The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-29 00:00:00

MISS TURNER'S DIVORCE BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from Edward Gibbon Wakefield, now a prisoner in His
Majesty's Gaol of Newgate, praying that he may be heard in
opposition to the further progress of the Bill now
before their Lordships for annulling the marriage
which had taken place between the petitioner and Ellen
Turner. But as the petitioner was confined in Newgate,
under a sentence of the Court-of King's Bench, he prayed
that their Lordships might issue an order directing him to be
brought to their Lordships' bar, or, such other place
as their Lordships might think fit, upon such occasions
as their Lordships might deem necessary. The Noble Earl
moved that the prayer of the petition be granted, and
that the order for the, second reading of the Pill on this
day be discharged. The Noble Earl also moved, that the
Keeper of Newgate be directed to bring up the petitioner to
their Lordships' bar at ten o'clock on Wednesday next, in
order that he might be heard pursuant to the prayer of his
petition.

These several motions were agreed to, and the Bill was
ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Lard WHARNCLIFFE said.that, when he presented a
petition last Friday, from certain inhabitants of the western
parts of the Metropolis, respecting the supply of water,
he was not satisfied as to the course which ought to be pur-
sued. Upon consulting with some friends, he felt that
the best and moat effectual way of proceeding would
be for the House of Lords as well as the Commons to Address
his Majesty, praying that he might be pleased to ap-
point a Special Commission to take into consideration
the supply of water to the Metropolis. The Noble
Lord felt that his motion for such an address
ought not to be made without notice. He would
therefore postpone it to Monday, the 11 th of June, and
should move that their Lordships be summoned for that
day. _ _

Their Lordships were accordingly ordered to be sum
moned for that day.

The Howe then adjourned to Wednesday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY, AUY 28.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

The Deputy Ueher of the Black Rod was then announ-
ced, and requested the presence of the Commo*s in the
House of Lords.

The SPEAKER and a great majority of the Members
present then withdrew, and returned after a short absence,
wheel the Speaker stated that their Lordships had assented
to several private Bills.
Upon the motion of Mr. CANNING it was agreed that
the House at its rising should adjourn to Wednesday next,
to-morrow, (this day) being the anniversary of the Re.
storation of King Charles the Second.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented a petition from North-
ampton against the Importation of Foreign Wool.
Mr. BERESFORD presented a petition against the
Salmon Fishery Bill.
Sir C. COLES presented a petition from Swansea, for
the repeal of tlikTest and Corporation Acts.

Lord EBRINGTON presented three petitions from
Protestant Dissenters in Devonshire, praying for the repeal
of the Test and Corporation Acts.

31r. DAVENPORT presented a similar petition from
Protestant Dissenters, in Chester.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that in consequence of the
dangerous illness of his Honourable Friend Mr. Buxton,
it was necessary to postpone the motion regarding the
Slave Trade in the Mauritius, sine die.
REPRESENTATION OF MANCHESTER.

Lord STANLEY, in presenting a petition from Man-
chester, prying for the right of sending Members to re-
presentits inhabitants in Parliament, observed, that those
who now prayed this boon from the Legislature amounted
to more than five thousand persons, of all parties and
opinions. Upon the motion that the petition' ie brought up,
Mr. G. PHILLIPS begged to say a few words in sup
port of the prayer of the petition. The Noible Lord had
most truly said that the petition was from men of all po-
litical parties and opinions : and he might have added, that
thirty years ago, such a petition unanimously agreed to in
such a place as Manchester would have been considered
impossible. It had been, however, prayed unanimously by
five thousand of the most respectable inhabitants, that the
Legislature would grant them leave to ref ;resent their sen-
timents in Parliament ; and as the Right ;lion. Gentleman
(Mr. Canning), who had always opposed. any sweeping
measure of Reform, once said, " Shew me a blot, and I
will remove it," he hoped, as a blot was noN v clearly proved
to exist, that his consent at least might be t:alculated upon
for its removal. The Borough of Penryn lusd been proved
beyond question to be a blot in the system, and he earnestly
hoped the House would see the propriety of transferring 1!:2
constitutional privileges to the town of Manchester.
Lord J. RUSSELL rejoiced to see a petition with. such
a prayer coming from the rich and populous town ofMan-
chester. He remembered in a debate upon the queition of
Reform in that House, that a Right Hon. Gentlemat ► called
upon the Clerk at the Table, to read the petitions in favour
of Reform from the great towns of Manchester, of Leeds,
and of Birmingham ; and when it apeared no sot h pe-
,titions were to be found, he took from that circurt istance
an argument of some force, and declared that :Reform
could not be said to be desired by the great body of the
people. He was delighted, therefore, he repeated, to see

•
question whether Penryn should be disfranchised or not,
was now coming under the immediate consideration of the
House. It was quite sufficient for the House to decide,
without prejudice upon that question—without declaring
prematurely to which town in England the Representation
should be transferred. He thought, therefore, that all
arguments upon the pusference claimed for Maw:heater
now were quite foreign to the question. -
After a few words from Mr. CALCRAFT;the petition
from the lio►oughreeve, Constables, and Rata-payers of
Manchester, praying for permission to elect Members to re-
present them in Parliament, in any form the House might
d►►em fit, was then read, and ordered to be printed.
THE WOOL TRADE.
Mr. W. CARTWRIGHT presented a petition from
certain Farmers and Occupiers of Land, in Nofthampton-
shire, engaged in growing Wool, praying for a Duty on

Foreign Wool.
Mr. R. PRICE presented a similar petition from the
Growers of Wool in New Radnor.
Mr. E. B. PORTMAN then presented, according to his
notice, a petition on the same subject, from the Wool
Growers of Dorsetshire. The Honourable Member entered
into some statements of the pail and present state of the
Wool Growers; but from the lowness of his tone, and the
noise in the House, we heard them very indistinctly. He
observed that the growers had, at this moment, in their•
warehouses a stock of three years' production, without
the slightest hope of a market. Since the Clutneellor of
the Exchequer had thought fit to reduce the duty on
Foreign Wool, there had been in one year (1624) no less
than 43,837,000 pounds imported into this country.
This enormous quantity, united with the increasing pro-
dection of the country, rendered the case of the farmers
almost hopeless ; although, he believed, there had been e
very great increase for some time in the demand. From
the year 1814, when the first alteration took place in
the duty, down to the present time, wool had fallen in
price from twenty-two pence to te■ pence, at which price
he believed it to be at this nennent. It would be impos.
Bible for the landlords to meet the heavy demands now
upon them in the way of taation, unless agricultural pro-
duce were encouraged in a corresponding degrea to that
bestowed upon manufactures. With the low price of
corn which they would have to encounter, and other low
prices of other articles of agricultural produce, it behoyee
the new Ministry—who were more disposed, he believed,
to do so than the preceding one—to take into their con-
sideration the best mode of affording the agriculturist:
such relief as would enable them to meet all the burdens
that were now imposed upon them. Much of the sup-
port given to the present Administration, and of the
confidence reposed in them, arose from an expectation
that due attention would be paid to the agricultural in-
terests. The Honourable Member made some further ob-
servations, but iu so low a tone as to be indistinctly audi-
ble iu the Gallery. He concluded by moving, that the peti

