presented a petition from Mr. Alderson, the agent of a number of electors of the town of Drogheda, which disclosed the following facts:—That James Sweeney, William Moore, and other voters, had, on the 8th of May, caused a petition to be presented to the House, complaining of the return of Henry Metcalfe, esq., to serve in parliament for the borough of Drogheda, and that the House had appointed Tuesday, the 6th of June, to consider the said petition. On the 8th of May, two sureties were ordered to be provided, who were to enter into recognizances for the prosecution of the said petition, in conformity with the act of the 53rd of his late majesty. On the 12th of May, the present petitioner received from Ireland the names of the proposed recognizances, which he immediately notified to the examiner. On Saturday last, he attended the said examiner according to notice, when Mr. Rowland, the agent of Mr. Metcalfe, put in several affidavits, denying the validity of the security which had been tendered. Not knowing whether the complaint extended to only one or to both of the securities, petitioner prayed for time to inquire into the fact, which was granted until this day. He now stated, that he believed the securities proffered to be good and valid; and if further time were given, and copies of the affidavits were allowed, he had no doubt that he could give a full and sufficient answer to the allegations that had been advanced against the securities. Petitioner had applied to Mr. Rowland for copies of the affidavits, which he had declined to grant; and, as considerable delay and expense might arise in getting copies from Ireland, petitioner stated that he had obtained other sureties, who were ready to enter into the necessary recognizances, if allowed to do so by that honourable House. Petitioner therefore prayed, either that he should be allow? time to adduce evidence and proof of the validity of the securities already offered, or that he might be allowed to propose other securities, who were now in readiness; such notice being given to the agent of the sitting member as might be deemed requisite by the House. One of the two branches of the petitioner's request should be granted. Either an opportunity should be given him to contradict the affidavits, or he should be allowed to bring forward the new securities whom he had provided. He therefore then moved, "That time till this day fortnight be allowed to complete the said recognizances."

was of opinion that this was a case which did not justify the introduction of a formal motion with respect to it. Neither of the individuals who had been proposed as securities were fit to be received in that capacity. One of them was in the service of an eminent distiller; and the other" was a young man, without house or property. These facts were sworn to by many respectable persons; the affidavits were on the table, and he could see no reason for re-examining those persons.

observed, that the present petition was one of considerable importance to the electors in every part of Ireland. It must be quite manifest to the House, that the elections on the other side of the channel were, in various points of view, different from what they were here. It was much more easy to know, if securities were rejected, whether the grounds of rejection were good, when individuals were on the spot, than where they came from a distant part of the empire. The petitioner in the present instance stated, that he believed, or. examination, the sureties would be found satisfactory; and he wished to introduce other affidavits, contradicting the facts stated on the other side, for the purpose of correcting the impression they, seemed to have made on the examiner; or, if that were refused, he prayed that he might be allowed to bring forward other sureties, which appeared to him to be sufficiently valid. He rather drew the attention of the House to this question, because it was quite evident that considerable difficulties were thrown in the way of election petitioners on the other side of the Channel, which ought as much as possible to be removed. In Ireland, much too large a power devolved on the returning officers of the different districts. That great power which was thrown into the hands of the returning officer, in consequence of the difficulty that could be easily raised on the other side of the Channel, ought to be viewed with considerable jealousy. He said this from a personal knowledge of the fact, for he had found great difficulty in asserting his right in that House, and he had experienced all the obstructions thrown in the way of petitioners against elections in Ireland. This arose in a great measure from the removal of the seat of parliament to this city. He could speak practically as to the difficulties that were consequent on the extent of power now vested in the returning officer—a power which formerly could not be so exerted. He thought nothing could be more reasonable than the proposition, either to allow the petitioner to prove the validity of the securities already tendered, or to admit him to bring forward new securities. Under these circumstances he conceived the petitioner had a claim on the justice of the House, and therefore he should vote for the motion.

