The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-31 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

In reply to a question from Lord Dunalley,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said there was no reason to believe
that any general breach of the peace would take place in the
county of Tipperary. There had certainly been some outrages
committed, but they were not directed against the govern-
ment. The police force had been increased, and would he
still further augmented if necessary. The conduct of the
opulent class was, for the most part, highly praiseworthy,
but he was sorry to say that there were exceptions to the
rule, and the conduct of some of the superior class, as land-
lords, was inexcusable.

.
On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, a bill was introduced,
and read a first time, for the purpose of transferring appeals
from the ecclesiastical courts of Ireland to this country.
The bills on the table were forwarded a stage, after which
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
In reply to a questiion from Mr. HumE, respecting the
distress prevailing in the manufacturing districts,
Sir R. PEEL expressed a hope that her Majesty's letter
would be generously responded to throughout the kingdom.
The Income Tax Bill was read a third time, pro forma,
with a view to having some amendments printed, with the
understanding that the final discussion shall take place on
Monday.

The house then went into committee on the new tariff, and
Mr. LYALL, on the question that the duty on train oil and
blubber of foreign fishing shall be £6, and the duty on sper-
maceti oil of foreign fishing £l5 the tun, from and after the
15th day of July, 1843, moved, " That instead of the sth
day of July, 1843, the sth day of July, 1844, be substituted
as to the duty on train oil and blubber, and the sth of July,
1845, as to spermaceti oil."
It was contended by several hon. members that further
time was requisite before the change in the duties should be
enforced, or serious injury would accrue to the parties inte-
rested in our whale fishery.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the house would bear in mind that this
change was requisite, not only for the benefit of our manu-
factures but for the fishery itself, which was rapidly declining
under these high duties.
On a division Mr. Lyall's amendment was negatived by a
majority of 108 to 41.
On the schedule containing the timber duties being moved,
it was contended by several hon. members that the proposed
mode of admeasurement would be injurious in its operation.
Lord SANDON would suggest, that only one change should
be made in the existing system, and that the duty should not
be made lower than 30s.
Lord JOCELYN said that the trade would feel it as a great
hardship if the proposed duties would come into operation
immediately. Many of his constituents bad large quantities
of timber, and they would be great losers by any sudden
change.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS.-1 give notice, that when the
subject comes on again, I shall move that the duty rest at 30s.
Sir ROBERT PEEL.—And I give notice that I will adhere
steadily to my proposition. (Loud cheers.) The right hon.
baronet continued he would submit to the custom-house offi-
cers any mere matters of detail ; but he knew, from experi-
ence, that objections of detail were often raised when the ob-
jection at bottom was to the main point, in this case the re-
duction of duties.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON trusted that the right hon. baronet would
reconsider his proposal.
Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that if by the word " reconsi-
deration " was meant a reconsideration favourable to the
views of the noble lord, he would not reconsider the measure
in that point of view, as his own opinion was decidedly in fa-
vour of the proposal which he had made. Still, he would not
permit his feelings to hinder him from impartially communi-
cating as to detail with the Custom-house officers, and he
would report the result to the house.

Sir R. PEEL said that the communications held by the
government with some of the most intelligent officers of the
customs had not led them to think the proposed mode of
aduieasurement would be attended with any difficulty, but
some further communications should immediately take place,
and if it should appear that any such difficulty would be felt,
some other mode might be resorted to. provided it made no
change in the amount of duty to be levied.
It being now 10 o'clock the Chairman, in accordance with
an arrangement made on Thursday night, reported progress,
in order to enable _ _

