presented a Petition from freeholders of Cork, praying the House to adopt measures for the better prevention of bribery and corruption at Elections. He declared that the Conservative Club of Dublin at the last election for Cork had sent down money for the purpose of bribing the freeholders and freemen, and that an office was opened in George's-street to distribute the money, which was done in the most unblushing and shameless manner. He was glad to see the noble Lord in his place, whose father had the merit of introducing the Reform Bill, and he trusted that he and the other members of his Majesty's Government would see the necessity of introducing some measure which would prevent these malpractices—which would preven the city being put to the expense of petitioning that House, and would save Committees of that House the trouble of turning out obtrusive Members from the seats they had usurped. The petitioners suggested that candidates should be required to take the same oaths against bribery that was required to be taken by the electors at present. None of the evils which it was supposed by some would result from the adoption of the Ballot, could ensue from such a course. It was well known that the system of the Ballot had been found to work well in the election of Directors of the East India Company, which legislated for so many millions of persons, and he was a decided advocate for it. He begged that the petition be referred to the Select Committee on Bribery at Elections.

regretted that the late Members for the city of Cork were not in that House, that they might have an opportunity of replying to the very serious charges of bribery and corruption which had been brought against them by the learned Doctor. He was satisfied that his hon. Friends, the unseated Members, were not taxable with such offences. He was perfectly satisfied that if none but those who possessed a bona fide franchise were allowed to vote, the result of the late Cork city Election would have been very different; but the Committee had refused to go into the qualification of 1,080 persons objected to. He greatly regretted that in almost every case of Irish Election petitions justice had not been done, in consequence of this scrutiny not having been entered upon. The only remedy for this would be a revision of the freeholders' list, as the Courts of Justice were at present closed against any persons petitioning against freeholders whose title was good for eight years. He would not have risen if the learned Doctor had not alluded to the imaginary conduct of some society in Dublin, which had sent down money to defray the expenses of the Conservative candidates. He (Col. P.) begged to deny the charge that he was a Member of any such society. He believed there was at present a Bill before the House for the prevention of bribery at elections, which included a provision for candidates taking the same oaths as the freeholders.

denied that there were too many facilities to the registering of freeholders in Ireland. There was scarcely any impediment in England, while in Ireland they had to appear before the Registering Barrister, and undergo a severe cross-examination from any person who pleased. Many of those Conservatives who were most violent in their opposition to the people had no money of their own, and therefore must have been supported and returned by the friends of the Conservative body.

presented a Petition from an individual of the name of Alexander Oppenheim who had formerly conducted two public Journals in Jamaica. In 1831, an insurrection having arisen among the slaves of that island, it was imputed to this gentleman that the general tendency of his writings had the effect of exciting this insurrection, and the consequence was, that he was imprisoned without any legal process, or specific charge being made against him. Notwithstanding this conduct, he had been altogether unable to obtain redress, and the public feelings had been so much excited by his imprisonment, that this Gentleman had been unable to continue in his profession. He had, consequently, returned to England, and applied for the situation of Stipendiary Magistrate, for which, by his residence in the island, he was well qualified; but he had not succeeded in obtaining such appointment. He recommended the case to the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers.

presented a petition from printers, &c, of York, praying that the whole of the duty on newspapers might not be reduced. The petition spoke in strong terms of the favourable condition in which the newspaper press of this country now was.

said, this petition contained extraordinary and self-contradictory statements. The petitioners talked of the high character of the newspaper press of this country. Now there never was a press so degraded, so thoroughly immoral, as the newspaper press of this country; a despotism of the basest and most cowardly description was exercised by the persons connected with newspapers, who were ready on every occasion to ruin the public reputation of individuals in articles to which they did not dare to put their names: any thing so perfectly cowardly in feeling, and so despotic in execution, could not be instanced as the conduct of the newspaper press in this country, and they were told, forsooth, of the high character, of that press! If the stamp duties were taken off, it would not then have the power with impunity to ruin the reputation of individuals, for its attacks would be answered and its slanders exposed—that alone would be a great benefit. He would assert with confidence, that from the highest to the lowest of the newspaper press, the most paltry corruption, the basest cowardice, and the blackest immorality, were the governing principles of the newspaper press of this country.

, who had presented the petition, said that although he had suffered like many other individuals in some respects, from portions of the press, he should be sorry to express himself in the manner that the hon. Member had done.

said, that though the hon. Member for Bath had so characterised some portion of the press, he was not disposed to join with him in those remarks as applicable to the whole, because some portion of it was conducted with as much honour as other portions of it were with disgrace. He was not, therefore, disposed to join in such a sweeping censure, though the condemnation might well apply to some of the conductors of the newspaper press. He, however, hailed many of them as the benefactors of the human race, and the protectors of liberty and freedom; the majority of them had come forward to defend the people's rights and to oppose corruption. He wished the House to observe, that this was a petition for the benefit of the few, because they were engaged in a monopoly which the repeal of the Stamp-duties would destroy. The petitioners objected to competition, which they alleged to be ruinous, but which had always been beneficial to the public—nor did he conceive it likely to be productive of injury in the present case. He held that if the press were once opened and freed from the present tax, there would be an opportunity of meeting slanderous accusations, which could not now be done. He therefore thought that the prayer of this petition was not deserving of the attention of the House.

presented a Petition from the Lord-lieutenant, and a large body of the landed proprietors of the county of Londonderry, on the subject of tithes, and praying for more justice than had characterised former Bills. He regretted that he did not see on the opposite benches any Member of his Majesty's Government connected with Ireland; he would be satisfied if he could only see the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who, he believed, was one of the most influential of the Irish Ministers. He saw only some of the followers of the hon. and learned Member.

rose to order. He complained of the word "followers" being applied to the Members of that H ose, raid appealed to the Speaker to know if one Member were at liberty so to speak of others.

had not observed that the hon. Baronet was out of order.

what would be said of me, if I were to speak of Lord Roden and the squad in the same manner?

said, he had not meant to give any offence. He did not think the word so very objectionable. He had heard the word "tail" mentioned in that House with impunity, over and over again. He had selected a harmless word without meaning any personal offence. But, as it appeared to offend the sensitive feelings of the hon. Member for Drogheda, he should not use it again. He had given notice of this petition, and regretted that none of his Majesty's Ministers were present. The petitioners stated, that after the Tithe Bill of 1832, they had entered into a compact with their tenants to pay the tithes for them, some of the landlords had not done so, and as it was understood that the balance of the million fund would be applied to the payment of arrears, which would be nothing less than a bounty on agitation, it was hoped that if any portion of the arrears of tithes for 1834 were paid, those who had secured quiet and tranquillity would have the benefit of it. The petitioners prayed that in any Bill which might be introduced on the subject of tithes, their case would be taken into consideration, and evenhanded justice be thus dispensed to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. Many of these petitioners had paid the tithes of the year 1834, and they were deserving the consideration of the Legislature.

, in reference to the observations made by the hon. Member for Londonderry as to "the followers" of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, said, he did not conceive that such observations were proper; and he had also to remark that few persons who used such general observations would apply them to individuals, and he begged to convey that intimation in the most unequivocal manner to the hon. Member for Londonderry. He hoped that the Government would be too straightforward and too courageous in their determination to do justice to Ireland, to allow themselves to be influenced by the base intimidations resorted to by those who were opposed to them, who would brand every good measure they suggested for the country as originating with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and being carried b his influence.

was quite surprised at the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Drogheda. It was quite ridiculous to suppose he intended any offence to that hon. Member. What he had said of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin should be considered as a compliment to his talents.

understood that a complaint had been made of his not being in his place on the presentation of the Londonderry petition. If he had known that any statement was about to be made for which his presence could be required, he should most willingly have attended. At the same time he must be permitted to say that he could hardly enter into the proposed question of Irish tithes until he had the opportunity of bringing forward that question.

did not consider that the hon. Member for Drogheda should have been at all angry with the hon. Member for Londonderry, whose high powers of sarcasm were so well known to them.

presented three Petitions from three of the parties; he said that he knew nothing of them personally, but they stated that they were ignorant that they were offending against the privileges of the House by keeping out of the way, and threw themselves on the indulgence and mercy of the House. The first petition was from John Bond; it stated that he was by trade a tanner, and that he had for some time wished to go to Belgium on business, and that he had gone to Ostend as well to avoid being summoned as for the purposes of his trade. He had been accompanied by no other parties, and had borne the whole expense himself. He had returned on the 20th of April last, but had no intention to violate the privileges of the House. The second petition was from Arthur Bott Cooke, who also asserted his ignorance that he was offending by keeping out of the way, and expressed his confidence in the mercy of the House. The third petition was from R. B. Clamp, who likewise entreated the forbearance of the House, on the ground of ignorance.

bore testimony to the good character of the last petitioner. No man ever bore a better character for a great many years than Mr. Clamp.

presented a Petition from Mr. O'Malley, the barrister, which stated that he had had nothing to do with the Ipswich election until two days before the meeting of the Committee, when he was retained as counsel. The only interview he had with Pilgrim was at the instance of the latter, who wished to consult him about his own affairs with Messrs. Sewell and Blake. Pilgrim was then about to quit London, and for the sake of further consultation he (Mr. O'Malley) had accompanied Pilgrim in a hackney coach to the place from which the stage started. The petitioner admitted that he knew Pilgrim was then avoiding the summons of the Committee, but denied that he had given him any advice to abscond. The petitioner asserted that he had no intention to violate any of the privileges of the House, and added, that his health was so delicate that he had only been able to pursue his profession at intervals.

did not know how many other petitions remained to be presented, but he was sure that where he sat not one word of the contents of those already laid upon the Table had been heard. At any rate it was the case with himself, and he was not sitting near the end of the House. He had hardly heard a single word of either of the petitions. He was of opinion that it would save time to have the petitions printed at once, and wait until they were in the hands of Members before discussing the prayer of them.

said, that if the Motion was, that these persons continue in custody or be discharged, he should agree with the hon. Member as to the propriety of the course he had proposed; but standing as the House did in a judicial capacity, and these persons being before it for the purpose of receiving judgment, it was the duty of the House to hear their petitions. Before they proceeded to judge these persons, it was right that hon. Members should hear what they had to say in extenuation of their conduct; and if the petitions had not been heard, it was proper that they should be read again, so that every hon. Member might be aware of their contents. Here were individuals who had been accused of a serious offence, and they could not properly be either committed to custody or discharged until they had been heard. He was sure that as the petitions had not been heard, the House would give them its strict attention while they were being read over by the Clerk.

presented a Petition from John Bury Dasent, who stated, that although he had been guilty of the offence of absconding to avoid the service of the Speaker's warrant on him, yet that he had afterwards voluntarily appeared before the Committee, and had been examined at great length, and had given the fullest possible evidence, and no evidence had been given before the Committee to criminate him in the slightest degree. He therefore prayed the House to liberate him from his present very painful position.

stated, that he had received last night a letter from this petitioner, remarking that an expression made use of by him on a former occasion was not correct. The words complained of were, that the petitioner had been the dupe of Mr. Kelly. It appeared, however, that he had not acted under the instructions of that gentleman, whose pupil he had formerly been, but had fallen into error from an anxiety to support the cause of his friend. He felt, also, bound to say that at the time he was absent he was so without the knowledge or approbation of Mr. Kelly. Again, in the most generous manner the petitioner declared that although he had been guilty of some acts of bribery, it had been done without the knowledge of Mr. Kelly. He had felt bound, as a Judge, to concur in the Report that had been made to the House respecting the conduct of the petitioner; but he could not help feeling that that Gentleman had acted in the manner he had from a feeling of chivalrous friendship. He had, possibly, made himself liable to some punishment for having been guilty of bribery, but he had then been brought forward for absenting himself from the service of the Speaker's warrant. Although he did this at first, yet afterwards he had come forward and given evidence. He therefore thought that the petitioner should be treated with more leniency than those persons who did not appear before the Committee. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee that he should be treated with greater leniency than the other persons implicated. He believed that the recommendations of juries in Common-law Courts were uniformly attended to, and he did not think that he was arrogating for the Committee too much in asking that their suggestion should be attended to. He trusted that a reprimand would be thought sufficient after the incarceration this gentleman had suffered.

