The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-02 00:00:00

BOROUGH 'OF LICHFIELD.

Southampton, complaining that certain persons, not°'
being upon the register of voters, had fraudulently '
signed a petition, which was presented to the
House on the 9th of May, purporting to be from
the inhabitants of Southampton being electors, in con-
tempt of the authority and privileges of the House.
The Hon. Member moved that the petition be read at
length by the Clerk at the table, and that it be
printed and circulated with the Votes.—The petition
was accordingly read by the Clerk.
On the motion that the petition be printed with the
Votes,
Mr. WARD wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Hon. Member to found any motion

on the question ?
Mr. FLEMING having shown the fraud that had
been committed, would leave it to the House to say
whether they would call upon any of the parties to
support these statements. He did not intend to tale
any further steps upon the subject.
Mr. WARD had only asked the question because
the Hon. Member stated that it was his intention to
found a motion upon the petition.
Sir J. EASTHOPE had received intimation
from parties of the statements and impressions in-
tended to be conveyed by the petition. He felt no
hesitation in saying that there had been no inten-
tion on the_ part of any person to commit a fraud
against the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL doubted, after the statements
of the Hon. Member, whether it would be right .or

necessary to have the petition printed.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the rule had been
broken through the other evening, when a petition
was ordered to be printed, although contrary to the
rules of the House, because it would throw light upon
this very case of the Southampton election.
Mr. MACAULAY thought the cases were hardly
parallel. If the Hon. Member for South Hampshire
undertook to affirm that the present petition was cal-
culated to throw light upon the subject they were
about to discuss, and would state that on Thursday,
or some other day, he would draw the attention of
the House to the subject, then there might be some
reason for printing the petition.
Mr. MACKINNON said, that the motion for
printing the petition was not a substantive motion,
but an amendment.—(Hear.) How did Hon. Mem-
bers know but what it was his (Mr. Mackinnon's)
intention to postpone moving for the writ until to-
morrow ?

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE thought that the
House had acted very properly in deciding that
the petition of John Wrenn should be printed,
because it was calculated to throw light upon
the discussion on which they were about to enter.
If the present petition had been calculated to
throw light upon the subject, the Hon. Member
ought to have presented it before—as he had had it
for more than a week in his possession ; but it ap-
peared that it would not suit the purposes of the Con-
servatives of Southampton to have light thrown upon
the subject.
Mr. BARING thought that the Hon. Member for
Hampshire had acted very discreetly in abstaining
from presenting the petition until this evening.—
(Hear.) He had attained his object, which was to
show that the petition presented by the Hon. Baronet
was a fraudulent one. He (Mr. Baring) did not say
that none of the persons who had signed the Hon.
Baronet's petition were respectable, but certainly
vast numbers of them were not what they had repre-
sented themselves to be. The Hon. Member for
Hampshire, having gained his object, he saw no rea-
son for having the petition printed.
Sir JOHN EASTHOPE rose amidst loud cries
of " Spoke, spoke," from Members on the Ministerial
benches. The Hon. Baronet resumed his seat with-
out addressing the House.
Mr. FLEMING rose, and was met by cries of
" Spoke, spoke," from the Opposition benches. The Hon.
Member said his object in rising was merely to with-
draw his motion.—Motion withdrawn. _ _ _ _

Mr. FLEMING again rose and said he had a
petition to present of a greater importance than the
last. A petition from John Wrenn had been
printed, and, the present petition, which was
numerously and -respectably signed, was from
persons who stated that, in their opinion, that in-
dividual was not to be believed upon his oath.
In a very few hours the petition was signed by up-
wards of 250 electors of the town, and if it could

have remained longer it would no doubt have been
signed by four times as many. The petitioners
stated that they heard with astonishment that John
Wrenn had presented a petition with relation to
the corruption which he said took place, with a view of
delaying the issue of the writ. They stated that the
said John Wrenn did not in any degree possess
the confidence or esteem of his fellow townsmen—
(Laughter)—nor was the estimation in which he was
held such as to afford any grounds for confidence being
placed in his statement. That opinion was entertained
by persons of all political creeds.—(Oh, oh.) The
petitioners prayed their Hon. House not to give cre-
dence to statements coming from such a quarter, and
that they might not be deprived of their political privi-
leges.—The petition was ordered to lie upon the table.
The Hon. Member then moved that the petition be
printed and circulated with the Votes.
On the question being put,
Sir JOHN EASTHOPE said, he was sure he
only expressed the opinions of the great and respect-
able portion of the inhabitants of Southampton, when
he said, that he should be anxious that everything
the Honourable Member had said should
be printed, and put into circulation.—(Hear.)
A statement was brought forward for the purpose of
producing an effect upon the House. The parties
who signed that petition were parties who were
on the former register, and who expected to be
on a future register. Hef had received a letter from
a respectable individual in Southampton, and he stated
that the wish of the inhabitants was that the fullest
investigation should take place.
Mr. H. HINDE said he hoped that the Honourable
Member would not proceed with the motion for the
printing of the petition, as the continuance of that
discussion was only calculated to keep alive
ill feeling on the subject. If they agreed
to the motion of the Honourable Member for
Hampshire, they could hardly agree to the issuing of
the writ that night. Under these circumstances, he
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his
motion, in order that they might come at once to the
main question.
Mr. REDLNGTON said he hoped the House
would not set aside the statement of a witness on
oath for the statement of a petition. All he could
say was, that as the unseated Member lost his seat
upon the evidence of Mr. Wrenn, if that evidence
was not to be believed, then the unseated Member
had been hardly treated.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that any one who had
read, the evidence could not be surprised that
Wrenn had refused to give all the evidence
in his power. He now asked for indem-
nity. It would strike a person unacquainted with
Southampton but by the evidence, to find that
Wrenn was disbelieved by the whole town, when
it was shown that he was a regular election agent.
—(Loud cries of " No, no.") It was stated that
he was the principal objector in the Registry
Courts where the battle of the Constitution was fought,
and who also possessed the confidence of the Conser-
vatives, and who fought their battles at the election,
by distributing money to the voters.
Mr. FLEMING said he would withdraw his
motion.
Mr. MACKINNON said, that in rising to move
that the writ be issued for the town of Southampton,
he could assure the House that he did so from no
personal motives. It was matter of perfect indiffer-
ence to him whether the writ was issued or not. All
he desired was that perfect fairness should be done ;
and if bribery and corruption were proved, such
practices ought not to escape ; but, if no fresh
evidence were adduced, or arguments urged, he
trusted the writ would be issued. He hoped that the
same meed of justice would be dealt to Southampton-
which was dealt out to Ipswich. The Reports of the
Committees in both cases were almost the same.. In
the case of Ipswich the Committee reported that they
were of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed at the
last election for that borough, and that the writ ought
to be suspended until the evidence was printed and
submitted to the House. That was the Report—
but what was done ? It was decided on Thursday
that the writ should be issued. Was not that in direct
opposition to the Report of the 'Committee ?—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) But it was done to do jus-
tice to the Borough of Ipswich—(lronical cheers)—the
House not thinking there was vfficient evidence before
them to deprive the people of their just rights. The
Report of the Southampton Cotbmittee was, that evi-
dence was given before them . that an extensive system
of treating was carried on by means of local associations,
that large sums of money were paid to voters, and that
a sum of nearly 5,0001. had been expended, which was
too large a sum for the legal expenses of an election ;
and that these facts were deserving the serious attention
of the House. At the previous election there had been
a much greater expenditure ..on both sides.—(" hear,
hear," and laughter.) But did they withhold the writ
then ? And were they going to commit the monstrous
anomaly of keeping back the writ. now, when they had
granted it before ?—(Laughter.) Did they never hear
of anybody having been bribed before? and would they,
on the Report of this Committee, disfranchise for a given
time from 1,400 to 1,500 voters .? The Committee had
discharged its duty with zeal and ability, and there was
no evidence that any other Committee was required.
Were they going to assume the monstrous principle that
after an Election Committee had decided on a petition
and made their Report, if any vagabond of any borough
town chose to present a petition requiring another Com-
mittee, they were to comply with it. Of all the extra-
ordinary precedents that had ever been established in
that House this was the most extraordinary. Twenty
vacancies might occur and the House might be called
, upon by twenty vagabonds to suspend the writ.--:(11ear,
hear.) He submitted that unless some substantial ground
Were stated, they wbuld be 'violating' the Constitution and
law of this c.op4try.,bx postpcning.jhe Issuing-of the
•
writ uratt the 'were plum fan llirrenia. With:

Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Lich-
field, stating, that at the last election gross bribery
prevailed, by which the character •:). the inhabitants
was injured. The petition also stated that a
number of persons, who were bribed, had received
appointments, with salaries amounting to 100/. a-year,
which they believed, to be a more dangerous species
of bribery than bribery by money, as it influenced not
only the voters themselves, but also their friends. The
petitioners prayed the House to take the petition into
consideration, and -to adopt such measures as would
prevent these scandalous practices. He (Mr. Roe-
buck) was, bound to say, that the petition was signed
by only eight individuills, who gave their names and
ailixecltheir descriptions.
Mr. DIVETT begged leave to say a few words on
the subject of the petition, as one of the Committee
who sat upon the petition. A very stringent in-
.vestigation of every thing which took place at the
election was gone into. No Committee could
be more fully disposed to investigate the case;
and with regard to his own feelings, he
confessed, that Awhere any petition alleging
cases of bribery came under inquiry, he was
most desirous of hiving them fully investigated.—
(Hear, hear.) But considering the circumstances
which came before the Committee, he did not
think the present petitioners were justified in
coming before the House. The Committee entered
upon the scrutiny of a few votes, and after deciding
on them the petition was abandoned ' • but
there was no 'evidence of any bribery,
although there was a good opportunity, and
full disposition, on the part of the Committee, to
inquire into the matter, if the parties had any inten-
tion of. doing so. If anything had come before the
°opt:a-hue, he thought the parties would be justified
in Ipr&lentillgthe-petition ; but that not being so, he
thBueit, it was .'not fair to bring the petition before
the
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to observe that he hoped
the House Wthild'nOf.consider him answerable for any
Part of the' petition.
The petition was then ordered to lie upon the table.
, MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Lord. GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved that
the order for the reference of the Mersey Con-
servancy Bill to the Committee of Selection be dis-
charged"- that the said Bill be referred to a,
Select doMmittee, composed of the following Mem-
bers,:—Lord Granville Somerset, Viscount Sandon,
Mr.'. Wilbrahain, Mr. Mark Philips, Mr. Wilson
Patten, Sir Philip Egerton, Mr. Ta.tton Egerton, Mr.
Blackburn, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr.
Rice, Capt. Berkeley, O'Connor Don, the Earl of
Lincoln, and Captain Gordon ; and that all petitions
for or against the said Bill be. referred to the Select
Committee. • '•
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved that the debate
on the question should be adjourned.
After a short conversation the motion for adjourn
meut was withdrawn, and the order agreed to.
HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE
_ADDRESS.'

The SPEAKER then said, I have to report to the
House that her M4csty has been attended this day
by both Houses, with their Address, to which she has
been graciously
_pleased to return this most gracious
answer :—" My Lordtcand Gentlemen, I receive with
heartfelt, gratification the loyal and dutiful address
from the two Houses of Parliament. I am thankful
to" the ,Almighty, whosu merciful care has pro-
tected me, and I. humbly rely on the good
providence of Gr-'4, who is able to preserve me
from every danger is, an—, A.
trust, and sincere
in nly desire td promote-thepiness of my people,
anA comforted aTid supported the. renewed as-
surance of your attachment and:loyalty:l.
130.1r.F4IAMPTON ELECTION.. •
-ALr. ELMlLia.pleu presented. a petition from

air...a

mu SUN, LONDON. THURSDA'I MORNING, JUNE 2, 1842.

out detaining the House further, he would now move tha
the Speaker do issue a writ for the election of two
burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of

Southampton.
Mr. W. B. BARING seconded the motion.

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said that in rising to move
the suspension of the writ for the borough of South-
ampton, in opposition to the Honourable Member for
Lymington, he was aware that he was taking a very ex •
traordinary course ; but he thought that in the minutes
of the evidence taken before the Southampton Election
Committee, there was sufficient reason why the House
should pause before they consented to the issue of the
new writ. It had been proved before the Committee
that bribery and treating to a largo extent had been prac-
tised at the late election for the borough. It appeared
to him that after the special Report to which the Com-
mittee had come, the House ought not to accede to the
issuing of a new writ, without some inquiry into the
evidence taken before the Committee: He would feel it

his duty to comment upon the evidence given before that
Committee by an Honourable Member of that House,
(Mr. Fleming). It was found from the bankers that
that Honourable Member had supplied a sum
of 5001. for defraying the expenses of the election.
The Hon. Member, when called before the Committee,

to himself the right of forming his own opinion upon
each particular case. With regard to Southampton, lie
read over the evidence attentively, and he must say that
the expenditure at that election seemed to him to be too
lavish, and that the treating was too expensive.—(Hear,
hear.) But he feared that the system of treating was
not confined to Southampton, but that it existed also in
the country to a great extent.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") lie knew that it did not partake of the legal
character of bribery, but the practice was most pernicious.
It might be said, that as he voted for the Ipswich writ lie
ought also to vote for the Southampton one; but the cases
were distinct ; for, in the case of Southampton, 300
electors petitioned the House of Commons for an in-
quiry; there was also the petition of John Wrenn, who
appeared at the bar of the House ; and from what he
(Sir R. Peel) then saw, he did not perceive any reason
why he should be thought unworthy of credit. The alle-
gations he set forth made a great impression on his (Sir
R. Peel's) mind. What were they? (The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet here read a great portion of the petition.) Now,
after the allegations he had read, and acting on purely
judicial grounds, he was of opinion that the writ should
be suspended.—(Load cheers.) He should vote that it
be suspended for a certain time, but he confessed he
thought it would be desirable that the House should
have time to consider what course they ought to pursue.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the Right Hon. Baronet
exercised a sound discretion in adopting the course he
had done—(Hear, hear)—and also in attaching import-
ance to the petition of John Wrenn, who was called ve-
racious John Wrenn by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—
(Laughter.) If he was rightly informed, John Wrenn
was not only the political agent of the Conservative
party in Southampton, but was the intimate associate of
some of the most respectable persons there—(Hear,
hear)—even of the Hon. Member for South Hants him-
self.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) He believed this
person was the life and soul of the Conservative convi-
viality of Southampton—(Laughter)—and was invited
to meet the Hon. Member at dinner. He believed that
it was said to him, " Mr. Fleming is coming; mind that
you come also Wrenn."—(Great laughter.) Now, what
was the cause of all the vituperation which was cast upon
Lim ? It was because he would not agree to perjure him-
self before a Committee of that House. Mr. Fleming
said that Mr. Abrahams denied making any suggestion
to Wrenn about bribing a voter ; but here (said the
Hon. Gentleman, holding in his hand a small book, with
a blue cover) is the record of your misdeeds.—(Cheers
and laughter.) This book contains the authority for
Wrenn's giving 51. to a voter. That was a grave ques-
tion, and ought to be inquired into.—(Cheers.) He
would, however, let Mr. Wrenn speak for himself—he
would read to the House a letter which he had received