tion be brought up.
Mr. HUSKISSON commenced by complimenting the
lion. Member for the judicious manner in which he had
introduced the petition. He frankly allowed the depres-
sion which the Hon. Member stated, though Le differed
with him as to the causes of that depression. The prin-
cipal cause appeared to him to be, that the manufactured
article, which was produced from the raw material, was
itself in a state of depression. The price, therefore, of the
raw material must depend upon the price of the manufac-
tured article; and it was an odd, he might say an Irish, or
at least, a singular way of improving it, to propose to raise
the price of the raw material, when that of the manufac
tured article was at a depression—(Hear, hear.)—lf there
was not a good demand for the manufacture, there would
not he a good demand for the raw material ; still less
would that demand be when the price was high—(Hear.)
It was not among one class, but among all the branches of
trade, that the excess of exportation in 1825 took place,
which was succeeded by a stagnation. It was not only
wool that was affected and involved in this general distress
and consequent stagnation, which were created by a com-
bination of causes, into the consideration of which it was
not his intention at present to enter. He had mentioned
the principal one—the scale of extravagance on which
every branch of our trade was carried, and which led to a
reduction of price in all our principal articles of trade. He
would shew tliat the depression was not in wool only, from
a paper, to which he had made reference that morning.—
Cotton, which had been 18id. per lb. in 1825, was now
down to. 7d. or 6d. sugar hid fallen from 455. to 30s.
per cwt. Silk, from l'id. to 11d. ;
.and in a correspond-
ing degree there had been a depression 'in tobacca, and other
articles. This extravagance of speculation, as may be
supposed, was followed by a great loss of capital, in some
branches almost to its annihilation. But what he had
stated would strew that wool was not the only article that
suffered from depression; but that the depression was ge-
neral, and extended to and included all branches. With
respect to wool, as he had stated, its price depended upon
the price of manufactures ; when the causes which ope-
rated to create the (depression of manufactures ceased, the
same causes would operate to create a cessation in the de-
pression of wool. The duty on wool from 1790, and up
to 1819, had been 6d. Previous to that year (1819) the
quantity of foreign wool imported was 17 or 18,000,000 lbs.
After the changes that were made in 1819, the manufac-
turers complained every year to Government that they wer,
losing the export trade, on account of the heavy duty on
foreign wool which they found necessary to mix with coarse
cloths, and in which article, in consequence of the heavy
duty on foreign wool, they were under-sold. The answer
of Government was, " If you consent to the exportation
of wool of British growth, we will consent to the free
importation of foreign wool." After some discussion
the argument prevailed, and the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in 1824, reduced the duty to Id. per lb. From
1819 to 1824, notwithstanding the protecting duty, the
price of the artiale was declining—from that time
to the present it had undergone great variation of price.
In 1825, along with every thing else, it rose. In 1826,
it certainly was very low—perhaps as low as it had been
in the years 1790-1803, or any other year since or before
the commencement of the war. It had been supposed that
the jealousy extended only to long wool ; hat this was by
no means the case ; it principally extended to short wool,
the prices of which were very low. This had been occa-
sioned, in a great degree, in consequence of our prohibition
of the importation of corn from the Continent. Germany,
and the central countries of Europe, which were before
wont to grow corn, betook themselves to the encourage-
ment of manufactures, which they before had imported
from England, in order to render themselves independent
of us. And it was now a fact, that in Germany and these
other countries there were flocks of Merino sheep, which
yielded the finest wool in an abundant supply. To shew
the importance of encouraging fine wool amongst us, he
would read a letter which had been received at the Board
of Trade from our Consul at Mexico. It was dated De-
cember 31st, 1828. The letter, after proceeding to state
the various imports, from several countries, stated, that
44 those from England principally consisted of cotton, iron,
wool, &c. ; with respect to importations of woollen menu-
facture, the French surpassed us in broad-cloths, but a pre-
ference was given to the fine cloths of England, with which '
foreigners could not compete." We should therefore en-
deavour to encourage as much as possible the remnant that
remained to us of superiority in Woollen manufactures.
On the reduction of the duty, in 1824, from 6d. to Id.,
the extravagant speculators who then engaged in the spe-
culation of wool may be well denominated wool-gatherers,
During a few weeks that he had been in France, he ob-
served that the demand from this country was so great,
that merchants willingly parted with that wool which they
had provided for manufacture at a double price, which,
when it came here, fell below half the value for which it
was purchased. This was one of the unhappy results of
that rage for speculation of 1825, in which year there was
' lavished more money than had been expended in the ex-
penditure of the country in any year of its meat pressing
exigencies—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PORTMAN reminded the Right Hon. Gentleman,
, across the table, of the duty in France.
Mr. HUSKISSON said that he was aware there was
a. heavy duty imposed on the raw material in France, but
the Custom-house officers there• kept an account with the
importer ; and if he exported an equal quantity of woollen
manufacture as he imported of, the raw material,- he was
allowed a drawback equal, and even greater, than the on
ginal duty.--4-(Hear, bear:) This may do very well for
France, where there were officers who might ascertain that
the wool imported was the . same that.was afterward* ma-
nufactured, but it was by no means suited to the eompli-
coed inachivery that prevailed illtie cQuatryr,—(l-lor,

vouring to afford and procure him constant employment
and good wages, they would do more to advance their own
and their country's welfare, than by having recourse to any
other system, or by endeavouring to enforce production be-
yond its proper limits.
Colonel DAVIES condemned the petition. The ob-
ject of it wee to relieve the petitioners from a supposes
hardship which must fall upon some other class of the
community. The proper mode of proceeding was to effect
a general reduction of the burdens which fell with equal
heaviness upon all classes.
Mr. CALCRAFT did sot think the petitioners merited
the reprobatien bestowed upon them by the Honourable
Member. All persons had a right to ask for relief front
any grievance which pressed upon them. The particular
grievance now complained of, however, he apprehended,
was part of that distress whick resulted from the causes
referred to by the Right Hon, Gentleman. it may not
admit of immediate remedy, but it merited the greatest
attention ; ae, with two years' produce on the hands of
the wool-growers, and with a third year's growth et
hand, they could not, literally, get any price for it. lie
admitted that this was but cold comfort, but it was better
to speak the truth ; and he was persuaded that the indi-
viduals most interested would be more satisfied to hear the
fact, than to have any delusion practised upon thm. lio
I had a great respect for the petitioners, although he was
not favourable to the object of the petition ; and, there-
fore, he could not concur with his lion. and Gallant
Friend (the Member for Worcester) in reprobating the
petitioners for stating the grievances under which they
laboured.
Mr, G. BANKES admitted that it would, perhaps, have
been more consistent, if his Hon. and Gallant Friend had
waited until the petition was read, befaYe he had indulged
in the severe censure which he had bestowed on the pe-
titioners themselves. He could not, however, but deeply
regret the conduct of the lion. Gentleman by whom the
petition had been presented. He really did not think that
the present was a good opportunity for erte. allusions 'as
those which had fallen from that Hon. Gaithrnan; or that

the terms of the petition called for each expressions as i.hoze
which he had used. He Itonfassed, that he rather con-
curred in the sentiments of the petitioners, than in those of
the Hon. Gentleman. When his Hon. Friend applied the
term " odious" to the seceders from the ♦dntinistration,
lie had heard him with feelings of regret, such as he had
never before experienced at an♦ thing which had proceeded
from his Hon. Friend. He did not understand how his
Hon. Friend would vindicate himself to the persons who
had placed the petition in his hands, who certainly had no
intention of having the presentation cf it accompanied by
such reflections—refiections which, he (Mr. liankes) was
convinced, if the county were polled, a large majority would
be found to contradict. If on any occasion he should have
particularly regretted the remarks made by his Hon. Friend,
it would have been on the present night, when those whom

