The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-10 00:00:00

Was the Editor in the Office whin the last paper went to
press ?.-4 think he was.

. , By Lord NUGENT.
You have spoken•of an agreement between Mr. Arrowsmith
and yourself. Do you recollect at what time and where that
agreement Was conch:ll:led ?—About seven weeks ago at the
office. I cannot exactly Say.
Was it as long ago as seven weeks ?—I am not quite sure.
Was it.not nearer One month ago than two months ?—lt was
nearer two months, ago than One month.
Where was the agreement matle.?—At the office.
~At Mr. Arrowsmith's office ?—Yes.
WhO appointed Mr. Cooper the Ediidl-Vf the paper ?..41e
was appointed previously to my going to the paper.
That is not an answer. Who appointed Mr. Cooper the Edi-
tor of the paper ?—I do not know. I believe Mr. Bhackell.
• Who pays Mr. Cooper as the.-Editor—There being other
money transactions, somainies I pay him, sometimes Mr. Ar-
rowsnuth.

Is the Editor paid more frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith, or
by yourself ?-111ore frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith.
Did you ever pay him ?—Yes.
How often has Mr. Cooper received his payment as Editor
from you ?—I cannot exactly say. Once Or twice.
- By whom are the tegUlar current expellees and 'outgoings of
the paper paid ?—The Stamp Office accounts are paid by me.
Who pays the other expences ?—There are several outstand-
ing accounts which are at this time not settled. The Stamp
Office accounts are paid by me.
That is not an answer. By whom are the other outgoings of
the paper paid ?—Mostly by Mr. Arrowsmith, some by me.
Who pays the wages of the workmen ?—The establishment
are mostly paid by Mr. Arrowsmith.

By Sir 11, WILSON.

Do you keep any clerk do not.
By Mr. M. A. TAYLOR.
Who examines the proof sheet of the Paper 2.--,Sernetirnes. I
myself, sometimes the reader.
What is the name of the reader ?...:-Ducicmore.
Do you keep any regular books, in which are entered the
price paid for the insertion of paragraphs and advertisements,
and the weekly sale of the Paper ?—Yes, there are some books.
Who receives the money for the insertion of paragraphs and
advertisements, and for the weekly sale of the Paper? Princi-
pally into the hands of Mr. Arrowsmith.
Then the House is to understand that Mr. Arrowsmith re-
ceives the weekly proceeds of the Paper ?—ile does principally.
Do you not kno'w that Mr. Arrowsmith actually receives
those proceeds, and if not, who does ?—I never said Mr. Arrow-
smith received all the proceeds.
You say that there are books kept of the money received for
the insertion of paragraphs and advertiSements ; who makes the
entries, and to whom is the money paid ?.Sometimes I, some-
times Mr. Arrowsmith.

By Lord NUGENT.
Is there any person in the office authorised to give insertion
to such paragraphs as may arrive after you and the editor have
left it ?—There is no person so authorised, but it is done some-
times when we are out of the way.
Is that suffered to be done at the discretion of any of the com-
positors ?—Occasionally.
Are there any private marks by which the compositors are
instructed to give insertion to any paragraphs which may arrive
after you and the Editor have left the office ?—Not to my know-
ledge.
Did you ever before belong to the office of a daily or weekly
journal ?—To The Traveller and some other papers occa-
sionally.
For what paper were you employed immediately before you
went to the office of John Bull ?—I was engaged on The Ira-
yeller.

By Dr. PHILLIMORE.
Did the extra hands-whom you have mentioned ever insert a
paragraph without your permission or that of the Editor —lt
is possible they may have done so.
Do you mean to say that it ever came to your knowledge that
they had done so ?--I cannot exactly say.
Would you not have dismissed any of those compositors
whom you had found so acting ?—lt is probable I should.
Ilave•you reason to believe that it has ever been done ?—So
far, that in reading the Paper afterwards, I have sometimes
found paragraphs which I had never seen before.
Did you make any inquiry into such circumstances ?—I left
it to the Editor.
Do you mean to say that such paragraphs were ever inserted
without the knOwledge of the Editor ?—I cannot say.
By• Mr. SCARLETT.
You have said that Mr. Cooper is the Editor of the Paper--
do you mean to say that he is the exclusive Editor, or that he
divides the duty with you ?—I take no part as Editor of the
Paper.
Is Mr. Cooper then the sole Editor of the Paper ?—As far as
I know, unless he employs assistants.
Do you pay Mr. Cooper his salary ?—Once or twice I have
paid hun. Mr. Arrowsinith pays him generally.
And you do not know where Mr. Cooper lives ?--le never
told me,
positively.
That is an ambiguous reply. Do you not know where he
lives ?—I asked him one night how far he had to go home. He
said, to the neighbourhood of Blackfriars-road.
Answer the question. Do you mean to say that you do not
know where Mr. Cooper lives ?—Yes.
By Mr. BERNAL.
Is the Gentleman who was with Mr. Cooper to-day, and who
prevented your communicating to Mr. Cooper that you were
ordered to attend this House, connected with the paper ?—No.
A number of persons call on the Editor who are not connected
with the paper.
Do you know the name of that Gentleman ?.
By a MEMBER.
Is it part of the reader's duty to examine the proof sheet ; and
if so, did he not read the paragraph in question ?—The readin
boy reads the manuscript, and the reader examines the proof.

'—No.

By Mr. W. SMITH.
By whom is the manuscript put into the hands of the reading
boy ?--By the compositor.
And by whom is it giiren to the compositor ?—Generally by
the Editor.

If not given by the Editor,by whom is it given ?-_Generally
by iinyself.

If not given either by the Editor or by you, by whom is it
given ?—As I before observed? I cannot say after I leave the
office from whom any communications are received.
I ask you whether, to the best of your knowledge, any one of
the four compositors whose names you have mentioned, or any
of the other occasional compositors, would dare to print any pa-
ragraph except of . the commonest nature, unless he received it
either from the Editor or from yourself ?—I do not think he
would.

Do you believe that the paragraph comlilained of was printer
by any. one of those compositors on his own authority ?---]
should think not.

By Lord NUGENT.
Do you Mean to say that you never communicated with the
EditOr by- letter or note my communications with the
Editor have been verbal.

