presented Petitions from several parishes in the county of Kilkenny, for the Repeal of the Union, and complained that the House did not pay proper attention to the affairs of Ireland.

did not think it fair that the House should be told so often that it paid no attention to the affairs of Ireland. The present question had been before the House over and over again, in fact daily, since the Session commenced, to the exclusion of almost all other subjects. He had never seen any inattention or impatience in the House, and therefore he thought it was too much that the English and Scotch Members should every day be told that they neglected their duty. Subjects connected with Ireland had received more attention, and had occupied more of the time of the House, than all matters connected with the other two countries.

said, that, among other things, he was glad to find that there had been a great improvement in the morning sittings; there was a much larger attendance of Members, and a great many promises of relief to Ireland. He trusted that those promises would be kept in the evening. He entreated a patient hearing while he read a letter to the House, received by a friend of his that morning. If the statement it contained did not make out a most strong case for relief, he would never again present another petition, or take up a moment of their time. The letter was from the town of Skibbereen, and was as follows:

Skibbereen, February 19, 1834.

My dear Sir,—I am most happy to hear your health is so much improved. I sit down to detail to you the deplorable state of this town and district. See Mr. Feargus O'Connor, and beseech of him to call the attention of Ministers to the appalling facts that I will vouch for, if necessary. The consequences of misrule are now betraying their sad effects in this unfortunate country. This pestilence is likely to depopulate it; already we have had seventy deaths in this town, in the short space of five weeks—all of the working classes. Labourers, tradesmen, &c. &c, are in a state of starvation. Most of these unfortunate people have not earned a crown since the middle of December. The town is deserted; the shops are closed; all is gloom and dismay; whilst famine and plague are committing sad havoc—with the strange anomaly of the storehouses full of corn, and quantities of butter and pork, poultry and eggs, exporting to happy England. In this sad state of things a public meeting of the landed proprietors was convened, and none would attend—there was one honourable exception, Richard Becher, who subscribed 10l. to relieve the starving people. Even the agents of the absentees would not come to the meeting, and it proved a complete failure.

This disease is evidently produced and extended by want of sustenance. I give you one case amongst others:—In one of the lanes a widow, with six helpless young children, was attacked with the malady. The instant her neighbours found she had the cholera, they deserted her. She and the children had been living for the week before on half a supply of cold potatoes. She sunk rapidly. When my medical attendant visited her, it is impossible to describe the scene—the children would not be admitted into a house; and there they were left, with the parent dead beside them, and the children nearly exhausted from want, till we had them relieved. This is only one of the many cases that are hourly occurring about me, and conceive, under such circumstances, the landed proprietors and their agents not even to inquire into such calamity. How rapidly our tithe Magistrates and squireens would assemble, to represent the liberating of an old starved cow out of a pound, and how eloquently they would address the Government for Insurrection Acts and Coercion Bills—but they look on the sufferings of the people not only with apathy, but total indifference. One only remedy remains—an immediate Poor-law. The country, I repeat, will be depopulated with plague, if it is not speedily enacted. The physicians of the greatest experience never remember, nor do I believe, the history of any former epidemic half so formidable. I have no confidence in the commission on the state of the Irish poor. I believe it is a mere humbug. I depend on the manly statements of our Irish Members, particularly Mr. O'Connor, who, I see (and I am happy to see by the last True Sun) is an advocate for a poor-rate. Let him persevere—let him ring in the ears of the English people the sufferings of our poor peasantry, the frozen and callous indifference of the landlords, and let him impress on John Bull that the hand of the tax-gatherer must be put into the pocket of the Irish landlord, to make him feel for the sufferings of his poor and impoverished tenantry. As to tithes, if the Government are chimerical enough to collect them again, what is to become of us?

He thought that a letter such as he had just read, should create some feeling in the House. He had been chastised for saying that the landed proprietors of Ireland did not look with compassion on the sufferings of the people; but was not such a state of things as that he had just alluded to a proof that the people were neglected and starving? He would not mix up this question with the question of Repeal, lest he should thereby disturb the minds of hon. Members; but be would ask, why had they not a Minister in that House to answer his complaints, and to suggest some plan for the relief of the people? There was another fact which he would mention to the House. A short time before be left Ireland, he had dined with a cavalry officer of high rank, and he stated that he had accompanied the civil power by night, in search of a man against whom there was a warrant for murder. They searched forty-three houses, and in thirty-one of them the inmates had not a shred of covering, but were lying in one common mass of misery and nakedness. Was he to be told that the Irish Members should bring forward specific measures of relief while the people were starving, and so much money was abstracted from them in the shape of local taxes? The noble Lord had told them that some of these taxes he bad no control over; but had he no control over the 90,000l. he had mentioned that morning? Had he no control over that enormous amount of local taxation, or over the vast sums paid for the support of the Church, from which the people derived no benefit? The Government was doubly culpable in the case of the county of Cork; for any loans that had ever been made to it had been honestly repaid; they had given a grant of 10,000l. to that county upon one occasion, which had been repaid. He did not blame the apathy of the hon. Members of that House half so much as that of the heartless landlords who were living among them, and would not administer to their wants. There was an old and a vulgar saying, which was applicable to the hon. Members of that House, "What the eye does not see, the heart does not feel for." But in Ireland it was shameful to see the rich man living in luxury while he was aware of the unfortunate state of the people, and paying no regard to their distressed situation. He thanked the House for the patient attention with which it had heard him, and he augured well from the feeling with which his statements and the reading of the letter had been received.

said, as an Irish Member, he must say that during the short time he had had a seat in that House, he had seen no indisposition on the part of the hon. Members of that House to pay every attention to Irish affairs. He trusted that in a short time a measure would be introduced by which property would be made liable, and the people rescued from the unfortunate state in which they had been represented. The circumstances detailed by the hon. Gentleman might be perfectly true, but he could bear testimony to the promptness with which the gentry had come forward when cholera first made its appearance in Ireland, for the relief of the distress of the people.

said, whatever might be the case with the landed proprietors of Ireland, those of England never betrayed any want of sympathy for the poor. The landed interests were always ready to assist the people in their distress. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman in what he had said relative to the large amount of the local taxation, and trusted that some modification in the Irish Grand Jury-laws would be made, by which the people would have some control over the taxation to which they were subjected.

begged to call the attention of the Irish Members to the conduct of the English at several periods when distress prevailed to a most lamentable extent in Ireland. In the year 1826 a subscription was set on foot for the relief of the Irish. It amounted to a great deal, and a considerable portion of it was sent back from the town of Galway, there having been more than ample means to supply the wants and relieve the population, who, before the subscription, were in a very bad state. That circumstance was enough to establish the fact that English sympathies were always alive to the complaints of the poor in Ireland. He denied the charge of inattention brought against English Members when Irish affairs were brought before the House. In the instance of the Motion made by the hon. member for Dublin regarding Baron Smith, out of the twenty-eight Members who spoke on that occasion, only six were Irish; and out of 169 who voted for the Motion, only twenty-nine were Irish. He thought the Irish Members should be more cautious in making such charges when they were not borne out by facts.

was surprised that hon. Members would condescend to notice the attacks of certain Irish Members from that side of the House. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) certainly sat in that House as the Representative of one of the largest counties in Ireland, but he did not sit there for the gentry of that county, but in spite of them. They disavowed him as their Representative, and it was not from the hon. Member that the House should take any impression as to the character of Irish Gentlemen.

admitted that he did not represent the gentry, but the poorer freeholders, of the county of Cork. His family, however, were amongst the largest landed proprietors in that county. With respect to the landlords, he had been applied to, amongst others, to use his influence in different parishes in the county, to release the tenants of a certain gentleman from gaol, where they had been sent, he would not say from what motives.

inquired, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman intended any personal allusion in those remarks?

