The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-09 00:00:00

EXPENSE OF ELECTIONS.

Lord ALTHORP said it would be remembered that he
had already made several motions on the subject of Elec-
tions, the object of all of which, as well as tlaat of his pre-
sent [notion, was to diminish the expenses incurred at elec-
tions. He commenced with County Elections, and he had
the good fortune to succeed so far as to cause a Committee
to be appointed to inquire into the mode of conducting
them, from whom he expected, in a short time, a satisfac-
tory report. His next purpose was to diminish the ex-
pences of all other• elections, particularly Borough elections.
He trusted that he would be permitted to bring in the Bill
which lie should move for, after having first explained the
grievance, which called for redress, and the remedy which
he should propose. It was known to the House, that
many Acts of Parliament had passed to prevent the com-
mission of direct bribery. It was also•well understood,
that these Acts were in many instances vioiated, and vio-
lated in this way :_Candidates were in the habit of en-
gaging a number of voters, whom they paid for pretended
services. These persons were appointed to nominal
offices, and those who gave pluinpers received twice as
much as those who gave only half votes. They affected to
fill the offices of messengers, flagmen, runners, musicians
(some of them engaged in the latter capacity, who never
played a note in their lives !) and various other depart-
ments. It was to prevent such practices that he pro-
posed to bring in a Bill. •lle did not propose, however,
that any penalties should be inflicted on the persons who,

under pretence oe. employing voters, actually reward them
for their votes ; or on those who consented to receive money
as nominal servants ; but, as the surest way of abolishing
:he practice, be would take away all temptation to the re-
petition of it from the candidate, by making a law which
rhould prevent any person employed and paid by a candi
late, or by any person in his behalf, from voting at that
particular election at which be was so employed. He
(Lord A.) would not, disfranchise the party—he would
only deprive him of his votefor that particular time. The
effect:of such a law would be, that the candidate would
amploy only such persons as were actually necessary to the
purposes of .the election. He then moved that-leave be
riven to bring in a Bill to make further regulations, in or-
der to prevent the corrupt practices at elections, and to di-
minish the expences of the mime.
The motion having been seconded, and put from the
Chair,

An Hon. MEMBER, whose nanie we could not learn,
wade some objections to the proposed Bill in a low tone of
voice.

Mr. WYNN was clearly of opinion that the over-paying
of musicians at elections was 33 substantive an act of bribery
as if a barber had been paid fifty guineas for shaving the
candidate's chin.—(A laugh.)—The rule appeared to him
to be this—that money pai4 for o'utaining a vote was as cor-
rupt as if money had been paid for buying votes.—(Hear.)