... ...... . „
he termed the seceders of the Administration, owing to art
accidental circumstance, were not so fully represented ire
that House as usual. He much regretted that the subject
to which the petition referred was not brought forward in
another shape. He did not think the lateness of the
Session was a sufficient excuse. For what purpose were
the Members of that House sent there, but to attend to the
complaints of the people ? He was astonished to hear such
excuses for the non performance of their duty. They had
been made in the last Session also. It was then a dying
Parliament ; but that was not the Mt at present. Nor
was time formation of a new Oovernneent a sufficient excuse.
Why were any difficulties which might attend Minis..
terial arrangements to be visited on the people" If
any time had been lost, let it be redeemed, by a longer
sitting of the House ; and, under any circumstarcee
let the just complaints of their constituents be es-
tended to. He did not presume to set himself up as a
competent judge of the principles of the Right Hon. the
President of the Board of Trade, but the question was,
whether they were satisfactory to others—whether they
were satisfactory to the persons the most deeply con-
corned? With respect to the manufacturing and the apt-
cultural interests, he was well aware that nothing could
be more unwise than to consult the benefit of the one by
sacrificing the other. But the prayer of the petition which
had been that night presented was not that of agricultu-
rists only ; it was the prayer of tradesmen, and other
wealthy inhabitants of cities, who bad at length disco-
vered that the prosperity of agriculture was identified with
their own. He repeated his wish that some measure on
the subject might be taken by the House in the present
Session ; and if so, it ehould have his support.
Mr. PORTMAN begged to set himself right with his
Honourable Friend and the House. He denied having, in
stating his reasons for not pressing the teference of the
petition to a Committee;'cist oh the petitioners the asper-
sions imputed to him by the Honourable Member for Corfe
Castle. It had, undoubtedly, beau stated at the Meeting
from which the petition originated that the Meeting had
'no confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. That statement
was not contradicted, in consequence of the absence of per-
sons, whose eloquence would have enabled them to take a
part in the proceedixg. He (Mr. Portman) knew, how-
ever, that a very considerable, and a very respectable pee,
tion of the petitioners did not think as the Hon. Member
for Corfu Castle supposed. There were, no doubt, male-
of them opposed to his Majesty's present Government ;
but he was sure that there were more who had great con.
fidence in that Government. For himself, he was only
desirous of doing his duty as an independent Member of
that Rouse ; and he felt satisfied that he would best do his
duty by supporting his Majesty's present Government
against a party of a much more odious character.—
(Hear.)—In saying this, he did not mean to cast any as-
persions on individuals not present ; neither wishing to
cast aspersions on others, or to have them cast ou himself.
Perfectly aware, as he was, that no practical good could
result from referring the petition which be had presented
to a Committee, he had not pressed its being so referred.
pTeo do
titionetesrewou .
Ifld hoonliyiadbebeto h
enoonlddeorustt doodelbuysivtheehops to
Honourabletl
Member for Corfu Castle to mean any thing snore than
that, he had been misunderstood by him. For himself,
he asked no favour of hie Majesty's Government, or of
any man living ; and, therefore, he had a right to con-
sider himself as entirely independent, and as entitled to
express whatever opinions he might entertain.
Mr. G. BANKES, in explanation, said, that ali be
regretted was, that his Honourable Friend had made any
. political allusion to the meeting at which the petition was
agreed to.
Lord MILTON said, that he would not snake any re-
marks on the speech of the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle,
because it was quite clear that the Hon. Blusher's speeds
had not been intended for that place--(A laugh).—ln his
(Lord Milton's) opinion, so far here the petitioners from
having any right to complain of the course which had been
taken by his Hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, that
his Hon. Friend seemed to him to he entitled to their gra-
titude; and more especially for the elucidation of the sub-.
jest which he had drawn forth from the Right Honour-
able the President of the Board of Trade—an elucidation.
which every candid man must allow was perfectly satic.
factory, The Right Hon. Gentleman had to-night (an
he had frequently before done) placed in the strongest light
the importance of the free importation of the raw material.
Ile would not any longer occupy the time of the House, ex.
cept by stating that he had received a letter from the
country, informing him of an improvement in the
price of wool. Lest it shoild be supposed that this /cher
had proceeded from some of his naan4fac.turing frietkis
(who he knew were objects of jealousy upon. this 'subject)
he begged to say, that the letter in question came not from
Yorkshire, but from Northamptonshire, Before he sat
down he begged leave to say that it was incumbent on his
Majesty's Government to give all the teller which it was
practicable to give, either to the producers of the raw ma-
terial, or to the producers of the manufactured article,
which consisted in a repeal of taxation. That was expected
by the people from the present Administration ; and he
trusted that the expectation would not be disappointed.
Mr. WESTERN made a few observations; but in con-
sequence of a tumult in the gallery, occasioned by the sud-
den entrance of a greater number of strangers than could
find seats (an evil of which we have too frequently tocom-
plain), all that we could collect from the Hon. Gentle-
wcat
causes
Committeeur
slallowde: ofr
ef oet f
oet
fi idde oughtenii mrye
spstiraootnnabdt
ei ounainri,dolt, fo declaration
i nw
which
appointed
oi leho from
oin-
quirethef
Gentle-
man's remarks was an expression of his doubt if it would
balel
ininioton that
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the country
apawritsseopof
the
ey
had laboured, and were labouring.
Mr. BARING said that the speech of the Right Hon.
the President of the Board of Trade had been so clear and
convincing, that it had set the question completely at rest.
To impose a duty on foreign wool would be so indefensible
a measure, that it was unnecessary to say a word on the
liis opinion
subject ; and to refer the petitiOn presented by *e Hon!
Member for Dorsetshire to the consideration of a Com-
mittee, would be only to Waste the time of the House, and
to hold out absurd expectations; as every man of common
song must Wm, wbht il'oil4 be tilt moth. No proter,