Since the hon. Gentleman asks me the question, I certainly do.

rose to order. Gentlemen should not make that House the arena of their private quarrels.

said, that he had watched the hon. Members closely, lest any such disposition should arise. He did not conceive that anything had occurred to warrant such an opinion. The hon. Gentleman had been called on for an explanation respecting a public matter, and he was proceeding to give it when he was interrupted.

said, his question referred to the landlords about Skibbereen. What he referred to arose out of electioneering business.

under the control of the Speaker, would give any explanation the hon. member for Mallow might reasonably require. He certainly had no hesitation in stating, that he had been applied to, and that subscriptions had been raised in almost every parish in the county to release the tenants of the hon. member for Mallow from gaol, where they had been sent in consequence of being unable to pay claims which were made upon them. He would not take upon himself to say what motives had induced those harsh proceedings.

was extremely anxious to present a Petition to the House, which he had that morning received, from Leamington Priors, against the uniting that town with Warwick, in the exercise of the elective franchise, and praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill. A Motion for the second reading of the Bill which was to have that effect was first among the Orders of the Day, and therefore he was desirous, before the House took any steps, that the facts stated in the petition should be before it. The feeling in the town of Leamington Priors was extremely strong against the contemplated union; and to show that the fact was so, he would state to the House one or two circumstances. The petition he held in his hand was signed by upwards of 600 rate-payers in Leamington Priors, who paid upon an average above ten pounds a year, and they earnestly prayed the House not to sanction the Bill for uniting Leamington Priors to Warwick in the exercise of the elective franchise. It might by some be considered that such a measure would be a boon to the petitioners, but they expressed their conviction that it would be an injury. East year there were two petitions presented from Leamington Priors, on the subject of the proposed union. Although the total number of rate-payers rated at above 10l. a year was not more than 850, yet 757 of the number had signed the petition against the junction, and only thirty-five rate-payers of above 10l. a year out of 850 had signed the petition in favour of the Bill. It was certainly true, that the petition in favour of the Bill had received a greater number of signatures by 415 than the petition against the Bill, but it was proved by investigation that many of those signatures were worthless. These were strong reasons to induce at least caution in the proceeding. It might certainly be said, that the petitioners did not know their own interests, and that the Bill would benefit them; but he would urge in reply, that those chiefly interested in the prosperity of Leamington Priors had succeeded in raising it, in the course of a few years, from a mere village to a flourishing town, and that, therefore, their sentiments ought not to be disregarded. It was necessary that, in considering the subject in reference to the prosperity of Leamington Priors, the House should bear in mind, that that town did not depend entirely upon the peculiar character of its springs and its salubrious situation, but also on the fact, that it was a place of retirement—a place to which persons from the metropolis, and large manufacturing towns could resort, for quietude, and a perfect release from bustle and noise. Now, the petitioners felt, that to vest the town with the elective franchise, especially in conjunction with Warwick, would be to deprive it of one of its important attractions. They felt that the moment Leamington became a Parliamentary borough, many who had taken up their residence in it owing to its quiet character, would leave it, and that, therefore the intended boon would be an injury. He was perfectly aware, that if the projected change was for the public good the interests of individuals must give way; but first it ought to be shown that the measure was for the public good, and that there was no other means of effecting it, but by the injury of individuals. It had been stated, that a great change had taken place in the public feeling in Leamington since last year, but he had the authority of those who had promoted the present petition, to say that they had not found five cases in which any alteration of sentiment had taken place. Besides the present petition was signed by 657 rate-payers, rated at above 10l. a year each. He strongly recommended the petition to the attention of the House, and moved that it be brought up.

rose to move the second reading of the Warwick Borough Bill. He had hoped that, in doing so, it would not have been necessary for him to say one word in addition to those of the mere motion; and he should have preferred that course, for he was anxious to hear, at that stage of the proceedings, if any thing could be urged in a Reformed House against such a measure. He was glad the petition which had been just presented to the Mouse was before it. It certainly was somewhat curious, to find a body of rate-payers professing to be so pure, that they feared the contaminating influence of the elective franchise. He hoped, however, that after such professions the petition would be found less exceptionable than that of last Session. The petition of last Session had stated, that those signing it paid poor-rates to the amount of 47,223l. 6s. 8d.; and then, upon examination, it appeared that the poor-rates for the whole parish of Leamington Priors amounted only to 22,356l. Further, to the petition were affixed the signatures of 119 ladies, who were stated to pay in poor-rates 7,882l. Also, there was to the petition the signature of Dr. Leeward, a medical gentleman, residing in Warwick, who was stated to pay 46l. 13s. 4d. to the poor-rate at Leamington, while in fact he paid nothing. It, was not necessary for him to go further into that petition; and with respect to that just presented, as it prayed to be heard at the Bar of the House by Counsel, against the Bill, he did not feel it then necessary to refer more particularly to it. He therefore moved, that the Warwick Borough Bill be read a second time.

