wished again to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Warwickshire (Sir E. Wilmot) whether he was prepared to give notice of any measure founded upon the resolution adopted by the House the other evening?

In consequence of the noble Lord having so decidedly stated on the night that the resolution was carried, and also upon several occasions since, that he should oppose any measure that might be introduced to carry the resolution into effect, and in consequence of its being one of the strongest arguments of the anti-abolitionists, that the agitation raised by the friends of immediate emancipation has, in a great measure, prevented the voluntary manumission of the slaves he must state, that it was not his intention to proceed in any way whatever upon the resolution he had carried, thinking that the resolution as it stood, would have a stronger, more powerful, and more successful effect towards inducing the slave-owners to do that voluntary which the bill would compel them to do. Therefore he should not bring in any bill at present, reserving to himself the right to act on the resolution hereafter.

The hon. Baronet having declared, that he does not at present intend to take any measure in consequence of his resolution, but reserves to himself the right of taking any measure hereafter, it is incumbent on us to ask this House's opinion whether or not it is prepared to agree to the first or second decision to which it has arrived in the course of the present Session. Whether they are content with the law as it at present stands, or whether they mean to alter that law. If they are content with the law as it at present stands, that law must be executed. If the law is to be altered, that alteration must be carried into effect in the proper way; and that law, as altered, must also be executed. On these grounds I shall be ready to act on Monday; and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Sir George Grey) will propose resolutions of which I will now state the general effect. The noble Lord accordingly stated the course which the Government meant to take on Monday, and placed the resolutions on the table which were ordered to be taken into consideration on that day.

rose together. There was a general cry for Mr. Horsman, but Mr. Hope would not give way. After some delay and a few words from the Speaker,

proceeded: If I have any apology to make to the House for the adjournment of this question last night, I find it in the opportunity which it has afforded to hon. Gentlemen for reconsidering a question with which they were made but imperfectly acquainted by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke, a speech, which was grounded on the most exaggerated statements of interested partizans, and yet whose evidence, if fairly represented, was of itself, sufficient to prove, that there was brought before Parliament a case of election disturbance in which the consequences both to person and property were so utterly insignificant as the one we are now discussing; and I cannot conceive how any man of common understanding can pretend to believe, that a mob could be in so inflamed and maddened a state as the one at Hawick is represented to have been, so that even a passenger, going through on the coach, was compelled, as we are told, to put a blue ribband in his button-hole to save his life, and yet not one single calamity of any kind occurred; I am at a loss to conceive how the right hon. Gentleman's friends can suffer themselves to be persuaded that unprotected, and obnoxious voters, could be for twenty minutes and half an hour in the hands of a mob so furious and bloodthirsty as the right hon. Gentleman,—and yet come out of their hands so perfectly uninjured that they were walking about next day as if nothing had happened. The thing contradicts itself—and it is evident, that either these witnesses have grossly exaggerated the temper of the mob, or, what is very unlikely, have very much understated the injuries they themselves received from it. And the right hon. Gentleman's own evidence would have shown this, if he had not always stopped when he came to the most important part—for though he read to us the dreadful threats by which it is pretended that electors were to be deterred from polling, he did not go on to read to us the best commentary, or those threats in the established fact that those very men did poll the next day in the teeth of them,—that after polling they fell into the hands of the mob, were unprotected, and at their mercy for a considerable time, and came out perfectly uninjured.—The hon. Gentleman then went on to say, the right hon. Baronet, indeed, did not confine himself to the evidence, but entered into statements founded upon the information or the gossip of some particular individuals, whose testimony was not given before the Committee. The right hon. Baronet stated that Lord Minto joined the procession of the liberal candidates in its way to the hustings, and appeared at the nomination. That statement was made upon some other authority than that of the evidence given before the Committee. The fact was, that Lord Minto not only did not join the procession to the hustings, but actually went another road in order to avoid the procession. Neither did Lord Minto show himself upon the hustings. There was no ground whatever for the right hon. Baronet's statements upon these points. Then the right hon. Baronet spoke of the extreme violence which had been practised in the case of James Oliver, who was thrown into the water. Now it appeared from Oliver's own evidence, namely from a letter written by him to Mr. Wilson when he returned the clothes which had been lent to him, that he felt only a little stiff, that he had a few slight bruises, but that he had received no serious injury. This showed the nature of the proceeding, and how much any little matter had been exaggerated. He admitted, that there were a few isolated cases of assault, but there was not one of them which was not distinctly traceable to the strongest provocation. The feelings of the people were excited by the constant applications which were made by the Tory party to call in the military, and this in some instances might have led to an appearance of riot; but, in point of fact, no riot nor act of serious violence occurred. Another circumstance that naturally tended much to excite the feelings of the people was the fixing of the polling-booth close to the door of the Tory committee-room. These were things which the people were not likely to submit to quietly, and it was not to be wondered at that there should be some strong manifestation of feeling. There was one statement which the right hon. Gentleman made last night, which he (Mr. Horsman wished to correct. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that the sheriff had declared, that he closed the poll at the request of the friends of Mr. Scott, in consequence of the rioting of the friends of Mr. Elliot rendering it impossible for the polling to go on. There was not a word of that appearing in the evidence. The sheriff-substitute stated distinctly, that he closed the poll because a note was brought to him, informing him that Lord John Scott and Colonel Macdonald were taken by t the mob, and were undergoing ill treatment. The sheriff-substitute was asked this question:—"At that time was there considerable confusion and rioting." His reply was, "There was a great deal of noise and confusion," but evaded saying, that there was anything like rioting; and in a subsequent part of his evidence he distinctly stated, that he closed the poll, not on account of the rioting, but on account of the apprehension he was under from the statements brought to him. But what, after all, turned out to be the case; The sheriff-substitute closed the poll, but he immediately discovered that the whole that had been told him was a gross misstatement; that the whole thing was unfounded, and therefore opened the poll again. But what use had been made of this brief adjournment of the poll by the very party that had been asking for it all day? The truth seemed to be, that they asked for the adjournment, having previously determined to make it the ground of a petition to the House of Commons to set aside the election. This was the object of all the notes written to the sheriff-substitute, entreating him to close the poll when there was no necessity. Well, the poll was again opened, and the same system was carried on by Mr. Scott's party. They found these gentlemen coming forward, not as electors, not as private individuals, but as magistrates, and making use of their authority as magistrates to prevent voters from going to the poll, at an election in which they themselves were interested as partisans. To him he confessed, that for gentlemen to make such use of their magisterial authority was a circumstance of so extraordinary and unprecedented a character, that he should like to hear from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, what was his opinion on the subject, and what he thought of gentlemen in the commission of the peace coming forward to prevent electors from going to the poll who were willing to do so. The consequence was, that the sheriff, who had hitherto taken no such step, was influenced by this note to send for the military. He thought, that the baillies, on that occasion, exercised a very sound discretion. The result showed, that they did; because when the military came, it was admitted by the witnesses in support of the petition, that they were of no use whatever. In the very note which the sheriff-substitute wrote for the military he stated to the Marquess of Lothian, who was the lord-lieutenant of the county, that there was no rioting going on; for in the answer written by Lord Lothian it was stated, "As you have not stopped the poll, and have stated that there is no rioting, I do not feel justified in marching the troop into Hawick." He wished to call the attention of the House more particularly to the grounds upon which the sheriff proceeded in calling for the militia. Was it on his own information and observation that he did it? No such thing. He put in evidence a letter which he wrote to Lord Lothian, and in which he pointed out what facts were within his own knowledge, and what it was he stated upon hearsay. He described the outrages that had occurred thus:—

"'Mr. Macdonald's coat was almost torn from his back, and an attempt, he says, was made to seize his watch and chain;' that was hearsay; 'which he prevented, and he was repeatedly struck;' that is hearsay. Mr. Berwick suffered more severely; his coat and waistcoat were completely torn from his back, and he entered the inn with great difficulty in his trousers and shirt'—the entering the inn is also hearsay—'the latter almost in tatters; he was also repeatedly struck and kicked;' that is hearsay; 'he also missed his pocketbook with 12l., but this was afterwards returned by a boy who found it upon the street;' that is also hearsay."