stated that there had been a great deficiency of money
to meet the expenses of the election, and that he had
undertaken to make a collection among his friends in the
neighbourhood of Southampton, and that he had received
subscriptions from them which he had put to the credit
of the Conservative party ; also, that he could not give
the names of those persons without a breach of confi-
dence, and, therefore, he put it to the feelings of the
Committee if he ought to mention them. The House
would bear in mind that the Hon. Member had in his
place in the House refused to answer the questions put
to him, and he was directed by the House to answer
them on the following day to the Committee. Subse
quently the Hon. Member stated that the sum alluded to
was 500/., which, with the two other sums, increased the
amount to nearly 1,0001. It appeared that a sum
of 2001. had been paid to the agents, and
that likewise 801, had been paid to the Town
Clerk for the legal expenses of the hustings,
but it was evident that the sum of 1,0001. had not gone
in any legal way to pay the expenses of the election.
He thought that if a Bill were granted for indemnity to
witnesses coming before Committees upon that point, very
important evidence would be elicited. There was another
system of bribery that had been carried on at the elec-
tion, which was by the means of paying messengers,
colourmen, and others, the sum of 31. for their votes.
They had it in evidence that a Mr. Lysle had received
a.sum of 6001. ; half of that was paid to the chairman,
and the other half to messengers, colourmen, and others.
Added to this the town of Southampton was divided into
five wards, in each of which were Conservative Associa-
tions, a member of which was named Cheeseman, and
that individual had received 4001. which had come from
the Committee Fund, to which the candidates had sub-
scribed largely, and they found that out of the 5,0001.
which had been raised, 2,0001. had been subscribed by
the:Conservative candidates. The Hon. Member, after
reading several portions of the evidence, stated that he
would now refer to that of Mr. Wrenn, and he felt bound
to admit that though the Hon. Member had had no
personal communication with Mr. Wrenn, he had had
constant information of what was taking place.
The Committee had no reason for doubting that Mr.
Wrenn was any ether than a person employed by the
Conservative party. He had endeavoured to withhold
evidence. There had been great difficulty in getting
him to answer questions ; he had continually appealed
to the Committee not to be compelled to answer ques-
tions, on the ground that he might criminate himself ;
and he had refused to answer many questions. Imme-
diately after the Report had been pritited, a great deal
of angry feeling had been excited in Southampton. Mr.
Mackay, an agent of the Conservative party in that bo-
rough, had gone before the Mayor and made an affida-
vit that Wrenn's evidence, as far it related to him,
was untrue. Wrenn had gone before the Mayor to
make a counter-affidavit ; the Mayor, however, had re-
fused to swear him, alleging that he had no right to do
so, and that he had torn up the affidavit of the other
party. Mr. Wrenn had then presented a petition to that
House, which had been
.printed, and was in the hands of
Members; and considering the allegations made in that
petition, and also the fact that the two Members for
Saithampton had been unseated by the Committee on
the ground of bribery and treating, he thought he
was not asking too much, in asking that the issue
of the writ should be suspended until further in-
quiry should be made into -what had taken place.
He did so on the ground that an extensive system of
treating was carried on at this moment by the Conserva-
tive Associations. No doubt money was subscribed and
given to those Associations for the purpose of treating
with beef, plum-pudding, and grog, the voters of South-
ampton. It could be proved that 200 electors on one
side had received bribes at the late election ; he thought,
therefore, they ought not to issue the writ at this time,
and allow those parties again to exercise the franchise.
This was not a case simply between the town of South-
ampton and their electors, it was not only whether
Southampton should be prevented for a short time from
sending Members to that House, but taking the Report
of the Committee in this case, in conjunction with the
other Reports, it would be seen that a gross system of
demoralization took place at the last election ; it was,
therefore, the duty of the House to take the matter into
consideration, to pass a law to prevent its recurrence at
future elections , and in those boroughs where it did
take place last time, to suspend the writ until the law
should be passed. He should move, therefore, that a
Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the extent
of bribery and treating at the last election for South.
ampton, and that the writ be not issued till some pre-
ventive Bill should be passed by that House.
Mr. WARD seconded the motion. When he coupled
the evidence taken before the Committee with other evi-
dence which had since come before them, and the pe-
titions which had been presented, he thought it was the
bounden duty of the House to prosecute the inquiry to
the fullest possible extent. The evidence which was given
before the Committee disclosed an admirable and well-or-
ganised system of bribery, and the principal witness who
gave that evidence now offered to complete that evi-
dence if the House gave him protection. Hon. Gentle-
man opposite attacked his character now, but as long as
he was true to their colours they gave him protection.—
(Hear, hear.) He now offered to produce the book,
which he did not do before, and which he (Mr. Ward)
had reason to believe was in existence. He also stated
the name of one of the returning officers who desired
him to bribe one of the electors. That was a grave, con-
stitutional charge, and were they to refuse evidence of
such a fact, because Hon.:Gentlemen opposite now chose
to calumniate the character of a person whom they em-
ployed for five years, who for 20 years was an elector of
Southampton, and for 14 years voted for the same side ?
He would remind the House that they should attach but
little importance to the squabbles of individuals in a
borough where parties were so divided as in South-
ampton, and that they could not put much trust in their
stories of mutual recrimination. He had, for instance,
himself, received a statement to the effect that Mr.
Dawkin, whom an Hon Gentleman opposite had de-
scribed as an honest and respectable tradesman, was a
man on whose word no reliance could be placed. But
these were not matters for the consideration of the
House ; they had to decide whether they would now,
without any further inquiry, issue a new writ for a
borough which would in that case be sure to be dis-
graced by scenes similar to those which had taken place
at the last election.
The SPEAKER, havinc, put the question,
Mr. FLEMING said' he was unwilling to take any
part in this discussion, but it was impossible he should
hear the statement, just made without endeavouring to
disabuse the House of the erroneous impression which
those statements were calculated to produce—statements
which he must characterize as false, scandalous, and un-
founded.—(Cries of " Order, Order," from the Oppo-
sition benches.)
The SPEAKER said, that those were words which
were not to be permitted to be used in that House to any
of its Members, and that he must call on the Right Hon.
Member to withdraw them.
Mr. FLEMING said, that in deference to the opinion
of she Speaker, he would withdraw the words, though
it was very hard to do so, after what had fallen from the
Hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. MACKINNON said, that the words used by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite were, that the Hon. Member
(Mr. Fleming) would have enough to do to defend his
own character.
Mr. WARD had merely said, when very severe cen-
sure had been cast upon the petitioner, that the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Fleming) would have enough to do to
defend his own conduct.
Mr. FLEMING went on to say, that he was living near
Southampton, and that he was anxious to support the
character of its inhabitants. Though forty-one witnesses
had been examined before the Committee, only five cases
of bribery had been found.
Mr. MACAULAY would confine his observations to
a few words, because the whole matter lay within a very
small compass. The whole argument of the Hon. Gen-
tleman was confined to this point, that because they had
issued the writ for Ipswich on Thursday last,
they should issue the writ for Southampton to-day.
He regretted this because he thought it was inconsistent
with the course, a most praiseworthy one, he must admit,
which had hitherto bedn pursued by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet. To do him justice, however, he must say that the
present was a stronger case than that of Ipswich. In the
present case they had had plainly and distinctly indi-
cated to them that the Committee could not obtain the
information they desired. The party referred to stated
that he was in possession of most important information,
but his evidence was to be set at nought. Notwithstand-
ing all that had been said he believed that that side of
the House was clear of all party spirit in the matter, and
it was his firm belief that if the writ for Southampton
was granted, the worst consequences might be anticipated.
Sir R. PEEL thought when the subject was last be-
fore the House, and at the present time, that the issuing
of the writ involved a judicial consideration. Upon
judicial grounds he meant to vote when he came down to
the House, and upon those grounds he intended to vote
now. He agreed with what had been stated, that nothing
but a cordial co-operation of all sides of the House would
prevent the great curse that was undermining the purity
of the House of Commons. They were the popular branch
of the institutions of the country, their power was de-
rived from the people, and if it was shown that they
abused that power, the influence of that power would be
materially shaken. He should be prepared zealously to
co-operate, as far as consistently with his own sense of
justice he could do so, for the purpose of providing a
remedy for this great grievance ; but when he had to
deal with ,a judicial question he must apply judicial
principles. With respect to Ipswich, if he had to give his
vote again, he would give it in the same manner as he
had done. He had formed his judgment ftem the evi-
dence taken before that Committee ;_.but, in addition to
that, he thought that if Ipswich did.not, reforrnitself, it
would become the subject of severe condemnation. With-
-re;spect to Newcastle, and other places, he would reserve

