presented a petition of the there undersigned inhabitants of the city and liberty of Westminster having a right to vote at the election of citizens to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty, on behalf of themselves and others, was delivered in, and read; setting forth, "That the petitioners beg leave to represent to the House, that the right of election, or choosing of citizens to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty, is vested in the inhabitants householders paying scot and lot, of the united parishes of Saint Margaret and Saint John, and of the several parishes of Saint Paul, Covent Garden, Saint Anne, Saint James, Saint George Hanover-square, Saint Martin-in-the-fields, Saint Clement Danes, and Saint Mary le-Strand, including so much and such parts of the said parishes of Saint Martin in the Fields, Saint Clement Danes, and Saint Mary-le-Strand, as are within the liberties, districts, limits, or jurisdictions of the duchy of Lancaster, and of the liberty or district of Saint Martin-le-Grand in the county of Middlesex, and of the precinct of the Savoy; that George Lamb, esq. commonly called the hon. George Lamb, and John Cam Hob-house, esq. were candidates, and John Cartwright, esq. were duly put in nomination at the last election of a citizen to represent the said city and liberty in parliament; and the said George Lamb, esq. was returned as duly elected; that the said George Lamb, esq. by himself, his agents, friends, and managers, and by other ways and means on the behalf, or at the charge of him the said George Lamb, esq., did, after the vacancy happened in the said city and liberty of Westminster, and after the teste of the writ of election, give, present, and allow to persons having or claiming to have voice or vote in the said election, money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, and did make presents, gifts, rewards, or entertainments, and promises, agreements, obligations or engagements, to give or allow money, meat, drink, provision, presents, reward, advantages, or entertainments, to and for several persons so having or claiming a tight to Vote in the said election, and to or for the use, advantage, benefit, and profit of such persons so having or claiming a right to vote in the said election, in order to procure him the said George Lamb, esq. to be elected to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty of Westminster, contrary, and in defiance of the orders of the House, and; in; contempt of the provisions of the act passed in the 7th year of the reign of king William the third; that peers and lords of parliament did by themselves and their agents interfere in the said election, by canvassing and soliciting votes on be-half of the said Mr. Lamb, and by using threats to intimidate the electors from voting for Mr. Hobhouse, in violation of the privileges of the House and the freedom of election, and to the infringement of the rights of the Commons of Great Britain; that on Saturday and Sunday the 27th and 28th days of February last, and thenceforward till the end of the election, which terminated on Wednesday the 3rd day of March last, several hundred persons were hired by the said Mr. Lamb, his agents, friends, or managers, for the purpose of obstructing the approach of the electors in favour of Mr. Hobhouse to the hustings; and that such persons, from the time when they were so hired, and more particularly on the morning of the last day of the election, were guilty of several riotous attacks on electors who were approaching the hustings to vote for Mr. Hobhouse, and severely beat and ill used several of such electors; and that by such riotous and unlawful conduct several hundred electors were prevented from voting for Mr. Hobhouse; that Arthur Morris, esq. the high bailiff for the said city, and returning officer at the said election, acted partially and unfairly in the execution of his office as a returning officer during the said election; and that he rejected the votes of several persons who were entitled to vote, and who tendered their votes for Mr. Hobhouse, and that he admitted several persons who were not entitled to vote, to vote for the said Mr. Lamb; that by the said and other undue means, a great many electors who intended to vote for Mr. Hobhouse were deterred from coming to the poll, and the said Mr. Lamb obtained a majority of votes on the poll, and was returned accordingly to serve in parliament for the said city and liberty, in prejudice of the legal electors of the said city and liberty, and in open defiance of the law and freedom of elections; the petitioners therefore think themselves much aggrieved, and apprehend that the said election and return is an undue election and return, and they hope that the same will be deemed by this House null and void; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that they may be heard by counsel touching the allegations contained in this their petition, and that they may have such relief in the premises as the House shall think proper.

, in pursuance of notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend certain provisions of the 26th of George 2nd, for the better preventing of Clandestine Marriages." The immediate object of this bill would be, to amend that part of the existing law which referred to the marriage of minors, and his remedy intended to apply to such marriages whether by licences or banns. As the Jaw now stood, any marriage by licence contracted by a minor, without the previous conenst of his parents or guardians, was null and void. The enactment was absolute, and courts of law were compelled to set aside all such marriages. The evil results of such a system were, that suits were instituted many years after such marriages had taken place. There were instances where parties, after a lapse of twenty years, and with a numerous issue from the connexion had claimed the benefit of their own per-jury. The evil, however, did not rest there, for the law inflicted its vengeance on the posterity; it being in the power of the next of kin at any time to interpose his objection, founded on the minority of the father, and thus prevent the property of the parent from being possessed by the child. Such a state of the law was a scandal and disgrace. The object of his bill was to limit the time for instituting such suits. He should propose that the parent or guardian should be limited to the time when the minority ceased, and that the suit of the minor should commence within one year after he came of age. With respect to his second object, the marriage by banns, it was notorious that in the metropolis and in other large cities, the publication of banns was a mere nullity. His remedy would be, to place minors under this description of marriage on the same footing as the amended law would place minors by licence, with this addition, that the parties marrying by banns should have a complete residence of one fortnight in the parish where the banns were published. He assured the House, that in submitting this measure to its consideration he was actuated by no visionary ideas of improvement, but solely by the desire to correct a growing and admitted evil [Hear, hear!]

