Star.
London, England, 1831-08-24 00:00:00

GMSAT GRIMSBY IIACT-10W.

Sir GEORallaillirninedti;ttite town clerk of
Great Grimsby be called to the bar.
The Town Clerk was called to the Bar, and examined by
the SPEAKER. He stated that he received the re.
turn of the last election for Grimsby from the Mayor at seven
o'clock on Wednesday evening, after the election had closed.
From an accumulation of business, and a domestic afflic-
tion, he forgot to transmit the return till Sunday, when he
gave the directions to his Clerk to procure a proper person
to take it to the Under Sheriff, by whom he sent it on
Monday morning. He was very sorry for the delay that
had taken place, which he assured the house was not wilful.
In reply to a question from Sir Grows Cs.tait, he
stated that he had not had any conversation with any person
respecting the transmission of the mum.
The Town Clerk having been ordered to withdraw,
Sir G. OLERK moved that Itir. Acton, Solicitor, be
called In. He was accordingly called in. and stated, that ;fter
the election of Grimsby, he had a conversation with the Town
Clerk, to whom he said, "of course the return will be sent
off to-morrow merning " to which the Town Clerk replied,
" certainly."
The witness having been ordered to withdraw,
Sir 0. CLERK said there appeared to be some negligence
on the pan of the Town Clerk, but he was not responsible
to the House, the returning officer being elect responsible.
He hoped the nonce taken of it would be sufficient to prevent
my recurrence of neglect. (Hear.)
Lord LOUGHBOROUGH bore testimony to the im-
partial conduct of the Mayor and Town Clerk during the
election.

Lord ALTBORP thought it would be unnecessary to
visit the Marx or Town Clerk with the displeasure of the
House. (Hear, heat.)
Sir G. CLERK moved that the Blayor and Town Clerk
of Gtiassby be discharged.—Agreed to.
Mr. ROBINSON postponed Ms notice of motion respect-
ing Newfoundland, to the 13th of September.