said, that although the hon. and gallant Member had expressed an expectation, that no opposition would be given to the Bill, still he could not help rising to declare his astonishment at such a measure having been introduced upon such a foundation. He contended, that the allegations put forth by the Report of the Committee were, in fact, only suppositions, being without the least substantial support or confirmation from the evidence. He did not mean to say that the evidence did not contain some proofs that some irregularities had been practised at Warwick, but he denied that the evidence at all justified the charges in the Report. There was no person in that House more adverse than he was to bribery, and he would willingly do every thing in his power to prevent it; but that was no reason why he should condemn the innocent. In this case bribery had been proved in twenty one cases; and of those cases a moiety had voted for the candidate opposed to the one against whom the Report was levelled. That was a mode of proceeding he could not approve. The circumstances under which his hon. friend had been a candidate ought to be remembered. The family of his hon. friend had long been connected with the town of Warwick, but, after he was defeated as a candidate in 1821, he refused again to stand for that borough, until he received a requisition to do so, signed by some hundreds of its most respectable electors. Therefore it could not even be pretended that his hon. friend had sought to introduce or to practice corruption. He contended, too, that there was nothing to justify the Committee in their Report. Indeed he must say, that the Report, looking at the evidence, astonished him; and he was at a loss to understand how it could have been adopted. He regretted extremely, that an hon. Member was prevented from attending by illness, who would have been so much more able than he could pretend to be, to draw the attention of the House to some of the facts of the case. Since he had entered the House, he had certain papers put into his hands, and with the permission of the House he would make some allusions to them. With respect to that part of the Report which bore upon the Earl of Warwick, he should say nothing. He felt that it might be very well left to rest entirely on its own merits. He would therefore at once proceed to the question of treating. The Report stated, that there had been treating after the testing of the writ. Now, that he denied. There was no proof whatever in the evidence of such having been the case. Treating before the testing of the writ there had been; but, as the case at present stood that was no offence. He, indeed, could wish to see the law altered; and if the hon. and gallant Officer would introduce a Bill to that effect, it should have his support; but still at present treating before the testing of the writ was not prohibited by law. Then a very grave and heavy charge was brought by the Report against his hon. friend. It was asserted, that riot, and confusion, and bloodshed, had been caused by the introduction of the tenantry of his hon. friend. Now, really such a charge ought not to have been made on light or uncertain grounds. He denied its truth, and he contended and was prepared to prove, that it was not at all supported by the evidence. The House would remember, that there had before been riots in Warwick, at an election. In 1831 there were riots, and those riots were occasioned by the Birmingham Political Union. He held in his hand copies of a number of placards, which had been posted at the instance of, or in connexion with that body, and their object was to "rouse," as it was called, the inhabitants of Warwick to rally round the standard of Reform. The hon. gentleman then read two or three of the Bills to which he had alluded. His conviction being, that by effecting the proposed junction, the House would be neither doing an act of justice to Warwick, or of favour to Leamington, he would altogether oppose the Motion.

thought it was a difficult matter to bring a charge of bribery directly home to a candidate; but if it could be shown, as in his opinion it had been, that a systematic course of bribery had been traced to regularly organized Election Committees, acting in the name of a candidate, that would be found sufficient. It appeared from the evidence, that a regularly organized Election Committee was sitting in the rooms of the very house in which the bribery, in some instances, took place, and, in that house, as well as others, there was a regular system of treating going on. It mattered not to him whether charges such as these were substantiated against Sir Charles Greville, or against any other candidate; it was sufficient for him (Mr. Langdale) that this system of rioting, treating, and so forth, had taken place, in order to establish in his mind the necessity of some steps on the part of that House. The statement made of the conduct of the orange party, and of the pink and blue party, in their efforts to possess themselves of the town, showed sufficiently the nature and extent of the riots, and called for the interference of that House. If it should turn out that they were unable to unite Leamington with Warwick, then the only other alternative they had was, to disfranchise the borough of Warwick altogether. If this were not a case for interference, then he could not say what it was that would justify the interference of the House in any case. Under all the circumstances of the case he would support the Bill.

in explanation, said, the Report of the Committee attached mach blame to the riots which took place, and so they did the riots which took place on both sides. He was not there to defend those riots; but, in his opinion, the law, if properly put in force, was sufficient to put them down.

did not wish to detain the House, but he felt called upon to obtrude himself upon their attention for a short period upon this very important question. He thought that the great measure of reform had so renovated all the branches of our Constitution, that an end was put to all kinds of corruption. In saying this, he did not mean to deny the right of that House to interfere where a systematic course of bribery and corruption was known to prevail, and take from such borough that franchise of which it was found to be undeserving. But, while he agreed in this to the fullest extent, he called upon hon. Members to look at the situation in which the borough of Warwick was placed. The report stated, that gross bribery and corruption had taken place in that borough; and when they come to inquire, they find that only 2l cases of the kind had been pointed out, and of these, only ten could be attributed to the Committee or the friends of Sir Charles Greville, the other ten having voted the other way; and the whole amount of bribery was 75l. 3s. 6d. He had taken some pains to find out who those persons were; and he found that they consisted of persons in the greatest poverty, who had received 1l. 5s. each. There was one individual, a person holding land, who received a sum of 9l.; but that was as a remuneration for a loss of a considerable quantity of straw, and could not, by any person, be considered in the nature of a bribe. The ten persons bribed, who had voted for Sir C. Greville, were looked upon as those who had completed their guilt. He had looked over every tittle of the evidence, and he would venture to say, that it was not of a nature to substantiate such a case of bribery against the borough of Warwick as would warrant the interference of that House in the way of disfranchisement. Let them look at Liverpool and other great towns, and they would find, not only that bribery had taken place, but that treating, riots, and tumults, had taken place; and yet were they prepared to disfranchise those places? Certainly not. That House had no right to interfere in such a way, unless where an extensive system of bribery had been proved. Were they prepared to disfranchise the borough of Warwick without further evidence? He heard those cheers, and he understood them. He knew that it would be attempted to introduce further evidence; but he was sure the hon. Chairman of the Committee, who had just cheered, was of himself of too delicate and honourable a mind to take any step that was not fully borne out by facts. If riots were to be a ground of disfranchisement, he trusted that hon. Members would turn their eyes to other towns. There was Coventry on the one hand, and Birmingham on the other; but he would allude more particularly to the former, which had been uniformly remarkable for riots fifty-fold more serious than any which had ever taken place at Warwick. Only one word more. If they did go to disfranchise the borough of Warwick, let them not do so upon evidence not taken upon oath. They had a remarkable case in point in the inquiry respecting the borough of Hertford, where an individual who had sworn positively to facts which, if true, would seriously affect that borough, had, on his statements being found to be wilfully false, been proceeded against in the Court of King's Bench, and found guilty of perjury. He could assure the House, that he was not inimical to inquiry into corruption at elections; the principle upon which he went was quite opposed to corruption; he wished that justice should be administered in all cases, and, apologising to the House for having detained them so long, he would not further trespass upon their attention.

considered that the present was a subject which ought to occupy the serious attention of that House. There could be no doubt but that inquiry should take place into the charges connected with the borough of Warwick. This House was now in a good temper to enter into such charges, and the people of England would not be satisfied unless such an inquiry were fearlessly and honestly entered into.

