Star.
London, England, 1828-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARISANENT.
• HOUSE OF L'RDS,'" alvms 20.

Arrosnsv-Gnintam. was heard in reply to Mr. Hount,,and
dwelt at considerable length on the affidavits of Dr. Biiikeley; Hr
did net think that his Learned Friend (Mr. Horne) had in a* one
ease sifeceeded in throwing doubt on the evidence ottltat Gentle—
man. He thought that his Learned Friend bad not put their Lord-
slaps in possession of the real facts and circumstances of the case,
ri they affected either Mr. Wellesley or the children. He should,
therefore, consider himself bound to make a clear and concise nar-
rative of the cue. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to
give an account of the cue, commencing with the marriage •of
Mr. Wellesley with Miss Long.
The Benefices Regulation Bill was read a second time, on the
sodon of the Archbishop of Cants:amour, and ordered to be cons-
mitts4 on Monday scat.
XISILAGZ TROY THt commons.
Sir A. Own, and other 'Members of the House of Commons,
Wu& up the Promissory Notes Bill. the Liverpool Improvement
Billvond several other Private Bilk, and announced that the Cum-
mins had agreed to the Covent Garden Market, god several other
Puha. Bills.
The Property in India Bill went through a Committee.
'The other Bills before the House were fort/forded in their re-

"sake stages,
The Duke of RUTLAND presented Petitions for the Repeal
of- the *Law limiting the circulation of Small Notes, from Scar-
borate', in the county of Turk. and from Grantham, in the county
of Lincoln ; also a Petition from Cambridge, for the Abolition of

Slavery.
010 the *notion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the third
reading of the Corn Bill was pestpooed from Monday to Thuriday

Itert.

w% • MIMI DISTRAWCIEUSIMINT BIM
The Earl of CARNARVON, in moving the second.
reading of this Bill, would not enter into the details of
the evidence, but he must call upon their Lordships to
pronounce whether there was not evidence to show that
the Borough had been corrupt for a very long period,
and continued so up to the present day? • In 1802 the
Borough was in such a state, that the Counsel in favour
of the Borough bad been compelled to admit at their
Lordships' Bar, that if the business had been taken up
at that time, the case against the Borough would have
been complete. It was fortunate for the Borough, if
any thing could be fortunate for a Borough so Situated,
that it was not brought before the House twenty years
ago. The whole that was attempted in defence was to
show that same great improvement had taken place since
that period. The practice of giving breakfasts had been
kept up to 1806; but in 1807 it appeared to have ceased
—that was after the prosecution of Sir C. Hawkins.—
Sir C. Hawkins was acquitted of the crime of bribery,
but when the difficulty of procuring a conviction was
considered, much importance would not be ascribed to
that acquittal. It would be strange indeed, if the 800
rough.which was perfectly corrupt in 1806, had become
perfectly pore in 1807. But there was direct evidence
of bribery in 1807. In the election of 1812 they had,
it was true no proof of bribery. The candidates and
voters had both been deterred or rendered cautious by
the legal prdceedings in the case to which he had al-
luded. But in the year 1818 Mr. Swann was the suc-
cessful candidate, and he had been convicted of bribery
at that election. In 1820, this severity was found to
bare bad a salutary effect, and upon that occasion
Me. ;Greenfell was returned without bribery. But the
circumstances under which that Gentleman - retired
from the Borough ought to be recollected. He
said in his letter to the electors, that he had been
honestly elected once, and that as he could not be so
elected again, he would withdraw. In the more recent
elections of 1824, he would do Mr. Stanton• and Mr.
Barclay the justice to say, that be believed they entered
upon the contest determined to fight it honestly—but
before the election had proceeded far, their agents had
to accuse each ether reciprocally, and the praitise
of hribm was resumed. The Noble Earl then proceeded
in lose detail through the evidence, and Insisted 'that
it made out erase of one-third to one half of the toter:
being accessible to bribery. He knew he should be
opposed upon this occasion by those Noble Lords, by
whole he bad always been, and feared he always should
be opposed, upon questions similar to the present. He
did not mean to intimate that these Noble Lords had
not paid the strictest attention to the evidence, or that
they did not wish to decide justly; but he could not but
apprehend that those Noble Lords, who had acquired a
very strong bias in favour of what were called vested
rights, and who, by their habits in Courts of Justice,
were naturally led to require rigid proof in cases where
puaishmeat was to be inflicted, would take a view of
the subject not .so enlarged or so constitutional as he
could.wisb. What,.was the right in a poor voter in
Penryn, which, unless he meant to sell the exercise of
it, was of little value to him,- to be put in competition
with the purity , f the House of Commons? if there
these were a hundred men, in a Borough like this, who
laid by in order to wait to see if any body would offer
a bribe, what chance was them that a pure election
would take place one time in ten? He thought it his
duty to ask their Lordships to agree to the second read-
ing of the Bill. It was their duty to do something, and
if any Noble Lord thought the evidence did not warrant
the extreme measure of extinguishing the Borough, an
amendment might be proposed in the Committee. The
Noble Lord concluded by saying that be would suggest,
if it rested with him, the extension of the right of
voting to the freeholders of the Hundred in which Pen-
ryn was situated, not to the 40111` freeholders, but to a
highet class of freeholders. _He suggested this course,
because be doubted whether the evidence was sufficient
to justify the. Bill in its present shape, but be did not
think it a course genet ally eligible, as it tended to take,
away from the monied interest that indirect represents-,
tion which it now enjoyed.
The Logs) CHANCELLOR -having been called
upon toast-in that choir doting the progress of the' evi-1
dence.,would now address their Lordships, because htt
thought they would expect him to state the effect chit
evidence bad produced upon his mind. He was also
induced to trouble their Lordship., and he would do so
very Wee', because the Noble Earl had referred par-
ticelarly to him in the course cf his speech, and had
supposed that by vittee of Some Overruling moral ne-
cessity, he must be advert* to the Bill. He would ask
the Nob* Lord what reason he had, for any vote he
bad her given ill Parliament, to suppose that he would
be opposed to a Bill of this description, prosided it were
supported by sufficient evidence? He must deny that the
suspicion of the Noble Lord was either just or reason-
able, and after this denial he would now proceed to state
tbewienimis upon which, after ;attentively listening to the
steidiote as it was given at the bar, and after a careful
pesos) of it afterwards, he concluded that the evidence
to support the Bill was ens rely insufficient. The Noble
Lord had cautiously retrained from referring to the for-
mer eases in which that House had agreed to Bills of
.e same similar tb the preser.t. He did ant think this
omission perfectly fair on the part of the Noble Earl,
and he would leer to those cases, and show that in no
instance had the House agreed to disfranchise a borough
without having it proved, not by
.speculation, not b 7
cosi/dote, but by distinct and unequivocal evidence;
that the major part of the voters were corrupt.'
first Cost di the *lad that had occurred was the case
ilbordifiln. 4 Here the total number of voters was 140,'
and'ocit.ttibet 92 were proved by clear; distinct, and.

