presented at the bar of the House the following Message from his Majesty:

"George R.

"His Majesty, deeming it expedient to provide for any additional expenses which may arise, on account of the continuance of his Majesty's forces in Portugal, and relying on the experienced zeal and affection of his faithful Commons, trusts that they will make provision accordingly."

moved, that his majesty's message be taken into consideration in the committee of supply to-morrow—Ordered.

said:—In rising to present several petitions for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, I deem it my duty to explain to the House, as clearly as I can, my reasons for the unusual course I am about to pursue on that important question. Ever since I have been a member of this House, my votes have been guided by the principle, that the subjects of these kingdoms ought not to suffer any civil penalty, any civil hardship, any civil inconvenience on account of their religious belief. Directed by this principle, I have voted for removing the disabilities imposed by law on the Roman Catholics from whatever quarter, and in whatever shape the motion appeared. But if I gave the full benefit of this principle to the Roman Catholics, whose religion has been mixed even at this day by some of its more extravagant professors, with the most objectionable, and the most slavish political doctrines, I could not refuse to extend it to the Protestant dissenters, who have ever been attached to the free constitution of this country; if I admitted to all the privileges of that constitution, those who, during the last century, had been the adherents of the house of Stuart, I could not but grant the same admission to the Protestant dissenters, who have ever been the zealous, persevering, constant, and active, friends of the house of Hanover.

When, therefore, I was applied to by the committee of deputies, and others, who for more than ninety years have been considered as the organs of the body, I did not for a moment hesitate to assure them, that I would willingly move this House for a repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Had that motion been proceeded in, I trust I could have shewn that these statutes were nothing but the dregs of that persecuting spirit which caused the calamities and civil wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I trust I could have shewn, that the test required in this instance is peculiarly revolting, inasmuch as it tends to the profanation of one of the most sacred rites of our religion; making the mask of piety and holiness a qualification for ambition, and converting that which was left as the bond of brotherhood among all the followers of Christ, into the sign of disunion and separation. I trust I could have shewn that the annual Indemnity Act, upon which some persons rely so much in argument, is nothing but an incomplete and insulting pardon to men who have committed no offence. Incomplete, because it leaves it open to any one by making a previous objection, to exclude a dissenter from a corporation; incomplete, because it does not shelter the dissenter who accepts office from the penalties of the Test Act if judgment be already obtained—insulting, because by the terms of the Indemnity Act, any dissenter who holds office is liable to the imputation, an imputation sanctioned by the high authority of lord North, that he is guilty of a mental fraud, and evades the provisions of the law.

Sir, upon these grounds and many others, I trust I should have been able to convince the House, that the Statute-books ought to be cleansed of these disgusting acts. But, after I had given my notice, occurred those changes in the administration which have been the subject of so much remark and discussion. Upon that event, many of the dissenters, feeling, as it were, by instinct, that a ministry was formed more favourable to religious liberty, than any which had existed during the thirty-seven years in which their question had slept, doubted whether it were fair, and whether it were politic to force such a ministry to an immediate expression of opinion upon this important subject. Others, with whom I agreed, did think that the present was a favourable time for the discussion. Amid this diversity of opinion, I thought I could do nothing better than refer to that committee of dissenters, which had been allowed to act as their organ since the year 1734. They, after much discussion and deliberation, agreed, by a large majority, to request me to postpone the motion of which I had given notice. They at the same time desired me to express their determination to press the question forward early next session, and, if unsuccessful, to bring it in from year to year. With regard to bringing it in from year to year, I desire at present to express no opinion, but with regard to next session, I must say I think they have a right to expect that the question should then have a fair discussion in this House.

I will not conceal from the House, that, since the resolution of the committee, I have received various intimations from individuals, that in their opinion the majority of the dissenters wished the question to be pressed. But, as they did not refer me to any organ by which the general sentiments of the body might be collected and expressed, I felt myself bound to abide by the decision of that body which for so long a time had been considered as speaking the sense of the dissenters. Had I done otherwise, had I persisted, it is easy to perceive that many members of this House would have taken advantage of the vote of the committee, and would have voted for the previous question, on the express ground that the petitioners themselves did not desire the motion to be persevered in during the present year. Undoubtedly it is a painful situation for any man to be liable to the imputation of acting from personal or party interest, but I should despise myself if, for the sake of removing such an imputation from myself, I should injure the great cause with which I have been intrusted.