DUBLIN CLICTIOX.
Mr. GORDON having bees called on pursuant to the
notice of motion be had given respecting the Dublin election,
Mr. J. E. DENISON hoped the honourable gentleman
would not occupy the attention of the house, now that there
was such important measures before it, with the subject of
the Dublin election, which would only delay the reform bill.
Mr. R. GORDON said, he had been taught to believe,
that there wit no subject of more importance than the due
return of the people's representatives to that house. (Hear.
He thought he had delayed the subject too long, and
now bring it under the consideration of the house. (Hear.)
The report of the committee on the Dublin election contained
two charges--one bribery, the other undue influence. There
were two committee rooms in Dublin. In one, Counsellor
Hudson - was the principal giver of the bribes, assisted by
Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Jones. There were also two other
distinguished agents Mr. fil‘Cattaland and Mr. Rent.
land, he hoped the last that would figure in the history of
election bribery. There were two classes of voters, freeman
and freeholders ; but they appeared equal In the history of
the election. Two active members were employed to iniu.
ence the members of the Guilds. One of them having first
voted, received 201. for himself, and was employed to pay
the men of his guild, to whom he paid 41. or 51. each.—
Some refused voting for 41. or 51. and to some of them 71. was
paid. There was a Mr. Robinson, a coachmaker, who being
a staunch Protestant, refused to vote for the Lord Mayor
and Mr. Perrin for 1. but a Mr. W. Murphy had such a
winning way with him that he brought Jack Robinson to
accept the money—his public virtue vanished, and he be-
came a Reformer. He should not bestow more time on the
freemen, but would come to the freeholders. The hon.
gentleman stated the cviderce of some who polled as free.
holders who said that they had never seen their freehold, and
did not know where it was, but knew they had a free-
hold, because they received the rent at the election from
one of the agents of the Lord Mayor and Mr. Perrin.—
The committee reported that the Lotd Mayor of Dublin
and Mr. Perrin had, by their agents, been guilty of bribery ;
but the report did not state that they had themselves been
guilty of bribery ; and he should not move any eliminatory
resolution on either of them ; but he thought thettiple of
Englaad would laugh them to scorn if, while were
spending night after night on the reform bill, they lowed
the Dublin election bribery to pass without condemnation.
He did hot bting forward the measure to delay the reform
bill, but to aid it. (Hear, hear.) There were 180 voters pro-
duced as freeholders from two acres of land. (A laugh.) He
should move that it appeared that gross bribery had been
practised at the late Dublin electioo, and that it was the
duty of the law officers of the crown to prosecute the per-
sona guilty of such corruption. (Hear, bear.) (The bon.
gent. here called on the clerk to read the resolutions come to
by the house in the year 1779, against using the influence
'of office In election., and on tits motion that Lord Castle.
reagh had attempted to abuse the power of his office to Mau-
-1 ens the return of • member to that house, on which um-
sion the house resolved that as the attempt had not been
carried into efrict. it was not necessary to come to any cri-
minatory resolution.]
The clerk having read the resolutions,
The Hon. Gent. proceeded, and said he did not consider
the undue influence at all so criminal as the bribery. A
person of the name of Basaaglo, who was the orator of the
guild of barbers, wan said to have been dismissed from his
office for voting for the anti.reformers. He put the charge
out of consideration; but it did appear to the committee
that persons holding office did use undue influence. Baron
Toy!' and Captain Hart, the former Private Secretary and
the latter Comptroller of the Lord Lieutenant's household,
were both guilty. of interference. He would not say that
they should not interfere ; but they bad done it in a very
clumsy manner.—(A laugh.) Mr. Long, a coachnsaker
to the Lord Lieutenant, stated that Captain Hart called
ott him, sod said he had a request from the Lord Lieu-
tenant that ho would vote for the Reform candidates; and
on Mr. Long saying be could not comply, Captain Hart
than said he must be dismissed. A letter was produced
written by the Lord Lieutenant to lir John Byng, in which
bis Sandbag mowed that the tradesmen of the Cowie
would vets for the reform candidates ; and said he =petted
that all those who held office would vote for them.—
Alderman Tyodal's case appeared posullarly bard; he told