Sir CHARLES BURRELL thought it hard to take
away the right of voting at an election frcm the agents
if the candidates merely because they were ?gents. Ile
was persuaded that many agents would rather act gra-
tuitously than give up their franchise.
Mr. BROUGHAM felt himself under a great obligation
to his Yo'de Friend, for this endeavour to put a stop to
great, and as his late election experience proved beyond
all doubt, the growing evil -A election expenses.—(Hear.)
—Well, host-ever, as he wished the measure, if he thought
it was fairly open to those objection.: which had been
Stated to it by an Hon. Baronet opposite, or that it at
all abridged the elective franchise, he should be the last
man to support it. But he could not regard it in the same
light as the Hon. Baronet unwarily, no doubt, viewed it.
If he was to rule that any person exercising any certain
trade, profession; or employment was not to be allowed to
vote at any election, which certain trade or occupation
such parson used generally, habitually, and independent of
the election, and that such person might have voted if he
had not been so employed, that would be undoubtedly a
disfranchisement. But what his Noble Friend's Bill said,
was this—to the barber suppose, who had been alluded to,
—" if you exercise the trade of a barber generally, habi-
tually, and independent of this election, such employment
shall be no bar to your voting; but if, on the morning of
the election, you shall shave the candidate's chin, and re-
ceive fifty guineas for it, then do I hold you guilty, not of
shaving, but of bribery."—(Laugh.)—But bad and imper-
fect as the present law was, it did not, in his opinion,
require a declaratory clause to explain that such a case as
this came within its operation. Nor did he believe, not-
withstanding all that he had seen and heard of Committees
lately, and he had heard accounts of these Committees
which he should have great difficulty in believing, if he had
not had them from undoubted authority ; he did not be-
lieve that any Committee appointed under Lord Grenville's
Act, could entertain a doubt as to such cases. It wasa-ery
true, therefore, that the law as to such cases was sufficiently
explicit, but others had been stated by his Noble Friend,
in principle the same, though perhaps not so obviously so,
and as it might be doubtful whether they were reachable by
the present law, it was at the least safer to adopt this mere
comprehensive Bill, by which all persons employed at elec-
tions, such as musicians, bearers of flags, and all those per-
sans who filled such like and important and responsible
offices—(great laughter,)—and whose services every one
knew were overpaid, should be disqualified from vot-
ing at that election. Every Gentleman knew the great
demurrage, the heavy expenses which candidates were
suhjected to, in paying agents, not only for their profes-
sional assistance, but by, way of enlisting in their cause the
electioneering influence of these persons, and of securing
their votes. He had no objection to candidates employing,
such agents at elections—they might give them ten gui-
neas a-day if they were foolish enough to do so, but let it
be to them as canvassers, and much good may their ser-
vices do these gentlemen; but let them not, under such a
colour, buy np an elector's vote. By law and the spirit of
the Constitution, every elector ought to tender his vote to
the candidate whom lie thinks the most fit to represent the
particular county or borough in Parliament, but in con-
sequence of this influence, he tenders it as the hired
and paid agent of the candidate.--Could it then be
called disfranchisement, when agents are told that,
because of the retainer, which they have received from
any particular candidate, they are placed under a teme
porary restraint as to voting? for they are supposed
to be incapable of disinterestedly discharging the duty
of a judge—as an elector ought to he—of the merits
of the party soliciting their suffrages. For these rea-
sons he wished success to this measure, but he wished
it had been carried further. His Noble Friend had ad-
dressed his attention to the defects of the law, as it affected
the proceedings in elections out of doors ; but he (Mr. 13.)
w,neld recommend to him to extend his measure to that
acknowledged evil—the growing misdirection of Election
Committees in this House. He (Mr. B.) had intended to
move for minutes of all the proceedings in the Committees
upon the late election ; and as this was the first opportu-
nity which occurred of his giving an opinion upcin these
proceedings, he should say, that more crying outrages upon
all legal principles, upon justice, common honesty, and
common sense, had never been committed—and he spoke
advisedly—than, to his astonishment, and almost incredu-
lity, had been committed by those Committees. When he
heard of a Committee of 13 Hon. Members of this House
refusing to allow it to be proved that A bribed B, though
the evidence was that A gave the money to a third
person to. bribe B, until a previous question and pre-
liminary discussion had been got rid of, as to agency-
-when, to the utter confusion of all distinct ideas,
and confounding of all senses of common rapacity, he found
a Committee refusing to receive the evidence of bribery
because there was mixed up with it, in unico contcxtu,
evidence of agency, it appearing that the same witness was
to speak to the bribery and the agency, he was disposed to
recommend a return to the old form of tribunal which
had existed in this House for trying the mss'ts of con-
tested elections—(Hear, hear.)---He bad heard of other
cages where a Committee had refused to admit that
one borough was comprised within another, because
there was a right of common appurtenant to it; though
no Judge in the land, assisted by twelve jurors—
and he spoke professionally—would have hesitated a
moment in coming to a conclusion the very opposite
of that at which this Committee, in mockery of all
common sense, after a deliberation of eight days,
arrived.—(Hear, hear.)--.Much as he wished to see
a measure perfected which would purify the practice of
elections, and spare expence to the candidates at the poll,
he was no less anxious to see similar amendments made in
the proceedings of this House. After the returns came to
be questioned—for questioned they ought to be here—with
the same impartiality as if they had been tried in a Court
of Justice. He was in all respects a moderate reformer—
that is, an admirer of practical reform as distinguished
from mock or theoretical reform. He would not lift one
foot from the ground, until he had found that the other
was upon a sure footing, and not placed upon a slippery
precipice, and would proceed safely, and in the daylight,
not according to any fanciful theory. He should call all
reform which was not practical, mock reform, and upon
that ground, gave his support to this measure, which,
though moderate, was a real and substantive improve-
ment in the law of elections. The appointment of
nominees he considered a gross mockery of justice,
a grievous injustice to the parties, and that it must
be painful to the Members themselves to be placed
in so anomalous and contradictory a situation—that
whilst on the one hand, they were sworn to ad-
minister impartial justice between the parties--on the
other, they must necessarily be influenced by the obligation
which their nomination imposed upon them, of inclining
more or less to the side of the Member by whom they were
appointed to see that what was termed fair play was done to
him. Such a situation must be unpleasant to the nomi-
nee, if he was an honest and honourable man, as well as to
the person nominating him, if he was actuated by similar
feelings. A man so placed cannot give satisfaction to any
party, inasmuch as it was impossible for him to reconcile in
his person the characters of partisan and judge. He (Mr.
IL) should therefore propose the abolition of nominees, but
in their room he would have a referee appointed by the no-
minees, like to the appointment of an arbitrator between
two litigating parties in a Court of Law. He also ob-
jected to the mode of striking Election Committees now
used. At present, the original list was reduced from forty-
eight to thirteen, but he would prefer taking the chance of
the first twelve or thirteen Members whose names were
drawn. By these means, much of that indecency and par-
tiality, now so glaring in the striking of Committees, would
be got rid of. He concluded by recommending fhe Noble
Lord to extend his measure, so as to embrace the points to
which he had alluded.
Mr. SPRING RICE recommended the insertion of a
clause, to declare giving cockades and ribbons an act of
bribery. These " favours," as they were called, formed
a large item in the candidates' expenses, and answered no
other purpose than that of giving greater vigour to the
display of party oppcsition.—(Hear.)—The practice had
been proscribed by the law of Ireland since 1796, and it