said, that if the House allowed in this case time for offering new securities, they must allow it in every other case, and petitions might be presented to the House on the very last day of the period described for recognizances, in order to obtain further time to substantiate securities. He knew nothing of the securities in this case, but it appeared probable, from the statement of the hon. baronet, that they would be ultimately rejected. It was fair, however, to allow further time to produce affidavits to establish the securities already offered. The hon. gentleman referred to a decision of the House in a similar case last year.

said, that the case alluded to by the hon. member, referred only to further time for establishing the securities offered. The House were aware that the period allowed for entering into recognizances was 14 days; but in ail cases from Ireland, 14 days more were allowed for making the report to the House. In the case to which the hon. member had alluded, 14 days more had been asked for completing the recognizances. In this case the time would not expire till the 5th of June. The 14 days now required would extend that time three days farther. If the object was to give new securities, the case would he, without farther time, irremediable; hut, on the other hand, if the object was to make inquiry respecting the present securities, the petitioner had already to the 5th of June.

presented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the county of York. It was, he observed, one of the numerous petitions on the part of the agriculturists complaining of the distresses and depressions tinder which they laboured, and praying for relief. He was fully aware that the complaint of distress was not only well founded, but was particular deserving the attention of the House. At the same time he admitted that any interference by the legislature in the price of human food was a subject which should be touched with great delicacy. The petitioners attributed their distresses to the competition of the foreign markets against them, and they prayed that protection from such competition which was enjoyed by the commercial and manufacturing branches. How far the inquiry, a notice of motion for which had been given by an hon. member (Mr. Sumner), was intended to go on this important subject, he was not aware—whether it was to be limited to an inquiry into the capacity of the farmer to bear those burthens to which he washable, or to go more generally into the nature of those burthens which affected all other classes, and of which the farmer, like others, felt the weight. If the object of the hon. member was the more limited one which he had mentioned, he apprehended it would only be considered by the people at large as an attempt to enhance the value of lands, and to raise the price of their produce; but if the inquiry should not only go to the agricultural distress, but to the general distress which affected the whole body of the trading part of the country, then he thought that considerable good might be derived from it, as it would show that the object of the House was not to confine itself to one particular class, but to find a remedy for that general, distress which affected the Whole.

said, it had not been his intention to offer any. observations on this subject, or to promote a partial de bate on its merits; but having been alluded to in the observations of the noble lord, he felt it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the object of his intended motion. His object was of a double nature. The first part of it would be exclusively applied to the protecting duty, as it was now fixed. It would be recollected that, in consequence, of an inquiry into this subject in 1815, the legislature had fixed 80s. as the highest price at which corn should be sold, and they accordingly devised means for preventing any excess beyond that price, by allowing importation of foreign corn, when ours rose beyond it on the average of a given time. Now one object of his inquiry would be to ascertain how far this remedy had answered the end for which it was intended. The next object of inquiry would be to ascertain how far the agricultural interests was affected by that general depression which was complained of by all classes. Her was anxious that this inquiry should be gone into by a committee of both sides, for the two objects; but he thought that a separate inquiry, as to how far the regulations of 1815 had answered they purpose, would tend to tranquillize the country.

was of opinion that a committee should be appointed, to inquire into the state of the farmers; for if some alleviation of their burthens did not take I place, the growth of corn must be checked, and we should be left entirely at the mercy of the foreign grower. He hoped that, whenever the committee should be appointed, it would consist of both interests; for if it were confined to one, the country would look upon it as of that kind from which no benefit could be derived.

of Norfolk, thought that the system of taxation which had been so long pursued was the chief cause of that distress and depression which were felt by the farmers and other classes. He agreed that the farmer should be allowed a fair remunerative price for his produce; for unless that were done, large quantities of land which had been cultivated with artificial manure must be let run to waste. One great cause, however, of all the depression was, the heavy taxation.