Baron Tuyll that he owed his bread to Mr. Shaw, who had
procured him his place, and asked to be allowed to remain
neuter. This the Baron refused, saying if he did it foe one
be should do it for another. Mr. &addax', another public
officer, was threatened in the same mance. They both said
they did not believe that the Lord Lieutenant would carry
the threat into effect, but they could not afford to run the
risk, and therefore voted for the Reformers.—(Hear, and a
laugh.) The next case he should mention was that et the
ml-meters. Their office was abolished, and they were ex-
ceedingly anxious to have compensation. They had a meet-
ing, at which Baron Tuyll said, if they did not support the
Government, they could not expect that Government would
support them. A majority of them voted against the Go-
vernment, and their warrants were withdrawn from them. He
wished to call the attention of the House to the conduct of
the House in the case of the Bishop of Worcester, because
it was almost the only case in which the House had
really acted. The Bishop of Worcester, in the reign of
Queen Anne, had been proved to have interfered with his
clergy, to influence their votes at an election against Sir
John Pattison ; and the House in consequence addressed the
Queen to remove him from his office of Almoner, which her'
Majesty accordingly did.—The Bishop having been asked
what was his objection to Sir John Pattison whose election
be opposed, said he was an evil-doer and had written al
pamphlet against the translation of Bishops. (A laugh.)
He was aware he had made a very dry statement, but he
thought something ought to be done to vindicate the reso-
lutions of the House and the purity of election. He be-
lieved that if the House had followed any decided course,
such things would not have occurred. After the view he had
taken of the affair on the whole, he had come to the conclu-
sion that the allegations had been fairly borne out that Baron
Tuyll and others had used undue influence, and whether
that influeucc was or was not with the knowledge of the
Lord Lieutenant, was immaterial fur his (Captain Gor-
don's) purpose; but he believed that such influence
as had been applied by Baron Tuyll had not been used in
his capacity as an individual, but had been applied with all
the weight and importance of his influence in his official
authority. The hunourable member here pronounced a
handsome eulogy on the present Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land, and added, that when he blamed the present Irish Go-
vernment, he did not men to say that other Governments
had not done the same things. The right honourable gen.
denten (the Secretary der Ireland) had in reply to a question
said, that the present Government of Ireland had interfered
lea than any previous Government had done; if such was
thecae, with these statements before the house, what must
have been the interference of other Governments? (Hear.)
It was to the imperfection of the system that he was op-
pated—An act of Parliament had been passed which ren-
dered Custom-house officers and excise officers incapable
of voting, because they were considered to be in situations
too dependent to exercise an unbiassed franchise; and
Government should meet this law by another that should
extend to all public officers of whatsoever description they
may be, either as regarded their voting or exercising in-
fluence. The hon. member hoped that he would not ap-
peal to the house in vain for their interference ; and con.
eluded with moving his three resolutions, the purport of
which was, declaring that undue influence had ban exer-
cised, bribery and perjury committed ; and he would move
for leave to bring in a bill to destroy entirely the 40e.
freeholds of Dublin.
Mr. STANLEY said he could not complain of any part
of the hon. gent.** statement, or say that he had acted con-
trary to parliamentary conduct ; at the same time he could
not reply to his whole statement, for as embodied in his reso-
lutions, it involved two distinct questions, of very opposite
tendencies, and if brought to be decided by one vote, would
occasion a contrariety in the decision. By the hon. member's
first resolution be had called upon that house to denounce
certain 40s. freeholders in Dublin, as guilty of perjury, of
bribery, and corruption, and he concluded his address with
moving for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the 40s.
freeholders in the city. The Right Hon. secretary was
ready to admit that the cabbage beds and the raspberry beds
were fictitious votes, but as the resdu.ions were formed he
could not enter upon his defence, for one part of the argu-
ment would go to censure the Irish Government. (Hear,
hear, hear.) Without canvassing the question further, he
would ask the hon. member if he meant to nay that
Dublin was the only plate in which were fictitious freeholds.
It would have been much more desirable that the hon. gent.
knowing each things did exist had brought forward a mea-
sure that would apply to England as weilas Ireland. The
right hon. Secretary related an anecdote which be had read in
a work published by a Frenchman on the English elective
system, in which was given the examination of a freeholder,
and it ran nearly as fellows :—Q. Who is your landlord ?
A. Lord Londadale.—Q. Who is your tenant ! A. Lord
Londsdale's ateward._Q. What are you A. Lord Lands-
dale's livery servant —Q. Did you ever see your freehold ?
A. No, never in my life. (A laugh.) This mode of making
fictitious votes, it would be seen, was not confined to the
40a. freeholds of Dublin. But he had not risen to reply
to the hon. gene's statement. It was for the purpose of
separating the distinct considerations which the resolutions
involved. Whenever the subject should come before the
House in a proper shape, be would be fully prepared to de.
fend the conduct of the Irish Government.
Mr. GRATTAN said, that his brother`, name having
unexpectedly been introduced into the discussion, he felt
himself bound to state, that his brother had on one occasion
made 250 of these freeholders ; but after they had been made
he bad not brought theta forward, but had rather submitted
to lose his election. The honourable member complained,
that his brother's name should have been used without any
notice to put hint in a condition to defend him. He thought
It improper that the house should be called upon to pass any
such resolutions, without the evidence being entered upon
more minutely, and on that account he would oppose the
resolutions.

Mr. HUNT speed with the right honourable &meaty,
that a general measure should by introduced into the house,
without stopping to wait the result of the reform bill; and if
no one else did, he would himself bring the subject beton
the house.

Mr. 8. RICE considered that It would be an act of gross
injustice for the guilt of Blow-coal-lane to deprive the whole
of the 40s. freeholders of Dublin of their franchise, among
whom there were many persons as respectable se were to be
found in any other town or city in the kingdom. If such
were to be the ease, the balance of influence in Dublin
would be destroyed, and the power thrown entirely into the
hands of the freemen of Dublin, against whom it had been
admitted there stood allegations as well as against the free-
holders.