wished to ask the hon. Member whether this individual did not state in evidence on oath that Mr. Kelly had no knowledge of any act of bribery committed by him?

replied, that it certainly was the case. The witness observed that, although he had been guilty of bribery, yet that he had done so spontaneously, and without the knowledge of the candidates.

said, that as it had been announced that the several persons ordered to be taken into custody on Friday last were now in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, it became his duty to submit a Motion to the House as to the manner they should be dealt with. He had said on a former occasion, that it was open for the House to pursue one of two courses. They might assume the guilt of the parties from the Report of the Committee and the evidence taken before it, or they might proceed to give the parties a hearing. Between these two courses no intermediate line could be drawn. He was of opinion that it was most expedient to pursue the first of the two courses; and he was happy to find that the opinion which he had taken up had been fortified by a number of cases to which he had referred. He found that with only two exceptions the House had never called a person to the Bar, or in any manner listened to what he had to say in his defence, after he had been reported guilty of a breach of privilege, but had been treated as a guilty person. He would state to the House some of the cases to which he had referred. He would, however, previously observe, that he was satisfied that they would not be justified in hearing an explanation from any of those persons at the Bar without giving them a fair trial—they must allow them to call witnesses, and give them the formalities of a trial. The first case to which he should refer, was that of Tregony, in the year 1813, when Thomas Croggon was reported against by the Election Committee, and was ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and was then committed to Newgate, and was not brought to the Bar until some time afterwards, when he was reprimanded and discharged. Another case was that of the Camelford election, to which such frequent allusion had been made on a former night, when Mr. Hallett was committed for having wilfully absconded to avoid the Speaker's warrrant. This person was afterwards committed to Newgate, and was subsequently brought to the Bar, reprimanded, and discharged. The next case was the Grantham election, where Sir William Manners and A. Jarvis were reported against by the Committee for having absconded to avoid the Speaker's warrant, and they were ordered to be committed to Newgate without being brought to the Bar. Shortly after this case, there was that of Mr. Stansbury, in connexion with the Penryn election, when that person was committed to Newgate. There were eight other cases of the same kind between the years 1802 and 1807, and, with only one exception, the persons complained against were taken and committed to Newgate. There were also other cases which he could quote of the same kind, which tended to show the uniform practice of the House. Before he proceeded to notice the two cases on the other side, he would merely allude to the Aylesbury election, where a person was ordered by the Committee into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and this order was afterwards confirmed by the House without opposition; the person was afterwards brought to the Bar of the House, and reprimanded. Again, in the Camelford case, a witness was committed by the Committee for prevarication, and this order was at once confirmed by the House. The only two exceptions to the rule he had stated were in the case of a witness in the Southwark election in 1796, who was brought by the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Bar, and was reprimanded, and then sent to Newgate; and also in the Dumfermline election case, the circumstances were nearly similar. In every instance that he had referred to, with the exception of these two, the other course had been invariably followed. In accordance then with the principle he contended for, he should move, that the parties now in custody should be forthwith committed to Newgate. The House was aware that there was a great difference between these cases; some of the parties had been guilty of absconding to avoid the Speaker's warrant, and others were charged with aiding, assisting, and counselling them in their flight. Now, he did not know that it would he necessary to put the question individually in each case, but at all events it would be necessary to place them in two classes. He intended to move, that all the parties against whom the accusation was brought in the Report of the Committee, should be sent to Newgate. He knew that it had been held by Lord Chatham, Burke, and Fox, and many other eminent statesmen, that the House ought not to apply to a Court of Law respecting any offence under its cognizance, but examine into, and proceed to punishment. This doctrine was not so much contended for at the present time, but he thought that a much sounder principle was now maintained, namely, that the House should only use their power of punishment when the offences complained of could not be proceeded against in the Courts of Law. He thought that the minds, even of offenders, should be convinced of the propriety of the course pursued towards them. It had been clearly shown that the House could not afford security to the ends of justice if they did not punish those who threw impediments in the way of inquiry before an Election Committee. It was admitted, that no person could be punished by a Court of Law for absconding from the service of the warrant; it was, therefore utterly useless to resort to one of these tribunals; there was therefore no other course open to them, than to do that which they had invariably done in similar cases of the kind. It was the opinion of the Committee, that these persons ought to be punished; he should therefore move, "That John Bond be committed to the gaol of Newgate."

suggested, that before this Motion was put, the Report of the Ipswich Election Committee should be read, and afterwards, that the hon. Member should move, that the persons named in it were guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House.

said, that this was a charge against parties which in itself amounted to a high contempt for the authority of that House. He could not imagine that upon that question, there could be a dissentient voice. The most important privileges of that House were its inquisitorial functions; and if any persons should obstruct those functions by absconding, to avoid giving evidence before a Committee, or by instigating and persuading any persons to abscond, he should apprehend that such an offence would call for the most severe exercise of the power of the House. The immediate question, however, before the House, was in what manner they were satisfied that the offence charged to these parties had been committed. The question was, in what manner they should proceed to satisfy the justice of the case. It appeared to him that the Report of a Committee with respect to any such conduct as these persons were alleged to be guilty of, was good evidence; above all, such was the case with respect to some of the cases referred to by the hon. Member, in which it appeared the witnesses prevaricated before the Committee, for the House could not judge of their conduct, or of the bearing of their evidence. With respect to the cases of absconding, it appeared to him that such conduct was calculated to throw insurmountable difficulties in the way of any inquiry before a Committee, and it became the duty of the House, without further ceremony, to give orders that the persons guilty of such conduct should be taken into custody. After this had been done, it became the duty of the House to make itself acquainted with the bearing of the case before the Committee, and to inflict punishment on the offender according to the degree of his guilt. He, therefore, thought that the House should have the evidence before it, when it might judge with propriety all the circumstances, either in aggravation or extenuation. Until he had seen the evidence, he should be unable to judge what degree of punishment might be inflicted as expiative of the offence. He knew nothing whatever of the case until he came into the House, and he was totally and entirely ignorant of the circumstances of it. It was the opinion of the Members of the Committee, that there were discriminating circumstances in the case, and that some of the parties ought not to be punished with the same severity as others. There were strong circumstances in favour of one party. They could have no difficulty in referring to the preliminary resolution with respect to every one of the parties, in satisfying themselves that every one of them was guilty of the breach of the privileges of the House; because they each, in their petitions, severally confessed that they did abscond to avoid giving evidence. There could be no doubt, therefore, of the matter, so far as the resolution went to affect parties absconding, but with reference to the nature of the punishment, (for all these parties were to be committed to Newgate), it was, and always had been determined by the circumstances of the case; supposing, for instance, that the House really did believe that one party offending had taken the earliest possible opportunity of making reparation for his offence, the Committee having declared, too, that he gave his evidence fairly. He did not mean to say this as an absolute defence, but it amounted to a degree of expiation of his offence, which the House ought to consider when it should come to deal with the subject. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire would state within what period the evidence could be printed; because he thought they ought to give credit to the sentiments contained in the petitions, and there were one or two cases in which he should feel great objection to sending the parties for three weeks to Newgate, for that would be about the period which would be required to have the whole of the evidence printed. He might say, by the way, that he was sorry the proceeding had not been adopted which was acted upon in the way mouth case, when the evidence was referred back to the Committee, that they might select that part of the evidence which bore on a particular part of the subject, and was by them laid before the House without waiting for the whole mass of the evidence. But it seemed to him, that as in the Court of King's Bench, when a conviction by a Jury took place, there were also affidavits allowed to be made, and statements received in mitigation or aggravation of punishment, therefore the House ought to proceed to punish on the same principle. The House should consider whether these parties might not be dismissed, and ordered to attend on a future day, by which time that part of the evidence relating to their case might be laid before the House. The sense in which the Report was to be taken, in regard to certain of these parties, was somewhat doubtful. If it meant that they had instigated, or induced these other persons to abscond, their offence was much greater than that of the other parties, and it was necessary to deal with them more severely. But he should be unwilling to come to the determination to commit these parties to Newgate until the printed evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members. In all cases, it was much better that, before sentence was passed, they should be in complete possession of the evidence; and he could not see any inconvenience likely to arise from such a mode of proceeding. It was said, that if they dismissed these persons, they would again abscond; but, if a person banished himself from England, that punishment was not a light one. He could not look lightly on the circumstance, that these persons had surrendered themselves voluntarily, and he could not imagine they would expose themselves to a second order for their apprehension, for then they would be dealt with more severely. But then he heard hon. Gentlemen say, that if the Session were at a close, there would be no doubt that, at the conclusion of the Session, the parties would be set at liberty, before they had suffered what the House thought adequate to the offence. There were, however, instances on record, in which a second order had been made in a second Session. There could be no danger of any parties escaping from punishment. At all events, he hoped that the Gentlemen who had formed the Committee would know what was the offence which had been imputed to these parties—what extenuating circumstances there were which ought to have weight; and, when such extenuating circumstances existed, he hoped the House would give the individuals the full benefit of them.

said, that four out of these seven persons, respecting whom the Special Report had been made, were guilty of the charge of absconding, the other three with aiding and abetting them therein. With respect to Sparrow, it was admitted that he was not a mere partisan, but an active agent of the Members, and was perfectly aware of all the plans going forward. Mr. Cook, one of the solicitors, consulted Pilgrim on the subject of his flight, and Sparrow wrote to Mr. Clipperton, who acted as the solicitor to the late Members. At his house the evasion was arranged, and false names with corresponding initials substituted for the names of the parties, to each of whom 40l. was afterwards remitted abroad. With regard to O Malley, his offence was confined to his collusion with Pilgrim. But though his offence was limited in point of number, he did not consider it at all so in character. O'Malley, sitting at the proceedings of the Committee, held conference with the fugitive Pilgrim, with whom he drove in a hackney-coach to Uxbridge. These were the three cases of aiding and abetting, and although the charge in itself was not easily fixed or defined, if ever it was conclusive it was in the present instance. The only extenuating case appeared to be that of Mr. Clipperton. He acted merely in a professional capacity, and he ought not to be left to undergo the denouncement of that House, and the heavy consequences to which he was subject.

asked, if there were not extenuating circumstances in favour of the other four individuals?

said, there were extenuating circumstances in favour of M. Dasent. He acted voluntarily throughout, and came before the Committee with all the appearance at least of doing so without compulsion, and readily gave his evidence. Neither did he receive or give money. All the other persons were sent off under feigned names—Pilgrim assuming that of Palmer.

believed that in no instance was injustice more likely to be committed on individuals than when their case was heard at the Bar of that House. But on this occasion all the parties acknowledged their guilt. The case was one in which there was gross bribery and corruption, which he for one reprobated, and would punish to the utmost. He would therefore support the Motion of the Hon. Member for Derbyshire.

said, that the hon. Member for Derbyshire had asked, whether there was any difference in the degree of guilt charged against the parties. He held there undoubtedly was, in favour of the four who confessed their error. The case against the other three he thought much stronger, particularly as respected Clipperton, at whose office the parties attended* But on what grounds the House could assume that Sparrow was equally culpable he was at a loss to conceive. He denied that Sparrow was agent to the Members. He acted gratuitously during the election; six weeks after which the parties absconded. Was there a tittle of evidence to show that Sparrow, by advice or otherwise, abetted the flight of the parties? There was not. One material fact was elicited, that Pilgrim was introduced to Clipperton by a letter from a solicitor in Norwich, named Sanders, and that the result of the interview was Pilgrim's departure for abroad. He was prepared to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but he was of opinion that under all the circumstances the House, before proceeding further, ought to be in possession of the evidence, in order to judge rightly of the case.

said, he was not astonished that there should be a misunderstanding as to Sparrow's evidence, for he never saw greater dexterity exhibited by any witness. They had evidence of Sparrow's agency, and of his being agent throughout the election, and they had likewise evidence that Pilgrim was referred by Sparrow to Clipperton.

begged to call the attention of the House, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, to the petition which he had presented from the party, detailing many circumstances which he hoped would be considered of an extenuating character.

said, he had all through carefully avoided any allusion to the evidence taken before the Committee. He grounded his proceeding entirely on the Report presented to the House, and his object in moving that the parties be committed to Newgate, in preference to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, was, that the former was less expensive. The extenuating circumstances, he thought, could be best explained and considered hereafter in Committee.