would be a considerable alteration in the Election Law of
this country.—(Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP, in reply, had no objection to intro-
duce any clauses which would lessen the expenses of elec-
tions, but was afraid of hazarding the success of the Bill it-
self by tacking upon it suggestions which might not he ge-
nerally approved of. One Bill was better confined to one
measure—and it was safer to proceed by steps.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Wei NN had, in the early part of this Session given
notice of a Bill for next Session, which would consolidate
all the Election Law. That Bill had made considerable
progress, and it was postponed only because he wished to
!et the Committees dispose of the cases arising out of the
general election, as by these results many useful hints might
be supposed to he furnished. He was willing either to go
on with the Bill if such was the pleasure of the House, or
to hand it over to his Hon- and Learned Friend (Mr.
Brougham). If he was to give an opinion, he should say
that this matter would be better discussed by being treated
extensively than by piecemeal.
Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT adverted to the incon-
venience and embarrassment of Election Committees form-
ing their judgments upon precedents brought forward by
the lawyers, rather than on the particular merits of each

After a few words from Lord MILTow, Lord JOHN
Re.,:szu., and Lord SANDON,
Mr. Alderman WOOD had attended on the ballots of
all the Election Committees, but by some accident had
never been requested by any one to act as noviinee, except
by a man who knew nothing at all about him.—(Roars
of laaghter.)—However he had succeeded in seating that
man, who, but for his exertions, woo1:4 never have eat in
this House.--(Continued laughter.)
Mr HORACE TWISS suggested the expediency of de-
vising seine plan of taking a scrutiny at the place of elec-
tion,. itrid not by a Committee of the House.
Leave was then granted to bring in a pill.
BOROUGH OF PENRYN.

MI. LEGH-KECK rose, pursuant to notice, to Inb-
uilt a motion to the House, founded on the late proceed-
ings in the borough of Penryn. The Hon. Gentleman,
after stating various instances of gross bribery and corrup-
tion practised in this borough on former occasions, advert-
ed to the year 1819, when a Committee was appointed to
take into consideration the state of the elective franchise in
that borough. The Committee framed certain resolutions
on the evidence which was then before them ; and he (Mr.
Keck) meant to found the motion with which he intended
to conclude on those resolutions. The Hon. Gentleman
then went into a minute detail of the circumstances at-
tending the late election in the borough of Penryn. On
the Monday preceding the election, so careful were the
candidates to disdains any notion of usin;; any other than
constitutional means to forward their reseective interests,
that they actually procured the town-crier to proclaim in
the market-place, that the practice previously resorted to
of making the electors "comfortable" would on that occa-
sion be discontinued.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)—On
Monday and Tuesday- the voters were very tardy in coming
in to vote, but means having been taken to make them
"comfortable" they came forward on 'Wednesday in great
numbers.—(Laughter.)—The lion. Member then referred
to the evidence taken before the Committee appointed to
try the late election, which furnished, he said, the most
incontestible proof of the grossest bribery and corruption.
Having sat on several Election Committees, and having
once presided at a Committee appointed to inquire into
the abuses practised in this borough, and signed a report
stating that the charges of corruption and bribery were
fully proved, he should ill discharge the duty which he
owed to the House and the country if he did not endeavour
to do justice to the respectable portion of the Penryn
electors. He should now state the mildest plan which he
could suggest to remedy so great an evil. He proposed to
limit the right of voting in the borough of Penryn to the ac-
tual possessors of land within the borough ; and then lie pro-
posed that the elective franchise should be extended to the
two hundreds in the immediate neighbourhood of Penryn.
It might, perhaps, be desirable to transfer the elective
franchise to some place altogether unconnected with the
borough of Penryn. He was aware that the town of
Leeds was mentioned as a fit place to which to transfer the
elective fanchise of Penryn, in case the House should agree
to disfranchise that borough. He was told, however, that
the proposal was not well received by the inhabitants of
Leeds, and that, in fact, they were averse to such a mea-
sure. He was induced, however, to believe that the trans-
fer of the elective franchise of the borough of Penryn might
with advantage be made to Manchester. He would now
submit certain Resolutions, which should- serve as the
basis of a Bill for the more effectually preventing bribery
and corruption in future in Penryn. He would nut, hoi•-
ever, let the matter rest with the Bill, but would follow up
farther the precedents which he found on the journals ; and
would move that the Attorney-General be directed to pro-
secute certain individuals against whom cases of bribery
had been made out before the Committee. He felt it his
duty to adopt this course, and having taken the subject up
in the discharge of his public duty, be would not be easily
driven from it. He would propose what appeared to him
an effectual remedy ; but if the House, actin on the sug-
gestion of the Noble Lord (J. Russell we belied;), should
agree to transfer the elective franchise to some large town,
he of course would submit, but the consequence must rest
with those who supported that view of the case. The
Hon. Member concluded by moving—
" That it appears to this House, that the most notorious
bribery and corruption were practised at the last election
of Members to serve in Parliament for the Borough of
Penryn, and that such practices were not new or casual
in that Borough, the attention of the House having been
called to similar practices in the year 1807, and in the
year 1819.
" That the said bribery and corruptio❑ deserved the
most serious consideration of Parliament.