Captain GORDON explained that he meant, after all
the resolutions were paced, to make the bringing in of the
bill a separate mea4ure.
Mr. STANLEY was ready to admit that fictitious votes
had beta created in Dublin, but he was of opinion that the
Hon. GeutLeman should have restricted his measure to the
remedy of that evil, and not to deprive those who were not
implicated of their franchise as freeholders.
Mr. LEFHOY said, that In every use of a fictitious
freehold in Dublin, a double act of perjury must have
been committed when the holders voted, and be thought
it proper that prosecutions should be instituted against
them.
Colonel CONNELLY was arxious fur Dublin that the
abuses should be removed,. and fur which purpose the house
ought to give the matter its moat serious consideration. He
thougbt, however, that they ought to proceed against these
who had crested the fictitious frteholds, as well as those
unfortunate devils who possessed them.—( A lauo.) He
hoped that the Innocent would not be deprived of their free-
holds. He was satisfied that from the Noble Personage at
the bead of the Irish Government, the Lord Lieutenant. to
every oMcer in the establishment, would individually court
the strictest scrutiny of their conduct.
Mr. SHIEL could not see the reason why any such mea-
sure u that proposed by the boo. gentleman should be can.
Rued to Dublin, when it was so notorious that bribery and
corruption prevailed so generally in other places. He in-
stanced the evidence that bad been produced on the late Li-
verpool election.
The resolution was then put from the chair, on which the
SPEAKER declared that be thought the Ayes had it. Some
few dissentient voices were raised, and strangers were adored
to withdraw for a division, but the two first resolutions were
agreed to without a division.
The ATTOR NE Y.GENERA L reprobated the course
that had been adopted, by which the name of Mr. Grattan
and others had been introduced into the discussion, who had
not been alluded to at all in the petition, end had COM be-
fore the select committee. He would call upon the house
not to give any opinion whatever on the rest of the resolu-
tions, as it would be declaring certain individuals guilty,
who might, at a future time, become the objects of judicial
proceedings. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded
with moving, as an amendment, a reeoletisa that an lawable
petition be presented to his Majesty, praying that Instate.
dons be given to the law °Seers to inquire into the stmts.
stitutionel practice of voting oe fictitious fnebelde.
Mr. C. W YNN objected to the erode proposed. by the
learned Attomay.Genend, as the horse, in cases Of firivllgio;

were accustomed to decide it themselves, and not to apply
by petition.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought that if a petition so ex.
pressed was to be sent up, and inquiry be entrusted to the
law dicers of the crown, it would be so act to nullify the re-
sult of the whole inquiry that bad taken place before their
own Select Committee.
Mr. CRAMPTON said, that he would move a resolution
that the Attorney-General be instructed to proceed against
the parties for perjury. He did not consider that corruption
was so t in Dublin, there bad trot been so many eases
made out in nor bad there even been many cons.
plaints on that head. As to the corruption that existed in
Dublin, compared with what had been proved to mist in
Liverpool, it was as a drop Ina bucket.
Mr. HUNT said, that there bad certainly been eases of
bribery made out, but there had not been the slightest chugs
made against Mr. Grattan.
Sir JAMBS SCAR LETT would rather that the prose.
anion would come from some other source than the house,
but the house ought to take some consideration of the mat-
ter. He bad no objection to apse to the resolution that
the law ollicersite directed to proceed against the parties, or
that a petition be presented to the Lung to give such dirge.
tion.

The ATTORNEY•GENERAL then altered bigamist.
meet to express, that instead of making inquiry, that the
law officers should take immediate steps against the pinks
for the unconstitutional practices. &c.