It only remains for me to call the attention of the House in a few words, to the petitions which have been presented. They are not only numerous almost beyond precedent, but there are many of them which deserve, in a peculiar degree, the consideration of the House. I allude to those which are founded on the broad ground of the injustice and impolicy of all disabilities on account of religion. In support of these petitions, I have had many letters from dissenters, declaring that they asked for concession, with an earnest desire that the liberty they claimed for themselves might be extended to others. There are likewise many petitions from members of the church of England, calling themselves friends of religious toleration, praying for the repeal of those acts as an unjust infringement on the freedom of conscience. I shall likewise have to present a petition from the Roman Catholics of the midland counties, signed by a Roman Catholic baronet, the president of a Roman Catholic college, and many Roman Catholic clergymen, praying for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In the letter, giving me notice of this petition, I am informed, that endeavours have not been wanting to persuade the petitioners that the dissenters, if admitted to the full enjoyment of the constitution, would afterwards prove the most bitter opponents of similar concessions to themselves. But they say, wisely and generously say, "with interested calculations of this kind we have no concern: for our co-operation in the cause of religious liberty we are responsible; for the use they may make of that liberty, the Protestant dissenters are alone responsible."

Sir, these sentiments have my cordial concurrence; and I cannot but wish that the Protestant and Roman Catholic dissenter, with the liberal-minded of the Established Church, would unite in the cause of freedom of conscience. Then we might hope to see all the civil penalties, and disabilities on account of religion, which unhappily distinguish our Statute-book, from the laws of all the more enlightened nations of Europe, entirely swept away. I feel confident that such an end to persecution of all kinds, would strengthen and enrich the state; would secure, and fortify the established church; would purify and exalt the spirit of religion.

said, it would be ungrateful in any one connected with the Protestant dissenters, not to thank the noble lord for the part he had acted on the present occasion. The dissenters very naturally thought their interests were connected with those of the state. It was true there were differences of opinion amongst the body, as to the question of bringing on their case in the present session; but the majority, in deciding for its postponement to the next, hoped that by that time their situation would be better known, that the prejudices against them would be removed, and that they would stand better with parliament. It was a gross fallacy to suppose, that the grievances of the Protestant dissenters were only theoretical; was it not a practical grievance, that a dissenter could not be a member of Oxford university without declaring his assent to the thirty-nine articles?—that he could not take his seat as a magistrate, without the sacramental test, if any person chose to insist on it? He trusted, that the justice of parliament would soon put an end to these disabilities.

was favourable to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and contended that their existence were practical grievances to the dissenters. It was a practical grievance, that many of that class, who were men of immense wealth, should be shut out from all influence in the corporation of Liverpool.

