The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-05-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.^TFIURSDAY

A great number of petitioni On various subjects were pre-
sented.
Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on the 26th, he should bring
forward a motion respecting the grinding of corn in bond.
Mr. G. PALMER said, as the motion respecting China, of
which he had given notice, had been so long delayed, that its
being carried could not now prevent hostilities, he should
not bring it on.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON gave notice, that in committee on
the Canada bill he should move an addition to the clause re-
straining the crown from appointing any spiritual person to
the legislative council.
In answer to questions from Sir G. CANNING,
Lord PALMERSTON said the present state- of our relations
with Persia was exactly what it had been for the last twelve
months. Last summer an envoy, from Persia came here, to
whom he gave a distinct statement of our demands ; the en-
voy gave a reply fat from satisfactory ; for, professing to agree
to all those demands, it in reality proceeds to neutralise that
profession by the way in which it pretended to carry it out.
To that reply a rejoinder bud been sent, which would hare
• reached Teheran late in March. The answer had not yet been
received. Negotiations were in progress for bringing about
a settlement, and nothing had occurred to destroy the hope
held out in her majesty's speech, that this settlement might
be expected at no distant period, because the last communi-
cation from Persia announced the determination to comply
with our deMands, and probably that had not been done be-
cause of the misunderstanding of our demands. Sir John
M`Neil was now on leave of absence obtained last year. The
second officer was in office as charge d'affaires. The consul
at Talriz had his commission still.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS asked the-attorney-general when it was
likely that the question respecting the validity of the charters
of the corporation lately graited to some large towns was to
be settled. The litigation which was going on was leading to
a state of total disorganisatiqin in thoSe towns, and it was
most important that it should be settled at thq earliest period.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL bad expected thiat very d 4 the
case would have been argued in the Exchequer Chamber;
however, some of the judges had been obliged to attend the
Central Criminal Court, and the case was now fixed to be
argued on the 21it of this month, on which slay he trusted
there would be a favourable result. •

In answerto a question from Mr. W. Puttee,
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said that negotiations were still being
carried on between this country and France ; treaty had
actually been concluded.

NEW WRIT FOR LUDLOW.
Lord DARLINGTON then moved the new writ for Ludlow,
disclaiming all intention of discourtesy to Lord John Rus-
sell, in having refused the requests which had been made for
postponing the matter till his return.
Lord J. RUSSELL acquitted the noble lord of any personal
discourtesy, but thought it wou!d have been more advan-
tageous to the public to have allowed fuller time for conside-
ration. After such evidence as that which had been printed,
and which showed that neither political party could pride
itself on exemption from the corruptions proved, he believed
that either of those parties would injure itself in public
opinion which should be found justly chargeable with any
endeavour to pass over such proceedings without notice. He
had seen cases where the evidence of bribery was more
direct, but none which showed a more disgusting course of
conduct, both in the constituent body and in those who stood
in very high relations towards them, than this of Ludlow.
The two cases proved cannot he taken as the whole amount
of bribery, but only as a sample. His object, however, was
not so much to deal with this particular case, as to introduce
a general measure for the prvention of treating, he would
propose that it should be illegal, not only during the election,
and for a month after, but at any time before. As to bribery,
he would bring within the penalties not only a gift or a posi-
tive promise, but any imp ied or indirect contract. For the
purpose of procuring testimoity, he would give a general in-
demnity to -witnesses who might be called on to criminate
themselves. And if all this should prove ineffectual, it might
perhaps his proper to give the seat to the candidate who stood
second on the poll, provided he were clear of corruption, as
against one who had obtained a greater number of votes by
these dishonest practices.
Mr. HAWES, in pursuance of the tactics of Monday and
Tuesday, moved, as an amendment, that a select committee
should be appointed to inquire into the recent bribery and
corruption at Ludlow ; and that meanwhile the writ should
be suspended. He remarked that the opposition, though
professing to be the friends of religion and the church, were
strangely silent on the subject of the enormities committed
at elections. Lord John's bill might be calculated to do
considerable good, but would he insure its passing ? And
was a candidate to go down by to-night's mail and tell the
electors that the House of Commons was ready to connive,
and that the money might be taken with safety ?
Mr. HUmE contended, that Lord John's own speech made
a case for inquiry. The noble lord had stated precedents for
suspending the writ; and yet, instead .of voting for suspen-
sion, he proposed to rely upon public feeling!
Sir R. PEEL said, that the question of issuing or suspend-
ing the writ must depend upon the circumstances of each par-
ticular case. Here had been a very impartial committee,
which had not 'deemed She evidence of bribery sufficient to
justify the suspension. No doubt there was ample evidence
of treating; and it might be very proper to enact prospec-
tively that treating should be placed on the same footing
with bribery ; but let not the house deal ex post facto, and
apply that penalty to a bygone election. In the principle of
Lord John's measure he would cheerfully co-operate, but he
would bind himself to its details. It would be very difficult
to distinguish harmless from corrupt treating ; and to do too
much would be clearly dangerous, for it was never safe to
run counter to the national feeling ; and in England that
feeling was certainly favourable to general hospitality and
entertainment. With reference to what had been said by
Mr. Hawes about the silence of the conservatives on the sub-
ject of bribery, he was not aware of any great advantage to
be derived from dealing in declamatory assertions ; but he
strongly felt that to get rid of corruption was alike the in-
terest o( all parties in the state.
Lord SAN DON rose fur the purpose of correcting an erro-
neous impression which had got abroad respecting the con-
' duct of this committee. It seemed to he nnderstood in the
house that the committee had closed the investigation with
an intimation to counsel that they need not carry it further,
as sufficient had been proved to vacate the seat. Now, no
such fact had taken place. On one side there was only one
case of bribery alleged—on the other there were ten cases
alleged. The committee had examined into five of those
cases, and had never hinted its opinion upon one of them to
counsel until they had closed their case. (Hear, hear.) So
far from it, the committee pursued its investigations for
some time after Mr. Clive had announced his intention to
retire from the contest. He did not think that hou. mem-
bers opposite bad a right to taunt hou. gentlemen on his side
of the house with being the abettors of bribery and corrup-
tion, when they recollected that it was before this very com-
mittee that the immaculate secretary of the Reform Associa-
tioq had been convicted of dispensing bribes (loud cheers
from the opposition)—when they recollected that it, was this
very secretary (Mr. Coppock) who had got up and presented
fourteen reform petitions against the return of hon. members
on his side of -the house, for the mere purpose of disqualify-
ing them from sitting on election petitions. (Loud cheers
from the same quarter.) He confessed that he did not think
that the'reform party had any right to taunt the conservative
party in that house with a peculiar attachment to corruption,
or to glory in their own unimpeached and unimpeachable
purity. (Vociferous cheers from the opposition.) He knew
that it was the custom of hone gentlemen opposite, whenever
his friends would not redress a grieyance by the commission
of an act of injustice, tr, taunt them with being supportet s of
the grievance, and to keep out of sight that their objection
was to the mode, and not to. the necessity, of redressing it.
He hoped that the crime of bribery would be pursued hence-
forward with all the rigour of the law, but not with a rigour
beyond the law. (Ironical cheers from .the ministerial
benches.) And, as the house had never yet come to a reso-
lution declaring that treating was sufficient to disqualify a
constituency, he had no difficulty in voting upon this occa-
sion in favour of the motion for the immediate issue of the
writ. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAELEY advised the mover of the amendment to
withdraw it, and propose it as a substantive motion. Lord
John and Sir Robert Peel, he said, would then be obliged to
vote fur it, if they meant to act consistently with their
speeches of to-night.
Sir lionear PEEL denied that he had uttered anything
which could bear such a construction, and said when the mo-
tion was made he should judge for himself.
Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. AGLIONay supported the mo-