STRICKLAND opposed the resolution. It would
be unjust to punish in Dublin that which was done with
impunity in Liverpool and Westmoreland. The punish.
meat was the more uncalled for as a great measure was
soon to come into operation. Besides, those who gave
the bribe, and were the most guilty, were likely to escape.
(No.) If the punishment were confined to those who bribed,
• great part of his objection would be removed.
Colonel TORRENS could not consent to punish the fic-
titious freeholders of Dublin, when thousands in the other
parts of the kingdom were guilty of fraud and bribery with
impunity.
Dr. LUSHINOTON submitted that the amendment
should be made to limit the prosecution to those who had
offered bribes.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, understanding it to be
the feeling of the house that the prosecution be confined to
those who had given bribes, would alter his amendment
thus—that the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland be
directed to take immediate measures to bring to justice such
persons as may have been guilty of bribing electors in the
last election for Dublin.

The amendment having been put,
Alderman WA ITHM A N said, he could not congest to
punish the inhabitants of Dublin for that which was done
in other places with impunity.
Mr. WYNN considered the amendment, as it stood pre.
dotal,. to be more in harmony with the two preceding
resolutions.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. HANKES also preferred the amendment In its
previous shape.
Lord J. RUSSELL preferred the present form, as =tit-
tles the fictitious freeholds. The creator of a fictitious free-
hold was not punishable by law, such creation being legally
without a precedent ; and thus, while the fictitious free-
holder would be punished for having voted without being
possessed of the requisite property, the more guilty party
would tamp,. He considered the present motion unne-
cessary, as the Reform Bill would come so soon into ope
ration. --(Hear, hear.) He supported it only because it
appeared to be the prologue to a motion, implicating the
Government of Ireland, to be brought forward by the same
Honourable Member who was the author of the present tlls-
cussion.

Mr. WYNN said, the reform bill would not disfranchise
the existing freeholders.
Mr. R. GORDON said, the bribed should be punished as
well as the bribers. Many of those who had received bribes
had been examined before the select committee, and they ap-
peared to be shrewd individuals, who understood well the na-
ture of their offence. He should move, as an amendment,
that the law officers of the Crown be directed to take imme-
diate measures, for the purpose of bringing to justice such
persons as may have been concerned in these illegal and un-
constitutional practices. (Hear.)
Sir J. SCAR LETT supported the amendment.
Mr. J. WOOD considered it a miserable farce to punish
the inhabitants of Dublin, when almost every small town in
England was guilty of the same practices, and when he could
prove at the bar of the House that many Noblemen, and many
of the Commons, who were now about to vote for the
resolutions, had received thousands for seats in that House.
(Hear.) He deprecated the occurrence of the present motion
at a time when much more important matters called for their
consideration. (Hear )
After a few words from Mr. Benett, Mr. J. Wood, Lord
Stormont, Mr. S. Rice, and Sir R. Inglis,
Mr. O'CONNELL said, if the resolution comprised the
persons guilty of offering bribes, on the anti-reform as well
as on the liberal bide, the law officers would have enough on
their hands without touching on the acceptance of the bribes,
or on the fic.itious freeholds. Fictitious votes were so rare
occurrences in Dublin; on one occasion 4,000 individuals
were sworn in as freemen in one day. But be deprecated
the present motion, as s paltry Sy-caching reform, which de-
layed the great measure which was to strike at the vultures,
end the great birds of prey. He then alluded to the sneers
thrown out against the two reforming candidates, and passed
a high culogiuss on the interity and high character of the
Lord Mayor of Dublin.
Sir R. PEEL objected to the amendment of the Attorney.
General, because resolutions having been passed pronoun.
deg the system carried as in Dublin to be an infringement
of the purity of election and of the laws, both as regarded
bribery and fictitious freeholds, it would be odd to select for
punishment one particular offence. He objected to the other
amendment, because it asked that " immediate measures be
taken, Ike." instead of asking simply and directly for pease.
cation. The objection that the House should name the in-
dividuals to be prosecuted did not apply, the house having,
after the riots of DNS moved an address, praying foe pro.
maiden, without naming those to be prosecuted. He also
would prefer the words " those charged of being gutlty,"so
the words " those guilty," as they made the House assume
a pile which might nut exist. Hs should propose as an
amendment, that the law oaken of the crown in Ireland be
directed to prosecute such persons as may appear to them
to billable to prosecution fur the offences above named.
Lord A LTHORP said it was not a necessary consequence ,
of the preceding resolutions, that the law officers should be
directed to prosecute at all ; and as every one was
that there was a great difference between the crime Or::
conuptoes and tkeetarrupted, there was no inconsisteray in
saying that the worse class of offence should alone be prose-
cuted. With respect to the fictitious freeholds, the asators
of the freeholds were not guilty of any offence against the
laws, and those only would be prosecuted who, marshy, wan
less guilty, via. the fictitious • voters. He did not essider
the words " those guilty" amiss, because the law edam aL
ways assumed the gu It of those whom they proemial.
Sir R. PEEL—The noble lord rests on the degree of mad
guilt. The fictitious freeholders were guilty of petjury; those
therefore who consider perjury a greater crime than Whey
will not vote for a resolution excluding its punishment.
Sir J. NEWPORT was inaudible.

