regretted that it was necessary for him to address the House, after what had already passed with respect to the disturbances at Lanark and other places in Scotland. He had before stated his unwillingness to enter into the subject, because, in his situation, his explanation might be attributed to personal feelings. The same motive prevented him from going into particulars at present, and that motive was strengthened by the statement of the Lord Advocate, that the subject was undergoing legal investigation. It was a serious matter to impeach the conduct of the Sheriff, nevertheless he abstained from entering into details, because they would necessarily excite discussion on a subject on account of which misguided persons were under trial. The Hon. Baronet had objected to the military having been brought too near the town of Lanark, in reply to which he would observe, presuming the Sheriff had received such information as might render their presence necessary, common prudence required them to be much nearer than twenty-five miles, which was the distance of the place where they were usually quartered. With respect to the employment of the constabulary force, the Sheriff had publicly declared, that of about 300 persons sworn in, only twenty or thirty answered his call, when they were wanted. He hoped all further discussion would be stopped, for it appeared extremely improper to make an attack upon a public officer in an incidental conversation.

felt it his duty to say a few words on the subject of the election for Lanark. He was anxious, that the House and the country should not be misled, and therefore he requested them to suspend their opinions until an authentic account of the whole transaction was laid before them. Proceedings were in progress by which public justice would be vindicated, and the conduct of the parties involved placed in its proper light. Having been present at the election, it was only justice to the people of Scotland to say, they had not been fairly and constitutionally dealt with on that occasion. He fully concurred with the observations of his hon. relative with respect to the constabulary force; had that been properly arranged, and had it performed its duty properly, it would have been quite sufficient to have preserved the public peace. He was aware of the difficulty and delicacy of the duties thrown upon the Sheriff', and was willing to make every allowance for that officer, but having been an eye-witness to his conduct, he could not exculpate him. Where the disturbances commenced, out of a body of 320 Constables, he had only twenty at his disposal; the Sheriffs object was to disperse a crowd of 300 or 400 persons, including women and boys, who had surrounded four or five freeholders after the election was over. This might have been accomplished by fifty Constables and when that was the case, it could not be said that the civil force was overpowered which alone could justify calling in the military. He appealed to the House whether the conduct described was correct on the part of the Magistrate. Cedant arma togœ was not the case on the present occasion. The Sheriff shewed his aptitude for both professions when he vaulted into the saddle and charged up the street with all the ease of a veteran soldier. He again intreated the House to listen to no partial statements, for he was persuaded that the result of the legal investigation would be the vindication of the character of the people, and that the conduct of a few miscreants would not be assumed to be a fair representation of the conduct of the whole nation.

wished the hon. Member had himself followed the advice he had given, and refrained from provoking discussion upon a subject under judicial investigation. He regretted the hon. Member had not followed the prudent course of his hon. relative, instead of expressing himself in rather unqualified terms on the conduct of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire. The hon. Member accused the Sheriff of having unnecessarily called in a party of Dragoons to disperse a crowd after the election had taken place, but he appeared to have forgotten that the disturbances had commenced during the election, by an attack on the houses of the candidates and those connected with them. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member on the constabulary force, he must beg him to recollect that they had been brought from a distance and had been on duty from an early hour in the morning. The consequence was, that after the unpopular candidates had quitted the town, the Constables thought they were no longer wanted, and most of them returned home. After that time a numerous body of persons surrounded the Inn to which some of the supporters of the unpopular candidates had retired. The friends of the unsuccessful candidates also dined at the same Inn, and they were cheered by the mob, but the supporters of the unpopular candidates were prevented from leaving the Inn, were attacked by stones, and exposed to great personal danger; under these circumstances the Dragoons were employed by the Sheriff for the sole purpose of escorting the carriages of the freeholders who were confined in the Inn by the mob. In the execution of this duty the Sheriff was so seriously injured as to be confined to his bed for several days. The conduct of the mob was such as to fully justify the Sheriff: persons in the crowd openly expressed their determination to inflict some mark of their vengeance on the unpopular freeholders. Under these circumstances the hon. Member had made use of unjustifiably strong language in saying the Sheriff had acted unconstitutionally. He repeated, the military were called in, not to act against the people but to escort the carriages of the persons confined in the Inn. After what had fallen from the Lord Advocate, he was unwilling to enter into further detail. From the manner in which the learned Lord spoke, it was evident that he thought the transactions reflected great discredit on those engaged in them, and they would be found, he believed, of a more serious nature than the hon. Member imagined.

