The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-31 00:00:00

for if lie had not presented it now, he should have done
scum Wednesday next, when a considerable • diScussion
would no doubt . have ensued. They would find in that
petition,. that so far from Wrenn not having spoken the
truth, the. charge was that he had spoken tco much of
the truth, and that he was now in conse-
quence placarded all over Southampton as having
betrayed his party ; and the public were now cautioned
against dealing with that individual, in consequence
of what he had stated. The petitioner further
stated that he had not stated one-tenth of
the transactions which be knew to have oc-
curred at the elections, and that he had a book
in which the several sums of money expended in bribery
were set down. If they resisted the printing of this pe-
tition, and would not receive the information which teas
now offered them through that petition, he (Mr. DO
wanted to know what the public would think of the transac-
tion? Hewould repeat what he had said before, that if that
petition was printed, he did not believe an lion. Member
would be found on either side of the House who would-
get up and ask the House to issue a writ for the borough
of Southampton.
Mr. FILMING said that Mr, Wrenn had not
only told all that be knew, out a great deal
more.—(A laugh.) If the House wished to know the
character of Mr. Wrenn, he would read to them a letter.
The Hon. MeMber was then proceeding to read a letter,
when,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to order—lf that letter
was to be read, the petition ought to be read fir St.
Mr. FLEMING said the letter merely related to the
charam er of John Wrenn. It was addressed to himself, and
stated that in an interview with John Wrenn, some time
since, the writer remarked that he did not consider that an
individual, named in the case as about to be heard
before the Insolvent Court, would pass his examination
if he spoke the truth ; upon which Wrenn answered that
he should not speak the truth on such an occasion, and
as to un oath, he did not value an oath, he would swear
thick and • thin to get himself through the Court in
similar circumstances, or words to that effect. The
letter (said the Hon. Member) was signed by Robert
Donkin, a respectable tailor in Southampton.
Mr. WARD contended that when a witness came be-
fore the House tendering intOrmation, an Hon. Member
had no right to read statements to blacken his character.
He believed the Hon. Member would have quite enough
to do to defend his own conduct.----s(Cries of " Order.")
Mr: BARING said as the lion. Member for Finsbury
had statedlhat Wrenn Was a respectable tradesman, he
(Mr. Baritig) felt that he had a perfect right to
state that a greater vagabond did not exist.—(Hear.)
Mr. FLEMING said, he had received another letter
on the same subject, in which the writer stated that the
evidence given by John Wrenn before the Southampton
Committee, respecting a voter named Whitntarsh, was
wholly untrue.
Sir J. EASTHOPE thought it was very clear that the
evidence of this John Wrenn, whose character was so
strongly impugned by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, and
who was represented as one of the greatest vagabonds in
the country, was a very great Conservative of Southatnp-
ton' and had not been considered so great a vagabond,
for he had been taken into the Conservative corps ; he
had much confidence reposed in him, and had been a
great agent on that side of the question; whatever odium,
therefore, attached to his character, there was no doubt
the Hon. Gentlemen would be glad to get rid of it.
Mr. WARD said it appeared that Wrenn was in the
possession of a memorandum book, not produced before
the Committee, which co stained an account of sums of
money with which certain electors had been bribed,
and containing also the signature of the returning officer,
authorising the bribing of a certain elector, which elector
was bribed. accordingly. It was quite obvious that this
petition must be printed, •and come before the House,
before it could purstte.the -proceedings with respect to
bribery. Those proceedings would become an absolute
farce, if, when a man was knocking at their door,
and offering to produce. such evidence, they should re-
fuse to hear him.: • •
• Sir R. PEEL 'was; understood to say that there were
grounds fof—phlititing the petition. He said that he
thought there were particular circumstances in the case,
under 'Alai it would not be expedient to apply the strict
rule in reference to printing petitions.
Mr. W. STANLEY and Mr. MAcairestort then attempted
to address the House, but were unable to obtain a hear-
ing, amidst the loud cries of " Spoke " and " Order."
The motion that the petition be printed was then put
and agreed to, Mr. MACKINNON having stated that he
should withdraw his opposition.
WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. ROEBUCK, the House resolved
itself into a Committee on the Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, 11
Mr. WARD in the Chair.
The Bill then- went through Committee ; certain ver-
bal
amendments were agreed to; the Report was brought
up; and the Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
Mr. HUME, since he had given notice of a motion on
the subject of the third reading of this Bill, had been in-
formed that he would be precluded by a sessional order
from bringing that motion forward. He would therefore
postpone it to some future opportunity.
COMMON LAW COURTS (IRELAND).
On the motion that the Order of the Day for the third
reading of the Preperty-tax Bill be read,
Dr. LEFROY said that there was a Bill on the table
of the House regulating the Common Law Courts of
Ireland, of the contents of which Bill the Judges of those
Courts knew nothing. He wished to know whether
the Bill had received the sanction of tho Attorney-
G eneral for Ireland ?
The CHANCELLOR .f the EXCHEQUER said the
Bill had been drawn up in accordance with the Report
of a Commission appointed to investigate the subj,ct ;
that a copy of it had been transmitted to the Judges in
Ireland ; and that the Bill would not be proceeded with
until the decision of the Judges should be known.
INDIA.
Mr. B. D'ISRAELI wished to know from the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government whether
her Majesty's Government had advanced any sums of
money to the East India Company, or whether they had
sanctioned the East India Company in raising any?
Sir R. PEEL said that the question or the Hon.
Member was rather a complicated one. If the lion.
Member gave him notice he would be able to give an
answer, and-with greater accuracy.
Mr. DISRAELI said he thought it was unnecessary
to give notice
Sir R. PEEL said it was important that answer,.
should be given with great accuracy, especially in their
relations with the East India Company. There was
great misconstruction of answers, and ho thought it
would be better if Hon. Members would have the kind--
ness to give even a short notice of their intention to ask
questions.—(Hear, hear.)
PROPERTY-TAX.

