moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Bill to secure the freedom of Election in the borough of Helleston.

wished to correct a mistake respecting an opinion he had formerly expressed, which seemed to be prevalent in the House, and had found its way into most of the newspapers. When he had said on that subject, that no corruption could attach to the duke of Leeds, he had meant pecuniary corruption only; for he was sure, and would declare, that the word 'corruption,' in its constitutional sense, applied to the whole transaction, and to every person concerned in it. The frequency of these abuses he, however, attributed to the remissness in the House in not punishing them always with exemplary severity. He approved of the principle contained in the Bill of throwing the borough open to the freeholders of the hundred; but he thought that a clause should be introduced by which men thus acquiring the right of voting, should be in possession of a freehold of 10l. a year.

declared that he thought the principle of the Bill ought to be extended generally to a system of parliamentary reform, and that it would be advisable to transfer the right of election which had been forfeited by the borough of Helleston to the populous county of York, rather than to the hundreds of the corrupt borough itself.

said, it appeared to him that every consideration joined to make it necessary to take a measure somewhat different from that now before them. There never was a fairer opportunity of convincing the people of their wish for rational reform. He warmly approved of the sup-gestion of the noble marquis, and wished the right to be transferred to some more populous district; Cornwall being already represented out of all proportion.

thought that the transferring the right arbitrarily to a remote part of the country would only lead to a scramble and confusion, and that it was better to abide by former precedents in similar cases.

said, that the Bill had followed the precedents which existed in cases of this nature, but the present was different from former instances in this, that in other cases the corruption had been partial, whereas, here it was general, and extended to every one of the five aldermen who had the right of election vested in them and in any number of persons they might appoint.

disapproved of the idea of extending the representation of Yorkshire, as the expences of elections there were already too heavy. He conceived that the time for considering the state of representation in that part of the country would be when some general plan of reform was before the House.

said, that the proper time for reform was one that never came. If it was recommended in consequence of, the discovery of some particular abuse, then it was put off till a general plan of reform should be digested, and when any such plan was brought forward, it was immediately discarded as altogether dangerous and impracticable. There never was, a period in which the influence of the crown had been exerted so directly and improperly on the decisions of that House as in the present session of parliament. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Yorkshire, he could not understand how dividing the representa- tion could increase the expenditure of the candidates, as it arose entirely from the number of electors.

said, if the elective franchise of this borough, and of Tregony and Grampound, could be transferred to Yorkshire, he was sure it would be of the greatest advantage to the country.

said, that House was the proper tribunal to decide on the question; and, in his opinion, the suggestion of the noble lord was best calculated to cure the evil. The powers of the House were quite adequate to suspend the powers of representation in places that were corrupt, and he thought they should do so in the present instance.

highly approved of the Bill, but thought at the same time that the proposition of the noble lord was such as ought to be adopted on the next instance which might occur. He thought it would tend to a good purpose, if they were to settle what places they should assign the right of voting to, on the occurrence of cases like the present.

hoped the hon. member who spoke last would waste no more of his time or solicitude on the improvement of Hindoo morals, when he found that there was so much to do at home that he could not tell where to begin. He was strongly for the extension of the elective franchise. If Helleston and a half dozen more, if not the whole of the rotten Cornish boroughs, were thrown into Yorkshire, it would be for the benefit of the country.

said he did not mean to press his suggestion at present.

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Bill. On the first clause, which confined the operation of the Bill to Helleston and the adjoining hundred,

moved as an amendment, that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to the other hundreds of the county of Cornwall.

opposed the motion, contending, that the House knew no more about the other hundreds of Cornwall, than they did of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

After a discussion, in which Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Swan, Mr. R. Smith, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. Rose, Mr. P. Moore, and Mr. Bankes participated,

said, that finding the sense of the House against his proposition, he begged leave to withdraw it, at the same time giving notice, that on the Report, he should move to vest the right of representation, now existing in the borough of Helleston, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

moved to fill up the blank in the next clause, which related to the amount of annual freehold property necessary to qualify as a vote, with the sum of ten pounds.

warmly objected to this departure from the ancient practice, and moved as an amendment, to fill up the blank with the sum of forty shillings.

A long discussion again ensued. It was contended on the one hand, that no parliamentary grounds had been laid for a deviation from the existing general qualification; and on the other, that the great change which had taken place in the value of money since the establishment of that sum as a proper qualification, justified the proposed increase. Eventually, however, Mr. Bankes agreed to the amendment.