considered, that the hon. Baronet, after the long discussion on this subject yesterday, would have acted wisely in not bringing it again before the House. It was detrimental to the public service for Gentlemen to excuse such transactions as these which occurred at the Lanarkshire election. It mattered little, indeed, what Members said on the Opposition side of the House, but when Members connected with Government, whose words had weight in the country, appeared to excuse, 'the conduct of an election mob such proceedings were calculated to tempt the people to repeat their offences against the laws. He also thought it most unjust to attack an absent individual. The person whom the hon. Member had attacked, the Sheriff-Depute of Lanarkshire, was bound to keep the peace of Glasgow, a town containing 200,000 of the most disorderly inhabitants of Scotland, and it was most unfair to bring forward public charges against him when he had no opportunity of meeting them. He had been present at the election, and must doubt whether the hon. Member had really witnessed the circumstances which occasioned the military to be called in. There were at Lanark, as at other places in Scotland, two parties; the one which favoured Reform decorated themselves with green ribbands, bearing the device of "Reform." These persons dined after the election together, and while they were so engaged, the unfortunate individuals of the opposite party were blockaded in the Inn, and found it impossible to get out without being grievously assaulted. They were confined in this manner for hours after most of the constables had retired, and the Sheriff was left with about twenty only. The freeholders who were thus imprisoned, called on him for protection: under these circumstances, he was advised by a friend of the unsuccessful candidates, to send for the military; their aid was obtained and what was the consequence? Not one of the rioters received the least injury from the soldiers. The hon. Member had alluded to the Sheriff having mounted a dragoon's horse, but he had forgotten to explain, that the officer who commanded the troops, refused to stir without the presence of a Magistrate. What then was the Sheriff to do; was he to refuse the service of the soldiers from motives of personal fear? No, he determined to do his duty, and accompany the soldiers by the only method possible. Whilst so employed on horseback, he was struck with a constable's baton, much injured, and suffered great pain for several days. It was very hard, that an individual, whose impartial conduct was praised by the unsuccessful candidate, should be attacked in his absence, and he therefore thought that it was necessary to say these few words in his vindication. The whole question was in the hands of the Lord Advocate who would perform his duty correctly. He deprecated discussion at the present moment, but felt that he had only performed his duty in defending an individual whose proper conduct had met universal approbation.

begged to observe, he had made no attack on the Sheriff without giving him proper notice. At the time of the transaction he had told him, and he had since communicated with him by letter, that he was determined to bring his conduct before the House. With respect to the occurrences in the church, nothing could be more infamous than what there took place, but the evil acts of a few individuals were not sufficient to vilify the character of a whole assembly. There were only three or four missiles thrown in the church and the dignified conduct of his hon. friend opposite, upon that occasion he should never forget. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had defended the Sheriff for appearing on horseback, which might have been necessary, but it was not calculated to make a very salutary impression. The Sheriff added to his difficulties by that act, for he had to manage an unruly horse as well as an unruly multitude.

said, if the hon. Member was resolved to make such a determined attack upon a public officer, it would have been more becoming to have given notice of a motion, than thus to come forward with a sort of by-play and make an ex-parts statement. He felt sorrow at reflecting that the Sheriff had been censured by a Member of that House for having actively and conscientiously performed his duty.

expressed a hope that the discussion would terminate, and that the House would suspend its judgment till the whole particulars of the transaction were before it.

moved for a return of the number of informations relating to Charities, in England and Wales, filed in the Courts of Equity at the instance of the Commiss- ioners of Public Charities, from the day of the last return on this subject to the present time.

observed, that the reports contained no accounts of the sums destined for education, which had accumulated in the hands of Trustees or Corporations.

thought it very desirable that the whole amount of funds destined by charitable persons for the education of the people should be known. He believed that if they were properly managed and applied, they would be sufficient for all the purposes of education.