The Order of the Day for the third reading of the
Property-tax Bill having been read, •
Mr. SHARMAN CIiAWFORD rose to propose the
motion of which he had given notice. He thought it
was necessary for the House to consider whether they were
in a condition to embrace a mode of taxation heretofoi e
unprecedented, except in the case of an European war.
He felt he would not be doing his duty as a representa-
tive, pledged to protect the rights of the people, and thut
he would not be worthy of the position he held, if he did n.;l
on this occasion oppose such a principle of taxation as
was now proposed. It was hardly necessary that he should
prove that the principle of taxation and repre-
sentation should be identical. It could not bt

denied that they oft co•exist. That principle
was asserted in the reign of Charles the First, and

again in the reign of William the Third. That principle
was also recognised in the rule that money Bills should
not originate in the House of Lords but in that
House •in which • the people was taxed by their
own representatives. He now asked the House to
coesider whether the people were really repro
stinted. It was said that they were virtually
represented, because property was - represented, but he
(Mr. Crawford) denied that there was a virtual repre-
sensat ion of a great portion of the property of the country.
The line upon which the suffrage was formed, was based
upon the possession of an interest in land. All other
property was left unrepresented to a very great
extent. Any person who had not an interest
of let in a house could not vote, so that all the property
under that sum was left unrepresented. But if they coe-
sidered the state of the' suffrage with regard to the
people at large, in its relation to population, then there
was no ground or pretence for saying that there
was- a Mir representation. The proportion of
electors to non-electors in England and Wales
tuts' I to 18 ; in Scotland I to 30 ; and in Ireland
77'; or in the United Kingdom 1 to • 44. Only
1 out of every 9 families possessed the franchise.
The rejection -by. the House of the motion made some
time ago by the Hon. Member fur Finsbury (Mr. T.
buncombe) proved what the state of the House was—
that it by no means fairly represented the country. There
were itot forty places in the empire empowered to send
Representatives to Parliament which were not
subject to the imputation of bribery. Such was
the condition of the representation of the country.
The people complained greatly of the wars in which this
country was at present engaged—wars as unjust as
they were impolitic. One of these wars had for its
object the annihilation of the rights of a State
which was friendly until it was provoked ; and the
people"complained that this tax was imposed upon
them in a great measure to pay the expenses of
a war which was so unjust in its character. In ccrro-
bororation of these opinions, he would read some papers
on the subject ; the first was an extract from the
paper signed by all the Birmingham Delegates, with
the • exception of two. They were of opinion that
had the people been properly represented in that House,
these wars would not have taken place. If they referred
to former- periods of history, they would find that
there was nothing more dangerous than for any
body to attempt to tax the people without their having-
a just and fair representation. The proceedings of the
reigns of Charles I. and James H. originated in an at-
tempt to tax the people without the consent of Parliament.
Now that they were about to pass a new tax—a tax,
which, in its effects, would press upon all classes, he.
thought the people were justly entitled to call upon the
House to amend the evils of the representative
system. He wished it to be understood that
in bringing forward his motion he was actuated
by no party motives. He called upon them to affirm
the principle that representation should be co-extensive
.with taxation. • He
.thought that such a principle was
founded on justice, and he trusted that the House
would not refuse to it their sanction. The Hon. Member

concluded by moving—" That as by the existing
laws a large proportion of the people of this
realm are excluded from voting for Members
of Parliament ; and as it also appears, by
the Reports of different Election Committees, that cor-
rupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent
in procuring the return of Members to this present House
of Commons; and as, from both these causes, this House
cannot be considered a fair representation of the people ;
it is, therefore, unfit that any system of increased
taxation should be imposed by Parliament until all just