In pursuance of the notice I gave last evening, I now beg to ask the hon. Baronet, the Member for Warwickshire, (Sir E. Wilmot) whether it is his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill, or to take any other measure founded upon the resolution of the other evening?

My answer to the noble Lord must in a great measure depend upon the reply which he will give to a question which I shall take the liberty of putting to him. The Commons of England have agreed to a resolution in favour of the immediate and entire abolition of the apprenticeship system in the West Indies. It is a great national question—one of the greatest and most important that has been discussed for many years. I beg, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether or not it is his intention to do anything to carry the resolution of the House into effect, or anything to annul or rescind it?

My answer to the question is this—that considering that the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Yorkshire, (Sir George Strickland) was decided in a very full House against the proposition for the immediate and entire abolition of the apprenticeship system, it is my opinion that it will not be necessary for the Government to take any step to annul or rescind the resolution adopted the other evening. I stated upon a late occasion, and also upon a previous occasion, that with respect to any bill that might be introduced founded upon such a resolution the Government would certainly give their most strenuous opposition to it. Therefore I cannot be expected to move for leave to bring in a bill in pursuance of the resolution adopted the other evening. But this I will say, that if the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot) proposes to follow it up by moving for leave to bring in a bill, he shall have the very earliest thy in my power for submitting his motion. If any steps are to be taken at all, it must be obvious to every one that they ought to be taken at once; therefore, if the hon. Baronet proposes to come forward with any measure upon the subject, he shall have Monday next for the purpose.

The House must be aware that this important question, in the hands of so humble an individual as myself, requires great and deliberate consideration. I therefore tell the noble Lord that I shall not to-night inform him what course I intend to pursue; but on Monday next I will give him a direct answer.

Let me only say, that I really hope the hon. Baronet will distinctly intimate his determination at the earliest possible moment. He must be aware that the part he has taken with respect to this question, makes his determination, whether to leave the resolution upon the journals of the House without submitting any further proposition upon the subject, or to bring in a bill or take any other measure founded upon the resolution of the utmost consequence to the West Indies, and I may also say to the peace and welfare of the apprenticed negroes themselves.

I assure the noble Lord that nothing on earth shall prevent me from giving the earliest possible notice of the course I intend to pursue. Meantime the noble Lord may rely upon this, that the principle embodied in the resolution of the other evening shall be strictly adhered to by me in any measure I may introduce.

I hope the hon. Baronet will not think it too much if I put another question to him. I understand that he intends to follow up the resolution of Tuesday last to the very utmost; and with his views upon the subject I entirely concur in the propriety of his doing so. But I wish to know from the hon. Baronet—it will be for him to answer me or not as he thinks proper—I wish to know from him, or, rather, in the first place, I wish to direct his attention to the fact, that the packets to the West Indies will sail on the last day of the month; that is to say, on Thursday next. Is it, then, too much to ask him to give a promise that he will bring this question to an issue before the packets sail.

, the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newark, (Mr. Gladstone) has mistaken the answer I gave to the question of the noble Lord. I said, that on Monday next I would distinctly declare what course I intended to pursue.

It certainly is most unfortunate that upon a matter so involving the feelings and interests of a large class of her Majesty's subjects, particularly open to excitement and to the entertainment of false expectations, the hon. Baronet is not prepared to state the course he intends to pursue. I put entirely out of the question, as a subordinate matter only, though still one of very considerable importance, the interests of the West-India proprietors. What I would point out is the position of the apprenticed labourers, and the possibility that they may be led into violations of the law from a misunderstanding of what are the intentions of Parliament. If the hon. Baronet should state to-night that he meant to bring forward a measure upon the subject, there would be an opportunity of full discussion upon the motion for leave to bring it in, when all misunderstanding upon the matter might be cleared up. But supposing the hon. Baronet should say, "I will content myself with leaving the resolution on the journals of the House, and will found no measure upon it," then I very much fear, unless some distinct, particular measure be taken for expressing the sentiments of this House in some way or other, misconceptions will arise; and it may become absolutely essential, for the sake of humanity and the preservation of innocent life, that we should declare what is the positive intention of the Legislature.

I understand that it is not the intention of the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot) to occasion any delay beyond Monday. After having made so distinct a declaration upon a subject requiring so much deliberation, I think it is not necessary that he should be urged further by either side of the House; but that the matter should be fairly left to his own discretion, under an assurance that he will pursue the course most likely to conduce to the interest of the West Indies and the welfare of the apprentices.

I must still state that I think the hon. Baronet may very well be able to declare to-morrow the course he intends to pursue; and I repeat now that I shall be prepared to meet him on Monday upon any specific motion he may choose to bring forward. If the hon. Baronet shall not be prepared to make any declaration to-morrow, I reserve to myself the privilege of then stating to the House what course I think the Government will take.

rose to bring the Petition on the claims of certain parties for Compensation for the loss of property by the Danish war under the consideration of the House. Before he stated the circumstances which had led to the petition, it became him to offer some apology for his presumption in undertaking such a duty. Not long after he had the honour of a seat in that House the petition was sent to him, and he presented it as a matter of course. He was then applied to, to go further, and bring the question before the House. He was disposed to decline such a duty, but it was represented to him that the first signature to the petition was that of the largest firm in the town he had the honour to represent, and that many of the other names attached to it were those of merchants of Hull, a town with which he had long the honour of an official connexion. Though he thought the matter would have been better in the hands of a more experienced Member, still, as the petitioners considered that he might be of use to them, he consented to be the medium of calling the attention of the House to the matter. Having stated these circumstances, he would proceed to state the grounds upon which he thought the House ought to grant the prayer of the petition. It was well known to every Member of the House that a negotiation for peace with France was set on foot by Mr. Fox in 1806, and that the war was again commenced with increased bitterness and hatred on the part of Napoleon. Then this country had Prussia and Russia on their side, but in the campaign of the same year the pride and glory of Prussia was humbled, and in the following year the power of Russia was crippled, and she also became anxious for peace. The Berlin decree was issued, and then they were informed what the measures of Napoleon were for the overthrow of the commercial prosperity of this country. The French and the Spanish navies had been annihilated by Lord Nelson; but it was found that Napoleon was taking measures for the seizure of the fleet of Denmark. It was found, that the troops of France were assembling on Hamburg, the neutrality of which had been violated. They had no ostensible object but to overrun Holstein, and then the navy of Denmark would have been in the power of Napoleon, who might have used it to intercept our commerce. Under these circumstances it seemed good to the British Government that they should send out a powerful armament to invite the Danes to place their ships under our protection, till a peace should be concluded, or to bring them home to this country. Soon after that, an embargo was laid on all Danish ships. The expedition sailed—the Danes refused the request that was made to them, and in the result the whole of their navy was fitted out in their own dockyards by British sailors, and brought home to this country. It was to have been expected that our enemies would take advantage of that opportunity of raising a cry against Great Britain: and accordingly all the world resounded with cries of our want of faith. The Government of that day put forth a statement of the motives by which they were actuated, and which they deemed to be their justification. That document was dated the 25th of September, 1807, and it was important as showing under what circumstances British merchantmen were brought into peril, and as showing what was gained by this country which caused so much loss to those individuals. He did not wish to enter into the question at all of how far the Government of that day were justified or not, because he wished this to be received not as a party question, and he felt that he could not enter into any discussion of that statement, without exciting a party discussion, foreign to the real merits of the case. Whatever might be the merits of that proceeding no one could be surprised that the Danes were displeased at it, and they stated that unless satisfaction was made, they would make reprisals on British property within their reach. Accordingly they did confiscate British property to a considerable amount, which consisted of book debts, and the property of British subjects in Denmark. Goods and ships in the Baltic were seized. The confiscation of the petitioners' property took place under these circumstances, and and was most undoubtedly owing to the Act of the British Government, which Act was intended to avert a great danger from this nation; and it would, therefore, be monstrous to say, that the loss ought to be sustained by individuals. To him the claims of the petitioners seemed to be most equitable. All the authorities upon the subject of the law of nations were in favour of the claim. Grotius expressly said, that "those who gave occasion to reprisals were bound to make compensation to those who suffered from them." But that was not the only authority on which he relied. Matthieu, in his second book, eighth chapter, also said, that "the Sovereign ought to compensate those of his subjects upon whom reprisals fell." He should be astonished if any Gentleman would say, that the country at large ought to participate in the advantages of the measure, and not also bear a part of the loss. If the loss of those sufferers could be attributed to any fault or negligence of their own, it would be a different thing; but at the time when their property was thus seized upon, they could have no reason to apprehend a war with Denmark. So far from this, it will be found, on reference to Parliamentary documents of that date, that no increase of premium was required at the British Insurance Offices upon the goods and ships of those merchants. Indeed, even the Proclamation of the Commanders of the British navy contained nothing to raise a suspicion that a war with Denmark was contemplated by the British Government. So far from it, that proclamation stated, that they came as friends and protectors, not as enemies, and to prevent those who were disturbing the peace of Europe from turning the naval force of Denmark against England; and it also gave assurance that the British merchantmen might continue to navigate the Baltic unmolested. But the case did not rest here. It should be remembered, that the British Government seized and took possession of Danish property, which ultimately produced the sum of 1,300,000l. Under what pretence? Were we at war at that time? No. Had we any right to make reprisals? Unquestionably not. He invited any hon. Member to state any circumstances which could justify the seizure of that Danish property, unless it was for the purpose of creating a fund out of which compensation might be made to the subjects of this country for anticipated reprisals of the Danes? What complaint had been made to Denmark? What wrong had Denmark committed? What justice had she denied? And what right then had this country to seize her property unless to make compensation to British subjects who might suffer from the Acts which the British Government thought essential for the welfare of the empire? In addition to the natural justice of the case, according to the law of nations, there was therefore a fund which could not be with equity applied to any other purpose than that to which he sought to apply a portion of it. To a certain extent, that fund, or a substitute for it, had already been so applied. On former occasions, the House had granted compensation to those who lost their goods in Denmark, or their book debts; but it was denied to those who had lost their ships, and goods afloat in vessels. Was it not absurd that for property—part of the lading of a ship, which was landed—compensation should be granted, and that for the remainder of the lading of the same vessel, which was not landed, no compensation was to be allowed? It could not be said, that this application came too late, for it had been decided by the House this session, that compensation should be given to some of the sufferers; but it had been suggested, that there had been negligence on the part of these shipowners; that they might have insured their property. If, however, they had a just claim upon the justice of the House, this was no answer to the claim. If two vessels came into collision, true—the owners of the injured vessel might recover compensation if she and her cargo were insured; but this was no answer to an action for damages against the owners of the other vessel. So in the case of an action for damages by fire against the hundred. These were the circumstances that had led to the petition, and he had stated them as briefly as possible, and he trusted when the House remembered this was a peril into which British subjects were brought, in order to gain a great national object, and avert a great national danger—when, moreover, a fund had been provided, which was ample for the purposes—he trusted the House would go along with him in adopting the motion with which he should conclude. That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying, that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct the Commissioners to whom it was referred, to examine the claims for losses sustained on account of book debts and goods on shore, in 1807; to examine the Claims of those who sustained losses on account of the seizure of ships and cargoes by the Danish Government in the said Year; and that the said Commissioners report on such claims to the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury.

, in seconding the motion, sincerely hoped, that her Majesty's Minis- ters would now complete this act of justice which had been so worthily commenced by their predecessors in 1834. He was sure, that there could be no wish on their part to act partially by the petitioners, or unjust to any one, and he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what had already taken place, and ask if any of the grants hitherto made had been grudged by even the most rigid advocates of economy. He believed, that on the contrary they had given the greatest gratification to the country, and he believed, that to persevere in that course of equitable redress, would not only be fair to the individual petitioners, but give great satisfaction to the country at large.

sincerely regretted that his hon. and learned Friend did not, on the face of the notice he gave, state more distinctly what the motion was with which he intended to conclude his address to the House; because he (the Solicitor-General) in common with many of his friends around him did not know from the nature of the notice, coupled with the petition of the 9th of February, whether it was his intention to pray for a further compensation to those having claims for book debts and claims on shore; or whether, as turned out to be the case, it was his intention to pray, that the compensation might be extended to the case of ships, and cargoes on board ships. His hon. Friend having now stated to the House, that he confined himself to this latter position, it became his duty to state, that to that proposition, however agreeable it might be to remunerate those who had suffered on that occasion, he could not see any thing whatever, either in the precedents set with regard to other claims, or with regard to book debts, to give it the slightest sanction. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to certain passages from celebrated writers on the subject. Now his hon. Friend must know, that the distinction—whether founded in reason or not, it was not for them to inquire—that the distinction was universally recognized, that that which was a violation of the law of nations with respect to goods on shore and book debts, was not a violation of the law of nations with respect to the ships and cargoes on board. It was a universally recognized principle on which this country was in the habit of acting from the earliest times—and if it were wrong, the system must be altered by some prospective enactment, but such was the principle on which it had invariably acted. Now, however that distinction might have had its origin, they could see forcible reasons why it might be justly and fairly maintained, because it was a usage universally observed—and he did not use the word in an exaggerated sense—to ensure ships, and to ensure the cargoes against all the perils not only of the sea, but of the king's enemies, to which they might be exposed. That practice was not only universal in ordinary cases, but had become universally the custom at the time this transaction took place, and when the war had been raging between France and this country for years. His learned Friend had said, that the Government had already given compensation in the case of losses by book debts and goods on shore. Why did they do so? Because the act of the Danish Government in respect of those transactions was an act in violation of the law of nations. It was not consistent with the law of nations that the goods on shore at Copenhagen, or the book debts, should be confiscated because a war had broken out. Such a principle as that could not be applied to the present case, nor did his learned Friend attempt to apply it. He made his application in the present instance upon totally distinct grounds. He had stated, that the reason he asked for compensation was, not that the Danish Government had done anything, which, by the usages of war, they were not justified in doing, but he called on the House, in the year 1838, to give compensation, because the Government had embarked in an unlawful war in 1807. If compensation were to be given in such a case, he wished to know where it was to stop. If, in 1838, it was competent for parties to put forward such claims for the first time, it was impossible to know where it would end. The claimants for the book debts, and the goods on shore went upon a very different principle. They always put their claim upon the ground that it was not liable to the objection of the ship claimants. They claimed on the ground of a violation of the law of nations. His learned Friend had stated his case shortly and clearly; he had attempted to state his reply in the same manner; he had been short, perhaps he had not been clear, but he had endeavoured to be so. The ground upon which the Government resisted the claim was, that the present could not be put on the same ground as the other claimants. Was it possible, that thirty-one years after a war had taken place, the House should go into an enquiry into the conduct of this country in entering into that war? If the House were to go into such an inquiry as to the Danish war, where were they to stop? Some might think, that we were very wrong in entering into the war of 1756, others might complain of the beginning of the American war, and call for an inquiry, asking for compensation for all those who had lost by the conduct of this country in entering into such wars. If proof were wanted of the law of nations being in the state that he had put it, be would cite the continual treaties made between two nations at peace—that if a war should unhappily break out, no ship should be seized until six months after the declaration. These treaties would be rendered totally unnecessary if the law of nations provided for the case. He had shortly stated, the ground was clearly distinguishable from the case of the other claimants, and he trusted, that he had shown the extreme inexpediency of entertaining the motion before the House.