It is not my intention to offer any decided opposition to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time I must repeat, that instead of adjudicating on the cases of these parties, and committing them to Newgate upon the Report of the Committee, and without affording them the opportunity of being heard, it would have been more satisfactory to me—first, to have read the evidence on which the charge is founded; and, secondly, to have given them an opportunity of saying a word in their defence. I do not think it satisfactory to hear the opinions merely of individual Members on this case —far from it; I do not hesitate to say, that if what has been asserted be substantiated—if these parties have aided and abetted in keeping witnesses out of the way—they have been guilty of a great offence. It is very difficult, I know, to take a part in this case which will not subject me, out-of-doors, to the imputation of desiring to screen the individuals implicated; but I know nothing of them, and under no circumstances shall such a consideration deter me from saying that the course we are now about to pursue is not quite consistent with the comprehensive principles of justice. The hon. Member for Derbyshire says—"Let the House print the petitions, and consider whether they make out a case of extenuation;" but I beg to ask how can we judge whether or not these petitions state any circumstances of extenuation, unless we read the evidence? Can I, on reading a petition, receive the mere ipse dixit, and judge whether it purify the petitioner from a charge, or not, unless the evidence also is beside me, so that I may refer to it and ascertain what the charge is? These seven persons, so far as I understand the case, are all involved in one common offence. I certainly think both the abetting and the absconding a breach of the privileges of the House; but when I come to apportion the punishment, and determine whether one shall be imprisoned for a fortnight, and another for a month, it is not satisfactory to me to adjudicate in the case without seeing what the circumstances are. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can e, to-morrow, that any one of the parties be discharged on any allegation contained in his own petition, without our having the evidence before us. With respect to Dasent, so far as individual testimony is concerned, that of the hon. Member for Argyleshire appears to be strongly in his favour; but I protest against our receiving it. The hon. Member has certainly had better means of judging of the case, (the evidence having been given in the presence of the hon. Gentleman) than I can have; but I must repeat that it would be more satisfactory to me to read the evidence in the first instance, than to vote, now, that the parties be sent to Newgate, which imposes the obligation of confining them in Newgate till the evidence shall have been seen, or till it shall have been ascertained whether the evidence will justify the course taken.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the Report on which the proceedings were founded, was the Report of eleven independent Members of this House, acting on their oaths. Being independent Gentlemen, bound by their oaths to judge impartially, he trusted the Report would be considered worth something. The right hon. Gentleman declared that he would not take my testimony, or that of other hon. Members. It was true he was not on his oath at present, and he, therefore, could not claim for his statements any more consideration than the right hon. Baronet might like to give them, but he would nevertheless mention, that one and all of the Committee were of opinion, that Dasent deserved more lenity than any of the others. That Report the Committee gave on oath, as Gentlemen and Members of Parliament, deputed to pursue this inquiry. They had sat for forty-one days in the Committee, and I claim for that Report some weight, it being a Report made by us, as the judges appointed by you.

Certainly the hon. Gentleman must have completely mistaken the part I took—at least, he mistook my intention. I have so much deference for the Report, that I am ready—without the evidence—to admit that a breach of privilege has been committed; but if a Report, containing a charge against seven individuals, makes no discrimination and distinction between their cases—and the hon. Gentleman himself declares that some distinction is necessary—then, I say, that I wish to judge of the relative extent of their offences by a reference to the evidence, and not from the impression on the mind of each individual Gentleman of the Committee,—and for this reason, that it is possible that each of them may take a different view. Without, therefore, the slightest disrespect for the opinion of the hon. Member, I protest against being concluded by a construction put on the evidence by my hon. Friend, as I equally object to a construction being put on it by any other Member of the Committee—my wish is to see the evidence, when I am called on to award punishment.

begged to be allowed to state in a few words the grounds on which he should give his vote. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was not precisely aware of the Question before the House, because they were not now apportioning the degree of punishment. It was not in the power of the House to say that one of the offenders should be sent to Newgate for a fortnight, and another for a month: it was only in the power of the House, on ascertaining that a breach of its privileges had been committed, to commit the parties to Newgate. Suppose the House so to commit them, then the question of extenuation would arise: the question as to how much punishment should be inflicted on the parties would be entertained hereafter, but was certainly not now before the House. The Question now before them was this—whether it was best to take the report of the Committee on this subject, or to refer to the evidence to form their own judgment upon it? The precedents were almost uniformly in favour of taking the Report of the Committee. But he would not rely solely on the ground of the precedents; if he thought them unreasonable he would be ready to vote against them, and in favour of a better course. He thought, however, that the course which the hon. Member for Derbyshire now proposed was preferable to any other. The Committee had attended most laboriously to the investigation of this subject, and after having taken their oath that they would form their opinion according to the best of their judgment on the evidence brought before them, had done so, and reported that opinion to the House. The power the House delegated to its Committees was often very great. They were the only tribunals that had the power of depriving Members of their seats in this House. When the House was told, not by the speeches of individual Members, but when it was told by a solemn Report from a Committee, that certain parties had absconded to avoid the service of a summons to attend the House, and that others had aided and abetted that absconding, he did think they had the best ground on which to proceed. Let them suppose a contrast to this case. In three or four days the whole of the evidence would be printed. Would any man say that the various Members of this House, when their numerous employments were considered, would be able to judge the evidence with as much discrimination, and with as much chance of justice being done, as belonged to those who had heard the evidence as it was delivered, and who had given to it their most deliberate consideration? He thought, then, that they would be acting both according to precedent and in conformity with reason, if they adopted the Motion of his hon. Friend. He should be ready to consider hereafter, any circumstances of mitigation that might be brought forward. The offences of the parties he must say, though great, would not be of so much importance as a wrong decision of the House.

said, it appeared to him that they were called on to pronounce judgment before the case was heard. It being, however, the feeling of the House that they should do so, he would not oppose his opinion to it. But he would say, that the noble Lord had not answered the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord said, that they were not then called on to pronounce judgment on the parties. He asked the House if that were the case, when were the parties to be sentenced?—[No, No.]—Suppose the evidence was to be examined, were the parties to be kept in prison until the evidence was printed, the printing of which might occupy a month? If so, and at the end of that time, the House, after inquiry, were of opinion that, as reported by the hon. Member for Argyleshire, one of those parties ought to receive only slight punishment, would not that be a hardship inflicted on the individual? Were they not likely to do that by the course they were taking? It appeared to him that the fairer course would be to examine the evidence in the first instance. The House might be satisfied the parties would not abscond a second time. Why, it was not probable that they would do so, for if ever they returned to this country they would be liable to all the consequences. Before the punishment was pronounced the evidence bright to be heard. There was one particular feature in the case which the House Would bear in mind, that although the witnesses were known to have absconded during the sitting of the Committee, no report of that circumstance was made to the House by the Chairman of the Committee. There was also another point for consideration—O'Malley, Clipperton, and Sparrow were charged with abetting and aiding in the absconding of the other parties. Now he understood O'Malley's offence was committed after Pilgrim returned to this country. Such points were strong grounds of distinction, and rendered it imperative that they should be careful in the course they would take.

said, hon. Gentlemen laid great stress on the necessity that there was for the evidence, but they appeared to lose sight of the fact, that the offence with which the parties were charged was admitted by them. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the petition which had been presented by Mr. Dasent, in which he acknowledged that he had committed a breach of the privileges of the House; and he asked was that the man whom they were to discharge at once? It was their bounden duty to guard against the violation of their privileges; and in the exercise of that duty they were called upon to commit the individuals in question. He did not, therefore, see that there was any other course which they could pursue than that proposed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire. Indeed the House had voted, that a breach of privilege had been committed, and was the House not to punish that?

was anxious that nothing should be done at the outset to mystify the case, or to prevent its being examined. It was one perfectly plain in point of law. The Committee had jurisdiction, under the Act of Parliament, to try the principal matter of election or no election, and they had necessarily a jurisdiction incidental to that, which should enable them to take care that the inquiry went on well for the purposes of justice, and which should apply, whether it were interrupted by force, or whether it were interrupted by fraud. The tribunal possessing this authority had tried the main facts, and had also, in deciding the collateral matter, given in a judgment on oath to the House, to the effect that there had been a fraud committed on the Committee and on their jurisdiction. The parties in question had, therefore, been actually found guilty of a contempt, and his legal education told him that the first step in that, as in every case of contempt of Court, was to put the culprits in custody, and then examine the new question which arose, as to the amount of punishment which ought to be awarded. The parties might then come forward and petition the House, either that they should be discharged, or be subjected to a light punishment. Was it one of the privileges of criminality in this country that a guilty man should be at once discharged? Those privileges were, he knew, large; but surely they did not extend quite so far. Let the House look to what had since taken place in the very borough to which these proceedings had reference, upon the subject of them itself. It appeared from the newspapers, that in Ipswich, the very town of which Mr. Sparrow was town-clerk—the only legal officer—a meeting had been held by certain parties to celebrate what they called the honourable victory, which they had obtained in opposition to the petition which had unseated the late Members. One gentleman spoke of their being compelled to fight the same battle over again, which they had before won fairly and honourably and straightforwardly; "but let us," he continued, "give them as grand a charge, as Wellington did at Waterloo—let us adopt the same honourable measures as we before followed." Right honourable measures, indeed! Let them but adopt the same judicious measures as before, and they think that surely they will he crowned with the same success. It was judicious to be sure, to send witnesses out of the way,—to commit bribery and corruption, covered and protected, as it must have been, by perjury; and it was judicious too, after a Committee had reported to the House that the election had been conducted with gross bribery, and that punishments should be awarded to the principal instigators, that one of those individuals should have the resolution—he would not say the audacity—to be present at the meeting to which he alluded, and to cheer at the "honourable and judicious" measures which they had pursued. These bribers actually dared the House—they challenged its power. Did they suspect that they they had any backing—any protectors there? The House would teach them that that was an unfounded supposition. It would be seen that, however hon. Members might differ on politics, there was no man among them who would stand up to justify bribery. Much had been said to distinguish the case of Mr. Dasent from the cases of the other parties implicated—that gentleman who did not bribe at the instigation of Mr. Kelly, but who bribed for the love of heaven—for the sake of charity. The high and hon. profession to which he belonged was a crime in him. Were those who composed that profession to bribe? was it part of the duty of a barrister to bribe? Some of the first men in the universe were members of the English bar, to which Mr. Dasent was attached. There were many such in that House; and instead of countenancing the proceedings of that individual the blush of shame ought to come on their cheeks that there should be found, such a man at the English bar. What was to become of the Society of Lincoln's-inn and the Benchers now? Would they inquire into the matter? Where would be the base calumniators that wrote in the legal reviews? Would they show how the English bar was not to be tainted, and with a man who volunteered bribery, and was guilty of a contempt of the House of Com- mons? No: justice was not to be in this instance defeated; bribery and corruption, such as were practised in the most rampant days of ancient Toryism, had been revived, and ought to be subjected to condign punishment. If the present matter were sifted to the bottom, they would have much more than the public had knowledge of; and he trusted that it would be so sifted, although some might find it quite convenient to mystify the case at the beginning and prevent its being fully examined. He called upon them, therefore, to do their duty to God and their country, on this subject, and to discountenance that bribery which men might possibly avail themselves of, but which none except, the men of Ipswich, could be found bold enough to call, "honourable and judicious."