Ordered to lie on the table.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for the production of the letter alleged to proceed from the Bank of England, and tending to cast doubts on the solidity of the country bankers. Perhaps the House would think he ought to be satisfied with the unequivocal denial of one of the directors of the Bank, that the letter in question had originated with their body. Certainly he would have abandoned his motion, had it not appeared to him, that the letter was intimately connected with other circumstances, which induced him to believe, that, although that letter was not the result of any consultations of the Bank directors, it was still written and circulated, with their knowledge, by one of their number; who, having been employed to inspect the branch banks in the country, had shown it to several persons in his travels, and that it had thus found its way to the public. Under the present circumstances of the country, he hoped the House would examine into the motives which had produced that letter; for he could not conceive that, at a time when there was every hope of a progressive amelioration in the prospects of the industrious classes a more mischievous event could have happened, than the publication of a letter, which tended to cast discredit upon a class of persons, on whom the manufacturing operatives must depend for the advance of those wages which the promising condition of trade would soon enable them to earn. Another reason for bringing forward the motion was, that the extraordinary conduct of the Bank of England was not confined to the production of this solitary letter. There appeared in their proceedings a rooted determination to keep up a circulation of their notes equal to that which prevailed during the war. It had been difficult; nay, almost impossible, for them to accomplish that object; but, because they could not keep up their circulation to its former extent, and no longer realize the large profits which they formerly enjoyed, it was not justifiable in them to attempt to bring into disrepute other establishments similar to their own, and to build their own credit upon the ruin of that of their competitors. In the course of last session, he had endeavoured to bring the condition of the country bankers under the notice of the House; but at that time such irritation prevailed throughout the country respecting them, that they had no chance of meeting with that fair play to which they were entitled. The attack which was made upon the country bankers last year was founded on the power which they possessed to issue 1l. notes. In order to show the House how unfounded that attack was, he thought it right to state the grounds on which those notes were first introduced into the circulation of the country. Originally, the country bankers had certainly no right to expect that any such indulgence would be extended to them. Previously to the Bank restriction in 1797, they issued nothing less than 5l. notes. It was not from any solicitation on their part, but in consequence of the misconduct of the Bank of England, with respect to the amount of its issues, that the country bankers were allowed to issue 1l. notes. Temporary acts were passed, from time to time, to continue to the country banks the privilege which they had thus obtained; and for this reason, that the Bank of England continued to issue similar notes, and there was no other currency. At the end of the war the country bankers naturally expected to be called upon to pay their 1l. notes in cash. The House, however, continued the restriction for some years. The country bankers were at that time prepared to meet their 1l. notes by payments in cash; and had no wish to continue them in circulation. If they had any difficulty upon the point, it was completely removed by the bill which the late marquis of Londonderry carried through parliament in 1822. In consequence of the agricultural distress which then pervaded the country, many petitions were presented to parliament; and it was found necessary to reduce our establishments, and take other measures to give relief to the agriculturists. If hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to refer back to the speech which the late marquis of Londonderry made in May, 1822, they would find that one of the modes of relief suggested for the agricultural distress was the continuance to country banks, for ten years longer, of the permission to issue 1l. notes. Now, if the country bankers were prepared to give up the circulation of their 1l.. notes at the close of the war, and were then permitted to carry it on for three years longer, and were then again at the end of that time led to believe, that they should be permitted to issue their 1l. notes for ten years longer, was it just to call upon them, on a sudden, to give up that which had been offered them, and to give it up at a time when considerable irritation was excited against them, and when doubts prevailed as to their solvency and credit? There was another very strong reason why he wished the House to look with attention to this part of the subject. On the first day of the session of 1826, ministers proposed to abolish the circulation of 1l. notes. They never deigned to make any inquiries into the manner in which that circulation was carried on, and in which it operated upon the various classes of the community. They carried their proposition—such were the prejudices of the House against the system—by one of the largest majorities ever known. What, however, was the course pursued with respect to Scotland? As soon as the determination of government was known in that country, the table of the House was loaded with petitions from it against the measure. A committee was appointed to examine into the allegations of the petitioners. The petitioners had a fair hearing; and, subsequently to it, no proceedings were taken,—a circumstance from which he inferred, that they had made out a case, which prevailed on the House not to alter the system of banking in Scotland. Now, it was rather a hard case upon the bankers of England, that no such inquiry was granted to them. He would venture to say, that if any gentleman wished to know the system of banking in England, he had only to look to the evidence given by the Scotch bankers, and to change the word Scotland for England wherever he found it. There was, however, a strong exception in favour of the English bankers; their system was much more cautious than that of their Scottish rivals; they never dared to advance so far as the bankers of Scotland. With regard to this particular letter, if the Bank of England had confined itself to proposing to the country banks to take its notes, he could have no objection. Even if the letter had been private, no one would have had a right to interfere; but it tended to throw great and undeserved discredit on the country banks. The proposal contained in the letter was founded upon certain doubts, which it appeared to entertain of their solidity, Now, as twelve months had elapsed since the existence of the panic, during which time not a surmise had been made to the discredit of the six hundred country banks which existed at present, it was most unfair and unjustifiable in the Bank of England, to scatter doubts in the public mind, as to the solvency of such establishments. The letter began as follows:—"Assuming it to be desirable to retain a paper-money currency convertible on demand, the great question for consideration is, how that paper-money can be so regulated as to afford the greatest security for receivers, both as regards the solidity of the issues and the power of obtaining coin for the same on demand." Now, if this was the real object to be attained by a paper-currency, it behoved the House to consider narrowly the transactions of the Bank of England itself; inasmuch as the great mass of paper which was now in the country originated from that body. The circular then proceeded:—"In order to obtain those objects, it is necessary, in the first instance, to free the paper-money as far as may be possible from the effects of what has been termed panic." It, therefore, became necessary to consider what was the cause of that panic. The first intimation of it proceeded from the President of the Board of Trade, who gave a caution to the Bank of England, as to the way in which it was going on with respect to its issues. The Bank being then in possession of a large quantity of Exchequer-bills, felt itself obliged to bring them into the market; which, being an unusual thing, caused considerable dismay amongst monied men. This, he looked upon to have been the origin of the panic. One or two private banking-houses failed in the first instance, which spread the alarm; and, consequently, every person who had placed his money in bankers' hands, hastened to call it in; and thereby a run was created on the Bank of England. It was, he believed, in reference to that event, that the letter from the Bank had been published. Before the holidays he had cautioned the then chancellor of the Exchequer (lord Goderich) of the danger of increasing the unfunded debt. He warned him, that on the first moment of alarm, the government would be called on for payment of its securities. He did not mean to say, that, in forming the financial plan of the year, it would be wrong to resort to an issue of Exchequer-bills. On the contrary, he thought it might be very useful to adopt such a proceeding; but what he objected to might be more properly called a permanent increase of the unfunded debt. So long as the Bank continued to be a large holder of Exchequer-bills, the currency must, in case of any panic, remain in an insecure state.—He might be asked, what was the remedy he proposed? He would answer, none. He had no system of his own to advocate; but merely threw out these hints for the consideration of others. The proposed issue of Exchequer-bills, although he regretted it, was, after all, only a temporary measure; and, in the circumstances in which government was placed, was perhaps the best that could be resorted to. He was only apprehensive, that some of those untoward events (which set all human calculations at defiance) might arise, which would cause a sudden demand for the payment of the government securities. He was desirous of seeing the Bank free itself from all the trammels in which it was placed with regard to the government. The directors ought to be able at once to meet all demands upon them—to do that which they were pledged to, on the face of an instrument which he hoped every gentleman carried in his pocket—they ought to be ready to fulfil the simple promise on the face of their own note, "I promise to pay on demand," so and so. If the Bank would confine itself to that plain line of conduct, it would be infinitely more respected than it was at present. But the Bank had become so intimately connected with government, that it was no longer satisfied with conducting its own affairs, but had an itching after managing those of other persons. So long as the Bank confined itself to its own affairs, it was all very well; but, when it travelled out of its sphere to direct the affairs of other people, it seldom exhibited a great degree of enlightenment. He was desirous that some measure should be adopted by the House, which would restore confidence to those persons who had taken great alarm at the paper put forth by the Bank. In his opinion, it would be extremely unwise to stop the circulation of country bank paper; which was, in most instances, the representative of houses, land, and other available property. That, he knew, was a sentiment in which most country gentlemen participated. It was well known; that the Bank already possessed the power, by its operations on the currency, of diminishing or augmenting the value of property twenty or thirty per cent. He knew many instances of persons who had purchased estates being completely ruined by these sudden fluctuations of the currency. If these mischievous effects had taken place whilst the Bank of England paper formed only part of the circulation of the country, what evils might not be anticipated if the whole circulation were placed under its control? The property of the agriculturists and manufacturers would thus be placed at the mercy of the twenty-four Bank directors, whenever it should please them to contract or extend their issues. It appeared to him, that there existed a determination, on the part of the Bank, to get rid of all competitors. He, however, acquitted the government of all participation in such a scheme. He would take that opportunity of saying a few words, with respect to the recent change in the government. His majesty could not have appointed any persons to be his ministers, towards whom he could feel more regard than towards the persons who now held those offices. He represented a large manufacturing county; and in giving his support to the administration, he was sure he should be acting up to the wishes of his constituents.—The hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire whether the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, or any Director of the said Bank, had circulated a Letter, tending to cast doubts on the solidity of Private Banks issuing paper, and thereby injuring the commercial and manufacturing interests of this country."