So that the evidence upon which the sheriff-substitute proceeded was the evidence of the very parties who had been sending to him false statements all the day; statements which, when inquired into, were found to be totally groundless. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) last night read to the House the testimony of the rev. Angus Barton, who gave before the committee an account of the speech which he professed to have heard addressed by Admiral Elliot to what he (Mr. Barton) called the mob. Who were the mob? Why, the electors; but it pleased this rev. Gentleman to designate them a mob. He would assert, that they were a set of honest, respectable electors. If for the word "mob," therefore, hon. Gentlemen would substitute "electors," everything that had been stated respecting the speech of Admiral Elliot would prove to be most correct, and in perfect accordance with the general practice at all contested elections. It was his political opponents who designated the multitude as a mob. But who was this Mr. Barton—was he a fair and impartial witness? If the House would read his cross-examination, they might be able to judge whether Mr. Barton were a partisan or not. He would read a portion of the evidence of that gentleman. [The hon. Gentleman quoted a portion of his evidence which was contradictory of some of his other assertions.] Here, then, continued the hon. Member, was the admission of this rev. gentleman, that there was no riot at all, and yet, that he did all be could to prevent the voters from going to the poll. Was this the testimony of a fair and impartial witness? On the contrary, were not the very words and actions of this gentleman evidence that he was at that election a violent partisan? From what he had now stated, and which he had taken from the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's own friends, they had these facts established; and he defied the hon. Gentlemen opposite to contradict any one of them—that the application for closing the poll, and calling in the military, came from Mr. Scott's party; that ninety-eight electors had sent remonstrances to the sheriff, declaring, that they could not poll because they were threatened by the mob; that eighty-four of those electors afterwards did poll without suffering any injury whatever, and that the remaining fourteen electors were deterred or obstructed from voting, not by the mob, but by their own friends: sometimes by Lord John Scott, sometimes by the rev. Mr. Barton, and sometimes by the magistrates; that the precipice down which an elector was thrown was not higher than the man's shoulder; and that the river into which another was thrown did not come up to his knees. The House also had it proved, that the statements and complaints which were constantly sent to the sheriff were false; that, although the military were sent for in consequence of those complaints, yet the parties making them did not avail themselves of the troop when it came: thus proving, that their fears were all a pretence. And it was further proved, that from the moment Colonel Macdonald came into the town, the parties commenced taking down evidence of all that occurred, thereby clearly demonstrating, that their intention at that moment was to petition Parliament against Admiral Elliot's return. That this was the principal object of the present petition, The very remedy which the right hon. Baronet proposed confirmed him in that conclusion; because that right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the circumstance, that those persons who were committed had been convicted, and were at this moment in prison; he was not satisfied with the remedy afforded at common law, but he applied for a legislative remedy; and had made an appeal to the House such as had never been made before. The right hon. Gentleman not only proposed, that Hawick should no longer be a polling-place, but he also proposed giving the sheriff the power of naming other polling-places. If this extraordinary remedy was to be resorted to, he wished to know, why the right hon. Baronet should begin with the town of Hawick? Why should not other places have been resorted to? He could revert to many towns which might have been fixed upon for the purpose. He might, for instance, have put the case of the town of Carlisle. An hon. Friend of his had already referred to the election for East Cumberland, on which occasion (as the right hon. Baronet himself bore witness the other day, when speaking at a dinner given to him at Carlisle), the right hon. Gentleman was hunted through the town like a mad dog, and that his favourite son was knocked down and trampled upon. Was Mr. Scott knocked down and trampled upon, or any of his relations? No. And if he had obtained his election, and any of the friends of popular elections had brought forward a petition to set aside the election, in consequence of the outrages that were now complained of, all the stories which they now heard about torn coats and broken windows would have been laughed at by the right hon. Gentleman and those who sat around him. When cases, far worse than the one now attempted to be made out, were produced before the House, they had the authority of those whose authority went farthest with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that although the civil power was utterly inadequate to suppress the tumult, yet the introduction of the military was wholly unjustifiable. But why should the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion come to Hawick? Was it because the people of Scotland, being so little accustomed to popular elections, he imagined that their rights would be more weakly defended than those of an English constituency; and did he, therefore, think, that there would be a greater chance of carrying his motion than if he had brought it forward regarding an English town? But the whole of this business was matter of surprise to those who knew the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in election riots. There was no man who had seen more of election riots than the right hon. Gentleman; and if he might be permitted to say it without offence, there was no one who in his own pious way had contributed to them so much. It was matter of notoriety in the borough which he (Mr. Horsman) had the honour to represent, that the right hon. Gentleman had been found asking the electors what they would say if attempts were made to interfere with the choice of the representatives of the people. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what the people of Cockermouth would say regarding this very petition. They would say, that it was matter of notoriety in their town, when the right hon. Gentleman himself figured as the advocate of popular rights on the hustings, and being opposed to high and honourable men, who were guilty of no crime excepting that of differing with him in political opinion, he, in Parliamentary language, but carried by him to the utmost limit, and almost trenching upon the sacredness of private life, used to declaim about "recreant Whigs"—about men who, having been rejected by three constituencies, sneaked into Parliament for rotten boroughs. He would repeat, it was matter of notoriety in those parts, that under the exciting influence of the right hon. Gentleman's own harangues, there were more broken heads in one election for an English borough than there had been in all Scotland since Scotland was enfranchised. There was less excuse, therefore, for his bringing forward this motion, because, if it were necessary that a motion should have been brought forward at all, and that he should have preached a sermon upon the subject of riots, it was hardly fair that a small town in Scotland should have been selected for his text. If the law were suffi- cient to punish riots in the great towns of England, it must be sufficient to punish them in a small town in Scotland. Was there any reason for believing, that the popular feeling should be more uncontrollable in the town of Hawick than in the town of Nottingham? Until the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, should give some better reason than he had yet given, he should maintain, that by acceding to the present motion, the House would not only be adopting a dangerous precedent, but would be acting in a spirit of gross injustice toward the people of Hawick.