teetion that could be afforded would balance the advan-
tages which the foreign grower and manufacturer derived
from the cheapness bt food and labour. If such measures
as were advocated by the opponents of the Right Hon.
Gentleman should be carried into effect, the'woorgroWers
of England would get prices inferior to those which 'they
now obtained. He should think that the House would
no
-more appoint a Committee upon this subject, than they
would to inquire into the regidation of the price of labour,-
or rate of wages. If the country .were; to-thrive, it could-
only.be upon the sound .and true. principle of commerce
supported. by the Right_ Hen: Gentlernan, and it aver
highly desirable that the_ country should be. convlneeir'br
the fact This was not anew fangled doctrine the ftg•
importation of ram materiali was an old-Prineipre
policy of this onnitry.
Mr. WESTERN explained.
Mr. DAVENPORT attributed • -thi'distresiel" of Aht
wool trade, and of other branche!if trade fiftbe.:tain*liit'
with the currency. Fit had had a motion upon the sub-"
ject, which he had no( lircinght forward from a fuah td
accommodate the.Mini!iiters. hid, therefore,
been referred to a day on which thetg_fiippezied'hof to' he a
House. .
The-petition was thenrecew ;itY .a d ered_tohe printed:
The SPEA KER.. put .thequestion, Wheeler if" wee the
.. . •
pleasure of the House to. receive aiy.oldrepep.tions? --
Mr. L. KEC/4.• waived the `uitivnig" the- 'Order 'Of the
Day for the Howie resolVing;itseif Ito. a Cm
miittee of the-
whole House upon the Penryn DiatranChliencentliifi;•tintil
an Honourable Member who sat 'for • tharliorough pre=
rented a petition to which he wished' to call the' attention
of the House.
Mr. D. BARCLAY eien presented a petition, which he
went through in so low a tone that it was 'impossible to
hear him. As far as we could collect what fell from him,-
it was a. petition from, a person, stating that he understood
the House was about to prosecute him for perjury, com-
mitted as a. witness at the bar ofthe House, in the inquiry
into the Penryn Election. The petitioner prayed that
the House would not pass such a resolution, until they
had heard him in his defence. The Honourable Member
then expressed his doubts, whether the petition Gould be re-
ceived, as it contained allusions to Resolutions which the
House intended to pass.
. -
After a few worda from Air.' L. Kiser, Mr: BARING,
And Mr. C. W.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that he was oae of the last per-
sons who would wish to throw impedimenta in the way of
the House in their. efforts to attaintbe 'Ada of justice, in
punishing individuals; biteVe-diatight there 'could be no
difficulty in waiving-technical objeetioni,ln order to ar-
rive at substantial justice:
Question were adjourned) .anopportittiftrWould •thus be
given
.to the individual to ancertain what were the inten-
tions of the House. Another mode, stilt more easy, was,
for the individual to assume, that be might, by possibility,
be the subject of the proceedings of the House.
The petition was then withdrawn.
PENRYN ELECTION BILL.

Upon the SPEAKER's putting the question, that the
Order of the Day upon the Penryn Election Bill be read—
Mr. MANNING did not deny the right of the House to
look into former offences committed "at Penryn; but he
denied the justice of punishing the present electors for what
was done so far back as 1807." Only five persons had been
proved to have taken bribes at the last election, and this
was not sufficient to induce the House to disfranchise a
whole Borough. If the punishment of those electors was
to be increased in reference to what had taken place in
1807, he did not see why the House might not refer to any
period, hnwever remote. He denied that Joseph Sowel
had been employed'ai hie agent, or that he was authorised
to_ perform or do any act upon his account. He regretted
that the Hon. Member for Leicester had not called other
witnesses to the bar of the House.
Mr. L. LECK would have been glad to have called
Sorrel to_ the Bar, but for the disinclination of the House
to hear evidence at the late hour to which the examination
had been protracted. He, however, had not any expecta-
tion of getting much Information from 4irn. In 1819, the
House laborlously endeavoured to elicit from him evidence,
but in vain. The Hon. Member for Penryn, who had just
sat down declared tint this Sowel was not an agent em-
ployed by He congratulated the Hon. Member upon
the fact, for had it been otherwise, he would not now have
have had the opportunity of addressing the House. That
Hon. Member ought not to refer to the former corruption
of Petrryn, when the last examination fully established the
present system of bribery in its worst sense. This was
proved as well by direct evidence, as by the efforts which
ether witnesses made to misrepresent facts, or to suppress
truth. He was astoniihed that the Hon. Member was

bold enough to say, that the proposed measure rested upon
former examinations.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this were not a
case which required Parliamentiry interference, it was
beyond his conception when Parliament conkl interfere to
check corruption. lie had been truly astonished at the
concurrent streath of teetiniciolfteriosels' eorroptioin m v so

small a borough.
Mr. FERGUSSON said, tharlf,, in• the spgtteof" only
nineteen years, hardly the space of three Parliaments, not
lees than three notorious east of bribery had been proved
against this borough--if this' west not a case in which Par-
liament ought to exercise its Tamer of disfranchisement, he
would say, that it would'be utterly impossible to conceive
circumstances in which that mode of proceeding ought to
be adopted.—(Hear.)—He could not agree with the Hon.
Member for Penryn, that nothing was proved against the
borough. He thought the evidence material. It was
established that an agreement for the sale of the borough
had bean signed by a Member of that House, who had sti-
pulated to give each voter 21 guineas for voting for an
Hon. Baronet and for Mr. Swan. This infamous system
was confirmed by three Committees; yet in 1826, so far
from any amendment having taken place, the same open
practice of bribery continued to exist. Mr. Swan bad
given each voter 51., but he had refused to give them the
breakfast, by which was meant a bribe of 241. This :e-
-duced the price of the votes. The last report of the Com-
mittee proved a great variety of instances in which
money was paid for votes. After alluding to the evidence
of Stanbnry, the Hon. Member went on to express his
surprise that Mr. Freshfield, who was unknown in the
borough, an who, it was said, had employed no agent,
should hare mei, with such signal success. It was clear
from the evidence of Eady and Weedon, as well as from the
other testimony a•Muceo, that it was impossible to repre-
sent the Borough of Penr3rb, without bribery. This fact
was also amply proved by Capt. Pellew, a gentleman who
had been for years a resident in the 13.2 rough. If he (Mr.
F.) were called upon hi■ oath to state his opinion, he
should declare, that he did not think pnritf of election
could exist without disfranchising this Borough. If then,

