observed, that the Bill was contrary to every principle of justice. The law, which it was now proposed to revive, had been suspended two years ago at the recommendation of all the judges. The effect of the Bill would not be to punish the illicit distillers, but the lower orders of the people; and it would be impossible to carry it into execution, without the assistance of the military. He should therefore move as an amendment, that the Report be taken into consideration that day three months.

said this was the only measure which could have the effect of putting down the mischievous practice of illicit distillation; and he believed it would be more beneficial for Ireland, than any measure which had been adopted since the Union.

conceived the measure closely connected with the civilization and morality of the people of Ireland.

supported the Bill.

said it had the almost unanimous concurrence of the representation of Ireland.

The House then divided; For the Amendment, 7; Against it, 82; Majority in favour of the Bill, 75.

rose, to move that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of altering the grant contained in it: he was inclined to be very liberal to Mr. Palmer, whose invention had been of the utmost service to the public: he thought, therefore, that some compensation was due from the nation to that gentleman, though it was not to be claimed as a matter of right. The sum which he proposed to give would be nearly two-thirds of the sum already mentioned in the grant.

stated, that as the arrangement proposed by the hon. member was not agreed to by the administration, be had no alternative but to endeavour to carry the Bill as it stood; that he had done every thing in his power, consistent with his duty to the individual whose cause he had undertaken, to prevent the necessity of a further appeal to parliament; and he sincerely regretted that an offer, made by him to government, after the last session, to refer the matter to arbitration, had been rejected. He trusted, therefore, that the friends to the Bill would pardon the trouble he had been compelled to give them, and would reject the motion for its recommitment.

After some discussion, the House divided—For the Amendment 44; Against it 77; Majority 33. The Report was then taken into consideration. The Bill, with its amendments, were ordered to be engrossed, and the third reading was fixed for to-morrow.

rose and moved, That the special Report of the Helleston Election Committee be read. The said Report was accordingly read as follows:

"Resolved, That it appears to this Com- mittee, that an illegal agreement has for some time existed between the most noble George Frederick duke of Leeds, and the greater part of the members of the corporation of the borough of Helleston, in relation to the return of members to serve in the Commons of the United Kingdom for the said borough, in violation of the freedom of election, and contrary to the standing orders of this House and the laws of the realm, made for the prevention of bribery and corruption."