should not have troubled the House on the present occasion if he had not felt himself competent to speak on certain facts which had been greatly relied on and misstated, and to which the hon. Gentleman had given a prominent place in his speech. An hon. Gentleman opposite had made a statement with respect to the conduct of the Duke of Buccleuch towards fifty—he believed that was the number—of his tenants. It appeared from an authentic statement which had been forwarded to him, that the statistics of the place alluded to were as follow:—The number of acres was 558, the total rental about 600l., and the number of tenants not exceeding 100. What were the numbers who had been deprived of their holdings? The average number of removals for the last six years had been under four a-year, the total number in six years being twenty-one; and what was more striking, that was rather less than more, compared with the years preceding the passing of the Reform Bill. The statements which had been made in reference to the conduct of the Duke of Buccleuch he must say were monstrous, and it became those who made them first of all to inquire what authority or ground there was for making them, and he must say, that they came with an ill-grace from the hon. Member (Mr. Elliot) who had the means of getting information. Yet the hon. Member had made those statements the alpha and omega of his speech. He had spoken as if the Duke of Buccleuch wanted to get the right hon. Baronet to apply for this bill to suit his own purposes; but the hon. Gentleman was no stranger to that county, and he dare not assert, that the noble Duke was either an unjust or an oppressive landlord. Did the hon. Gentleman assert that he was? [Mr. Elliot: No.] He knew that the hon. Mem- ber would not. That did away, then, with the imputation thrown on the noble Duke's character by those allegations. The hon. Gentleman who had assailed the accuracy of the right hon. Baronet, ought to have his own impartiality tested by his own speech. He had selected passages from the evidence which favoured his own views, such as in dealing with the question of robbery, but he had omitted to quote the evidence of Smail and others, which would have rebutted his own arguments. The hon. Gentleman had described the proposition of an oath by the mob to some of the electors as a joke. But such was the nature of their jocularity, that Mr. Pattison, one of the electors, narrowly escaped being murdered. So, in the case of Mr. Berwick, who did not at all enter into the joke. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of Mr. Berwick and Mr. Oliver to show, that both of them had been much maltreated. He should perhaps refer to that statement again, but for the present he thought he had satisfied the House, that the omissions of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) with respect to the swearing had not been such as to damage his statement of the case. There was now another point to which he (Mr. Hope) was anxious to draw the attention of the House, and to which perhaps in a somewhat disorderly manner he had endeavoured last night to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh. The passage was in page 133, No. 3,927, and occurred in the evidence of Mr. Rutherford Shiel. The House would remember, that the hon. Member opposite had read a passage from the witness's evidence in order to show, that this person had been prevented from voting by imaginary fears—that he had been merely called after through the streets, and in consequence had not voted. From this it would raise an inference, that all was comparatively quiet; but if the hon. Member had read the question and answer which stood two below where the hon. Member left off, he would have seen, and the House would have learned, this:—"Did you see any clothes torn?—I saw clothes flying in the air when I was returning from the town." The hon. Member opposite wholly omitted this, and turned over to the next page, where he found, but stopped when he came to, this question and answer:—"You were not molested—Some one cried 'a Tory' as I went along the street; there were very few people in the street, they were all away at the polling booth. Now, he thought he had afforded the House proof sufficient, that before the hon. Member had brought a charge against the right hon. Baronet of quoting unfairly, he should have exercised fairness a little more impartially himself. He next came to the point as to Lord John Scott having had good grounds to suppose that violence would be offered to him if he attempted to go to the poll. With regard to this, the hon. Member had said much about partisanship interfering with the accuracy of the witnesses, and had endeavoured to make the House infer that they were not to be believed on their oaths. It was not for him to speak of the characters of the witnesses who had been examined—those witnesses spoke for themselves; but he would not refer to them, but to those witnesses who, not being electors, could not be imbued with the partisanship charged upon others. He alluded to Major Napier's evidence (2,116), and to that of Colonel Macdonald (4,369). He would first refer to the latter, because it explained the evidence of Major Napier. Without troubling the House by reading Colonel Macdonald's evidence at length, he would state its amount. Colonel Macdonald stated, that Bailie Wilson offered Lord J. Scott his protection, and proceeded to take him up to the poll, but notwithstanding this, the mob closed round them the moment they got out; the exertions of the magistrates were unavailing; that Bailie Wilson called out, "Shame! shame!" but was totally unavailing in his efforts. Now for the account given by Major Napier—a person, he apprehended, not of weak nerves. He was asked—

"Did it appear to you to be a violent mob?—I think I never saw such a mob, though it was a quiet mob, you may say; they appeared to be worked up into a state of frenzy; I never expected Lord J. Scott could have reached the baker's shop in a state of safety from the situation I was placed in."

And yet, on this evidence, it was said that Lord J. Scott had no reason to apprehend danger. Without at all recurring to the events which had taken place at previous elections, he thought that there was sufficient here to show that Lord John Scott had been detained by just fears, and not by puerile and weak apprehen- sions. So much for the hon. Member's fairness and impartiality in the observations and test he had applied to the right hon. Baronet. As the hon. Member opposite had stated facts, not from the evidence, but founded upon information he said had reached him from others, he would follow that example, and state a few facts which he (Mr. Hope) had derived from competent authorities. The hon. Member had denied boldly and roundly that there had been riots at the election of 1835. [Mr. Elliot: 1832.] They began in 1832, and the hon. Member denied that there had been any riots in 1835. Now, seeing the construction the hon. Member put upon the word "riot," and finding that he denied the existence of any riot in 1837, he took it that on the hon. Members own admissions the same circumstances occurred in 1837 as had taken place in 1835. A few facts, however, would enable the House to draw its own inferences, instead of adopting those of the hon. Member. He understood that in 1835, from 2 o'clock on the first day of the poll until the arrival of the military on the next day, no one person could venture out of the inn in which Lord John Scott's voters were detained. It further appeared, though the cases of individual assaults had been stated by the hon. Member to have been slight, that Mr. Purdon died from the effects of the attack made upon him. He supposed the hon. Member would dispose of that case in the summary and wholesale way in which he had dealt with the attack upon Lord John Scott, when the bulldog was set upon him and his clothes torn—an attack for which the hon. Member stated the justification to be, that Lord John Scott's servant had assaulted the people. He totally and entirely denied that the servant had made any assault or attack upon the people. On the whole, such was the state of the town of Hawick in 1835, and at the last election, as in his opinion to constitute a riot. But considerable importance had been attached to the circumstance of the sending for the military, a circumstance which the hon. Member had treated as an excuse for the disturbances, and the hon. Member for Cockermouth had quoted a long correspondence to show, that all the assaults had arisen from ninety-five electors having had the audacity to claim the protection of the military at the last election. It was said, that they had been sent for to get up a story of a riot, Why, Lord John Scott was returned, and the story of a riot would have gone to avoid the election, and therefore the bringing the military there told exactly in the contrary way, to that for which hon. Members opposite had contended. But it surely was not necessary for him to attempt to meet the assumption that the Lord-Lieutenant, the sheriff, and all the functionaries, had engaged in a deep-laid plot, beginning in 1835, to lay the foundation, election after election, to secure the attendance of the military, and thus influence the return. To suppose such could be the case was an absurdity with which he did not think it necessary to deal. The hon. member opposite had stated, that the attacks had been confined to assaults upon non-resident voters; but what was the fact? Why, that the majority of persons assaulted were persons resident in, and within seven miles of, the town of Hawick—they were the objects of daily attack and intimidation. Again, the hon. Member had said, that the attacks had been merely to punish men who had changed their opinions, and voted accordingly. The hon. Member desired to preserve freedom of election, but was it freedom of election if a man might not vote as he pleased—or if he did, that he should be the object of assault and attack? With respect to a change of opinion, that was free to every man, and no man ought to be punished for so doing. As to the observations made upon the right hon. Baronet, he would only say he should be proud to deserve such observations applied to himself. But how stood the facts? The hon. Member had selected instances of assaults for a change of opinion, but he forgot to refer to cases where there had been no change of opinion—cases in which the cause of attack was not left to inference, but where it was distinctly stated that the votes they had given were the cause of the treatment they received. He would supply the omission. There was the case of Mr. Berwick, who was mistaken for Donald Vaughan, a person it would seem who might be treated in anyway. One point had been very much laboured at on the other side—namely, the depth and breadth of the water, and the precise height of the precipice down which the voters were thrown. Was it necessary to discuss that point? Was it to be borne that electors should be stripped, taken naked through the streets, and cast down any precipice into any water, and then excuse the act by saying the precipice was not so high as to kill, or the water deep enough to drown? On the question as to riot or no riot, he took the opinions of other authorities in preference to the hon. Member opposite, who might be regarded rather as a witness in his own case, and he would place against the hon. Member's opinion, that of the learned judges by whom the rioters had been tried, and the resolution, declaratory of an extensive riot having taken place, of the Committee itself by which this election petition had been tried Despite the charges which had been made upon the magistrates who had had the audacity, as it had been called, to prevent people going into the street when they saw their lives were in danger, he would only say they had done no more than their duty. With respect to the conduct of the magistrates in the hon. Member's own interest, he should content himself by referring only to one statement, which the right hon. Baronet had omitted to mention—a statement which alone was sufficient to convict them of misconduct. Those magistrates had insisted upon the complete control of the town, and refused to divide the responsibility of maintaining the peace with the county magistrates. They took the whole charge upon themselves, and what had been their conduct? Why, Bailie Goodfellow, it appeared, had soothed down the mob by the promise of another day for the exercise of their riotous proceedings. Such had been the conduct of this Hawick magistrate, who took upon himself the ungracious office of refusing the assistance of the county magistrates. Was such conduct ever heard of—did it not deserve the severest reprehension. Such conduct, he must say, deserved the severest reprehension. The hon. Member for the county of Roxburgh, and the hon. Member for Cockermouth, had rested their case on an application for the military, signed previous to the election by ninety-five electors. The hon. Members had both treated this application as sufficient to justify the conduct of the inhabitants of Hawick. They said, that it showed a want of confidence in the mob, and therefore that the mob was fully justified in testifying their displeasure in the manner in which it had been evinced. Really this proposition was so new and singular in its nature, that he would not trouble the House with any observations upon it. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth dwelt at a great length upon a point which he believed that no one in that House would be ready to dispute—namely that the introduction of the military, with a view to influence an election, was unconstitutional. He had also quoted high authorities, very unnecessarily, to show that the unnecessary introduction of troops, when their presence was not required to preserve the public peace, was greatly to be condemned. But what was the position taken up by the hon. Member? He contended, not that there had been an introduction of the military with a view to influence the election—not that they had been actually introduced into the town, but that if the military were asked for, it justified a riot. The statement of the bailies was, that the troops had originally been stationed at a distance of twenty miles from Hawick, and the House would observe that it was the original introduction of the military into the county which had been objected to. They were brought at the close of the first day's poll within three miles of Hawick, and the hon. Member justified the riots which had occurred on the first day on the anticipated presence of the military on the second.