Mr. BENNET' then moved that Mr. Weaver
should be ordered to withdraw, with an intima-
tion that he_ must not depart from the House.
The SPEAKER accordingly ordered Mr. Weaver
to withdraw.,

Mr. BENNET rose, but from the very great con-
fusion which prevailed is-the body Of the House,
the Honourable Member was totally inaudible,
and was once or twice obliged to sit down. Ile
at length observed, that though the evidence
given by the person who had just left the Bar
afforded very little encouragement to proceed in
this inquiry, yet he was determined to have Mr.
Arrowsmith, of Johnson's-court, Fleet-street,
Mr. Duckmore, of 2, Gough-square, Printer,
and Mr. Henry Cooper, called to the Bar forth-
with.

After a few words across the Table, it was
put by the SPEAKER, and carried .unanimously,
that .Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. Shackell, and Mr.
Cooper, do attend at the Bar forthwith.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF IN-
QUIRY INTO ENGLISH COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Sir J. NrwponT rose to bring forward his mo-

tion upon this subject, but from the confusion
caused by Members standing up, and quitting
the House at the conclusion of the last question,
lie was for a considerable time inaudible in the
Gallery. The Right Honourable Member pro-
ceeded to explain the circumstances which in-
duced him to bring this question before the
House', and pointed out in strong terms the very
great delay which had taken place since the ap-
pointment of the Commissioners, which was in
1815. Those Commissioners, five in number (two
of whom were Masters in Chancery) had since
their appointment received a salary of 12001. a
year each, making in all a sum of 30,0001. ex-

•
c.usive-of allowailces to Secretaries and other in-
cidental expellees. There was also an additional
sem due this year of 60001. making in all abotit
40,0001. The Commissioners had daring that
time made but four Reports, two on the Court of
Chancery, and two on the Courts of King's
Beach and Common Pleas. With respect to tie
Reports- on . the Court of Chancery,- the. Lord
Chancellor, after approving some of the reeom-
mendalrolls;kwas.of opinion (miler lapse 0-MN&
years from the period of the Report being made);
that it ought to undergo the most grave and seri,
ous inquiry. As to the Reports of the Courts of
King's Bench and Common Pleas, the Chief Jus-
tices of those Courts had written to the Secre-
tary of State for. the Horne Department; inform-
ing him that those Reports had never beenssub-
mitted to their consideration, or officially made
known to them. The excuse made by the Com-
missioners was, that they experienced great delay
and obstruction in the different offices to which
their inquiries led them. This, be contended,
was no excuse, for the Commissioners had and
ought to have exercised the power of obliging the
parties to produce the necessary documents. The
Honourable Baronet; after some further observa-
tions, said, it was his intention to move a set of
Resolutions in substance as follows :—.4‘ That
it appeared from the returns laid before the
House, that five Commissioners had been ap-
pointed on the 9th of Feb. 1815 (in consequence
of an Address presented in July, 1814), to in-
quire into English Courts of Justice, Tl:at those
Commissioners, two of whom were Masters in
Chancery, had received a compensation of 12001.
a year each from the period of their appoint-
ment, amounting in all to. 30,0001. exclusive of
allowances to Secretaries and other incidental
expences—that, in addition to this, there was'a
further charge of 6;000/. due this year, making
altogether a charge to the public of upwards Of
40,0001." The Honourable Baronet went on to
state the nature of the other Resolutions, namely,
that the Commissioners had made four Reports
(specifying their dates), and that the Lord
Chancellor; after approving of certain recommen-
dations relative to the Court of Chancery, had
(five years after the Report was made,) declared
that Report required further consideration—that
the Chief Justices of the Court of King's Bench
awl Common Pleas had written to the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, stating; that
the Reports upon their respective Courts had not
been submitted to,or made officially known to them,
though the said Reports were delivered by the
Commissioners on the sth Jan. 1818, and the 3d
July, 1819, into the office of the Secretary of
State for the Home Department. • That this House
viewed with extreme regret the slow progress
of the Commissioners, in an inquiry attended
with such a heavy expence to the public, which
delay arose in consequence of obstructions thrown
in their way by certain public officers, whose de-
partments they found it necessary to examine;
and that, above all, the House regretted and con-
sidered as highly censurable, the manner in
which the Reports upon the Court of King's
Bench and Common Pleas had been withheld
from the consideration of the Chlef Justices of
those Courts.
On the first Resolution being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he objected
to the Resolutions of the Right Hon. Baronet,
because they went to convey a censure, first upon
the Commissioners, and then upon the Lord Chan-
cellor, which was wholly uncalled for, and unde-
served. He contended that no persons could
have been more properly selected for the purposes
of the inquiry than those Commissioners. With re

Bard to the charge of their having made a slow
progress in the investigation, it would be found
upon a fair comparison of their labours with those
of the Irish, Commissioners, that they hacl be-
stowed the greatest diligence and attentio❑ of
the two.—(Year!)—lt was true that they had
only made four Reports, while the Irish Reports
amounted to eight in number. But those Reports
applied to the three principal Courts of
Law, namely, the King's Bench, the Common

Please .and the Court of Chancery. If the eight
Reports from the Irish Commissioners were exa-
mined, they would be found to contain less than
four hundred pages, and if compared to the four,
they would not bear signs of the same degree of
industry. The returns before the House proved

that the Lord Chancellor had done all in his
power to act. upon the recommendations of the
Report, as they regarded the fees in his Court.
The Right Hon.- Baronet ought to know that
many of these fees were possessed in right of
freehold, and by purchase. And was it to be

expected that suits should have been immediately
instituted to try the right of individuals to con-
tinue the receipt of fees which they had so held
and purchased ? To all the officers over whom
the Lord Chancellor exercised any control, or-
ders had been given to receive nothing in future,

excepting the fees recommended by the Commis-

siouers. -Therefore, he (the Attorney-General)
complained that a most groundless charge had

been made against that Hon. and Learned Per-

sonag.e. "With respect to what had been said of
the Secretary of State, it was no'part of his duty
to attend to the reports connected with the

