patriotic and, distinguished
landholders and commercial men in the kingdom are ready
to give their utmost support to the undertaking of the
Wakefield'and Ferrybridge Cana/. Parliament has only to
do its 'duty, and our manufactures will proceed to foreign
countries at all seasons, with nearly one-half of the present
charge, and the immense population of this great inland
manufacturing district be supplied with corn at a like re-
duction of charge. I am, Sir, &c.

A YORK SHIREMAN.

NEW CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.

(From the Second Edition of the Dublin Evening Post of
Saturday.)
J. B. BURKE, Esq. in the Chair.

Amount of Rent for this week 3141. 14s.
Mr. FrrzstmoN read the Report of the Finance
Committee, on the cpplication of the parish of Dun.
garyan, for a sum of money to build a Cathofic
Chapel. The Report fully recognised the claims of
the parishioners of Dungarvan—but stated that it
deemed it inexpedient to grant any sums of money
for the building of Catholic Churches.
Mr. O'GORMAN seconded the motion, and ex-
plained the reasons which had influenced the Finance
Committee in their opinion, the granting under the
present circumstances would be highly imprudent,
and would bring on numerous applications of -the
same nature.
Mr. 01hVYER read 'several letters applying for
aid towards building Catholic Chapels.
Mr. FlTzstmoN said these applications were folly
answered, by the resolution of the finance committee
f t
just ;ipassed;app at
thi they had of course arisen from the notice
The Rev. Mr. FOGARTY, P. P. of Dungariall,
said he had made the application, and upon mature
consideration he withdrew it ; and he knew that the
people of Dungarxan would be fully satisfied. with
the reasonableness of the refusal.
Mr. O'Connell, coppinger, Mr. Shiel, Mr
•
inw
members.
rentO!D savnd subscriptions,Yer,andseverl otherand proposedmembers,
many
handed
ife

A letter read by Mr. Coppinger, from the North
Parish of Cork, enclosed 100 i. and proposed-1h
names of Eighty new members.
Mr. O'Coreittx, jun. read several clurchwar..'
den's returns:
Mr. O'CdrtrlELL had intended tO adjeuitt
New Catholic Assotiation, and moved a" Sepiolite
Meeting" to talk a little polities. He foundqtiving
be too late, and moved a Separate Meets:Pr far
Wednesday. next..

The Countess BATHUAST has recoratid
from her recent, Moos: her Ladyship , took au ,sititst
'on Sdnday, for the first time since the re4stablishotteut at
htr kvAlth,

-.lMr2mm

PR
Bank Stop
Consols, 3
Gov. Stoci
Ditto, Net
4 per Cent
Gov. Deb.
Royal Can
Grath' Cai
City Ikb.
Ot

.Irrived.
1.1

I Br;
I Bu

1 Da
1 Fla
I Fr,
u (lo
1 Gu