The next clause involved the oath to be taken by the elector; it stated, that the freehold property, in right of which he claimed to vote, had not been fraudulently conveyed to him for that purpose.

moved to omit the word 'fraudulently' as superfluous and improper. Property might be conveyed to an individual to enable him to vote at an election, and yet the conveyance might not be fraudulent.

After some conversation between Mr. Abercromby, Mr. Bathurst, and Mr. P. Carew, Mr. Bankes's motion was agreed to; on an understanding that it should be subject to reconsideration on the Report.

announced his intention of moving, upon the Report being brought up, that no mayor or alderman of Helleston should be allowed to act as returning officer for that borough. For if a voter were rejected by any of these persons, and he was asked the reason, mum was, according to practice, the order of the day, while if another voter in the same circumstances were received in support of a favourite candidate, the returning officer was questioned in vain, for mum was also the order of the day. And if the returning officer were told that an appeal would be made to that House against his conduct, his answer generally was, or would be, "I value not your menaces, for I shall be as well supported in that House as you can be." In fact, these persons, if promised protection by any great man, were quite indifferent how they acted. He would therefore rather have the sheriff of the county appointed the returning, officer of this borough, because he was generally a man of character and property, more responsible, and less likely to act under undue influence.

vindicated the character of the five aldermen of Helleston, whom he conceived to have been attacked by the learned gentleman, than whom he knew no equal number of individuals more respectable.

The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

in rising to present a Petition, which he conceived of the utmost importance to the safety, happiness, and character of the country, thought it necessary to advert to certain disadvantages in which the Petition was placed. It was a Petition from the people of Nottingham in favour of parliamentary reform, one effect of which measure would be to prevent such scandalous proceedings as had been described in the course of that evening. But such proceedings were not confined to the borough of Helleston. No, they were notoriously general, although, when brought before that House, no one could be found who would dare to defend them. Yet, by such proceedings, and by such boroughs, was the majority of what were called the representatives of the people actually returned. He therefore most entirely concurred in the sentiments of the Petition which he held in his hand, and he could not imagine any rational ground upon which it could be rejected. He had heard, indeed, that it was objectionable because it was a printed petition, and that on that ground another petition had been recently rejected; but he hoped the right hon. gentleman in the chair would see reason to change his opinion upon this subject. For how could the circumstance of a petition being printed form any substantial ground of objection to its admissibility? Or why should such a ground be allowed to interfere with the subjects' indubitable right of petitioning that House? If any resolution of the House on record sanctioned any objection of this nature, it ought, in his judgment, to be rescinded by an assembly, the doors of which, according to the declaration of the Speaker, ought to be thrown wide open for receiving the pe- titions of the people—for receiving the petitions which, according to the Bill of Rights, ought in no case to be obstructed. If, indeed, there were any standing order to support the objection referred to, he should at once move that it be rescinded. But he did not believe there was any such resolution or order. A resolution was, no doubt, entered into by the parliament, as it was called, of, Cromwell in 1656, (for which parliament he supposed that House had no respect) that no printed petition should be received, but even this resolution referred only to private petitions; and for the precedent of 1793, when a petition was rejected because it was printed, he could entertain no respect, conceiving, as he did, in opposition to those who preached the doctrine of precedent, that it did not follow because a certain thing had been done before, it would be right to do it again without any reason to recommend it. Now he saw no reason for acting upon the precedent of 1793, and he could not see why that House should be bound by the proceedings of any former House. With this view of the subject, and considering that a printed petition afforded more facilities, and was less liable to misrepresentation, he must think, that instead of being objectionable, it was, in fact, more desirable in the form to which some gentlemen objected. He meant as to form and not as to essence; the only material object was to have a petition so arranged, that the signatures could be verified; and he could not see how such verification was more practicable or certain in a written than in a printed petition. For these reasons, and as several other petitions similarly circumstanced with the present, were ready for presentation, he should feel it his duty to press its acceptance, if no good reasons should be stated againt his view of the subject. He therefore moved that the Petition be received.

observed, that according to the practice of the House, printed petitions had been uniformly rejected. An attempt had, indeed, been made on the 5th of May, 1793, to alter the practice, but the sense of the House was decidedly against it.

while he disclaimed any wish to obstruct the right of petitioning, thought the ground stated by the Chair a sufficient objection to the hon. baronet's motion. But another objection occurred to his mind, arguing from analogy to the case which last night occupied the attention of the House, namely, that indi- viduals should not be encouraged to organize statements for the signature of others—to print and circulate complaints through the country in the form of petitions—to transfuse into the minds of the people grievances only felt or imagined by those with whom they originated, and which would not otherwise be expressed by any portion of the people. If the petitioners had any grievances to represent, and seriously wished for the redress of them, it certainly could be no difficult matter to state them in the customary way. The obstacle was, in fact, raised by themselves, who took the unnecessary trouble of printing that which it was merely requisite to write.