" That leave be given to bring—inll Bill for the more
effectual prevention of bribery and corruption in that
Borough; and
" That the Attorney-General be directed to prosecute
John Stanbury Sowel (or Solly), and others, against whom
cases of bribery had been made cut."
Sir C. BURRELL rose to second the Resolutions.

The question having been put from the Chair,
Mr. D. BARCLAY would observe, that he was not
opposed to the principle of the House interfering to punish
cases of bribery where they were satisfactorily made out ;
but he could not assent to the sweeping proposition,
that because bribery had been established in the case of
the few, its punishment should be extended to the many.
The charges brought by the Hon. Member were, he con-
tended, too general and indistinct to warrant the resolu-
tions which he had moved. They had heard of bribes to
the amount of 1,3001. being given in one instance, and of
2751. in the other ; but they had not been told of the great
number of electors who, it was alleged, had disgraced
i themselves by a bribe. This sum of 1,300/. rested on the
evidence of a man named Pitt, who, in the course of his
examination, admitted that he himself had been guilty of
the grossest profligacy, and to so great an extent, the:. the
general opinion of the Committee was, that there was no
foundation whatever for the charge of the division of
1,300/. among the electors. Then as to the sum of 2757.,
it rested on no better authority, as there were most res-
pectable individuals who were ready to prove that the par-
ties who spoke to that circumstance were perjured. But
suppose that could not be done, and that the fact of the
275/. could not he denied, what did it prove against the
great mass of the electors? Was it shown how it wax
divided, or that it went amongst the whole, or only
amongst a few? Nothing of this kind was attempted to
be shown. The suns of 275/. would, at 101. a-head, af-
ford a bribe to 27 electors and a half ; and now, admitting
for an instant, for the sake of the argument, that that
number of persons had been bribed, was that a fair cause
for disfranchising 500 electors ? Let the House look at the
cases in which Parliament had on former occasions proceeded
to disfranchise boroughs, and they would see that in
the last four and most important instances, there was
not one in which the circumstances bore any analogy to
those of Penryn. The cases of Ayle •eury, Cricklade,
Shoreham, and Grampound, were all of them cases
of gross bribery. In the Aylesbury case it was
proved that the electors met the candidates; that there
ems a bowl of punch at one end of the table and a bowl
of guineas at the other, and the electors received their
punch and their gold at the same time. Of the 300
electors in the borough it was proved that 200 had been
thus bribed. In the Borough of Cricklade, it was proved
that more than half the electors had been bribed. The
case of Shoreham was still stronger. There a society was
formed called the " Christian Society," to which elec-,
tors only were admitted. It was assembled by the hoisting ,
of a flag. When they met their proceedings were secret.
Each man was sworn to secrecy, and had entered into a
hoed of 500/. The affairs of the electors were managed
by a committee, authorized to make the best bargain
they could with the candidates. Here was a case where
the disfranchisement of the borough was called for; but
was there, he would ask, any analogy between the case
of Penryn and this or any of the others he had men-
tioned ? But for such practices, corrupt as they were,
Shoreham was not disfranchised. The only change was,
the extension of the franchise to the inhabitants of the
"rape of Bramber." In the case of Grampound, 47 out
of 60 or 70 electors were proved to 'have been bribed—
some of them took bribes of 35/., some of 53?. ; one of
110/., and the mayor got 306/. )3esides this, a paper
was produced to the committee, which was a kind of bill