said, he had a motion on the same subject, which he would now present to the House. He moved for a return of the sums left for charitable purposes to the Corporation of Bristol, together with an account of the manner in which they had been distributed; or if not distributed, of the reasons that had prevented their distribution; from the year 1820 to 1831.

concurred entirely in this motion. There was one charity in Bristol of 120l. a year, left to the Mayoress to be distributed to lying-in women, at the rate of 21. a piece, but it frequently happened that objects enough of the bounty could not be found, and the Mayoress had put the money into her own pocket. He wished, therefore, that this charity should be included in the hon. Member's motion, and he would recommend him to make it more general.

said, he should have no objection to do so; but he believed that the information already published upon other charities rendered it unnecessary.

said, he had no objection to the motion; but he feared the returns could never be obtained. He suggested to the hon. member for Middlesex, that if the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of public charities had not been able to furnish, in ten years labour, the information he wished, it Was most unlikely that it could be procured on the mere order of that House.

saw no difficulty in con plying with the motion.

was chiefly anxious to attract attention to the subject, and if that were accomplished, his purpose would be answered.

doubted whether the information was not already in papers which had been laid on the Table of the House. He agreed with his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, that it would be most desirable to know the whole amount of the sums destined to charitable purposes, which he believed was not less than 2,000,000l. a year. It was necessary to pass some measure to secure the proper application of this enormous fund.

dissented from the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex, for he thought if changes which were made by the laws affected individuals, the legislature was bound to afford them compensation. In all changes proposed to be made, it ought to be matter for consideration, whether the evil consequent upon such change might not be greater than the probable good to be derived from it. He thought the prayer of the petition worthy the attention of the House.

replied, that he wished the petition to be referred to the Committee, where the prayer could be considered. He admitted that no difference ought to be made in any class of people, to whom compensation was given, those in low stations deserving it in some cases, as well as those in high

apprised the hon. Member who presented the petition, that there was no Committee sitting for the regulation of the coal-trade.

replied, that he would completely satisfy the right hon. Gentleman; he would give him Mr. Lorimer's address, and then by calling upon him he would be able to satisfy himself, and hear what that Gentleman's political opinions really were. He had every reason to believe, that the politics of this Gentleman on the subject of Reform were similar to those held by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and it was his opinion, that in all such cases as that of Mr. Hetherington, the author, and not the unfortunate printer, ought to be punished. He had said, and he repeated it, that he entertained great suspicion that the manuscript sent to The Republican, and other works of that nature, came from the enemy's camp.

called upon the House to recollect the first statement made by the hon. member for Middlesex, and compare it with that statement which he had just made. He did not, in the first instance, give it as a mere matter of suspicion but of fact, that the manuscript of The Republican came from the enemy's camp. Now the hon. Gentleman seemed anxious to back out of his assertion.

said, he had no wish to back out.

The hon. Member had given it as a fact that Mr. Lorimer, who wrote in The Republican, was connected with the present Opposition side of the House — that he was in the enemy's camp, but he did not seem to be now prepared to treat the subject with his usual fairness. The suspicions of the hon. Member could not justify the allegations he had made.

I said that I had a suspicion [no!]— a strong suspicion [no, no!] — then I will say at once, that it did come from the enemy's camp.

contended, that before the hon. Member ventured on such an assertion, he ought to be able to prove that Mr. Lorimer was really connected with Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Gentleman ought to have evidence to prove his assertion before he advanced such charges against Gentlemen at least as honourable as himself.

was not surprised at the observations of the hon. Member, for he bad no doubt the publication was connected with those Political Unions, of which the hon. Member was an adviser, and indeed he happened to know, that some of these writers were the accredited organs of these bodies. In these Political Unions motions were discussed and resolutions entered into, which were printed in these books. The hon. Member had addressed a letter to the Political Union of Dunfermline, recommending the establishment of reading rooms, the circulation of pamphlets, and holding out the expectation that the elective franchise would in time be communicated to them, although not at present contemplated. He there advised the people to carry their expectations beyond the present Bill. The hon. Member said in his letter, which had been published in The Prompter, that "newspapers, and other political works, should be read by the members of these Unions, who should thus prepare themselves for the exercise of those rights which will be conceded to them by this measure; and even those who have not the right of suffrage granted to them, should look forward to the time when it will be granted beyond the limit of the present Bill. To Paisley, Glasgow, and other places, where institutions of this nature are formed, I shall be happy to advance the object in view by supplying pamphlets and other useful works." These Political Unions were founded on what they called the "Rights of Man"— words used by the enemies of the British Constitution, and of everything that pertains to it. The result of those Unions were publications like those to which so much allusion had been made.