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had pronounced a severe censure upon a member of the profession of the law in England; but it behoved him to look a little at home before he dealt around him such unqualified and unmeasured condemnation. A learned gentleman had recently been appointed in Ireland to a situation of great confidence and considerable power in that country; that appointment was made, if not at the direct instance and on the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, at least with his full acquiescence and approval. Now, it did so happen that the learned person who thus, as it appeared, enjoyed the patronage of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had himself been guilty of the very offence which they had just heard so indignantly denounced from the other side of the House. The Gentleman to whom he alluded was Mr. Hudson, a member of the Irish bar; the situation to which he had been recently appointed made him one of the confidential advisers of the Government; and if the view taken of the conduct of the members of the English bar concerned in this matter were correct, nothing could be more obvious than that Mr. Hudson came completely within the scope of all the censure that had fallen from the lips of that very individual through whose countenance he was promoted to so confidential a situation in Ireland—for the warm eulogium very lately pronounced by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin upon all the Irish appointments must be full in the recollection of the House: according to his judgment, that learned person should be instantly removed from the select and limited society of the bar. The benchers, they were told, ought with the utmost haste to proceed to convict and condemn him, the gentlemen implicated in the Ipswich case, and he, should be pursued unrelentingly by the contempt of society at large. But he would beg to ask how the Government had treated a member of the same profession who had been convicted before a Committee of the House, of bribery? Why, they had appointed him to an office of great trust in Ireland. This, to be sure, was but following out their own principle, for they had made a baronet of one of the parties who lost his seat for bribery (Sir R. Harty), and the other was the present Attorney-General for Ireland. Considerable stress had been laid upon the circumstance of one of the persons concerned in the affair at Ipswich being a member of the bar; he was informed that the person in question was only a student preparing to go to the bar. ["He is a barrister."] Well, he might be a barrister, but at least he was a very junior barrister; however, the question to which he desired more particularly to call the attention of the House was the conduct and character of Mr. Hudson, who now filled the office called the Attorney-General's devil. As far as his judgment went, that was an office of considerable importance, and one which no man should hold who did not in all respects deserve to enjoy the confidence of the Government with which he was connected. The House would judge whether a person convicted before a Committee of the offence of bribery deserved the censure just pronounced, and they would most probably consider that he deserved it equally, whether he was connected with the Liberal or with the Conservative party. [Mr. O'Council rose to "order" but sat down.] He confessed he could not understand why such unqualified condemnation should be pronounced upon a man merely because he might be called one of the Tories. If the act were disgraceful in the one, it could not be less so in a person belonging to the other party. If the Tories were to be eternally disgraced by what had happened at Ipswich, was it to be endured that a person not less guilty should be recommended to discharge the duties appertaining to a situation of great trust in connection with the present Attorney-General for Ireland? He should now, with the permission of the House, state a few facts: he did not mean such statements as sometimes went by the name of facts, but meant that he was enabled to lay before the House one or two particulars which really were statements of fact, and did not hesitate to challenge contradiction. On the 23d of August, 1831, Mr. Robert Gordon (he might now mention his name, as it was matter of history), as chairman of the Dublin Election Committee, which unseated Messrs. Perrin and Harty for bribery, undue influence, &c, rose to bring forward the matter contained in the special report of the Committee before the House, and having detailed the nature of the evidence to the House, he proceeded thus:—?"Having said so much of the scene of action, I come now to the actors, and we come first to inquire who were the givers and who were the receivers of the bribes.—The principal giver appears to have been Counsellor Hudson. He was assisted by a person named Hitchcock, an attorney. These were the principal purse-bearers. When these events became matter of history, for I trust we shall have no more bribery when the Reform Rill passes, no doubt the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned will bear a conspicuous part, as being the last agents in the great work of bribery at elections." The evidence distinctly showed that Hudson was the person through whom the grossest bribery was effected; and Mr. Gordon described it "as an exposure of as gross a system of bribery and corruption as ever disgraced those who misused the elective franchise. In my opinion (he says), the people of England would laugh us to scorn if we should let this opportunity pass without strongly stating our opinions of the proceedings of the Dublin election, and putting an end to that infamous system of bribery which is twice cursed, for it curseth him that gives, as well as him that takes. All must admit that moral as well as legal guilt attaches to bribery." The House was now in possession of the opinion entertained by the hon. Member for Crick-lade, and of the Committee of which he was Chairman, of the conduct of Mr. Hudson, and surely they would agree with him, that that which was base and gross and scandalous in a Tory could not change its character when it came to be practised by one who fell within the designation of a Liberal. He would ask the House, did they think that such men ought to receive political appointments from any government? Was it not the fact that Mr. Hudson had received the appointment he had mentioned?—Perhaps, some time or other, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would "let the cat out of the bag," and explain to the House the extent to which he had acquiesced in, if not sanctioned or dictated, the appointments in Ireland. He should beg the attention of the House to another authority upon this subject, that of Dr. Lushington, the present Member for the Tower Hamlets. On the 23d of August, 1831, the hon. and learned gentleman said, "the perjury and bribery at the Dublin election was certainly most disgraceful, but it is not the poor parties voting that ought to be prosecuted, for the paid agent is the party against whom the law ought to be let loose in all its severity. I consider that the person who offers a bribe assails the very foundation of the morals of the poorer voters, and is guilty of a trespass on all the laws of justice and honour. It is upon the tempter, and not the tempted that the House should wreak its vengeance." Earl Spencer, being then a Member of that House, said, "it appears from what has been said on all sides of the House, that there is a marked distinction with regard to the offences and the offenders, and it seems to be agreed that the corrupter is a much more guilty party than the poor receiver of the bribe." And Lord John Russell on the same occasion gave an opinion to which he could not help particularly calling the attention of the House:—"No man can doubt, that in either giving or receiving a bribe, he is committing an offence both against the Constitution and against morals." Those were the opinions of the noble Lord opposite, and they were opinions which he was not disposed to gainsay. Neither had he stood up for the purpose of differing from the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He concurred with that Gentleman in thinking that persons convicted of bribery were worthy of condemnation, and he therefore assented to much that had fallen from him; but had Ireland to expect when a man, with a character disgraced by that offence, was promoted to a confidential office—when an individual, convicted by the report of a Committee of that House, was an adviser of the Irish Government.

said, that there never was a more unfair statement than that which the House had just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo.

Does the hon. and learned Member for Dublin mean to say, that I have laid before the House a dishonest or dishonourable statement?

No, but that certain charges were made in a manner in which they ought not to be made, and which, charges he would prove to have been unfounded. The hon. and gallant Member had imputed the offence of bribery to an hon. and learned Friend of his—the Attorney-General for Ireland. ["No, no," from Colonel Perceval.] Then let it be distinctly understood that no such charge was made. Did any man assert that Mr. Perrin's character was implicated in that transaction? Was there any Special Report in the case? ["Yes."] He knew there was, and he desired to call the attention of the House to this fact, that the name of Mr. Hudson was never once mentioned in that Report. It happened that a Motion was made in that House to instruct the Attorney-General to prosecute the offenders at the election in question. Now, what was the fact with respect to his own conduct in that matter? He voted for that Motion; was it not, then, too bad to charge him with having sanctioned or countenanced bribery? As to Mr. Hudson, he (Mr. O'Connell) owed him no obligation; on the contrary, Mr. Hudson had refused to be employed as counsel for him; but he felt bound to bear testimony in his favour. The Committee could not, of course, be acquainted with the character of Mr. Hudson; they acted upon the representation made to them, and a prosecution was accordingly instituted. Bills were sent up to the Grand Jury for the city of Dublin. The same witnesses were examined before the Grand Jury that were examined before the Committee. The witnesses who were unknown here were examined before the Grand Jury, who knew their characters well, and the result was, that the Grand Jury unanimously ignored the bill against Mr. Hudson; and there was no one who had the least knowledge of the character and political principles of the persons generally composing that Grand Jury, who would not readily give them credit for a disposition far from favourable to Mr. Hudson, and yet they ignored the bill. He recollected perfectly being in the hall of the Four Courts, near the Rolls Court, the day the bills against Mr. Hudson were ignored, and heard that gentleman congratulated upon the event. Now, he would appeal to every man of feeling in the House, at least to every man whose feelings were not blinded by party spirit, to say, would it not have been fair in the hon. and gallant Member opposite when he was stating one fact to have accompanied it with the statement of the other? He should be glad to know if the character of the persons concerned in the Ipswich Election would have stood such a test as that to which the character of Mr. Hudson was exposed? If Bills of Indictment had been preferred against them, did any one suppose that any Grand Jury, and least of all, that a Grand Jury politically adverse, would have thrown out the bills? If he had impeached Mr. Dasent upon no stronger grounds than those upon which the charge against Mr. Hudson rested, he was willing to be considered a base calumniator, and to allow that stigma to attach to his name out of the House. Let Mr. Dasent go before a Grand Jury—let that Grand Jury ignore the bill, and if after that, he (Mr. O'Connell) were found to impeach the character of that gentleman, let him be looked on as a base calumniator. He would solemnly declare that he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not cognizant that Mr. Hudson had been prosecuted, and that the bill against him had been ignored. As for the impromptu with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had assailed him, he could only congratulate him on the skill with which it had been so leisurely concocted, and the happy miracle by which those extracts from the reported debates in Parliament had so opportunely slipped into his pockets—for, to him it did seem rather miraculous. He hoped, however, that before the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought such another accusation against a young man who was striving to raise himself in his profession, he would be cautious of taunting him with the guilt of that bribery of which he had been acquitted.

said, that, till this moment, he had not known that the bill in question had been sent before the Grand Jury; and he appealed to his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bandon-bridge (Mr. Sergeant Jackson), whose practice had been extensive at the Irish bar, as to whether he had ever heard of the fact. He repeated, that he himself had never before heard of it. [Cries of "Oh, oh."]

said, that when an hon. Member had asserted so solemnly as the gallant Colonel had asserted, that he never heard of a particular circumstance till the present time, it was not becoming for any one to appear to doubt his statement. He did consider that that course was so extremely ungentleman-like.

said, that he never remembered an occasion on which the as- sertion of any hon. Member had been questioned in a manner in which that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to have been doubted. For his part, he begged to say, that he should, in a similar case regarding himself, instantly desire the person so expressing a doubt of his assertion, to step forward, and show who he was.

repeated his assertion and expressed his confident conviction, that every respectable Member of that House would give full credit to it.

said, that he had been one of those who had expressed some disapprobation when the hon. and gallant Gentleman made the assertion in question. He did so, not because he for one moment doubted the truth of what he stated, but because, being strongly impressed with the feelings of the moment, he gave vent to the great surprise which he felt, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have made a charge of the kind which he did bring forward, particularly against an individual whose prospects in life were so peculiarly liable to be injured by it, without having made those necessary inquiries, in the absence of which, he (Sir John Wrottesley) would put it to his candour, his honour, and his better judgment, whether he ought to implicate any individual.

wished to remind the House that the question before it had nothing to do with the Dublin Election and Mr. Hudson.

said, that, as he had been appealed to by his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sligo, he felt it a point of honour to state to the House, with respect to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that, though practising at the bar in Dublin, he had never heard of the fact of bills being preferred against Mr. Hudson, and ignored by the city of Dublin Grand Jury. But he took it for granted that it was so, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it to be within his own knowledge. Of course, if it were not a fact, it would not be so stated by him. With respect to the question before the House, he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had made as unfair and as ungenerous a speech in aggravation of punishment, to influence the feelings of the House against individuals, and especially against a member of his own honourable and learned profession, as had ever been made within its walls; for he confounded all the aggressors in one undistinguishable mass, and made not the slightest distinction between their several degrees of guilt. To effect that purpose the more completely, he introduced a speech from a newspaper, referring to something which was stated to have happened since the decision of the Committee, and the implication of the accused. Mr. O'Malley, then in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was a member of the same profession as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, at the English bar, and a native of the same country as he was. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) did not know Mr. O'Malley himself, but he knew his family to be highly respectable. That Gentleman had petitioned the House, stating in his petition, that he had not been engaged in the case until two days previous to its trial, and that he had had only one interview with Pilgrim. All this he offered to prove, and prayed to be allowed to put in bail for that purpose. He further stated, that he had acted solely under the direction of Messrs. Sewell and Blake, his employers.