Mr. HUNT said, in spite of ilWtiirest that was held oat
by his honourable colleague, and the hommeable marnime
for Berry, that every one who spoke on this qoestion intended
to delay the reform bill—threats which he held in the ut-
most contempt—Great langlum)—in spite of this threat, he
would my a few words to set the house to rights. (A laugh.)
He had heard all the evidence given ea as mmemittee, mad
was confident no Jury in Ireland wadi leak pealsegellty
of perjury. They had been cantina by die emeasse airt
to say any thing that could camases dieteselem, but they
had all honestly admitted that they had oboe meg fee
their votes, and it was evident that they did net be,. chat
they bad committed any crime; but after issll
having been brought before the house, the peerlwsfHellesul
wonK indeed, laugh them to morn it the *knot seated
on it. He believed, that after this bill dwell peel thaw
would be ten times mote bribery than before. (Kw, bear,
from the Opposition.)
The House divided—

Ayes
Noes 147
Idajority for the Attorney-Oeserara Ateladoseat 77
On =slag the gallery we totted Hr. STANLEY sir
thesis the lime. Ho said the resoled= now Was
the hors% that ladisidasla Weft public teas, is appose.
ieg_to do so, hold used mime lissom la the 1= thee= et
uukal. Malady cosines a soft= is the Seacoast= et
Walt (Hem) Ho sea who* at a less to la= who
was htteadal to be charged ? Viol= gestles= who Gads
the melee disclaimed soy Waist= eraidialle
Leal Amiens; bet swalwa
Ida'
ihr
said he did mesa s• "mos. Ida
Mr. Huat.)

Wit, how . A Ons Wog wai*Nliamila
maw w• tot as imputation ea doe Govessailt d
.llstalied
ktomeditaina4rjrzspioximasamilset ail gil j._