then rose. He said, that in bringing forward the motion which he was about to submit to the House, he had no political interest to answer, and no resentments to gratify. The chairman of the committee had declined to submit any motion to the House on the Report, although the majority in the committee was 11 to 3. The House ought to be informed of the proceedings of the committee. The committee were unanimously of opinion, that those voters who had benefited by the corrupt influence which had been proved had disfranchised themselves. He should be sorry to say any thing against the noble duke alluded to in the Report, or against the hon. members returned, but he conceived it incumbent on him in this case to lay before the House the nature of the transactions which had taken place, and to state the nature of the constitution of the borough of Helleston. The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to observe, that three of the aldermen, who had got the majority of influence into their own hands, managed that influence for the Go-dolphin family, which family had in return paid the parish rates of Helleston from the reign of queen Elizabeth to the year 1804, when, in consequence of some disagreement, the duke of Leeds lost the patronage of the borough. Then a baronet (sir Christopher Hawkins) who was understood to think that the best plan for making his way to the House was, (as others were supposed to have done) by the possession of borough patronage, became patron of the borough in lieu of the duke of Leeds. Subsequent, as well as before that period, it was notorious that the seats were sold for 5,000 guineas each, and such practices took place as, to adopt the language of the right hon. gentleman in the chair, our ancestors would have shuddered at the very mention of. But the new patron having soon ceased to retain his influence, in consequence of a Resolution of that House, the duke of Leeds was again invited to resume the patronage, which invitation his grace accepted, upon the terms of an agreement, by which his grace became pledged to pay the town rates in return for the power of nominating the representatives. This fact was proved before the committee, and the result of the agreement was to afford the duke of Leeds an opportunity of deriving a profit of 800l. a year from the patronage of the borough, while each of the voters being relieved from the payment of town rates, was insomuch bribed to vote for the members recommended by his grace. The manner of managing the patronage of this borough he thought it not amiss to describe to the House, because it was pretty generally the system in the Cornish boroughs. The patron was not allowed to have any direct connection with the voters. All the patronage was distributed by the leading members of the corporation, in such a way as to preserve their own consequence in the borough, and to render the voters dependent on themselves alone. With this view the personal interposition of the patron was studiously excluded, while the business of the borough was managed by those upon whom he was to depend for the retention of his influence; every favour he granted being so conveyed, that the obligation should be felt rather towards the agent than towards the principal or patron. And by whom was this system of cunning and corruption arranged and conducted? Why, chiefly by clergymen. Yes, wherever bribery, corruption, treating, intimidation, or political persecution, or any species of undue influence, or dirty work was to be managed, the clergy, who ought to shrink from and reprobate such practices, were the most active and prominent agents. In the case of Penryn, which had so justly provoked the indignation of that House, it would be remembered that the rev. Mr. Dillon was a principal agent; in the case of Tregony, also, a clergyman was among the foremost in delinquency, and in the case under consideration, he found the rev. Thomas Trevethan and the rev. Richard Grylls among the most active in the work at Helleston. Indeed, the duke of Leeds lost ground considerably in the borough, as it appeared, from his neglect or incapacity to procure a living for the son of a clergyman. But no patron could, in fact, retain his influence in a Cornish borough, who had it not in his power to make a return of church patronage. A patron was also called upon to take a mortgage by the corporation, who, when they wished to get rid of him, were always ready to adopt another mortgagee. Another part of the system respecting the management of Helleston, and some other of the Cornish boroughs, referred to the poor's rates. Instead of selecting respectable men for overseers of the poor, the corporation took care, especially on the approach of an election, to have some low dependent persons appointed, in order to have swept off the rates the names of such men as were likely to give an independent vote. Then when complaint was made, the parties complaining were spurned at, desired in a tone of defiance to do their best, being tauntingly told, that the overseers would be supported by the corporation, and the corporation by the patron. This language, indeed, was generally so decisive, that no proceedings were taken, the affair was usually compromised after the election, and the names of the disfranchised voters were again put on the rates. Here the hon. and learned gentleman detailed the particulars of some unfair treatment which he experienced prior to the last election at Penryn from the party connected with the hon. gentleman on the bench below him (Mr. D. Giddy), that party improperly refusing to let him have in due time a view of the rate-book, so that he was at a loss to know whom to canvass. But the practices pursued in these Cornish boroughs formed a tissue of trick and low artifice, as he knew from his own experience; and if there was a borough among them more corrupt than another that indisputably was Helleston. It required more favours from its patron, and exacted more from its representatives, than any other borough he had heard of. In saying this, however, he begged to be understood that he did not mean to bring any charge against its present representatives. But from the Report of the Committee it was evident that the borough of Helleston had most scandalously abused its privileges, by violating the law of the land; and it was for that House to adopt the means most likely to be effectual in preventing the repetition of such malpractices. In the year 1806, an individual was prosecuted for certain transactions at Penryn, and chiefly at the instance of a noble lord, who was himself guilty of the same practices. But these practices were repeated too generally in Cornwall. In fact, the only borough in the county which had even the semblance of independence, was that which he had the honour to represent [loud laughing]. For this reception of his statement, he was, he said, fully prepared. The borough alluded to (Penryn) had been no doubt corrupt; but then it had only about 100 voters, to each of whom the patron was generally in the habit of presenting 20 guineas at each election; but now the voters amounted to nearly 400, and the patron could not prudently be so liberal; or, perhaps, he was ashamed or afraid to make such a distribution, lest he should be brought before the bar of that House to answer for the delinquency. The hon. and learned member, adverting to the case of Thomas Croggon, now a prisoner in Newgate, for merely offering to sell a seat, put it to the House to consider whether the distinct agreement of the duke of Leeds, stated in the Report before the House, could be consistently overlooked, or rather whether it was not deserving of exemplary punishment? In consequence of this agreement, the noble duke introduced Mr. Hammersley the banker, and Mr. Horne the barrister, at the last election, by a letter under his grace's own hand, addressed to the mayor of the borough. With Croggon's example then in view, he asked, whether the House could, with due regard to consistency of character and duty, grant impunity to the duke of Leeds? In fact, if it were not meant that rank should give protection, and that poverty alone should expose a criminal to the prosecution of that House, it was impossible to let the conduct of the duke of Leeds, in this case, escape the visitation of the law he had so seriously offended. The hon. and learned gentleman expressed his regret that the Solicitor General was not a member of that House, in order that it might have the advantage of that learned gentleman's opinion, which he knew to be decidedly in favour of the view which he felt it his duty to take of the subject. He concluded with moving, That the Attorney General be instructed to prosecute the most noble George Frederic, duke of Leeds, for the said offence. The hon. and learned gentleman added, that he meant also to propose the prosecution of four of the aldermen concerned in the agreement with the duke of Leeds. There were some shades of difference in favour of the mayor, who was implicated only to a certain extent; from that consi- deration he thought it more advantageous for justice rather to have him brought forward as a witness, than prosecuted as a delinquent. The motion for the prosecution of the duke of Leeds being put,