from Mr. Wrenn that morning.—(The Hon. Gentleman
here read the letter alluded to. in which the writer
stated that he had sent him (Mr. T. Duncombo) the
memorandum book mentioned in the petition, as con-
taining the signature of the returning officer, autho-
rising the offer of a bribe to an individual. The writer
then went on to state, that the ill opinion expressed of
him by Mr. Fleming and others, could only have been
framed within a short period, for that no longer ago
than the period of the death of the late Lord Elgin, he
had been requested by one of the Aldermen of the town,
and also by the Sheriff, to attend a meeting to promote
the interest of Mr. Mildmay as a Conservative candidate
for the borough, at which meeting Mr. Fleming was
present. He further stated, that the only reason wy he
had been thus persecuted and branded as a vaga-
bond was, because he would not perjure himself
before a Committee of the House of Commons ;

and that a person during the time the Commit-
tee had been cleared the first time had come up to
him and offered him a sum of money if he would make
Mr. Martin secure. It was because he would not
commit perjury, that this man had been persecuted and
calumniated. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) knew the name
of the individual who had made Wrenn the offer, and
also the amount of the sum offered. Wrenn's answer
was, " No, I will not perjure myself. I will not tell
more than the Committee force me to tell, but what I do
tell must be the truth."—(Cheers.) This in itself was a
serious charge, and required investigation. The Standing
Orders of the House declared that any person tampering
or attempting to tamper with any witness giving evidence
before any Committee was guilty of a high crime and
misdemeanor. If the Committee were appointed, that
charge also must be gone into. He believed that Wrenn
would be able to prove every allegation he had made ;
and after the opinion expressed by the Right Hon.
Baronet, he trusted the Hon. Member for Lymington
would see the propriety of withdrawing his motion
(Hear, hear)—and he would recommend the worthy
Aldermen and others of Southampton, who had stated
that they would not believe Wrenn on his o 411, to be
pretty sure of their facts, before they put their signa-
tures to a petition maligning the character of an indivi-
dual quite as respectable as most of the Conservatives of
Southampton.— (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. HODGSON HINDE regretted that personalities
should have been mixed up with this debate. He con -
sidered the evidence given by Wrenn before the Com-
mittee as irreconcilable with the statements contained in
his petition. That individual had already rendered him-
self amenable to the law, and the House ought to be
very certain that he could and would give them addi.
tional and valuable information, before they passed a Bill
of Indemnity for him.
Mr. WYNN had great pleasure in stating his entire
concurrence in all that had fallen from his Right Hon.
Friend on this subject. The opinion of the Right Hon.
Baronet agreed entirely with that which he (Mr. Wynn)
had come to after reading the evidence taken before the
Committee. Whatever might be the character of
Wrenn, the House ought certainly not to shut the door
against receiving his evidence ; what they would do
with it was another question ; but it might be supported
perhaps by documents tending to establish its truth. He
thought it right, also, that the inquiry should be gone
into as to the existence of similar practices on the other
side—(Cheers.)—for, from the general character of the
borough, he thought it exceedingly probable that such
would turn out to have existed. They were not there to
discuss how far Mr. Wrenn might be able to substan-
tiate his allegations, but he thought they should at least
make inquiry into the matter. He would recommend
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinnon) to withdraw his
motion for the present. But it appeared to him that the
writ should be suspended but for a short time—the period
of postponement ought not, he thought, to exceed a
fortnight.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Bill of the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) would be brought under the notice of
the House on Friday next ; and they would probably,
after that Bill had been before them, be better enabled
to come to a decision upon the issuing of the writ. He
would recommend that it should now be suspended for a
fortnight.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY approved of the suggestion of
the Right Hon. Baronet. He should, if that course were
adopted, withdraw his amendment.
Mr. MACKINNON said that he should yield to the
suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. He would with-
draw his notice for the present ; but he should give
notice that he would again move:the issuing. of the writ
on that day fortnight.
Mr. REDINGTON stated his conviction that, under
the circumstances of the case, the House was perfectly
justified in suspending the writ until further inquiry had
been entered into.
Mr. GODSON observed that a passage contained in
the book read by the Honourable Member for Fibsbury,
and communicated to him by Mr. Wrenn, was entirely
at variance with a statement made by the witness befdre
the Select Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he saw nothing contra-
dictory in the two statements.
Mr. MACKINNON then withdrew his motion, and
gave notice that he should renew it on that day fortnight.
Mr. W.. 0. STANLEY also gave notice that on the
motion for a new writ being made on that day fortnight,
he should move its suspension, until some inquiry had
been entered into relative to the alleged corrupt practices
at the late election.
BOROUGH OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME.
Mr. ADDERLEY withdrew until to-morrow hi
notice of a new writ for the borough of Newcastle-under
Lyme.
Mr. HUME also withdrew until to-morrow his notice
for a Select Committee to inquire into the extent of
bribery at the last election for the borough of Newcastle-
under-Lyme.
PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL.
On the motion of Captain ItOUS, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House, for
the further consideration of the Retort on this Bill.
Clauses up to 5, were agreed to without any discussion.
On clause 5 being put,
Captain PECHELL objected to the principle of pre-
venting refreshments from being served on board of
vessels during the hours of divine service.
Captain ROUS said 'that the clause applied only to
vessels in port at the time.
After some discuaSion, the clause was agreed to with
some verbal amendinents.
Mr. B. WOOD then proposed the following clause:—
And whereas, under and by virtue of the provisions
of the above-mentioned Act, all persons duly licensed
thereby are forbidden to open their houses except for the
reception of travellers, or to permit or suffer any beer or
other exziseable liquor to be conveyed from or
out of their premises during the usual hours of the
morning and, afternoon divine service in the church or
chapel of the parish or place in which their houses are
situate, on Sundays, Christmas-day, or Good Friday,
and doubts have arisen as to what shall be
deemed
refo d to
ere beetchlaeraud and
sualhoursof
enacted, divinethat servicefrnm ;
and
it
after the passing of this Act, the usual hours of
divine service, on the respective days aforesaid, shall, for
the purposes of the said Act, be deemed and taken to be
from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to one o'clock in the
afternoon, and from three o'clock in the afternoon until
half-past four o'clock in the afternoon : provided always,
that nothing herein contained shall extend; or be taken
or construed to extend, to alter or affect the hours during
which the houses of licensed victuallers within the Me-
tropolitan Police District are directed to be closed by the
provisions of a certain Act passed in the second and third
years of her present Majesty, intituled, " Au Act for
further improving the police in and near the metropolis."
Captain ROUS seconded the motion.
Mr. M. SUTTON opposed the motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered the clause an en-
croachment on the rights of the owners of those houses,
and a source of great inconvenience with respect to
the wants of the persons who frequented them. He
trusted the House would successfully resist the motion.
As for himself, he certainly should give it his utmost op-
position.
Mr. HAWES warned the Hon. Members who pro-
posed and supported the clause, against pressing it, for
if they did, the Bill would not, he could assure them,
pass in another place.
- Mr. -HUME requested his Hon. Friend to withdr\aw
his amendment.
After
.a few• words from Mr. B. WOOD and Mr.
AGLIONBY,
Mr. MijislTZ declared that it was monstrous, while