clone.—(oh, oh! from the Opposition.)—He maw;
and believed, if umury, be could prove it. It was la
rd
down by the highest authority on election law, that undo
interference could not vitiate an election, and that behti.
the case, be thought the question should not be eats;
tamed by the House. The Committee were sworn to it;
the merits of the election and return. He did not mean
to say that cases might arise in which the Committee
should inquire into undue influence, because it might in.
validate particular votes ; but in the present case no vit,
deuce of interference bad bees given for that purpobe._
The first ease wu the evidence of Mr. Long, who staoe4
that Captain Hart came to him, and requested his vote
for the Reform Candidates. It was assumed that
Captain Hart held a place in the Lord Lieutenant'.
household ; but the fact was, he did not. Mr. Long said Cap-
tain Hart spewed him a list of tradesmen to whom be was
going with a similar message. Any man who knew the
state of party feelings in Dublin, must be mad, or worse,
who did not know that the government entertained strong
wishes on the subject of the election. Sir John Byes heard
that it was reported that all tradesmen were threatened with
dismissal from the employment of the Lord Lieutenant who
mad spinet the Reform candidates. He mentioned it to
Lord Anglesey, who felt indignant, and wrote a memorandum
expressive of his wishes. Sir J. Byng took the letter, and
chewed it to Mr. Long, not for the purpose of convey.
ing a threat, but of proving that Mr. Long might vote for
which of the candidates he pleased without danger. Mr.
Long, with an absence of all good feeling, some days after
wrote down the contents of this letter or memorandum, to
make use of it in proof that Lord Anglesea had interfered
with the votes of his tradesmen; and but for this memcr.n.
dum which Lord Anglesea bad written in the openness of his
feelings, merely stating his wishes in favour of the Reform
candidates, and to contradict the report that he would dis-
miss his tradesmen for voting against them, there could not
be a shadow of imputation against him. Mr. Long, who
had a pan of the Lord Lieutenant's business u a coach.
maker, admits that he had been an active partisan against
his Government. Mr. Kempaton, a grocer, had also been
applied to by Captain Hart, but he admitted that after he
saw the Lord Lieutenant's momorandum, his mind was re.
hewed from all apprehension respecting the vote he should
give ; and yet these were the only cues which at all bore on
the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant. It was charged that
Baron Tuyll had used his influence, but that did not cont.
peonthe the Government. He was an elector of Dublin, had
resided there for years, had many connections there, and was
the personal friend of one of the candidates. It was true be
was private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but that was not
to prevent his taking part in the election, and canvassing for
whom he pleased; but he did not act as an agent of Govern-
ment. The only evidence of his interference is given by two
persons, Alderman Tyndall and Mr. Studdart ; and though
the conversations mentioned by those witnesses had taken
place, Baron Tuyll expressed his indignation at the turn
which bed been given to them by the witnesses. Alderman
Tyndal stated that he said to Baron Tuyll he bad been lately
elected a police magistrate by the corporation, and wished
Baron Tuyll to request of the Lord Lieutenant to allow him
to remain neuter. Baron Tuyll said he could not mention
it to the Lord Lieutenant. It was a subject on which
his lips were sealed to the Lord Lieutenant— (Hear,
hear, hear.) Mr. Studdart was much in the same
' state as Alderman TyndaL He told Baron Tuyll he
had been appointed to his office by the corporation. Baron
Tuyll, he said, replied. though the corporation appointed
you, you should remember the government pays you. (Hear,
hear.) Ile denied that could be considered unch.e influence.
Mr. Studdart bad two patrons, the Corporation and the OD.
worriment; he mentioned one, and Baron Tuyll reminded
him of the other, but not with any threat. Mr. Studdart
admitted that be did not suppose that he would have been
dismissed it he voted against the reform candidates; but be
said he was afraid to venture. The fact was, no person had
been dismissed-for his vote, and orders had been given to al-
low all the constabulary who were electors to come to Dublin
to vote according to their con.ciences, but they were forbidden
to make themselves partisans. The strongest case attempted
to be proved against Baron Tuyll was that by Mr. ()Annan,
the principal coal.meter, who gave evidence that Baron
Tuyll said if the coal-meters supported the Government,
the Government might support them; and that after a part of
them had voted against the Reform candidates, all their
warrants were withdrawn by the Castle. The fact was the
very contrary. The Castle had nothing to do with with.
drawing their warrants—he knew nothing of it till he heard
it in the evidence. They were withdrawn in consequence
of the resolution of that house for repealing the coal duty,
and it was the act of the Board of Customs in London.—
(Hear.) So much foe the coal-meter's case; so much for
(hHearitarn.g) evidence
Rightalsi HnOntouramebnle bfejihertilemantheirwenbrooks"—to
say that the last case on record where the house iota-
feted in macs of the present kind, was that of the Bishop
of Worcester, in 1702. Upon that case, a most indecent
re-
be
would ask, was the course the House pursued in the fatness
monoeiedthefroHmixisehisinterfersitualtlidol ar:lchhadief thealmorthrttrevb; trelailwhat,
case of the Duke of Chapels.? It was that the report be
taken into conidatation that day four months; and that too
in a case much mare aggravated than the present against the
Lord Lieutenant of 1 (Hear.) He oonterned that the
motion of the hon. 'gentleman, founded as it was upon so-
parte statement, ought to be rejected. (Hear.) He consi-
dered the whole as a slight and trivial case, and be could
never give his consent to the motion ; every government bad
a right to expect support from those persons employed by that
government. (No, from CoL &Wimp.) If not, what was
the alleviative to be adopted by each succeeding government?
Why, that the persons so employed Amid be discharged—
a system that would be found szoteedingly inconvenient
He should meet the proposition of the hen. gentleman
openly and manfully, and at once give it his direct negative.
—(Chsers.)