could not refrain from adverting to the observations which had been made by the hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Tower). The hon. Member had expressed his regret that the hon. Member for Dover had taken so narrow a view of the subject. He (Mr. Baring) believed that what was called, in Parliamentary Debate, an enlarged view of the subject, only meant the view taken by the Speaker, whilst what was termed a narrow view, simply meant the view taken by his opponent. He must confess, that he differed from the hon. Member, and thought that it was he who had taken a narrow, a very narrow, view of the question, whilst the views of the hon. member for Dover were enlarged and enlightened. The hon. member for Harwich seemed disposed to overlook the general results and effects of the present proceeding on the Constitution of the country, and upon the constituency of that House in elections. All the hon. Member viewed, was the effect of the measure upon the individual borough of Warwick. He was not going to trouble the House on this part of the subject, for the hon. Member admitted, that the question, as far as it concerned the conduct of the Earl of Warwick, was put off to another day. He had, however, paused in his enlarged views, in order to throw out some insinuations, which he (Mr. Baring) conceived was not a very liberal mode of meeting the question. Without going into the subject, he should have no hesitation in saying, on the little that he had seen of the case, that, if the House should think proper to proceed on the evidence before it, still there was not a particle of that evidence that could throw the slightest possible slur on the character of that nobleman connected with the borough, no more than it could throw a slur on any Gentleman in that House. There was not the slightest circumstance, looked at impartially, which could authorise any man to put on the books of that House a notice of a Motion to criminate the conduct of the noble Lord. He would, however, reserve himself to meet this part of the subject on a future day. It was alleged, that the corruption practised at the last election for Warwick was of so atrocious a nature that it required some proceedings of that House to punish the guilty persons; and yet, by the measure proposed, the guilty persons were not to be disfranchised, for the intended proceedings were to leave these persons in the possession of all their rights, and merely to add to Warwick the householders of the town of Leamington. What was the case? Warwick had a constituency of about 1,300 persons, and of these only twenty or twenty-one were proved to have taken bribes. This was the utmost. He called upon the House to consider whether they were not laying down a new precedent of a very dangerous nature. They had been told that, as the present was a Reformed Parliament, it must have a new sense of justice, and new notions of right and wrong; but, he would ask any hon. Gentleman, whether a proceeding of this nature and description were consistent with justice? Could it be reconciled to any notions of equity? The House was about to establish the precedent that when any borough, having a constituency of 1,300 electors, should have twenty or twenty-one of them corrupt or bribed at an election, it should be forthwith either disfranchised or be sluiced with some other constituency. Would not this doctrine put it in the power of any twenty people to disfranchise at pleasure any borough in the kingdom? No borough in the United Kingdom in which there were twenty designing men willing to combine to be bribed, could avoid being disfranchised upon this principle In such a case, very soon there would not remain any small borough representation in that House. He begged the country gentlemen to consider what would be the effect of dividing that House between county Members and the Members for large towns, which they dared not touch when bribery prevailed in them. Look at the case of Liverpool. Bribery was there ten times greater than it was at Warwick; and yet the punishment was to be dealt out to the latter place, in which the alleged bribery bore the proportion of only 20 to 1,300. If this were to be the precedent, the House would, at length, be divided between the county Members and the Members for large towns, who would be ready to tear each other to pieces for the ascendancy of their opinions. The precedent the House was about to establish broke up that form of representation which had been so long a part of the Constitution of the country. He looked at the case in the largest point of view, and, certainly, in a much larger than the hon. Gentleman that had just sat down. The doctrine now broached was not only of essential importance to the future condition of the House, but to the whole Constitution of the country. The House was now dealing with the boroughs of Warwick, Stafford, Hertford, and many other cases of a similar description, and if they proceeded thus they would completely alter the whole constituency of the same nature. A noble Lord had brought in a Bill in the last Session to suppress the practice of bribery at elections, but his Bill had not been followed up. Why should not some general measure be brought in which might apply to all places? If, however, the present particular case was to be the measure of a general Bill, he would maintain, that it was impossible that anything could be more unjust. What would the House do with the 1,'200 or 1,300 electors of Warwick who had done nothing wrong? He would not take the sense of the House upon the subject, and, therefore, he would not address it any longer or occupy more of its time; but he did beg hon. Members to consider—he particularly begged those who thought the landed interest in danger, in the present distribution of power, to reflect, how much danger they incurred by the present proposed mode of treating small towns, a mode which was neither just nor prudent.

thought it was impossible for any man, fairly considering the evidence, not to conic to the conclusion, that the constituency of the borough of Warwick was so overborne, as not to be able to exercise the elective franchise to the benefit of the country. The great enormity of the case consisted, not in the extent to which bribery was carried, but in the description of persons by whom that bribery was committed. It was well known that the noble Lord who owned the castle was recorder of the borough, and it was proved that the town-clerk, his nominee, had been the prime agent in every corrupt transaction. It was also proved, that several Aldermen were implicated in acts of bribery and treating. Immediately after the election, in 1831, a system of fraudulent rating was commenced, in which the land agent of the Earl of Warwick was engaged, and no less than 128 persons were added to the poor-rates on account of land belonging to Lord Warwick, and shortly before the registration, this land agent, the town-clerk, and an Alderman of the name of Henry Smith, were proved to have met at the Warwick Arms, and to have there men with fictitious receipts for the purpose of creating fraudulent voters. Of these 128 persons, eighteen were not inserted in the registry by the overseers, seventy-eight were rejected by the revising barrister, and thirty-one out of the remaining thirty-two, voted for Sir Charles Greville. The proof of the existence of bribery was, he thought, complete, inasmuch as a check for 8,000l. signed by Lord Warwick's land-agent, was presented at the bank by the town-clerk, and it was shown that the money had found its way into the hands of those persons who distributed the bribes. The hon. Member also contended that there could be no doubt that treating and rioting had prevailed to a very disgraceful extent. He was an elector of Warwick, and he had himself been a witness of the destruction of the property of the inhabitants of Warwick by rioters who had no connexion whatever with that borough, but who had been organized and sent in from different parts of the country, armed with tremendous bludgeons, which no one having a regard for human life would have used. The consequence of these riots was, that, in one instance, life was sacrificed. Under these circumstances, unless some change was effected by the House in the constituency of the borough, he should be at a loss to conceive what object Parliament had in view in giving the elective franchise to the people.

would not enter into the question of whether or not sufficient corruption had been proved in the borough of Warwick to justify its disfranchisement; but, as far as the interference of Lord Warwick was concerned, he hoped the House would not form opinions unfavourable to that noble Lord, until the whole of the facts were before them. It had been stated to the Committee, that Mr. Brown was no longer the steward of Lord Warwick; and his continuing to act in that capacity from the month of November till the month of March, had been occasioned solely by the non-arrival of his successor. Besides, did the House think it likely that the steward of an individual should be engaged in committing open bribery for him. It should be remembered also, that when it was suggested to the noble Lord to make voters, he expressly said, that he would not do so. The hon. Member, prejudging the question, had stated, that Warwick was subservient to the control of the Earl of Warwick. The only control which the family of the Earl of Warwick exercised over the borough was the control of charity and beneficence; and if they were crimes, the noble Earl must plead guilty. In 1804, he was returned o that House under the most honourable circumstances, without any distinction between those who were his father's tenants and those who were not—the whole of the inhabitants having for him the most genuine feelings of good-will. No corruption was practised, nor had jealousy or envy then gathered strength enough to impute it. This favourable disposition of the inhabitants to his Lordship was continued after he went into the Mouse of Peers; and this was to be called borough-mongering. He (Lord Eastnor) had questioned the noble Earl as to the correctness of the return from the overseers, and the noble Earl had stated, in answer, that he had no doubt of its being as free from error as possible.