was sorry, that the hon. Gentleman bad not read the whole of the letter containing the advice to the Political Unions.

replied, he had not got the whole of the letter. He had read and quoted such expressions as seemed necessary, and he was sure the House would be convinced that when the people were told to expect "something more than the Bill," only one opinion could be entertained as to the nature of the advice.

repeated, he wished the hon. Member had read the whole of the letter, as it did not contain one word which he meant to retract. The facts were simply these. A letter had been sent to him, requesting his advice as to the establishing Political Unions, and he, in reply, wrote the letter which the hon. Member so much deprecated. He never wrote a syllable about defending the "Rights of Man," in the sense these words were used years ago. So far from that being the case, he would give the hon. Gentleman a whole year to find out in his writings the advocacy of any such doctrines. He advocated the rights of the people, not what were called the Rights of Man in the year 1793. The riots in Scotland proceeded from ignorance, and being most desirous to prevent the recurrence of such scenes, he recommended, that instruction should be given to the lower orders, to enlighten and prepare them for that elective franchise which had so long been unjustly withheld. He defied any man to trace the most remote connexion between him and the publications which had been referred to. Had the people been properly instructed, the disgraceful riots which had prevailed in Scotland, would have never occurred, and if the hon. Member supposed he was on any occasion the advocate of violence and outrage, he was never more mistaken in his life. Nothing was more injurious to any cause than the commission of such acts, and if the hon. Gentleman supposed he could, by that letter, connect him (Mr. Hume) with those occurrences, it roust be because he was like a drowning man, ready to catch at anything. With respect to these publications, his belief still was, that they came from the enemy's camp. [A voice, "Give some proof of this assertion."] He would give the documents to the hon. Member, and would lend him any assistance in his power to ascertain what he had stated, and the hon. Member could hardly expect him to go beyond that. The late right hon. Secretary for the Home Department alluded last night, with great pomp, to his (Mr. Hume's) constitutional knowledge. He had assumed an appearance of mildness and candour, but his intention was, to excite laughter and expose him to ridicule. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman, to say the least, were not applicable to what he had said, and had nothing to do with the question before the House. He should certainly move, that a copy of the letter alluded to by the hon. Member should be laid on the Table, and although it might be easy to pervert what was said, he would challenge the hon. Gentleman to make good any of his allegations with respect to improper advice being contained in it.

said, he had been charged with uttering a calumny, of which he was not only incapable, but which he utterly denied. What he had said was, that the Association of which he complained was the advocate of the Rights of Man, as well as the Political Unions to which the hon. Member had given advice; but he had not said the Rights of Man were associated with the name of the hon. Member, and if it were necessary, he was in a condition to prove what he had affirmed.