decisive evidence to have been corrupt. It was proved
that these 92 out of the 140.yotembed formed them-
selves into a club, that. they Were bound by hasty pen-
alties tcract-together, and that they hhd a committee to
arrange their corrupt and criminal 'proceedings. This
.was proVediry satisfactory evidence, ind if the present
had been such a ease, he did not know, notwithstanding
'.uhf-saunt of the Noble Earl, that he might not have
voted for the Bill. The next case was that of Cricklade.
The number of .voters•here was 200; of these 172.badi
voted for the successful candidate, and of these 172; it
was proved by incontestible evidence, not by such
evidence as that-now upon the table, that 162 had
voted in consequence of bribery. Then came the
case of AyteshurY. In this Borough the number of
voters was four hundred and fifty. Out of this number
it mar proved'that SOO had been assembled by beat
of drum to receive their several shares in the distribu-
tion of the sums of money taken from candidates, and
that fifty snore were employed in the task of distribut-
ing'those sums of money ; so that of 450 voters 350
were proved to be guilty of corruption. There was
only one other case which the House had treated in a
manner different from any of those be had mentioned,
having extinguished the franchise altogether. This was
the case of Gmmpound. The number of voters in this
borough was 58, and 47 were proved to have been
corrupt, leaving the number of pure voters only 11.
The 47 corrupt voters had been tried, and the most of
them convicted in a Court of Law, and the few who
escaped conviction were indebted for their escape to
Some accidental informality •or defect of evidence.
These were the cases which had already occupied the
attention of the Legislature, and he would show bow
widely the present case differed from them. He should
vote against the present Bill, but he did not think when'
he had pointed out the.extreme difference between the
cases, that the Noble Lord would feel justified in the
'supposition that be would not have acted as the Legis-
lature had acted upon previous occasions. From the
manner in which the Noble Lord had' addressed the
House, they might pretty well judge of the merits of
his case. He began with the election of 1802. Why
did he net rather begin with the election of 1826? At
this time there were four hundred and fifty voters, and
only with respect to fourteen out cf the 450 voters
had any evidence of corruption whatever been given.
With respect to three out of the fourteen the evidence
was not legal. This reduced the number t i eleven.—.
And the evidence affecting these eleven was not all one
way. With respect to many of them, it had been con-
tradicted by subsequent evidence, although there was
no evidence whatever offered in defence of the borough,
the advocates for the borough having thought it un-
necessary to call witnesses. The Noble and Learned
Lord here proceeded at considerable length to compare
and comment upon the evidence touching the election
of 1826. The Noble Earl had alluded to the election
of 1824. At this election there were only seven or
eight persons proved to have been bribed. In 1818
the Noble Earl said there was judicial proof of bribery.
To a certain extent this was true. There was evidence
of three instances of bribery at that election. But Mr.
Swann had been convicted of bribery. Yes, he had been
convicted. He had bribed one elector, and he (the Lord
Chancellor) would state .to their Lordships the circum-
stances and manlier of his guilt. One of tile electors
owed him a-sum ot money, for which he held his ac-
ceptance. The elector promised to vote for him upon
condition that he forgave him the debt. He did so, and
destroyed the bill of exchange. - This was no doubt an
act of bribery, and it was of this solitary-act that Mr.
Swann had been found guilty. In 1812 there was no
proof of bribery. It was in consequence of this election
that Sir C. Hawkins was prosecuted for bribery and
acquitted. In 1806, the breakfasts, of which they had
heard so much,were in fashion it was said. It was hardly
necessary to dwell upon the evidence in support of this
charge against the borough, since among the 450 voters
of the present day, there remained only 90 who bad been
voters in 1806, and of the 90 who actually survived, not
one had' been iccused of bribery. If they webt one
step further back, to the election of 1802, they would
find that no more than 50 of the voters ot that day were
included in the present 450 voters of the borough. He
was pursuing the same course as the Noble Earl, only
he pursued it inversely, and he would ask the Noble
Earl whether any thing that could now be alleged of
the transactions of 1802 could be a sufficient ground
for disfranchising the borough? He would abstain from
any gpneral remarks, although the case was pregnant
with observations. He should have liked very well to
have had an opportunity of dissecting the speech of
the Noble Earl, but he felt that he had already tres-
passed too long upon their Lordships time. He should
meet the motion for the second reading of the Bill with
a direct negative, and he felt that in doing so he was
acting as a true friend to the Laws and Constitution.
Lord DE DUNSTANYILLE referred to certain
declarations made by some of the witnesses with respect
to the interest which he had in the borough, and de-
fended himself from any supposed interference in the
elections for the borough. He agreed with the Noble
and Learned Lord, that the evidence did not furnish
any proof that actual bribery had taken place, and-
therefore he should give his vote against the Bill.
The Earl of ELDON should .not have troubled their
Lordships with a single observation,. had he not had
the misfortune to be included in the number of those
whom the Noble Earl thought disqualified to give 'an
opinion upon .a case like the present, because they had
been spoiled by habits of judicial inquiry. He should
Only say, that in the whOle course of his judicial expo•
rience he had never_ met with a case so destitute of
foundation as this.