said, that noble Lord was in the House who was Secretary for Ireland at the time of the transaction in question, when the House had directed Hudson, and those persons mentioned in the Report, to be prosecuted, and he could probably confirm the statement which had been made.

had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that, of his own knowledge, he knew the bills to have been presented and ignored.

said, that after the unqualified assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to the contrary, and wishing to speak with every delicacy and caution on a question of fact affecting the personal character of others; yet, in vindication of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Perceval), he (Mr. Shaw) must state to the House his confident belief that no bill of indictment whatever had been sent up against Mr. Hudson. He (Mr. Shaw) had not had his recollection lately called to the facts or circumstances of the case, and he would not, therefore, speak with positive certainty; but he was, at the time, a party concerned, having, both before and after the decision of the Election Committee in question, sat for the city of Dublin. He did not think such a bill of indictment could have been preferred without his having heard of it; and to correct his own impression, and fearful of, in the slightest degree, overstating in such a case, he hoped there would be no indelicacy in his referring to the circumstance. He within the last few minutes had communicated with the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Perrin) on the subject, and his (Mr. Perrin's) recollection concurred with his (Mr. Shaw's), that no bill of indictment had been sent up against Mr. Hudson. He believed the case had been simply this:—the Government of the time had not been very anxious to prosecute. The parties unseated on the ground of bribery having been their own friends, and the opposite party being satisfied with their success, did not press the matter further, and so it was let to drop. The important fact, however, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that no such bill of indictment as he relied upon had ever been preferred against Mr. Hudson, and consequently never could have been ignored. What, then, became of the hon. Member's attack on the witnesses who, he said, had been disbelieved when they were known, and on his gallant Friend? the whole attack and speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) having rested on the statement of that, as a fact, which he verily believed had never occurred.

Nothing could bear out more strongly the case which he slated to the House than the assertions just made by the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member admitted that certain persons were to have been prosecuted; he acknowledged that bills of indictment were preferred against some of the parties.—Then, whether a bill was or was not preferred against Mr. Hudson was a matter of no consequence. There was no doubt that the bills against the other parties were ignored; and Mr. Hudson, who was one of those referred to by the House, was surely entitled to the acquittal implied by the fact of those bills having been ignored by the Grand Jury. The effect, then, of the proceedings in Dublin was exactly the same, whether this statement of the hon. and learned Member or his account were taken into consideration, though he certainly was under the impression, from the fact of his being present when Mr. Hudson was congratulated upon the throwing out of the bills, that one of them had been preferred against that gentleman.

understood the hon. and learned Member to state as a distinct fact, that a bill of indictment had been sent up against Mr. Hudson.

And that is still my conviction.

resumed—And upon that fact he grounded one of the strongest personal allusions ever made in that House. Did not the hon. and learned Member state, with reference to Mr. Hudson, that the very same witnesses whose evidence succeeded in getting him implicated in the offence of bribery before the Committee, were examined before the Grand Jury, and failed to establish in the minds of the persons composing that tribunal any impression of the guilt of this gentleman.

entirely agreed in the propriety of those expressions of strong reprobation of bribery and corruption which had been made use of so profusely that night. He doubted, however, whether they had not induced hon. Members to wander somewhat from the precise Question before the House. The Question before the House was, whether, having voted a certain offence a breach of privilege, they were prepared to order those who by a Report of the Committee had been found guilty of it, to be confined in Newgate. In examining this question, the hon. and learned Member had digressed to a Dublin case, in which proceeding he should not follow him further than to remark, that the facts which had been stated with respect to a gentleman in that case, showed how extremely cautious the House should be how they acted on the Report of a Committee, without all the evidence before them, and without allowing the parties affected by that evidence to be heard by Counsel. The case of the hon. and learned Member allowing it to be exactly true, proved this—that a Report was made by a Committee of that House, which was afterwards ascertained to be altogether unfounded. He should not however offer any opposition to the passing of this Resolution, but he thought that the House ought to have before it the proceedings before the Committee, and that, when it had got them, it should be cautious how it took measures, which not only infringed on the liberty of the subject, but also impugned the character of individuals.

said, that he had not seen the Ipswich paper to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had referred: but he bad seen another Ipswich paper, in which the editor stated that one of the petitioners against the late return, and one of the candidates at the present election, had spoken of several of the most respectable inhabitants of Ipswich in language so calumnious that he had not dared to report it; and that candidate, be it recollected, was a lawyer.

said, that he would move the same Resolutions one by one against each of the other parties, and he hoped that the discussion which had taken place upon Bond's case would preclude the necessity of a discussion upon the others. He then moved against Arthur Bott Cooke the same Resolutions which had just been carried against John Bond.

perfectly concurred in the course which had been adopted by the House. The House, however, if it did not take care, would place itself in a situation of some hardship with respect to individuals. We have, said the hon. Member, not the evidence before us, and we cannot have it printed for three weeks or a month. If we determine to follow the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and proceed to punish the parties according to their more or less guiltiness, we may perhaps find, after the parties had been in custody for that time, that we have inflicted in that imprisonment, a punishment more than commensurate with their offence. He threw out this suggestion in order that it might be referred to the Committee to select and print such parts of the evidence as bore on the case of each of these individuals. By so doing they should have something whereby to determine the minimum or maximum of punishment to be inflicted on each individual.

would just tell the House the situation in which it would be placed, if it listened to the suggestion of the hon. Member. The Committee, when asked to return an abstract of the evidence furnished by Arthur Bott Cooke would have to return an answer of nil, for his offence was absconding to avoid giving evidence. He had never appeared before the Committee, and the Committee had therefore never had an opportunity of examining him. He had now appeared and expressed his contrition. The same observation applied also to Bond and Clamp.

said, that he now came to another class of offenders. He should, therefore, move that John Eddowes Sparrow having aided and abetted certain persons in keeping out of the way to avoid giving their evidence before the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Ipswich, was guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.

said, that he did not rise to object to this Motion; he rose to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire whether what he had stated respecting the witness Bond applied also to the present witness? He asked, whether the evidence which applied to him could be laid before the House: because, if it could be laid before the House, without waiting for all the evidence, it would be desirable. This had been done before by Election Committees. He thought that it might be referred to the Ipswich Election Committee to read over the evidence taken before them, and to select and extract such portions of it as referred to the different parties whom it was now proposed to call before the House. It was only right that those who had to apportion the punishment should have before them the evidence that was necessary to inform them how they should apportion it.

in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, (Mr. Williams Wynn,) observed, that it would require three weeks at least to print the whole mass of evidence, and that part of it which related to the scrutiny was perfectly uninteresting. If, however, the whole mass of evidence was to be printed, it might be as well to have that which related to the bribery printed first, and that which related to the scrutiny printed afterwards.

said, that before they decided on prosecuting any parties for bribery, they must have all the evidence taken by the Committee before them. But that part of the evidence which related to the misconduct of the parties might be abstracted without much trouble to the Committee.

said, that it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the dignity of the House, after the House had commenced the consideration of a transaction of this nature, to refer it back again to any Committee. The Committee on the Ipswich election had finished its proceedings, and the House was commencing its part in them. All that the House could do was to accelerate the printing of the evidence, so that it might be submitted to the general perusal of Members and enable them to form their judgment upon it.

I will now proceed to the case of John Pilgrim.

said, it would be necessary first to ascertain whether he were in custody.

thought that the House ought to make an order that the warrant committing John Pilgrim to his Majesty's gaol at Norwich be laid before it. In the mean while, till that order was obeyed, the House should make an order directing that John Pilgrim be committed to Newgate for safe custody.

said, that if there was any doubt respecting the custody in which Pilgrim then was, he had a petition to present from Pilgrim, which would remove all difficulties upon that head.

No, not for safe custody, but for his offence. As Pilgrim out on bail, he is free from his commitment by the Magistrates at Norwich. He therefore stands on the same footing with the other parties, and must therefore be committed to Newgate for his offence.

suggested a doubt whether the House, without the consent of the Crown, signified by his Majesty's Attorney-General, could transfer Pilgrim from his present custody to that of the keeper of Newgate. Pilgrim was now under a charge of felony, and had been admitted to bail upon that charge. He was therefore in custody of his bail. He had been delivered to their custody in order that he might render on a future day to the custody of the gaoler of Norwich, and it would therefore be a substantial change in his commitment to send him to Newgate. The object of the House would be answered by committing him to the custody from which he was taken—namely, that of the gaoler of Norwich.

hoped that he should never be found backward in standing up for the rights of the Crown, and the prerogatives of his office; but he did not believe that there was any such right or any such prerogative as that for which his hon. and learned Friend was contending. When application was made some years ago to the Court of King's Bench to permit a person in its custody upon a criminal charge to give evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons, the Court directed the Attorney-General not to give his assent to such a Motion, but to show cause why such permission should not be granted. The Attorney-General might have shown upon affidavit that the party for whom this permission was craved was committed on grave charges, as on a charge of murder, for trial, and. that the course of justice would be perverted by permitting him to go before the Committee. The Attorney-General might also have refused to show cause at all, and if he had so done, he (the Attorney-General) would contend that the Court of King's Bench, proprio vigore, would have granted the alleged criminal power to attend. He believed that this power belonged to the other courts as well as the Court of King's Bench, and more especially to the House of Commons. When the Motion was made in the King's Bench to bring up Pilgrim by writ of Habeas Corpus, he had looked into all the 'authorities, and he was inclined to think that the House by its own authority might have insisted on Pilgrim's attendance, although he was in the custody of the keeper of one of his Majesty's gaols. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Recorder mistaken, and he meant to make no opposition to the Motion.

had no doubt that the course proposed by the hon. Member was regular.

thought it would not be just to send Pilgrim to Norwich. He was a man that ought to be brought to the Bar. He believed they had not yet got all the parties. The hon. Member adverted to the particulars of the case as given in the evidence and petition of Pilgrim, and expressed his hope that Pilgrim would be protected. They had heard of the great respectability of the office of Messrs. Sewell and Blake, and he maintained that, admitting this, the fact of Pilgrim having been thirty years a clerk in their employment spoke highly in favour of his character. As it was not imperative that the House should send Pilgrim to Norwich, he contended that it would be better, under all the circumstances, that they should send him to Newgate.

concurred with the hon. Member, and observed, that Pilgrim might be a very important witness respecting the conduct of the Magistrates.

suggested, that perhaps by confining Pilgrim in London they might be preventing him from making his defence against the criminal charge, in taking him away from his professional advisers and witnesses.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but to protest against its generality. The Bill went by its provisions to affect all Corporations, and in his judgment, though the House possessed the power and the right to punish delinquency when proved, yet he could not think the House had any right to interfere in the destruction of corporate bodies which were unaffected by any charge.

said, that all Recorders now holding that office, who were Barristers of not less than five years' standing, might under the provisions of this Bill be re-appointed by the several councils to be elected by the rate-payers in those boroughs, but that where the office was not held by Barristers, or by Barristers of less than five years' standing, these individuals could not be re-appointed. When any vacancy in respect to the office of recorder should ensue, on all future occasions the appointment to those offices would be vested in the Crown.