must do the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) the justice to say, that he had not occupied the House unnecessarily with any argument; but more imbecile or futile arguments he had never heard the hon. and learned Gentleman put forth. The learned Gentleman had stated, that this was the first occasion on which the attention of the House had been called to those claims which arose out of the confiscation of goods. Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must recollect, that on no less than three occasions had the House divided on it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, had not combatted successfully one single argument adduced by the hon. and learned Member opposite. There was one material point, however, which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General had rather misunderstood. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite did not say, that the seizure of British goods and ships in the Danish harbour was an act contrary to the law of nations—it went to this, that that seizure having taken place, it was incumbent on this country to give compensation to those who were sufferers by it. He considered that this was a most important distinction. He remembered, that on a former occasion, there were objections taken to compensation, on the ground that the case was similar to one in which a ship sailing on the high seas was seized in consequence of hostilities having commenced in the meantime. He thought, however, that the case was entirely distinct from any such parallel. The goods of the petitioners were seized in the Danish harbours at the time when this country was supposed to be at peace with Denmark, and in time of peace became the aggressor. The British consul was at the time resident in the Danish port, and Admiral Gambier gave licences to those vessels to sail. The British Government, however, upon some principle which he did not understand, and did not think necessary to discuss, thought proper to seize the Danish fleet, and carry off the vessels to England. It was even then affirmed, that this was not a hostile measure, but one of protection and friendship. Upon this assurance, the British merchants trading in the Baltic had relied. Their vessels entered Danish harbours, and the acts of aggression were committed, the vessels were seized and confiscated by an exasperated enemy. And, under these circumstances, would any Member maintain, that the case was at all similar to that of a ship going from a distant port being carried away by an enemy, hostilities having, in the meantime, been commenced? This country attacked Denmark without any declaration of war, without even pretending that any offence had been committed, only upon the plea of State necessity. Was not this exactly the case which had been referred to by the celebrated writers on the international law, by whom it was laid down, that in such a case, the State was bound to make compensation to its subjects. The Solicitor-General had endeavoured to draw a distinction between ships or goods on board ships;—and goods which had been transferred to the shore. No such distinction was to be found in those eminent writers—Vattel and Grotius—both of whom laid it down in express terms, that the State is bound to make compensation to its subjects for wrongs arising from reprisals which have been provoked by the State. If the case went no further than this, he submitted, that the claims were fairly made out; but at the time when the seizures of British property were made, the British Government seized a far larger amount of Danish property in this country; and the proceeds of this property was for some time applied to the compensation of these sufferers. That fund was now dissipated, under the sanction of the British Legislature, and the claimants had no other fund to apply to than the resources of the State. It was his fate to be connected with a port which suffered most grievously from these circumstances. It had been said, that these claimants came, after an interval of thirty years, to the House for compensation, but there had been no cessation of these claims. These parties had not suffered their claims to be defeated by any laches. These claims had been repeatedly pressed upon the attention of the Government. In 1834, compensation was made to the book debtors. In 1837, another class of claims was recognized, and surely it was but shuffling to say, that these parties came after an interval of thirty years. That was no reason for refusing justice. He was sure the House would, even at this distance of time, recognize these claims. The parties had appealed from one minister to another—they had waited long and anxiously; and for thirty years, they had waited in vain. They now came to that House, which had so often redressed the wrongs of the injured, and he trusted, that the representatives of Great Britain would not now withhold them redress.

said, the hon Gentleman opposite had overlooked the principal claim on behalf of the shipowner. Every one must admit, that in case of a war breaking out, although by the usage of nations goods might be seized, yet it was contrary to the usage of nations, after the cessation of hostilities, to seize goods and book debts. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, had been so powerfully and concisely put, that it must remain fresh in the mind of every one. This was not a seizure of property on the breaking out of a war, but it was the case of a reprisal—of provocation on the part of the English Government for the purposes of the State. The case advocated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, two Sessions back, of the vessels seized by Spain in 1796, where the Government granted the sum of 200,000l.for of a smaller description than the present. Therefore, not only was the case, on the principles of justice, perfectly clear, but he thought his hon. and learned Friend had brought forward an exact precedent to justify the course he was now pursuing. The only other objection that could be urged was on the score of revenue. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite how was the revenue to be maintained except by extending protection to the commerce of the country? Nothing would tend so much to promote financial prosperity as the Government coming forward on all occasions to indemnify the mercantile and maritime interests whenever they were seized by foreign states.

said, there was something necessary beyond a Government being liberal—it must be just also. Just, not only in the sense of giving countenance to reasonable claims, but inexorably just in resisting claims which appeared to it without foundation, and which could not be conceded without the introduction of a principle of the most dangerous nature. He would take the liberty of looking back at the history of this case, and he would bring before the House what the Ministers had done, and he would justify them in the course they were now taking. Up to the year 1834, it was clear, that the question had been made a matter of ineffectual struggle in Parliament. His hon. Friend who sat below him, and those who differed with him more broadly, would, on a full statement of the case, declare, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) showed no disinclination to state the grounds on which they had acted. In the year 1834, the question was brought under the consideration of the House, when Earl Spencer was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that period, undoubtedly, the motion was specially directed to book debts; true, the proposition which Lord Spencer undertook to examine involved all the three classes—namely, book debts, goods taken on shore, and goods on sea board. That, however, was upon the understanding that he expressly reserved to himself, as was stated in the Treasury Minutes, a full power of considering the cases. Upon the examination of the cases by the law officers of the Crown, both his learned Friends that were near him, and the civilians with whom they were associated, gave it as their distinct opinion, that with respect to the book debts and the goods taken on shore, that was a wrong sustained by British subjects contrary to the law, the declared law of nations; but with respect to the wrong sustained by the seizure of ships and cargoes, that was an ordinary consequence of war; and there was no violation of the law of nations in that case. Upon those opinions the Treasury affirmed that view of the case, and in 1835 a sum 112,000l. was voted in satisfaction of the book debts, and in 1836 a sum of 78,327l. was voted under the second head. Thus the matter had rested till the commence- ment of the present year, when his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, brought forward a case which did not differ from the case already referred to in the Treasury Minute, allowing persons to come forward and claim within a certain time. Certain parties made out a case to the satisfaction of the Member for Bridport, but they were excluded by the Treasury Minute. His hon. Friend then stated among other things, although he could not state the sum that would be required, that a week should be given to the parties to put in their claim; the time was given, and then came the present petition. The House would be surprised to hear, that the vote come to upon the motion of the hon. Member for Bridport had not stopped at 78,000l., but that it had actually let in claims to the amount of 100,000l. That vote, however, admitted no new principle; but let the House look to what was the principle they were now called upon to affirm. It was admitted by the parties that this seizure was not inconsistent with the law of nations; yet they were called upon to affirm, that when hostilities broke out, whatever might have been the wrongs of the subjects of this country, still they were bound to grant compensation to all parties who suffered from seizures made under the law of nations. He called upon them to remember, that the former resolution of the House did not contain the proposition before the House. On the contrary, this was the first impression, which had not been formed before. Was this proposition to be affirmed on the ground of the war being? If they affirmed that proposition, how much farther were they to go? Were they to investigate into the origin of every war? If they affirmed that proposition in one war, then they might be called upon to affirm it in every one. They might be called upon to award compensation to all who had suffered from the breaking out of the American war, or the revolutionary war. Suppose that several of those who were now petitioners before the House had been insured, and had been indemnified by the insurers long ago, were they to give indemnity anew to those who had before received it? Or were they to pay back to those insurers, who had paid the amount to the assured upwards of thirty years ago? He would not use the argument of time as a bar to a claim which was otherwise just, or he would have used it as an argument against the book debts. The investigation of those claims—ascertaining what was just and what was un- just—became infinitely more difficult in proportion as the time had run. If the case had occurred in the year 1837, evidence might then be adduced, and he might have had the means of controverting it; but when a case occurred in the year 1807, he contended the House ought not to entertain the proposition, except on the most clear and undeniable grounds. He could not conclude without again endeavouring to show to the House in what a position all these cases were brought forward. Every person who had a claim, and every class of persons who had claims, naturally, by the influence which the constituent had over the representative the means of pressing on the House the fullest and strongest statement on his behalf. On the contrary, those who had to represent the public, as he did in the matter, had no sympathies of that description in their favour. Efforts were made on every side for the purpose of making out a case in favour of redress; and on the other side there was nothing but the dry abstract reasoning of those who opposed it. If the House sanctioned this claim they would do that which was unexampled in the history of nations. If the House admitted the principle of doing this justice to their own subjects, for similar reasons Foreign Powers would bring forward cases—they were ready enough to do it. The Danish case was at first represented as a case quite of itself. No sooner was the Danish case brought forward than cases that were alleged to be similar were also brought forward. This case was brought forward upon a new principle—it was a most dangerous principle, and he called upon the House to resist it, and if the House looked forward to the future, and wished to become fair and legitimate guardians of the public interest and the public purse, they would now assist him in resisting the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool

Sir, I would not address the House after the eloquent speech of my hon. and learned Friend, if I had not made myself diligently master of all the circumstances of the cases, from which I am perfectly convinced that justice is on the side of the claimant. After the able and lucid statements of my hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool—I need not occupy the House any length of time, but I wish to point out, as briefly as possible, how utterly futile is the distinction attempted to be made. Suppose the case of a ship going out to Denmark, the goods on board belonged to three different persons, the goods of two of the parties are landed, and subsequently seized by the Danish government. To those two parties compensation was granted, and I think most justly granted; but the property of the third party which was seized on board was not compensated. The reason assigned is, that the confiscation of those ships and goods was in conformity with the usages and practices of war. I deny this; there was no war. There is this material fact—the Danes by their profession of the 17th March, 1794, had pledged themselves to maintain the neutrality of the Baltic, and they had agreed that both parties should give six months notice of hostilities before the property of individuals should be liable to seizure. But this was not a case of war, it was a case of reprisal simply. I shall not trouble the House with quotations from Grotius, Matthieu, or Vattel, nor will I venture to tread upon such learned ground, which would be hazardous to so young a Member as I am. But this case is plain, that those people were deprived of their property for the good of the whole nation. In 1807, England committed an act of injustice towards Denmark, which nothing but the extreme circumstances of the case could justify. They had in their hands a large amount of Danish property, which was floating on the Thames, or lying in the other ports of Great Britain. The proceeds of those seizures had been paid into the Treasury, and Mr. Perceval at the time made the distinct statement, that that money had been paid into the Treasury, in order that it might be there to meet the demands of British merchants who had claims upon it. What was the result? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would correct him if he were wrong—he believed, that an offer was made by the Danish Government of mutual restitution. Did the English Government accept that offer or not? They rejected it; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, was it right or just, having refused those offers, that he should now resist the claims of those who were justly entitled to compensation. Might it not be asserted, that they had acted fraudulently, if they now attempted to deprive those persons of a just compensation? He would only trouble the House with one farther remark. The right hon. Gentleman, the Solicitor-General had stated, that these parties might have protected themselves by insurances. Now, he did not think, that the policy would be worth much, when the property was destroyed by an event not contemplated in that policy. In conclusion, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see the justice of conceding the claims of these ill-used individuals.

was sorry he could not assent to the proposition put foward by the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Baronet had a full right to attack the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and he (the Attorney-General) felt honoured at entering into a contest with him. The hon. Baronet said, that there was no distinction between those goods in ships, which were seized, and book-debts and goods seized on shore; and unless he (the Attorney-General) could make good that distinction, he would give up the case. He had given an opinion, that those having claims for book-debts had a right to compensation, and upon that opinion, the Government acted. He would now state the reasons upon which he had given that opinion. Those whose book-debts were seized, came to the Government and said, "The Danish Government has done what they had no right to do—we call upon you to compel the Danish Government to do us justice—or do us justice yourself." The English Government did not compel the Danish Government to do them justice, and therefore those whose book-debts were seized, had a clear right upon the English Government. They added, they had no means to indemnify themselves by insurances, for that no insurance would, under the circumstances, have held good. It was allowed on all hands, that book-debts could not be seized—indeed there was only one other instance—an ancient one it was true—upon record, and that was the seizure by Alexander the Great of the debts due by the Thessalians to the Athenians. Therefore, with regard to the cases of the two classes of claimants—first, those in respect of hook debts, and next, those in respect of goods seized on shore—there had been a clear violation of the law of nations, and those two classes had therefore a right to recompense and indemnity. Let him remind hon. Members opposite, that in the year 1828, when Sir J. Mackintosh brought forward this subject, he took the same distinction as that for which he was contending, and upon which the Government had acted, and that high authority on such a subject admitted, that the owners of ships and cargoes seized on the high seas, had no claim whatsoever to compensation, because that seizure had been made in conformity with the law of nations. It had been said, that the seizure had been made when there was no war. No, he contended at that time there was flagrans bellum, and that after this country had bombarded the Danish city, the Danish Government did that which they were justified in doing,—viz, they seized all English ships and cargoes in the ports. In this, there had been no violation of the law of nations; and again, the owners of those ships and cargoes might have indemnified themselves by insurances. Some of them had indeed effected insurances, and those insurances had been paid, and what right, after a lapse of thirty years, had those parties to come forward and ask for compensation? If the attempt now made, was to be sanctioned by the House, the greatest mischiefs would arise. The attempt rested solely on the proposition, that the original attack on Copenhagen was unjust, and uncalled for, and therefore that the Government of the country ought to recompense the sufferers from losses arising from a mistaken policy. Now, he fearlessly stated, that no such principle could be found in Vattel, Grotius, Puffendorf, and other authorities on this subject. But it should be remembered that upon motion, and after discussion, the House of Commons held the Copenhagen expedition to have been justified upon good and sound grounds, and therefore the argument arising from that proposition must fail. Conceiving, then, there was a broad distinction between the claims which had been disposed of, and those now before the House, he held the latter to be untenable.

wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of the Attorney-General, who said, that this was the first occasion when these claims had been brought before the House; whereas two years ago he had brought them forward and only failed by the small majority of eight. It was with deep regret that he still found the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government persevere in their refusal to recognize these claims, resting as they did upon the broadest grounds, as well of humanity as of justice. The opposition now offered to them was precisely the same as that which had been offered on former occasions, What was the nature of that opposition? It was said,—"The claims which we have admitted, the book debts and the goods on shore,"—by the way when his hon. Friend took credit fur having conceded these claims, he (Mr. Clay) would remind the House that it was under the gentle compulsion of a strongly expressed opinion on the part of the House—it was said, that the seizure of these book debts and goods on shore was contrary to the law of nations; but the seizure of the property for which indemnity is now claimed is in conformity with the law of nations, and if these claims are conceded a dangerous precedent would are established. He much doubted, though he would not enter into authorities on the subject, whether the seizure of the book debts and goods on shore was so contrary to the law of nations, or at least so infinitely more opposed to the law of nations, than the seizure of ships in cargo. It was not in the smallest degree necessary in his case that he should make out that point. The Attorney-General had said that the seizure of the book debts and the goods on shore was contrary to the law of nations, and the British Government was entitled to call upon the Danish Government upon the return of peace, to compensate British subjects for the seizure so made. The British Government failed in that, and therefore British subjects had a fair claim upon their own Government. Now, in this argument, the Attorney-General seemed to have forgotten that the Danish Government were called upon for those very book debts, and goods on shore, and by the treaty of Kiel, Denmark admitted the right of indemnity to those British subjects whose book debts and goods on shore had been seized. That these claims had not been enforced against the Danish Government was no answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of the danger of establishing a precedent of compensation for the consequences of "ordinary warfare." Why this warfare was wholly unparalleled, and he hoped that no future page of British history would be polluted by the record of such an action—As to the seizure of the Danish navy, he made no comment. It was difficult to enter into the feelings of a people under the pressure of a war such as that in which England was then engaged—But it was the atrocious act of seizing 320 Danish merchantmen in our harbours upon the faith of treaties—it was this which provoked the Danish reprisals, and it was this to which he hoped the future annals of Britain would furnish no parallel. The hon. and learned Attorney-General had said that the claimants might have protected themselves by insurances. Now what were the facts? At the time these ships went out, the country was in a state of profound peace. It was not the habit of merchants to insure their cargoes out and home, but the custom was to insure them on the homeward voyage, on receiving advices that the ship had set out on her homeward voyage. Now, he could state, without the fear of contradiction, that no insurances could then be effected on ships going out to the Baltic, that no underwriter would at that time have undertaken the risk, and he hesitated not to add, that the British merchantmen which at that time went to the Baltic had been trepanned and deluded into a situation from which they could not escape. He had authorities for this assertion. Among others he had the affidavit of John Haywood, the commander of the John and Elizabeth, of Scarborough, who sailed from this country to the Baltic in September, 1807. On the 16th of that month he arrived at the station, and presented himself on board the flag-ship of Admiral Gambier, and inquired if he could proceed up and down the Baltic, and to that inquiry the Admiral replied "With perfect safety." He accordingly proceeded up the Baltic, and wrote home to effect insurances—what was the answer he received? Why, that insurances could not be effected at any premium. Admiral Gambier came away without leaving a frigate or even a single gunboat to protect them, and the British merchantmen were taken in a trap as completely as Danish ships could be under the guns of the tower. He had another instance to cite, that of William Harrison, of Kingston-upon-Hull, who having suffered from the embargo in Russia in 1801, and being about to charter a vessel of which he was commander and part owner for a voyage to the Baltic in 1807, considered, it necessary to make an application to the Admiralty, in order to ascertain from the Government whether it would be safe to sail to Stockholm. On the 5th of September this party received an answer from the Admiralty, conveying the information that he would be safe not only to go to Stockholm, but to the Russian and Prussian ports. Harrison accordingly chartered his vessel, went out on the 10th of November, and on the 8th of December he was boarded by a Danish ship of war, and carried into Copenhagen. Was this an ordinary warfare? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked about the hardship of the case. But was it an answer to a demand frequently urged—a demand, the justice of which had been acknowledged—was it an answer to say, that having refused it until the evidence was partly lost, that should be a reason for now refusing to investigate it? He hoped, that his friends near him might consider themselves the guardians of the public purse, they had done enough to satisfy the most conscientious scruples, and he hoped they would consider the claims of justice and humanity which were always paramount to any other.

wished to make a remark or two in reference to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what had fallen from him on a former debate. Being pressed to state what the amount might be he declined to give any information: but afterwards said that the particular claim to which he alluded might be from 70 to 80,000l; but in consequence of some additional facilities having been given to ascertain the amount, it was found to be 100,000l. The whole argument urged against the motion was, that we were in a state of war at the time, whereas we were in a state of peace; and the hon. Member for Cambridge on a former occasion did not venture to say we were in a state of war; he said there was an indication that something like a declaration of war was on foot. Now that appeared to him to be a state of peace.

said, that he rose to say a few words, lest by his silence he should be supposed to have changed his opinions upon this question. He knew not whether the hon. Member who had just sat down had quoted correctly the expressions he (Mr. Goulburn) had made use of on the former debate, but he was prepared to state, that he was satisfied that the acquiescence in the claims made in the present instance would go far to shake the naval supremacy of this country. He knew that the laying an embargo on ports and the issuing of letters of marque were the mode by which Great Britain first indicated a declaration of war. If, therefore, we admitted the principle that seizures made by way of retaliation were prizes for which England was to pay, we should be dealing not only with Denmark, but with every nation. It had been made a question whether it was right to make seizure of merchant vessels in any case. Upon that question he would not enter, and he would merely remark that the House was not now called upon to lay down a particular rule, but that the question was whether they should apply this principle to the particular case.

said the admirable statement of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets embraced the whole strength of the case. The question was not whether the time had elapsed for these claims to be considered. No time should bar the cause of justice, and he hoped this day to see the cause of justice triumphant.

felt bound in reply, to notice what had been said by his hon. Friend the Solicitor-General. He had complained against him personally; now he could not but think, that that complaint was totally without foundation. His Friend had said, he had been taken by surprise—that he had had no intimation by the notice of motion what it was he asked. Now, he could not but think, when he had stated, that it was his intention to draw the attention of the House to the petition, that he was not expecting too much in presuming, that his learned Friend had read it. Perhaps, however, his learned Friend had read another petition, and fearing, that he might have done so, he would just read a word or two of its prayer.—It prayed for the compensation for goods afloat, stating also, that compensation had been already given for the loss of book debts and goods on shore. That being the case, he was surprised, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have complained of him. He would now come at once to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two hon. assistants. It certainly was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be just to the public, but it was much more his duty to be just to individual; because by injustice being done to an individual he might be ruined, whereas it would not be felt by a body. He was surprised at many of the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was surprised to hear him say, that the sum required was large. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by that, that when the sum was large, justice was not to be given. But where it could be obtained at a paltry price, then that it was to be rendered. The arguments of the Attorney-General, that there was a distinction between the claimants for goods on shore and book debts, and those for goods afloat, was totally without foundation. If there was no distinction, which he positively asserted there was not, then there was no resource left but for the House to be against the Government. And it would be bound to say to the Government—"If you do not make compensation, we will either compel you by force, or we will make compensation ourselves." It was not to be said by the Government, that if reprisals were made then that they would wage war. Yet such were the arguments that had been made use of to-night, in order to avoid giving compensation. But on the other hand it was said, that by the Articles of War the act that had been perpetrated was justifiable. He denied, that there was war, and such being the case, the acts that had taken place were totally uncalled for, and Government was bound to make compensation. He again asserted, that there was no war, and his Friends who had built their arguments upon that supposition were mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had said, suppose the goods were insured? Now he would answer him by supposing, that they were not; could justice in such a case be done to the underwriters without compensation being given them? It was no answer for a party to say, that he had received the money from the underwriter, because in that case he would be the trustee for him. So also in the case of the collusion of ships, it would be no answer to say, that the underwriter had been paid. All he asked for the claimants was justice, which he trusted the House would give him by its vote that night.

The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 81: Majority 34.

begged to say, that he should not take upon himself any responsibility in consequence of the vote which had just been come to by the House.

said, that he rose to bring under the consideration of the House a subject which appeared to him to be of the greatest importance, as touching not only freedom of election, but as touching that extended franchise which it had been the pleasure of the House recently to grant to the people of Scotland. In the course of the observations which he was about to offer, he begged most positively to disclaim calling in question or impugning in any degree the decision of the last committee appointed under the Grenville Act to try the merits of a petition against the return for the county of Roxburgh. He might indeed entertain a strong opinion, after perusing the evidence given before that committee, that the Gentlemen who composed it had arrived at a decision different from that to which he should have come himself. He was aware that this case might be cited on some future occasion by those who entertained an opinion of the necessity of making some change in the constitution of Election Committees, or of the propriety of transferring the jurisdiction which they exercised to another tribunal. But, for his own part, while the Grenville Act remained unrepealed, he should always consider it a prominent duty to treat with respect the decisions of committees appointed under the Grenville Act, when he recollected that the Gentlemen who pronounced those decisions arrived at them under the obligation of an oath, and under the strictest sanction of all that ought to be binding upon their consciences. Having said thus much, he would now State to the House the personal reasons which had induced him to take a prominent part in bringing forward this subject in the House of Commons. In the first place, from the earliest period at which he had taken a part in public affairs, he had been one amongst those who were most anxious for the extension of popular privileges to the people of Scotland, for he then felt, and he continued deeply to feel, that the intelligence of the people of that country, their high moral character, and the knowledge which they possessed, founded upon popular education, entitled them to the enjoyment of every political privilege which freemen ought to possess. It was his good fortune to have co-operated with his relation, Lord Archibald Hamilton, in the efforts which had been made towards obtaining for the people of Scotland greater political privileges. He did not regret those efforts, and he still rejoiced at the circumstance that his friends had obtained an extension of popular rights. But he felt that the circumstances which he was now about to bring under the consideration of the House required the prompt, immediate, and decisive attention of Parliament, for if the injuries which had been suffered remained unredressed, his opinion was that it would bring the concessions which had been made into disrepute, and alienate the public mind from those concessions and it would be more detrimental to popular privileges than any event which had in his memory ever arisen. It might be asked why he, who was not a Scotch representative, took up this subject? His answer was, that he lived on the confines of the county of Roxburgh. Those persons whose feelings had been outraged, and outraged to an extreme extent, were his neighbours, and some of them his friends. He believed the danger which had arisen from the outrages in question was of a character so serious that not a moment was to be lost in applying a practical remedy. He spoke from his own local and personal knowledge of the fact. [Cheers.] The hon. and Gallant admiral who cheered, spoke, no doubt, from distant rumour. He could assert from his own knowledge, that the state of society in that neighbourhood had undergone a serious change, and it was his humble but decided opinion that some legislative interposition was imperatively demanded. He should not indulge in any declamation on this subject, but he rested his case on facts, and so resting it, he hoped the House would excuse him if he ventured to do that which he feared the House seldom received with patience, by calling its attention to written documents—documents of no ordinary character, and also to the sworn testimony of witnesses taken before an election committee. It was scarcely necessary for him to state to the House that the last election for the county of Roxburgh took place on the 3d of August. But previous to the commencement of the election—previous even to the day of nomination (as was stated in a petition, signed by 600 freeholders, which he had presented to the House)—a meeting was held, at which ninety-five freeholders, six of whom were magistrates, attended, and, being averse from experience, to Hawick as one of the polling-places agreed to a memorial to the Lord-Advocate for Scotland, which was presented to that functionary through the sheriff of the county. The memorial stated, that rioting and disturbances had taken place frequently at that town during polling-days, especially upon the last occasion of an election being held for the county of Roxburgh, and that the civil power was incapable of repressing those riots, the repetition of which was apprehended; that at the previous election, as well as upon former occasions, much injury had been done to the persons of the voters, and much property had been destroyed in the town; that the memorialists felt satisfied, that great risk would be incurred both by themselves and by their neighbours, as well in their persons as in their property; and they therefore felt convinced that the assistance of a military force was required, in addition to the ordinary police force of the district. This was the substance of the memorial which had been presented to the Lord-Advocate by the sheriff of the county. He would not trouble the House with the correspondence which had taken place to a considerable length between the sheriff and the learned Lord-Advocate. It was enough for him to state to the House, that the Lord-Advocate inquired of the sheriff whether, before this period, any communication had taken place between him and the bailies of Hawick. It was necessary that he (Sir J. Graham) should acquaint the House, that Hawick, not being a royal burgh, contained two officers named bailies, of whom one alone was a magistrate for the county. He should also state, that after the magistrates and gentry of Hawick and its neighbourhood had held that preliminary meeting at which the memorial was agreed to and signed by ninety-five magistrates and freeholders, the sheriff opened a communication with the two bailies, conveying to them an intimation of what had occurred at the meeting. These two magistrates, however, persisted in refusing any participation in the responsibility of maintaining peace at Hawick, either with the sheriff or with the county justices, and insisted that, if they should have the responsibility, it should be exercised independently of the sheriffs and county justices, or they otherwise would relinquish all share in it. Now, it should be observed, that these two bailies were notoriously warm partisans of one of the candidates at that election—the hon. Gentleman who sat opposite—and one of them had presided at an election dinner given shortly before, at which a noble Earl, the brother of that hon. Member, was present. In short, he had conducted himself in every respect as a warm partisan. The House would, perhaps, pardon him for saying, that he should be sorry at any time to say anything in the least degree painful to the feelings of his hon. and learned friend the Lord-Advocate. For many years of his life he had enjoyed his intimacy and partaken of his kindness; and nothing but a reluctant sense of duty could induce him to say anything tending to reflect upon that learned person's character. But be must say, in the discharge of his duty, that he thought he would pardon him for saying that his honest zeal for his party had more or less betrayed his judgment on this occasion, and he thought that his holding communication with the bailies under the circumstances of this case, and his permitting them alone to act, was not a judicious course. This was not his individual opinion, but he had a string of legal authorities to support it; and in the cases of Coventry and Nottingham it was seen, that election riots took place under the local magistrates, and the remedy which Parliament applied was, to give to the magistrates of the county a concurrent jurisdiction. Now, in this case of Hawick, the magistrates of the borough had an exclusive jurisdiction, and no one could say, that the magistrates of the county had a concurrent jurisdiction, and yet what was the course taken by the learned Lord? He recommended the magistrates of the county to come to an arrangement with these two local magistrates, and then it eventually ended in his sanctioning an arrangement by which the sheriff and the county magistrates were denuded of all authority; and the whole power was transferred to the two local bailies, of whom one was a grocer, he believed, and the other a stocking-weaver. Surely, this was an act of decided indiscretion on the part of the learned Lord. He must, in passing, observe, that when the petition was presented affecting this return, one of the allegations of which was touching the peace of the borough during the days of polling, and when, therefore, the arrangement to which he had referred, respecting the preservation of the peace, must naturally form a subject of consideration, he did think it unfortunate in his learned Friend to place himself in a position in which by the rules of the House, he necessarily became a judge in a case where his own conduct was at least indirectly impugned. Over that inquiry, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman presided, and upon the report being presented to the House, his name was prefixed to it. Having stated this much with regard to matters preliminary to the election, it now became his duty to state to the House, from the evidence before him, what were the principle facts connected with the gross outrages which had been committed at the last election. He would endeavour to show to the House, and to prove by evidence—first, that these outrages were violent and brutal in the extreme, and he should next endeavour to show that they were organised and directed by the partisans of one of the candidates, with a view to overawe the freedom of election; next, that they were sanctioned by the legal authorities of the place; next, that they succeeded in the object of overawing the freedom of election, that they preconcerted, and were continuous from former elections in which this habit had existed, and these were all the points which he should endeavour to establish. He had already said, that the polling commenced on Monday, the 3d of August, but it was a strong feature in this case that violence of the most outrageous kind was committed on the evening antecedent to the day of polling, it did not arise when the poll had begun, but all the arrangements appeared to have been made for it on the evening before that commenced. On Wednesday, the 2d day of August, the mail was expected to arrive from Edinburgh about dusk, and there was reason to believe, that one of the agents of Mr. Scott and a Mr. Horne would arrive in it; and he should now refer to the evidence of a witness named Robert Burgess, who was examined before the committee, and who deposed to the circumstances connected with the ar- rival of the mail, and to the mob endeavouring to open the door of the mail coach. He was then asked—

"Did you hear the mob mention any one's name?—They mentioned Mr. Horne's name.