observed, that the troops were not brought near Hawick till the close of the second day's poll.

said, that that made his case the strongest, and only proved more completely how futile was the excuse. The hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech had passed over in a cursory manner the events of the first day, and had applied himself to the events of the second. He did not analyze every hour and minute of the first day, but he proceeded to prove, that on the second, there were 300 constables stationed within six yards of the polling-booth, and that his noble brother and other Members of his family gave every countenance to the arrangements that were made, that there should be no possible obstruction to the voters. Now, he would ask, if the services of the hon. Member and his family were of so much importance the second day, how came it to pass, that they did not make their appearance till a quarter to four o'clock on the afternoon of the first day's poll? The hon. Member took great credit to himself and to the other members of his family for quelling the riots; but if they had the power of putting an end to them, and were not there on the first day, when they could have been there, what was to be inferred from their absence? Why, the inference which had been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Roxburgh case was "gross as a mountain open, palpable"—that the work having been accomplished on the first day, and the Conservative voters having been sufficiently intimidated, there was no necessity for further violence. The solution was so simple and so obvious, that he perceived hon. Gentlemen opposite quite concurred in it. Now a word with respect to the promised protection of the baillies. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was likely, that Lord J. Scott, having experienced the day before of how little avail the protection promised him by Bailie Wilson was—was it, he asked, to be supposed, that having been once attacked and nearly killed, for Major Napier said, that he never expected to see him come out alive, Lord J. Scott would incur a similar danger on a similar guarantee? It seemed difficult to understand why the protection which failed on the first day should be sufficient on the second. Certainly, if he had been in the situation of Lord John Scott, when under the protection of the bailie, before he had proceeded three yards from the coach, driven by the mob in a different direction, and glad to reach in safety a baker's shop, instead of the inn whither he proposed to go, he should have said, that the protection afforded him on the first day had failed. The hon. Member had referred particularly to the evidence of Mr. Barton, with the view of showing, that because Mr. Barton had persuaded some of his parishioners, most of them, he would observe, very old men, not to go to the poll, he was not to be believed on his oath. This inference was sought to be drawn in order to discredit the account which that rev. Gentleman had given of Admiral Elliott's speech. But even if the alteration were adopted which the hon. Gentleman opposite wished, it would make no difference. There was another very singular ground of provocation which had been alleged, and that was the partial position of the polling-place. Now, in what did this partiality consist? In the polling-place being a little easier of access from the Conservative inn, or rather, in the distance being a little shorter from that inn than the other. Now, was it competent to hon. Members opposite to come to that House and complain, theirs being the dominant party in the town, the bailies being on their side, and every one of their voters sure of safety, that there was a partial distribution of the polling-places, because the Conservative voters had a possibility of access to one of them? This excuse was, if possible, more hollow than the others which had been put forward. It was not his intention or wish to go into the conduct of the hon. Member's family with a view to censure the past, but in one point of view—that of reference to the future—their conduct was very important. Admitting, that riots had taken place, he apprehended, that it was possible, that they might not occur again. But one of the first indications of the likelihood of their non-recurrence would be, that persons of high station in the county should take such a tone and hold such language as would rather check than encourage their repetition. But what had the hon. Member and his family said throughout? They had contended, that there had been nothing improper in the conduct of the people of Hawick. They had denied it over and over again, and although at a distance, they no doubt with great sincerity deplored the excesses which had been committed; yet on the spot they asserted, that they were mere election riots, told the mob, that they had received great provocation, and that it was no wonder, that they did what they did. Now was it to be expected, under such circumstances, that the riots would not occur again? Then, at a dinner given to the hon. John Elliott, on the 20th of October, by the bailies of Hawick, that gentleman, in proposing as a toast "the non-electors of the county of Roxburgh," said "We have heard much of the riots at Hawick, but they were mere common election riots, and whatever did occur has been greatly exaggerated." [Hear!] The hon. Member cheered, but the fact of the riots was admitted. On the same occasion Lord Melgund proposed the health of the bailies at Hawick, and eulogised the able manner in which they had preserved the peace of the town; and he maintained, that no attempt had been made to break the peace, notwithstanding the few torn clothes and duckings that had taken place. Now, when such language as this was held by the leaders and chiefs of that party in the county, could it be expected, that the riots would not occur again, or, that the magistrates of Hawick would exert themselves to repress it, after being thanked for their able conduct in the preservation of the peace? It had been said, that it would be unjust to deprive Hawick of being a polling-place rather than Birmingham for mere election riots. But he denied, that the outrages committed at Hawick were mere election riots. In England he had often heard of Conservative voters being prevented from going to the poll, but here the voters were maltreated after it, so, that there was certainly some ground for the declaration which had been so skilfully drawn up, that the votes could be taken. The hon. Member said, that the mob was a quiet mob, but, that it was worked up to a state of frenzy. But what said Major Napier? He said, that he never saw such a mob in his life, and, that it was perfectly manageable, and obeyed implicitly the directions of its leaders. There was another singular circumstance in this election, which had reference to the constables. In the whole course of the proceedings, though upwards of thirty Conservative voters were maltreated, not one of them received the assistance of any constable, and only one person was apprehended, and, that not by a town, but a county constable, who, for breaking the understanding which seemed to prevail among the constables, was treated like the voters, and thrown into the river. The hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to doubt the fact, but he would refer him to the question and answer numbered 3,664. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that the object of this motion was to make the House the factor of the Duke of Buccleuch. The hon. Member disclaimed that statement, and he was glad of it, but he certainly said, that its object was to punish the electors of Hawick because they were independent, and to take away their independence. Now he wanted to know how their independence could be injured by allowing voters who did not live in Hawick to poll elsewhere. How the hon. Member made it out, that that struck at their independence, he could not discover. He would now release the House from the trouble of hearing him. He would only make one general observation, and he did this from his own knowledge, it was this,—Questions of this kind, as to the security and possibility of going with safety to the polling-place at Hawick, must depend upon general report. It was asked on the other side had these things been proved, how were the circumstances known? And the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Elliot) had blamed the sheriff for proceeding on hearsay evidence, because he had presumed on the possibility of there being a riot, although he had not actually seen anybody knocked down. But this he would say, that there was a general impression throughout that district of the country, and that part of Scotland, from these violent and disgraceful outrages, that no man without fear and terror could go to the polling station at Hawick. Unless the Legislature, therefore, wished to encourage such proceedings the only course to be adopted was the motion of his right hon. Friends.

would offer one word in explanation. He thought in the observations which he had addressed to the House, that he had taken the greatest care to exclude the possibility of its being attributed to him, that he had said that which had been asserted he had said in reference to his grace the Duke of Buccleuch. He thought he had particularly guarded against it; but if he had not done so, he must have expressed himself in a manner which he did not intend. He would ask the House, however, if he did not say, that he did not believe the things which were alleged against the noble Duke. As the hon. Member had asked him a question with regard to the absence of the Earl of Minto and himself from the town of Hawick on the day of the polling, he would answer it, and his answer was this—that the noble Earl had been willing to give his assistance to the bailies in keeping the peace, but he felt that his situation was such as to make him too ready a mark for the misrepresentations of his opponents, and on that account he abstained from interfering, With reference to the absence of his family from the town, he would say, that in consequence of what had before occurred it was made the subject of a specific complaint against his brother, that he had been present at the election during the whole of the first day, and he had been compelled in answer to that charge actually to deny, that he was there. For his own part he could only express his sorrow, that he was not present, but his absence was necessary in a distant part of the county.