was anxious, as one of the representatives of the borough in question, to address a few words to the House. He considered the proposed measure of disfranchisement necessary, not merely for the purpose of salutary punishment, but as indispensable to the maintenance, in future, of all freedom and purity of election in Warwick. The hon. Member took that opportunity of denying the correctness of a statement attributed to the hon. and learned member for Dover, to the effect that he (Mr. King) had gone to Warwick as the nominee of Mr. Tonics—a statement which he could not otherwise characterize than as fabricated and false.

begged distinctly to declare, that he had never uttered such a statement, nor could he have had any grounds for saying so.

said, that the authority on which he proceeded, was a report of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which appeared in the Mirror of Parliament, and of which he held in his hand an extract.

repeated his denial with some energy, and declared that he was not to be held responsible for any reports which might appear in the Mirror of Parliament.^*

rose to address the House, He could assure hon. Members that he would occupy but a very short time with the statements he should feel it his duly to make. Indeed, if the noble Lord (one of the members for the borough.) would say that he did not intend dividing the House at the present stage of the proceeding, he would content himself with simply moving the second reading of the Bill.

certainly did intend to divide the House on the present occasion.

trusted the House would in that case bear with him whilst he stated as briefly as possible the general features and grounds of the Bill. Before doing so, however, he was anxious, in justice to the Government of the country, to make one observation upon an article which had lately appeared in the Liverpool Standard, that the measure was brought forward and promoted by the secret instigation of Ministers, and that he (Mr. Benett.) was acting throughout the affair as their tool, and for their purposes. He at. once disclaimed all such connexion with Government. He had introduced his Bill strictly from a sense of duty, without communicating at all with Government, without having any connexion with Liverpool, and depending only on the support of those who honestly agreed with him on the general merits of the question. He had, on various occasions when the subject was brought on, yielded to Government, and postponed its discussion from time to time, lest it might interfere with the progress of that great measure, the Reform Bill; and it had been repeatedly delayed, till last year, when the House thought proper to appoint a Committee, restricting its inquiries, however, to what had taken place at the late election. That Committee having sat and entered at length into an examination of the subject, made a report to the House, and three to one came to the conclusion that a case had been proved. [The hon. Member referred to the Report of the Committee, which he read at length, for the purpose of showing the origin and

^* See Hansard, (third series) xxi, p. 159.

the grounds of his Bill.] When he was induced originally to withdraw it, the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, expressed a hope that he would, after the Reform Bill was carried, proceed with his measure; and the right hon. member for Montgomery shire (Mr. Wynn) stated at the time that if he had a seat in the House he would give it his support. He was glad to observe that an increasing attention and interest seemed to have been excited in favour of the measure; and he particularly relied on the assistance and co-operation of those who, having always objected to any wholesale measure of disfranchisement, yet professed themselves ready, whenever a gross case of corruption was distinctly made out, to visit it with proper and just severity. Now, the Bill for the disfranchisement of Liverpool was exactly a case in point. The number of persons who had received bribes amounted to 2,661, the un-bribed to 992; the registered householders under the Reform Act amounted to 8,800, and those who had not registered to 3,627. He had never heard of bribery so gross and so wholesale as that which had taken place at different elections for Liverpool; and he had never heard of a case in which men were so loath to vote without receiving a consideration for their votes as they were at Liverpool. He called on Parliament to restore the Constitution and to disfranchise those freemen, because they were corrupt, because they were not independent, and because they were bought and sold like cattle at every election. He referred to the evidence given by John Atkinson to prove this assertion. The evidence of Atkinson proved, that he had given a man 50l. for his vote—that the man was reluctant to take it—but that he was induced to take it by his wife, who told him to look at his dear children. The poor man seemed infinitely distressed by this appeal, but at last consented to vote as he was desired. He put on his coat in great agitation, and, on going to the hustings to vote, he turned to the witness and asked him for whom should he vote, having forgotten the name of the candidate in whose interest he was brought. He was reminded that it was Mr. Denison; and, in consequence he voted for that Gentleman. Mr. Denison thanked him, and offered to shake hands with him; but the poor man replied, "No, Sir, though I have given you my vote, I cannot consent to give you my hand." He wished to rescue these poor men from this species of corruption. He wished to save them from this sin and misery—for a deep sin it was in those who received the bribe, and a deeper still in those who offered it. Though he was satisfied that no bribery had been offered at the last election with the privity and consent of the noble Lord, he was still satisfied that bribery had been committed there. The evidence of the witnesses had established it, and the House depending upon the veracity of their evidence, had agreed to the second reading of this Bill last Session. He would not detain the House any longer, but would now move the second reading of the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill—a Bill which the House was bound to pass, if it intended to follow up the principle of the Reform Bill.

seconded the Motion, and was sure the House would agree, and particularly the noble Lord opposite, that if upon this occasion, he did not follow his usual custom of brevity, it was to give the noble Lord an opportunity of rebutting the statements he should make with respect to individuals of whose conduct the noble Lord might be informed, and that any other friends of theirs in the House might have the same opportunity. He should show indisputably from the evidence which had been laid before the Committee, that the mayor, town-clerk, and others of the corporation of Liverpool were men unworthy to be believed. It was a strong accusation; and if he did not satisfy the House that he was justified in making it, he was ready that the odium which always attached to false accusations should rest with him. He made no accusation against the gallant General who had long represented the town of Liverpool. He would first take the case of the town-clerk, who, it was clearly and indisputably proved—

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman make his charges against these two Gentlemen the grounds on which he supports the Bill for the disfranchisement of all the freemen? If he does not, is it right that the characters of two respectable gentlemen should be attacked when they cannot defend themselves, and when it is unnecessary to the success of the Bill?