Members—of that House repaired to their clubs and
coffee-houses on Sundays, and there ate more than was I
conducive to their health—(Laughter)—that the puor
man should be compelled to bolt his food, and immediately
leave his tavern, without being allowed time to quench his
thirst. While such a course was pursued by the Legis-
lature it must create nothing but contempt and disgust

towards it amongst the people.
After a short conversation the House divided, when
there appeared—

Fjtthe clause 59
Against it 23
Majority -36
Mr. B. WOOD then rose to propose the following
clause :—And whereas it is expedient that so much of
an Act passed in the 24th year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Second, intituled, "An Act
for granting to his Majesty an additional duty upon
spirituous liquors, and upon licenses for retailing the
same, and for repealing the Act of the 20th year of his
present Majesty's reign, intituled, `Au Act for granting
a duty to his Majesty to be paid by distillers upon
licenses to be taken out by them for retailing spirituous
liquors, and for the more effectually restraining the retail-
ing of distilled spirituous liquors, and for allowing a draw-
back upon the exportation of British-made spirits, and that
the parish of Saint Mary-le-Bonne, in the county of
Middlesex. shall be under the inspection of the head
Office of Excise,' "as relates to the recovery of debts
for the sale of spirituous liquors not amounting to the
sum of twenty shillings, so far as it regards the sale of
spirituous liquors not to be drank or consumed on the
premises of the vendor thereof, should be repealed ;
be it therefore enacted, that from and after the passing
I of this Act, so much of the said last-mentioned Act
as declares that no person or persons whatsoever
shall be entitled unto or maintain any cause, action, or
suit for, or recover, either in law or equity, any sum
or sums of money, debt, or demands whatsoever for or
on account of any spirituous liquors, unless such debt
shall have really been and bona fide contracted at one
time to the amount of twenty shillings or upwards, and
that any particular article or item in any account or de-
mand for distilled spirituous liquors, shall not be allowed
or maintained where the liquors delivered at one time,
and mentioned in such article or item, shall not amount
to the full value of twenty shillings at the least, shall,
except as to spirituous liquors sold to be drank or con-
sumed on the premises of the vendor thereof, be and the
same is hereby repealed.
After a suggestion from Mr. GREENE the clause was
withdrawn.

shut as well as public-houses. He would therefore
bring forward a motion to that effect on bringing up the
Report,— (Bear.)
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, the House re-
sumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up on

Wednesday. -
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. REDINOTON moved the second reading of

this Bill.
Mr. BAGGE objected to the second reading of the
Bill, on the ground that it was not fair to disfranchise a
borough because some of the voters were corrupt, and
he was bound to say the most corrupt portion of the
constituency were the 101. householders, and not the

freemen.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY denied the general cor-
ruption of the household constituency, and was surprised
to hear the Hon. Gentleman say that Sudtfury was
Conservative. Did he mean to say that all the Conserva-
_

tives had been bribed?—(A laugh.)
Mr. DARBY objected to going on with a measure of
such importance at such a late hour.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said it had hitherto been the
practice in all similar cases to serve a copy of the Bill
upon the returning officer of the borough, before pro-
ceeding to read the Bill a second time. That had not
been done in the present instance, and he would suggest
the postponement of the second reading until a copy
should have been served upon the returning officer.
Mr. REDINGTON thought that defect had been
cured by the motion of the Hon. Member for Mont-
gomeryshire.
Mr.ViTYNN had merely given notice of his intention
to bring forward a motion on the subject on going into
Committee on the Bill.
Mr. REDINGTON had no intention of pressing for-
ward the Bill without serving a copy on the returning
officer; but he apprehended there was no necessity for
serving it on him before the second'reading.
Colonel RUSHBROOKE had presented a petition
from the inhabitants of Sudbury, in which they stated
that they considered it a great hardship that Sudbury
should be treated in this way, when there were other
boroughs equally bad.
Mr. BLACKSTONE did not know the locality of
Sudbury, and therefore could not say whether throwing
open the borough to the neighbouring hundreds might
not cure the . corruption. In the borough which
he represented that had been the case. Before the Re-
form Bill, it was one of the most corrupt boroughs in
the kingdom—that measure had added eight or ten ad-
joining agricultural parishes to the constituency, and
had by that means completely put a stop to bribery. He
did not think it right to discuss a measure of such im-
portance at so late an hour. He also thought it advis-
able that the - House should hear the opinion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government
on the subject, and for these reasons he should move
that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. PAKINGTON, although he had originally con-
curred in this measure, had serious doubts whether it
ought now to be proceeded with. Bribery of an exten-
sive nature had been discovered to exist in so many
other boroughs, that he doubted the propriety of making
Sudbury a solitary victim.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
the wisest course would be to draw a veil over the past.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY considered this notice a
mere local question. The House was called on to affirm
a principle. They were called on to determine the exact
amount of corruption which should be punished by dis-
franchisement. The case was surrounded by difficulties,
which required the most mature consideration. He
should, therefore, support the motion for adjournment.
Sir R. INGLIS supported the motion for adjourning
the debate. _ _