said, that the author of the letter was a director of the Bank. He was certain that individual would be extremely sorry, if any mischief had resulted from the publication of it. A more honest or well-intentioned person did not exist. With respect to the plan itself, when its author had asked him his opinion of it, he had told him he thought it a very foolish one. The manner in which the letter got into circulation was this.—The person who drew it up caused about a dozen copies of it to be made, for the purpose of giving to his particular friends; and one of those copies found its way into a public journal. He could assure the House that the plan had met with no encouragement from the directors; to whom, indeed, it had never been submitted in any shape whatever, The hon. member had charged the Bank with being desirous of accumulating profits, without regard to the means which they resorted to for that purpose. He could take upon himself to say, that the Bank had never been actuated by such a selfish feeling. Upon this point he might refer the House to the testimony of the late Mr. Horner, who, though he disapproved of the power possessed by the Bank, declared himself satisfied with the discretion and prudence with which it had been exercised. On all occasions, the Bank was desirous of carrying on its business as much as possible for the benefit of the public. The appointment of a committee would be perfectly useless; as it would be impossible to obtain any other information than that which he had given, without any reservation whatever.

said, that after the explanation which had been given by the hon. Bank director, he felt it unnecessary to do more than to state, that the plan of which the hon. baronet complained had not proceeded from any suggestion of government.