they should decide upon -disfranchising that corrupt
Borough, the next question would be, to what district they
Would transfer the elective franchise. For himself he
thought it would be right to give it to Manchester. If
they transferred it from Penryn to the adjoining Hundreds,
the whole power would, he understood, be vested in the
bands of two or three great men (a Member said across the
table, "Into the hands of five or six.").-No matter whe-
ther into the hands of two or three or five or six, the objec-
tion held eft malty good. •
Mr. J. DENISON said, that there never was a grosser
case of bribery and corruption than the present brought under
the consideration of Parliament. The Borough of Penryn
had been guilty of similar practices in 1t 07 and in 1819,
and ought no longer to be pasted over. The Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Canning) now at the head of his Majesty's
Government, had, on a former occasion, stated, that if a
case was made out against any,Borough, he wcagd support
a ;notion for its disfranchisement. He (Mr. Canning)
was, he said, ready to sacrifice Grarapound in order to pre-
serve OM Sarum. He (Mr. Denison) now called upon
the Right :lon. Gentleman to adhere to his promise, and
to attend to t;;e. recommendation of the Committee, and
to disfranchise this corrupt borongb. If this was not done,
they could net]cr atte.7ll
)t to assail corruption, however un-
disguised, on any future Pccasion. He wished to add only
one word more. If they din" decide upon the disfranchise-
ment of Penrvu, then he should advise that the right of
returning two Members to Parliament thould be transferred
to the large, and wealthy, and intelligent, and populous
town-of Manchester. Transferring the right of goting to
the two adjoining hundreds of Penryn, would be of little
avail; and they all knew that Cornwall, as a County, had
already more than a sufficient number of Representatives.
.-.—(llear, and a laugh.) "
Mr. A. O'NEILL objected to the course pursued with
respect to Penryn.' Allusion had been made to what took
place in that Borough in 1807 and in 1519. Now this,
he thought, unfair. Were they to keep a paltry running
account against this, and that, and the other Borough?—
Were they to' say—" To corruption in 1807--.-to corrup
tion in 1819, and a total disfranchisement in 1827." He
called upon the House is put out of their recollection the
details of what took place in ISOTand in 1819, and to de-
cide upon the evidence net' beforetlieni-
Sir C. BURR ELL said that the evidence now before
the House was conclusive, although, perhaps, it would be
rendered more Satisfactory in the other- House, as their
Lordships could examine witnesses upon oath. - It was a
singular anomaly,, that a-Select Committee of the Howse of
Commons should have power' to eiamine witnesies upon
oath, and yet that the whofelioitse possessed no such
power. This, be thought; was i'mattee which called for
immediate alteration.
Mr. D. BARCLAY addressed the House in a low tone.
Ws understood him to ny, that the present electors of Pen-

ea were about to be. unished for the acts. of those 'who
had gone before them.,,. •Heedmitteerthateekertuer periods
geeat corruption prevailed 4t. Pentyti, littt a Velat-refortu
had taken place in,thel3oredigh sinus that: period. It was
rather too bad thatt&ySlithild attPmpefo condenin this
Bbrough upon hearsay evidence, and not upon that which
was -established before theme If the process of disfran-
chisement was ernployedagainst Penryn, why was it to
stop there? Why wasit-not to be carried into effect with
re-spat-to :other beeenghs--with respect to . Appleby, Gat-
tOn,_ and_ a hnndred others that were infinitely more
eoriiipt hear.-)L.alloai could the Home deter-
mine t 'Venry. n 1 where there were
tiv.e huddred voteii, and delay to prOceed against Gatton,
whike ttiere- Wete two 'seats afiat were:abvays openly sold ?----
(Hear.)--Ldrthe Tiouse proceeded in the one case,it was irn--
pbseeible thit',"y.lth any degree if itneiatency, they could re--
fuse in the other.' He thiiright- that the proposal to
transfer to Manchester had only 'been introduced to preju-
dice the discussion. The Committee that had sat to. de-
eidethe Merit's of the present election had agreed that
there was no proof of corruption against either him (Mr.
BirelaY) or his colleague. Il;. beved to meal to their
recollection, that, out of the five last elections, three had
passed without. any charge of bribery being made ; and
when they remembered these circumstances, he did trust
that the Nellie would not suddenly lend itself to the dis-
franchisement of a borough, without something more than
hearsay evidence.
Lord MILTON thought the Borough bad been so well
defended by its present Members, that, in the first instance,
he really believed the favour of the House had been trans-
ferred from the Hon. 'Gentleman who had just sat down to
the Borough itself. But that effect had been weakened by
every further consideration of the case. He did not think
it proper to look merely to a few recent elections, or en
account of the purity of ' the Members to screen the Bo-
rough ; the plain common sense of the matter was, to look
at the General History of the Borough. If, from such an
examination, all the elections, or even nearly all, were
found to have been !purely conducted, lie agreed that
it would be an act of injustice to disfranchise the Borough
for one accidental offence. But the examination would pro've
exactly the reverse ; and he did think that after the gross
instance of Corruption proved against the Borough hi the
year Iso7, its often repeated practices of bribery ought not
now to bioverlooked. In the instance to which he referred;
a Committee on behalf of the electors and Sir C. Hawkins
(whom he should not hesitate to name, as that gentleman
4-as now a Menilier of the House for another place), ac-
tually entered into an agreement, counterparts of which
Were executed, and remained in possession of the respec-
tive:parties. In the present instance, the bribery bad been
as real, though it was not conducted with the same forma-
lity. It was said; that there were 500 voters, but it should
be recollected that of these, not less than about 150 came
in from the heighlionring parts on the approach of an elec-
tion, attracted by the speculation of the 24/. and the break-
fast.—(Hear, hear.)—The general system of the place was
corrupt. He trusted, that if the Committee thought fit to
Consent to the transfer of the franchise to the neighbouring
hundreds, they would, at least, much modify that measure;
hut he thought they ought rather to avoid such a course,
and to 'act upon the principle of creating an enlarged basis
for the representation: When the franchise in any parti-
cular place was so abused as to justify the destruction of that
franchise, be thought it 'would be the wisest course to act
upon that policy which*was the wisdom of our ancestors,
rather than be drawn away by any new -fangled principles.
He hardly knew whether Cornwall was or was not over-
represented ; and it was not on that ground that he should
support the motion to transfer the franchise to another
Place; but in taking it from Penryn they were not taking
it from Cornwall, any more than from Jamaica ; for, though
the place was locally situated in Cornwall, the Representa-
tives were net practically chosen there.
Mr. VAN HOMRIGH had been cue of the Members of
the Committee that sat upon the Penryn Election ; and be
thought it his duty to declare that no bribery was proved
against the two Hon. Gentlemen who represented that place.
He thought it would be a most extraordinaryact to disfran-
chise a Borough, When there was no proof of corruption
against its two Representatives..L.-(ai laugh.)
Lord ALTHORP thought the argument just advanced
by the Hon. Member for Drogheda e'as at least a very ex-
traordinary one ; and the more so, when that Hen. Mem-
ber must have well recollected, that although the Commit-
tee exonerated the two Members from the charge of cor-
ruption, they hid unanimously decided that gross bribery
had been practised in the borough. He agreed with the
Noble Lord who had preceded him, that the House ought
to revert to the former acts of the borough. The case of
it borough was not like that of a man on trial for a parti-
cular crime, when it would certainly be most unjust to set
the former acts of life in array against him. The case of
n borough was to be determined on its constant practice,
end in the present instance there was a practice of corrup-
tion for the course of twenty years. As a Member of the
ommittee that had sat bn the Penryn Election, he felt it
his duty to declare it as his opinion, that Penryn furnished
)Dne of the grossest cases of corruption; and one in which
that corruption was, of the longest Continuance.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that after what had
been said on a previous occasion, as well as in the debate,
!about Manchester being introduced into the discussion, to
'prejudice the question, he should think it the more conve-
nient course to declare, first, that Penry-n ought to be die-
'franchised ; and 'then, when the Bill was again in the
Committee, the proper time would arise for considering
the place to which its franchise should be transferred.