observed that the hon. Member might be perfectly right in the line he had taken, and in the sensitiveness which he had shewn on being charged with having had any connexion with institutions or publications employed in the propagation of opinions connected with what were called the Rights of Man. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not shown much regard to the feelings of hon. Members who conscientiously opposed the present Government, and of whom he stated, that they formed the "enemy's camp," from which these infamous publications had been distributed. These Gentlemen, who were now sitting under the shadow of the Mountain, had been rashly, improperly, and audaciously accused of giving publicity to doctrines which every one who knew them would admit to be totally unfounded. He would only read to the House the title in the first page of one of those papers, published on Saturday, the 18th June. The first article was headed "The Sovereignty of the People," and it was dated, "the 18th June, in the Year of the People One." Was it to be tolerated when such language was said by the hon. Member to come from the enemy's camp? He thought, before the hon. Gentleman complained of his own sensitive feelings being touched, he should spare the feelings of others, and not give utterance to such groundless charges. He was as stout an anti-reformer as any Gentleman, yet he had not felt so acutely the imputations thrown on them as the hon. Member who was the great patron and adviser of political unions, felt at an insinuation respecting his advocating the Rights of Man. He would let the House see, too, what those writers said of the Church. He would call the attention of the House to one paragraph: "As a temporary relief, and previous to a total confiscation of what is called the property of the Church, that property should be subjected to a tax for the maintenance of the poor." Here, then, these publications wished to confiscate the property of the Church; and he would remind the hon. member for Middlesex, that, although he disclaimed any connexion or community of opinion with the writers in those publications, yet he had often said, that the property of the Church was resumable by Parliament. Therefore, all the distinction between that hon. Gentleman and "The Republican" rested upon the difference between resumption and confiscation. He would also let the House see how these writers and venders of slander and infamy spoke of the Army. An article commenting on the assistance given by the army to the civil authorities in quelling disturbances, was headed —" the Army, Man-butchers." It was only last night that the hon. and learned member for Kerry recommended the employment of the King's troops, in consequence of their greater humanity, and being divested of local feelings. But he would not trouble the House longer by running through the whole of "The Republican." He would content himself by reading a passage from a letter to a society in Glasgow, in which the hon. Member said, "that he had no doubt the franchise would be extended beyond the limits of the present Bill;" from which he (Sir C. Wetherell) inferred, that the hon. member for Middlesex anticipated another new Constitution to supersede very soon that which the Reform Bill would establish. It was said by the framers of that Bill, that it would satisfy the people, fix and settle the Representation of that House, while the hon. Member distinctly told them, that after it had passed, they would have much to expect "beyond it." He would recommend the hon. Member to abstain from making such charges, and from attacking an absent man; and when the constant attendance of his right hon. friend was recollected, the House would agree with him, that the hon. Gentleman ought to have postponed his attack until the right hon. Baronet had been present to reply to it.

wished to remind the House of the inconvenience to which such discussions as the present must invariably lead. He had heard it admitted by some of the Gentlemen with whom the conversation originated, that a mischievous notoriety was given to those worthless writings by prosecution. But it was of little use that the Government should abstain from prosecution, if hon. Gentlemen were to take up the time of the House, and delay the public business, in order to confer upon such writings the notoriety which their authors desired. He believed, from what he had heard that evening, that the discussion on that subject the day before had contributed much to increase the circulation of the publications in question; and he greatly feared, from the turn the Debate had taken, that their dissemination would be promoted still more extensively.

gave the hon. member for Middlesex the credit of reviving the Debate, for he thought his hon. friends who surrounded him would not have been true to themselves, had they not instantly repelled the charge made by the hon. Gentleman against an absent friend, of being instrumental to the corruption of public morals. Nothing which had been said by the right hon. Baronet could bear the construction put upon it. His right hon. friend did no more than he was then endeavouring to do; namely, repel allegations attempted to be fixed by the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, upon him. In doing this he gave no occasion for the comments which had much better have been made in his presence, than in his absence. Who Mr. Lorimer was, the House was not informed, but it was politely told, it might inquire. Now it was the duty of the hon. Member to have inquired before making the charge, and unless he knew the assertion to be true, he ought not to have made it. If he was convinced of its truth, he was the more called upon to give those proofs which were the grounds of his own conviction. If he stopped short in doing that justice, he would not deal fairly with those to whom he had imputed unworthy motives. He had no desire to give publicity to these infamous publications, which he was glad to see stigmatised by all the Members of that House; but, in however bad a light they might then be looked on, he feared they could not forget their existence. They were regarded, it was plain, with a different eye in those Assemblies which the hon. member for Middlesex and his friends encouraged. He did not say the hon. Member encouraged such publications, but there was no doubt they were now increasing in number and infamy.