"What did they say about him?—They said they would kill him.

"Did you see them attack any gentleman?—Yes.

"Who was it?—Mr. Berwick.

"What did they do with him when they got him into their hands?—Tore his clothes, and struck him."

Mr. Horne had escaped from the opposite side of the carriage, but Mr. Berwick was not so fortunate, and he was seized by the mob and ill-treated; and he would read to the House the account which he gave of the mal-treatment he experienced on that evening. He was seized and was in the hands of the mob, and he would now read his evidence. He was asked—

"Did you hear any thing said by the mob at that time?—Yes.

"What was it?—There were several voices called out to Swear him! swear him!"

"You heard that called out in the mob?—Yes.

"After the mob had called out that, did any particular individual in the mob address you?—Yes.

"What did he say to you?—He asked me if I would swear I would not vote.

"You had voted at the election at Hawick before?—Yes.

"In the election of 1835?—Yes.

"Did you vote for Lord John Scott, or the other candidate?—Lord John Scott.

"Were you known as a voter likely to vote in that interest?—Yes, as likely; my coat was covered with spit at the election in 1835.

"You live in that neighbourhood?—Yes; seven miles from Hawick, in the summer time.

"After this person had addressed you in this manner, did you make him any answer?—Yes.

"What did you say to him?—I said, I will not swear.

"Did you say that in a loud voice?—Yes; as loud as I am speaking now.

"Could the persons in the mob round about you hear?—Yes.

"Did they proceed to take any steps upon that answer of yours?—Yes.

"What step did they take?—They began to tear my clothes, and kicked and jostled me, driving me always further from the inn.

"Whilst they were performing these operations, did they utter any other expressions?—Yes.

"What did theysay?—One of them called out, 'Down with the damned Tory, Berwick, and tramp him in the dirt.'"

[The right hon. Baronet quoted this wit- ness's testimony at great length to shew that he was ill-treated for a considerable time and obliged to defend himself.] He would not go any further except to remark that on this occasion no constable appeared. No effort was made to preserve the peace, and Mr. Berwick escaped at last to his inn quite exhausted, and with the utmost difficulty, and this, it must be recollected, was on the evening preceding the poll. It was now his painful duty to state some of the gross outrages which took place on the day of the poll, and he thought that such were the facts proved, that the House would have no hesitation in admitting, that the conduct of the mob towards the voters was brutal and violent in the extreme. He would first quote the evidence of Robert Patterson, and there was a remarkable fact proved with regard to him and to other voters. They lived in Hawick, which was their native place, and one would have supposed, that under those circumstances, they might have continued peacefully to inhabit their homes; but what was the fact? It appeared, that a considerable number of persons in the situation of the witness, not daring or venturing to remain in their own houses in the night, were compelled to go to the quarters of the candidate whom they intended to support; and here he might mention a fact which was important, as it served to show how generally the feeling pervaded even those who were bound to preserve the peace, to favour one party and to place the other under every possible disadvantage. Mr. Scott was the unpopular candidate, and the polling-booths were placed so as to give to his voters every facility to go to the poll; but then the exit from the booth was so managed, that, instead of the voter passing away by the other side of it, he was compelled to return, and to go into the market-place into the very body of the crowd, by whom they were received and punished. In this case, then, of Patterson, he had given his vote, and he said, that after he had done so, he endeavoured to return to the inn, the quarters of the candidate whose interests he supported, and he endeavoured to rejoin his friends but was seized by the mob. He was asked—

"Were there any constables standing near the door?—There were constables standing at the front door of the Tower; they almost filled it up with constables."

The witnesses also gave the following answers to questions:—

"There was a mob close by the back of the inn, and they knocked and pulled me round by this great crowd of people. There was no protection. The mob carried me along to Slitrigg Bridge-end. They kicked me with their feet, and stripped the clothes off; coat, waistcoat, and sark, and under sark, and my hat was knocked off when I was at the Tower ton door. All that was done when they were carrying me along, and crying out, 'Kill him out, kill him out, the b——.'Besides being kicked, I was struck upon the head, and the hair torn off my head. One voice cried,' Let him go,' and another, Hurl him over the bridge: I got away from them at last. I ran into Walter Turnbull's, a stocking maker. The mob were at the door, and I hid myself below the bed. The mob came in: they searched for us and found us out. They struck us while I was below the bed. I came out then."

Now he begged the attention of the House to the next questions, and the answers given to them. They were:—

"Did you offer anything to one of the mob?—I offered the man who struck me below the bed a shilling, I cannot say who it was, to let me alone, and the voice of the multitude outside was to crush the bed down and murder him out.

"When you had come out was any thing said about swearing you?—Yes.

"What was said?—There was one administered an oath to make me swear, that I would not vote again; I cannot recollect the words; life was left in me, and that was all.

"They made you take an oath that you would not vote again?—Yes.

"Did they then go away?—Yes, they fled away; some cried out take him out, that they would cut me all to pieces; and others cried out it w as impossible, the multitude was so great at the doors.

"Which way did you go?—I went out over the back window.

"Your clothes were gone; how did you cover yourself?—They were all cut up round the left thigh, and there was a woman fetched me a shirt."

He would now read one more case to substantiate the charge of there having been violent and brutal outrages, and that case was fully as strong as those to which he had already called the attention of the House. The name of the witness was Richard Young, and he also lived in Hawick; but he did not venture to live in his house, but left it to go to the quarters of the candidate for whom he proposed to vote. But what took place before he left his house? The mob came and broke his windows, and his children being in the front room, it became necessary to take them to the back apartments; and having then been attacked with so much violence, he dared not stay any longer at home, but was compelled to leave his house and his children, in order to seek security for himself. His examination was to this effect:—

"I polled (he said) a little after two o'clock. I saw the treatment that many of the potters got, and I was afraid to come out to the poll. Nothing was said to me. I heard no offer of protection. I saw in the polling booth, Admiral Elliot, the two bailies, and Major Potts. The people outside said, Send Dick out.' That was said loudly several times."

The House would remember that he had already called their attention to the entrance and exit to the polling booths; and although in this instance the witness begged to be permitted to quit the booth by the safe mode of retreat, and applied for the protection of the bailies, he was compelled to go through the market-place among the mob.

"I asked," be said, "the protection of the bailies to go to the eastern door first, and they told me to stop a little; but they never said that they would give me any protection. I went up to the west door, and was up two steps of the door of the Tower inn. The constable was there. I applied to him to stand out of the road; to clear the road, and let me in. He did not. In consequence of not being able to get in, the mob catched me by the tails, and pulled me backwards. They commenced pulling the clothes off my back. They took off coat, waistcoat, and breeches, linen and flannel shirt. They left my drawers, stockings, and shoes, and breeches from the knees downwards. They tore my clothes off. They took me first to the end of the old bridge. A constable that was standing at the Tower inn door was with me. I caught hold of him, and kept hold of him, the same time on the bridge. He was along with me when at the bridge. The cry was, 'Throw him over the bridge.' They asked me if I would ever go in and vote for the Tories again. They caught hold of me by the neckcloth, and nearly strangled me. I fell. I got upon my feet again and tried to get away from the mob several times, but could not. They took me along the Tower-dyke-side As we were going along the Tower-dyke-side, I saw Mr. Elliot, of Woolfrey, a magistrate. I applied to him for assistance, He said he could not get at me. The mob carried me on. I got into Alexander Mayer's house, the currier, by the Tower-dyke-side, having lost all my clothes. I was kicked and struck several times on the head. They made several grasps at my hair, but it being short they could not get hold of it."

Now it might be said, that this process of throwing the voters, after having strip- ped and beaten them, into the river had been exaggerated, and that the water was not deep at the time; but it did so happen, that there was a witness present when the young man was thrown into the river; his name was Walter Scott, and he stated—

"I saw a man rise up from the water, and, after he rose up, he fell just down again; he was so exhausted that I could compare him to nothing but a weak sheep coming out of the washing pool. It was David Tully. Mr. Ballantine, of Shaws, was also in the hands of the mob."

He would now proceed to a description of the proceedings of the day as given by a military man, who might be regarded as an impartial witness. He alluded to the Honourable Major Napier, who was a passenger in the mail that passed through Hawick on the first day of the poll. After stating that the mail arrived at that place at one o'clock, and they found a great crowd assembled, he said,

"The mob went to the coach itself; he saw them walk round it, and look in at the windows; they were looking for Lord John Scott; they wished to know whether he was in the coach or not. The mob was a numerous one. I only saw one colour, a blue ribbon, which, I believe, the greater part of them had. One of the crowd said to me, 'If you value your life for a minute, do not attempt to come off the coach,' or some words to that effect. My answer to that was, I had nothing to do with it; I was no elector, but going to this house.' Upon that a man said, 'Really not?' I said, 'Really not;' upon which he took the ribbon out of his coat, and gave it to me, and told me to put it into mine, which I did; he then said, Now your life is safe,' and the mob gave a cheer."

What did hon. Gentlemen think was the view that Major Napier took of those proceedings under his eyes. He was asked,

"Did it appear to you to be a violent mob?—I never saw such a mob before; it was quiet for an instant, but it soon seemed to be worked up to a state of fury on their perceiving Lord John Scott had reached the baker's shop."

This was the evidence of one whom he was sure would be regarded by Gentlemen opposite as an impartial witness. He would proceed to the evidence of a clergyman of the church of Scotland, who was at the time of the election on a visit to Hawick, but who was not engaged in the election. The name of this clergyman was the Rev. Charles Thomson, who was on a visit at the house of Mr. Ballantine. Before, however, he proceeded with the evidence of this Gentleman, he would for one moment refer to the latter Gentleman. This Gentleman formerly was a strong Reformer, and had always supported the Liberal candidate until the last election. He stated in his evidence that the reason he then declined doing so, and he stated, that he informed the hon. Member opposite of his intention, and wished to remain neutral, was because he considered Mr. Elliot and his party were carrying things too far in politics, and he could not go with them. Mr. Ballantine stated, that, although he had declared his intention to remain neutral during the election, he had changed his mind, and voted for the hon. Member opposite, in consequence of the intimidation exercised towards him. The Rev. Mr. Thomson stated,

"Shortly after the polling commenced, my attention was called to the booth by a great noise at the end of the booth out of which the voters, after having voted, were to come. The crowd crushed towards that particular place, and a great deal of tumult and confusion went on; and in no very long period a number of individuals came running towards the house where I was, towards the bridge, over a small stream called the Slittrigg. They went and looked down the street, and soon after that, or about the same time that they came rushing towards the bridge, a number of persons came towards me, and I saw an elderly man in the hands of the mob, who maltreated him very much. I never observed the constables interfere in the slightest degree.

The first person maltreated on the first day of the polling was an elderly man?—At least I so guessed from his head being very bald. He appeared completely in the hands of the mob—he appeared borne off his feet among their hands; I could only see the upper part of his body down thus far (the breast); they were pulling him about, and they seemed to me beating him with their fists; and I saw an individual lay hold of a kind of long rail which appeared to be torn off an outside stair close by, and strike over the heads of two or three at the head of this old gentleman

He could enumerate several other instances, but as he had already trespassed on the indulgence of the House so long, he would not state them, as he should otherwise probably weaken their attention, and do injustice to his case; but there were not merely cases of violence, and rioting, and assault, but there were also cases of robbery. For instance, a person of the name of Berwick had his pocket-book taken from him, containing 12l. 15s. A man of the name of Oliver said, that the mob attempted to rob him of his watch. Mr. Smail, a voter, another witness, said—

"I was seized by the mob and dragged along the street for a great many hundred yards; my clothes were torn off my back, even my very shirt was torn off too, and I lost my hat, my coat, my stock, my pocket handkerchief, some valuable papers I had in my pocket, and some money, I cannot say to what amount."

Thus not only the violence of these lawless persons was great, but it seemed to be sanctioned by high authority. It was distinctly proved on oath, that both the bailies to whom the maintaining the peace of the town of Hawick was intrusted appeared decorated with the colours of the popular candidate. Mr. Ballantine said—

"I saw Bailie Goodfellow during the election wearing the blue colours, Mr. Elliot's."

Again, there was similar testimony as to the other bailie of the town, bailie Wilson, being similarly decorated. This was also stated in the evidence of Lord John Scott; who said, that Bailie Wilson when he came to the mail-coach to afford him protection was in an excited state, and appeared wearing the colours of the hon. Member opposite. He was bound to say, that speeches were made not only by the hon. Member himself, but by his brother the admiral. He (Sir James Graham) would not venture to characterise those addresses, but he would refer to the opinion and judgment on them of a most learned and respectable witness as to their nature. The Rev. Mr. Barton had seen the state of excitement which prevailed when the polling was stopped at one o'clock in consequence of the prevalence of disturbance. He was asked—

"Did you hear Admiral Elliot address the mob?

"Yes: I heard rather indistinctly that, in so far as I was able to remain at the window in consequence of the throwing of the stones. I heard him congratulate the mob upon their prospects of success; I heard him state, that they had received great provocation; I heard him caution them to be more moderate in their proceedings; I heard him state, that one or two had been rather roughly handled; I heard him recommend them to go home with quietness, and come back and give him their assistance to-morrow morning, and that there could be no doubt of the result."

This address was made to the mob at large, and not to the electors. He had mentioned two or three cases of persons having been brutally treated; he could describe from ten to fifteen similar cases of brutal treatment by this mob from the evidence of this witness; and notwith- standing this, the mob was requested by the gallant admiral to come the next morning to give their assistance. Could there be any doubt as to the nature of this advice? The next person whose evidence he should refer to was Mr. Selby, the agent to Lord Minto. One of the witnesses stated—

"He called upon the mob to desist, and said, He is not one of the bad ones,' or words that effect."

What was the obvious import of these words? Were they not quite intelligible? It would only mean a similar suggestion as that contained in the speech of Admiral Elliot. He had mentioned the speeches of Admiral Elliot and of Mr. Selby, the agent of Lord Minto: he would now shortly call the attention of the House to the speech of Bailie Goodfellow, who, according to the evidence of one of the witnesses, was said to be one of the persons who was taking an active and principal part in the riotous proceedings of the mob,

"Go home, my good fellow, and be quiet; go home, my good lad, and be quiet; there is another day coming, you know"

These words, he contended, clearly bore reference to the second day's polling. He now came to a part of the case which he could not help feeling a painful duty to be obliged to advert to. On the first day's polling Lord Minto had headed a procession and had taken an active part in the proceedings around him. He was present at Hawick during the election at the house of a relative of Bailie Wilson's, and this person had formerly been bailie of the town. In question 1847 it was said, that Lord Minto addressed the mob, but it did not appear that the witness heard what the noble Lord said. He was asked—

"Did you see Lord Minto, or did you hear him addressing the mob on the second day's polling?—I was not so near as I could hear him distinctly; I heard his voice, but I could not hear the words.

"Was he addressing the mob?—Yes.