After a few words from a Member who spoke from un-
der the gallery, the House resolved itself into a Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL then proposed, by way of Amend-
ment, that in the first clause of the Bill the following
words should be introduced—" That the Borough of Pen-
ryn be hereafter excluded from the privilege of returning
Burgesses to serve in Parliament." • He observed that the
question of disfranchising the borough would depend upon
'the House being, or not being, satisfied that great corrup-
tion had taken place. He thought that after the evidence
which had been given before the Committee, there could
be no doubt upon that subject. The abuse of the Elective
Franchise had been sufficiently great to justify the House
in taking it away from the borough. The next question
then, to be determined, was—to what place it should be
transferred ? Some Hon. Members had intimated that it
should be transferred to a large town now unrepresented,while
others had proposed that it should be given to the inhahi-
, tants of the adjoining hundreds. It would aggravate the
defect to give the franchise to the hundred, as it would
throw the right of election into the hands of a few large
proprietors. This mode of reforming corrupt boroughs in
fact created little counties, and contributed nothing to the
general extension of the right of election. It had often

been said that trade and manufactures were not sufficiently
repi-esp..nted in Parliament ; and when cases of this kind

occurred, a.oantage ought to be taken of them to afford

Representatives to large and industrious masses of the po-
pulation. A remedy would thus be gradually supplied to
the acknowledged and prevailing defect of the House. He
therefore proposed by one Bill to deprive Penryn of the
elective franchise entirely ; and by another and a distinct
measure, to transfer that franchise to Manchester. He

moved, as an Amendment, " That the Borough of Pen-
ryn, hereafter, be excluded from returning Burgesses to
Pa rl ;amen t. "
Mr. LEGIT KECK observed that the present Bill was
the same as that passed by this House in 1819, and thrown
out by the House of Lords; and it was now supported by
additional evidence, taken before the late Committee, and at
the Bar, to show the existence of bribery and corruption.
In his conscience he was satisfied that the best and safest
mode was to give the franchise to the Hundred. He con-

tended that the manufacturing interest was already well
and sufficiently represented in Parliament; and, that al-
though the Resolutions; passed at Manchester were most

eniperate and proper, yet, it became the House to beware

of establi4hing an evil precedent. If, on every occ.ulion of
this kind, the franchise were given to some populous ma-
nufacturing town, what would become of the much talked

of balance between the manufacturing and landed interests
in Parliament ' The experiment proposed by the Noble
Lord (J. Russell) was dangerous in the trial, would be
found injurious in the practice, and, above all, disadvan-
tageous to those who were anxious that the right of elec-
tion should he transferred to them. He had no personal
interest in the question, and had most unwillingly under-
taken the of-4z of a public accuser; all the reward he

hoped for his services was, never again to be placed in a

similar situation.—(Hear.)

Mr. C. BARCLAY advised his Honourabio Relatire
not to press the qyestion to a division, seeing that it was
undoubtedly the opinion of a decided majority of the Com-
mittee that Penryn should be disfranchised. He should
give his aupport, to the j)roposition of the Noble Lord (J.
Russell) as he was satisfied that, to transfer the right to
Manchester, under certain restrictions, would bo highly
beneficial. One limitation was, that no person should
have the power to rote for a Member, who was not rated
to the support of tha.poor to z certain amount. In South.
wark, which he formerly represented, this plan was found
to work well ; for there, by certain local Acts, on all
houses under the rate of 201. a year, the landlord paid the
poor rate, and the tenant, consequently, had no vote. Yet
Southwark was considered a scot and lot borough. He
had bad no reason to complain of the electors of South-
wark, and. certainly be never knew a body of men better
able to think for themselves, and to decide upon any great
•• • •

••••
political question.
Lord MILTON said, that by the disfranchisement of

Penryn a vacancy in the representation would be occa-
sioned, which vacancy might be supplied upon two prin-
ciples—population and taxation. With reference to both
it might be urged, that a large and wealthy district of tha
metropolis was unrepresented—the parish of MarylebOne;
and he thought that it had, perhaps, as good a title to the
franchise now to he disposed of, as any other place. 'He
protested against the principle which the Hon. Gentleman
who spoke last wished to establish—that of confining the
right of voting to an aristocratical portion of the community.
The abandonment of the ancient systeM of the Constitution
in this respect, as far as regarded Leeds, and by wishing to
confine the right of voting to a certain rental, had had the
effect of depriving that important town of the opportunity
of returning Members, and had given it to the County of
York at large. He objected strongly to these fanciful
theories and devices to exclude the inferior orders from re-
presentation, whose interests Most required protection.
He liked to witness the influence of the inferior orders in
the House; and the more extensive the right was made,
the less chance there was of- corruption. if the franchise
were general, votes would not be worth purchasing.
Mr. G. PHILLIPS called the attention of the Com-
mittee to the changes in the value of property since the
period when the right of voting for Counties was given to
Freeholders to the extent of 40s. per annum. He did
not profess to speak from authority, bit he believed he
might say that the general feeling in Manchester was, that
the right of voting should be given to such only as were
rated to the poor, for houses of the annual value of 15/. or
20/. It seemed to him that the present was a very favour-
able opportunity for introducing the principle of such a
qualification ; and the constituent body in Manchester
would then consist of from five thousand to seven thousand
persons. The fear of the Honourable Member (Mr. Legg
Keck), lest the manufacturing should overbalance the
landed interest, in the House of Commons, was absolutely
chimerical ; and it was a fact, that the trading and menu•
factoring interests, although so greatly extended, had few
or no Representatives ; all other great interests were
specially represented. He suggested that the Bill for dis-
franchising Penryn might be passed is the present Session;
and the question, in what manner the franchise should be
disposed of, might be reserved until next year.
Lord ALTHORP recalled the attention of theeCorn-
mittee to the real question before it ; the only point now to
be decided was, whether Penryn ought to be disfranchised,
and regarding that, he apprehended, little doubt could
retrain.--(Hear.)--He concurred with the Hon. Member
who spoke last, that it might be expedient to defer until
=other Session the discussion, whether the franchise taken
from Penryn should be thrown open to the Hundred, or
given to some large commercial and manufacturing town.
Mr. WARBURTON objected to the placing of any ad-
ditional power or influence in the hands of the landed
interest.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN expressed his high appro-
bation of the principles which had been mentioned by the
Noble Lord (Milton), the Member for Yorkshire, as actu-
ating his conduct. He fully concurred with him, that
according to the true constitutional system, representation
and taxation ought to be combined as much as possible;
and that the influence of the lower classes in the House
ought not to be diminished, but should be placed beyond
the reach of corroption'by the numbers•to whom the elec-
tive franchise was extended.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that looking to what had on this and on former occasions
occurred, he thought, that although the degrees of guilt
in these cases were different, enough had been proved
against, Penryn to call for the notice of the Legislature;
but he did not think that it had been proved that
the proportion of guilty persons was so large as compared
with the whole population, as to justify the complete disfran-
chisement of the Borough. In a question of this kind,
which was, properly speaking, no party one, but a matter
rather of a judicial nature, each Hon. Member would form
the opinion which he might consider as that which the state
of the case most called for. In such a state of things, per-
haps, the opinion of any single individual might
not be held to be of any great consequence ; but the
unanimous opinion of the Committee up stairs was so
weighty, that it • certainly would require very strong
evidence to rebut it. Upon the principle which he
had already mentioned, namely, that the case was one of
a judicial character, he would abstain from going into any
general discussion, but decide as if lie were upon a Jury,
and bound to give a verdict strictly according to the me-
rits of the case. He did not think that such a degree of
guilt was established as to warrant a total diefrancli.ec-
meat. Many were, no doubt, innocent; but, in the si-
tuation of Committees of this description, the innocent
must sometimes suffer along with the guilty; and, upon
the whole, he believed that he should do his duty best by
supporting the motion of the Hon. Member for Leicester.
As to the case of Grampound, with reference to which so
much has been said, he had only to observe that, when it
was judged proper to resort to a measure of this kind, and,
to a certain extent, to trench upon the franchises of any
particular place, the most constitutional mode was, not to
adopt an entirely new representation, but to confine,- as
much as possible, the franchise, which, though strictly. a
public privilege, was still, in an innocent sense, a valuable
private possession, to the same description of interest as
that from which it was taken. He admitted the conve-