should expressly confine his observations upon those gentlemen to the point of showing the justice of the case, and if he should happen accidentally to make use of the word "perjury" in the course of his speech, he begged to be ex- cused. He would first state the case of a man whose name was John Robinson, the captain of a merchant-vessel, who was desirous of retiring from that line of life, and of obtaining the office of landing-waiter in the Customs, at Liverpool. His wife being possessed of some small property in her own right, appropriated 400l., part of that property, for the advancement of her husband. Having agreed with Mr. Roger Leigh, a partizan of General Gascoyne, for the place, she gave the money, in the month of October, 1818, to her husband, and his brother, Mr. Charles Robinson, by whom it was paid to Mr. Thomas Foster and by him paid over again to the treasurer of General Gascoyne's election fund. Robinson being unwilling to part with so much money without getting a receipt, refused to give the money unless Foster agreed to give a receipt. Accordingly he appointed an interview the next day at his office, and, after some conversation, gave a receipt, expressing it to be "for a purpose understood between them." There was no misstatement; they would find the transactions stated in page 124 of the evidence. In the course of the year 1819 the husband of Mrs. Robinson was appointed, not a full landing-waiter as he had expected, but an assistant only. However, he died in eleven weeks after his appointment; Upon the death of her husband, Mrs. Robinson applied for a return of the 400l., first to Mr. Roger Leigh, and afterwards to Mr. Thomas Foster, who "behaved as a gentleman," and "promised to do all in his power for her." In consequence of this application, Mr. Pennington, the clerk of Mr. Foster, was directed to wait upon Mrs. Robinson. He was told that he would receive a sum of money, and was also told what he was to do with it; and finding the sum of 100l., in a cover directed to him, lying on his desk in Mr. Foster's office, he carried it to Mrs. Robinson. Mrs. Robinson having refused to accept this money, Mr. Thomas Foster informed his clerk that he would receive another sum; and Mr. Pennington, accordingly did receive a sum of 200l., which in like manner, he tendered to Mrs. Robinson, and which she accepted. The receipt which had been given by Mr. Foster for the 400l. was then delivered to Pennington, who immediately destroyed it, and informed Mr. Foster of what had taken place. His instructions were to obtain and destroy the receipt. An attempt was made during the inquiry to give to this transaction the colour of an ordinary election subscription. This, however, was distinctly denied by Mrs. Robinson, who said, that the money was not subscribed to the election; it was a regular purchase." But surely it would not be believed, nor would the House be credulous enough to believe, that Mr. Foster could have had an interview with three parties in his office, and at the time be ignorant of the purpose for which he received this money? He appealed fearlessly to the House to judge of those facts as they found them, and without prejudice or partiality. He begged most distinctly to say that neither then nor on any other occasion had he been a party to this transaction. There was an evident contradiction between the words of the Mayor and those of another individual witness; and of the two he preferred the evidence of the latter. He appealed to the hon. Member who was counsel for the corporation, as to the mode in which the first question he should have to refer to was put to the Mayor. He asked that hon. and learned Member why he did not draw forth from the Mayor a direct denial, rather than the answer elicited by his mode of putting the question. The Mayor was examined, and stated, that he canvassed for Sir Howard Douglas, and that he never was applied to for money or drink, or any description of bribe whatsoever. Now in contradistinction to this, he would place the evidence to which he referred.

begged the hon. Member in alluding to the counsel conducting the case, would not designate him by any term which would imply that he had not done, or that he had overstepped the boundaries, of his duty.

wished it to be understood, that he did not make use of the term "the learned counsel" with the view supposed by the hon. Member; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman disdained the title of counsel, he would not again apply it to him. The hon. Member proceeded to read the evidence he designed to contrast with that of the Mayor. Mr. John Downey had stated, with reference to the election of 1827, that he treated from 100 to 200 freemen at that election; that they had "refreshments of every description, cold dinners, suppers, and breakfasts—everything." This lasted four or five days, and the men were treated after they had voted in the same manner as before? He contended, that the Mayor should have been questioned most distinctly as to his participation or not in these transactions. Was it not he who gave instructions to Downey to proceed in this manner? It was stated that, by the orders of Mr. Alderman Wright, those things were done. Mr. Lawrence, the brewer, too, was active on Potter's behalf. It was told the voters that they should have for their votes "what was going," viz., from 1l. to 5l. The sums varied as the election proceeded. The witness, however, did not see them receive the money. Upon all these facts, he contended, that he had sufficiently shown that the Mayor was cognizant of the bribery practised. He would ask the House, whether it was not as plain as the sun at noon that the Mayor was cognizant of all this corruption? How, indeed, could it be otherwise, when it was only through the corruption in that quarter that bribery became the fashion in the borough. He would proceed to read a statement which would, he was satisfied, prove to the House the abundant existence of corruption in the conduct of electors in the boo ugh of Liverpool. If it did not, he should be quite satisfied to relinquish the second reading of the Bill. The noble Lord (Sandon) knew, that he alone had stood in the gap at the disgraceful election of 1830—that election which the hon. member for Newark had very properly said, had entailed eternal disgrace on the electors of Liverpool. In 1827, the number of freemen bribed at the election for Members of Parliament was 1,833; in 1832, 1,748; and 1833, 1,611. That showed bribery by wholesale.—The hon. Member again referred to the evidence, in order to show that the amount of the sums paid in bribery had been very great. The hon. Member read the following extract from the report:—"From this book an analysis was made by Mr. Pennington, of the voters for Mr. Ewart who had received bribes at this election, and of the amounts paid them. The following is the result:—

600	freemen received.	£10 and under.
462		between 10 and 20.
209		20 and 30.
24		30 and 40.
7		40 and 50.
1		60.
1,303

"And, according to the same document the sum paid for votes by the friends of Mr. Ewart, was 19,603l., and the average price per vote 15l. The wholesale nature of the bribery at this election, is well illustrated by the evidence of some of the canvassers. Mr. Thomas Taylor states that, out of fifty or sixty men whom he himself took up to the hustings, there was only one man who was not bribed; and that, in his district alone, between 700l. and 800l. were spent in direct bribery." He must add that the extent of disfranchisement under the Bill before the House would not be nearly so great as was supposed. At the election in 1833 the number of freemen who voted and were not bribed was, 1,748, and, of these no less than 1,451, were registered as ten-pound householders, so that only 297 innocent men would be actually disfranchised. That number was the result of the calculation of the corporation officer, in his opinion, not 100 innocent burgesses would be disfranchised by the Bill. In conclusion the hon. Member said, that he gave his most cordial support to the Motion, and he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time, for by doing so it would show that a bribed and corrupt constituency was not beyond the reach of a Reformed Parliament.

thought, that a very few words would explain away the charges which had been urged with so much vehemence, and he must say with so much absurd acrimony, by the hon. Member. When the subject was last before the House, as well as on the present occasion, the hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Wright did not dare to answer the questions put to him. But he recollected that in the last Committee, a question was put to Mr. Wright as to the former prevalence of bribery at the elections in that town, when the nominee for the petitioners objected to the question, on the ground that the Committee were not called upon to go into that subject. He was satisfied that a careful reading of the evidence would completely exonerate Mr. Wright from the charge brought against him and he thought, that it was of great importance that the character of a functionary like the Mayor of Liverpool should be relieved from such imputations as had been thrown out against him. He denied altogether the allegation of the hon. Member as to the extent of corruption in Liverpool, or that 2,000 persons ever received bribes. He contended that the evidence given as to that matter did not in the slightest degree warrant the inferences which the hon. Member had drawn. He had never denied, and his noble friend (Lord Sandon) had never denied, that great bribery prevailed in the election of 1830. They all admitted the fact and the House was cognizant of the corruption that took place at that time as well as in 1827; but the last Committee which had been appointed by the House on the subject of the elections at Liverpool was not directed to investigate the extent of bribery which prevailed at those elections, but was appointed to inquire whether corruption had prevailed since the election in 1830. Now he would venture to say, that it had been clearly established by the evidence taken before that Committee that in the five last elections, namely, two for Mayors and three for Members of Parliament, no bribery prevailed, unless those isolated cases were excepted which it was stated had been proved before a former Committee. The amount of money stated to be distributed was said to be 48l., and from this it was admitted that 14l. should be deducted. It appeared that this money had been distributed to working men who had lost a day's or half a day's work in order to vote. Now, he would venture to say, that it was perfectly notorious that, in every constituency in the country, wages on the day of election were given to those men who voted for the candidate supported by their masters, and they were not expected to work. In conclusion he trusted the House would reject the Bill as uncalled for and inflicting unmerited punishment.