observed, that he had so shaped his motion on the present subject, as to allow him to hope that the information he sought from the board of ordnance would not be refused. And he begged to premise, that in seeking for that information, he had no intention of urging any charge against the ordnance department or the Treasury for their conduct in the transaction. Sales had been made of articles principally consist- ing of iron, brass, sulphur and muskets to the amount of 200,000l. It was on commercial grounds that he wished to know the precise prices at which these respective articles were sold. He therefore moved, "That there be laid before this House, an Account of all Stores sold to Mr. Samuels, by the Board of Ordnance, from the 1st of January 1818 to the first of March 1819; specifying the different articles, dates of sale, and total amount paid for the same."

said, that the particulars and sales of such stores had already been minutely inquired into and reported upon. It would be in the recollection of the House, that that report stated, that there was a great quantity of stores on hand, which it was the duty of the board of ordnance to dispose of as soon as possible; not only because they were of a perishable nature, but because of the expense which would be incurred by the buildings necessary for their deposit; and it was also their duty, in a financial point of view, because of the money to be raised by their sale. The committee on the peace-establishment desired to know to what extent they might depend on the proceeds of Ordnance stores during three years. It was found impossible to raise any considerable sum, by the regular sales at the Tower, and by other tenders—say 100,000l. for three years together. The stores were of various kinds, viz. brass, iron, sulphur, gunpowder, and saltpetre; but of these gunpowder was the principal, both in point of value and quantity. By the usual course of proceeding, the board of ordnance would have been six or seven years in raising the sum which had now been procured. He must contend, therefore, that so far from any blame attaching to the board, they had acted like good stewards. The purchaser, a Mr. Samuels, had speculated in gunpowder and other articles, to an immense amount—220,000l. for which he had given the Treasury the most unquestionable security, that of Mr. Rothschild.

said, he should like to know why the board of Ordnance had de-parted from the principle usually observed by all other public boards, of giving an opportunity of fair and general competition? The hon. gentleman had stated, that that departure was in concurrence with the suggestion of a finance committee; but that was no reason for the adoption of a course so directly country to all former usage. The sale night be very proper, if the stores were directed to be sold; but why did it take place in that clandestine manner? It was well known that the purchaser Samuels, was the brother-in-law of Mr. Rothschild, who was also known to have large money dealings with government. What had been the result? Why, that the country had not gained so large a sum for the stores by this private dealing, as they would have done by inviting competition. He must therefore suppose that some reason existed, for the keeping back of this contract. The hon. gentleman had said, that the articles sold were of a perishable nature; why, among them he observed 500 tons of old brass cannon! He should like to know what part they formed of the sum of 220,000l. If they had been sold for less than 50,000l., they had not been sold for as much as persons whom he himself knew were disposed to have offered for them. He should therefore move, as an amendment to the motion, that the dates and prices at which the several stores were sold should be also specified.

said, that the proposed amendment increased his objection to the motion. The contract Was still going on, and it was proper to have a scrupulous regard for the interest of the person with whom the con-tract had been made.

could not help thinking, that; no sufficient reason had been as signed for departing from the principle of public competition. He knew little of the nature of the contract in question; but he could not conceive what harm could possibly accrue to the gentleman Who Had contracted, by making public life terms of his contract.

said, that the hon. mover Was too intimately connected with the interests concerned, not to be biassed in his views of the matter. As for the hon. gentleman who had spoken so much of fair honest, and open competition, there was one other word which might have been very properly substituted among individuals combination; for the effects of a proceeding as he recommended was always rather a combination among was, than a public competition. The average prices obtained for the articles in question, by means of the contract with Mr. Samuels, were as good as would have obtained for a much smaller part of them, had they been publicly disposed of. The hon. gentleman opposite had stated, that a certain? house would have given 50,000l. for 500 tons of old brass. He could only say that last year the offer made to government for that article by the house with which the hon. gentleman was known to be connected, was the lowest of all viz. 59l. per cwt.; whereas 72l. was the price actually obtained. Had they closed with the hon. gentleman's offer, would the House ever have heard a single syllable from him about competition? No. He would have said that the sale was perfectly justifiable, having been sold after fair and public competition.

said, the hon. gentleman was not justified in attributing to him any motives of personal interest.