Mr. PAKINGTON moved the next clause, on the
subject of which he had received strong representations
from the licensed victuallers. The clause was exactly
the same as one which passed without any controversy in
a Bill relating to Liverpool. It was the habit to pay
workmen their wages on Saturday night in a public-
house. He considered that it was not right to expose
them to such a temptation, and he hoped the House
would not sanction such a practice. The Hon. Member
concluded by proposing the following clause :—And be
it enacted—That any licensed victualler or other person
who shall open his house for the sale of wine, spirits,
beer, or other fermented liquors, or shall permit the same
to be sold therein on Sundays, Christmas Day, or
Good Friday, before the hour of one in the afternoon,
shall be liable to a penalty not, exceeding five pounds,
to be recovered within three calendar months after the
commission of such offence, before any two Justices
acting in Petty Sessions for the county, city, or juris-
diction within which such offence shall have been com-
mitted ; any portion of such penalty, not exceeding one-
half, to be awarded, at the discretion of such Justices, to
the informer, and the remainder to be paid to the trea-
surer of the county, city, or jurisdiction within which
such offence shall have been committed, to be by him
applied towards defraying the expenses of such county,
city, or jurisdiction • and if such penalty, so adjudged,
shall not be.forthwith paid, it shall be lawful for such
Justices to commit the offender to any gaol or house of
correction within their jurisdiction, for any term not
exceeding one calendar month, such imprisonment to
cease if such penalty shall be sooner paid ; provided
always, that nothing herein contained shall extend to
prevent refreshment to travellers.
Mr. ROEBUCK was not one of those who wished to
favour drunkenness, although he opposed this clause.
He thought the enactment would create a greater evil
than the one against which it was aimed. The Hon.
Member himself admitted that the clause was ambigu-
ously worded. It went to ereate wholesale crime, avid
next it went to encourage informers. Persons more unfit
to administer the law than worshipful Justices in
quarter sessions he never saw. The law in their hands
was like battledore and shuttlecock. There was no cer-
tainty in their decisions ; and yet, without publicity,
without the presence of a watchful bar, it gave to two of
these Justices an opportunity, in a private parlour, on
the information of an informer, to decide upon a doubtful
point of law. Three months might elapse before the in-
formation was laid, and then if the publican could not
prove that he had sold merely tea and coffee, he was to
be sent to prison. He did not want this sort of legis-
lation, and he protested against this attempt to extend
police regulations throughout the country.
Captain ROUS opposed the clause. The sailor had
no home in port but the public-house, and if they
drove him out of the public-house, they would drive him
to a worse house.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible to
carry such a clause into execution. The last Govern-
ment were not so absurd as to lend themselves to the
introduction of enactments of this nature in the Liver-
pool Watch Bill, and he trusted that the present Go-
vernment would, in this instance, take a leaf out of their
book. None but a policeman could now lay an informa-
tion of this nature ; and this clause proposed to call into
existence a race of informers. He would rather almost
drop the Bill altogether than consent to the introduction
of this clause.
Mr. M. PHILIPPS thought it unfair to the working
classes to shut up every place where they could obtain
refreshment until one o'clock on Sunday. He should
vote against the clause.
Sir R. INGLIS supported the clause. He thought
wages ought to be paid on a Friday night. He had little
expected to have heard such an attack from the
Honourable Member for Bath on the unlearned
Magistracy of the counties, when the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman was willing to confide
to a Committee, composed of members of that body, tho
decision of all the delicate legal questions which must
arise in considering the election compromises. The plan
now proposed had been found to work well in the metro-
politan districts, and there was no reason why it should
not be extended to the rest of the kingdom.
Mr. ROEBUCK explained.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was of opinion that the
County Magistracy discharged their important duties in
a manner greatly for the advantage of the public. He
should not now, however, discuss that question, but con-
fine himself to the question before the House. He was
not disposed to extend the metropolitan law regulating
public-houses to the rural districts. He agreed in the
objections of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath to
the machinery by which it was proposed to carry the
clause into operation, and he considered that the penalties
imposed by the clause were of an unnecessarily harsh and
stringent nature. He thought the heavy penalty of St.
for drinking a glass of ale on a Sunday morning, was
quite unproportionate, and much too heavy. He went
further than to disapprove of the machinery of this
clause ; he thought indeed that, in the rural districts, it
would be a great hardship upon the poorer classes, where
many people were in the habit of taking their breakfasts
in public-houses. A glass of ale and a crust of bread
and cheese, would do no man any harm, and any endea-
vour to prevent that would be an attempt at the curtail-
ment of the innocent recreations of the people.—(The
Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amid cheers from both
sides of the House.)
Mr. HARDY opposed the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ expressed his gratification at what had
fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He knew, in the
manufacturing districts, that the poor people were in the
habit of going out very early on the Sabbath morning to
take a walk, and it would be very hard to deprive them
of their glass of ale.—(Divide.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was of opinion that the pro-
posed clause would not prevent drunkenness ; for when
the people got their money on a Saturday night, and
knew they could get nothing to ;drink on the Sunday
morning before one, they would lay in a large supply of
gin and other stuff, on the Saturday night, and would get
drunk at.home. He should oppose the clause.
Lord ,SANDON said that he had been at first dis-
posed to support the chiuse introduced by the Honour-
' able Member for Droitwich, but he confessed that after
all he had heard he doubted the wisdom of adopting
the proposal. He would suggest that public houses
should be allowed to be left open until ten o'clock on
Sunday mornings, and that they should then be closed.
Mr. PAKINGTON had heard nothing which could
induce him to withdraw his proposal.
Mr. J. JERVIS was favourable to the principle of
the Honourable Member's proposal, but he thought it
was most defective in its details. He would therefore
recommend to the Honourable Member to withdraw his
proposal for the present.
Mr. FERRAND opposed the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause ---103
The clause was, therefore, lost.
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY on his legs, moving the
introduction of a clause, that public houses in the country
might be opened during divine service on Sundays, after
the hour of one o'clock.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the law, as ii at present
existed with respect to public houses in the country,
should not be disturbed, and he should therefore oppose
the clause of the Hon. Alderman.
Mr. HUME would support the clause.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that some uniform
system should be adopted.
Mr. S. WORTLEY believed that the licensed vic-
tuallers in the country did not wish any alteration in the
law as it at present existed. They had no desire for any
additional privileges.
Captain ROUS had omitted this clause from' the
Bill, merely because he feared that they were so heavily
laden they would strike on tbe rock of the Right Hon.
Baronet's (Sir J. Graham's) opposition.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY was surprised at the
Right Hon. Baronet's opposition to the clause, which
was a most reasonable one.
Sir C. NAPIER said, that if the Right Hon. Baronet
was for shutting up the public-houses altogether on
Sunday, he would vote with him, on condition that all
the hotels should be shut up at the same time ; and he
would go further,, and- say other houses too.—(Cries of
" Name, name.")
The Committee tlien divided. The numbers were—
For the clause ' 27
ligainst it • ' 69
Majority against the clause ...... —42
Mr. HUME said thathe thought the House would be
acting very unjustly if clubs and other places were not