thought the hon. member for Middlesex had not been fairlytreated. The hon. member for Borough bridge admitted, that in the allegations of the hon. member for Middlesex, those who occupied what the hon. and learned member was pleased to call the Plain, were not alluded to, but only those who opposed Reform. The hon. member for Middlesex thought it was right to caution the people, that these publications proceeded from the enemies, and not from the friends of Reform; but it was not he who introduced "The Republican," and "Poor Man's Guardian," to the notice of the House. It was the hon. member for Dundalk. He had also brought forward "The Prompter," and if there was any other miserable vehicle of sedition, he would no doubt speak of that to-morrow, in order to spare the parties the expense of advertising. The hon. member for Middlesex was charged with encouraging Political Unions, and it was insinuated that these publications were their accredited organs. But on what facts was this charge supported? They might be the organs of some such Unions, but that had not been proved, and it had not been shewn that they were connected with the Scotch Political Unions. With respect 10 the Letter alluded to, any man might be proud to be the author. The greatest friends of the lower classes were those who informed them that they were the greatest sufferers by revolutions. The upper classes might sink some few degrees; but the labouring classes were inevitably thrown out of employment, and out of bread. It was of importance to encourage Political Unions, that great truths might be spread amongst the lower orders. It was by the encouragement of such Unions, that the senseless cry against the Truck System was silenced. It was admitted by all the Scottish Gentlemen who had spoken, that there had been riots in Scotland, and that there still existed a disposition to riot. This, therefore, was the time to enlighten the minds of the people, by shewing them that any attempts to bring about political changes by force would be most injurious to themselves. The hon. member for Dundalk had thrown out an anti-Jacobin cry against the "Rights of Man," a cry which in past years reached the pitch of political insanity, and from the effects of which the country was still suffering. The phrase was in itself a good one, and not to be quarrelled with. The English people had rights which had been taken from them by the borough mongering faction, and the attempt to raise an anti-Jacobin cry against these, would fail as signally as the attack made upon the hon. member for Middlesex. He was sure, that the proprietors of these publications must be very grateful to the hon. member for Dundalk, who seemed to have volunteered his services to them as bellman, and, in that capacity, went about proclaiming to the public at what shop they might purchase blasphemy and sedition at the lowest price. Perhaps he might shortly have occasion to apply himself to some more useful trade. The hon. member for Boroughbridge admitted, that what was said respecting Church property, implied confiscation; whereas, the hon. member for Middlesex only said, that Church property was the property of the State. If so, and it was held under an Act of Parliament, which took it from its former, and gave it to its present owners, that was the best title a man could have to property, but the power that gave could take away, or modify it. There could be no doubt of the power of the Legislature, or the Roman Catholics would claim all the Church property of the country. By removing the authority of the Legislature, the hon. Member made a good title for the Popish Bishops of Ireland. He disclaimed, however, with them, any such title, and recognised the authority of the Legislature which, if it thought fit, could deprive the present holders of this property, or remodel their tenure of it. The former ought not to be done capriciously, but on the latter he entertained a very different opinion; and because the hon. member for Middlesex thought, and said, that the Legislature had the power so to act, he was charged with a desire to confiscate Church property. Certainly, such insinuations were most unjust, and ought least of all to be made by Members who were called learned as well as honourable.

deprecated those discussions, by means of which the House was sometimes occupied to the fatiguing hour of half-past one o'clock in the morning with matters which in no way concerned the welfare of the nation. It was a cruel thing to waste the time of Members by a sort of trickery on words, and a sort of cajolery that meant nothing, and that they did not understand or wish to enter into. Whilst the time of the Legislature was thus destroyed, Gentlemen accustomed to the pure air of the country, were shut up for many weeks more than was really necessary, in the close streets of the metropolis, to the injury of their health as well as of their domestic affairs. Besides, he thought that nothing could more sink the character of the House than discussions such as that introduced by the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Gordon.) The high character of the hon. member for Middlesex ought to have protected him from the improper, the unjustifiable attack which had been made upon him.

thought, that when the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had been for some time a member of that House, he would be aware of the impropriety of lecturing hon. Members concerning the subjects which they thought proper to discuss. If he had ears he must have heard the hon. member for Middlesex bring an accusation against a right hon. Baronet not present, and state, that Mr. Lorimer was a person connected with the enemy's camp, that he was the author of The Republican, and published opinions directly the reverse of his private sentiments. He would ask the hon. member for Leicestershire, as a man of honour and spirit, could he sit quiet and hear such accusations cast upon his absent friends? For his part he would tell the hon. Member that he should be always ready to vindicate his friends. The hon. member for Middlesex had still to prove, that Lorimer was connected with the anti-Reformers, or he must come down to the House tomorrow evening, and state that he had made improper allegations against the right hon. Baronet.