saw no difference between printed and written petitions, when the redress of grievances and the interference of parliament were constitutionally sought.

was aware of the practice of the House not to receive printed petitions; yet he could not perceive that the practice was founded in that consistency which called upon the House to listen at all times, and with every possible attention, to the complaints and prayers of the people.

would throw the doors of parliament wide open for the reception of petitions; but he regretted that so many petitions, and on such trifling subjects, were now presented to the House. He thought it no hardship to be obliged to write petitions. As the present motion was intended to try the question whether printed petitions should be received or not, he would vote against it.

thought it was much better to have many petitions on the table of the House, even though frivolous, than to throw any obstruction in the way of a single petitioner. If every one wrote the petition he signed, there would be some excuse for refusing to receive printed petitions; but as that was not the case, as persons so far from writing the petitions sometimes never read them, he saw no reasons for rejecting a petition because it was printed. In 1656, a period to which he would not look for precedents, the assembly, then called the parliament, refused to receive printed petitions, but their resolution only referred to private petitions. He had frequently had petitions forwarded to him where the signatures for the convenience of the parties had been affixed to more than 20 printed petitions, which had been, afterwards torn off, and the names attached to one written petition: surely this mode was more objectionable than receiving printed petitions. The noble lord had conjured up an analogy between those petitions and the Orange clubs; but until the noble lord could shew that societies existed for the purpose of obtaining printed petitions, the analogy could not be fairly said to exist. The petitioners had been blamed for wishing to bring the question to an issue: he thought they were perfectly right. There was nothing disrespectful in their conduct. He had heard no reasons why a printed petition should not be received, and he found no resolution of the House to that effect. He wished to see the matter reduced to a certainty, and should vote for the motion.

saw no difference upon the question of analogy, whether proceedings of this nature originated with a club or a missionary travelling through the country to canvas for signatures, to persuade people to express grievances which they did not feel. He had no objection to come to a decision on the subject; but he protested against the idea, that because no resolution was to be found rejecting printed petitions, such was not the law of parliament. The petitioners had raised a wanton question, and therefore he hoped the House would not break through its established usage.

declared, that it appeared of little importance to him how a petition originated, whether the production of a society formed for that purpose, whether the work of a missionary who went through the country persuading people that they were aggrieved and collecting signatures, or the spontaneous production of those who saw and felt what they complained of; if it approached the House in a printed shape it could not be received. He was therefore against the motion, it having been long ago resolved, that only written petitions should be received. So many years practice he thought sufficient as to the point of form—a deviation from which might lead to many difficulties.

said, that if the petition had appeared to have been drawn up in ignorance of the customs of the House, he should have been induced to vote for receiving it, with a specific note of its being contrary to the usual practice. It was unnecessary to discuss whether the custom was wise and reasonable or not; for every court had a right to expect that its own regulations should be conformed to. He did not conceive the present petition to have been dictated so much from a wish to express the feelings of the petitioners, as to try the experiment, whether a petition like the present would be received. He was as anxious as any one, that the doors of the House should be open to persons who chose to apply to it by way of petition. But with this feeling, he could not see that it was any improper tax on persons applying to the House for redress of grievances, that so long as the doors of the House were open to them, they should condescend so far as to conform to the customs of the House. On this principle he was for refusing the present petition.

in reply, declared himself to be satisfied that the petitioners were ignorant, as he declared himself to have been, of any determination come to by the House as to the rejection of petitions labouring under the informality objected to in that now under consideration. As to the custom of the House, properly so called, he denied that there was any such as the right hon. gentleman now contended for. The noble lord (Castlereagh) had no objection to individual petitions, yet he would oppose the general voice of the people, united in one great and important measure; and would rather admit their signatures when attached to one common petition, to which they had not been originally appended, than when transmitted in a much more authentic shape, attached to printed copies of the original petition by which they were accompanied. Esteeming the subject of the present petition one of the greatest importance, he gave notice, that he should, early in the next session, feel it a duty which he owed to these numerous petitioners, to move, that the subject be taken into immediate consideration; and with these impressions he should equally feel it his duty now to divide the House.