said, that the object of the petitioners seemed to him to be nothing else than to get a monopoly of the English market. The consequence would be, that the price of corn would be raised, and laid generally on all the other classes. The idea which the petitioners had of protecting duties was a most erroneous one, and would, if acted upon, be destructive of all commerce. If they meant that the countervailing duties should be equal in amount to the difference between the price at which corn could be sold here and that at which it was sold in a foreign market, they went upon a most erroneous principle, and one which, he hoped, would never be introduced. Suppose corn sold here at 80s. and that in Poland it could be procured for 40s. or 50s.; if, under such circumstances, it were intended to put on a countervailing duty of 30s., there would be an end of all importation, and of every principle of commerce. In that case, the importer would be at a certain loss by the amount of freight, and of course no one would import; the consequence would be, that the price of corn at home would be raised to an exorbitant height. Viewing the question in this light, he hoped that the motion for a committee, whenever it came before the House, would be negatived.

of Wiltshire, could not agree with the last speaker that it was the wish of the petitioners that an entire prohibition should be made against foreign importation. They did not think that a free importation of foreign corn should be allowed. They conceived, and it seemed to him that they were justified in thinking, that they ought to be allowed those fair protecting duties which were given to other classes; but for doing this, they were accused of illiberality and ignorance of the general principles of commerce. As far as he knew, the object of the agriculturists was not to increase corn to a great height, but to keep it at a steady remunerating price. At present the price was not sufficient to pay taxation and poor-rates. It would be idle to say that the price of corn was the cause of distress among the poor. That distress was occasioned by the great reduction in the price of labour, and the decreased demand for it. The labourer was now worse situated than when the value of corn was much above its present amount, for then he was employed, much better paid, and could afford to purchase at the high price. It should be remembered that corn was much lower during the time that a bounty was given on its exportation than it was after that bounty was withdrawn. He fully agreed with an hon. member, that the great evil arose from the pressure of enormous taxation. That should be remedied as far as possible, as the first step; and then he conceived that equal protection should be given to the manufacturers and agriculturists.

on a question so important as the present, felt it necessary to look at the objects and views of the petitioners. He had before stated, that he would not then declare whether he would or would not vote for the appointment of a committee. When that subject came before the House, the way in which he should give his vote would depend upon the nature of the objects which the movers might have in view, upon the members who were to constitute the committee into which it was proposed to enter, and upon the subjects into which the committee were to be empowered to investigate.

rose in pursuance of the motion of which he had given notice. As he understood that no opposition was to be made to it, he should content himself with stating the nature of the document for which he intended to move, and the reason which induced him to move for its production. The document which he wished to be laid before the House was a document containing the number of persons entitled to vote for counties in Scotland: it was annually made up, and therefore could be obtained without the slightest difficulty. The object for which he wanted it was to afford assistance to himself and to the House in the discussion of a question which he was inclined, from a sense of duty, to submit without delay to their most serious consideration. He believed that it was not generally known in the House on what the right of voting for county members rested in Scotland; and he therefore wished that those honourable members, who were unacquainted with the qualifications of Scotch voters should receive the best possible information upon the subject. They would then find, that these qualifications did not at all depend upon property, and that it was possible for the whole representation of Scotland to be in the hands of those who did not possess an inch of land in the country, whilst the whole landed property of the country might be in the hands of those who had not a single vote. This was a system which ought never to have been allowed to exist; and which, as it did exist, ought not to be allowed to continue. Such, at least, was his opinion, and he was happy to say that a large portion of the inhabitants of Scotland concurred with him in it. The paper for which he moved was of little use in itself; but of great use as regarded his ulterior object. As he had already alluded to the defects of the Scottish representation, he might be permitted to add, that the courts of law had, in some instances which had come under their notice, acknowledged the existence of them in their decisions. He knew not how any remedy could be applied to them without introducing into the system a fresh principle of representation. He did not intend, when he introduced such principle, to move for the abolition of an}' of the feudal rights at present existing in Scotland; on the contrary, he would now state, that in any proposition which he might hereafter bring forward, it was not his intention to disturb any existing vote. He would continue their votes to those who now had them, but would grant the right of voting to those who now had it not, though possessed of considerable property. He would now move, "That there be laid before the House a copy of the roll of freeholders of every county in Scotland, as last made up, and certified by the sheriff-clerk."