of parcels of the borough. In that bill the members were
debited for 8,4001., the price of the two seats, and credit
given them for half that sum which had been received.—
For this Gratnpound was disfranchised ; but had he had
the honour of a seat in Parliament on that occasion, he
would have objected to the disfranchisement, though he
would not have opposed the extension of the franchise
to the neighbouring hundred. The House ought to
be cautious how they interfered to remove the fran-
chise from independent boroughs.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) By independent boroughs he meant those in
which Noblemen and Gentlemen did not actually appoint
the Members, which was well known to be the fact in seve-
ral inqatteeN.—(Hour, hear.)—ln defending a place so
notorious as Penryn, he wished to state his own opinions,
lest it should be thought that lie was the advocate of the
practices which were said to exist. He hoped the House
would give him credit for what he had said,—that he was
perfectly innocent of any attempt at bribery. If he had
been guilty, why was he not included in the petition ? The
borough St. Penryn, which he had she honour to represent.
was particularly unfortunate.—(Laughter.)—lt had fallen
more than once under the notice of the House, and by this
misfortune had acquired a notoriety, which it would be im-
possible for him to dlisipate by ally thing that he could
offer. But he must say that there were mail), more cor-
rupt places than Penryn.—(Hear, and laughter.)—lt
seemed to him, that no case whatever had been made out
which (ailed on the House to disfranchise the borough of
Penryn ; and therefore the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Leicestershire (Mr. L. Keck) could not, with justice, be
carried into effect.

Lord MILTON confessed, that he did not approve of
the plan proposed by the Hon. Member for Leicestershire ;
while he agreed in several of the animadversions which had
fallen from the Hon. Member for New Shoreham. In
looking to a measure of this kind, one great point was, to
consider the variety of persona intrusted with the elective
franchise throughout the country ; and, in his opinion,
when bills were brought in which went to affect that fran-
chise, care ought to be taken not to disturb the balance
which had hitherto existed between different classes of the
community. If a sufficient case were made out against
the borough of Penr:ll, he would vote, if no better offered,
for the proposition of the Hon. Member for Leicestershire;
at the same time he confessed that it was one, as he con-
ceived, of the least advisable modes of proceeding. If the
electors of Penryn were so generally, so universally cor-
rupt as had been represented, then he would recommend
that the franchise should he granted to some large, po-
pulous, and wealthy place, rather than to the freeholders of
Kerrier and Penwith.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said that there was what
he might call a regular market for borough seats, at the
commencement of every Parliament. This was clearly
shown by Mr. Oldfield, the individual who had given the
public " The History of Boroughs." It was well known
that at a dinner-party of borough electors, the agent would
introduce to them an individual to represent a borough in
Cornwall or elsewhere, of whom the electors knew no-
thing whatever. The, price of a seat varied from 3,000/.
to 5,0001. or 7,000/., according to peculiar circumstances ;
and it was notorious that a seat might be purchased for a
single season. The price rose and fell like any other mar-
ketable commodity.—( A laugh.;—There was a war price
and a peace price.—(A laugh.)—lt was an extraordinary
thing that, when the money was paid, nobody was known
to advance it, but the honour of the Members, the agents,
and the electors, was loudly talked of. This sort of
honour reminded him of the story of a General Officer,
now living, who was robbed some years ago. Shortly
after the robbery, a person was condemned and ordered for
execution at Newgate. The General applied to this man,
and asked him whether he knew any thing of the
robbery? He answered that he did. The General
next inquired whether the felon had any accom-
plices ? To this he replied -in the affirmative. The
General then desired to know who they were. " General,"
said the thief, "do you not call yourself a man of honour ?"
" I do," answered the officer. "I am also a man of
honour," rejoined the convict—" and, to save my life, I
would not give- you the information you require." Now
this was precisely the sort of honour of which these
borough-agents had to. boast. The arrangement was left
to them—a day was appointed for the payment—the busi-
ness was secretly settled ; and it was all considered a matter
of honour. How different was the course pursued in the
city of London. He had been sent to Parliament by 4,500
electors, without incurring one farthing's expense. Nay,
his constituents sent him 2s. to pay his•fees on entering
that House. The fact was, that, in large and populous
places, there could he little corruption, but in those small
boroughs a system of corruption unquestionably prevailed.
There ought tc be an equality of representation in that
House. The manufacturing, the trading, the shipping
interests, ought all to be represented ; instead of giving au
additional preponderance to a body, the landed interest,
perhaps already too powerful. If the -leetive franchise
were taken from Penryn, it ought to be transferred to the
town of Manchester, Leeds, or Birmingham; and if no
other gentleman made_the proposition, be should move, as
an amendment, " that the, towu of Manchester be the place
selected."