had not the least wish to oppose the Motion now under discussion, but he must remind the House that great care and caution ought to be used in providing that in all places which this measure went to affect, the administration of justice and the proper distribution of public charities vested in corporate bodies should not be too lightly interfered with. There was one provision of the Bill, as to the applicability of which to all corporations, no matter what might be the amount of their funds, he entertained great doubts. The provision to which he alluded was the triennial election. The Corporation of the town which he had the honour of representing had the superintendence and disposal of funds to the amount of 100,000l. a-year. They were applicable, in part, to extensive plans of improvement, which must naturally take a considerable time before they could be completed. He did not think the execution of business of this kind could be conducted so beneficially by a Corporation chosen so frequently as once in three years, as it would if they were suffered to continue longer in office. Men who succeeded each other so rapidly could not be so well acquainted with the business as persons of longer experience. Nor did he believe that such a fluctuating body offered equal security to the persons who had lent their money to the Corporation to the present permanent body. Besides this large fund of 100,000l. a-year, there was another peculiarity in the Corporation of Liverpool, which was, that it had a concurrent jurisdiction in other funds to the amount of 200,000l. more, in the disposal of which not only the town of Liverpool, but the country at large was deeply interested. Some of the plans to which he alluded would require five, perhaps more than five, years for their completion. Was it to be expected that they could be satisfactorily managed by a Corporation, the constituent parts of which were changed every three years. He did not intend, however, to enter into details at present, but he wished to mention this much in order to show that many points of the Bill would require very minute and scrupulous consideration. In acquiescing, on principle, to the great change contemplated by this measure, he begged to add that he by no means acceded to any admission of the justice of any charges as against the corporate body with which he was connected. That body, although self-elected, published year by year an account of its expenditure, &c., and he believed the investigation of twenty-four days' duration by the Corporation Commissioners had not discovered any error so bad as to call for any Legislative cure. It was impossible to suppose that a self-elected body could long continue to govern the various municipalities of the empire, however great and important the change which had taken place in the constitution of the Commons' House of Parliament. In conclusion, he begged to add, that he should avail himself of an opportunity of supporting the Motion, for the preservation of the rights of freemen and of those possessing inchoate rights to the freedom of any borough, of which the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Praed) had this evening given notice.

was unwilling to interrupt the feeling which had been expressed on all sides of the House, a feeling in which he concurred, in favour of the second reading of the Bill, a Motion which he felt ought to pass, not only without opposition, but also without any discussion of the details of the measure. He was equally unwilling to allow the second reading to pass without expressing his dissent from the opinions expressed by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. On the contrary, he was anxious to declare, that in his judgment, Parliament had the right, if circumstances required it, to introduce and carry into effect a measure like the present, with such modifications as might render it adapted to the times in which that Parliament existed. He would in the first place take the liberty of expressing his opinion of the absolute necessity at present of introducing a substantial measure of Corporation Reform, and he felt the highest gratification at finding that those individuals with whom he had so long the satisfaction to act had framed a Bill for this object, to the main principles of which he was ready to give his support. It was a main principle of this Bill to take from the self-elected Corporations the control of the corporate funds, and to vest them in the control of the inhabitants of the borough, with whom, in his judgment, that control ought to rest. He could not have supported the second reading of the Bill had he not been prepared also to accede to that which was in point of fact its chief feature—namely, the franchise which it proposed to give. His own feelings and prejudices would have been in favour of The 10l. franchise, but he admitted that there were strong arguments in favour of creating, in corporate elections, a constituency in some degree different from that which shared in the election of Members of Parliament. Moreover, for corporate purposes, powers might be intrusted in the hands of the rate-payers, which, under the restrictions imposed by the Bill, would not be unsafe, as applied to their local concerns. It was one of the most substantial complaints against the system of self-elected Corporations, that it introduced political feeling into all Questions, and tended to perpetuate in Corporations one set of political opinions, Whig or Tory, as the case might be, without reference to the opinions entertained by the town and neighbourhood with which they were connected. Now, therefore, that they were framing a new system, they ought to be particularly careful that it was not liable to the same objection. He was anxious, therefore, that the possibility should be avoided of considering the election of the corporate officers as a test of the relative strength of political parties. He could conceive nothing more injurious to the welfare and happiness of a town than that the election to every petty office should be made such a test, for not only would it engender local animosities, but would have the practical effect of making the members of the Corporation, when they were elected, just as much the Representatives of one set of political opinions as they were before. At the same time, if the Government persevered, as he thought it had good ground to do, in the proposition for extending the franchise to the rate-payers at large, he trusted it would not be less steady in maintaining the proposition for restricting the franchise to three years' continued residence, and three years' continuance of rate-paying; and also the proposition that the votes should be given openly. It might be said that the three years' restriction would have the effect of striking out some of those who had been admitted to the exercise of the franchise for political purposes under the operation of the Reform Act; but he (Lord Stanley) maintained that the circumstances between the election of Members of Parliament and municipal officers were widely different. When the local interests of a borough only were concerned, it would be seen that the amount of pecuniary interest, which was the ground for the establishment of The 10l. franchise, was not so much required as that the interest of the vote should be fixed and established within the limits of the borough over whose property the Corporation was to act as a trustee. Therefore it appeared to him that the permanency of occupation was infinitely more necessary as the test of local than it was with respect to the Parliamentary franchise, when each individual was supposed to vote not for the exclusive local interest of the town, but for the welfare of the kingdom at large. But there was another thing which they ought not to conceal from themselves; they must all know that of the 10l. voters the inferior class—the least respectable portion—were those who were most constantly changing their residence from one town to another; therefore, by adhering to the restriction of three years, they would not only obtain the advantage of a continued and permanent interest in the voters, but they would also secure that class of the population who had given a certain test of their respectability by continued residence and continued and punctual rate-paying. He would not at present say anything with respect to the open voting, except to call the attention of the noble Lord (Russell) to the provisions of the Bill by which that object was sought to be secured, and which, in its present shape, he thought was hardly sufficient to attain the end for which it was intended. [The Attorney General: The lists will be signed by the names of the voters.] Yes, the lists were to be signed by their names, but the list so signed would only be subject to the inspection of the mayors; unless something more than the handing in of a signed paper subject only to such an inspection were done the voting would not be open, but would, in point of fact, be perfectly close. But if they had all the same object in view with respect to the various details of the Bill, if the object of all was to accomplish a wholesome and sound reform of corporation abuses—he trusted that the Bill would be treated in Committee in the same manner and the same spirit as it had been received, and that all would frankly lend their aid to make the details of it as efficient as possible, not to secure or preserve any party or personal interest, but to make it work practically and essentially for the benefit of all. That was the temper in which he should go into the Committee, and he hoped and believed that the House would be actuated by a similar disposition. He did not wish to trouble the House by going into any details at that moment; but there was one point to which, as he conceived it to be an important one, and one upon which he felt compelled to take some objection, he begged in a very few words to advert. He meant the point which had been referred to by his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) opposite—namely, the very short period for which it was proposed to appoint the council in every corporate town. He (Lord Stanley) was desirous that the most entire control should be given to the Corporation and to the owners of the property over the persons whom they elected as their trustees; but he could not help saying, that, under the provisions of the Bill as it then stood, they might fall into the opposite evil from that which had distinguished the old corporation system and by making the appointment of the council short, and subject to constant variations and changes, to deprive it of that stability which would be necessary to enable it to carry on the affairs devolved to its charge with benefit or advantage to those whom it represented. He confessed he did not see why, if an efficient and proper control were established over these officers, so extraordinary a jealousy should be manifested as that not only the whole should be elected every three years, but that one-third should go out every year. Only see in what a constant state of agitation and turmoil every corporate town would be kept if elections for these councillors were to take place every three years for the whole, every succeeding year for a part, and at any other time, whenever a vacancy by death or otherwise should occur. Under such a provision, it was most probable that six months would never pass over without an election, which would awake and keep constantly alive all those feelings which everyone knew were as much engendered by local contests us by the most important political struggles. He confessed, therefore, he should very much prefer (he spoke his own opinion only, without concert with others) to see the council elected for a period of six years instead of three, and that the elections, instead of being annual, should be triennial, one-half going out every third year. He thought they might have a triennial election with half the Council going out, or a triennial election with one-third of the Council going out, but he confessed he should prefer the former of the two. He believed they would obtain by that means as complete a control over the Council as was requisite for any practicable purpose, whilst at the same time the towns would be relieved from these constantly recurring contests. There was one other point which he wished his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to consider. It was this: whether he could not extend further the principle he had adopted in the case of some of the largest towns—the principle of dividing every town, or every considerable town, into wards—giving to each separate ward the separate and independent right of electing a certain number of the Council. If he had rightly read the Bill, he believed there were not above twenty towns in the kingdom in which that principle would be acted upon. All towns containing less than 25,000 inhabitants were to choose their Council by single election. He thought that would have the effect in large towns of enabling the bare majority of one political set of opinions to return the whole of the Council, leaving a large and probably most respectable and most intelligent minority wholly unrepresented in the Corporation. If it were their object to avoid the possibility of such a thing occurring, he wished his noble Friend to consider whether his object would not be more effectually obtained by dividing every considerable town into wards, giving to each ward the right of returning as Councillors those whose opinions should coincide with the views of the majority of its inhabitants. By this means the opinions of all would most probably obtain a fair and equal representation. Besides, another great advantage would result from it, in the case of a vacancy occurring, whether from death or otherwise, the whole town would not be disturbed, the election for the new Councillor would take place only in the ward where a Councillor had died—the excitement, if excitement there were, would be confined to that ward alone, and the rest of the town would be left comparatively quiet and free from commotion. He would not trouble the House by entering into any further details. He was satisfied that his noble Friend, and the Members of his Majesty's Government, would be prepared to receive and to discuss calmly and. fairly such objections as might be taken in the progress of the Bill. On his part, he begged to assure them with the most entire sincerity, that he had nothing in view but an earnest desire to carry into effect that which in principle he believed to be a wise measure, and which in detail he believed to be a beneficial measure, which he rejoiced to see introduced, and for which he only desired a calm and temperate discussion, for the benefit, not of this party or of that, but for the advantage of the community at large, for whose benefit these Corporations were originally instituted.

approved of the Measure introduced by his Majesty's Government, but could not find in the history of our municipal constitutions any instance of a previous residence extended to so long a term as three years being required in the Bill now before the House. Much less could he find any precedent for the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire—that the Council should continue in office six years. His noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, had stated that publicity of accounts was one of the characteristics of that town; but the accounts were never seen by the public, or were only obtained by contraband means through the favour of some one or two of the members. With regard to the administration of the revenues of the town, amounting to 100,000l. a-year, the Liberals and the Tories were both disposed to think they were not administered well. His noble Friend had expressed an apprehension lest the security of the bond-holders at Liverpool would be diminished by this Bill. He was at a meeting held in Liverpool on Friday last, where many thousand persons were assembled, and many bond-holders among the number, when so far from expressing any distrust, they stated that their confidence was increased, and that they were convinced they should derive additional security from the measure.

took that opportunity of expressing the high sense which he entertained of the excellence of the principle on which the Bill rested; and he confessed it was a great satisfaction to him to perceive, from the general feeling which had been manifested by the House, that it was a task superfluous and unnecessary to prove that the self-electing corporation system was unfitted to the present times, and therefore ought to be swept away. He confessed he could not read the long report contained in the blue book which had been laid upon the Table of the House, without feeling a sense of shame and humiliation that so corrupt a system should have been allowed to remain so long pervading the whole country without any attempt being made to correct it. Whilst he approved entirely of the main principles upon which the Bill rested, and whilst he rejoiced to find that it was proposed to vest the entire control over the corporate property in the great body of the rate-payers, he was impelled to say a very few words in consequence of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord (Stanley) behind him. He should regret if the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department should be induced to adopt, and to incorporate in his Bill any of the suggestions which had been made by the noble Lord (Stanley) the Member for South Lancashire. So far from agreeing with that noble Lord that three years' residence was absolutely necessary to secure a respectable constituency, he could not but think that such a provision was likely to interfere most essentially with one of the great objects which the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, had in view, namely, the giving the franchise to the great body of the rate-payers in every large town. He trusted, therefore, that if, in the course of the discussion in Committee it could be shown to the noble Lord that a number of respectable and unexceptionable rate-payers would lose their franchise in consequence of the introduction of such a provision into the Bill, he hoped the noble Lord would not object to cut down the qualification to one year's residence instead of three. The noble Lord (Stanley) seemed to be greatly afraid lest, under what were called the voting clauses of the Bill, they should glide insensibly into a system of secret voting. If that were really to be the case, he (Mr. Grote) should not regard it as one of the defects of the Bill; and greatly should he rejoice if he could induce the House to agree with him in so constructing that part of the Bill as to make the voting necessarily and invariably secret. There were one or two points upon which he thought the Bill might he materially improved without, in any respect, interfering with its principle or essential provisions. It appeared to him that the number of members provided for the municipal council was unnecessarily large. When he saw the number of ninety for Liverpool and seventy-two for Leeds, he confessed he thought it would lead to a lessening of the average of the talent and respectability for which the Members of the Council should be distinguished. He thought, therefore, it would in every case be a great improvement to reduce the number of Councillors proposed in the Bill by one half. He wholly approved of the step which would be made by this Bill towards the severance of judicial from municipal functions. That was a step which could not be too highly commended. There was, however, another point which he must take the liberty of pressing upon the attention of the noble Lord (Russell). It appeared to him that whilst the noble Lord provided for the election of charitable trustees, he made no provision for their proper behaviour after they had been elected. According to the Bill as it then stood, the trustees for charitable purposes were irresponsible and irremoveable. He would also impress upon the noble Lord the necessity of providing some means whereby a recorder, if he did not give satisfaction, should be removed from his office. He was sure it must strike the noble Lord that if a recorder failed to give satisfaction in the community in which he was called upon to administer justice, he ought to be removed, and placed elsewhere. At present no provision seemed to be made for the removal of a recorder, under any circumstances; and he could not but look upon that as a considerable defect in the Bill. He confessed he saw no mischief that could arise from making a recorder removable upon a petition signed either by a majority of the council or a majority of the ratepayers. He had no wish to detain the House at greater length. In the principle of the Bill he wholly agreed, believing, as he did, that it would work great and material improvement in all the corporate bodies in the kingdom. He conceived it would be a most fatal blow to the integrity and well-working of the Bill, if the proposition of the hon. Member for Yarmouth were acceded to, and the franchise of the freemen preserved. On that point he trusted the Government would be found impregnable.