had no wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but he felt anxious to make a few observations in reply to the various charges brought against the freemen of Liverpool. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wason) went out of his way to make an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on two most honourable individuals, whose characters had hitherto stood unimpeached. The hon. Member had not the excuse that what fell from him had been occasioned by the heat of debate, as the hon. Member had not spoken in reply. That, however, was a sample of the feeling which had prevailed during the last two years on the subject. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have gone out of his way to make attacks on the characters of such honourable men as Mr. Wright and Mr. Foster. The hon. Gentleman talked as if there were no manner of doubt that the Town Clerk and Mayor had been proved to have been actually engaged in acts of bribery; but he hoped that the House would not go away with the impression that evidence taken before the Committee bore out the inference which only the hon. Member had drawn. He would shortly address himself to the observations of the hon. member for Wiltshire, of whom he had nothing to complain. That hon. Gentleman had not indulged in exasperating language or sweeping accusations, but had made the statement which he felt himself called upon to address to the House in a way worthy of his high character. Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman was the chairman of the Election Committee of 1830, and was directed by that Committee to bring the case under the attention of the House. When, however, the hon. Gentleman got once engaged in the subject, it became a favourite matter with him, and he had persisted in urging it to a conclusion. He however, thought that his hon. friend had before that time felt reason to regret the course he had taken and had so long persevered in. Before he proceeded further, he would allude to an observation of the hon. member for Ipswich. That hon. Member asked whether bribers should be exempted from punishment? He was ready to answer, "Certainly not;" but the Bill before the House would leave the really culpable parties, namely, those who had given bribes and promoted corruption, unpunished, whilst it was proposed to take the elective franchise from the miserable victims who would no longer consent to be bribed. The large towns were naturally desirous of having the privilege of returning Members to Parliament. The possession of the elective franchise was considered by them as an honour, and the privation of it a disgrace. The hon. Member for Wilts thought that, notwithstanding the measures which had passed that House on the subject of the elective franchise the hon. Member was bound to proceed with his Bill; but he must say that he entertained a very different opinion. The House, having gone into the inquiry, surely could not now refuse to take cognizance of the result of that inquiry; and if it were to act upon the investigation which had taken place he did not see upon what principles they could pass a measure such as the one under consideration. There were two paragraphs of the Report of the Committee which the hon. member for Wilts had brought under the notice of the House. The one stated that during the period which intervened from the 28th of May, 1831, to the 8th of July, 1832, two elections had taken place in the borough without any act of bribery having been committed; and the other described the beneficial effects which the suspension of the writ had produced. Since the transaction implicating the burgesses, there had occurred two elections for the office of Mayor, which had also been inquired into without anything like bribery having been proved against the voters; and although these elections differed in many respects from elections for Members to serve in Parliament, yet, if purity was found to exist in them there could be no reason for supposing that corruption would exist in the other. The hon. member for Wilts had asserted, that the Committee were of opinion that a great deal of bribery took place during the election of 1832. He denied, however, that the fact had been proved. Some cases of bribery might have occurred, but he was prepared to show that they were not numerous. The charge of bribery on that occasion could not affect more than from ten to twenty freemen out of 850; and he would ask any hon. Gentleman present who felt it to be his duty to protect the interests of his constituency, and defend the rights of the electors, whether, upon such evidence, they would be justified in disfranchising this borough, and giving currency to an opinion that the rights of freemen were held upon a more feeble and insecure tenure than the rights of other classes of voters? The object of the Reform Bill was to preserve vested rights, and that House was now asked to take a step that would, in his opinion, amount to a clandestine surrender of the vested rights of the freemen of Liverpool. He must say, that such a proceeding would be wholly unworthy of the feelings which ought to actuate the present Parliament. The hon. member for Wilts had said, that the course which he had taken was usual in cases of this description, but on this point he differed from the hon. Gentleman. With the exception of Grampound, he believed a very opposite course had been taken, in reference to those boroughs in which corruption had been proved. Instead of disfranchising them, the number of the constituency in each case had been increased; and a disfranchising measure like the present never could be necessary for Liverpool, where it was proved, an end had already been put—by the enlargement of the constituency—to that corruption which had formerly prevailed. It would be manifestly unjust that the innocent as well as the guilty should be punished; and when they found, that a single case of corruption had not occurred during the recent elections in that borough, it was not too much for them to infer, that the abuse had already been corrected. At all events he must say that, with the evidence before them, they had no right whatever to go into transactions which had taken place previous to the Reform Act. And, moreover, if punishment were to be inflicted, it should fall on the tempters as well as the tempted, and the rich should suffer equally with the poor. The Reformed Parliament had heard much about the rights of the people; but he would ask, whether taking away the suffrages of the poor, and conferring them upon the rich, for the purpose of ensuring the return of a particular candidate, would be an act of justice, or in keeping with the professions which that House had so repeatedly made to the country? He had never been an advocate of corruption, and when the charge of bribery against the borough of Liverpool was first brought forward, he admitted, that if it were established, it would be the duty of that House to apply a remedy to the evil with as little delay as possible. He would not screen those voters who had been guilty of bribery from the punishment they deserved; and he begged the House to believe, that he defended only those whom he knew to be pure. He rested their vindication upon the result of an inquiry into the particular cases, which had been satisfactory to his mind. He therefore would oppose the Bill to the utmost, and would move as an amendment "That it be read a second time that day six months."

hoped the House would hear him for a few moments, while he repelled an attack which had been made on an hon. friend of his, who was not there to defend himself. He knew that Gentleman well, and a more just, honourable, and worthy individual did not exist than Mr. Wright. He was inculpated in a grave charge for seeking to induce a person named Downey to espouse the cause of Mr. Porter, during his contest for the Mayoralty of the town. The charge was not borne out; and he regretted the hon. member for Ipswich should have made himself a party to such a charge. Never was the "ridiculus mus" better exemplified. The accusation must fall to the ground. He regretted the case of the borough was confined within such narrow limits; it should have been taken upon its broadest scale. There could be no doubt but that bribery and corruption had prevailed in Liverpool, to a great and disgraceful extent. It was as clear as day that the freemen were in the habit of openly selling their votes. He remembered in 1827, that the Quarter Sessions were put off for an entire week, in consequence of the election of Mayor then going forward. The noble Lord had said there was only an item of 48l. for bribery in the Report which he had held in his hand. True there was that item, but then there were also sums stated to the amount of 20,000l., 30,000l., and 40,000l. the price of the votes of the freemen of Liverpool. At most, however, it would not now be entirely disfranchised, and the House was called upon by the Bill to deal most moderately with the freemen. They certainly would be disfranchised as freemen, but then they might fall back upon the franchise which they had acquired under the Reform Act.

said, that he should oppose the Bill on the broad and plain ground, that having settled the constituency of Liverpool under the Reform Bill, they should not interfere and disturb that arrangement, unless it was shown that there had been some subsequent occurrence to justify them in doing so. No such occurrence had been brought to light, and he therefore should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.