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that, one of the Hon.
Members for Penryn (Mr. D. Barclay) hid declared dis-
tinctly that he did not offer a bribe, or participate in the
corrupt proceedings ; but the other Hon. Member (Mr.
Manning) had not thought proper to address the House
upon the subject.—(Hear, hear.)—He (Lord J. Russell)
was disposed to reject the remedy proposed by the Hou.
Member for Leicestershire, and to confer the elective fran-
chise upon Manchester—!hear)—of which he had before
given a notice ; and he was happy to say that he had as-'
certained there was a concurrence of opinion at Manchester
in Evour of that town being represented in Parliament.--
The House might allow the Hon. Member to bring in his
bill, and give instructions to the committee to consider
what might be expedient. There would be no difficulty in
that course.

Mr. MANNING observed, that after the personal allu-
sion made to him by the Noble Lord Lord, he was called
upon to trespass upon the House. He could bear testimony
to the character of many of the voters at Penryn ; they
were highly respectable, and above receiving a bribe ; seve-
ral were officers of the army and navy. Under the cir-
cumstances of the case, and the unanimous declaration Of
the committee that he was in no way concerned in bribery,
he should have thought it wholly unnecessary for him to
disclaim a participation in it.
Colonel DAVIES thought that there bad been sufficient
evidence obtained to enable the House to proceed. The
place appeared to he most corrupt, not even behind Gram-
pound. The elective franchise could not be transferred to
a better place than Manchester.
Mr. WYNN was ready to agree with the Noble Lord
(Milton) that this was a case which required further inves-
tigation.
Lord STANLEY read a letter frOtri a person in autho-
rity at Manchester, which stated that a large majority of
the inhabitants of that town were decidedly in favour of
representation; and that the only differeitee which existed
was with respect to the qualification of voters. With re-
gard to the prosecution of the offending electors, he thought
that there could be no hesitation on the part of the House
in directing a prosecution.

Mr. CANNING said, that it could hardly be doubted
that, in the report before the House, there was abundance
to justify the bringing in of the Bill ; but he thought that
there was not evidence enough, at least until the two former
reports (of the contents of which he had no recollectioe)
were laid upon the table, to justify the extreme measure
which some Hon. Gentlemen were anxious to resort to.
The present motion was for leave to bring in a Bill merely
to prevent bribery and corruption in the borough of Pen-
ryn. He thought that the Hon. Mover was entitled to
bring in his Bill, and to state his intended remedy; but
before he decided what was eventually to become of Pen-
ryn, it would be necessary for him (Mr. Canning) to have,
not merely the former reports, but a good deal of supple-
mentary evidence presented to him. Without giving his
opinion as to what ought to be the future destination of the
franchise belonging to Peru yn, in case it should turn out
that the conduct of that borough was incorrigibly corrupt
and incapable of being purified, he should submit that it
was hardly right, in the present stage of the proceedings,
to go into the question of transfer at all, far less into the
terms upon which it was to be made; because it must he
admitted that it would be but an unfair way of judging a
culprit, not to proceed upon his trial until after lots had
been cast for the division of his clothes.--(Hear, and
laughter.)—He repeated that he thought there was before
the House sufficient evidence to justify the bringing in the
Bill ; and to that measure he gave his most hearty con-
sent, reserving all farther considerations to be settled in
the course of the discussion. He agreed to this with the
more readiness, because he thought the true way to avail
that which he should consider as one of the greatest evils
that could happen to the country—a sweeping and
.over-
whelming reform—was carefully to cure those blots (like
the present), which it was impossible for the House to pass
by without seeming to shut its eyes artfully to the defects
of the present system. _ _