thought that the speech of the hon. gentleman was one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard, though in substance he did not differ from the Report of the Committee. Had he been a member of the Committee he should have concurred in the Report, agreeing, as he did, that the transaction alluded to was a breach of the privileges of the House, and contrary to the law of the land. Knowing, as he had done from his youth, the gentlemen who were implicated in the transaction in question, and highly as their general character was entitled to respect, he could not in that House, after what had appeared, stand up as their champion on the present occasion. At the same time he did not think this a case in which the House was called on to interfere in the manner proposed. If the hon. gentleman, or any other person, chose to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against the parties concerned, or otherwise to proceed against them at law, he saw no reason to doubt that the penalties must be incurred. But still he saw no incumbent duty imposed on the House to interfere in such a case as this. It was incumbent on the House in such a case to ascertain, quo animo, the offence had been committed. That the Godolphin family had conferred the highest obligations on the borough of Helleston, from the earliest times, could not be disputed. That family had built for the inhabitants a market and market-place, and had for a series of years been in the use of paying for them their poor's rates. This latter was the offence now complained of, and though he did not pretend to vindicate this as an act justifiable in itself, as connected with the right of election, still he submitted that the five aldermen now complained of had not stipulated for this, on the present occasion, with a view to their own private interest alone, but for the relief of the mass of the inhabitants, who night have reproached them had they subjected them to a payment to which they were unaccustomed, to the amount of 1,700l. a-year. He did not urge this, however, as a justification, but merely in mitigation. That the family of the Go-dolphins would not have recommended unworthy persons to the inhabitants of this borough the House had abundant proof' from looking back to the names of those who had been members for that borough, among whom they would find some of the first characters in the kingdom. There was here, he submitted, no malus animus, and therefore, it was not necessary for the House to interfere, to the effect of marking the noble family in question, and the other parties to the transaction, with a stigma more distressing to their posterity than any penalty which could be inflicted. Independently of the prosecution proposed, the House had in their power, a measure to which he could have no objection, but which he should be rather prepared to recommend, namely, to open the right of voting in the borough in question. Of a motion to this effect early in the next session, he had no objection to give notice, provided the present motion should be negatived. The parties who had here offended had, as appeared from a paper which he held in his hand, already done every thing in their power to atone for their improper conduct, by opening the freedom of the borough to about eighty persons, being all the inhabitants above the situation of journeymen. As to the two clergymen who had been named, he bore testimony to their characters and merits. Having stated these circumstances, he begged the House to recollect, that though in point of strictness, every man who was eased of his rate had accepted a compensation, yet it could not be supposed that men of their respectability would sell and sacrifice their rights for a mere bribe of 25l. a year.