The House then divided; For receiving the Petition 11; Against it 75; Majority 64.

wished to know if the noble lord meant to press the East India Bill that night, as, if he did, there was a clause to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House, among the many by which the Bill had been swelled and made to wear an appearance so different from its original shape. The clause to which he alluded was one by which the importation of saltpetre was confined to the Company, and this restriction, if any advantage was really meant to be extended to the outports, would be one attended with great inconvenience to private traders, for this was the only article with which they could ballast their ships.

had no objection to postpone the question, provides the House would consent to go into it at an early hour to-morrow. With respect to the clause to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, he had only to say, that whatever were its merits or demerits, it had not been suggested by the Company. The question was, whether every one should be permitted to import an article that formed an essential portion of warlike stores, or whether it should be subjected to regulations which might be deemed useful by the government. If, however, it should seem that any advantage to be derived from such regulations were balanced by the advantage resulting to the private trader from having free access to the article, it was for the House to decide which interest should be attended to.

The Report of the Bill was then ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

said, to save the time of the House, he should only offer a few words on this subject, and should then move an Address to the Prince Regent, with the view of putting his sentiments on record, but without any intention of dividing the House. At this time of the session, at this period of the night, and with the wish for peace which was now on foot, he should not think it necessary to use more than a few words. The sum now proposed to vote, however, was beyond all example, amounting, as it did, to five millions. Last year the vote was three millions, but that had been found insufficient. The army extraordinaries this year were exceedingly great, and now the House was called on to agree to a Vote of Credit great beyond all example. He considered the vote infinitely too great; but he had no hope of being able to induce the House to narrow the grant. On the first day of the session he did move an Address to the Prince Regent, enforcing upon his Royal Highness, and upon the country, the expediency, when it was possible, of achieving the great Work of peace. Since then a great overthrow of the ruler of France had taken place, such as could not have been expected by common means. He was anxious that this opportunity should not have been lost, and that it should not have been in the power of the French emperor to instil into the minds of the people of France, that it was the wish of this country to limit the bounds of France still farther. While the emperor of France was not able to make any effort corresponding with his former military force and reputation—when, in fact, he was pursued almost within his ancient boundaries;—at that period no attempt to effect a peace was made. He (Mr. W.) did once more think that a fit moment for negociation, and for effecting an advantageous peace. They had again, however, found that instead of the power of France being exhausted, its ruler had brought forward a force more gigantic than any which had been produced by that country since the French Revolution. The allies, though once more concentred on the Rhine, had been certainly compelled to retreat beyond the Elbe and almost to the Oder. Once more terms of negociation seemed attainable; and it appeared to him almost impossible that this country should not again offer terms of peace, when the Swedish treaty appeared to frustrate that expectation. Before the Vote of Credit passed, however, at least, as soon as it did pass, he should, in terms as moderate as possible, put on record his opinions as to what ought to be the conduct of England at this important period. The allies, in the present contest, he did not believe to have at heart, one more than another, the real benefit of mankind, or a sincere desire to establish peace on the continent. The strongest illustration of this was to be found in the treaties between Sweden, Russia, Prussia and England. It might have been thought, that when Russia was contending against that lust of dominion attributed to France, when she assumed to herself the title of the Deliverer of Europe, When she maintained that she was fighting in the common cause of Europe against the usurpations of France, it might have been expected that she would set the example of self-denial and moderation to the allies, by surrendering to Sweden her acquisition of Finland. That, however, she was not disposed to do; and yet, as Sweden would not act in concert with her without some equivalent, Norway was fixed upon to be given as an indemnify for Finland. The plea of the safety of Sweden, which was set up in defence of this measure, he considered as absurd; but, if the allies, instead of consenting to this dismemberment, had guaranteed the integrity of the Danish dominions; by that policy Denmark would have been joined in co-Operation with them, instead of being thrown into the arms of France, and from which alliance it was hardly possible now to anticipate her separation. In another quarter, the principles of justice might have been exhibited, by the restoration of Poland on the part of Russia, Prussia and Austria. If the expectations of it had been held out, coupled with the restoration of Finland, the allies could have put on a good face, in seeking for the restoration of the desired equilibrium. Now, he hoped for a peace on the continent, and that the court of St. James's would so far accede, as to co-operate in the work: but not having that confidence he might wish to have in our councils, he should feel it his duty, when the Vote of Credit should be agreed to, to move a temperate Address on the subject.