observed, that as the document now called for was a public one, he had no objection to the production of it. He trusted that no hon. member would at present enter on the subject, as it might lead to a premature discussion, which, on a question like the present, had better be avoided.

could not help suggesting to the noble lord, that it might greatly assist his ulterior object, if a distinction were made in the roll, between those superiorities which were mere paper supe- riorities, and those which were connected with the land to which they were attached. He had himself seen a roll in which this distinction had been made. With regard to the Scotch representation, he would merely state that the number of voters for the thirty Scotch counties, twenty years ago, amounted only to 3,000, and he conceived that, with the increase which might have taken place in the interim, they did not now amount to more than 3,600. Another circumstance which might surprise some members was this—that in a county where there were 20 votes, 18 of them belonged to superiorities which were perfectly detached from the land.

observed, that the scheme which had been suggested by the hon. member who had spoken last, was not practicable, because in the books in which the names of the voters were enrolled, there was nothing from which it could be determined whether the rent was reserved or not. The distinction which the hon. member wished to draw could only be obtained by the examination of every individual voter for a county in Scotland.

said, that he had himself seen a roll in which that distinction had been made.

thought that a question of greater importance to Scotland could hardly be brought before the House. The distinction which his noble friend had made, between lands held beneficially and those held by superiority, was well founded; but he thought the view which his hon. friend behind him had taken of the subject was not so important as he imagined, because his noble friend had no intention of bringing forward any motion for destroying existing rights. The object of his noble friend was, an extension of the elective franchise in Scotland; and, when the House had been informed of the actual number of voters at present, some measure, he trusted, would be proposed to them, founded on the extension of property and the diffusion of wealth. Some gentlemen might be in the habit of thinking that it was dangerous to change any part of the representative system of the country, as they imagined that the representation of England could not be altered for the better; but he would desire those persons, before they made up their minds on this subject, to consider what was the nature and the extent of representation in Scotland. They would find that it was in every respect the reverse of what it was in England. In English counties elections were popular, but in the counties of Scotland they were purely aristocratical. In England, every man possessing a freehold of 40s. in the county had a right to vote; in Scotland, a man might be a landed proprietor worth 10,000l. a-year, and yet not be qualified to vote in the election of a member, nor even to be himself elected. He therefore conjured hon. members not to make up their minds on this subject from what they knew of the English mode of representation; for they might approve of an alteration in the representation of Scotland, and yet, with perfect consistency, maintain the opinion that it would be improper to make any change in England.

said, that in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last, he thought it necessary to caution those who were not intimately acquainted with the subject against deciding rashly that the representation of Scotland must necessarily be defective, because it differed from that of England. The two systems might differ materially, and yet each be well adapted to the circumstances of the respective countries.

expressed his obligation to his noble friend for bringing forward a subject so disgraceful to Scotland. The caution of his hon. and learned friend not to consider a general reform of the representation of England as necessarily connected with an alteration of the county representation of Scotland, was highly proper; because the two systems were wholly dissimilar in principle and in practice. The other caution of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer savored too much of party principle; and he hoped the House would not, in the decision of such a question, be actuated by party views.

stated to the House the circumstances which had given rise to the petition which he had presented on Thursday from Mr. Green, the agent of Mr. Antrobus. Mr. Antrobus, who had been returned for the borough of Aldborough, was in America on public business at the time of his election, and had not yet returned. A peti- tion had been presented against his return on the ground that he was not qualified according to the act of parliament; and as the standing order of the House required that the qualification should be given in fifteen days after notice, it was evident that the hon. member could not in person comply with this order. He therefore moved that Mr. Green the agent of Mr. Antrobus, be permitted to swear to the rental of lands by which Mr. Antrobus made out his qualification to sit in parliament.

did not find that a similar proceeding had ever taken place on a former occasion, and therefore he submitted to the House whether it would not be proper to refer the matter to a committee, which should be instructed to examine into the practice of the House in the case of members being-elected in their absence from the country. If such a proceeding; as the present was not strictly examined, persons might be elected who did not possess the requisite qualifications, or who held previous appointments which disqualified them.