regretted the long delay which had intervened between the Report of the Helleston Committee and its present consideration by the House. Under the present circumstances of the question he did not think that there remained any choice as to the mode of proceeding which the House must adopt. The greater part of the arguments he had intended to adduce, had been rendered wholly unnecessary by the resolution which the House had agreed to without opposition or discussion, "That a corrupt agreement had been entered into between the duke of Leeds and the corporation of Helleston." The House had declared, that the law had been broken, and it must now pass some sentence, or forfeit its own dignity. He thought it would have been more decorous if those who opposed the present motion, had objected to the pre- vious resolution. It would, indeed, have been disgraceful if that resolution had been negatived in defiance of the evidence, but it would be infinitely less so than that the House should proclaim to the country at large, that the standing orders of that House, the law of the land, and the privileges of the Commons of England, had been violated, yet that no punishment should ensue. The last speaker had dwelt much upon the circumstances of palliation, and he felt himself bound to acknowledge, that in this case there was one very material one. The influence of the duke of Leeds in this borough, though acquired in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, had not been corruptly applied. Though the representation of it had been bought, yet in no instance had it been sold again, either by the duke or his family. It was only necessary to look back at the names of the persons who had sate for it under his recommendation, to prove, not only that they had been parties to no corrupt or pecuniary contract, but that they had come into parliament equally clear from that dangerous influence which claimed to guide the votes of members, and to deprive them of all free agency.

Thus much it was just to state in alleviation of the noble person's offence, but though it might be an argument for lessening the quantum of punishment, it could be no reason for passing it wholly by.

Much stress had been laid on the remuneration paid for this return being applied for the general benefit of the inhabitants, and not exclusively for those who had votes. This consideration never had and never ought to have any weight with parliament. If persons were to purchase a return, it was no matter whether it was by building a church, by paying rates, or putting money into the pocket of the electors. One practice might be less prejudicial than another to the morals, but it was equally destructive of the freedom of election. If money is once allowed to be given upon any pretence, the candidate who is unwilling or unable to bestow it must be rejected, and his opponent, though otherwise less fit, must be returned. The principle of the constitution is, that the return shall be made freely, sine spe, sine pretio, and any consideration given for a vote is equally illegal, whatever may be the motives of those who have paid or those who have received it. There were many cases to this effect on the Journals, but none which so fully illustrated it as that of the city of Oxford in the present reign. That corporation having for public purposes contracted debts, had written to the sitting members, offering to secure their reelection, if they would discharge those incumbrances. The gentlemen subscribing the letter could not individually be liable for this debt, and consequently, the remuneration was not for their private benefit, and the terms being refused, the proposal was never carried into execution. Yet the House upon complaint resolved the mere proposal to be a high breach of the privilege of parliament. The mayor and aldermen, ten persons of the highest respectability, were committed to Newgate, and afterwards reprimanded on their knees at the bar of the House. It had also been said that this was an ancient practice, of the illegality of which the parties were not aware. This might indeed have been contended, if it had been continued without interruption; it might have been argued that the duke of Leeds had always paid the poor rates, and had also recommended the members for the borough, but that the two facts were not necessarily connected or dependent on each other, but it appeared clearly from the evidence, that when the duke ceased to recommend one of the members, he also discontinued the payment of one half of the poor rate; and that previous to the last election, the seat of which he had formerly given up the patronage was again offered to him, on the express condition of his again paying the whole of the poor rate. This offer he had accepted, had recommended the members, and paid the poor rate. No proof could ever go beyond this, here was that contract completed, the bare proposal of which had been voted to be a breach of the privilege of parliament, and so severely punished in the Oxford case, and in that of Croggon, who by the vote of this very House of Commons has been committed to Newgate, for having meditated that offence, which the duke of Leeds and the aldermen of Helleston have actually committed. The plea of ignorance of the law was one that never could be attended to; yet even this the aldermen were not entitled to urge, since it appeared that they objected to signing the letter to the duke, lest they should hereafter be brought before the House for it; they, therefore, were fully aware of the illegality of this offer at the time when they made it. He hoped that the resolution now under dis- cussion would be followed up by the measure suggested by a former speaker (of disfranchising the borough), but still the House would have the Resolutions of their committee recorded upon their journals as agreed to by themselves. By them the guilt of the parties concerned would be recorded, and it was for the House now to determine, whether that verdict was to be a mere brutum fulmen to impose on the ignorant, or to be directed effectually to prevent a recurrence of similar practices. If the motion should be negatived, it would proclaim to the world that that might be done with impunity by a member of either House of Parliament, which they visited so severely upon others. He was not himself aware of any circumstance which could prevent the House from proceeding in this case in its accustomed manner, but respect for the private character of the duke of Leeds. To this sentiment he would allow its full weight, but it was not sufficient to induce him to swerve from his duty: he should therefore vote for the motion.