observed, that no man in the House would object to the hon. and gallant Officer rising to defend his absent friend, but that was not the precise matter alluded to by the hon. member for Leicestershire, and he would appeal to the House to say how small a portion of the discussion had been occupied by that incidental defence. The matter that had occupied their time, and to which the hon. Gentleman pointed their attention, was the desultory discussions upon publications which, however they might disagree upon other subjects, they all condemned for their mischievous tendency and want of principle. If they were noticed at all, it should be in a court of law. The time of the House, which was public property, ought to be protected; and as it was found insufficient for the public service, it would be better to put an end to the matter, than to go into a second discussion how the mischief began. Certainly he thought that no observations ought to be made upon the conduct of an absent Member, and to defend him was an act of friendship.

vindicated the Gentlemen with whom he was connected from the imputation of having provoked this discussion, which was not on a trivial subject, for the question yesterday was, whether these publications ought not to have been put down at the outset.

declared he had been misunderstood; he had abstained from imputing blame to either side, and his object was, to reconcile the two contending parties.

thought they never could get through their public duties if they were constantly to discuss obnoxious opinions. He never saw the time of the House consumed so unprofitably, and he appealed to all, if such measures were continued, whether the public business could be attended to.

observed, that a certain society had met to petition for the repeal of the remainder of the Six Acts; they had intrusted their petition to the care of the hon. member for Middlesex, and had requested him to support it. That was the matter before the House, and in seconding the prayer of the petition be must say he knew nothing of Lorimer, and disclaimed him for a Radical. He knew all the Radicals pretty well, and had never heard of The Republican or The Prompter till they had been mentioned in that House. The Poor Man's Guardian he did know, for it had been sent to him, and he concurred entirely in the remarks made on what had been read from that production, which certainly contained the most abominable trash ever written. In consequence, however, of last night's discussion, extensive orders had been received for it, and if the editor sold 20,000 next week instead of 4,000 or 5,000, he would owe that to the hon. member for Dundalk. With respect to the petition, he understood there were 150 similar petitions lying for signature, but he trusted their presentation would be unnecessary by their prayer being previously complied with.

said, an hon. Gentleman, new to the House (Mr. Paget) had lectured them for misspending the public time, but it hardly came well from the hon. Member, for two nights before this House voted away twelve millions of money, and where was then the hon. Member? He proclaimed himself in his public documents to be an exposer of all grievances, and an advocate of all retrenchment. Why was he not present, therefore, to curtail or opppose some of these many items? Not having done so he was hardly justified in attacking others who were doing their best to promote the public interests.

wished to know from the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, there being no other member of the Government present;" whether it was the intention of Ministers to amend the clause imposing the necessity of rents being paid half-yearly, in order to vote under the Reform Bill? As the clause stood, it had given rise to great public dissatisfaction, for the greater part of leases provided, that the rent should be paid quarterly, and he had been assured by the noble Lord, that there was no intention to exclude such persons from the franchise. This, however, required some explanation, and it would give great satisfaction to have a public declaration to that effect.

wished, that the hon. member for Middlesex had taken the advice given him on another subject, and waited until the noble Lord who introduced the Bill was present, before he brought his question forward, which really was almost a libel upon that noble Lord.