"Did he take a show of hands on that occasion think he did, but I do not exactly recollect it; but I saw his Lordship addressing them."

According to his (Sir J. Graham's) English notions, there was some novelty in a Peer of Parliament addressing a riotous mob, proposing a question for their decision, and taking it by a chew of hands. He could make allowances in a case where a noble Lord's brother was candidate, and also for the great excitement that prevailed; but he must express his astonish- ment at the proceedings that had taken place. He was not aware that anything that he said could be construed into anything like treating the noble Earl with a want of respect; but he was bound to say, and to what he said he would adhere, that the noble Lord's position was peculiar, for he was not merely a Peer of Parliament, but was also one of her Majesty's confidential servants; and that, as a Peer, and still more as a Cabinet Minister, he ought not to have interfered with any part of the proceedings. Above all, the noble Lord should not have gone so far as to have interfered with the conduct of Mr. Craigie, the sheriff-substitute, when that functionary made an application to the Lord-lieutenant of the county, suggesting that the military ought to be directed to come within a shorter distance of the town. In this matter the sheriff-substitute had to exercise a nice discretion, and it was most unfit that the noble Earl, or any other person, should have interfered with Mr. Craigie. That gentleman filled a situation comparatively subordinate, viewed in contrast with the noble Earl. He was a person of no weight or authority, but he was responsible for the fair and open conduct of the election; and so much embarrassed was be by the difficulties to which he found himself exposed, that he stopped the poll; but there he unfortunately violated an act of Parliament, for he ought to have communicated the fact to the sheriff. In this state of things, he was pressed by the representations of the hon. Member's friends, and so overpowered by them, as to consent to re-open the poll. Such was the violence and confusion which prevailed, that the sheriff-substitute thought the presence of the military indispensable. What did Lord Minto then do? He told the sheriff substitute that, in the course he was taking, he had ventured to exercise a most unsound discretion. The noble Earl told Mr. Craigie, that peace would be preserved if he did not call in the military, and on the following day Lord Minto wrote as follows to the sheriff-substitutes:—

"Having been confidentially informed that there is an intention of calling a military force into the town, I should be wanting in my duty were I not to state my very strong opinion of the inexpediency of such a measure, as more than anything calculated to provoke disorder, and to lead to very serious calamities. From all that I have seen and heard, I cannot entertain a doubt that the magistrates, if subject to no intrusive interference, will, without difficulty, provide for the peace of the town and security of all persons"

And what did the House think the nature of this intrusive interference was? Why, applying to the Lord-lieutenant for his advice as to having the aid of troops to secure the peace of the town, where the poll had been interrupted in consequence of the rioting. For his own part, he thought that nothing could be more unwise and indiscreet than this interference on the part of Lord Minto. He thought that he had shown that these riots were not only of the most brutal character, but that they were intended for a particular purpose. He had already referred to the evidence of Mr. Burgess, which was clearly corroborative of this statement. Again, Mark Turnbull, gave this testimony:—

"Whilst in the hands of the mob, they took bold of my handkerchief round my neck several times; but always unlocked their hands by mine. It was just for being a Tory."

Another witness, Matthew Flew, was attacked, according to the evidence, just after he crossed the bridge.

"By the mob I was attacked; a great number of men fled over me; one halloed out after another, There is a Tory, kill him;' and some of them kicked me by the legs; they got my clothes off, and they tore my clothes, and put their hand in my waistcoat pocket; they got my stick, and struck at me over head, and in all manner of ways, and I got some blows, but not very serious, and I got my legs kicked. My hat was knocked off in the crowd and lost; and they prevented me getting into the inn for a length of time."

Another witness, Mr. James Cline, (whose testimony was quoted by the right hon. Baronet) gave similar evidence.

The object of these riots, then, was intended to produce a particular effect; it produced that effect, and, in many instances, they were both premeditated and successful He had already mentioned the case of Mr. Ballantine, who said, that he had intended to remain neutral during the election, but that he had been intimidated into voting for the hon. Member opposite. Another witness, Mr. Rutherford Shiel, said:—

"I met three men on my way to the poll. I took them to be Hawick men. They said I was a rank Tory, and if I proceeded on any further to the poll they would strip me of my clothes and tear me all to pieces."

The witness was alarmed at this, and returned to his inn, and went home without voting. This was also the case with the Rev. Mr. Barton and three other clergymen, who were with him in Hawick during the whole day of polling. One of these gentlemen, finding that he could neither poll as he wished nor return home in safety, actually made a proposal to the other party, namely, that he would vote for the hon. Member opposite if he might be allowed to return home without molestation. Lord John Scott said, that he arrived at Hawick the day before the polling, and that he did not poll because he did not think that it would be safe for him to do so. ["Hear, hear," from the Lord Advocate.] The number of the question was 4,580, and if the Lord Advocate would read it he would see that Lord John Scott did not vote.

"You were in the Tower Inn until after the close of the poll?—Yes, until after the close of the poll.

"You did not poll at all?—I did not at all.

"Now, I ask your lordship whether the violence you saw was sufficient in your judgment to intimidate and deter the electors from going to the poll.—Most undoubtedly."

Would Gentlemen opposite after this really contend that Lord J. Scott was not deterred from voting by the rioting and violence of the mob? That noble Lord had very good reason for believing that his attempt to vote was attended with danger, for he escaped with great difficulty from attacks made on previous occasions; and although he was exposed to perils from which he had escaped on one or two occasions, he might not be so successful the third time. In addition to this, they had reason to believe the bailie of the town was much alarmed respecting the safety of Lord John Scott. He had said, that this intimidation was successful, and he thought that they had evidence sufficient to show it was also premeditated. He had hitherto produced no evidence which had not been given before the committee, but he should now come to evidence which the committee had thought fit to reject, but which bore strongly on the case. The first witness of this kind to whose evidence he should allude, was that of Mr. Rutherford Shiel, taken from the precognition made by the sheriff; who stated:—

"About a week or ten days before the election I was in Beck's inn (the Coach and Horses), with Walter Wilson, baker, late first bailie of Hawick, on business, either receiving the price of, or selling wheat to him; when Wilson said that Hawick would not be beat, and that they had taken down a slap in the wall at, the Slitrigg, opposite Tam Wilson's could, to duck the Tories in, and to purge them of their sins. And I believe that four or five nights before the election this slap was actually made. I have no doubt this was said by Wilson for the purpose of intimidating me from voting."

The House would perceive that the arrangements had been made long before the election, to deter the voters from opposing the hon. Member opposite, and particular places were to be proposed to hurl the voters into if they should support the unpopular candidates. This, then, was the nature of the peaceful influence to be exercised by the electors. The next witness to whose evidence he should allude was that of John Turnbull, who stated, that he was a stocking-weaver, residing at New Castleton, which was one of the strongholds of the opponents of the hon. Member, and working in the shop of Bailie Wilson, at the head of the Crescent, up to two days previous to the last election.

"Had been working there for some time before the election. There might be thirty lads altogether working in that shop. Whilst at work I heard the conversation that was going on. It was about the election."

The evidence that follows was not received by the committee, because it referred to matters that took place four or five days before the election.

"There were between thirty and forty men and lads working in the shop, and they knew that I intended coming home before the election. The election was the constant subject of conversation amongst them, and they appeared either to be the parties themselves who were laying plans of mischief, or at all events were cognizant of the plans. In particular, they repeatedly addressed their conversation to me, and amongst other things they told me, that if I remained they would not make me throw stones, but they would oblige me to carry them for them to throw at the electors. They also talked much about plans being laid for stripping them of their clothes, and that they would get the good coat-tails to make waistcoats of. They also repeatedly talked of the electors being to be ducked in the river. That they would watch those with surtouts, as they would make the best waistcoats, &c." [Laughter.]

Was this, exclaimed the hon. Baronet, a matter for laughter? He should have thought that the hon. Members would have joined in expressing their indignation at such proceedings. The witness proceeded to say:—

"They also said that I might go home and tell the villagers that, if they got into the town, they would never get away safe again; for that if last election was ill for rioting, this would be much worse, and they said that if Mr. Scott got in they were determined that there should be bloodshed."

Again, it would be found in the return of evidence on the table that there were other instances of intimidation in this place. Mr. James Davidson, a voter for Roxburghshire residing in Hawick, deposed to the mob coming to his house at night, and alarming his wife and family.

"They called out loud to me; my servant came up stairs, saying, if I did not come clown and declare I would not vote, that was the last night I would have to live. To declare you would not vote?—Yes. How long did they remain about the house?—I do not know; it may be perhaps half an hour. Were any of the windows broken?—Yes. And I suppose your wife and your servants were greatly alarmed?—Very much alarmed."

Thus this voter was in bed with his family, and the mob came to his residence in the dead of night, and insisted on his promising not to vote, on the threat that if he would not do so, it should be the last night of his life. He had shown, that these proceedings were preconcerted, and would now go on to show that they had been continuous—that they had gone on from election to election—that they had spared neither rank nor sex—that outrages had been committed from time to time upon the highest as well as the humblest. In 1837, for instance, the Duchess of Bucclench had been grossly insulted in passing through the place. In 1836, upon the day when the magistrates of Hawick were giving a dinner to Lord Minto, the family of Colonel Macdonald, consisting of his wife and sister, who were in an open phaeton, and his youngest daughter, who was on horseback, on passing through the town were followed out of it for a mile by a rabble of upwards of 100 persons shouting, and yelling, and pelting them with mud. Well, what treatment did Mr. F. Scott meet with during his canvass? He had informed him, that Walter Wilson, the late first bailie, and then one of Mr. Elliott's committee, was the individual who said to Mr. F. Scott, the candidate in Hawick, soon after the attack made upon him at the commencement of his canvass in the spring, that "he would have himself to protect from the river the next time he came." Having traced the frequency of these riots throughout the election of 1837, and their continuity to some time previous to the late election, he now felt it his duty to bring before the House the circumstances of the election of 1835, and to prove that they were of a similar nature to those of 1837; he would read a short extract from a letter of the sheriff of the county to the learned Lord opposite. The learned Lord having put several questions to the sheriff, that gentleman replied as follows:—

"Your Lordship's first query is, 'Who were the voters or other persons to whom injury was done at the last election, as stated by the ninety-five electors?' To this I cannot at present add any information to the statement transmitted by the coach. As to names, I may add, that very few electors escaped being insulted and spit upon, and many were injured, and the general observation which they individually made to me after returning from the booth was, that they would never vote again at Hawick. Query 3 is, 'That you will ascertain from the memorialists, what are the recent occurrences in the district to which they refer. Who are the persons from whom they apprehend risk to themselves and their neighbours, and what is the nature and extent of that risk?' It is impossible for me betwixt this and the election, to ascertain from the memorialists what are the recent occurrences to which they refer. I presume they refer, among others, to the attack which was made upon the hon. Francis Scott and his friends upon his first visit to Hawick for the purpose of canvassing, when they were surrounded by a mob, by whom they were jostled, spit upon, and attempts made to throw Mr. Scott down, and after a severe struggle they succeeded in escaping into the Tower Inn. The persons from whom they apprehend risk are that proportion of the manufacturers in Hawick and others who are in favour of Mr. Elliot, and who were guilty of such frequent and violent breaches of the peace at the last election. The nature of the risk, I presume, is danger to their persons and injury to property. I may add, that one individual mentioned in the statement by Mr. Elliott transmitted to-clay, (Purdom) it is generally believed, died in consequence of the attack made upon him at last election."

With the permission of the House he would now read a short statement made by Lord John Scott of the treatment he received antecedent to another election, that of 1832, the first which took place under the Reform Bill. Having shown what the conduct of the people of Hawick had been at the elections of 1837 and 1835, he would show what had been their conduct at the first election after the elective franchise had been extended. Lord J. Scott, in regard to the election of 1832, would have stated before the committee:—

"I was a candidate at that election for the county, and was defeated by the hon. Captain Elliot. My supporters were on that occasion, and particularly at the polling-place at Hawick, very much abused by the mob, and my conviction then was, and still is, that they were encouraged to those acts of violence and annoyance by the Liberal candidate and his supporters. The magistrates of Hawick undertook the preservation of the peace on that occasion, but the constables were quite insufficient. I went to Hawick to give my own vote. I got to the poll-booth unobserved, and back to the inn, with the assistance of my friends, without receiving any injury."

The learned Lord Advocate doubted, that Lord J. Scott had been intimidated. Would the learned Lord have the goodness to give his attention to the following, which was a continuance of what he had just read:—

"I left the inn-yard soon afterwards, on horseback. My servant accompanied me, also on horseback. Immediately on leaving the yard, the attack by the mob commenced, and I was spit upon and pelted with mud and stones, and my horse struck: When about thirty yards from the stable gateway the mob set a bull dog at me, but it left me, and attacked my servant's horse. My servant hit it with his whip as it flew at his horse's shoulder, and it disappeared. The mob surrounded me, but two or three of my own friends stuck by me, and prevented the mob from unhorsing me, which they frequently attempted, crying, Get him down.' I moved on at a walk, and nearly at the end of the street I was struck by a stone on the cheek, which stunned me, and cut me severely, bat I rode on, and got away. None of the magistrates or constables attempted to assist me."