Lord ALTIIORP was quite sure that when the House
entered into the proposed examination, it would find that
the most gross corruption had been practised.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought that a prima facie case
was fully made out for the House to: proceed upon ; but
he did not think that enough had been shown as yet to
justify disfranchising the Borough. For the nature of the
transfer of the elective franchise—if it turned out to he ne-

cessary that any transfer should be made—that was a point
upon which he apprehended there could not be a moment's
doubt. The only proper. transfer would be, not to Penryn
in part, and to the hundreds adjoining in part, which would
be giving part of the franchise back to the very people who
had abused it, and the rest to another set of people who
held their right of voting which they had already by the
most objectionable tenure in the country, but to some one
of those large and populous towns, which, by their wealth
and importance, were entitled to a more distinct and par-
ticular representation than they at present possessed ; and
he had no hesitation in saying, that he thought the fittest
course that could he taken would be to transfer it to
Manchester. He agreed, that in that which appeared to
be proved against the Borough of Penryn, there was no-
thing which affected the Hon. Bank director (Mr. Man-
ning) who sat opposite. He agreed, that the Hon. Mem-
ber was not to be fixed with the conduct of those persons
who had acted on his behalf and for his interest. But
he confessed, that he had heard with some suspicion
the statement of the Honourable Member's colleague
(Mr. Barclay), that neither directly or indirectly had
he taken any part in, or known of, or suspected,—
and this too he spoke without the slightest mental
reservation—(Hear, hear, hear,)—any of the measures
which had been taken in the borough of Penryn on his
behalf. Now he (Mr. Brougham) believed this. He be-
lieved this. He believed it—not because it was in the
slightest degree probable, but because the Hon. Gentle-
man stated it—stated it without mental reservation, too—
and therefore it was impossible for him to doubt it.—
(Hear, and laughter.)—But as the Hon. Member knew
nothing of all that had been done—and certainly he (Mr.
Brougham) knew nothing at all of it—could any body ex-
plain how it happened that Mr. Stanbury was in gaol at
the present moment ?—( Hear, hear.)--Mr. Stanbury had
been summoned by •.he Committee to tell what he knew
about this affair, of which nobody else knew anything;
and instead of coming forward to illuminate, he had ab-
sconded, and was committed for contempt. It was no mis-
take, although something to that effect had been hinted ;
because, if it was a mistake, Mr. Stanbury might petition
the House, give his evidence, and be let out. But he did
not attempt to do that ; and altogether, perhaps, it was not
so very extraordinary his having a fancy to pass the sum-
mer in gaol ; for the House would find that he was altoge-
ther a very odd fellow.—(Hear, and laughter.)---He went
to Penryn, it appeared, for no purpose but to see the amuse-
ments of an election ; and he gave away, for the pleasure M-
eeting the Hon. Member (Mr. Barclay), of whom he knew
nothing, represent that place, as much as 1,3001. in the
morning; and this could not have been all that he had given
away, because the Hon. Member did not sit there as Mem-
ber for Penryn for 1,300/. ; the price of boroughs was known
too well for anybody to believe that ; and at the time when
Mr.. Stanbury gave these sums away, be knew that, be-
sides parting with the money, he was running the chance
of getting into what was called in Penryn a " misfortune,"
and what was called in the Court of King's Bench a misde-
meanour; and Mr. Stanbury did all this, and moreover
chose to lie and rot ha gaol, rather than say a word about
it, purely to secure the election of the Honoatable Member
(Mr. Barclay) for Penryn, he not being at all employed
as the Honourable Member's agent, nor in any way indem-
nified by or connected with him.—(Hear; hear.)—Now,
he hoped that the entire veracity of all this statement
would be as clear out of the walls of that House, as it was
within them.—(Hear and laughter.)—His mode of re-
c•onciling the apparent difficulty was a plain, and, he
trusted, not an illiberal one—it was this :—He supposed
that an Hon. Gentleman who could swear, without mental
reservation, that be knew nothing of particular acts, done
obviously for the furtherance of his interest, must haite
made a provision for future ignorance by employing an
agent generally, and shutting his eyes to all the steps Qr
measures which that agent might find it necessary to take.
—(Hear, hear. )—Because the fact was, the Hon. Gentle-
man had no property or connexion in Penryn.—(Expres-
sions of dissent.)—Well, if the Hon. Gentleman had an
over-powering property and influence in Penryn, it was an-
other matter ; but still the Hon. Alember must admit that
Mr. Stanbury was a very odd man ?—( Hear, and laughter.)
—Because, he did really pay the 1,300/, and other large
sums of money in Penryn, the House would see. And
who the deuce could have paid him again ? for nothing
could he more certain than that the Honourable Gentleman
had not. Where could these sums have come from? What
a man of means, as well as bountiful disposition, and par-
ticular desire to see the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay)
Member for Penryn, was Mr. Stanbury !—(Hear, hear.)
—And what was still more extraordinary—and even as
extraordinary as his fancy for lying in prison all the sum-
mer—his good offices were not confined to giving away
large sums to secure the election of the Hon. Gentleman
opposite for the borough of Penryn, but he appeased, just
at that same time, to have been disposing of his wealth
with equal liberality in two or three other places : it was
very odd, too, they were boroughs in the country.—( Hear,
and laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Member, after
repeating his belief that Hon. Members who were so for-
tunate as to get all this done for them, and yet were able
to swear, without mental reservation, that they knew no-
thing of the means by which it was accomplished, could
only place themselves in that lucky position by choosing an
agent, and taking care to avoid seeing any thing of his
operations, concluded by stating that he thought the case
of Penryn merited a candid and impartial, but a most ri••
porous inquiry.