Mr. HUNT was of *Mom what mime the Howse bed
brought the emir under dismess, it would have been
deficient in the performance of is duty. Tbs bars dr-
cutustance d the Lord Lleutement of Ireland tegusetiri
his tradespeople to vote for the Hove: mom oullais
was of itself milicient to establish • pion of issulbmasa
Theo was no doubt but the arum of justice MI boo
corrupted by the interferes°. of the Moods of
with the Polies Magistracy of Dublin. Wont the
the published evideme, a system of ditto Interlineal'''.
manifested on the part of the Lewd Lieutenant of Word,
and it was probably owing to the open and manly chs•
meter of the Marquis of Aror, that it ever came to
light, for if be had bees of-
an underhand or 1710
disposition he might have contrived to keep the
fair in the dark. Will the people of England, he would.
ask, think more of the Reform Bill front theme prosediagi,
and from the direct tragedy* the motion had received frost
the hon. gent. who yoke last P (Hear.)
Mr. STANLEY end Mr. HUNT explained.
Lod UXBRIDGE said. If the Marquis of Amy bed
mu mod is the manner be did, be might, with Oaths, how
bees ossidered as 'mincers to the gemnonow oldie sow
try ; be bad letters in his posseselom Old* paws& dot the
Marquis ',Anglesey had given lossewilloN Oat OD
dad slasald von against his comedown oWlibeieeetbat the
peargbe of Dublin at resist ceerghlend bed
talon Gs little& pert in the dodos. Baron Colmir.reely
sod in the 'intim moitimeerferfk khoehe owl so as the
of spot the Marquis ed Anglesey.
Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNI dam& that the boo.
member who bombe darwasd the imam bad acted very
properly 1104Wwisisil audi somorsuasgasam be cell.
craved to Yr eiondsnt peediboeut. He slastil, however,
have been nosh more gadded by the Moo Secretary for
Ira wed moving the mbar Oslo of the Day, them giving his
din. 'spelt** the maim. _ .

. Me. I;EFROY sae et giant het if Bens Tsyll, We
Smeary to the Lewd Liesowen; bad weds m hamper
nee el his Exesilency's war" des sewn night be eeraY
adjusted by a criminal Mendsm being laid spinet
Hs wended that hie intaftwase cosh be maned into
sedan but a direct applicants is the pet of Geverninest.
Ind ALT HORP smoldered It gawp and umpedis-
wasery, that a modes of general censure should be
011811 fa without any individual being sawed; for d
Italy did not
_wpm whether Baron Tull or the Lord
lissemost d Rahn sae the pasty &nod at in the yre-
sent disameiss. Me trusted the Hesse would ape shit
his Right Meassrable Friend, and most the notion with
a direct
Ale. iiiti ING sappseted the nestles.
Lad UXBRIDGE explained.
Mr. C. WYNNZ essedved that lateehresee en the psi
it the Gnomons had beam pmeved. If such s course were
to be Wend b a rehend partisans; the Chancellor of
the Butermaer WOW hand wadies Ids chador; ou the
deigleld=ll; le IlMosate TOWN sad it sight be
tharieldrs
otHessweadimueMEingaseceMßßlt
bad(matesestaknevnatade
ou) staM•aehmtbili bb
Majesty's Gowesenent.
Sir G. WARISNDER would Me with the Chancellor