felt himself called upon to make a few observations on this subject; and he must, in the outset, observe that the right hon. Baronet, in the statement which he had made to the House, had divided the subject into two heads. The first was, the limiting of the power of the magistrates in the town; and the second was, the conduct of the noble Lord in accepting the office of chairman of the committee. Now, if the House would attend to the documents which he proposed to read, he thought it would appear, that the course adopted by the learned Lord was that which alone it was in his power to take in pursuance of his duty. It appeared, that there was a meeting in the July previous to the election, between Mr. Rutherford, the sheriff, and the magistrates. Mr. Rutherford was not a great friend to the party which ultimately succeeded at the election, and he was not favourable to the candidate who was returned or his family. At the meeting a letter was agreed to, to be sent to the Lord-Advocate in reference to this subject, and which had been already alluded to. [The right hon. Gentleman read the letter and also the answer of the Lord-Advocate, which was to the effect, that the proper steps to secure the maintenance of the public peace must be taken by the local magistrates.] It was clear, that it appeared to the learned Lord, as it also appeared to the sheriff himself, and to the justices, that this course was the best, and therefore the learned Lord had acted with full propriety. Then, the second objection was, that the learned Lord had acted as chairman of the committee; but he did not think, that this subject was material, and in expressing this opinion he must say, that he thought, that a great deal of matter had been introduced into the debate which was quite irrelevant. The Lord-Advocate, took the chair of the committee, but under what circumstances. The learned Lord was a Member of this House, and was bound to attend the ballot for the committee, and to answer to his name in the event of his being called; and if those of the opposite party had that good opinion of him, which, indeed they had good reason to have, and believed him to be, as he was, a man of honesty and integrity, why should they strike him off the list; and why should he not be allowed to be a member of the committee. He did not see any reason which could affect a person of his station, and prevent him, from being a member of that committee. Now the next question was, should he have refused to accept the office of chairman of the committee? It appeared to him, that it would have been an insult, and it would have involved a want of respect to the committee, as well as to the House, if he had declined to accept that situation; and it would have been condemning himself, and holding himself up to the detestation of the people of this country, if he had done so, and he would in effect have admitted, that he had been guilty of the acts alleged against him. The right hon. Baronet opposite, in the statement which he had made to the House, had fallen into some errors, but he must say, that he was in general most accurate; but he believed, that in permitting himself to fall into these inaccuracies, he had done what was not unusual in an advocate, and he would observe, that the right hon. Baronet had taken upon himself to act very much in that character, a fault which was but too common with hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House. There was an eagerness in the right hon. Baronet, however, which was peculiarly observable, and he had stated, that the committee, in the decision which they delivered in this case, had come to a wrong conclusion, and contended, that it was most extraordinary, that they would not receive evidence of acts antecedent to the polling, and of consultations which exhibited a predetermination, to pursue the course ultimately adopted at the election. But if the committee had done what was suggested, they would have done, that which they were not only not called on to do, but which was beside the question at issue. The facts for them to inquire into, were the circumstances which occurred at the election, and it was for them to decide whether the election was void or not. Supposing there had been 100 plots at work before the election, would it be contended, that they must all be inquired into? Supposing, that what was alleged was true, could it be said, that it was a subject of a nature to be inquired into by the committee? It was those things which had been done at the election, the fact of whether the polling had been obstructed, and whether the electors had been intimidated by the violence of the mob, which they were to inquire into, and decide upon, and it could not be contended for one moment, that it was of the least importance how those acts originated, or what gave rise to the tearing off the shirt of one voter, or the ducking of another. All he could say was, if those acts had been committed as it was alleged, the parties had been guilty of a most gross conspiracy. But these matters were not to be investigated by the committee, because, if they were, it might be as well contended, that the inquiry should have extended back to the elections of 1832, or 1835. It was said, that it was the duty of the committee to inquire into all the beatings which had been given to the voters, and the duckings after the polling had taken place; but he contended, that all these things had nothing to do with it, and it was to the intimidation of the voters alone that they must look, in order to see whether they were obstructed in going to the poll. It was said, too, that Lord John Scott himself was intimidated; but on this point he was prepared to contend also, that a wrong conclusion had been arrived at. The case chiefly alluded to, was that of a voter who admitted that he was a nervous man, and was deterred from going to the poll in consequence of the mob; now, this person would not have gone to any election on the same grounds, and would be equally deterred at the Mary-le-bone election as at that at Hawick. As for the attack on Lord John Scott, it appeared to him, that the evidence of Major Napier was altogether inferential. He said, that the arms of the mob were down by their sides, the crowd was so great; and presently afterwards he said, that one of them took up a handful of mud and threw it at a person standing next to Lord John Scott. That noble Lord in his evidence also said, that he got from the mail coach through the midst of the mob into a baker's shop; and that afterwards a lane was made through the mob for him to proceed to his lodging. He denied, that there was any evidence to show, that Lord John was prevented voting, in consequence of any intimidation. In his cross-examination, that noble Lord was asked—"I ask you if, during the whole of that time, you do not know, that dozens of voters were going up and voting for Mr Scott? I dare say there were dozens, 24.—I ask you whether there were not dozens? I know that there were voters going up to the poll from time to time; I do not know how many.—Were those people going from the Tower Inn to the poll? I believe they were." Those who were desirous to make a case for a committee would be anxious that the riots should go on; but Mr. Elliot and his friends must surely have been anxious, that the poll should not be impeded, as he had a clear majority of voters in Hawick, and he was at the head of the poll. The right hon. Baronet evidently wished the House, to believe, that Lord Minto was at Hawick during the election, and taking an active part in it. This ground, however, having failed him and his friends, another hon. Gentleman opposite complained, that that noble Lord did not arrive in that town until the polling was over; and it was asked why he did not come sooner and appease the tumult, and prevent the assaults which were committed on the opposite party. The object undoubtedly was, to hold Lord Minto up to the public as a cabinet Minister who had acted in a manner unworthy of his situation, and that attempt had completely failed. It was said, that Lord Minto addressed the mob, and it should be recollected, that the assembly was called the mob, not by the witnesses, but by those who put the questions. It was, however, admitted that nobody heard what that noble Lord said. It was also asserted, that Admiral Elliot addressed this assembly which was designated the mob. His right hon. Friend had stood many contested elections, and had no doubt addressed the assembly congregated in front of the hustings, which was composed as well of electors as non-electors; and in the tide of his success, when he was the popular candidate, he had invited them to attend the poll on the following day; he did not stop to discriminate between the electors and non-electors in his invitation; and why therefore, should he blame the gallant Admiral for having invited the electors and others to attend the poll the next day. He had often wished, that he could state a case so forcibly as his right hon. Friend, but at the same time he had always been anxious to keep within limits, and not go beyond those facts which he could support by evidence. But what did the charge against Lord Minto amount to? Mr. Pott, one of the witnesses, and the agent for Mr. Scott, said that it was owing to the presence and address of Lord Minto, that the peace of the town was preserved. He was asked, "Have you any doubt, that advantage was derived from the attendance of Lord Minto in appeasing the people? Sir?—Lord Minto attended at the inn in Hawick? Yes; I saw him there on the second day.—Have you any doubt, that his interference was useful in appeasing the crowd? I certainly understood it was owing to Lord Minto that we had peace restored in the town." He was sure that his right hon. Friend would have stated this if he had seen it in evidence, and would have admitted, that the noble Lord, deserved credit for the manner in which he appeased this angry crowd. The only point of the case, however, was whether the House of Commons was justified in adopting this species of disfranchisement, by removing the polling place from Hawick. Certainly no case had been made out to sustain the motion of the right hon Gentleman. He thought, that the riots were disgraceful, and they had most properly been brought under the cognizance of the Court of Justiciary, and they richly deserved all the punishment, that had been bestowed on those who had been guilty of them. This, however, was a matter for law and justice, and it was not for the House on that account, to proceed to punish this place, by removing the polling place. If they looked at the injuries inflicted at a popular election, there was not one where excitement prevailed, where greater injuries did not prevail than occurred at Hawick. There were several places where murders had been committed. What took place at Wakefield, where lives were lost. This was also the case in other places; they would find more atrocious acts elsewhere, but he admitted not more blameable conduct, for indignities such as those inflicted at Hawick left a most bitter sting. No attempt had been made to remove the poling places from either Nottingham, Wakefield, Carlisle, or other places where riots at elections had occurred—nothing of the kind had been done until this case came into the hands of the right hon. Baronet, and indeed he believed, that it was never dreamt of, till the present motion was proposed. The law was strong enough to put down these disturbances. Those who had been guilty of them had been punished in such a way as he hoped would deter them from being guilty of similar conduct for the future. He trusted, in the observations that he had made, he had abstained from making offensive personal allusions, and he also hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would not have more than a very small minority to support his motion.