__—
Mr. C. BULLER to bring forward his motion respecting
the last election for Bridport. His object was to call the
attention of the house to the petition of Henry Warburton,
Esq., and to move " That an inquiry be made into certain
corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into for
the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross bribery
which had been alleged to have been practised at the election
for the borough of Bridport, in June last ; and also whether
such bribery has taken place in the aforesaid town." The
petition of Mr. Warburton contained a distinct allegation of
bribery, and also stated that an actual compromise had
taken place. It further stated that one of the candidates
(Mr. Mitchell) had declared his intention, before the elec-
tion, to carry the borough by the force of money, and that
bribery on a large subsequently took place, which was car-
ried on by the agents of Mr. Mitchell, who spent no less
than £3,200 on the contest. It also stated that Mr. Mitchell
and Mr. B. Cochrane had subsequently paid large sums of
money to compromise indictments for bribery arising out of
that election. No less than 51 actions were brought by Mr.
Flight against Mr. Mitchell, the penalties in which would
have amounted to £25,000. These, as well as some similar
actions against Mr. Cochrane, had been compromised. The
case, he contended, was stronger than those in which the
inquiry had been already granted, and he proposed that it
should be confided to the committee already appointed. The
petition also charged Mr. Cochrane with not having kept
faith with Mr. Warburton, for he had abandoned the peti-
tion against Mr. Mitchell, though be had undertaken to
prosecute it in such a manner as to save the reputation of
Mr. Warburton's friends.
Mr. COCHRANE said the application for negociation came
in the first instance from Mr. Warburton, and that he had
declined any negociation. A short time afterwards, Mr.
Warburton said he should accept the Chiltern Hundreds if
Mr. Mitchell did not. It was eventually arranged by their
respective agents that Mr. Warburton was to resign, and
that the petition of Mr. Mitchell should be prosecuted, so as
to give his seat to Mr. Warburton. The hon. gentleman
read a singular letter from Mr. Warburton, and gave a his-
tory of the whole transactions. In conformity with this ar-
rangement, the petition against Mr. Mitchell was prose-
cuted until they obtained an offer, that at the expiration of
two years, Mr. Mitchell would accept the Chiltern Hun-
dreds. Even subsequent to this he had prosecuted the peti-
tion, though he had to sustain all the expenses, until it was
found that they could proceed no farther without impli-
cating all parties, which was contrary to the stipulation
agreed to, by which Mr. Warburton's friends were to be
held harmless. He then wrote to Mr. Warburton, stating
his resolution to proceed no further, for to do so would be
not only to implicate Mr. W.'s friends, but to lead to the
disfranchisement of the borough. The hon. member said
that after all Mr. Warburton's efforts to get him to proceed
with the petition against Mr. Mitchell, he had since heard
that Mr. W. had been injuring him in the borough by re-
presenting that he (Mr. W.) had no wish to promote the
petition, which was entirely the work of Mr. Cochrane, and
calculated to lead to the disfranchisement of the borough.
The hon. member, at the close of his statement, argued
against the inquiry proposed, for if this borough were to be
included in the investigation carried on by Mr. Roebuck's
committee, where would they stop ? If Bridport were in-
cluded, so might every other borough in the kingdom.
Mr. MITCHELL said if Mr. Warburton's character were
damaged by this discussion, he bad nobody to thank but him-
self for bringing it forward. He most distinctly stated on
his honour as a gentleman and as a member of that house,
he had not intended, when be went to Bridport, to expend
any sum beyond reasonable expenses, and, in point of fact,
he agreed that his election was to be conducted for a sum
which was under what Mr. "W arburton bad declared to be
the usual cost of his own elections. It was, therefore, un-
likely he should have declared that he would carry the elec-
tion by force of money, and he had no recollection that he
had even said any thing of the sort. With respect to the large
sums spent, he must say, without denying that they had been
spent, that he had not spent them—that he had never re-
ceived an account of them ; neither had he or any of his re-
lations ever been asked for them, nor would they ever pay
them. He denied other statements contained in the petition
of Mr. Warburton, and challenged that gentleman with a
breach of confidence in bringing this matter before the house,
and with ingratitude to his constituents Bridport, which he
had represented for 16 years. The hon. gentleman then gave
a history of the interviews between himself and Mr. War-
burton's agent, which displayed, on the part of Mr. Warbur-
ton, great anxiety to maintain his character for purity while
resorting to the most singular expedients to obtain the seat