After a short conversation, the motion was withdrawn.

said, that his hon. relation, one of the members for Penryn had successfully shown that that borough was not only not so corrupt as other places that had been disfranchised, but that since the complaints respecting it in 1807 and 1819, the conduct of the electors had much improved. It was shown that Penryn was not so corrupt as other places; and that only a small portion of the electors could be suspected of corrupt practices. The corruptions alleged were such as were hardly provable in a court of justice. As to the evidence of Stanbury, Cearne, and others, it would be to waste the time of the House to comment on it. The evidence of Mr. Ady, the agent of lord Percival, was also not entitled to much weight, when it was considered how such individual was circumstanced, willing to make the best of his own case. Much stress had been laid on the electors' answers "to see their wives," or to "call again:" but that was the common answer. He had represented Southwark, a place, the independence of which would not be suspected; but there it was a usual answer to application, for votes, "Be pleased to call again; we have not made up our minds." With respect to the charge of corruption against Penryn, he contended that, separated from the belief of individuals, the proof was very scanty. As to the vote that he had given on a former night, he had really misunderstood the question before the House: he had imagined that the question was, whether the franchise should be transferred to the hundreds of Penryn or Manchester. He certainly was against opening the franchise to the neighbouring hundreds. If the borough were to be disfranchised, he should prefer its transfer to Manchester, considering the commercial interests to be inadequately represented in that House. He would take the sense of the House against disfranchising Penryn. If, however, that were resolved on, he should then support the proposition of the noble lord, to transfer the franchise to Manchester. He concluded with moving by way of amendment, "That the bill be read a third time this day three months."

seconded the amendment, and observed, that no case had been made out to justify the House in passing the bill.

.—I cordially agree in all that the hon. member has said about the independence of the borough of Southwark. I have stood five contested elections for that borough, and to gain my return I never spent one farthing. I wish all other members could say the same thing. To be sure, I was always at the head of the poll. When I called to solicit votes, I was not told, to "call again to-morrow;" their reply was, "All's right—strong beer for ever." The "call again" at Penryn, I rather suspect, was a different sort of thing; and I am so persuaded of the gross corruption existing in that borough that the noble lord shall have my vote for its disfranchisement.

said, that if the hon. member had misunderstood the vote of the other night, he must have imagined the proposition before the House to be a very foolish one; namely, who should have the spoils of Penryn, before they had decided whether it was to be disfranchised. The existence of gross corruption at Penryn had been proved; and he was not to be told that its former delinquencies formed no part of the case against it. The evidence was most conclusive and showed that it ought positively to be disfranchised. As to that fellow, Stanbury, what was he doing at Penryn, with his two rooms, &c., just at the time of the election? What passed between Stanbury and the electors, in the shop, was not known; but when they came out, they evidently were well pleased, and said that "Stanbury was a very nice man." Could any one doubt that they had then received the wages of their iniquity? The House would be wanting in due regard to its own dignity, if it altered the decision to which it had already come respecting this bill.

was an enemy to corruption, but he would not get at it through injustice. A case of corruption proved against fifteen or sixteen individuals was not sufficient to warrant the disfranchising of a whole borough.

contended, that the borough of Penryn should be dealt with as a community; and that, looking to its history up to the present time, there was a sufficient case made out to justify its disfranchisement.

forcibly re-stated his objections to the bill, contending on grounds of justice and general policy, that no adequate case for so strong a measure had been made out.

said, he had felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of this bill, although he was friendly to its principle. He had opposed it, because he wished to transfer the elective franchise to the neighbouring hundreds. The House, however, had decided against him; and it was not his intention to dispute that decision. He could not forget the report of the committee of 1819, when this borough was under its consideration; and he should therefore vote for the third reading.

thought that no person who had read the evidence, and heard the witnesses at the bar, could hesitate as to the necessity of parliamentary interference. Although he should have liked the bill better in its former state, yet, as the House seemed to prefer it in its present, he should cordially support the third reading.

was decidedly of opinion that, although the guilt was not so general in the borough as it had been represented to be, yet, that it was sufficiently so to call upon him to mark his sense of the existing corruption. He would therefore vote for the bill.

could not help considering this question judicially, and he was therefore inclined to come to the decision, that the great majority of voters at Penryn, not having been found guilty of any crime, should not be visited with a punishment due only to a guilty few.