expressed his great satisfaction at the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fergusson), who was an exception to the party who had spoken at his (the Ministerial) side of the House, and had not attempted to palliate the atrocities committed at Hawick. It was impossible that a Gentleman possessing so much uprightness of mind could have arrayed on his side a series of fallacies to induce the House to turn into ridicule and jest, crimes that would disgrace any civilized nation. He thought, however, that the justification of the election committee was uncalled for, as their decision was not at all impugned by any remarks that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Pembroke). The facts to be considered were, that a grievous obstruction to voters took place at Hawick, and gross atrocity had been committed. It was not a sudden ebullition—it was not an accidental collision between parties, but a preconcerted conspiracy on one side. The opposing party had given no provocation—they did not display banners—they offered no indignity but they were treated by the mob with the most gross cowardice and brutality. These were not novel crimes in Hawick. In 1832 similar outrages were committed, and in 1835 the mob, encouraged by impunity, repeated their offences. On that occasion the sheriff felt himself bound to read the Riot Act after various acts of violence had been perpetrated; and how was he treated? He was seized by the mob and made a "cock-shy" in the church-yard, where several stones were thrown at him. [laughter]. Hon. Members may laugh; the hon. Member for Roxburghshire treated the affair with ridicule last night, but the right hon. the Lord Advocate did not think it a venial offence to have snow-balls thrown at parties of rather small station in life. Last winter some lads of the college of Edinburgh commenced snow-balling the passers-by—they never thought of making a cock-shy of the Lord Provost—when the local magistrates were requested to send immediately for the troops. Hon. Gentlemen opposite condemned the introduction of the military even when a riot occurs, but on this occasion the troops were brought out to check the snow-balling propensity of these young men. Subsequently the Lord Advocate instituted a Crown prosecution against the youths, deputy advocates were brought into requisition, but the entire affair, notwithstanding its pomp, only excited the contempt and scorn of the people of Edinburgh. If the hon. Member for Roxburghshire make light of the treatment and indignity inflicted on the sheriff by the mob, what must he think of this snowball prosecution by the Crown? He did not wish to impute any blame to the magistrates or constabulary of Hawick, but how great must have been the violence of the mob when all the efforts of the local authorities to check it had failed? The outrages inflicted at Hawick on Conservative voters had been designated by the high Court of Justiciary, as most disgraceful and unprovoked. The Conservatives wished to give their votes quietly, and requested the indulgence of being allowed to retreat by the passage they had entered; but this was refused, and the consequence was, that they were treated with the greatest indignity. The Conservatives of that neighbourhood had hitherto conducted themselves peaceably, and with good temper, but sturdy and independent yeomen are not likely again to submit passively to a repetition of such violence. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fergusson) had said that there was no precedent for changing polling places. He was in error, for by the Reform Act such change could take place on the recommendation of the magistrates at the quarter sessions. It had been attempted to show that the proceedings at Hawick, at the last election, were nothing but common election riots, similar to those which were of common occurrence in England, and the case of Westminster had been particularly cited. But did they ever hear that even in Westminster the polling booths had been beset by an infuriated populace, that the mob had stripped the electors of their clothes, driven them through the streets in that state, and plunged them afterwards into the adjoining river? The right hon. the President of the Board of Control might recollect when the mud-bespattered Whigs were pelted through the streets of Westminster, but could the right hon. Gentleman show any proceedings in Westminster similar or at all to be compared in respect to violence with what took place at Hawick. Nay, more, he would ask any hon. Gentleman present whether at any election in England they had ever seen or heard of anything so coldblooded and brutal as the proceedings at Hawick. That was the question which the House had to consider, and if no similar proceedings had taken place in any other instance, and if it could be shown, as it had been, that those proceedings were systematic and continued from election to election, surely it became necessary to provide a remedy for an evil of such great and growing magnitude. The course which had been pursued at Hawick was without a remedy if the Legislature did not interfere. That was a fact which had been admitted by the right hon. the Judge Advocate. That right hon. Gentleman had contended that there had been no ill-usage of the electors previous to polling, and that any violence to which they were subjected after having polled could not invalidate the election. Now the people of Hawick seemed to have been aware of this state of the law, and to have acted upon that knowledge, and the House could not fail to perceive that there was a strong coincidence between the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and the conduct of the people at Hawick. It was said that there was no obstruction in the way of the electors going to the poll, and much ingenuity had been exerted to obtain evidence to that effect. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, went to the sheriff, and endeavoured to obtain from him a certificate to the effect that there had been no obstruction in the way of the electors coming to the poll; and from the evidence it was clear that the hon. Member was very particular as to the terms in which that certificate should be couched. And what did he obtain from the sheriff? Not all he wished; but the certificate was sufficient for his purpose, as it testified that, according to the law, as laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the proceedings had not been such as to destroy the validity of the return. The people seemed to be aware that, if they committed no violence before the electors polled, they might afterwards strip them naked and drag them through the town without invalidating the election. But did not such proceedings have the effect of intimidating others from going to the poll; and were not the people aware of that fact? Was it not their object to intimidate the electors from coming to the poll by the violence which they exhibited to those who had polled? Such certainly appeared to have been their aim, and they succeeded in their object. But what did all that prove? Why it clearly showed that the riots at Hawick were not mere popular ebullitions, but that the proceedings were premeditated, and that they were regulated so as to be restrained within the limits of the law, but so as to produce sufficient intimidation to prevent the electors from going to the poll. After their votes were given, then the electors were assailed, and the effect of that proceeding was to prevent others from polling. A great deal had been said in regard to those Gentlemen who had been confined in the Tower-inn, and it had been asserted, that their remaining there, was merely a pretext to obtain the presence of the military. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said, that there had been riots at Carlisle, and that the military had been called in, and that, notwithstanding such had been the case, no attempt had ever been made to remove the polling booth from Carlisle. But there was no comparison between the cases. Carlisle was a garrison town, and large bodies of troops were always stationed there. There were no troops in Hawick, nor had any been introduced during the days of polling. It was true that on the second day after the polling Lord Lothian, on hearing that there were a number of gentleman confined to the Tower inn, who were in danger of their lives, marched the troops into Hawick, but there were no soldiers in that place during the election. Even when they did enter on the second day they only remained for a short time, for, on a representation made to their, commander, they were withdrawn beyond the limits of the town. But to show what was the state of Hawick even at that time he need only state, that while the military were drawn up in front of the Tower inn one gentleman, the rev. Mr. Burton, attempted to escape, when his carriage, even in the presence of the military, was violently attacked. It was also said, that it was a mere pretext in stating that Lord John Scott was in danger. But such was undoubtedly the fact, although the military remained out of the town till Lord John Scott reported to Lord Lothian that all the electors had left the Tower, and that he himself was the only person remaining in the inn. That statement of Lord John Scott, was, however, a mistaken one, for Colonel M'Donald and his son still remained, because there was no possibility of obtaining any sort of conveyance. Their intention was, to have gone by the mail coach, but what did the landlord say in regard to such a proposal? He said that every evening when the mail arrived, there were persons in waiting to see who departed with the coach, and stated it as his firm conviction, that if the Colonel and his son attempted to leave at that hour in the morning, their lives would be in danger. He further said, that he would endeavour to procure a conveyance for him at night, and at eight o'clock a carriage was accordingly procured, in which the Colonel and his son left the town. Before leaving, the Colonel was asked to take with him a person who had been threatened, in order to afford him protection. That person was accordingly laid in the bottom of the coach, which then drove off. Now he would ask, after these circumstances had been stated, whether there was not good ground for alarm. They were told, also, that the proposed remedy was also a mere pretext, and that the elector Maconochie not only voted, but returned to the inn after voting without molestation. But what were the circumstances under which that elector voted? He was the intimate Friend of Admiral Elliot, and the post-boy who drove him into the town wore the colours of the Elliot party, and it was under the protection of Admiral Elliot, that he was enabled to vote and to reach the Tower inn in safety. He had purposely avoided saying anything which might be offensive to any of the parties concerned in those transactions, but he could not help regretting, that Lord Minto did not refrain from taking any part in the proceedings. It was unnecessary for him to have done so as a magistrate, and he was sure that the noble Lord would look back with regret, that he should have been at all mixed up in the matter. If such conduct had been manifested by a Tory First Lord of the Admiralty, he knew with what shouts the description of that conduct would have been greeted. He had endeavoured to show the continuity of the riots in Hawick, from 1832 to 1837, and he felt per- suaded, that the only remedy for such a state of things was a legislative one. He, therefore, called upon the House to apply that remedy, and to substitute some other place for Hawick as a polling place for the Roxburgh elections. By such a course no one was deprived of the elective franchise, and they would enable the electors of all parties to exercise that privilege which had been conferred upon them. As the law stood there was no remedy for such proceedings as had taken place at Hawick. That such was the fact had been admitted by the Judge-Advocate, who recommended the infliction of a more severe punishment than had been awarded to those who had been engaged in the riots of Hawick as the only remedy for the evil. But their object was to prevent the necessity of punishment, and to afford protection to the people. The sole object of the bill was, to alter the polling places, and he did trust that Parliament would not hesitate to apply that remedy to so great and growing an evil.