nience, iai point of debate, of separating- the disfranchite-
rnent from any other question; but,- in another view, he
thought it was material that the question of partial dis-
franchisement, and that of fixing the manner in which the
franchise should be subsequently settled, should be dr_cided
together, instead of leaving the ulterior question to form
the subject of a new vote ; and, therefore, as he before
stated, without entering upon a discussion of the general
principle, either one way or the other, he thought, upon
the whole, his vote ought to be given for the motion of the
Hon. Member for Leicester,

Mr. lIOBHOUSE was always ready, when a case of
corruption was made out, to take advantage. of it, and to
cut away as much from the body of corruption as he pos-
sibly could ; but, as to degrees of guilt, that matter affect-
ed bins and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very differ-
ently; for that Right Hon. Gent. appeared unwilling to
look into these cases, whereas he (Mr. H.) was always on
the look out for them—having a view to that general re-
form for which he had always contended. When he met
with such a strong case as this, his object was to take ad-
vantage of it in order to infuse fresh and sound blood into
the constitution ; but the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Leicester would infuse no fresh blood into the constitu-
tion ; and if such were to be the result, he saw no use in
the disfranchisement of a single corrupt borough, because his
objection was to the whole system of corruption. The
Right lion. Gent., no doubt, acted r7gl; tly according to
his cern notions ; but according to his (Mr. Hobhouse's)
views, it would be wrong in him to support the proposi-
tion of the Hon. Member for Leicester. He wished the
discussion to be conducted without entering on the general
question of reform at present. His object was simply to
disfranchise this corrupt borough, and then to leave it for
future consideration what was to be done afterwards. He
hoped the Right Honourable Gentleman would not press
the immediate extension of the franchise to the Hun-
dreds. He, himself, had said, that this was in the na-
ture of a judicial question ; and that question was, wise-

tlier enough had boen proved to show that this borough
ought to be disfranchised ; and why should that question
be hampered with any other? If it were to form part
of the proposition that the franchise should be extended to

the neighbouring Hundreds, he and many others inthe House
would be disposed rather to vote against the disfranchise-
ment altogether, although they wished that the borough
should be disfranchised. He contended, that they ought
first to go to a vote on the question, whether the borough
should be disfranchised ; and next, if it should be car-
ried that the borough ought to be disfranchised, they ought
to consider how and for what place the two Members
which had before represented.this borough should be elected.
He thought it necessary to say this much, that his vote, in
cue he should be compelled to vote against the disfranchise-
ment of the borough should not be misunderstood.

Lord MILTON remarked, that his Hon. Friend, the
Member for Westminster, appeared to mistake the state of

the question.
Mr. HOLHOUSE explained,
Mr. WYNN said of the guilt of a great number of the
parties in this transaction he had no doubt. It was true,
that criminality had been directly brought home only to 16
of them ; but there was moral evidence of a much more ex-
tensive system of corruption. The meeting of the voters,
and their refusing to come to the poll until arrangement
should be made, was strong presumptive evidence of the
system ; and the House must be aware that one candidate
had stated, that no success was to be expected at Penryn
without bribery ; and another had said, that he had resigned
all pretensions merely on that account. He could not but
look back upon what had formerly happened with re-
ference to this borough. They might perhaps have in-
dulged a hope that the punishment of individuals might
put an end to this practice. That experiment had been
tried, but still the system was carried on; and this, there-
fore, was a case in which the House ought to legislate.—
He would prefer supporting either of the propositions which
had been suggested, to. leaving matters to go on in this bo-
rough as they had done. But he was anxious that the
proposition of the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill
should be adopted, as the Bill would then be less liable to
the risk of being lost in another place, where four Bills of
a similar description had already failed.
An Hon. MEMBER on the Treasury Bench, whose
name we could not haw, said, that they wanted no