ClOil.
Mr. T. Duscom tsEspoke on the same side, and concluded
the diettsriii by reading extracts from the printed evidence.
"File then took place, when the numbers appeared—
Fiir the amendment
Against it -

Majority -78
anendinent being negatived, the main question was
cirred without further contest.
The next contest was on tne Cambridge writ, which Sir
Joan Walsh moved without any introductory observations.
Mr. W An.Buiirm: said, though there had been less bribery
at Cambridge than at Ludlow. yet there had been more inti-
midation ; and he referred to certain passages of the evidence
as supporting his as,s,•tion, particular ly.to a manifesto against
intimidation, put forth by some leading members of the uni-
versity. He moved the appointment of a committee, and
the suspension of the writ, as proposed in the preceding case.
air. HumE, in a few words, reproached the house for its
indifference to such subjects, and a division was then taken.
Ayes
162
Noes
75_

Majority --Si
The writ therefore was ordered, as in the case of Ludlow.
Mr. DuNcousE moved the discharge of Stockdale and his
attorney, Mr. Howard, which was generally acceded to, on
the ground, that the recent statute having precluded the re-
petition of the offence, it was unworthy of the house to
maintain a contest with these two individuals.

Mr. BAINLS raised a roar of laughter by suggesting that
" poor Thorogood" should be included in the amnesty ; but
the house, though much amused, did not extend the order of
discharge to that sturdy nonconfomist.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—FE/D.,,y.
The tithe commutation act amendment bill, and the insol-
vent debtors bill, went through committee.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH directed attention to the
persecution of the Jews, hoping that the good offices of go-
vernment would he used to prevent, if sossible, any continu-
ation of it.
Lord SERANGFORD called attention to papers respecting
piracies on the shores of the Adriatic. It appeared that ap.
plication had been made to her majesty's government on the
the part of the King of Naples, requesting her Majesty's good
offices in procuring the suppression of the piracies. But on
the 27th of Feb, 1833, Lord Palmerston replied to Count
Rudolph to the effect, that her ;Majesty could not attend to
any request from the Neapolitan government until the sul-
phur monopoly question was settled ; whereupon the Count
wrote to Lord Palmerston expressing his surprise at receiving
such an answer, after the promise of assistance which her
majesty's government had previously given to the govern-
ment of the King of Naples. That note of Count Rudolph
was not included in the papers laid upon the table. He
should be glad to have a return of it.
Lord MELBOURNE acquiesced.
The Marquis of NORMENBY, in answer to a question from
Lord Glengall respecting correspondence relating to appoint-
ments under the poor-law commissioners in Ireland, stated
that if the correspondence existed, it should be laid ou the
table.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that he found in the papers
laid on the table, that the proceedings of the commissioners,
in respect to valuations, were illegal.
The Marquis of NomunANBY answered that he should cer-
tainly call the attention of the commissioners to the subject.
The noble marquis then laid on the table of the house returns
from the poor-law commissioners in Ireland.
The house afterwards resumed the hearing of counsel against
the municipal corporations (Ireland) bill. Mr. Professor
Butt was board and cheered.