bore testimony to the conduct and character of the clergy in Cornwall. He thought that in such a case as the present the punishment ought to fall on the borough itself, which had generally sinned. The paper produced by the hon. member (Mr. Giddy,) as containing the names of all the inhabitants of the borough, who, it was said, were now admitted to the right of voting, he thought, however, made the case infinitely worse. He would much rather have members nominated by the noble family alluded to than by the lowest classes in the borough of Helleston. He should rather propose, that the right of voting for that borough should be thrown open to the whole freeholders of the hundred, which was a widely extended district.

professed his astonishment that the hon. member who had opened the discussion, and who had detailed so many of the abuses of the Cornish boroughs, should not have voted for the motion he had brought forward for parliamentary reform, and in which those particular abuses, in those very boroughs, formed the principal feature. He should, however, incline more to the opinion of the hon. gentleman who spoke second in the debate, and hoped that instead of waiting for next session, he would immediately bring in a Bill to throw the borough open. This was the only mode of effectually correct- ing the abuses of close elections. He had been told, indeed, that the freeholders of that district were not likely to be more incorruptible than the corporation; if that assertion proved to be founded, he should move that the right of election be transferred to some of the populous hundreds in Great Britain, and he gave notice once for all, that should any similar instance of mal-practice in any Cornish borough be brought under the cognizance of the House, he should move, that the right of nomination be transferred to some of the populous hundreds of Yorkshire or Lancashire. This was a safe way of effecting a parliamentary reform. Nor need the friends of reform be alarmed at the slow progress on which they might calculate in that way; for they might rest assured that numberless instances of similar practices would be brought before the House, and that corruption would soon ruin the power of those who had built upon it. He expected to see the time when, by the gradual effect of these means, the purity of election would be completely restored; meanwhile he did not see the necessity, in the present instance, of animadverting too severely on individuals. With regard to the noble duke more immediately concerned, he regretted the distressing situation in which he stood, convinced as he was, that he had acted from no corrupt motive, but only according to an hereditary practice in his family.

thought that the House could not order the proposed prosecution with any moral certainty, or great probability of success; and if they failed in the measure, they would leave the case much worse than it actually was. He could not, for his own part, perceive such clear and specific grounds, as could induce him to entertain any confident hopes of success; and yet was free to say, that the committee were fully justified in the report they had made. He deemed it, therefore, more advisable to abandon the prosecution; and begged leave to suggest the propriety of bringing in a Bill for throwing open the borough to the adjacent hundreds.

said, whatever their suspicions might be, and he strongly suspected that illegal and corrupt practices had been resorted to, in the election for the borough of Helleston, yet, as there was no evidence, on which a lawyer would say that the case was likely to go to a trial, with a prospect of success, he would oppose the Resolution, and, instead of it, submit the following amendment to the judgment of the House: "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its consideration the state of the borough of Helleston, with a view to extend the right of election therein."

who was chairman of the committee that had reported upon the Helleston election, stated, that in the committee he had urged what he considered as reasons against their reporting to the House in the way they had. His reasons were, that he did not think any success could attend upon the proceedings that were likely to be had upon it in that House. Those reasons were now strengthened, and he should therefore certainly vote against the motion, and in support of the amendment;

said, if it had not been for the act passed in the last parliament, the conduct pursued by the duke of Leeds could not be termed illegal; and it was the duty of the House to make a distinction between an illegal proceeding, under such circumstances, and the pursuit of corrupt practices; a distinction which the committee itself had made; because, throughout the whole business, no malus animus, no corrupt intention, appeared to actuate those who were concerned in it. They had heard a speech, filled with the horrors of Cornwall electioneering. All he had to say on this head was, let the misdeeds of Helleston be visited on Helleston, but let not the crimes of the entire county be arrayed against that borough. The name of Mr. Croggon had been most invidiously and unnecessarily introduced in the debate. He hoped, however, the imprisonment of that individual would not be alleged as a reason for proceeding against the duke of Leeds. Although he was averse to the motion for commencing a prosecution against his grace, he was free and willing to throw open the borough to the surrounding hundreds, as parliament were bound to do something in support of their dignity.