King's Bench, or_any other Court; they were all
properly returnable to the Petty Bag Office. It
was unfair to assume that the labours of the Com-

missioners had not been extensive, from the fact
that they had not reported many abuses as exist-
ing in the English Courts of Justice. He took
that fact to be highly creditable to the English
Courts, because it proved that no such abuses
existed. He felt it his duty to move the pre-
viou3 question to the Hon. Baronet's proposition,
because no case had been made Out to support

it,—because he conceived the Commissioners to
have been unremitting in their attention to the

subject, and because he thought the Lord Chan-
cellor, and the other parties connected with the

charge, had been most harshly and unfairly dealt

Mr. AmEncnomm E said the gravalne2i of the
charge made by the Right Hon. Bart. was, that
the reports had not been communicated to the
Learned Judges for two years after they had

been made. lie did not know that "it was the

duty of the 7Secretary of, State to forward such

reports ; but he did think that it was a heavy

charge against the government, that reports, which
had cost the country large sums of money, should
not be distributed in those quarters where they
were likely to prove most beneficial. In the
unsure which hid Hon. Friend had bestowed
Upon the governments he full x concurred. It ap-
peared here that the Lord Ct icelloc Of he were
permitted to speak of isti4u.isad a person-
age) lid dosidviilin If justice in-this case,
'for he appeared' have acted in a great manner
upon the suggestion of the Commissioners. By
the return he made, it appeared that many things
had been done of the description required, but
that many remained still to be done, and yet this
was stated after a delay of five years had already
occurred. A return so framed was surely incom-
plete and dissatisfactory.
Mr. B. BATHURST said that he agreed in the
view which the last Hon. Member had taken of
the question, namely, that the Government was
collectively responsible for any charge such as
that which the. Right lion. Baronet had been
pleased to make. But he contended that the
charge had no argument whatever to stand upon,
whether it was applied to one party or another.
The Hon. Member defended the conduct of Go-
vernment, and said that the language of the Rt.
Hon. Baronet, as well as the resolutions, was
unfair, and not grounded upon facts. With re-,
Bard to the expence which was complained of,
the Right lion. Baronet must take it to himself,
because he was reminded of what its extent was
likely to be, when he first asked for the appoint-
ment of the Commission, and warned against in-
curring it, unless it was called for by strong ne-
cessity.
Mr. BARING said, when the-House addressed.
his Majesty, and that his Majesty graciously
listened to the prayer of such an Address 4 it was
the duty of the Government to attend to the
Commission in all its stages. Gross neglect was
made out : the Government might shift the blame
on this person, or on that person—on the Lord
Chancellor or the Petty Bag Office ; but let the
blame rest where it might, gross neglect was
proved. • He almost regretted the institution of
this Commission, because he did not hope there
ever would be a reform of the abuses -of Courts
of Justice, when made by persons appointed .as
if to defeat the. object for which they were ap-
pointed, Law expences in this country almost
amounted to a denial of justice, and loudly call-
ed for regulation. When 40,0001. was already
uselessly expended, he was satisfied the House
should take care no greater sum would he' still
squandered to no purpose. It was said these of-
ficers had freeholds in their offices ; he thoiight
there should be no such offices as freehold of-
fices—that there should be no offices beyond the
controul of Parliament. This very acknowledg-
ment demanded remedy and revisal..
Mr. Serjeaut Osstow defended the conduct

of the Commissioners, and stated his conviction
that the charge had, been fully answered by the
speech of his Hom'and Learned Friend; the At-
torney-General.
Mr. WARRE was quite ready to admit the pri-
vate worth of the Commissioners, but their.o:mn-
petency as public officers might still be question-
ed, without derogating from their merit. He
was convinced of the truth of every. word • which
fell from his Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby)
and should certainly vote for the Resolutions.
Sir J. NEWPORT replied, and all the Resolu-
tions except the last were negatived without di-
visions. Upon that which conveyed the censure,
the Right Hon. Baronet expressed his intention
to take the sense of the House.
The House accordingly divided—

For the Resolution
Against it

55,
-16

Majority - -
PETITION FROM CARLISLE.

When we entered the Gallery, We found Mr.
JAMES speaking on a Petition which he bad to
present from the City of Carlisle, for Economy:
and Reform. He observed that every attempt to
correct abuses had been met in that House by a
negative, so that instead of being guardians of
the public purse and liberties, the House had-
come to be considered only as assistants to the
Ministers in laying burthens on the people. Till
the reform in Parliament took place, which the
people he had no doubt would ultimately obtain,
he was afraid little could done. However, it
was their duty to use their utmost endeavours to

keep down the public expenditure. He was
convinced that if the Ministers did not yield to
retrenchment and reform, the Government would
be changed by violence. It was said, the friends
of reform did not agree on any precise plan—but
it was equally true, that all persons who were
not interested in corruption, agreed that some
reform was necessary. He moved that the Peti-
tion be brought up.
Mr. CUILWEN said -that he could answ-er-t-trat

the Petition was very numerously and respectably
signed ; and he could state, that among those
whom he represented, except those who were
under direct influence, the almost unanimous opi-
nion was that Reform was absolutely necessary
to save the country.—The Petition was read and
ordered to he printed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Lord J._ RuisELL rose.and said, that although
circumstances which had lately occurred, and
the state of the Muse, were very discouraging to
any one who brought forward any proposition for.
Reform, yet he could say that' he should move
the Resolutions with which he should conclude
with considerable confidence. It was necessary
to say, that the business of Government had be-

come much more difficult than it had been; that
Government depended on opinion ; that the eye-S
of the pe6ple were .fixed upon the house ; that
all their acts were viewed as through a micro-
scope ; and that the ditrereice of even 1,000/.,
more or less, in the. expenditure of the public
money, was very minutely scrutinized. Instead
of that superstitious reverence with which they
were formerly regarded, there was a disposition
to deny them even the acknowledgment of the
aptitude which habit gave them in conducting

the public affairs. But of all questions which
were brought before them, those which attracted
the most attention were questions affecting the
Representation of the People, as their decisions
on those questions were taken as the tests of the