approved of the principle of the Bill, and in opposition to the view taken by the noble Lord (Stanley), thought it would be better that the members of the council should in every instance be elected by the whole town, and not separately in different wards. He was also strongly opposed to the same noble Lord's proposition that the council should be elected for six years.

felt bound in duty to his constituents not to allow this opportunity to pass by without expressing his opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill. Having read a great deal of the evidence given before the Commissioners, and having, for the last two years devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, he was decidedly of opinion, that the system of self-election in Corporations ought to be removed—that Corporations should be well governed—that corporate property should be well administered, and that those persons who had the deepest interest in the municipal government should, at least, have a voice in the choice of those who were to govern them. The only mode by which this system of self-election could be removed, was to give the inhabitants at large (under certain restrictions, he admitted), the right of choosing the persons who were to administer their funds, and to rule over their borough. He asked the question, who ought to be the persons so to choose their municipal representatives?—the persons who paid their proportion of the fund to be administered by those who represented them. If there were nothing else but the mere administration of the corporate funds, upon principle it would be absolutely necessary that every person who contributed a part of them should have a voice in the election of municipal officers. But inasmuch as there were other duties to perform, it became necessary that some other qualification should be imposed upon the electors beyond the mere paying the rate. It was necessary that they should be permanent householders, having a permanent interest in the borough. He thought, however, that to establish that permanent interest, it was not necessary that a person should be three years resident in any particular borough before he acquired the right of voting. He thought that one year's residence, and one year's rate-paying would be amply sufficient. In all the rest of the details of the Bill, as well as in the principle he cordially concurred.

,—The same motives which induced me to listen favourably to the introduction of this Bill, will lead me to give my assent to its second reading. We are told of party interest opposing obstacles in the way of the measure; but the great party with which I have the honour to be connected, feels, I have no doubt, the greatest interest in the establishment of a system of good municipal government in the large towns and cities of this kingdom—an interest far superior to that of mere party, or a desire to that the proceedings of the Government—assuming the object of this Bill to be, the establishment of a good system of municipal government, and the correction, as far as human caution can provide, of all abuses attendant upon the exercise of corporate privileges. Our interest being concurrent with the maintenance of order, of laws, and of the established rights of property, will induce us to support whatever may be proved to be conducive to such objects. We are not inclined to oppose any private or special interest against that which may be necessary for the public good. Upon the same principle upon which the heritable jurisdictions of Scotland were abolished, and other reforms in the public policy have been made—upon that same principle, if, in any case corporate privileges are found to be an obstacle either to the pure administration of justice, or to the establishment of a good system of police and general government, we are willing to admit, that regard for the special privileges ought not to bar the consideration of whatever may conduce to the authority of the law, and to the maintenance of public order. We, therefore, shall offer no opposition to the second reading of this Bill. Sir, I cannot contemplate the condition of some of the great towns of this country, and witness the frequent necessity of calling in the military in order to maintain tranquillity, without feeling desirous that the inhabitants of such towns should be habituated to obedience and order through the instrumentality of an efficient civil power, and a regular and systematic enforcement of the law. I believe that you could not establish a system of good government in the populous towns and cities of this country, retaining at the same time every existing privilege and practice of the corporate bodies as at present constituted; and I think it much better to place those towns under the exclusive control of a corporate authority, invigorated and adapted to their present state of society, than to leave the ancient Corporation precisely where we find it—devolving at the same time all real power, and almost all the functions of administrative authority upon some new body constituted on a different and more popular principal. This would be a virtual supercession of the ancient Corporation—a virtual extinction of the power for the exercise of which it was originally intended; and its permitted co-existence with another body really exercising the authority of municipal government, would be of no possible advantage either private or public. On the details of this Bill, I, of course, reserve to myself the right of voting in such a manner as, after mature deliberation, shall appear to me to be the best calculated to effect that object which the Bill professes to have in view. If I shall deem it necessary to propose any important Amendment in such of the provisions of the Bill as involve its general principle, I shall give notice of the nature of such Amendment; and I think it would be a great convenience if hon. Gentlemen were to do the same. Sir, I apprehend the three most important details connected with the Bill are, the qualification of the constituent body, the qualification of the governing body, and the frequency of their election. With respect to the qualification of the constituent body, having given due consideration to that subject since this measure was brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), my present impression is, that it will be advantageous to establish a qualification different from that which is required for the constituent body under the Reform Act. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and relied on his experience in respect to Scotch burghs, omitted to state, that the qualification for an elector in the burghs of Scotland is identical with that of an elector of a Member of Parliament. In each case in Scotland, the 10l. householder is the elector. As to the policy of following that precedent, and taking the same qualification in each case in this country, I feel the full force of the objection urged by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), that we run the risk of creating a corporate body influenced by all those political feelings and interests which sway that body in its other capacity of returning Members to serve in Parliament; and that every vacancy in the office of councillor, whether arising by death, by absence, or by the triennial retirement of a third of the council, would become a trial of political strength, having a great tendency to paralyze the exertions of the local Magistracy, by giving them the character of political partizans—by throwing upon their magisterial acts the character, or at least, the imputation of partiality. There may, therefore, be an advantage in the establishment of a separate qualification for the elective body; and in that case the only question will be, what is the proper qualification? The suggestion of a three years' continuous residence and payment of rates is a point which appears to me to require mature consideration. I am inclined to think it not a bad qualification, provided it be a bonâ fide one, and that effectual precautions be taken against the abuse of it—against the creation of a fictitious franchise. Three years' residence is a fair primâ facie test of good character; and three years' payment of rate—that is, a continuous payment of rate—by the occupier himself, is such a test of property and interest in good municipal government, as qualifies a man for the exercise of this franchise. At the same time it will be absolutely necessary to guard against many possible cases, in which there may be an usurpation of this franchise, and an evasion of the intention of the law. In many towns there are pauper residents, who, without having any parochial settlement in them, would, without such precautions, be entitled to vote for the council; they are paupers belonging to other parishes, who live under the constant threat of the overseers, that if they do not pay their rates regularly, they will be removed; and in many cases, the parishes to which they belong are the payers of the rates. Now, I apprehend that such persons as these are much less interested in the well-being of the town in which they reside, than persons possessing the elective franchise ought to be. They may have been residents for three years, and the rates due from them may have been paid; yet if they are, in point of fact, paupers belonging to another parish, they surely ought not to have a voice in the government of the town in which they are casual residents. I trust, therefore, that an effectual provision will be made, by which the qualification established in this Bill shall be bonâ fide adhered to. I do not agree with those hon. Gentlemen win maintain, that every man who contribute to the rates, ought to have a vote in the government of a borough. You did no act on that principle in the Reform Bill—you did not, in that Bill, enact, that every man who contributes to the public exigencies shall vote for Members of Parliament. The main point to be considered is—not the abstract theoretical right of each particular man, but what is the class of electors which will be likely to choose, permanently, the best governing body?—and you have a perfect right to act upon the same principle in the government of a town, as of a kingdom. If you believe that three years' payment of rates, and three years' residency, are the best qualification, and will secure a sufficient control over the acts of the governing body, it is a much more material object to establish that qualification, than to act upon the mere theory, that every man who contributes to the rates, has a right to the franchise. With respect to the frequency of elections, I am inclined to think there is much reason in the proposition of the noble Lord, (Lord Stanley). I think we should study to give more permanency to the governing body, and to avoid the perpetual recurrence of those conflicts which poison the harmony of society. There are other advantages in life, besides the elective franchise and popular elections; and, if you sacrifice the concord and peace of these great societies for which you are now providing a system of government, to speculative improvements in the mode of that government, you will defeat your own ends, by discouraging the truly qualified and respectable inhabitants from voting on municipal affairs, and will provide little security against the abuse of power. With respect to the qualification of the members of the governing body, I believe the prevalent opinion in the country to be, that there ought to be some qualification—an opinion which has been acted upon by one of high authority on this subject (Lord Brougham). In the Bill which he introduced for the government of certain towns, at present incorporate, he established a 10l. qualification for the electors, and a qualification of 1,000l., of real and personal property, for each member of the governing body. Considering in all cases, that, by this Bill, the Mayor is to be a county Magistrate, virtute officii, to take his seat as a Magistrate, with those from whom a qualification is now required, there ought surely to be some test of his respect, ability in point of station in life, and competency. In most of the Local Acts which have been established with the concurrence of the inhabitants of the towns to which they refer, there has been a qualification required in persons who are to be trusted with authority. I dare say the noble Lord has looked into the Act for the government of Stroud, the town he represents. I am not very well versed in the history of that Local Act; but I have no reason to doubt that it was passed with the general concurrence of the respectable and intelligent inhabitants of the town. In that Act, a high qualification is required on the part of the persons who have to perform functions analogous to those which are intrusted to the governing body of a borough under this Bill. The points to which I have thus referred are those, I apprehend, which involve the chief considerations connected with this measure, that are of a political character. There are several other details of the Bill which are of great importance, and which require the most serious consideration. They are matters in which all persons who hear me have a common interest, and in respect to which they need not have, necessarily, on account of different party connexions, different views. If I now allude to them, it will be with a view rather to promote than to defeat the professed object of the Bill. It may be thought that it would be better to reserve the discussion of them for the Committee; but there are advantages in taking a general view of the details of a measure of this nature,—thus permitting the mature consideration of any suggestions that may he offered. One of the points to which I will call the attention of the noble Lord is the great power which is given to the Mayor, under this Act. The Mayor is to be the returning-officer of the borough; that is, he is to be an officer of a political character, having political functions to perform, and the power you intrust to him of singly deciding upon the validity of the votes tendered in municipal elections is extremely great. He is to receive the lists of votes, to examine that list, to revise it, and to proclaim the result. Here is no doubt a great opportunity of abusing power, without any efficient check or control over it. Then, as to the council, the more precaution you take in defining its powers, the more you can separate municipal from mere political objects, the better. So far am I from wishing to see one party gain any undue influence by the measure, that I think the test of its. perfection will be the separating of interests which are political, from those which are strictly municipal, but you constitute the Mayor the returning-officer, and give him an almost irresponsible power—you give him the power to hold a Court at which objections are to be made to the votes—he is charged with determining which party have the majority; you ought to establish such a check upon him, that there may be no abuse, and that you may even prevent any suspicion from attaching itself to the integrity and impartiality of the chief officer. What possible objection can there be to provide that scrutineers shall be appointed? It is clear that there ought to be some check of the kind, and that the decision upon matters of this nature ought not to rest upon the simple declaration of any one man, who, after receiving the lists, and examining them, and declaring the result, may, if he so think fit, afterwards destroy them, and preclude the possibility of detection, in cases, even, of wilful error. The Bill makes no provision for the application of any surplus there may be of corporate property. Now, there are many boroughs which are extremely wealthy; and, after providing for the public purposes named in the Bill, it is clear that there may be, in some instances, a considerable surplus. My noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, states, that in that town there is one of 35,000l. The Bill provides, that the new corporate body shall have all the powers which the existing body has; and, as those powers over the property of the corporation are very considerable, there ought to be some provision controlling the appropriation of any surplus that may remain after providing for the special objects named in the Bill. It ought to be known, that in many boroughs, considerable expense is about to be incurred. The Bill provides, that, after the termination of existing interests, there shall be no application of corporate property to individual uses, but the existing individual interests are to be protected; and thus, even in the cases wherein there are no corporate estates, some time will elapse before there will be a fund sufficient to provide for municipal purposes. In these cases, the new governing body will have to levy a new rate, and that rate will be the only source from which the municipal charges can be defrayed in the case of those towns which are now incorporate. This rate—its connexion with the Poor-rate—the mode of levying it—the appeal against it, are all matters of deep interest to the societies to which this Bill applies, and require much more mature consideration, than I fear they are likely to receive at this period of the Session. The provision of this Bill, with respect to County-rates are very important. Many districts will be hereafter exempt from direct contribution to the County-rates. In all those for instance, which are to have a separate Quarter-Sessions, the County-rate will have to be levied upon a new principle. A calculation is to be made of the expenses of the prosecutions arising from those boroughs, and the treasurer of the county is to certify to each borough, what portion of the County-rate it ought to pay, and to demand payment accordingly. I am afraid the borough will not consider the Treasurer of the County, a very impartial Judge upon that head. Then there is another enactment of a similar nature, and of equal importance in Clause 97, relating to the more general expenses of the county, such as building bridges and public buildings. Here, too, the treasurer of the county is to make a calculation as to the portion of the County-rate which should fall upon the district included within a borough; and in case any difference shall arise, it shall be lawful for either party to appeal to the Privy Council, who shall thereupon make such order as to them shall seem expedient, and such order shall be binding upon all parties. Now, I am afraid the Privy Council will not be well qualified to decide in these cases. There is no apparent principle to guide them in their determination. In the case of the expenses of prosecutions, there is a principle, because the expenses can be regulated and defined; but in the case of the general expenses of the county, the degree of benefit derived by a particular district is very indefinite. There will frequently be an appeal to the Privy Council against the demand of the County Treasurer which appeal will, I fear, be attended with considerable expense. It will, therefore, be for those who are intrusted with the administration of the County-rates, to watch this part of the Bill with great attention. In the case of some boroughs, the new corporate district may not be conterminous with the parishes of which it is partly composed. In these cases, how will the County-rate operate?—part of a parish will be within the county, and part within the borough. Is the part within the county to contribute to the County-rate upon the old, and that within the borough upon the new, principle? These are minor considerations, as affecting the principle of the measure, but they are important, with the view of preventing, as far as possible, litigation and expense. I come now to a more important point. The noble Lord provides, that twenty of the larger boroughs are to be divided into wards—these wards are to be determined by the Privy Council upon the Report of certain Commissioners. Surely Parliament ought to have some control over this. I agree with the noble Lord (Stanley), that it would be an immense advantage, and might be the means of ensuring a much fairer representation of property, if the principle of division into wards were extended far beyond the limits proposed in the Bill—and I reserve to myself the power of moving an Amendment to that effect—but I take the Bill as it now stands: it provides, that twenty towns shall be divided into wards, and that the Privy Council shall not only have the power of determining how many wards there shall be, but also the number of Representatives each ward is to return. Now, that I hold to be a power too important to be exercised by any authority short of that of Parliament. In a town like Liverpool, as it will be possible for the Privy Council to assign twenty Representatives to one ward, and two to another, they may constitute the Council either a democratic or aristocratic body, at their mere will. This is a power the Crown ought not to exercise without the control of Parliament; it is a power which was denied to the Crown in the Reform Bill, even in the case of the mere territorial boundaries of boroughs, and was expressly, after discussion, reserved to Parliament. This Bill provides, that twenty large towns, named in the Bill, may be divided into wards, but no obligation is imposed upon the Crown as to the period at which its discretionary authority is to be exercised. The Crown is not bound to make the division before the first election for the Council; and if it do not, the elections will be made, as in the case of other towns, by the voters indiscriminately. In this respect, there ought to be some alteration in the Bill. It should be reserved to Parliament to determine in what cases the division into wards shall take place—what shall be the number of wards—what the number of councillors to be alloted to each ward. An indefinite power is given to the Council with regard to the amount of the new Borough-rate. No maximum is established; and while a power is given to the Council—or rather, an obligation is imposed to separate the charge of watching from that of lighting, nothing is defined (even in cases wherein a maximum on the whole rate now exists) in respect to the amount of the separate charges. When these points shall come to be looked at practically by the different societies to which this Bill applies, they will be found to affect their interests in a very material degree. The Bill, in fact, attempts to include in one Act, one hundred private Bills,—to apply uniformly the same provisions to towns very differently circumstanced; and I am satisfied that unless there be the fullest opportunity of considering very maturely the details of the measure, the result will be disappointment and failure. Then, with respect to the operation of the Bill in individual instances, there are cases in which it will confer no benefit. In the town with which I am connected, the corporate body is a self-elected one; but that body has elected its members without reference to any political feeling; it has selected its members from among parties opposed to each other in political sentiment; the people are content, and there is neither abuse nor any allegation of it. In such a case as this, I should see the application of this Bill with considerable regret, for I fear it would have a tendency to introduce party feelings into the constitution of the Corporation, and considerably diminish the satisfaction which is now felt. Therefore I think it will be a matter of consideration for the noble Lord, whether, in all cases where the communities at large are satisfied with the existing Corporations, it will not be advisable to let them remain as they are. Sir, I have now given my opinions upon this subject, the details of which will, as I have observed, require much consideration In the Committee; and the little disposition which has been shown to oppose the general principle of the Bill, ought to make the noble Lord doubly anxious to give all parties concerned the opportunity of considering and canvassing a measure which so intimately affects their interests, and the peace and good order of the societies to which they belong.