, in answer to the arguments which had been urged, said, that where corruption was extensive, the guiltless voters were those alone who derived no benefit from the franchise. When the greater portion were thus degraded, they became idle and profligate. By accounts which he had received from Grampound, he was assured, that the town had taken a start, and was increasing in prosperity, since the means of corruption were taken away.

rose, to oppose the bill. What, he asked, was the crime for which Penryn was to be punished? Was it anything else than the crime of being discovered? This was its offence. In the city of Canton a man's handkerchief might be taken from his person; and if dexterously abstracted, the lookers on only smiled so long as it was undetected. But if discovery ensued, then down came the spectators on the unfortunate delinquent. Just so was it with Penryn. The moment that its acts became known, down came the majority of that House—to do what? To punish a crime which confessedly was practised by wholesale among themselves. Let those who wished to dispute this assertion, lay their hands on their hearts, and reply, whether or not that which he said was the truth. Whenever questions of this description came before the House, he invariably voted against them. He opposed them, because he could never bring himself to punish partial, petty cases of alleged corruption, and leave the more enormous ones untouched. If the House were prepared to enter upon a thorough reform of parliament, a measure which would equally affect all parties—and if they were further prepared to say to what extent they would carry that reform, and what they exactly meant by it—then they were doing a fair, intelligible thing. But he could conceive no greater example of injustice, than for the House to come down with all its tremendous power to overwhelm an individual borough, for an offence which all knew to be extensively prevalent in the country. What! was it fair, was it honest, to condemn the trafficker in votes of some 15l. or 16l. a piece, and leave unmolested the corrupt dealer to the extent of thousands? Was this fair legislation? He detested humbug, and wished gentlemen would speak out. He regretted that he did not see in his place the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster; for he should have expected from him the same bold expressions of indignation—the same sentiments of contempt for this effort of partial and unjust legislation—with which he had met similar cases. But that hon. baronet, much to his surprise and regret, had thought proper to absent himself from his place. To hear gentlemen talk of Grampound, Penryn, and other places, in the terms they did, one would suppose that all in that House were immaculate! That they never heard of such a thing as paying for votes—that they never heard of places where, not merely money, but conscience was sacrificed—where candidates were bound down on pain of forfeiting their seats, to vote whatever the case might be, in favour of the minister. But, so it was—when an unfortunate crow was wounded, the whole flock fell upon him, until not a feather was left in their victim. He would ask, in conclusion, were they prepared to punish the innocent as well as the guilty? He had always understood, that it was far better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape punishment, than that one innocent man should suffer.—Would they reverse this maxim, and condemn all the innocent, lest the guilty should not suffer? They admitted that Penryn was only partially guilty; and yet, rather than not punish at all, they resolved to punish with the last degree of severity. He, for one, could not agree in the propriety of that course, and was prepared neither to hang nor to transport, but to acquit Penryn.

approved of the argument of the hon. baronet, which resembled that of the hon. member for Westminster on the Grampound case, when he expressed his detestation of hypocritical cant. He declared that the electors of Penryn were not the corrupt body they were represented to be.

contended, that the evidence in this case went no further than to show that it was Stanbury who practised the corruption; and as he was not a candidate, he had committed no offence against the law by spending his money, if he chose to do so amongst the electors. He believed also that this was the first instance in the annals of parliament that a Select Committee should declare that the two members for a particular borough were duly elected, and that afterwards the House should disfranchise the same borough, on account of acts connected with that very election.

The question, "That the Bill be now read a Third time," being put, the House divided, Ayes 145; Noes 31.

hoped he might be permitted to inquire, what new light had suddenly broke in upon ministers, that they all at once abandoned a position which they maintained on a former night? Were they, in truth, afraid of being again discomfited? Were they alarmed at the prospect of being a second time left in a minority? Had they really altered their opinions? If so, let them openly acknowledge the change. Let them act in future consistently with the vote of that night. Let them follow up this partial act of correction by broader measures. Let them at once declare themselves the partizans of reform [hear].

The bill was then passed.