Of the accuracy of that statement he had not the remotest doubt. Lord J. Scott was not permitted to make it on oath, but upon the honour of that Gentleman, he (Sir J. Graham) asserted that it was entirely and strictly true. So much for the conduct of the people of Hawick at the elections of 1837, 1835, and 1832. Now arose the most serious question of all—can this state of things be allowed by the Legislature to continue? Ought it to be allowed to continue? Was it safe, was it decent, to sanction its continuance? He had already stated, that he did not impugn the decision of the committee, but he felt that he should not be discharging his duty if he did not point out to the House how seriously that decision had added to the evil. It was the decision of a committee, be it recollected, over which the Lord-Advocate of Scotland had presided, and which had come to something in the nature of a special report. The committee did not deny the allegation, that riots had taken place; but let the House now hear what was the judgment of that committee, the Lord-Advocate being a party to that decision. They stated, that the riots were not of such a nature or of so long a duration as to prevent votes from being (being what did they suppose?) from being taken in the matter of such election. So that if a voter was once allowed to give his vote, no matter what might be the treatment he afterwards experienced, the decision of the committee, if good for anything in law or in fact, amounted to this, that such treatment, however unjust, injurious, or objectionable in itself, did not vitiate the return. Such was the opinion of the Lord-Advocate of Scotland. Was the conduct which he had shown to have taken place at three consecutive elections for Roxburghshire, such as should have remained unpunished? Four or five persons were certainly brought to trial before the Court of Justiciary; but as far as relates to the elective franchise, the only trial which had taken place was a committee of that House over which the Lord-Advocate presided, and which had come to the decision that, although there might have been rioting, yet that if votes could be taken, there was nothing illegal, nothing to vitiate the return, in any misconduct that might subsequently take place. This, he said, was a premium upon such conduct. It was nothing more nor less than a receipt for carrying elections through the medium of popular riots, which would spread like lightning throughout the realm. He, therefore, called upon the House of Commons to arrest the progress of such an evil, by supporting the motion he was about to make. He proposed no violent remedy; all he asked was, that that House would mark their disapprobation of the continuous misconduct on the part of the people of Hawick by disqualifying that town from being henceforth one of the polling-places. The learned Lord by a cheer had led him to think, that some reliance might be placed upon the fact of certain trials having taken place before the Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In the first place, he believed, that only five individuals had been punished; and, secondly, that the decision of the committee was subsequent to these trials. But more than that, since the learned Lord had referred to these trials, he would gladly avail himself of the opportunity of reading the judgment of the learned judges who presided on the occasion. He began by stating, that living in the neighbourhood of Roxburghshire, he could declare, that the state of society in that county had been seriously and dangerously disturbed by these events. He now told them distinctly, that unless they promptly applied a remedy to such evils, they would roll back the tide of civilization half a century, and revive the old state of border feuds and warfare. If outrages such as these were to pass unpunished by the Legislature, the pastoral electors of Liddesdale would in future either remain at home, and be thus "practically disfranchised, or they would repair to the polling-place with arms in their bands, and revenge with blood, the insults offered to them. They might say, that that was the language of a civilian; but was it his language? Was it the language of a partizan, or of a person speaking under excitement? Let the House listen to the language of the judges of the courts of Scotland, and then answer the question. He was quite certain, that in those courts no party feeling existed, and he was about to read the judgment of one who had been the warm partisan of the noble Lord opposite and himself when in office. He alluded to Lord Cockburn, who was of opinion, that conduct of this description would inevitably lead to bloodshed. He would first read the opinion of Lord Mackenzie, who said—

"But what, in my opinion, is much the worse feature in the whole of this case is, that their clothes were torn off from them, and they were exposed in that degrading condition of nudity in the public streets of the town. I must say, that what has been stated and proved against these prisoners I have heard with deep regret. I should have thought there was not a town in Scotland or civilized Europe where it was possible to have persuaded a numerous assemblage of the people, no, not the least respectable among them, to have acted in this way; laying hold on decent people, stripping them naked, and-driving them along the streets of their-native town, and immersing them in a river. Acts of such cruelty, of such revolting indecency, I should have thought impossible to be caused by any excitement, that could be applied to Scotchmen. I am sorry to say the proof to the contrary, is now too clear, and I am afraid, that when we speak again of the high character of cur population, foreigners will be apt to point to this case, as justly calculated to moderate our national vanity. I do consider this matter in a very serious light indeed, and every man must consider it in the same way who puts to himself the question, what he would feel, or what his friends would feel, if treated in a similar manner. What would have been the ordinary feelings—I do not say of gentlemen, but of respectable men—at the idea of being stripped naked, driven in this condition through the streets of their native town, and treated as these seven individuals were? Many men would consider such treatment as worse than death; and there is no man, who is not degraded below the level of humanity—certainly below that of civilized humanity—who would not feel it as a most wretched calamity. And yet it is true, that this mob, in execution of the purpose of interfering with the freedom of election, inflicted those great evils upon a variety of individuals; with more or less violence they so treated seven different persons."

This was the opinion of Lord Mackenzie. What said Lord Cockburn who was Solicitor General for Scotland under Lord Grey's administration when the Reform Bill was passed?

"The chief aggravation of this case in my eyes, in place of being a palliation of it, its chief atrocity in my eyes, arises from the circumstance of its being committed in the midst of an election—committed not merely in the midst of an election, but for election purposes—for the purpose of obstructing the freedom of election. I do not know if there are many people who have a stronger sympathy than I have with the formation and expression of popular political opinion, and I don't know, that there are many who are disposed to look even on the excesses that attend political excitement with a greater degree of indulgence and tolerance. All vociferation which we heard something of—all exulting show by banners, convocations, or otherwise—all expression by each party of its own sentiments—all exultations, and all verbal defiance and ridicule of the enemy—all these are the natural adherents and are parts of the usage of elections. But it is just because I am a friend to popular election and grateful for the possession of the existing law, that I must, independently of the place where I sit, be a determined enemy to all election violence. I know not what that freedom of election is which consists in this; but when I give my honest vote according to my own opinion, I may be turned out on the streets of my native city in the degrading plight alluded to—a situation so degrading, that there are thousands of men, perhaps a majority of mankind, who would take the lives of their assailants, and willingly lose their own rather than submit to. That freedom of election is not the freedom of election that is meant by the law and constitution of our country. We are told, that such scenes were not uncommon in popular England. I don't admit that to be the fact. But it will be recollected, that the scenes that did disgrace the popular elections of England were so extraordinary, and lasted such a time, that even independently of the recent change of the law it amounted almost to an absolute certainty, that some minor changes would have been introduced to shorten the period of elections in that country and multiply the places where votes were given, in order to put an end to them."

And then Lord Cockburn went on to point cut almost the identical remedy to which he now called upon the House to assent—namely, multiplying the places of polling, which was considered at the time of the Reform Bill the best remedy, that could be applied to such a state of things. He would not, by any observations of his own, impair the force of the expressions which he had just read from the highest and most learned judicial authorities of the courts of Scotland; and having already detained the House, and trespassed, he feared too long, on their attention, by reading so much evidence—but he thought this a question in which a statement of facts was better than declamation, and he had studiously endeavoured to avoid saving anything which could be personally offensive to any one, while, on the other hand, his sense of duty compelled him to keep back none of the prominent facts of the case—he now begged to move for leave to bring in a bill, "to disqualify Hawick from being a polling-place for the county of Roxburgh, and to enable the sheriff of that county to appoint other polling places in lieu thereof."

said, that not being in the habit of addressing the House, he laboured under very great disadvantages, and he hoped therefore, he should not be considered unreasonable if he claimed a little more indulgence from the House than was given to Gentlemen more accustomed to speaking more especially as he felt called upon, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and his connection with it, to address the House at some length. In the observations he had to offer he should pursue an opposite course from that taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Baronet had taken a retrograde movement from the election of 1837 to that of 1832. He would commence his remarks with a reference to that of 1832, and conclude with that of 1837. It had been stated that the election of 1832 was disgraced by the most outrageous rioting. Now, he was not aware that anything which could be described as rioting took place on that occasion. Undoubtedly it was true, that an assault had then been committed on Lord John Scott, as stated; it was true that stones were thrown at the noble Lord and his servant, but neither stones nor mud were thrown at them until provocation was given by the noble Lord's servant, who thought proper to strike the people with his stick, as he was leaving the inn-yard with his master. He begged it to be understood, and he hoped the House would grant him its indulgence, that when he spoke as to these facts he only spoke upon information which he had received, and not from his own knowledge. At the time of the election in question he himself was in Bengal; but since that period he had been much on the spot, and the information which he had carefully collected upon the whole subject was from the most trustworthy quarters. In the year 1832, as he had observed, there were no riots which could be so called; at that election the charge of preserving the peace of the town was vested exclusively in the bailies, and no riot of any consequence took place. In 1835 the sheriff of the county refused to make over to the bailies of the town the charge of the peace. They represented that he had better do so; that the charge had been successfully fulfilled by them before, and that they could not well share the charge with him; the fact being, that the police officers for the rest of the county were violent partisans of the other opposite party, and the bailies of the town deeming that their authority over their townsmen would enable them to keep the peace better than if the charge was given over to the sheriff and justices of the county, the bailies said, "We are afraid that if you take charge of the town there will be disturbances." What was the sheriff's reply? "If there are any disturbances I will bring in the military.' It was to be observed that this threat of bringing in the military had been held over the town ever since the election of 1832. In this election of 1835 some disturbances did certainly take place; the windows of some of the Tory party's houses were broken, and he was sorry to add, that some of the Tory party themselves were maltreated, and such conduct was as strongly reprobated by himself as it could be by any Gentleman in or out of the House. There was not, however, very much harm done. One man was imprisoned for thirty days; but it was for an assault, and not on a charge of rioting. In the middle of the day the sheriff, who had taken upon himself the charge of the peace, finding this misconduct going on, presented himself at the window of the Tory committee-room, rather an unfortunate post for the sheriff to select; but it might be added, that he had throughout associated with the Tory Committee in this House. The sheriff presented himself at the window of the Tory committee-room and read the Riot Act—a most extraordinary proceeding, seeing that the town was at that time entirely free from anything which 'could be described as rioting. It was true that the snow lying on the ground at the time, some boys in the street, and very likely some of the men too, took it into their heads to make a cockshy of the sheriff, but this could hardly be talked of as a riot. The election went on, and Lord J. Scott was returned, and in the evening, though the town was perfectly quiet, and the streets almost empty, the military were sent for, to escort, as it was stated, the Conservative voters out of the town. By the address and presence of mind, however, of the chief magistrate of the town (Mr. Walter Wilson), any ill consequences likely to arise from this step were averted, and the military met with the most friendly reception on the part of the townsmen. He now came to the last election. It had been stated, that without occasion an application was made by ninety-five electors for the military to be present; in itself the most likely step to lead to disturbances. The military were ordered to Boswell's-green, twenty miles from Hawick; and the particular stipulation on which the bailies of the town took charge of the peace was, that no person should move these troop's from Boswell's-green unless by their desire—that the military should be at their sole disposal during the election. It had been said, that a plot was being laid for killing Mr. Donald Horne when he arrived in the town. It was not very likely that such a plot could be laid, and no precautions taken by the other Conservative voters for his protection. True, indeed, that another person, Mr. Bennet, was ill-used, apparently under the supposition that it was Mr. Horne, but Mr. Horne himself and a number of his friends had a great jollification the night before the election at the Tower-inn, Mr. Horne ingeniously getting a free passage to the inn by crying out "A great victory at Edinburgh—Gisbon Craig for ever." No Gentleman on the other side of the House had a greater respect for freedom of election than he had, or would do more to enforce it; he had given proof of this already this session, by supporting the measure which he disapproved of in other respects, because he thought it the only means by which he could protect the elector. Then came the question, what was the cause of all this. He did not defend the proceedings which had taken places: he greatly blamed them but what was the cause of them? What they had to provide was, a remedy against the causes which led to these proceedings, and these causes were the coercion and intimidation which had been followed up by the opposite side. The irritation to which this system of coercion and intimidation would give rise, if it were not put an end to, would everywhere give rise to retaliations from the oppressed party. He would give the House an instance of this oppression which had occurred in the present case. His informant, a person of great credit, had given him his name, but he would not subject him to after-visitations, by stating the name of that informant. The person to whom the information referred was an old man of seventy-eight, who had cultivated the same plot of ground for thirteen consecutive years, and had invested considerable capital in its improvement. He was canvassed for the Tory candidate, but he refused his vote, stating that he had always voted for the Liberals, and should continue to do so. Upon receiving this answer, he was instantly served with a notice to quit; and this notice to quit was held over his head until the election came on. When the election did come on, it was told to the man, that even if he did not vote, he might keep his land; and to this the reply was given by him, that "he would vote according to the dictates of his conscience." The man did vote, and as a reward for his incorruptible integrity, he was immediately turned out of his land. He assured the House that he was not telling the story of one man, but of fifty men. He asked any gentleman who heard him, if any population like that which was collected in a manufacturing town, and where people saw a fellow-townsman treated in the manner he had described, if such treatment was not likely to excite them? He did not, he could not, believe, that the Duke of Buccleuch could sanction such conduct in his agents; he would not believe, that such conduct was sanctioned by that noble Duke, or that he could be cognizant of it. But then it was not to be supposed, that when the people saw the agents and satellites of a great man act in that manner, that they would be perfectly quiet. He said, that they ought to be quiet; but then it was more than human nature could bear, to hope that they would be likely to be quiet. Now, with regard to the constables, it had been said, that the constables had not done their duty. Now, he must shew how the constables were appointed. It had been said, that the magistrates were partisans, and the constables must be partisans. It had been even sworn, that the magistrates had worn his colours. Now, he must declare upon his honour, that the magistrates never had worn his colours. It had been a great disappointment to the magistrates, that they had been prevented from swearing, that they had never worn his colours. Gentlemen, he was aware, had sworn that the magistrates had worn his colours, he was perfectly aware of that; but then these gentlemen were mistaken. The magistrates never had worn his colours, and they had even prohibited the constables from wearing colours, under the penalty of forfeiting all claim to remuneration for their services. It had been said, that the constables were partisans, and yet the fact was, that of tie: 150 constables chosen from the town, they were divided, as fairly as possible, between the two parties. From what the right hon. Gentleman had said then, and from what had been said elsewhere, it would be affectation in him to suppose that an attempt had not been made to connect the election riots with the members of his family. His hon. opponent, Mr. Francis Scott, had, indeed, roundly and plainly accused them of this, because his hon. opponent, he was sure, sincerely believed what he had said. That gentleman had roundly accused Lord Minto, his brother, of aiding, abetting, and assisting in all these riots. The hon. Member for Selkirk, who was in his place, and would probably like to answer a part of his speech, had made a statement which was equally unfounded. He did not attribute to that hon. Member the utterance of a willful mis-statement; but he did say, that both he and his hon. opponent had said that, which was utterly untrue from beginning to end. The hon. Member for Selkirk had said—

"My hon. Friend had not only to suffer the disappointment of his hopes on account of the cruelty to which his friends were exposed, but he had this further consideration to increase his regret, that those individuals who had in- stigated the mob, and afterwards approved of all their proceedings, were persons holding the highest place in the nation, and with whom his family had long been intimate, and whom he had been accustomed to look up to and respect. When we consider these things, we will then be able to conceive the disappointment and anxiety which Mr. Scott must have felt. In alluding to this subject, I do not think I have used too strong language."

Now, what was the ground for any such statement? Admiral Elliot went to introduce him to the town of Hawick, and, after urging the people to give him their support, Admiral Elliot, upon seeing about half a dozen women standing at some distance from the crowd, said, that the women had great influence over the electors there, as well as everywhere else, and he hoped that influence would be given to him (Mr. Elliot), and he appealed to them, both rich and poor, to give their support and influence. This, then, was the speech which was said to be an inducement to the electors of Hawick to commit those excesses of which they had been accused. The hon. member for Selkirk had, however, made a statement, and he now begged that hon. Gentleman to listen to it.

"Who was it, I ask, who first invited the non-electors of Hawick to take their part in these proceedings, and to use force to prevent the just and constitutional privileges of the electors of this county from being exercised? Admiral Elliot! He did, and who were the individuals who, during the whole of those two days, gave their countenance to the mob, and who had considerable influence in checking their proceedings beyond a certain point, and did not use that influence in giving their protection to the electors? Who were the individuals that interfered with the constituted authorities? Who prevented them from taking those measures which it was their duty to take, to preserve the peace of the town, and the electors from ruffian violence [cries of "Admiral Elliot and Lord Minto!"]? Who was it that prevented these same authorities from bringing forward that force which was necessary? and who was it that expressed his approbation of the conduct of the mob, and palliated those scenes of outrage which will long remain in the recollection of those who witnessed them [cries of" Admiral Elliot?"]