could not address the House on the present occasion, without expressing the sense he entertained of the kindness the right hon. Gentleman had manifested towards him, both in the manner in which he had alluded to him in the course of his speech, and in bringing forward every charge that could by possibility be brought against him. For, standing in the situation in which he did, he must feel grateful for the kind and courteous language of the right hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry if any part of his conduct in regard to this business, did not undergo, in this House, the most rigid examination, if, in any respect, it had been such as to deserve their reprobation. He stood here, however, without the slightest consciousness of having, throughout these proceedings, been actuated by any feeling but that of a desire to preserve the peace of the country, and that this should be done by constitutional means. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested—which he was kindly pleased to say he did with much pain—that possibly be had been actuated by party feelings, in his reply to the requisition. He desired that the whole of that document might be read. Though it was written at a moment when he could not foresee the events which had since taken place, if there was one syllable in it from which that conclusion could be drawn, he should feel himself indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it under their notice, and exposing conduct which would certainly have been wrong in a public officer. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, under such circumstances, to bring the subject forward; and he repeated, that he felt grateful to him for having done so, being conscious that he should be able to free himself altogether from the charge. He would ask, what was the nature of the requisition to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and of the answer, which, he said, showed the feelings, or somewhat of the feelings, of a partisan? He received, so late as the 26th of July, immediately before the election, a letter from Mr. William Oliver Rutherford, the sheriff of Roxburghshire, inclosing an application from ninety-five electors, a number of whom were justices of the peace. Now, might he be permitted to observe, that if these were all the reasons which they were stated to apprehend from what had taken place at former elections, and still more from the state of the country at the time, that there was danger of the peace being violated, it was, unquestionably, the duty of the sheriff both to have apprised him of the fact, so that a military force might be supplied, if necessary, and himself to have taken measures to preserve the tranquillity of the county by means of the civil force. What was the nature of the application? Was it not an application for the presence of the military alone? Was not that the sole way in which it was proposed, both by the application of the electors, and the recommendation of the sheriff, to preserve the peace. The House should bear in mind, that the ninety-five electors, who made the application, belonged to a party in the county. The sheriff was entitled alone to state, if he saw the least reason for doing so, that the assistance of the military was necessary to the preservation of tranquillity; but instead of adopting that course, he made himself the channel of an application from those ninety-five persons, who, being electors, and belonging to a party in the county, declared, that it was the presence of the military that they required. What were the terms they used? Referring to themselves, and to their neighbours, they said,

"There is a great probability of injury being done to property, unless more efficient protection is provided than it is possible for the civil force of the district to command. In these circumstances, the memorialists would earnestly crave your Lordship to obtain the assistance of a military force, in addition to the ordinary police of the district, the presence of which, the memorialists confidently believe, would have the effect of repressing violence, protecting property, and of enabling the memorialists, and their fellow-electors, to exercise their franchise according to their consciences, untrammelled by threats and acts of violence, and in possession of that freedom of action, the enjoyment of which is the privilege of every elector."

What was it that they desired? The presence of military in the county. He was again asked by the sheriff to concur in the propriety of having military at Denholm, between the two polling places of Jedburgh and Hawick. He asked whether that was an application which he, in the discharge of his duty, ought to have implicitly yielded to; yet if he had done wrong, if he had acted from party feeling, it was because (according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman) he did not immediately agree to the requisition sent to him demanding the presence of the military ["No, no!" from Sir J. Graham.] It was not? Then in what respect had he been wrong? In what respect had he been guilty of partiality? How had he displayed his party feeling? Let his conduct be thoroughly examined; let every word he had said or written upon the occasion be narrowly scanned; and then let any man say in what respect he had been wrong. What did he do upon the receipt of the requisition? In the first place, he asked the requisitionists, "Upon what ground do you make these statements?" And next, "What is the state of the civil force in the district; and what means have been used by the sheriff and the magistracy to render it effective?" Holding the situation that he did, was there any impropriety in his putting those questions to the sheriff? On the contrary, was it not very extraordinary that the sheriff, in applying for the presence of a military force, should have given him no information upon those points? Was it inconsistent with the sheriff's duty, or with the duty of the magistrates, that they should give him the fullest information as to the extent and strength of the civil force before they required him to sanction the presence of the military? But they did not do so, and therefore it was, that he demanded answers from them upon that point, before he gave a positive reply to their requisition. Was there anything blameable in that? Yet, if he understood his right hon. Friend's statement correctly, it was that part of his (the Lord Advocate's) conduct which, he thought, indicated the influence of partiality and party feeling. Upon the receipt of the requisition he (the Lord Advocate) wrote to the sheriff in these terms, expressing a wish to know whether he (the sheriff) had had any communication with the magistrates of Hawick upon the subject, and whether they were also of opinion that it would be necessary to have a military force to preserve the peace of the town? And he further requested that the sheriff would immediately communicate with him upon the subject, and report what measures had been taken to preserve the peace. Was there anything of party feeling in that? Was it not of the utmost importance that he should be in possession of the opinion of the local magistrates before he consented to introduce the military? Yet it was because he had directed the sheriff to obtain information from the magistrates of Hawick that he was arraigned by his right hon. Friend. He had no doubt his right hon. Friend, who had employed so many kind expressions towards him (the Lord Advocate), acted from a strict sense of duty when he brought it forward as a charge against him, that he had acted from party feeling when he desired to be made acquainted with the views and opinions of the local magistrates. But if that were party conduct—if that were partiality in a person at the head of the law, it was a partiality which he now declared it was his intention to be guilty of at every future election. At the application of a sheriff, founded upon the representations of certain persons who said that they looked upon the presence of the military for the preservation of tranquillity, he should never be deterred from requesting the sheriff to perform that part of his duty which consisted in ascertaining through the best channels of information, namely, the local authorities, what was the state of the country, and what the extent and character of the means which might be employed to preserve the peace of the district. Yet that was what he understood to be the ground of charge against him. If there were any other ground it must be in some subsequent part of the correspondence which had taken place between him and the sheriff, but as it had not been printed he confessed he was at a loss to know where to find it. In looking over the letters which passed between the sheriff and the magistrates of Hawick he could not see the smallest ground for imputing any bad or improper feeling to the latter or anything that rendered them unworthy the respect and confidence of the sheriff. The sheriff, indeed, appeared to entertain a feeling of respect and confidence towards them himself; and up to the present moment he (the Lord Advocate) saw nothing whatever either in the evidence or in the statement which had been made to show that they were insincere in the desire to take the best means in their power to preserve the peace. The letter addressed by him to the sheriff, to which he had already adverted, was dated on the 28th of July. On the 29th the correspondence between the sheriff and the magistrates took place, and on the 31st of July the sheriff wrote him (the Lord Advocate) a letter which he received at a very early hour on the 1st of August. That letter was in these terms:

"My Lord,—With reference to the communication I made to your Lordship yesterday, I have now to inform your Lordship that I have this day had the conference therein mentioned, the result of which your Lordship will learn from the inclosed copy of the minute of meeting.