Mr. C. BARCLAY felt himself compelled to address a
few words to the House, lest the talent of the Hon. and
Learned Member who had just sat down, for ridicule,
should lead Hon. Members to a wrong conclusion. The
Hon. and Learned Member had Stated—as of his know-
ledge—that the Hon. Member for Penryn, his (Mr. Bar-
clay's) relative, had no property or influence in Penrvu.—
This was directly the reverse. of the fact; for the Hon.
Member had been introduced there by persons of the
highest influence, and had gone down to offer himself upon
their assurance that he might come in upon the most ho-
nourable terms. With respect to the observations about
Mr. Stanbury, if the Hon. and Learned Member had only
looked at the evidence before the House he would have seen
that to the case of the Hon. Member (Mr. D. Barclay)
they were entirely inapplicable. He would have found
there that the 1,3001. which he stated to have been paid
by Mr. Stanbury, had been paid for purpose ; and ob-
jects quite distinct from the Hon. Member's (Mr. D. Bar-
clay's) election. The Hon. Member, after asserting, he
begged to KIT in the plainest terms, that Mr. Stanbury was
no agent, nor had been, of his Hon. Relative, sat down by
declaring that the Hon. Gentleman had been returned a 5
fairly to the House as any Member who sat in it.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that he had certainly laboured
under a mistake, and he had no hesitation in at once ad.
mitting it.
Mr. LEGH KECK replied.
The resolutions were then put and agreed to, with the
exception of that directing the Attorney-General to prose-
cute Joseph and Richard Sowell, John Stanbury, end others,
which, after a few words from Lord GRANVILLE SOMER-
SET, and Mr. H. Twiss, was postponed until further evidence
should be produced.
The reports of the Committees upon the elections at
Penryn in 1807 and 1819 were then ordered to be re-
printed ; and Mr. LEGH-Kreic and Sir CHARLES BURRELL
appointed to prepare the Bill for the prevention of bribery
and corruption in the borough of Penryn.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE-BILL.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that as he understood there would
be no opposition to his motion, it would not be necessary
to detain the House any longer than to state that the Bill
which he intended to bring in was merely to relieve cer-
tain conscientious scruples which Dissenters entertained
respecting the marriage ceremony. It was his intention,
after having brought in the 'Bill, to move that it should
be printed and referred to a Committee, where any dis-
cussion upon the Bill might take place, and any alterations
which might be thought necessary made in it. The
Hon. Member concluded by moving for " leave to bring
in a Bill to relieve Dissenters from certain difficulties in the
marriage ceremony."

Leave was then granted to bring in the bill, and Mr,
W. SMITH and Mr. WARBURTON were appointed to
prepare the same.
Lord ALTHORP brought in a Bill " to prevent per-
sons employed by candidates at elections from voting at
such elections."
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to he read a
second time on Friday next.
The Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at half-past twelie o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Norma OT MOTION TOR TIIIS DAT.
Mr. Wodehouss--Bill to discontinue certain Presentments
of Constables.
ORDERS OT THE DAT TOR Title NAT.
1. Sussex Election Bill—Second reading.
2. Portage Duties Bill—Third reading.
3. Supply—Committee.
4. Ways and Means—Committee.
5. Defaulters at the Ballot yesterday, to be reported.

NOTICE GIVEN YKSTEnDAT.
Thursday, May 10.
Mr. Wilmot Horton—Correspondence between Sir Ru-
fane Donkin and the Colonial Department, and other
Papers on the subject of the Government of the Cape
of Good Hope.