Lord SANDON thought they would never create a
moral feeling against bribery, by hunting down boroughs
in this way. He would suggest to the Hou4e, before they
decided on disfranchising a borough with 2.000 inhabit-
ants,
to consider what they would do with a borough
with 40,000. The most effectual remedy, he thought,
would be to send down a Committee to inquire, and let
that Committee publicly disfranchise every individual
guilty of corrupt practices.
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE had presented a peti-
tion from one hundred and fifty electors of Sudbury
in which they stated that they entirely concurred with
the Committee in the opinion they expressed of the ex-
istence of corruption at the last election. They also ex.
pressed a desire that every corrective means should be
tried, before recourse was had to disfranchisement, and
they suggested that extending the present constituency
within the limits of the borough, and giving that consti-
tuency the protection of the ballot, would effectually put
an end to all corrupt practices. He thought it right,
having presented the motion, to remind the House of it.
He heartily concurred in the motion for the adjourn-
ment.
Mr. P. STEWART saw no other course before him,
than to move that the second reading of the Bill be post-
poned for a week. He should withdraw the motion.
He begged to move that a copy of the Bill be served upon
the Returning Officer of the borough of Sudbury.
BRIDPORT ELECTION.
Mr. C. BULLER felt that it was his duty to resume
the adjourned debate on this question. The House
having resolved that an inquiry should take place into
certain corrupt practices alleged to have taken place at
Bridport ; he wished to find out the manner in which
that inquiry should be conducted. He wished not to
mix up with this inquiry any personalities which had
existed in the former debate; he thought that this bo-
rough should have been the first into which the Qom-
mitte of the Hon: Member for Bath should have in-
quired. He should move that the Order of the Day be
read.
Mr. GEO. BANKES could not agree with the Hon.
Member opposite ; he did not think that the petition of
Mr. Warburton should be treated in any manner dif-
ferently from the 'petitions of any one else, He thought
the House would have acted more if it had
not been so hasty in adopting the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Bath. He should indeed tremble to
carry that principle out to any extent. A certain num-
ber of decisions were contravened, and had not been
carried out because compromises had been made. That
principle he could understand ; but the principle which
was now proposed he could not understand ; but he did
see a great deal of harm in it. With respect to the ma-
jority the other night, it certainly was a very- large
one ; but Honourable Members did not appear
to be at all decided in their ulterior views.—(Hear,
hear.) Was, this a subject for a Bill of Indemnity ?
No ground had been shown for such a Bill, and he, for
one, would never concur in the passing of a Bill of In-
demnity on such grounds as had been stated in the pe-
tition of Mr. Warburton ; and without such a Bill, to
conduct the inquiry proposed would be utterly useless.
For these reasons, therefore, he should oppose 'the
proposition of his Learned Friend, the Member for
Liskeard.
Mr. BROTHERTON said, that if Hon. Members
would not postpone questions that were opposed, he bad
no other alternative than to move the adjournment of' the
House.—(Cries of Hear, hear," and "Go on.")
Dr. BO WRING seconded the motion.
Mr. C. 13ULLER said that his object in bringing this
question forward was, that his Hon. Friend's Bill should
not be disposed ef before the present question was decided.
Mr. ROEBUCK had no desire whatever to have this
matter referred to the Committee he had obtained, but
he wished to set the House right as to the mode in which
the matter stood. The Hon. Gentleman who had spoken
last was mistaken in supposing that the House had in-
trusted any powers to him ; all that it had done
was to appoint a Committee, and to entrust the
powers referred to to that Committe. For his
own part. he was averse to any more cases being
referred to the Committee, he thought it had a suf-
ficiently heavy burden to deal with at present. With
respect to the observation made the other night by the
Hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell), relative to
his (Mr. Roebuck's) absence, he must observe that in
making the motion for the Committee which had been
granted, he had not, in his opinion, subjected himself to
, listen to all the tediousness which was to be uttered re-
specting bribery. If the House thought that this elec-
tion should be referred to the Committee, he (Mr. Roe-
buck) must bow to its decision.
Mr. B. COCIIRANE said, that if Hon, Members re-
ferred to the petition, they would find that he was not
charged by the petitioner with bribery, but with having
spent sums unknown ; which merely meant that the peti-
tioner did not know what amount of money he (Mr. Coch-
rane) had expended. He had no objection to having the
petition referred to the Committee.
Mr. DARBY thought the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath pursued a course in the present case which was
scarcely justifiable.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He did not think the
Hon. Member was in order in using that expression.
Mr. DARBY said he used the words "scarcely jus-
tifiable," and he never knew that such language was un-
parliamentary. The motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member was for an inquiry into corrupt compromises,
and not into cases of bribery. When the Hon. and
Learned Member made his motion this very objection
was urged. He could not, therefore, consent to the
motion of the Hon. Member for Liskeard.
Lord SANDON said the real question before the
House was whether the case of Bridport was parallel to
the other cases which had been referred to the Com-
mitteee of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, the
question that the case of Bridport be inquired into was
already decided. Now in the case of Bridport it was ac-
knowledged that compromises had taken place, and the
gentleman who presented the petition stated that he
entered into those compromises in order to screen certain
electors.—(Hear.) He therefore thought that Bridport
stood in the same category with the other boroughs, and
for that reason he would vote for its being referred to
the Committee, which was obtained by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath.—(Cheers.) The House had
nothing whatever to do with the motives which induced
' parties to bring this case forward.—(Hear.) It was
enough to know that compromises had taken place.
Mr. ROEBUCK trusted the House would permit him
to defend himself against the charge which had been
brought against him. He had been accused of having
adopted an unjustifiable proceeding. He had made a
motion. It was complained that the motion was not suf-
ficiently definite ; lie had altered it, still it was not
considered sufficiently definite. He had made a third
attempt, in which he had succeeded, and had introduced
certain alterations at the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government. At that time
the House was full. Every Member's attention had been
drawn to the subject. One Hon. Member, who hid, since
given notice of, a motion on the subject, had actually
alluded to this very case of Bridport. How, therefore,
could he be accused of anything unjustifiable ? It was
absurd to imagine that he Could palm off a motion in
that way on such acute men as the Right Hon. Baronet,
• and the Noble Lord the Member for London. He trusted
therefore, that he stood acquitted before the House and
the country of having had recourse to any unjustifiable
proceeding.
Mr. DARBY explained. He had never meant to cast
any imputation on the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
who had quite misapprehended the purport of his
observation.

After a few words from Sir Jorot WALL .11, strangers
were.ordered to withdraw, and the House di %tided— --
For referring the case to the Committee •.•. 44 '
Against it
IVlajority —2B
WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL
The second reading of the Bill was deferred till Friday.
The other Or:lers of the' Day were disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock.

PROCESSION OF THE TWO HOUSES 'TO
PRESENT THE ADDRESS.
The scene outside the House was of the most animated de-
scription. The sun shone brilliantly, and a finer day could not
have been selected to add lustre to so enlivening a scene. At
half-pact two the Speaker left the House in his elegant
state carriage, and he was immediately followed by the other
Hon. Members in rapid succession. ihe Lord Chancellor and
the Peers also set out at the same hour. As we have stated in
another part of our columns, their Lordships and the Mann; -
bers were all in full dress; add to this, the magnificence w
the equipages, the noble-lookinz horses with rosettes in -their
thr
heads, the glittering harness, and last, though not lest,
gaudy dresses of the servants ; and we think our readers will I
easily imagine that such a scene as we describe, is -not to be
witnessed every day in our mighty city. A few slight cow
temps occurred, such as the breaking of a few carriage legar,
and the splintering of a pole or two, but there was
nothing happened of which we heard •of a nore
serious character. We need scarcely add that the whole
041
from the Houses to St. James's Palace was lined with noxious
spectators. We did not observe any particular marks eitheer
of respect or disrespect paid to any Member of either How.
All passed off very quietly.
On the arrival of the Members of the two Houses st the
Palace, they were most loudly cheered by the assembled multi'
tulle.
Never before has there been so full an attendance of Peers •
and Members of Parliament to go up with an address.
On her return from St. James's Palace to Buckingham r
lace, her Majesty wasgreeted with the most enthusiastic cheer"
ing, as she had been on her way to St. James's in the morning;
Her Majesty repeatedly acknowledged the einigratulations 0,
her subjects by bowing gracefully. It seemed as though her,
Majesty took pains to show her subjects the unbounded vat'
she reposed in their loyalty and devotion.