of Mr. Mitchell at the expense of Mr. Cochrane, though his
agent had assured Mr. Mitchell that he should be left in un-
disturbed possession. He denied that he bad compromised,
for he retained his seat, having declined to accept the Chiltern
Hundreds; and his reason for withdrawing his petition against
Mr. Cochrane was, that his counsel had assured him that he
had no case. The 51 actions referred to were dropped because
they found they could not he sustained, and they were dropped
three weeks before he had given up the petition.
Sir T. WILDE said, after the statements the house had
heard, there could be no hesitation about referring the whole
matter to the committee ; but, -as Mr. Warburton was a
friend of his, he felt it necessary to place his conduct in its
proper light before the house. The fact was, that Mr. War-
burton resigned in order to save his friends from the conse-
quences of the course they bad pursued in endaivouring to
obtain the return of Mr. Mitchell, and this was sought to be
turned against him by saying that he had resigned lest his
own conduct should be investigated; that lie was in fact ap-
prehensive on his own account. It was when he found his
own character at stake that he resolved to court investiga-
tion ; for though he was willing to sacrifice his seat to screen
his friends, he felt that he could not make them a present of
his character also. There was a criminal information against
Mr. Cochrane for bribery, and many actions against his
friends, all of which had fallen to the ground, or at least
nothing had been heard of them since the petition was with-
drawn, though they stood for trial at the last assizes. There
were also many actions against Mr. Mitchell for bribery,
which had been buried with the rest on the withdrawal of
the petitions. The hon. and learned gentleman contended
that Mr. Cochrane had broken faith in not prosecuting the
petition against Mr. Mitchell, and that the latter gentleman
had acted with ingratitude in obtaining his election by Mr.
Warburton's aid, and, after compromising Mr. Warburton's
friends by the course he pursued, relpsing to resign, and thus
compelling Mr. Warburton to give up his seat, which he had
originally undertaken, should not be endangered by the
contest.

After some observations from Sir J. WALsw, Mr. HUME,
and Mr. ESCOTT,
Sir R. PEEL said he was of opinion that there was as good
ground for referring this case to the committee as any of
those which had been already referred, as far as compromises
were concerned. He was only afraid, as the committee was
to inquire into bribery as well as into compromises, they
would be unable to conduct the inquiry satisfactorily during
the present session. The most effectual means should be
considered of preventing these compromises from screening
the exposure of bribery ; and he thought, therefore, that it
would be better that the committee should turn its attention
to such means rather than sacrifice all its time in making in-
effectual attempts to get at cases of bribery in particular
boroughs, unless where such bribery determined the nature
of the compromise.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion there was less reason to
refer this case than the others, because from the statements
made that night they were already in possession of all the
facts relating to the compromise. It might be well, however,
that those facts should be more regularly recorded, and upon
that narrow ground he would support the motion.
Sir R. Notts opposed the motion, on the ground that
the committee to which it was proposed to refer the matter,
was already so overwhelmed, that it could proceed but a short
way during the present session.
Lord PALMERSTON contended that under the existing law
compromises were frequently justifiable; but the law was
bad, because it did not recognise the public as a party having
any interest in the decision of election petitions. The law
should be altered, but gentlemen were going too fast in con-
demning parties who were acting in accordance with the law,
however erroneous in principal that law might be. After
refusing inquiry in the case of Ipswich, he could not see why
they should grant it in the present instance.

EOM) STANLEY said that if the House of Commons did
not show its determination to put a stop to such proceedings
as were disclosed that night, they would have a recurrence of
similar transactions in many other boroughs hereafter. The
case before the house was disgraceful to the borough of Brid-
port, and was such a one as could not be overlooked by the
house. He was not prepared, however, to say that the in-
quiry should be referred to the committee already appointed
on the motion of Mr. Roebuck.
After a few words from Mr. BAN KES,

Mr. C. BULLER thanked the Government for the able
assistance they had given him on this motion, and more
particularly Sir, R. Peel, for the determination he had
shown throughout the session of tearing away the veil beneath
which bribery had hitherto been so effectually screened from
detection.

After a few words from Sir C. BURRELL the house di-
vided, and the motion of Mr. C. Buller was earried by a
mojority of 156 to 37.
Mr. C. BULLER then moved that the inquiry should be
referred to Mr. Roebuck's committee, the debate upon which
was adjourned until Wednesday.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DUBLIN, MAY 24