said, that since the con stitution allowed absent persons to be elected, it would be hard to disqualify them on account of their absence, since any person who chose might insert in a petition that the person so elected was not duly qualified. He was for the original motion.

observed, that the act of parliament explicitly declared, that no person should have a seat in that House who did not possess certain qualifications, and who did not swear to those qualifications, if called onto do so, at the time of his election. This person, it seemed, was at present in America; and if his absence were to free him from the necessity of proving his qualification, a precedent would be established by which persons in the East Indies might be elected, who might continue absent for three years. He observed that in the return this person was designated as residing at Hyde-Park-corner, and if that address were correct, it could easily be ascertained whether he was duly qualified or not. He would not state his opinion on the question at present—he only wished to show that there were difficulties on all hands. The act clearly specified that the qualification was to be given in within fifteen days after notice, and, without violating the provisions of this act, the House could not agree to the present motion. It appeared, indeed, to be merely a matter, of convenience to the parties; and if such a course were sanctioned by the House, electors in future might get rid of the act, and choose any person whom they pleased in any quarter of the world.

said, that if the petitioner at the time of the election, had called for the production of the qualification, the present difficulty would have been avoided. [Mr. Tierney—"He could not; Mr. Antrobus was not present"] Be that as it might, the right hon. gentleman, he apprehended, was in a mistake when he said the House was called on to dispense with an act of parliament; for, as far as he recollected, the provision in question was not contained in an act, but in a resolution of that House. When a petition was offered against the return of a member, he was bound, within fifteen days, to give in the terms of his qualification, in order that the petitioner might have the best means of opposing him. Now all that was asked at present was, not that the qualifications should be withheld, but that the agent might be allowed to give in the terms of it, in the unavoidable absence of the member himself; and by that course no inconvenience could arise either to the sitting member or to the other parties, nor could he see any of those evil consequences which the right hon. gentleman apprehended.

thought that in the present case, by adhering to the standing orders of the House, they would frustrate the ends of justice. He wished that, instead of the present motion, the hon. mover had proposed that the petition should stand over to the next session, especially as the whole of the petitions could not be gone through in the course of the present. He should vote for the motion, but should have preferred the postponing of the petition altogether.

said, that the act precisely provided that the qualification should be given in within fifteen days, and therefore the petition could not be postponed without violating the spirit and letter of the act.

supported the motion, and could not conceive why the inquiry should either be referred to a committee or postponed when they had all the documents before them.

opposed the motion. If a candidate was called on for his qualification at the time of the election, and it was not considered satisfactory, the electors would be warned that their votes were in danger of being thrown away. This gentleman, however had avoided that dilemma by his absence, and, therefore, if the House granted the indulgence which was sought by the present motion, they would give an absent candidate an important advantage over a present one. The House should be cautious how they trifled with their standing orders, and suspended them, even for one of their own members. The proposal of his learned friend; at once to postpone the question, was still more dangerous and objectionable, for in the course of that delay the witnesses, might die, and from various causes the inquiry might fall to the ground. By a standing order of the House peers were prohibited from interfering with elections; and that prohibition might be dispensed with in future, if such a precedent as the present would establish were allowed.

said, that in the case which the hon. member had supposed, of a candidate's qualification not being satisfactory, that candidate could not be elected, and therefore the evils apprehended could not occur. The hon. gentleman seemed to anticipate that the con sequence of the House acceding to the present motion would be one seriously affecting the constitution of the House. He appeared to think that to dispense with the standing orders of the House upon the present occasion, would be to act in also lute opposition to the reluctance which they at other times manifested to permit any infringement. Thus he had instanced their determination not to permit the interference of any peer in elections; but here was the difference of the cases—that in the latter, instance, to dispense with the standing orders of the House would be to do so to their own wrong; but the question before the House at that moment was that such dispensation should be permitted in order to do right to another. He therefore, thought that as I good and as solid grounds had been laid for such a deviation from forms as could possibly be adduced.