thought it on all accounts better not to enter into details on the points noticed by the last speaker, especially as he had himself seen fit to withdraw his intended motions on the subject. The expence of the vote was certainly great, and it would be a splendid exertion of liberal policy. He admitted that the hon. gentleman had shewn as much forbearance, as could be expected from him, considering his political views. He believed him to feel as much for his country's pride and honour as any other man; but his views concerning peace were rather peculiar, since he thought that negociation could always be entered upon, and never, as far as he (lord C.) could recollect, was it attempted, but, such was the temper of the hon. member respecting peace, that he ever considered his own government as the party placing impedi- ments in its way. (Hear, hear, from Mr. W.) He did not impute to him a less proud feeling than any other; but his opinions bad certainly differed from those of parliament and of the country. His mind was so tinctured on this particular subject, that he was always for pacific propositions; but always against those made by his own government. The moment for peace which our government had always looked to, was that in which they could see the ruler of France disposed sincerely to enter into a negociation for that object, with the view of making a fair peace, promising a reasonable duration; which should be the view of any practicable pacification. If the hon. member were not blind to what passed on the other side of the water, he would have read in a formal official instrument of Buonaparté after his flight from Russia, a notification of the terms on which alone he would listen to peace; among which was this, that his dynasty must reign in Spain. As a case prima facie, the hon: gentleman had no right to say that we were indisposed to a peace on terms consistent with our independence and our honour. There was not an act between us and our allies, that appeared inconsistent with the uninterrupted and fair union of our councils and arms. As to the cases of Finland and Poland, how was it that they never heard from the hon. member, of France being bound also to divest herself of her aggrandizements? This he said not for argument; but to mark the character of the hon. member's mind on this subject: he seemed, indeed, to think, that to seek peace was to get it. He should go no further into this subject, considering the hon. member's speech as an annual protest, expressive of his desire for peace; and should only add that he should give his motion a negative.

said, the great difference of this war from others was, that formerly the cession of a particular point was sufficient to procure peace on either side; whereas now, no cession, short of independence, might be able to obtain it. After this admission, he yet thought it well became them to sanction the moderate propositions of his hon. friend. Buonaparté had suffered in the late compaign, more by his own rashness, grounded on his uninterrupted career of success, than by the ability and skill of his antagonists. A favourable opportunity, therefore, offered, when France was so reduced, by he loss of the greatest marching army of which history made mention, and that for the first time he had suffered a great reverse since his accession to supreme power in France. It seemed, therefore, expedient to put his professed desire for peace to the test, under all these unlooked-for and favourable, circumstances. He must regulate his vote not so much on the practicability of peace as on the disposition of ministers. A proposal of peace might have had good effects here, and might have elicited the opinions of the French people at the most critical period of the history of that very able person who now governed France: but, he thought, we had shewn no great desire for peace. We had done nothing for prosecuting the war, but the concluding of an unprincipled and unprofitable treaty, which might obstruct the work of peace. Did the noble lord think the French ruler incapable of estimating the feelings and temper of those with whom he engaged in a war? Buonaparté knew there was no probability of peace, and affected, on that account perhaps, to talk high of his confidence in the people of France. After, a variety of other observations, he concluded by saying, that there was none more disposed to hold high the independence of England than his hon. friend.

thought that it was utterly impossible that this country could treat with France on the ground that the treaty of Utrecht should be admitted as the basis upon which the question of its maritime rights should be settled. It was impossible that ministers could enter into a negociation on such a principle. In every country dignity was strength, and humiliation weakness. He would allow that a critical moment was now before us, in which it was to be determined whether ministers could, or could not, enter into a negociation for peace with the enemy. He thought, however, that this question should be left, in the first instance, to the determination of ministers, and that they ought not to be enthralled or fettered by such an address as had been proposed.

The Resolution for a Vote of Credit was then agreed to:

then rose to move his Address, and to protest against some of the inferences drawn by the noble lord from his speech. He had never contended that this country could make, peace; all he contended as, that the experiment for peace was not fairly tried. Neither had he ever asserted that when nego- ciations for peace failed, the failure was always attributable to our government; he had only maintained that on those occasions all practicable means of success had not been pushed to their utmost. The hon. member then concluded, by moving an humble Address to the Prince Regent, expressing the confidence of the House, that while they voted a sum of unexampled magnitude to be placed at the disposal of his Royal Highness, his Royal Highness would not fail to use his utmost exertions in procuring to the country a peace founded upon a secure, honourable and permanent basis.

supported the Address, because he thought ministers required the admonition and advice of parliament, that they might not let slip an opportunity for negociation, should one present itself.

adverted to the Swedish treaty, and begged the House would consider the spirit in which that treaty was concluded. No stipulations were made in favour of England, but, on the contrary, we stipulated to cede a valuable conquest,—the island of Guadaloupe. We also stipulated to furnish a subsidy to Sweden, and the principal thing we asked in return was, an arrangement to prevent the extension of the slave trade—an arrangement which, although it did honor to the feeling and the morality of this country, could not be said to be dictated by interest. In this negociation at least, it could not be said that any selfish consideration had warped the ministers from a proper consideration of what was for the general good.

The Address was then negatived without a division.