denied the assertion, that the invariable custom of the House was to prosecute in cases of illegal and corrupt conduct with respect to elections. In proof of this, he referred to the circumstances of a contested election, in which he was engaged. In that case, although bribery was clearly proved, it was determined by the House, that no prosecution should take place.

observed, that if they should order to prosecute, and fail, that they could not then proceed to disfranchise the borough. He was therefore against the motion.

defended the conduct of the clergyman of Tregony, which had been alluded to in the course of the debate. Much misrepresentation had taken place, in the committee, with reference to this gentleman, with whose upright and excellent character he was perfectly acquainted. Two of the authors of these calumnies had been indicted for their malicious practices.

called the hon. gentleman to order. The House must see the ocean they were plunging into, if they permitted the minutes of the Tregony Election committee to be referred to on this occasion.

then proceeded to make some remarks on the injustice with which Mr. Croggon had been treated. He was again called to order; after which he observed, that he should move to-morrow for the liberation of Mr. Croggon.

said, that in one view of the question there could be but one feeling in the House, and that was, that nothing personally attached to the character of the noble duke. He had acted merely upon the long established practice of the borough, and it was utterly impossible to impute corruption to him. At the same time the House was in a dilemma, in having agreed to the resolution of their committee. In reference to an objection that had been started by an hon. member (Mr. Bankes), he owned it had some weight with him; but if he were thoroughly convinced that a prosecution could not be succesful, he should feel that the House was not called upon to proceed any further. He could not, however, come to any decisive opinion from his own knowledge, and he should wish, therefore, to be assisted by the legal declaration of some professional gentleman, whose opinion might be entitled to more authority than that of his hon. friend, upon a question involving purely a point of law. It would be more satisfactory to his mind than coming to a vote without such assistance: for he should certainly support the motion if he learned that it was likely to be successful: and he could wish that the Attorney General—

rose to order. He utterly objected to the principle of appealing to the opinion of the law officers of the crown in that House. If once admitted, a similar call might be made in every case; and what would be the consequence? that the Attorney General would be made the arbiter of the proceedings of that House on all occasions similar to the present one.

contended, that there were many occasions in which the House had referred to the opinions of the law officers among them, and they had found the benefit of such a practice in assisting their judgments upon questions of a judicial nature.

moved that the Resolution of the House upon the Tregony election, and upon the commitment of Thomas Croggon, should be read by the clerk, which was done accordingly. The noble lord then proceeded to comment upon the difference of their proceedings upon that occasion, and upon what they were likely to be on the present. He contended that the cases were precisely similar, except in what related to the condition of the parties offending. With respect to the noble duke, no one would bear more willing testimony to the excellence of his character, than he himself; and, in voting for the motion, he should do so with more pain than he had ever felt in giving a vote in that House,—pain, not only as affecting himself, but arising from the reflection that any person of his rank should, without being actuated by any corrupt motive, have been so unfortunate as to be called before that House on such an occasion. He lamented the event most sincerely, and yet, much as he lamented it, no option was left him as to what vote he should give, for there was nothing before that House but prosecution or impunity. He did not see the force of the objection made by an hon. member (Mr. Bankes); he thought there was as much probability of success as there could be in any case; he meant upon the illegality of the transaction; and corruption was disbelieved by all. The noble lord opposite had expressed a wish for the opinion of the Attorney General. Would he vote for the motion, if that opinion was favourable as to the probability of success? He did not think he would. ["He said he would," repeated from several parts of the House.] He stood corrected; he was very happy to find himself wrong; he believed it was the first time that noble lord had ever been accessary to a vote, that went to prosecute for practices of that kind. At the same time he had no doubt, the noble lord was well aware, that the Attorney General's opi- nion was one, which would not reduce him to the necessity of so unpleasant a duty.

said, it was not hit intention to offer any remarks upon the question before them, nor should he now present himself to their notice, but for some expressions that had fallen from the noble lord. If he understood him rightly, and he really hoped he did not understand him—he had said that his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) had secured to himself a refuge in making any pledge, because he knew that his (the Attorney General's) opinion, if called for, would prevent him from acting upon his own declaration, by being in favour of his view of the question. He was compelled to state, therefore, that though he did confer in private upon the evidence, in order that if called upon, he might give such an opinion as would not disgrace his professional character, yet neither his noble friend, nor any other person, except those with whom he had confidentially consulted upon the case, knew what his opinion might be; and he had cautiously abstained from disclosing it, because he thought it possible, though not probable, that he might be required to state it in that House. Such was the fact, and he could impute, therefore, what had fallen from the noble lord only to the hurry of expression, which left him no time to reflect upon what he was saying.