had one other objection to make, which, he conceived to be of considerable consequence, namely, that in case Mr. Antrobus should not come home till that time twelve months, it might happen that he would not be bound, by the qualifications delivered in. At least, therefore, it ought to be a subject of consideration with the House, before it agreed to dispense with these orders.

concurred in the opinion that this was a matter requiring attentive consideration; and therefore in order to afford members an opportunity of giving it every attention, he should move that the further consideration of the motion be adjourned until tomorrow.

found many grounds for supporting the objections which had been taken upon this occasion. It was almost alleged that there was no such person in existence as Mr. Antrobus [a laugh]; there might indeed be such an individual, but on the other hand it was at least requisite, if there were, that his description should be exactly stated.

observed, upon what had been just remarked by an hon. member, that it was in his power to say there was such a person as Mr. Antrobus, and that he had no doubt he usually lived at Hyde-Park-corner; and if he (Mr. Abercromby) were obliged to describe that individual's residence, he should say it was at that place; but the fact, as it was stated by every person, was this, that Mr. Antrobus was not now at Hyde-park-corner, but in America.

although he supposed there could be no doubt that such a person as Mr. Antrobus really existed, maintained that it was clear he had been described as resident in a place where he did not reside This was a point of great importance, and he felt obliged to the right hon. gentleman who had proposed to adjourn the further consideration of the debate.

remarked, that the only difficulty which occurred to him was this: the term which was limited by the standing order of the House for the consideration of these matters expired that day. It might be a question, therefore, how far such a circumstance might affect the proposition of the chancellor of the exchequer.

said, it was perfectly true, that this was the last day which according to the standing orders, was appropriated for these petititions, but at the same time the House must be quite aware, that it was competent for them, without substantially infringing the order of the day, to remedy an inconvenience which they might have imposed upon petitioners by their own regulations; but he conceived that it was not to be doubted that the adjournment of a debate was, to all intents and purposes, to be considered as a prolongation of such debate; and, therefore, if the present discussion was adjourned until to-morrow, the parties would stand in precisely the same situation as they would have done if it bad been now got through.

begged to call the attention of the House to a singular case, and one which he considered to be much stronger than that which had just come before them. At the last election for the borough of Boston a gentleman of the name of Ellis had been returned by a considerable majority. The validity of this election was petitioned against by the other candidate, who represented that Mr. Ellis was ineligible under the Grenville act. The consideration of this petition stood for the 6th of June, but it was physically impossible for Mr. Ellis, and that without any imputation of negligence upon his part, to appear by that day. What he should wish would be, that the House should postpone the consideration to a day, the earliest at which it might be possible for Mr. Ellis to be heard. There was this difference between this case and that which had been just submitted to the House; namely, that Mr. Ellis had no agent in this country at all—no one to appear for him. By the 6th of June, there could be no person present to say who should be nominee for Mr. Ellis. It was on these grounds that he should move to postpone the hearing of this petition to some more distant day. The House were in possession of the grounds on which this gentleman's return was opposed: it was, that Mr. Ellis was supposed to have held an office under the Crown coming under the description of offices created since the statute of queen Anne, in consequence of which he was disqualified. It was not his intention to dispute this position, for he believed that that office would be held a disqualification; but at the same time he was far from believing that it was a disqualification against which there might not be good grounds of defence, and it was known that many cases where such defence had been pleaded had arisen under that act. All that he entreated, however, was, that the House would not now enter into the merits of the case. He should move, that the House should appoint the committee for the last day which had been fixed for such matters in the present session, namely, the 18th of July. It was just possible that Mr. Ellis might return by that time.

said, that as it had been thought proper that the other motion should be adjourned, he saw no reason why this should not take the same course.

said, he had always considered a question of this sort one of the greatest constitutional questions ever entertained in that House. It resolved itself into this—whether because Mr. Ellis had chosen to be absent from England for two or three years together, the representation of England was not, therefore, in the mean time to be filled up. He should beg to propose that this debate fee adjourned till to-morrow.