---
ELECTION COMMITTEE.
BELFAST.
The Committee selected to try the merits of the petits"iinci
complaining of the undue return of Mr. Emerson Tennent s
Mr. J. Johnson, for the borough of Belfast, met at eleres
,o 4
o'clock yesterday in Committee-loom No. 2.
The following Members composed the Committee :--11r"1$'
I 1$
Hayter, Chairman, Sir A. L. Hay, Mr. Ward, Captain
hill, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. W. Barge, and Captain H. Bere&:,
The Counsel engaged for the petitioners are Mr. Austen, IL
Cockburn, and Mr. Leahey ; Agent. Mr. Coppock ; for
sitting Members, Mr. sergeant Wrangham, Mr. Talbot, $ll
Mr. Whiteside; Agent, Mr. Bates.
The Clerk said there were three petitions, two froth' Lord
Innishowen and Carrickfergus, and one from the electors, r°""'
plaining of bribery.
The CHAIRMAN asked if it would not be better to have the
room cleared to come to the usual resolutions ? '
Mr. AUSTIN said, it was the mote usual course to hale I.
petition first read.
Mr. TALBOT said that, before the petition was read, it heel
his painful but bounden duty to make an application to g
Committee. The Learned Gentleman who had the condo oso
of the case was Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, and It was only 10',
the last half hour be (Mr. Talbot) was informed that Mr.
geant Wrangham was not, in a condition to attend this day. 104
held in his hands a note from him, in which he stated Wt se
was confined to his bed—that he hoped he would be ableii
attend to-morrow, but that it was impossible be C 0
do so this day. Although he (Mr. Talbot) "..ns
not shrink from any duty which may be cast uPie
him he hoped that the Committee, and more particularly ti,
Hon. Chairman who belonged to the same profession 0,',0
himself, feeling that a larger share of responsibility attacheao,
the person who conducted the case, and that he was himself ti
prepared to discuss a question which he did not say would, '''of
which may arise, would adjourn until he had an opportunitite
conferring, with his Learned Friend on the subject. It was n'$;011
communis famae that such a question may arise, because it d
been made matter of discussion in the House of Common 4, $
he wished to consult with his Learned Friend on the subject Dot
Mr. AUSTEN said that under the circumstances it ws,
his intention to offer any opposition to the application. Ile
seen the note to which Mr. Talbot referred, and it 001/
happen to any of theni to be in the same position. He sb°
not therefore offer the slightest objection.
The CHAIRMAN—Had we not better adjourn; then, to
alder the resolutions I spoke of before.
Mr. AUSTEN was afraid the Committee could not c°
any decision, considering the question that may arise.
The CHAIRMAN—Then lam afraid we 'll be sb'e
come to any resolution.
Mr. AUSTEN—The Committee might (II
and agree upon resolutions they were to prom
The Committee then adjourned till ele-
row, but remained in the room some time

lutions.
The petitions were not read, but we be
they contain are those of bribery, obstructs
and intimidation.

THE STRATHBOGIE M
(Abridged from the Edinburgh
A meeting of the General A,seml
Monday last, the 30th inst., when
Robertson, minister of Ellin, the Re
minister of Lamington, the Rev. Dr.
the Rev. John Wilson, of Walston,
House ; as also the Rev. Alexander C
Rayne, Rev. Dr. James Grant, ministf
Rev. Dr. Stirling, minister of Galston
minister of Haddington, Rev. Thom
Lpgiepert, Rev. George Peter, ministi
Rev. William Mearns, missionary at
taken. their places at the bar,
Dr. GORDON read the Report of
pointed to deal with the eleven breth
appeared that the parties adhered to
declarations they had previously avow
Dr. COOK stated for himself, and fr
tained the same views as he did, that I
protest they had formerly given in, a,
interfere in the case.
A Protest was then presented, is
eleven brethren, bearing their respect
natures, as enumerated above.
Dr. MAKELLAR moved that the
suspended from their judicial functi,
their respective Presbyteries, and of
Church judicatories, aye and until tl
of March next.
Mr. BUCHAN, of Kellee, seconded t

Judgment of suspensions was acc
the House, after which the parties en
against the sentence.

THE MARKETS.-YE

.e will not be aoi.
discuss the questio.
romulgato to,. morOct
men o'clock to-0,.
e discussing the r'
,;00
relieve the allegs..l3o
tion, illegal decisis
—...
VIINiSTEO
i Advertiser.) 411,
sbly took, placed'
n the r Rev. Pf !
ley. Charles 11()111
Jamesitryce? 110,
n, members of t.oi
Cushnie, miniolo,
ter of Soutlt I'
',.i,
n, Rer. John u° /
ins Hill, ministert
ter of Kenmay, ii
Glenrienes, o'
o'l!
the Committee
iren, from whic:lll
the principles
wed and rook- ,
for those who env:,
they adhered to t'l4`
and resolved cot' '.
°1
a the name 0,4,
:five names and
7r
Y.
several minister:/
ions as, inemb!i.iY
f the '
other •54451;
the first Wedne ..
the motion. j
:ordingly pais— .
ntered their r .
iMIIIIIMII A
1'
iISTER PA
3E. .-„. Pi
have been snnaotso
the trade in a du,,"., e
?rices. • Flour 4"
:ET. aisej,:i
t prices were s'',",t"
nail. Raw Sal?'
lumps, Os. 6cl. " ii
• 4,4
.2 were not di3O-ce
is Conine., Is. c 4
ET. „oh'
Y. C. on the sea
The stock i' he ;
T.
I, but Brand)" filjj
flat, at 10s. Pell br
:et.day, 23 I,
01
raddyll'sHattoll "‘I
Pei Hetton ...."5;,:f 1
tdLamhton ..... ,:a,
id Musgrove ..,";., lti..
nd hteivot s .••''',- 5)
id Whitwell ...,..,, of)
nd Tees Hewn :,, )1
d'l eta ••••,,,,,,A
.. "....., ,A 1
8."411:::;i:;*; .........
nech Coal ...... •-•::.;!?
ad Elgin ........•
...,
nented death eri
tom to be csit °I 0r if
0 the eztensilool',l
convenience, 101 l ,r''
ma a 'suddeno i 4
,ve undertake) 4,
the creditors tDo' If
n the chair, `..' Al'
read a' state,
sd t 049,0181. 'iltil
ingto 37,6711', 6"
for which 50002
.. J. M. Fie,esr
dto manage .: y
4
cutter rilfliili
'ersity rowel
I Regatta 0° bi. 1
I Thames Yect) '
i forward to fl i
Ojer
ly known t
„,,;1,
large coneolirjel
alace to St. ;', f. 4,
The earriali 041?
k, by which $, titl:
i by thouss".r!. t1.,11'
i or 1
d stools, 043,„ 0 late
nto the l'er; Do t
view of the'
J bkpt
tbPlig
illppoSe_ 00
en m tow? of,{
ges,,„o4 ,
'ship, Br, tl-06'',01
.orn Osts!"" , s fk
Tower,efte'
of w-
lvil /
don, the is,
daughtcr" of (t*
'
,of Bri%tee, wif
the
stroinster, , 0
[ghter• bell.
k, of oite j,,j
su.eg•
~,,,,,,,,,
D,
.oer.,, ~,,,„,
„on, Jones j
t Aebes°°' vie