rose to perform a painful duty, as Chairman of an Election Committee, being bound to fulfil, as far as lay in his power, the decision of that Committee. The Committee had been under the necessity of depriving the sitting Member of his seat, and in addition had come to a specific resolution, which imposed on him the duty, as the Chairman that Committee, to submit a further proceeding to the House:. It would be in the recollection of the House, that, in pursuance of this intention, he had moved certain Resolutions, as the foundations of a Bill which came to an end by the motion for adjourning the debate, being carried at half past one o'clock of the last morning on which the late Parliament sat. It was his purpose to move those Resolutions again, and on their receiving the confirmation of the House, he meant to persevere in his original design, and move for leave to bring in a Bill for putting an end to bribery and corruption in the borough of Liverpool. He was aware of the Reform Bill — which he hoped to see carried, as he believed it would put down corruption; but it would not entirely meet the case of Liverpool. The freemen of Liverpool did possess their franchise for their lives, and to their children it would descend. He did not find any great fault with the lower freemen for accepting bribes, for the great crime rested with a number of the wealthy citizens, who used the lower freemen merely as their tools, for the election of such persons as these rich freemen chose; neither would he wish to punish these poor freemen, though it was not punishing them to deprive them of this franchise. He denied, that the franchise was either the property or the right of any man. It was a duty he had to perform for the good of his country, and by no means a right. If the franchise were a right, how came the House so sweepingly to take it away from the Irish 40s. freeholders? On what principle did it proceed but the principle that this was a duty which these freeholders could not properly discharge? If this were the case, he did not apprehend, that he was called on to prove, that every individual in Liverpool had been guilty; but if it appeared that a majority of the freemen had committed this offence, then, upon the principle on which boroughs were to be disfranchised, the House was entitled to deprive of the franchise, all who had abused it. His object simply was, to deprive those of the elective franchise who had abused it, and bestow it upon others who would not act corruptly. He did not wish to deprive the town of Liverpool of the privilege of sending Members to Parliament; but he wished that this privilege should be given to those who were not corrupt. The House ought, therefore, to give the elective franchise to the householders of Liverpool, and follow the provisions of the general Reform Bill, as nearly as possible. If the House should confirm the Resolutions, and give him leave to bring in the Bill, he should afterwards wait the progress of the Reform Bill, before he carried the measure any further. He would then only refer to the evidence of Mr. Bold, which would prove satisfactorily, the universality of the corruption at Liverpool. Mr. Bold, a respectable man, who interfered in the election merely from motives of friendship, said, on being asked about a certain room, that it was called the pay-room, and that he took there about 200 voters, after they had given their votes. Mr. Bold's evidence was as follows: —

"As soon as they had given their votes you took them to the room where Mr. Foreshaw was, and then to the pay-room? — Yes.

"And when you got to that room were they paid there? — Yes, they were.

"Will you tell me what they were paid? — Various sums.

"Will you tell me what the sums were — how they varied? — From 51. upwards.

"Will you allow me to ask you, from 51. upwards to what extent? —40l.

"Was 51. paid pretty early in the election?— Yes.

"Was the 40l. considerably later in the election?—Yes.

"The price at Liverpool rose in the market, perhaps gradually, from 51. up to 451.?— Yes it did."

The witness said, that he was one of twenty-two captains who brought the voters up, and that he handed in 200 certificates. Various other witnesses stated similar facts; some that there was a great rush to this pay-room — others that they saw heaps of money, notes and cash; and the fact was indisputably proved, that throughout the election, paying for votes was common. It was not necessary, after stating these things, that he should go further into this part of the subject. He would not willingly punish any one, even the great culprits; but the House must recollect that these transactions had gone on for a long series of years. It was said, that even so long ago as General Tarleton's election, a Greenwich or Chelsea pensioner received 20l. for his vote. Mr. Yates said, that the same system was pursued at Mr. Canning's election, not that Mr. Canning himself knew anything of it, but it was carried on by a set of wealthy persons. The same practice prevailed at Mr. Huskisson's elections, and it was clear that it had been pursued for many years. The higher class of freemen must have known of it, as it was carried on by them; though they were no more guilty than the noblemen and gentlemen who gave their money in order to procure the nomination of Members in other places. No connexion was traced between the gentleman who was elected and the bribery that was practised, although, such was the nature of the evidence, that the Committee was obliged to deprive him of his seat. When bribery had prevailed to a vast extent, and for a long time, it became the duty of the House to devise some means to prevent its recurrence. Prevention was better than punishment; and his aim was prevention. The Reform Bill did not meet the case of Liverpool, as it did not deprive these freemen of their franchise; and when it was considered, that they amounted to 4,500, the great majority of whom had been bribed, and when it was recollected, that the 10l. householders under the Reform. Bill, would not be more than 12,000, it would be seen that the Reform Bill would leave in the hands of these freemen, or rather, in the hands of those whose tools they are, a very considerable power. He, therefore, hoped, that the House would agree to these Resolutions; and he should in the first place move, that the Resolution of the Select Committee (28th March), "That it appears to the Committee that gross bribery and treating prevailed during the late election at Liverpool," be read.

Wood moved, that the House be counted; which being done, and forty Members not being present, the House was necessarily adjourned.