I did not mean to insinuate that the noble lord was apprised of what opinion the Attorney General would give if called upon: what I intended to say was, that probably the noble lord was aware that his own opinion was the same as what the Attorney General's must be.

I must say I never witnessed any thing more unwarranted and more injurious in this House than what has fallen from the noble lord. I can account for it only by supposing that the noble lord did not hear distinctly what fell from me: but then, it might have been expected he would not throw out insinuations, or put illiberal constructions, without being sure of what I had said.

I do not think I said any thing injurious to the noble lord.

I think the noble lord did me injustice, in first attributing to me what I did not say, and then in drawing harsh inferences from it.

expressed his satisfaction that the Attorney General had delivered no opinion upon the question. The noble lord had argued the matter as if the single point to be considered was, whether they should vote for the motion, or whether they should do nothing. But it was not so. They were called upon to adopt an alternative, whether they should concur in the motion, or apply another remedy by altering the condition of the borough, so that the same practices should not again occur. They ought to be guided altogether by the character of the transaction. If it were grossly corrupt, it should be severely animadverted upon; but if illegality was all that belonged to it, they should look rather to that remedy which would visit the offence where the criminality chiefly lay, and take away that franchise which had been so much abused. No person could read the evidence without being satisfied that no soil or stain of pecuniary corruption could attach to the character of the noble duke; therefore, so far as that noble personage was individually concerned, the motion seemed unnecessary, and they might safely pass it by as one that, at best, was vindictive, and not remedial. Upon that short ground he should vote for the Amendment which went to the root of the evil.

spoke in favour of the original motion; which, he observed, ought to receive the concurrence of every gentleman who wished to preserve the consistency and dignity of parliament.—He thought the Committee right in their opinion of the illegality of the contract, and should think this a fair case to go before a jury. If the prosecution should fail, the borough might still be disfranchised.

supported the Amendment.

said, there was not time in the present session to bring in a Bill and carry it through the House; but he pledged himself to produce a measure to extend the right of voting, early in the ensuing session.

declared, that on examination of the minutes of evidence, he saw sufficient reason to say, that this was not one of those desperate cases which precluded all chance of conviction. In giving his vote for the original motion, he did not wish to prevent the introduction of some measure to purify the present mode of election in the borough; he was ready to propose a resolution of that description so soon as the present question was disposed of.

in reply, said, he was apprehensive the Amendment was a kind of side wind, introduced for the purpose of disposing of the question of reform altogether. He had no interest at stake, and no resentments to gratify, and the House might exercise its judgment upon the motion.

The House then divided, when there appeared—For the original motion, 52; Against it, 55; Majority, 3.

then stated, that he wished the Amendment to be negatived, that a Bill might be brought in immediately. The Amendment having been withdrawn, he moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the freedom and purity of election in the borough of Helleston.

thought it a most serious matter to be stated, that the first individual in that House had been returned by a peer. It was stated, that the seats for Helleston were repeatedly bought and sold: after which, by a majority of three, it was determined, that no prosecution should be instituted against the individual materially concerned in the illegality. He concurred in the plan for throwing the borough into the hundred on general principles. If the House, however, suspended proceedings in this business, till next session, what person in the country would suppose that they were serious in their disposition to reform the state of representation for Helleston? The difficulties in which the House would place itself, were singular and dangerous, and could only be removed by an instantaneous proceeding. He was anxious to do away what was unconstitutional, and to reform the state of the borough; in which view he should agree to the proposed Bill.

agreed in the propriety of coming to an immediate determination of bringing in the Bill.

said, if there existed grounds upon which they could disenfranchise the borough, there also existed grounds for instituting the prosecution.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

then intimated his intention of moving to-morrow for the liberation of Mr. Croggon.

moved the order of the day for going into a Committee to consider further of the Report which, upon the 11th of May, was made from the Select Committee appoint- ed to enquire into the Corn Trade of the United Kingdom.

declared that the Resolutions proposed a complete alteration of the Corn Laws, which in his opinion would be a very mischievous measure.

