rose and objected to the principle of this bill, which, he conceived, was neither sanctioned by any precedent, which bore any resemblance to the present case, nor was called for by the peculiar circumstances of the case itself. He compared the Cricklade case and others, which had been adduced as precedents, with the case of Aylesbury, which he thought was widely different, inasmuch as in the present case, so far from it having been proved that the majority of the electors had been bribed, it had only been proved that 57 out of 160 voters, being not one eighth of the whole number, had received bribes; he therefore opposed the third reading of the bill.

, jun. argued in support of the bill.

argued against the principle of the bill, which he considered altogether unjustifiable: it was a notorious fact, and there was no necessity for gent. to pretend to shut their eyes against it, that not only in this borough, but in very many boroughs of the kingdom, it was absolutely impossible to prevent some of the poorer electors from taking bribes, presented to them in different shapes. If, therefore, because some voters of that description had taken bribes at Aylesbury, the entire constitution of the borough was to be altered, by the same reason a material change might be introduced in the constitutions of many, if not of most of the boroughs of the kingdom. He thought the present laws were sufficient to punish the guilty, and that it would be most unjust to make a law to punish the innocent.

thought the guilt of the electors who provoked this measure so plain and palpable, that he could not, without surprise, listen to the opposition that was made to it, and particularly to the opposition of the learned gent. who had just sat down; who was not only adverse to the idea of sanctioning the application of any remedy to the general system of borough election, but to a particular case of flagrant corruption. On the question being put, the house divided, when there appeared, For the third reading of the bill, 73; Against it, 29. The bill was accordingly read a third time and passed.

said, that having been unavoidably prevented from making the motion yesterday, of which he had given notice on a former day, for leave to bringing in a bill for the better regulation of parish apprentices, begged leave now to submit it to the house. The measure he proposed to bring forward, was founded on representations made to him and his hon. colleague, by several respectable magistrates of the county of York, who found, that as the law stood at present, they could not exercise that superintendence over parish apprentices, which the legislature intended. The bill, therefore, would only go to amend the existing laws on this head, and in order to give the house an opportunity of considering the nature of the measure fully, he should move, that after the first reading the bill be printed, after which a sufficient time should be allowed gent. for the exercise of their discretion as to the policy of adopting it. The hon. member then moved, "that leave be given to bring in a bill for the better regulation of Parish Apprentices."

expressed a hope that it was not intended to press the adoption of this measure within the present session. It appeared to him, that it would be better to have the bill read a first time, printed, and circulated, in order that, during the recess, it might be fully examined, particularly by the magistrates, upon whom it proposed to cast an extraordinary degree of trouble. If this mode of proceeding should be adopted, the hon. member stated, that he would have no objection to consolidate with the bill moved for, the ideas which he meant to submit to the house in the shape of a bill upon the same subject, of which he had already given notice.

professed himself unable to answer the hon. gent. decisively in the present stage of the measure; at the same time he begged to mention, that any hints from the hon. gent. upon a subject with which he was known to be so well acquainted, would of course be peculiarly acceptable to the framers of the bill, to which the motion before the house referred.

said, that the bill would not go to subject any magistrates to the duty of superintendence, who might not be willing to execute it; and added, that the necessity for the adoption of the bill was, in the county with which he was connected, urgent in point of time.

observed, that this bill would operate a material change in the law, and therefore, for the consistency of legislation, he wished to hear some case stated that rendered such change necessary, before he agreed to the motion.

said, that necessity was alleged by from 40 to 50 respectable and experienced magistrates of the county of York; and, indeed, it was universally felt, for the power which magistrates possessed to enforce the performance of justices towards parish apprentices, was notoriously imperfect, and no provision whatever was made for the guardianship of apprentices when transferred, as they frequently were, from one district to another.

conceived, that the house should be extremely cautious of granting authority upon the request of the men by whom it was exercised, as appeared to be the case in this instance.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.