;egrity of the House. He should, in bringing

forward his Resolutions, diverge from the usual
way. in which such propositions *ere brought
forward. The Usual way was to say that the
Rouse did not represent the people) and that
this was proved by their Resolutions, which did
Lot accord with the sense of the people. This
course, however, involved them in invidious dis-
cussions. It imposed on them the necessity of
saying, that they who were the minority in the
House, were the majority, in the country, and
that independent Gentlemen on the other silk,
-though connected with a majority in the House,
were in a minority in the country. He should
not-take this way. But he -did not wish to con-
ceal or deny that he was in principle a Reformer;
that he thought the House should represent the
people, and that it did not.--(Hear, hear, hear !)
"---He did not agree with those who said that all
the acts of the House were conformable to the
wishes of the people, nor with those who said
that the House should be a mixed sort of body,
representing the Crown and the Aristocracy or
higher orders, and not the people at large. But
having said this, he should endeavour to spew
that there prevailed such practices—that whether
they had yet discovered themselves in their reso-
lutions, could not fail ultimately to manifest
themselves in discrepancies between the people
and the House ; and he would call on them to
Stop these practices before they went further to
.Poduce their inevitable effects. The first prac-
tice which he should bring before the House, was
that of bribery and corruption. Respecting this
Practice, there could not be two opinions in the
Rouse, as no one would venture to deny that it
was highly criminal and pernicious. it would
be just as readily admitted that it prevailed
to a great extent. When he had brought
before the House a motion for an Address re-
sPecting the punishment on Sir M. Lopez, he had
daily
that bribery and corruption was carried on
tiailY to a great extent. In that assertion he had
"net with no opposition. The Noble Lord on
The other side (Lord Londonderry) had not ven-
tured to deny that proposition, and he certainly
`would have surprised his supporters and the
llouse considerably if he had ventured to do so.
~
his practice was so notorious, that when the
late Mr. Sheridan was a candidate for a'seat in
Parliament, and told one of the voters that he
Was a friend to Reform—" Yes," said the voter,
is
and so am I, for I am told that there are some
candidates who don't give their poor voters a
Single guinea—such men as these need reform."
-"
1 t was well known that in 'the Boroughs its Cora:
wall this practice prevailed to a great extent.—
e people in a Borough there would engage
some person in the neighbourhood, as patron of
too Borough, who would maintain the poor,-and
incur other expences in behalf of the town, and
for this would get one seat, while the other was
'sold for a sum of money., The consequences of
such practices were most pernicious. The first
effect Was to promote drunkenness and profli-
gacy; to encourage a disregard for the duties
imposed by the Constitution, and to keep the
People in a state of ignorance and brutality. Be-
'sides this, the internal affairs of those small
`towns were often, in consequence, shamefully mis-
anaged. In one town in particular he knew
tbloat a revenue of 2 or 3001. a year, which should
be expended for the benefit of the poor, was,
e(3i deans of the parliamentary influence, employ-
th.l,4 feasting the voters. Another effect was,
-I:4xecutive Government was enfeebled by the
cessity of conciliating the voters and their pa-
.4,Tis• It was well known, that in those boroughs
t ere there are only 20 or 30 voters, these voters
ahve Obtained places to which they would never
ot
• efwise have had any pretension. He had in-
deed received letters, which stated that in these
7 Pghs Government offices were . regularly
T°ti ; that is, when a voter obtained a promise
4°l/1 a patron for a place which he did 'not
ILsb himself to hold, he sold it to some one
1% 1,4"0 wished to get it. This charge was not made
; for in the evidence on the Grampound
loectiou, it was stated that SOU bad been paid
1,, a voter- for •an office in or connected
the navy. A: fdtther consequence was,
tl~
the Ministers 'were obliged to look to
boroughs and their patrons for support in
Rouse. He did not attribute to this Mi-
ll, try in particular, more than any other, the con-
144tion with these persons, bat it was in the
I,ure of things. There were 80 County Mem-,
t4ls, and 300 returned by boroughs with less
final2oo voters. The necessary consequence
that the Ministers must look to the 300
ttii more anxiety -than to the 80 who were re-
‘l,,l'ed by great districts. If these 300 persons
hb.'" not returned by independent voters, but
If Then who held their privilege only as a mar-
4table article, like their cheese or wool ; if
tha. WaS the miserable infatuation of the voters,
10: effect must be felt from the highest to the
lowest department of the State. He came now
thic°llsider what remedies had been applied to
art: evil by the Legislature. In the first year
ex`r the Revolution an ACt passed to regulate the
Arerreinces at elections, for thus early was it disco-
ieq that almost at the very instant when, after'
ts b
I'7 struggle, the freedom of Parliaments was
h,7lished, attempts were made to corrupt Parlia-
tits themselves. The corrupt practices at elec-
nfls Were then declared to he a " great scandal
kingdom ;" and it was enacted, that any
,ar":4ldate who should give any money to a voter,
treat him after the teste of the writ, should be
elic4-Pable of sitting in that.Pailiament. But this.
Ine4ctrnent was not- efficient,
for by an arrange-
ia...4.ut between the candidate and voters, the
4/,'" were paid their bribes a year or half year
ter the election, which operated just as effec-
uaii
Y as if they had received them between the
A:e of the writ and the election. By another
„..4 of Geo. 11., a penalty of 50W. was imposed
Zevery one who gave or took, and the voter was
trcle incapable o voting. But hi this Statute
rs_gere. was room for' evasion, for there, was an ex-
Leytton from the penalty in favour of a person
twtl: discovered an accomplice within a certain
t:rnoit,
.so that candidates had often after an elec-
b'rib
(indicted some persons whom they had
There was also an Act against the sale
,sof, bribe persons
from which, however, the Hon. author
` (Mr. Curwen) would by
eff
ect was to be expected. this time see that
The question was)