Now, he must say, that unintentionally the hon. Member had made a gross misstatement. In his speech he had said, that Lord Minto had stayed the whole of the day in the town of Hawick. The hon. Member, he was sure, would be greatly surprised to hear, that Lord Minto was never there at all, except for a quarter of an hour before the poll closed. The individuals who interfered most were those who sat in the Tower Inn, and who sent out their orders more like an emperor of China than like common individuals, and it was they who commanded, or attempted to command, the sheriff; and it was from that place the orders were issued? Then the question was asked—"Who was it prevented the constituted authorities from bringing forward the force that was necessary?" To that charge he must say Lord Minto pleaded guilty, and he certainly prevented the military being introduced into the town at a time when it was perfectly quiet. But he must give a few lines from the explanatory letter written by the hon. Member for Selkirk:—

"I cannot pretend to distinguish what share each of the three brothers had in countenancing by their presence the outrages of the Hawick populace, or in directing or advising the constituted authorities. They were all there during the greater part of the time, and I will not deny, that I had the noble Earl in my view, though not principally, when I made the allusion."

The hon. Member must certainly be either surprised to find, that Lord Minto was never in the town-upon the first day of the poll but for half an hour, and as for himself he was not there at all. Now, it was not pretended by anybody, that upon the second day of the poll there was any riot at all. Even the sheriff, in his depositions, said, that even on that day there was no riot at all. He acknowledged, that his brother, Admiral Elliott, was in the town; he went to the polling-booth, and told the sheriff he could make use of him in keeping the peace, and if he could be of any assistance in keeping the peace, he trusted, that the sheriff would avail himself of his services. The sheriff did not send for Admiral Elliott; but at twelve o'clock, Lord John Scott, who had arrived, accompanied by another gentleman from Edinburgh, went immediately into the town; the mob closed on them, and they were pushed by force and by the weight of the people; they went to a house on that side of the street. Upon hearing of this, Admiral Elliot addressed the people; he called upon them to open the street for Lord John Scott and his friend. They did open the street, and at the time when the disturbance was at its greatest height both gentlemen walked through that great crowd of the people, and this, too, without the slightest insult being offered to them What was the reward for all this that had been received by Admiral Elliot? It was said, indeed, that he did not want Lord John Scott to be injured, because it would have brought disrepute upon his party. This was his reward, instead of being thanked for his kind offices, and it was in that manner that these acts had been misinterpreted. No sooner, however, had Lord Minto arrived from London, than a communication was made to him by the bailiff of Hawick, requesting of him, of course as a magistrate, to keep the peace of the town. To that it was replied by Lord Minto, that he should be most happy to give his assistance, but that he was afraid that a person who was a cabinet Minister interfering would be taken hold of, and, therefore, he begged to be excused; but that if anything happened, he should re-consider the subject. Lord Minto, therefore, did not go to Hawick; but in the evening, at a late hour, hearing that irregularities were going on, he did get before the polling place, and then he found, at that time, although assaults had taken place, that the town was perfectly quiet. Throughout the day there never was anything that could be termed a riot. That there had been misconduct and violence he did not deny. [Laughter!] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but surely there was a distinction between a riot and an assault. Individual assaults had taken place, but there was nothing like a general riot. Here he would beg leave to inform the House of something of which it had not yet heard, namely, the manner in which the proceedings of the first polling day commenced. At seven o'clock in the morning, a party of farmers coming into the town were partially assaulted by some idle boys at its entrance. Notice of this was sent to the sheriff, and he immediately sent notice of it to the magistrates, telling them, that if it happened twice, as it had happened once, he should immediately send off for the military. No sooner did intelligence of this threat get abroad, than a great excitement commenced in the town; and he appealed to those who knew anything of the feelings of election towns, whether a threat of that nature was not the most likely thing in the world to create the riot which it was uttered to avert. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a person named Richard Young, who had been ill used at the polling place. Now, whatever intentions might have influenced some persons in interfering with the free- dom of election, the very assault committed upon that person did not arise from any such motive. The case of Richard Young was this—he had belonged to the Radical party, but he had become converted upon receiving some land from the Duke's agent, and with this he had changed his politics. Now, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite; he did not mean to make any personal remark that could be disagreeable to that right hon. Gentleman; but that right hon. Gentleman had changed his politics. He did not look to the motives for that change; but this be must say, that if they could believe the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, the people of Carlisle seemed to entertain sentiments upon a change of that sort which were something similar to those which influenced the people of Hawick. "I did not suppose, said the right hon. Gentleman, that I should have been hunted almost like a mad dog through the streets of Carlisle, and that my unoffending son would have been knocked down at my feet and almost trampled upon. I regret, for the honour of the county, to be compelled to state, that scenes took place on that occasion which I think disgraceful to the free institutions under which we live." He must say, after that speech, that if Hawick were to be disqualified, it must at least have partners in its misfortunes This, then, was not intended as an improper interference with the freedom of election, but was intended more for the purpose of the people marking their dislike of such persons in changing their politics, as had occurred with that unhappy man, Richard Young, and who must have known that he was likely to be assaulted by his own friends. And yet the man, knowing this, went out of the polling place by the entrance-door amongst the electors, instead of proceeding by the back way to the Tower Inn, and in doing so he was seized by the people. Patterson, too, was also one of those who had changed their politics. The motive was not to interfere with the freedom of election, but to demonstrate a dislike to persons who had changed their politics. He wished to correct another mistake which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman: it was with respect to the polling place. The sheriff had first proposed that the polling place should be in the Tory Committee! a place where a great number of his voters would not go, and in fact would, rather, proceed to a place—he should not say where. He did not know where the polling place was to be moved from Hawick. In Roxburgh there were four distinct polling places. The sheriff had passed over Melrose, because it was thought to be a favourable position to his party. It was in that way that the sheriff of the county had arranged the polling places, when they were first fixed; and although the gentleman was a relation of his own, and they were very good friends, yet he said, "Good Lord! deliver him from his tender mercies!" He had mentioned that Lord Minto went on the evening of the 3rd of August to Hawick, and when he got to the polling places there was no appearance of disturbance. The sheriff was at that time however writing for the military, and he appealed to the House whether anything could be more injudicious or more imprudent than to bring a handful of soldiers into a town which was in a state of excitement, and when, in fact, there was no occasion for them. Lord Minto had not been long in the town before he received a letter from Lord Lothian, the lieutenant of the county, requesting him to meet him at——Bridge, where he had arrived with the troops under his command. Shortly afterwards a servant of Lord Lothian arrived in Hawick stating that the information of rioting at Hawick, upon which he had moved the military up and down the county, was incorrect, and that he had therefore ordered them to march home. On Friday morning Lord Minto got a letter from Lord Lothian, requesting him to join him immediately at a village called Denholm. Lord Minto accordingly went over and met him. When this letter was received, another also arrived from the magistrates of Hawick, imploring him for God's sake to come to their assistance, stating that the town was lit a state of great excitement, that bloodshed would ensue, and that assistance was absolutely necessary. Lord Minto went to Denholm, and met Lord Lothian at the head of his troop of yeomanry, attended by some gentlemen of the county. Lord Minto begged Lord Lothian not to take the troops into Hawick, saying, that the entrance of thirty mounted troopers into a town in which everything had been done that could be done to excite them to violent measures, would be attended with the utmost danger. He urged Lord Lothian not to go with his troops, and said, "Go with me, ride into the town with me; if any disturbance takes place, let you and I together, or you by yourself, do what we can with the civil power; and if we cannot succeed in repressing it, then will be your time to bring in the military." Now he put it to every Gentleman in that House whether this was not the course dictated by the spirit of the constitution. Would it be right first to bring in the military, and afterwards have recourse to the civil power? Lord Lothian did not take the military into Hawick, but he took them to a place three-miles from the town, where they remained. Now he begged the right hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment to what he was going to say. Lord Minto was guilty of the heinous offence of speaking to the people, telling them not to be riotous, or to make any disturbance and he would do his best to keep the military out. The people cheered his advice, and Lord Minto proceeded to say, I do hope I may depend on you this day, and that not one of you will make the slightest disturbance. The people cheered again, and Lord Minto said, you will give me a token that not one will move from the spot on which you stand, till the voters in the Tower Inn have polled, (this was on the morning of the second day), and I will go and pledge my honour, on the faith of that token, that they may all come in safety, and without the slightest danger to the poll. Now, he wanted to know what was the meaning of trying to connect his family with riots of this sort alleged to have occurred, when it was clear that his brother had done every thing in his power to maintain tranquillity. It was most unwarrantable; it was most ungenerous; it was not only ungenerous, it was—but he would not go on with the sentence. The opposing candidate was his own intimate friend, and the hon. Gentleman opposite knew well, that neither himself, nor any member of his family had ever borne a character which could countenance such a stigma. Though the hon. Gentleman might believe what he stated, and he thought the hon. Gentleman did believe it, for he could not suppose that any Gentleman would stand up and wilfully state what was false, if the hon. Gentleman did believe it, he ought to have been more cautious in examining the statements made to him, and for the future he hoped this would be a lesson to the hon. Gentleman, not to be gulled by a parcel of erroneous information, and to make statements calculated to create an entirely false impression. What was the real mo- tive of all this? From the commencement of the election, till the end, one system was pursued by the opposite party, which was, to make a case to serve their purpose afterwards. He should state, in the first place, that great hopes were held out, as he knew, to his opponent and to a noble person, much interested in the success of the election, that the election would be gained. Only a few days before the election, that noble person was informed that his party would gain by a majority of forty. It was impossible that that could be the case, and, therefore, those persons who held out these hopes, must have known that they were holding out fallacious hopes to that noble person, and it was necessary, therefore, when a disappointment ensued, that there should be some good excuse for the failure—that some plausible cause should be assigned for the loss of the election. What, then, was the course pursued by the opposite party? On the morning of the first day, they began with a protest from ninety-four voters, stating, that they would not go to the poll, unless they had further protection. Well, what came next? Lord John Russell, in his deposition stated, (Report, page 154, question 4,588),—the House would observe it was a most extraordinary statement—that he did all he could to prevent the voters from going to the poll. Seven of the county magistrates sent a declaration to the polling sheriff, stating, that they had resolved, in their character of justices of the peace, not to allow any voter to leave the Tower Inn, and to prevent the electors who were there from exercising their functions. Now, he begged to know, whether it had ever yet been heard of, that seven justices could step forward, and prevent any gentleman who wished to poll from doing so? And yet, while all this was going on, Colonel M'Donald informed them, he was making notes of all the proceedings; no doubt, with some ulterior intention. What, then, was the result of this great attempt to prevent ninety-four persons from going to poll? What was the effect produced? Of those ninety-four persons who protested they could not go to the poll, eighty shortly, or almost immediately afterwards, went to the poll. Notwithstanding the prohibition of his party, at number voted; and the most extraordinary thing was, that only a few retainers of the party did not poll, and the reason they did not do so was, that if they did go to the poll they would be beaten. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that Lord J. Scott was afraid to go to the poll. Lord J. Scott never said such a thing—he never stated any such thing he never could have intended to say any such thing. Neither he nor Colonel M'Donald could have been afraid; he relied upon the professional character of the one and the conduct of the other, that they could not have been afraid. These two Gentlemen had walked through the town uninjured, even when the excitement was at its greatest height. He ought to mention, that 100 more constables had been appointed, and that the next morning, when it was said, that persons were afraid to go to the poll, he supposed that mote than 300 constables had stood to guard a space of six yards. These 300 constables guarded a space of six yards in length. He could assure hon. Gentlemen, that the town was more quiet than that House had been that night. Disorderly as Hawick had been described to be, he could assure them, that in that House, there had occasionally been more disorder than in Hawick on that day. Lord John Scott and Col. M'Donald had not been injured the first day. Was it possible, that they could be afraid to go to the poll the next day? There was Mr. M. M'Cormick; he had come to the poll with his (Mr. Elliot's) colours on his carriage. But, then, that Gentleman was known to be conservative; he polled, voted against him, walked to the Tower inn, baited his horses, and then left the town, and nobody even said a word to him. So might any other gentleman have done the same. In fact every body might have done the same. These gentlemen, however, did not do it; but they came to a resolution, that there was the greatest state of intimidation existing in a town which was perfectly quiet. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, that there was an assault of any kind, nor did he pretend to say so. There was one point more he wished to refer to before he sat down. A letter had been written from Lord Lothian to the sheriff at Hawick. He should say, that applications had been coming out all day long for the military. These applications came from the Tower inn. No military were wanted, unless for the same reason as in 1835, in order that their presence might produce evidence of a riot whether any occurred or not; and what had happened in 1835, happened again in 1837. It was published in all the newspapers, that the troops had been brought in, and that the voters were escorted out by them. Now there was not a word of truth in this. What did Lord Lothian say, in answer to the application of the sheriff? He had not got the letter of the sheriff, but he would read the reply; it was this:—"Sir—As you have not stopped the poll, and as you state that there is no rioting, I do not feel myself justified in marching the troops into Hawick at this moment. As soon, however, as the poll is closed for the day, I shall direct Captain Royds to enter Hawick, upon my receiving from you an application to do so, for the safety of those Gentlemen whose departure cannot be secured by the civil power." Who said that they could not ensure the safety of those voters? Their safety would be insured, but they would not come out. He could congratulate the House, that he was coming to the end of his story. He had not himself arrived at Hawick till the evening, just an hour before the poll closed. That was the first time he appeared in Hawick, although the hon. Member for Selkirkshire (Mr. Pringle) said, that he had been instigating the people at Hawick all day. When he came into Hawick, to the polling place, he found the people sitting exactly as they were sitting in that House. There was a space in the centre, and the people were ranged around it. He naturally went into the polling booth, and after a few general observations, he asked what was the meaning of the voters being in the House? The sheriff said, that he did not know, but that they would not come to the poll. Immediately before this, Admiral Elliot had gone to the sheriff, and being determined, that the other party should not get to windward of them, he declared, that he would smoke them out. Admiral Elliot went to the sheriff and said, "On the part of my brother, I promise to consent to your going with the poll-books to the Tower Inn, and taking the poll of the rest of the Gentlemen there." If the hon. Gentleman opposite did not believe this statement he would refer them to the evidence. What did the sheriff say? He said, that there was no occasion for his going there, as there was no reason why the voters should not come to him. He (Mr. Elliot) came up at this time and said he would go and speak to the people, and accordingly he got up on the hustings and made one of those eloquent speeches for which he was so famous. When he had concluded, he must say, that he was guilty of the same abomination as his brother—he caused a show of hands to be taken to make the people promise that they would remain stock-still where they were till every man of the opposite party had polled. When this was done he went over to the Tower inn, and there met Mr. Horne, and raid to him, "Mr. Horne, whatever reason you may have for staying here, I will on my honour guarantee, that every man shall go mid poll without the slightest difficulty if you will only let me go into the room and tell them so." Mr. Horne said, "No, sir; you are too late—the doors are shut.' He (Mr. Elliot) went back to the polling-booth and waited there till the poll was closed. He said two or three times to the polling-sheriff, "Will you have the kindness to look and see if there is any difficulty in coming to the poll?" The sheriff said repeatedly, that they could come out if they chose. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case he asked the sheriff to give a certificate, that there was no obstruction put in the way of the poll. The sheriff hesitated. He (Mr. Elliot) then said, "I do not wish to take you by surprise. If you think there is such an obstruction as to prevent them coming to the poll, my opponent Mr. Scott, is entitled to a certificate; if therefore, you think the voters are obstructed, give a certificate to Mr. Scott to that effect." The sheriff said he did not think there was anything to prevent them. He (Mr. Elliot) then said, that he claimed a certificate as an act of justice to himself. The sheriff thereupon wrote a certificate in these words:—"I hereby certify, that no obstruction has been offered to any person coming to poll this day." He Mr. (Elliot) said, that would not do—that he was sure the sheriff intended well—that he was perfectly honest in his intentions, and he called upon him to give a certificate stating, that the voters might come if they chose. The sheriff then altered the words of the certificate, and stated that there was no obstruction in the way of those who chose to come to poll. He was sorry that he had not got the certificate. What did the sheriff say in his evidence? He stated in his evidence that he was asked what was the meaning of the electors not coming forward, as there was no obstruction; and he thought he said that he was entitled to a certificate, stating, that in his (the sheriff's) opinion, nothing occurred to prevent them; and he thought he said that he could not give such an opinion—that his opinion clearly was, that rioting had taken place, and that the voters were under such a reasonable dread of bodily harm as prevented them coming forward. This was what the sheriff stated now, but he declared that it was not what he then said. The sheriff stated, that he had a bad memory, and that he was not himself certain of what had passed. He stated before the Committee that he was not certain of what had passed. Now, he recollected perfectly what had passed. He was certain that there had not been any open rioting or violence, and he proposed that the sheriff should sign a certificate to the effect that no obstruction had been offered to those who chose to come. The certificate was dictated by himself, and he had no doubt that the honest intention of the sheriff was, to state, that there had been no obstruction to prevent the voters coming to the poll that day if they chose to come. He would refer to one other passage. The sheriff, being asked what he meant by giving a certificate that no obstruction had been placed in the way of the voters, stated before the Committee that his feeling was, that there was no riot or open violence, but that they, the people in the Tower Inn, were under a moral obstruction from what had taken place yesterday. These electors, then, were acting under a moral obstruction from yesterday. But if this moral obstruction was so great as to prevent the voters from coming out, why did not the sheriff go and take the poll at the inn? This was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. It was stated, that the election riots were so tremendously violent that the election was interfered with, and the voters could not get to the poll. Now, it appeared from the evidence, that the polling was nearly equal on both sides all day; and if that were the case, he could not understand upon what grounds proceedings could be taken against the town of Hawick for interfering with the election. As he said before, the polling for the whole day was very nearly equal. In one place, when he (Mr. Elliot) was 147, his opponent, Mr. Scott, was 105; when he was, in another place, 50, Mr. Scott was 53; when he was 179, Mr. Scott was 100; and when he was 141, Mr. Scott was 116. Could any polling be much more even than this? He appealed to the House whether any election could be much more equal. There were 579 voters, of whom 521 polled; 300 for himself, and 221 for Mr. Scott. It was said, that the people were intimidated and staid away. Now, if this were the case, there would be a good many absentees in this district. There were two other polling districts, Jedburgh and Kelso, and in neither of these was it pretended that there was a particle of riot. And what occurred in these places? Why, there was precisely the same proportion of absentees in these two districts; and as he had a right to say that these twenty-one voters in the Tower Inn might have polled on any part of the second day, if these voters had polled, a great deal larger a proportion of voters would have polled in this district than in any other in the county. How then, he would ask, could the voters have been intimidated and kept away. He had forty-four majority, and he had not polled out. Every one conversant with the management of an election knew that it was usual to keep a corps of reserve, whom the party did not wish to bring forward, unless it was absolutely necessary. He had a few of these still remaining. Mr. Scott, therefore, must have polled upwards of fifty votes more before he would have overtaken him, and there were hardly any absentees left on his side. He really must say, that a more palpably absurd story was never invented in the face of Europe. He would not trouble the House much longer. He was exceedingly grateful for the attention they had given him. There were one or two things, however, which the right hon. Baronet referred to which required some notice from him before he sat down. He wished to state a few facts as to the way in which this petition had been got up. The right hon. Baronet had stated there were 629 names to the petition which he had presented. Out of these 629 names 184 belonged to the district of Hawick, and this district was to be disqualified on account of a petition signed by only 184 persons. It was to be disqualified as a polling place. Out of these 629, as he had stated, only 184 belonged to Hawick. There were in that district 591 who had not signed the petition. This showed what was the true feeling of the district. What did the people of the other districts know of the polling, or the riots, or the obstructions at Hawick, except what they heard from third parties. It was evident from the beginning that they were trying to make out a case. The particulars were drawn up and prepared according to the form at the former election; they were prepared before the time of using them, thus clearly showing what the intention was. What could these petitioners know of the matter, except what they heard from the agents of the opposite party? One of these petitioners, a voter, had called upon him in London, and recollecting that his name was attached to the petition, he said to him, "Drummond, why did you sign the petition; you are not connected with Hawick?" He (Mr. Elliot) took down the reply at the dictation of Drummond, and it was as follows: "The only petition I have signed is one which was brought to me by Mr. Francis Scott about a month ago, as nearly as I can remember, and which he told me was to pray for a polling place at Melrose. He said nothing about Hawick, and I did not see what was written; but knowing that it would be convenient to have Melrose as a polling place, I signed my name." The man's signature was to this statement; he had, no doubt, that his hon. opponent had never intended to cheat this man out of his signature, but he ought to have taken care to explain what the contents of the petition were before he asked persons for their signatures. If this was the way in which the 629 signatures had been obtained, the petition was not worth much. What were the crimes of Hawick, for which this severe retribution was to be inflicted? Her crimes were not that somebody had had his coat-rail torn there, or had been thrown into the river—which, by the by, he might say, was a small stream, deposed to as being "three, or perhaps four," feet deep, though one of the judges, in charging the jury, had made a most extraordinary mistake in stating the depth of the river to be six feet deep, and though the right hon. Baronet had also made a mistake about it, for no one was thrown into the river—no, not even Richard Young. As to the depth of the river at the late election, he believed the fact was, that there were two feet of water in it. A question had been put to a witness before the committee, as to what was the depth of the river. "About," said the Scotchman, "about sax or twal inches." With respect to what had been urged on the head of wounds inflicted with unlawful weapons, he must confess that wounds had been so inflicted, for one man in the crowd had been wounded in the but end with that unlawful weapon—a pin. But then, was it not too bad to hear so much about the torrent into which men were thrown to sink or to swim, that torrent being full six inches deep? However, as he had said, none of these things constituted the real crimes of Hawick; they were these, that the place was full of intelligence, of enterprise, and above all, of political integrity. These were the crimes which it was sought to punish by this Bill, for the measure was not intended for the benefit of the voter, or for the benefit of anybody. It was an ex post facto law to punish the people of Hawick, because they had dared to resist the mandates of the satellites of the great Buccleuch. Every sort of coercion, every sort of interruption, every sort of corruption, had been attempted, but the political principle of Hawick, whatever faults its people might have, were thoroughly staunch; and now, when all other means had failed, down came the right hon. Baronet to ask the House of Commons to make itself the deputy to the factor of the Duke of Buccleuch. This was the object of the present motion. It was a party motion. It had no other motive but party, and, having this motive, he would give it his most determined opposition.