said, that having property in the county in which Liverpool was situated, and being well acquainted with the circumstances of that county, though perfectly unconnected with the parties chiefly interested in the Bill, he was desirous of stating the grounds upon which he felt the present case ought to be decided, sincerely wishing, as he did, to see it divested of those party and personal feelings, which appeared to have so carried away the course of the present debate from the true question before the House. He hoped, in making the few observations with which he felt it his duty to trouble the House, that they would bear with him while he confined himself to the simple task of saying a few words for those who had not many advocates in that House; and that if he had not the tact to express as concisely as older Members might, the remarks he had to make, they would, he trusted, remember, that that must come from experience and practice, but it would be his earnest endeavour to occupy as little of their time as possible. There never was a case more truly founded in justice than that of which he was then the humble but sincere advocate; independently of which there were many reasons, on the score of expediency, which alone ought to have prevented such a Bill being at present brought forward. Let them look, in the first place, at the justice of the present proceeding. That was the first Reformed Parliament, and though he did not then see on the Treasury Bench the Ministers upon whose responsibility the measure of Reform was introduced, yet he trusted, that they would not be parties to nullifying the great Act to which they owed their Ministerial existence. It was one which conferred upon numerous and wealthy masses of men the benefits of being represented, and it annihilated in a great measure nomination—it gave representation to those who were justly entitled to that privilege, and abstracted it from such as possessed no claims—it was that, or it was nothing—that was its great pretension; and small must be considered its performance, if it failed in that. Let it then have a fair trial. It professed to punish the guilty. Liverpool, if guilty, was so before the Reform Act was introduced. Why acquit that town, by then passing it over, and now falsify their own act, when the great boast of the measure was, that it inflicted punishment for the past, and afforded security for the future. He would not delay the House by calling their attention to the several Reports, as they had already been noticed by the noble Lord the member for Liverpool, though at a loss to discover how they could bring in a Bill to disfranchise a whole class, notwithstanding that the Report which surely ought to be the only ground of legislation, had declared that the bribery was not extensive or systematic. In considering the present measure, the House should, however, bear in mind that all proceedings of that sort were in the nature of bills of pains and penalties, and assumed much of the character of a judicial proceeding. Would the House condemn a whole for the guilt of a part? An authority often quoted in that House—he meant Mr. Burke, of whose wisdom alike the youngest and the most experienced availed themselves—Burke had said: "You cannot prefer a bill of indictment against a whole community." This remark of that eminent man had grown almost into a proverb; and let it never be forgotten that the body against whose rights the present Bill was directed, actually were numerous enough to be called a community, and were at the same time so poor, as to deserve the especial protection of the legislature; for, in this land of freedom and equal rights, the law was "no respecter of persons"—all men were alike entitled to its fostering protection. He wished that the present Reformed Parliament would condescend to derive something from the wisdom of their ancestors—even from times not long gone by—times which cordially responded to the truly constitutional principles so eloquently uttered by the older and the greater William Pitt—times which, with all their faults, had as much respect for the rights of the poor as could be found in the boasted enlightenment of the nineteenth century—times which, at least, bad the virtue to feel "that the rights of the poor are as precious in the eye of the law, as the proudest privileges of the rich: the poor man's cottage is his castle; the winds may sweep around it; the rain may penetrate its imperfect shelter, but the highest noble in the land may not, with impunity, lift even its latch, or tread with offence upon the hem of its owner's garment." Quoting from memory, he professed not to give the exact words, but the sentiment should be ever present to the minds of British Legislators. His Majesty's Ministers had legislated so as to give increased power to the interest of a mere middle class—taking away influence from many who had large stakes in the country, and refusing to impart any privileges to the opposite extreme of society—in each of whom he fully believed, and he was not alone in the opinion, that as great an amount of public spirit, and as large a proportion of the national energy were to be found, as in the favoured class of the Reform Act; an Act that, speaking generally, had stricken the poor voters to the earth; it was, to say the least of it, bad enough in that respect, whatever it might be in others, and let them not make bad worse, by saying to the people of Liverpool, "We will punish the innocent and the guilty without discrimination—we will make one class, (the middle class, every thing; the operative and gentleman nothing. We will give our assent to a Bill, which, however it may in its preamble profess to punish bribery, does, in fact, allow the weight of its vengeance to fall not on guilt but on poverty."

said, that he had been a member of the Committee, and he thought Mr. Foster had given his evidence in the frankest manner possible. He regretted that the hon. member for Ipswich should have taken this opportunity for making an attack upon that Gentleman's character.

defended the present Mayor of Liverpool and Mr. Foster from the attacks which had been made upon them. There were no names in Liverpool which stood higher both in point of integrity and respectability, than the names of those individuals. He strongly deprecated the language which had been used with regard to them.

who had also been a member of the Committee, bore his testimony to the frankness with which Mr. Foster gave his evidence before them.

supported the Bill, on the ground that the existence of general and extensive corruption had been proved in the borough of Liverpool.

briefly replied. The hon. Member said, that the cause which had been placed in his hands, had the support of most respectable individuals in Liverpool, who were only anxious, in seeking this measure, to secure the purity of election in that borough.

in moving pursuant to his notice for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law of forfeiture as regarded the personal property of convicted felons, remarked, that the subject was well deserving the consideration of the Legislature, and complained that it was manifest, from the returns laid before the House, that the present law opened the door to great abuse. From those returns, it appeared that the whole amount of property of convicted felons in all the counties in England, during the past year (as we understood) was no more than 3,100l., and of this there had been, under very peculiar circumstances, one forfeiture alone of 2,500l.; so that only 600l. was the sum resulting from all the convictions for felony in this country. The object of the Bill which he sought to introduce, was to give power to the Court before which the felon might be convicted to dispose at its discretion of his property in one or more different ways—first, to apply it to the indemnification of the party robbed; secondly, in aid of the expenses of the prosecution; thirdly, to the support of the family of the felon, which, in many instances, became a burthen on the parish; or, lastly, to apply it to the maintenance of the felon himself during the period of his confinement. He was aware, that the Bill would affect the rights of the Crown, and would therefore require the sanction of his Majesty's Government, and he had reason to believe that such sanction would not be refused.

inquired in what way the permission of the Crown had been obtained?

replied, that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had consented to the Motion.

said, he must inform the hon. Member that it was necessary the consent of the noble Lord should be expressed by himself in and before the House.

said, he had received a letter from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stating that he had no objection to the introduction of such a bill as he (Mr. Rotch) now proposed, but the noble Lord would not pledge himself further.

hoped that, in the absence of his noble friend, the hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone his Motion.

was proceeding to complain that he had been disappointed during the last Session in carrying forward his proposed measure, when

called the hon. Member to order, and remarked, that unless a Minister of the Crown was present to give his consent to the introduction of the Bill, the House could not entertain the subject, nor could he (the Speaker) put the question.