' what course should now be adopted—should
they make the penalties on bribery more se-
vere ? In his opinion, decidedly not. These
small boroughs were placed in a situation in
which they could not exercise their franchises
independently. If, he said, forty or fifty
persons almost upon the parish, who were
indifferent as to the conduct of that great Coun-
cil of the nation, who did not at all care what
legislative measures were taken, if such men as
these had the power of electing Members, and
if, on the other hand, persons possessing plenty
of money wished to obtain seats, it was almost
impossible that the two classes should not come
together and make their bargain, be the penalties
of Parliament however severe, be its declarations
however solemn, or its hypocrisy however well
maintained.—(Hear !)—They must look to the
franchises of these boroughs. It appeared that
as early as the first year after the revolution which
he had mentioned, in 1689, corrupt practices were
discovered in the borough of Stockbridge, and a
proposal was made to take away its franchise, and
give the right of returning the Members to the
County of Southampton. The proposition being
then new, the debate was put off and was never
resumed. In 1695, the election in the same
borough was declared corrupt and void, and a
Bill was brought in to disable the borough, and
to send the election to Basingstoke. The Bill
was read a third time, but it then dropped.
It was singular that at the end of the-18th, as
well as the 17th, it had been declared by a Com-
mittee, that there was notorious bribery and cor-
ruption in the elections there. The next borough
was Aldborough, which was declared corrupt-in
1696, and no writ was issued. In 1697 the
voters petitioned, confessing their fault, and
praying to be taken into favour, and the wri
was issued. In 1698, Bishop's Castle was de
Glared corrupt, and no writ was issued that Ses
sion.

The same was the case with Grea

Grimsby. The House would observe that some
of these boroughs had come lately before them
in the same character, the inhabitants not forget-
ting the wholesome practices of their ancestors.
In 1701, there was a great influx of corruption,
one Shepherd having practised it on a large scale,
and corruptly procured returns for his connections,
for Bramber, Wootton Bassett, Andover, and
Ilchester. For the investigation of this conduct,

a Committee was appointed, in the business of
which Sir Edward Seymour took an active part.
It was voted that Sir Edward Seymour had made
good his general charge against Samuel Shep-
herd, senior, for corrupt practices, and the
thanks of the House were delivered to Sir
Edward Seymour for his exertions, by the
Speaker. The result was, the punishment of
several persons concerned. The elder Shep-
herd was sent to the Tower. In 1792, a Bill
was brought in for the disfranchisement of Hindon.
The modern and more successful instances of
these Bills were well known, but they by no
means formed a vigorous and sufficient corrective
to the evil. Only three of these Bills were pass-
ed, though there were generally fifty or sixty
Boroughs before them for Bribery every General
Election.—But the case disclosed with respect to
Grampound upon_ a very recent occasion, fully',
illustrated the inefficiency of the law as it stood,
for the prevention of bribery and corruption.
By the Grenville Act, which was no doubt a just
measure, there was no inquiry as to bribery or
corruption before any Committee, unless imme-
diately referring to the return. So that if the
parties concerned in that return should make up

their differences in any way, the house would
hear nothing of the bribery or corruption in any
case to which petitioners complaining of an undue
election might allude. The Committee to which
the Petition as to the election for Grampound
was referred, reported that the Petition against
the return was not frivolous or vexatious, and that
the sitting Members were duly elected. But the
nefarious practices at Grampound were brought
to light through the, bribery practised previously
to the election, some of the voters having re-
ceived such sums as Sir Manasseh Lopez refused
to pay. Yet Sir M. Lopez was punished, while
those who paid most, and consequently contri-
buted most t 6 the encouragement of bribery,
were allowed to escape. Thus, it appeared, that
additional guilt was a protection against punish-
ment, and Sir M. Lopez was the victim. It was
said, that when a Mahometan crew happened to
be in a storm, it was generally thought by them
a good expedient for their safety, if they had a
Jew in the ship, to fling him overboard ; and
hence, perhaps, the dealers in bribery at Gram-
pound thought it expedient, when detected in
difficulty and danger, to fling this unfortunate
Christian, Sir M. Lopez, overboard. He himself
believed that Sir Manasseh was entrapped into
the general practice of Boroughs from its general
impunity, without any peculiarly criminal motive,
and hence he felt himself called upon to move
the extension of clemency to that individual.—
The means which he proposed for the full discovery
of bribery and corruption, the Noble Lord stat-
ed to be the appointment of a Committee,
distinct from that prescribed by the Grenville
Act, the province of which Committee should be
fully to inquire into such practices alleged to
exist in any particular borough. To this Com-
mittee, as a distinct tribunal, he meant that all
such investigations should be consigned, and that
upon its Report both Houses should be called
upon to decide. Great advantage would, in his
view, result from the constitution of such a tribu-
nal, and particularly in preventing any partial in-
quiries, either in that or the other House of Par-
liament, in tlfe latter of which inquiries of this
nature should not at all be gone into. There
was some precident for this proposition in the
Gran-Ipound
,case for an itxpiry with respect to
bribery, after the return was decided upon. On
that occasion he recollected that the Noble Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs followed patiently
the course of the inquiry after it was gone into,
and therefore he calculated upon the Noble Lord's
acquiescence in a resolution for pursuing a similar
course upon any similar occasion. If the Reso-

lutions which he had to propose should be adopt-
ed, he meant to move their reference to a Com-
mittee, by which the details of a Bill, founded upon
thern,rnight be framed. In the course which he pro-
posed to follow, he meant no innovation which was.

not impdriouslycalled for byexistingcircumstances,
or innovations upon the practice of the Constitu-
tion ; for his objects were, first to provide against
the practice of bribery ; and, secondly, for an
adequate representation in that House of the im-
portant interests of the large manufacturing
towns. It was to be remembered that when, in
1816, the Gentlemen with whom he had the ho-
nour to act objected to large military establish-
ments, they were answered by a call from the
Ministerial side, to look at the increase of the
manufacturing population of the country. This,
indeed, was the answer of the Prime Minister
himself, who had recently made a declaration to
the' same effect in reply to those who opposed the
extent of our military establishment. Hence it
appeared that the only difference between his
and the other side of the House ivas this, that
Ministers for the governmentof our increased po-
pulation preferred a system of force and coercion,
while he and his friends preferred conciliation
and Reform.—(Hear, hear!)—But it was said
on the other side, that the manufacturing people
were so virtually represented in that House as to
render any farther or more immediate representa-
tion quite unnecessary. Of this virtual Represen-
tion, however, he would say, that it was rathera
fiction somewhat like that in Courts of Justice,
where it was said that the Judge was always Coun-
sel for the prisoner ; but he remembered a'case
where a Judge put such a question to a witness,
that the prisoner exclaimed C 4 my Lord, if you
were my Counsel, you would not put such a ques-
tion ;" and so the people would most likely say
to what were called their virtual representatives,
" if you were our representatives, Gentlemen,
you would not give such votes as you do."—
(Hear, hear, hear!)—But every man must think
that no virtual representative could have the
same degree of information to communicate, or
could' possess the same influence or authority
upon local questions, particularly in that House,
as a direct representative from any manufactur-
ing town. How, for instance, could the Repre-
sentative for Warwickshire be entitled to the
same attention upon any question connected with
the hardware manufacture as a direct Represen-
tative from Birmingham, who was so much more
likely to be acquainted with the particular
and general interests, as well as with the pecu-
liar views of .the manufacturers ? But the adop-
tion of the Bill for transferring the right of voting
to Leeds upon the ground of its important manu-
facturing interest, had in fact done away altoge-
ther with the principle upon which the argument
rested, as to virtual representation ; for in the
case of Leeds, the principle_ and propriety of
direct representation were directly required, and
therefore the argument as to virtual representa