had had some experience In the framing and working of two local Bills, similar in principle to the one now under discussion; and he agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, as to the division of boroughs, into wards, but he differed from that noble Lord as to the election of councilmen for six years. If either property or population were taken as the basis, the representation might be unequal; it was, therefore, necessary that these two elements should be combined to give the proper proportion. Suppose that a ward, according to the number of Rate-payers, should return twenty councilmen, but ac- cording to the value of the property assessed only ten, the medium number would be fifteen. It was of great importance that elections should be conducted in a peaceable manner, and the dividing of populous boroughs into wards would contribute much to that end. In the curtailment of the number of councilmen, as suggested by the hon. Member for the city of London, he did not concur. It was necessary to divide the Councilmen into Committees; and as in large towns there was a good deal of business to be transacted, he, therefore, thought it necessary that the number should not be very limited. The vesting of charitable funds in the Corporation would be a great saving of expense, which was of some importance when the charities are of small amount. With regard to the qualification of Councilmen, in Local Bills, that was required. Perhaps, as respected the Mayor, a property qualification might be desirable. He thought the measure would give satisfaction to the country, and it should have his cordial support.

rose, not for the purpose of answering the objections of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, but he apprehended that the principle on which Corporations were formed was for the mutual convenience of the inhabitants of the towns; and he considered that one year's occupation and rating was for all purposes sufficient to entitle an inhabitant to enjoy the privilege of voting in the election of the corporate body. The right hon. Baronet had said, that he considered the annual going out of one-third of the town council would be inexpedient; but then that right hon. Baronet must have forgotten that two-thirds always remained in office to instruct those newly elected. Besides, as was the case with the guardians of the poor, if they behaved well when in office they were generally pretty sure of re-election. As regarded the qualification, he considered that the persons who would be elected would be of such character and station in life as to render any qualification unnecessary. Because a noble and learned Lord (Brougham) had chosen to introduce a Bill into the other House with qualifications, he apprehended that that House was not bound to adopt the same principle. To enlarge the division of great towns into wards he considered beneficial, and he should advise that a revising barrister should go to each town, and examine into the list of voters, to prevent any undue influence of the Mayor, who was to be the returning officer under this Bill. It was not necessary for him to observe any further on the principle of this Bill, with which he most cordially agreed; but he hoped that its progress might not be delayed beyond that time which was absolutely necessary for a measure of so much importance.

was happy to find that there prevailed so general a concurrence in the House with respect to the principle of the Bill, not only because that circumstance was an augury of the success of the measure, but also because it would make the perfection of the details a matter of more easy attainment. He was much gratified at hearing his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) express his approbation of the principle of the Bill; but this was nothing more than he expected; for, having been engaged with his noble Friend in forwarding through Parliament the measure for the reform of the representation, he felt convinced that the noble Lord would not withhold his support from a Bill having for its object the reform of the Municipal Corporations. The observations, too, which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, were, in his opinion, extremely fair and candid. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the time had come when it was necessary to deal with Municipal Corporations, and he also declared his opinion to be, that it was expedient to deal with them on enlarged general principles. The right hon. Gentleman had directed the attention of the House to the three main Questions, the franchise of the constituent body, the frequency of the elections, and the absence of all qualification. With respect to the franchise of the constituent body, the observations which had fallen both from the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) tended to confirm him in the opinion he had before expressed on this subject. He believed that that species of franchise had been selected which was likely to give content in the incorporated towns, and to produce good municipal government. He was not, therefore, disposed to make any alteration on this head in the Bill. It had been suggested by one hon. Gentleman at the head of the Commission, that it would be expedient to make the period of residence requisite to constitute a right to vote shorter than the term proposed, but though in former times the residence of one year might have been considered a sufficient test of permanent residence in a town; yet, in the present day, so great a fluctuation took place in the population of different places, and so many persons lived in them, and paid the rates only for a short period, that in endeavouring to discover who were the permanent inhabitants of a town, and able to pay the rates, it became necessary to judge by a residence of a longer term than one year. With respect to the frequency of the elections, he considered the Bill as it stood at present preferable to the alterations which had been suggested. He believed that it would tend to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the different towns, and give them a due control over the governing bodies of the boroughs, that they should have the power at intervals—and of not long intervals—of re-electing those persons whose conduct they approved of, and of changing those with whose conduct they were not pleased. He really believed that frequency of elections would lead to less change in the elected body than would be the case if the elections were made for a longer period. The right hon. Baronet opposite seemed disposed to propose some qualification. He would of course pay the greatest attention to any suggestion which the right hon. Baronet might make; but after giving the best consideration to the subject, he had not been able to find that any peculiar benefit would be obtained by requiring a qualification. In some places, in consequence of the taking a high rating and qualification, a man whose only recommendation was that he lived in showy premises would be elected, while another person, perhaps more wealthy, and more fit to conduct the general affairs of his town, would, in consequence of living in a smaller house, and paying a smaller rating, be excluded from the choice of the inhabitants. Still he should be happy, he repeated, to listen to any proposition on this subject which the right hon. Baronet might make in Committee. With respect to the other points touched upon—the power of the Mayor in elections, the division of the larger boroughs into wards, and the clauses respecting County-rates—these were matters which would be considered in Committee, and which he did not think it necessary to notice at the present moment. In conclusion, the noble Lord stated, that he should move that the Bill be committed on Monday next, and that the House should continue to sit in Committee on the Bill from day to day until the considera- tion of its details should be completed. He proposed this course, because he was anxious that no unnecessary delay should impede the progress of a measure which he believed to be of great importance to the future welfare of the country. The Bill was read a second time.