having called the attention of the House to the Petition of the Electors of Stamford, respecting the late election for that Borough,

presented a Petition from those electors, praying for an extension of the time for entering into recognizances. He moved that the prayer of the petition be granted.

opposed that petition. He said, that his hon. friend (Mr. Tennyson), who was interested in the petition, being himself a lawyer, and a Member of that House, could not plead ignorance of the law or of the forms of Parliament in excuse for the irregularity of his petition. Besides, the House had decided in the negative upon a similar petition, respecting the election for Marlow, in the year 1816.

said, that a special Act of Parliament had been passed to regulate the proceedings on those Election Petitions. The persons then applying to the House for further indulgence had neglected the provisions of that Act, and he thought the House ought not to allow them the extension of time which they required.

in moving that the Petition be laid upon the Table, observed, that the House had interfered in six similar cases before—that it had power to do so, and that it ought to enlarge the time for entering into those recognizances, as prayed by the Petitioners. The Borough, he contended, was not a rotten Borough, and if the petition went before a committee, he had not the slightest doubt that such committee would stigmatise, not the electors of the Borough, but other parties who had endeavoured to stigmatise those electors. He thought it would be more becoming in the House to be governed by the spirit and general tenor of the Act, than by a trumpery clause of three lines in an Act of Parliament. The House was bound in every case to administer justice, and ought not to be stopped when it had power to give relief. He wished, before he sat down, to learn the opinion of the Chair on the clause under which the enlargement of time was sought.

disclaimed any intention of wishing to influence the decision of the House on that or any other question. The clause which they had then to consider was the 6th. It required, that on the day on which the petition was presented, or the next day the petitioners should deliver in the names with the additions and places of residence of the persons whom they proposed as sureties, and that the same be entered in a book kept open in the office appointed for that purpose. When the subject of the present petition came before him, he inquired if that preliminary proceeding had been complied with, and being answered in the negative, he replied that, unless better instructed by the House, he should not feel himself at liberty to enlarge the time; at least such was his construction of the Statute.

said, that the point on which he wished to learn the opinion of the Speaker was, whether or not the House had power to interfere. If the facts were verified on oath, could the House dispense with the prescribed regulation?

said, the conduct he had pursued in the matter fully indicated his opinion.

would still maintain, that the House was not excluded from entertaining that question.

observed, that the House could have no power to violate an Act of Parliament.

considered the Act to be imperative upon the House.

observed, that the statements of the petition ought to be verified by affidavits.

said, there could not well be any affidavits put in respecting the construction of an Act of Parliament.

thought that his hon. friend would be better advised in not making any motion to enlarge the time, especially after what had fallen from the Chair.

in moving for certain Returns of which he had given notice respecting the Metropolitan Police Force, adverted to the willingness expressed by aright hon. Baronet below him to agree to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the character and organization of that force, a proceeding which, he had no doubt, would be attended with results highly creditable to that body; for he thought them in many respects well calculated to answer the purpose for which they had been formed, though admitting of considerable improvement. The chief and best founded objection to them was the expense. This expense amounted in many parishes to an increase of 150 per cent on the old rate, in others to 300 per cent, and in some, even to much more. He thought this was a subject which required some investigation, and in order to pave the way towards a thorough knowledge of the comparative cost of the two systems, he begged leave to move for a return of the amount paid in each parish, for the equipment and support of the new police, and the amount of rental on which that amount is raised, together with a return of the sums paid by each parish in the year before the organization of the new police; stating the number of watchmen and police constables employed, and the amount of rental on which such sum was raised.

repeated the statement made by Sir R. Peel, on a former evening, that the returns connected with the payments on account of the new police were, according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, to be laid before the House after the Christmas Recess. For that reason he did not think the hon. Member should press the first part of his motion; but he had no objection to the second part, because he was anxious, in common with all others, that the new system of police should be fully inquired into, and its merits fully recognized.

was also desirous that the expenses of the new police should be fully ascertained; and he hoped that the return moved for by the hon. Member would be made as comprehensive as possible, in order to afford a fair comparison between the cost and efficiency of the new day and night police and the old system of parochial watch. He believed it was quite true that some of the parishes paid as much above what they formerly paid as the hon. Gentleman stated, but it was because they did not pay a shilling before, and trusted solely to the watch provided by their neighbours.

approved of the system of police, but felt that the expense required reduction. In one parish the sum paid for watching was raised from 1,450l. to 5,500l. a year.

asked if it was the intention of Government to fill up the vacancy created by the retirement of the noble Earl who lately held the sinecure office of Postmaster-general of Ireland?

was happy to say, that Government had determined not to make any new appointment of that description in Ireland.

in justice to those Gentlemen who were connected with the late the Administration, felt himself called on to say, that they had determined not to renew the office alluded to, on the retirement of its present possessor, and they had also abstained, in prosecution of the same views, from filling the vacancy created by the retirement of the other noble Lord who was joint possessor of the office.