tion, if good for any thin.' at any time, could
now. be no longer urged. It was indeed quite
clear, that for the purpose of understanding the
best interests of the country, the great manufac-
turing towns should have their direct representa-
tives sitting within the walls of that House. Among

the evils, too, belonging to the present system 'of
representation, was the manner in which some
of our great manufacturing towns were governed.
The government of Manchester Was in a steward or bailiff, and
that of Birmingham iu a high constable or headimixough; There-
being then no Parliamentary Representative for either of'fhese
great towns, the inhabitants had no one of importance to look
up to, either for the formation of political opinions or for the
ingto
redress of political grievances. They were not in the situation
knowntheir Rtherporuesgehntathtei
of the people of 'Westminster, who had an opportunity of appeal-
ing
anvesfyorgriadevviacneceaisiodfawidh,icohr
theywho coild
make might
complain. Manchester and Birmingham,, then, like other ma-
nufacturing towns, deprived of these advantages, and having
no Representatives to look to, were but too likely to attend to
any Hunt or Knight that offered to hear their complaints and
promise them redress--(Hear, hear, hear !)—But when such
persons were listened to by the manufacturing districts, to
whom, he would ask, did the Government resort in order to
counteract the machinations of demagogues, and to guard
the
.people against being misled ? Did Ministers refer to
the Magistrates, or to the Lord Lieutenants of Counties, to
advise the people, or to inform them of their real wants and
views ? No.—On the contrary, one Lord Lieutenant rather ap-
peared to have been suspected by them of revolutionary pur-
poses.---(A laugh, and hear, hear !)—and therefore, instead of
resorting to the aid and counsel of Magistrates and Lord Lieu-
tenants, to defeat demagogues or to put down disaffection, this
object was confided to the care and judgment of Oliver the
Spy.—(llear, hear !)—No one was appointed to go into the
manufacturing districts to inquire into the grievances of the
people, or to guard against disturbances, but this Oliver, who
was, it appears, the virtual representative of the Government.—
(Hear, hear !)—He was the arbiter of peace and war, whose
interest, and whose purpose it was to mislead and to inflame
those whom it was the duty and professed object of Govern-
ment to undeceive, ,and to tranquillize. Thus, while the
demagogues were left to impress the people, as it was said,
with a belief that the only redress for their grievances was
in the overthrow of the Government;, that Government itself
superadded. the influence of Oliver, the spy, to tell them
that a vast body of armed men were actually marching to
assist them in accomplishing that overthrow.—(Hear, hear !)
Was this the System which ought to be pursued by a wise Go-
vernment at the head of a free nation ? lint what had Govern-
ment gained by coercion, or blood-shedding at Manchester,
or elsewhere ? 'With all the experience of their coercive laws,
and severe punishments, and multiplied standing armies—
what, he would ask, had the Noble Lord in reserve for insuring
the tranquillity of this country under the existing system ?
What could he extract from his budget of resources for coer-
cion to supply the means of meeting any new exigency ? He
could not, indeed, imagine any farther expedient of restraint
upon public liberty which the Noble, Lord could produce, unless
he meant to impose a Censorship upon the press, and that was a
measure to which he hoped and trusted the people of this coun-
try could never be persuaded or compelled to submit.—(Hear,
hear, hear !)—With respect to the effect of coercion upon the
people of this country, he referred the Noble Lord to a recent
event at• Glasgow; for the purpose of teaching him that there
was no safety in such a system.' As coercion then was found
so ineffectual, it only remained to try the influence of concilia-
tion, by giving the people those rights which they.universally
demanded, and which could not be fairly withheld. , In pro-
posing that the large towns should be directly represented in
that Honse, he was only acting upon the principle of the Con-
stitution, as that principle was disclosed in our history._
His wish was . that Parliament should have the merit, and
that the King should have • the 'grace, of conceding to the
will of the people—that the redress of grievances, and
the grant of supplies should, as in better times, proceed
pari passu. He proposed that that House should origin-
ate the extension of voting which he had in view, ac-
cording to the precedents established in the cases of Wales,
Chester, and Durham. As to the compensation which he
thought ought to be granted to any boroughs which might
be disfranchised, in order to transfer the right of return to •
large towns ; he lainented that he differed upon this point
from his Honourable Friend the Member for Durham, who had
expressed his determination never to grant any indemnity in •
compensation to persons who carried on a white slave trade ; ,
but as his Honourable Friend proposed to disfranchise London
as well as Old Sarum, his view was at least consistent. As he '
(Lord R.), however, meant only that the smaller boroughs
should be disfranchised, they wouldhave good ground of com-
plaint if no compensation were granted, particularly as they
might point at larger boroughs, allowed to retain the right of
return, against which, perhaps, more corruption could be
Proved. But there were cases in which the right of return-
ing Members to that House was granted as a favour, as
in the case of Wenlock, which obtained that right for ser.:
vices rendered to Edward the 4th, and therefore to deprive
that borough of such an advantage without compensation, would
be an act of injustice. But the principle of compensation for
boroughs disfranchised was distinctly recognised by the Irish
Union. Such compensations were, indeed, of little compara-
tive consequence, to the propriety and necessity of extending the
bases of popular freedom and representation, in ord4r to aug-