addressed the House at considerable length, but the hon. Member, we regret to say, was inaudible.

, amidst loud cries of "divide, divide!" which interrupted him for some moments, said, that the question was a new one, and he, therefore, hoped, although the hon. Gentlemen opposite had come down pre-determined to vote for the motion of the right hon. Baronet, that they would allow it to be fully and fairly discussed.["Question!" and "Divide!"] He was unwilling to trespass upon their attention, and nothing but a sense of duty could induce him to press his sentiments upon the House. This was not only a new, but an important and a constitutional question, and if they adopted the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, he could not help thinking, that they would be establishing a dangerous precedent. At all events, they ought not to go to a division without hearing the opinions of those parties who were informed on the subject. Not only was the question a new one, but the proposition of the right bon. Baronet was one that was never heard of before. ["Divide, divide!"] The object the right hon. Baronet had in view was to have the polling-place removed from Hawick, and simply because riots had ensued in consequence of the introduction of the military, not only when there was no occasion for their presence, butt in fact, be- fore any disturbance began. He feared, that, if the precedent were once established, they would soon have all other elections placed under military control, and this, he should be able to show, would be an unconstitutional proceeding. On what was the motion founded? Why, on the evidence taken before the Roxburgh Election Committee: but it should not be forgotten, that the whole of that evidence proceeded from partisans, whose statements, therefore, were characterised by exaggeration. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt fairly with the evidence, and had used it only so far as it would serve the purpose which he had in view. He had made it appear, from the manner in which he described the evidence of Mr. Patterson, that he was a much injured person. [Sir James Graham had stated nothing, but merely read the evidence from the report.] He knew the right hon. Baronet did so; but that was what he complained of; the very fact of his quoting from the book, showed that the right hon. Baronet had read the whole evidence, and vet he quoted only a part of it. This person, on his cross-examination, gave the following evidence:—

"You have said before, that you think it certainly must have been meant as a joke; have you not said, that you thought it was meant as a joke, the administering the oath to you?—Yes; I thought that"

So that this very person thought the thing a joke. On the trial at Edinburgh, on his cross-examination, this person said, "I did not think that more was meant than a joke. I thought that it was all a joke." Then, the right hon. Baronet had told them of the water scene, and he had picked out a part of the evidence of Mr. Scott, and omitted the other. And what (lid this witness say, who might be supposed to be under the influence of terror, and likely to overstate the circumstances?

"They forced you down in Mill-wynde?—Yes.

"When you got there, did anybody do anything to you?—Yes; there was a precipice between four and five feet high, sloping down to the river, and the multitude pushed me down there; there was a little water at the foot of the place; the river swells sometimes, but there was a little at that time; I received a blow on the back of my head.

"Was the water shallow enough to enable you to wade to the sand bed?—Yes.

"How deep was the water there?—I do not know; it might be six, or eight, or ten, or twelve inches deep.

"What was the breadth of the water."

Why, in his examination on the trial, where he seemed to try to exaggerate, stating that the river was high, he says that the rivulet was about a yard broad and a foot and a-half deep. Then the right hon. Baronet had told them of voters deterred from going to the poll, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Rutherford Shiel; and he had read a part, and a part only—he had read that part which was in his own favour, and kept back that which made against him. Mr. Rutherford Shiel was on his way to the poll. After the passage which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, came this:—

"Did you make any other attempts to go to the poll?—None.

"Were any of the mob standing outside widow Wilson's?—Some were standing there after I went into the house; again I found them both passing and re-passing.

"Whilst you were there, did you see any electors attacked—any of Mr. Scott's voters?—None.

"Did you see any constables in the town?—I saw constables going in.

"Many of them?—When I went in I saw constables.

"Did you apply to any of them to protect you?—No.

"Did you apply to the bailie to protect you?—No.

"Or apply to any one for protection?—None at all.

"And you went home?—Yes:

The evidence of Mr. Scott went to show that, so little did he consider himself in danger, that he did not apply to the constables for protection, and the only molestation he received was, that some one cried out "A Tory," as he went along. Amongst the other statements of the right hon. Baronet was a charge of robbery against some of the crowd. It was said, that Mr. Berwick was robbed of his pocket-book, containing 12l., but it turned out that the pocket-hook was returned by a boy, who found it in the streets. [Sir James Graham had read that in his extracts from the evidence.] It was true the right hon. Baronet had said that the pocket-book had been returned, but the right hon. Baronet had not stated the whole case. This return of the pocket-book showed, that the mob in the streets of Hawick, and those who led them, were more scrupulous of what they were suffered to do than they got credit for. He did not mean to defend any violence, by whomsoever committed, but he envied not the feelings of those who brought a charge of robbery against the people at Hawick, on such grounds as the hon. Baronet had stated. The right hon. Baronet had referred to the evidence of Mr. R. K. Elliot, a decided partisan, to show that the magistrates had failed in their duty; but to what did that evidence amount? It was, that Bailie Goodfellow was within the railing, and, by his gesticulations, he seemed as if he wished to pacify the mob, but he (Mr. Elliot) did not hear anything that was said by the bailie. Stress had been laid upon the number of windows broken; but he (Mr. Horsman) contended, that no greater acts of violence had been committed than those which were inseparable from all popular elections. No such outrages had taken place as the right hon. Baronet had described, but only some of those slight acts of violence which were almost inseparable from elections, and even those had been provoked by the introduction of the military. He would refer to cases to show how strongly the practice of introducing the military at elections had been condemned by the House, and by individual Members. The first case to which he would refer in order to show how decidedly the House had set their faces against the introduction of military at elections, even while a riot was taking place, was in the case of the election of Sir P. Musgrave for Carlisle in 1827. A desperate riot had occurred on that occasion; and the military were called in. The subject was brought under the consideration of the House by the right hon. Baronet, the present Member for Pembroke, in the shape of a petition from certain inhabitants of Carlisle, complaining of the unconstitutional introduction of a military force at the last election for that city. The right hon. Baronet observed, that he would admit that the ordinary squabbles which took place at elections were beneath the notice of that House; but when the right of election was interfered with, and the free exercise of the elective franchise prevented by the interference of a military force, he thought he should not perform his duty if he allowed any personal feelings to prevent his bringing it before the House. The right hon. Baronet then went on to show that the use of military force was unnecessary, and that the civil force would have been fully sufficient to quiet the disturbance. On the same occasion Mr. Secretary Peel "deprecated, in the strongest terms, any unnecessary calling in of the military to assist the civil power." He proceeded to say, "The people of Carlisle had hitherto relied on the presence of the military in the case of any disturbance; but he must now tell them that, that reliance must be at an end, for he would not lend his assistance to calling in the military on every trifling breach of the public tranquillity." The right hon. Secretary then entered into a description of the riot which had taken place on that occasion at Carlisle; by which it evidently appeared that-it was of a far more serious character than that which had occurred at Hawick. He would now refer to the case of another riot in Carlisle, in 1821, when many men had been knocked down and some had their legs broken. In the debate on that occasion the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire observed, that "to call in the military during an election was an infringement of the rights of the people as respected the election of their representatives, which nothing but the clearest necessity could justify." When the inquiry into the subject by the Committee of Privileges was finished their report contained the following passage:—"That it does not appear to this Committee that there was any riot or tumult of that dangerous and uncontrollable magnitude which alone can excuse the introduction of an armed force during the period of an election, without a previous resort to the utmost exertion of the civil power." In the speech which followed the presentation of that report, the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said," it was impossible not to disapprove of the introduction of the military; but it was proved that at the particular time when that took place, the civil power was placed upon a very inadequate footing." In the case of Hawick, however, the military were not introduced merely at a particular time. They were introduced before the election and during the election. The hon. Member for some time persevered in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a hearing; at length, finding all his efforts unavailing, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

expressed his hope that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his motion for adjourning the debate. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would finish the observations which be wished to make, and that the House would listen to him. ["Divide, adjourn, go on."]

said, that probably his hon. Friend, the Member for Cocker-mouth, had nearly completed all he had to say, but his learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, had been so grossly attacked, that it was due to his own character to answer the charges which had been brought against him, and the hour was too late for that purpose. He (Lord John Russell) therefore supported the motion for adjourning the debate.

Debate adjourned.