tional Members for the County of COrnwall—Cifear).—and
if this plan of extending the franchise to the neighbouring
hundreds were adopted, it would form a most mischievous
precedent, and he would vote for the Amendment of the
Noble Lord (Russell.)
Mr. WOOD (of Preston) said, that if the hundreds were
to be taken in, he would not vote for the disfranchisement
of the Borough ; for upon that plan it was in evidence that
that the paramount influence would be given to two great
neighbouring proprietors, Lord De Dunstanville and Sir
John St. Aubyn. Reformer as he was, he regarded the
great landed proprietors, who sent the rich Members into
the House, with as much contempt'as he did these corrupt
Boroughs. They ought not to look at what the other
Howse might do, but attend to their duty.
Mr. LAMB adverted to the strange change of opinion
which had taken place among the Parliamentary Refor-
mers, tbr they now cried out against increasing the influ-
ence of the landed interest, and the great object of their
general plans of Parliamer tary Reform had before been
always stated to be to increase that influence. Such had
been the alleged object of the Member for 'Westminster
(Sir F. I3urdett) and others, and yet they now appeared
to be extremely averse to the extension of the influence of
the landed interest. He concluded by declaring, that in
conformity with.the views of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
Canning) he should support the original motion.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN opposed the proposition
to throw open the elective franchise of Penryn to the ad-
joining hundreds. He would prefer having the abuses of
the representation left untouched in their hideous defor-
mity, to the delusive farce proposed to be played in this
instance.
Lord RANCLIFFE war glad of an opportunity of
giving his support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
who had that evening, in his opinion,• very properly
stated, that though he was opposed to the general
question of reform, he would assist in effecting any
practical good.
Sir J. NEWPORT 'said, if ever there was a case that
called for the intervention of that House; it was the case
before them. Penryn had been proved to be thoroughly
corrupt, not at the late election merely, but for a series of
elections during the last twenty years. Considering the
anterior practices, and the evidence of their continuation
given before the Committee this Session, he saw -no other
mode of dealing with the corruption of this Borough, than
that of rooting it out, by transferring the elective franchise
to some wealthy and flourishing town.at present unrepre-
sented. He differed with reluctance from his Right Hon.
Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; but he thought
it absolutely necessary for the due consideration of the
whole question, that it should be separated as his Noble
Friend (Lord J. Russell) had proposed.
Mr. BROUGHAM could not help rejoicingexceedingly
that the debate had, been brought back by his Right Hon.
Friend (Sir J. Newport) to its fit and proper tone and
temper. The speech of his Right Hon. Friend, the Se-
cretary for Ireland .(Mr. W. Lamb), had partaken of the
generous warmth of that part of the empire to which his
official cares were directed.—(A laugh.)—He (Mr.
Brenham), in entering on the debate, would remind
them what was properly before them—what was excluded
from their consideration—and what, though not excluded
by the form of the vote, it was, nevertheless, expedient to
exclude altogether from the present discussion. In the
course of this debate, both sides had assumed the-guilt of
Penryn. The only question was, whether that guilt should
be punished by letting in the Hundreds to share the elec-
tive franchise, or by transferring it absolutely to some
other place? The latter mode implied a greater degree of
guilt, but the former was not consistent with guiltlessness.
It was clear there must be some fault in Penryn, else why
sluice them with the hundreds?—(A laugh.)—lf the elec-
tors of Penryn were innocent—if they had done no wrong
—if there was nothing faulty about them—why all of a
sudden let in on the 200 voters, who, for the purposes of
bribery and corruption, had been made 400 voters, the
t,OOO voters of the neighbouring hundreds?—(Laughter.)
--That form of punishment assumed that they were ' con-
demned, though not so deeply as by the other. The dif-
ference of these forms to them would, however, in effect,
be very slight. The skilful voter, who, in estimating the
value of a borough, looked at the property with an eye to
borough objects, and regarded his vote only with a view to
sell it—one of the Stanburys and Sowells—would not be
at the trouble of thanking the House for the mitigated
form which would only let in upon him the 2,000
voters in his neighbourhood. Men of that stamp did not
love their neighbours as themselves.—(A laugh.)---They
would rather continue the monopoly of votes. He be-
lieved firmly that Sowell or Stanbury would just as lief
have the borough wholly disfranchised, as retain their
votes if they shared them with their neighbours. What
would they sell their votes for when they were only one of
twenty-five hundred ? They were-worth something indeed
when they were one of five hundred, but the value vanished
when the numbers became too extended for purchase. He
thought, therefore,- that if his Hon. Friend the Member
for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse)xpplied his mind to this
question, he would see that the disfranchisement was as
complete and entire by letting in the hundreds, as by trans..
ferring the elective franchise elsewhere. The corrupt
interest of the parties punished was just as fully extin-
guished in one case as in the other. He would not then
enter into the enquiry, whether Penryn deserved to be pu-
nished. It was admitted on 'all hands, that it had incurred
guilt. The question was reduced simply to this : whether
the House should, by the one form, operate a general dis-
franchisement, without making any provision as to the
parties who should succeed to the exercise of the franchise;
or whether the House should adopt the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. L. Keck), and by
throwing the right into the Hundreds, admit them to share
it with the Borough ? This was a question of the utmos.

importance ; and he would not, for the sake of catching a
few careless votes, conceal his sense of its great moment. It

was important, not so much in itself, as with reference to
its ulterior consequences. If he voted for the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Leicestershire, he stopped all fur-
ther legislation on the subject, and left crowned a com-
plete measure without any thing lurking behind it. If
he voted for the proposition of his NAle Friend (Lord J.
Russell), he loft an unfilled canvass on which the artists of
Reform might hereafter sketch a figure which should at
that stage be unknown to them. He felt that he should
not deal fairly by the House, if he did not endeavour to
impress upon them his sense of the importance of this
question, With the careful deliberation which that sense

of its importance had imposed upon him, he had applied
his mind to the subject, and he had to state as the result,
that he was entirely of opinion with his Noble Friend, that
the franchise ought not to be opened to the hundreds, but
disposed of generally to some distant place.—(Hear, hear,
hear.)—This propoiition would not bind the House to

any future course, and that alone was a sufficient argument
in its favour. It neither pledged the House, nor any Hon.
Member who supported it, to any one line rather than to

-----
any other.--(Hear, hear.)--With perfect consistency he
might vote against the Hon. Member for Leicestershire at
that time ; and afterwards on the report, the re-commit-

• •." ....
meat, or the third reading—or at the last stage, byway
of rider—or, finally, in another Bill, he might deal
with the forfeited franchise us he judged most fitting.
That course .was certainly the most Parliamentary,
the most legislative, and the most expedient, be-
cause the most consistent with the fullest delibera-
tion. The question, then, was what should be done with

the franchise. The trial of the party accused was only
proceeding—the verdict was not, in point of form, pro-
nounced ; but all were, in fact, agreed. The guilt was
admitted ; and the question was, whether they should
transfer the elective franchise from those who had not once
merely, but time after time systematically, habitually,
grossly, shamefully, and to the constitution intolerably
abused it.—(Hear, hear.)—He for one would meet the
exioney of the occasion at once, by disfranchising Penryn.
As to the amount of punishment, whether it should be
total or qualified disfranchisement, or whether, if total, it
should consist in transferring the franchise from the wrong-
doers to those who ought to have had it before, but that
the opportunity of giving it bad not presented itself; these
were questions for future consideration, which could be
most satisfactorily discussed in a separate Bill. There was
another ground on which he had a positive objection to the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Leicestershire. It

was quite consistent with the course he was supporting,
that in another Bill, or in a future stage of this Bill, he
should vote, if he saw reason, for letting in the hundreds; but
he would fairly tell the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. Keck)
beforehand, that his vote should not be- given to that mea-
sure in any possible case ; for he regarded it, as the gross-
est of all delusions—he was sorry he had no other name
to apply to it—for any Honourable Member to flatter him-
self that he was doing any real, substantial, effective good,
by reforming these abuses on the old plan of throwing the
right of election into the hundred.—(Cheers.)—He mar-
velled much to hear his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. W.
Lamb)—for whose opinions he had a respect, hardly sur-
passed by the affection he bore to his person—charge the
Reformers with inconsistency, because, as his Right Hon.
Friend alleged,-they had always hitherto been desirous of
giving the preponderance to the landed interest, and now
they were turning round upon the landed interest. This
vrti sutety no well-grounded -accusation. The Reformers
deserved fair play, ,on .the same principle that a certain
historical perrnage was, said to deserve it. But this at-
tack was anything but a sample of fair play. He objected
further to the plan of letting in the hundreds, because Corn-
wall was already well enough off in regard to repreeenta-