ment tlie interest of the people in the maintenance of free and
popular institutions. All history served to illustrate the policy
of this principle. When the popular returns for Spain were re-
duced from 200 to 70 places, the people became indifferent td
what remained, and the free Constitution of Spain did not long
survive that indifference. But there was another example, and
it was that of Italy. In the 13th century there were 1,800,000
persons enjoying the privileges of freemen in Italy, and, in the
15th century, that number was reduced to 18,000. What wes
the consequence ? Why, the immediate fall of liberty in Italy,
to which event might be ascribed the easy conquest of that
country by the Emperor of Austria. But, if freedom, or any
remnant of the spirit which it inspired, had existed in Italy, it
was impossible that such a spectacle of abject submission could
have been exhibited, as had recently disgusted the people of
this country, as well as all that were manly among the people of
Europe. And what ,ouarantee could any reflecting English-
man calculate upon, that, if the smaller boroughs were allowed
to have a preponderance in the Parliament of the country, to
the exclusion of the large towns, and the mass of the popu-
lation from the right of voting, that the people of England
might not _sink into the same state of indifference or apathy,
with respect to national or individual freedom, which had
lately marked the degraded character of the people of Italy ?
(Hear, hear, hear!)—For what was more degrading in the
history of mankind than the conduct which those Italians had
presented to our view at the beginning of the 19th century ?
If the Italians were free, no such scene could have occurred,
and he exhorted the Government of this country to consult the
lesson which the scene afforded—to identify themselves with
the people--to conciliate their affection and confidence by ex-
tending their liberties. Such, he assured the House, were the
only ends which his proposition had in view. His desire
was to preserve and strengthen every link of connection
between the people and the Government--to render the
Crown and that House the peculiar objects of popular at-
, tachment. He .was aware that he was opposed by different
I parties, and upon different grounds, in the course which he felt
' it his duty to pursue on this occasion, one party being alarmed
at his propositions, from an apprehension that he went too far,
while he was ridiculed by another
.party for not going far
enough. • The former urged that his views would endanger the
institutions of the country., while the latter maintained that they
would produce no change at all.. But he should only say to
those parties, that he pitied the alarm of, the one, while he con-
temned the ridicule of the other ; and that whatever might be
the animadversions or the impressions of both, he would pursue
that course which was dictated by a sense of duty to his country,
and by an anxious solicitude for the preservation of its liberties
(Hear, hear !)—The Noble Lord concluded with proposing the
following Resolutions :
. . .

" 1. that grievous complaints are made in the kingdom, and
manifestly appear to be true, and undue Elections of Members
to serve as Burgesses in Parliament, by gross Bribery and Cor-
ruption, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom
due to the Election of Representatives for the Commons of
England in Parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom,
dishonourable, and' may be destructive to the constitution of
Parliament.

" 2. That in order to strengthen and maintain the necessary
connexion between the Commons of this Kingdom and their
Representatives in Parliament, it is expedient to give to such
places as are greatly increased in wealth and population, and are
not at present adequately represented, the right of returning
Members to serve in Parliament.

" 3. That a Select Committee be appointed to consider to
what places, according to the principle of the foregoing Resolu-
tions, it may be advisable to extend the right of returning
Members to serve in Parliament, and the best method of effect-
ing that measure without an inconvenient addition to the Mem-
bers of this House.

" 4. That it be referred to the same Committee, to consider
further of a mode of proceeding with respect to any borough
which may hereafter be charged with'notorious bribery and
corruption, in order that such charges may be regularly and
effectually inquired into, and if proved, that such boroughs may
be disabled from sending Burgesses to serve in Parliament.for
the future."

Mr. WIHTMORE seconded the motion. He was
by no means an advocate for what was called
Radical Reform, for be looked upon it as pro-

ductiVe of revolution, and the Constitution of
England he thought had been too glorious in its
effects to require revolutions. Radical Reform
went partly upon the basis of the 2d and 3d Par-
liaments, during the protectorate of Oliver Crom-
well. That politic Chief having known that the
smaller boroughs had, under the sanction of the
great landed proprietors, entertained affection
for the Royal. Cause, had regulated his Parlia-
ment so as to have it consist of 400 Members,
270 of whom were elected by the counties
of England, and one hundred and thirty by
the maritime counties. To the introduction,of
any such he would be always averse, for while the
elector would, as at the time of Cromwell, be
compelled to possess an estate of the value of
2001. the 40s. freeholder and the trader would

be compelled to forfeit their natural privileges.
Though he was opposed to revolution, he was an
advocate for useful reform, such as that proposed

by the Noble Lord. Great changes had taken
place among the people since the House had been
constituted as it then was; and a change was
therefore necessary in that House, in order to
make it suited to the age and to the state of the
people. Instead of the Members of it being the
tools, they ought to be a check upon the Aristo-
cracy ; and instead of being subservient tb the
views of Government, the House ought to have
its constitutional controul over the acts of Minis-

ters. Ile,had no doubt but an effectual controul
might be established over the pernicious conse-
quences arising from bribery and corruption ;
and the admission of the large towns to a parti-
cipation of the elective franchise would tend to
legalize the people. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by seconding the Resolutions.
The first Resolution was then put, and stran-
gers were ordered to withdraw preparatory to a
division, when

Mr. B. 13,1THURST rose, amidst loud cries of
" Withdraw ! Withdraw !" The llon. Member
addressed the House at considerable length, but
the noise that prevailed during the whole of his
speech prevented his being heard in the gallery.
We understood him to say, that he had always
recognized'the principle, that when any case of
bribery was established, it was proper to deprive
it of its franchise, not only as a punishment to the
offending borough, but as a warning to others.
He understood the Noble Lord to contend that it
was desirable the larger towns should be repre-

sented, and therefore the boroughs, whether cor-
rupt or otherwise, should be disfranchised. He

did not see that the Noble Lord had shewn that

e House, as at present constituted, was not ade-

quate for the discharge of its duties; nor had he
shown that merchants, who now represented the