Sir William Curtis and Mr. Peel said a few words concerning the propriety of postponing the motion till more extensive information relating to the corn trade could be obtained.

maintained that further delay was wise, proper and expedient.

wished to warn the House against passing the measure without further information; though they had abundant reason to be dissatisfied with the present state of the corn laws, he did not know that the adoption of the proposed measure would make them any better.

deprecated the introduction of any measure that even seemed calculated to increase the price of corn.

deemed the measure to be unseasonable and improper, and was determined to oppose it.

was against the interference of the House in the price of bread, or any other of the necessaries of life, as such interference always made them dearer.

thought it would be time enough to object to the details of the Bill, when it should be before the House. At present the only question was, whether the subject should be discussed at all, or not.

was for discussing the Resolutions, with many of which he agreed.

did not think that any information upon the subject was wanting. They had before them all the official papers on the corn trade, and every important document in the possession of the Board of Agriculture, or the Farming Society of Ireland.

spoke against the Resolutions.

said, that he conceived the high prices of corn for the last twenty years was encouragement enough to agriculture, and that it should be well considered how far such a measure would affect the poor, and the manufacturers. He thought it would be better that a subject of such great importance should be postponed till next session.

The House divided on the order of the day for going into a committee. Ayes 57; Noes 27; Majority 30. On the next question, that the Speaker do leave the chair,

said, the measure in contemplation was calculated to exclude from the most populous part of this empire the best and the cheapest corn, for the sake of the country which produced the dearest and the worst. Wheaten bread would soon be as great a luxury to the working people here as those in Ireland. Much had been said about this country having exported grain in the first half of the last century, and imported it in the latter; but was this not owing to our increased manufactures in this last period, and to the increase of our army and navy? The House were not in possession of sufficient information on the subject. The Bill, in every stage, should have his opposition. Much pains had been taken to conciliate different interests to this measure. The representatives of Ireland, the West India, the growers of corn in Canada, and all the great interests had been endeavoured to be conciliated, while the manufacturing interests of this country had not been consulted as to the operation of the Bill upon them.

said, it had been the constant practice of the hon. gentleman who spoke last to represent the West India islands as in a prosperous state. He would rather take the profits of the individual house to which the hon. member belonged, than those of the whole West India islands. The hon. gentleman supported the proposition of the hon. baronet (sir H. Parnell) and deprecated the idea that those who with him were the advocates of that measure were not as anxious for the interest of the labouring poor, as its opponents were or could be.

followed on the same side, declaring, that as a member of the committee, from which this measure emanated, he was not actuated in his consideration of the question by any solicitude for the corn grower or the landlords, or for Ireland, in which he had no personal interest, but for the general interests of the empire, which were best consulted, by securing to all classes an adequate supply of corn, which supply would, he trusted, be the result of the measure before the House.

maintained that as the object of the Resolution was to raise the price of corn, in order, as it was professed, to encourage the corn-growers, the result must be, to raise the rents, for it could hardly be supposed that landlords would not contrive to participate in any additional profits derived from the use of their land; that was, if the measure should have any success, for he must confess, that in his judgment its success was problematical.

The gallery was cleared for a division, but no division took place. On the sixth Resolution, by which the protecting duty, or price at which corn may be imported, is to be fixed on an average of the whole twelve maritime districts of England, Ire. land and Scotland, instead of the four maritime districts of England alone, a pretty long conversation took place, in which sir W. Curtis, Mr. Baring, Mr. Alderman Atkins, Mr. Horner, Mr. Finlay, &c. opposed the Resolution; and Sir H. Parnell, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Barham, Mr. Huskisson, &c. supported it. The Committee divided—For the Resolution 38; Against it 20; Majority in favour of the Resolution 18.

Some other Resolutions were gone through, when the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.