Lord DACRE thought the evidence insufficient, if
the case were to be' considered as.a judicial one. • But
are had another reason tor opposing the motion, after
tte sugkestion hi. Noble Friend had throv.n out, which
was, that the Bill would still further marrow the sem-
'recitation of personal property, which, in his opinion,
they. ought upon every opportunity to extend,
! The Marquis of SALISBURY had a strong objec-
tion to the preamble of the 8011. It contained the words
Whereas the increased wealtle and population of
Manchester :ender it expedient that that town should.
send two Burgesses to Pasliament,". &e. This sentence,
alone included the whole principle 4' Reform in Par.
liament, and it was a principle which he would never
suffei to bo smuggled into that House. U.posi this
ground, had the evidence been as strong as it was we.k,
he should have opposed the Bill. •
The Earl of CARNARVON said, it was the prin-
ciple upon which our ancient Monarchs had acted in
summoning the Representatives of the Commons to
Parliament. That great and radical man Henry the
Eighth,• considered it the only principle upon which a
House of Commons could be erected. As he perceived
the sense of the House to be against him,'he would not
gess his motion to a division...
The Marquis of SALISBURY edngtatulated the
Noble Earl .upon his disposition to return to the good
old days of Henry the Eighth.
The motion was negatived without a division.

The House then adjoutara it ZINO ifCioes *EU Monday.