'oroughs, would, if returned, or that those who

might- be returned from the larger towns, would
he better qualified than the present Members.
Now with respect to the qualification of

voting, supposing - that it was confined to
persons possessing property amounting to 10/.
per annum, he much doubted , whether out

of the number of persons .assembled at Man-
chester, to the amount of several thousands, one

hundred would have been found who would be
entitled to the right of voting. Could it there-
fore be expected that this reform would remove

their discontents, or the-grievances of which they
complained'? Nor perhaps would the Members
returned stand higher in the estimation of the
Noble Lord than those that might be removed to

make way for them. And. if the Members re-
turned from these towns should be solely qua-

lifted to advocate the local interests of these
places, they would, so far from being an useful

addition to the house, be in fact pernicioui ;
inasmuch as they would preVent Members from
being returned possessing more general and
practical information. He concluded by moving
the previous question.
Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr. BATHURST MIltU4
ally explained.
Mr. BARHAM, amidst loud cries of 0. Ques,
tion !" presented himself to the House. He
hoped, as the borough he represented (Stock-
bridge) had been alluded to by the Noble Lord
as an instance of gross corruption, 'he might be
permitted to say a few words. He knew that,
130. years since complaints of that nature hid
been made ; but from some cause or other it had
not been disfranchised. That borough was now
pure, and there was not a greater share of inde-
pendence in any city or county than at 'present
existed in the borough of Stockbridge. He came
down to the House to support the Resolution,
and the Noble Lord would not find any one more
zealous in doing it than himself. Should the
plan of the Noble Lord be agreed to, the state
of all the boroughs would be brought under the
notice of the Committee, and in that case he had
no objection that Stockbridge should be placed
first on the list.
The SPEAKER then put the question, and tjie House di-
vided--

For the original motion - - . 124
Against it - - - 155
Majority against Lord J. Ruessll's motion -31
On our re-admission, we found Mr. MABERL'IL' speaking
against a Bill brought in to sanction a loan from the Bank of
Ireland of 500,0001. at 4 per cent. The Bill was opposed on
the ground that 4 per cent. was given, when the money might
be had in England for 3 per cent.
Mr. BARING, and Mr. CALCRAFT also opposed
it on a similar ground.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcHtouEdexplained
the object of the Bill, and observed, that it
afforded no favour to the Bank of Ireland. It
was to raise a sum to pay another debt, to enable
the Proprietors to divide a sum among them
which they had just claim to.
Sir, JOHN NEWPORT intimated that he should,
in the Committee, add a clause having a restrictive
operation.
_ _ _

The Bill was then read the first time, and ordered to be read
a second time this day.
OR the motion of Mr. DAVIES GILBERT, the Metropo-
lis Road Bill committed pro forma, and the Report ordered tO
be taken into consideration on Friday se'nnight.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Two o'CLocE.

FOR THE SUN.

GEOGRAPHICAL ERRATUM.

Ma. EDITOR,—I wish to correct an ERRATUM
in your Paper of the 6th ultimo, where you
detail a most extraordinary occurrence:at a place
of semi-barbaric name, Strathbora, I think, and
of such a nature as, in my humble opinions could
never have happened in a Christian country.
You tell us of a whole body of tenantry driven
from their farms by the agents of the • Land-
owner, aided by the civil and military pOWer ;
of their flying to some neighbouring heights, and
from thence witnessing the devastation of their
humble, but till then peaceful abodes—at least
suppose them to have been peaceful, for you
tell us not of any crimes there committed, thins-
tify a proceeding of
_such a distressing nature !
All this too you give from the Inverness Paper,
when it ought most certainly to have been--the
Constantinople Gazette, the Algiers Chronicle, or
the Pez Courant ! Really, Mr. Editor, this must
be a mistatel Could such a thing happen in
Great Britain, the land of liberty, of humanity,
of benevolence, of charity ? Well ! if it could;
what has happened once, -may happen again !
Now, let us suppose that a - certain Earl, who-
once talked, of throwing the Church Prayer-
book at his Sovereign's head, were to order
all his tenants off Grosvenor-square, and the
streets in the vicinity, and to drive them to the

top of Primrose or Constitution Hills, by the
aid of the Guards and Bow-street officers, whilst
his workmen were busy in pulling down all the
mansions in that district, is it not possible to sup-
pose that, some people might venture to imagine

that the Noble Lord was a little in danger of a
strait waistcoat ? Then, are not law and com-
mon sense in London also law and sense in the
Highlands? Is not such a statement a libel on
the Noble individuals implicated ? Is it not
their duty to step forward and to wipe off the
opprobrium ? If there is law to prevent such
measures, ought it not to be enforced ? And if
there is not such a law, ought it not to be in the

power of the Sovereign to say, " I will not have
my people driven to desperation ! I will not
smile upon him who forces my subjects from their
humble yet happy abodes ; forgetful that. rank
and power, even in the days of feudality, were
given to the few for the good of the many !"
Your's,
BOREAS.

BISHOP AND CLERKS.-Those perilous rocks at
'Scilly, called the Bishop and Clerks, are' said to have derived
their name from an incident which happened 200 years ago,'
when a fleet of merchantmen coming from Spain were ship..
wrecked upon them, and only 'Miles Bishop and John and
Henry Clark were preserved on a fragment of a mast.,..
Ma. ALDERMAN KING.-The official ePlana-
tious which have got into the public prints, re-
lative to some irregularities -committed by minor
agents, in the service of revenual stationery, &c.
prove, most clearly and conclusively, that the
remotest imputation does not attach to the charac-
ter of Mr. KING; than whom there is not a more
honourable and high-Minded man in the commu-
nity. Whether the publication of the inglikry. in
the newspapers was prompted, in all cases,

by the love of truth and a regard to justice, it
would be difficult to say ; but the friends of Al-
derman KING could desire nothing more calcu-
lated to exhibit that Gentleman in the pure co-
lours of his genuine character; and to confirm to
him that high and unlimited esteem and confi-
dence so justly accorded to him through his
whole life by his friends and the public. That
there was something dark and vile lit the origina-
tion of this business, there is but too much rea-
son to suppose, but the pure gold comes out of
the ordeal uninjured ; the worthy Alderman
stands justified to the Government and the Coun-
try, and the shafts of malice or corruption fall
blunted from the shield of his integrity. We
should not have noticed the subject but that it
haS been so much treated of by cotempprar:c
prints.—(From the Warder.)