"I have only further to request your Lordship will be pleased to favour me with your instructions, and especially to state, whether you authorise me to devolve the whole responsibility of keeping the peace upon the magistrates, and also the power of calling in and directing the military, and also whether your Lordship approves of the military being stationed at St. Boswell's instead of Denholm.

"I send this by an express, who will wait your Lordship's answer.—I have the honour to be, &c.

"WILLIAM OLIVER RUTHERFORD.

"Hawick, July 31."

He had already stated, that he received that letter at a very early hour on the 1st of August. He observed, that his answer to it was dated at seven o'clock the same morning. It was in these terms:—

"Sir,—I have had the honour of receiving your letter of the 31st of July, and the minute of a meeting held at Hawick by you and her Majesty's justices of peace for the district of Hawick, with the chief magistrate and certain inhabitants of the town of Hawick.

"I approve of the minute which you have sent me, and authorise you to devolve the responsibility of keeping the peace at Hawick on the magistrates of that town, as there pro- posed, and that the military should be stationed at St. Boswell's instead of Denholm.

"I beg to acknowledge that I have also received your two letters of the 29th of July, and the papers you refer to. Some observations have occurred to me with regard to them, but I wish to have an opportunity of considering those papers more attentively, and I will then return them to you.

"I remain, &c.

"JOHN A. MURRAY.

"Aug. 1, 1837, 7 o'clock, A.M."

To prevent any mistake or any misunderstanding, he wrote also to Lord Greenock, the commander-in-chief of the military forces in Scotland. His letter to that noble Lord was in these terms:—

"My dear Lord,—I have this morning received an express from Mr. Oliver Rutherford, sheriff of Roxburghshire, and Mr. Goodfellow, chief magistrate of Hawick.

"It has been proposed that the military should be stationed at St. Boswell's village instead of Denholm, which was formerly proposed by the sheriff.

"I request, therefore, that your Lordship will issue orders for the troop of cavalry to proceed from Earlston to St. Boswell's, and there wait for any orders which the commanding officer may receive from the sheriff or the chief magistrate of Hawick.—I am, &c.

"JOHN A. MURRAY.

"August 1, 1838."

Now he asked in what part of those arrangements there was any ground for a charge of partiality. In the first instance, he certainly felt very great apprehension from the desire which was expressed to have the presence of military in the county; he felt some alarm from the circumstance of its being considered that the presence of the military would be the best means of establishing tranquillity; because, from all his experience of such matters, he believed that the appearance of the soldiery at elections, was the surest source of outrage and mischief. Was he wrong, therefore, in giving a caution to the sheriff, and to the magistrates? Was he wrong in stating, in the first place, that he thought the troops ought to be sent into the neighbouring country; and, in the second place, in giving a caution to the magistrates that they should consider well before they brought forward the military, except in a case of the most urgent necessity? Was that the passage of the correspondence to which the right hon. Baronet referred, when he complained of the partiality of his conduct? In a letter written prior to any of those to which he had called the attention of the House, he expressed himself to the sheriff in these terms:—

"I cannot conclude without observing that the interference of military at elections is unconstitutional, and that I have been informed by persons worthy of credit, that the presence of military at the last election in Hawick had a tendency to produce irritation, which, if proper means had been taken to preserve peace and order, would not have existed. I am for these reasons very reluctant to agree to military being sent to Hawick; but as you have stated on your own responsibility, and that of the other justices, that there is a necessity for them, I have been with the commander-in-chief to-day, and a troop of horse will be at Earlston on Monday, and if you shall see occasion for the troop proceeding to Denholm, they will do so on your application to the commanding officer."

Now, he asked what there was in any one part of the whole of this correspondence that showed the smallest degree of partiality or party feeling on his side? His right hon. Friend had brought forward a charge against him; let him pursue it to the utmost—let him show upon what foundation it rested. At present, he could not see the shadow of a pretence for the charge that he had been guilty of partiality, or that he had been influenced by party feeling. What had been the resolutions of the House, and what the consequence of introducing the military upon various occasions at elections? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had spoken in the course of the debate that evening, said, he had no doubt that it was unconstitutional to introduce the military without necessity, in order to influence elections. He said, that that was not held to be the rule of constitutional law by that House. The rule of law held by that House was, that the military were not merely not to be brought forward to influence elections, but that they were not to be brought forward even in case of riot and disturbance, unless there were an overwhelming necessity. That was the rule of the law held by the House; but he went further, and said, that the introduction of military, in cases where there had been riot and disturbance at elections, instead of repairing or suppressing the mischief, bad been productive of the very worst consequences. The right hon. Baronet seemed to say, this was referring to old books and former reports; but he was referring to a source of information (the constitutional law laid down by that House) which ought never to be lost sight of. He maintained, that neither the magistracy nor the country could be safe, unless they knew the grounds upon which alone they were entitled to call in the military at elections. The first instance in which the rule of law was laid down by the House was in the case of the Westminster election in 1741, where, according to Tindal, there were riots so serious as to induce the magistrates to call in the military. He believed, that the magistrates then and since had been too desirous for the introduction of the military. This was, perhaps, particularly the case in Scotland. He believed there had never been a commander-in-chief in Scotland who had not been annoyed with repeated applications from the magistrates for the introduction of the military at elections. To such an extent was this carried at the last general election, that Lord Greenock had actually issued an order complaining of the applications which had been made to him. If he had approved of the application which was made to him, and if he had assented to it and allowed the introduction of the military, should he not have set a dangerous precedent—should he not have acted in defiance of the resolutions of that House, which declared, that the military should never be called in at elections, except in cases of the most extreme necessity. Should he not have acted in direct opposition to the opinion expressed by the venerable Speaker who in 1741 delivered the reprimand of the House to the magistrates who in that year had called in the military at the Westminster election. He did not wish to diminish or to palliate one part or particle of the evil done at Hawick at the late election. But he maintained, that the disturbances which took place were not of a kind to warrant the introduction of the military, At the Westminster election in 1741 the riots were so serious as, in the opinion of many observers, to justify the presence of the military, and they were accordingly introduced; but what was the consequence to the magistrates? They were ordered into custody—they were desired to be brought to the bar of that House, and the Speaker addressed them in terms which had again and again been brought under the view of the House, but which seemed to have been forgotten upon the present occasion. He said, forgotten upon the present occasion, because, whilst the right hon. Baronet considered him as having acted partially in not acceding to the application of the sheriff, and in giving a caution to the magistrates as to the introduction of the military, the right hon. Baronet did not give him the benefit of a candid statement that the introduction of the military, in order that their appearance might operate towards the preservation of the peace at an election, would be unconstitutional and against the rules of the House. When the magistrates in the case of the Westminster election of 1741 were placed at the bar of the House, they were addressed by the Speaker in these terms:—

"I cannot better describe to you the nature of this offence you have been guilty of, than in the words of the resolution this House came to, upon their examination into that matter; which are, 'That the presence of a regular body of armed soldiers at an election of Members to serve in Parliament, is a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of this kingdom.'"

What was it that he did? He refused to march troops into the immediate vicinity of the place of election; but he allowed them to go into the neighbouring county, in order that they might be within reach in case of extreme need. It was for doing this that he was charged with having been guilty of partiality. If he had taken any other course, should he not have exposed himself to the observations made by the Speaker in 1741 to the Westminster magistrates, which were contained in the following terms:—

"And it is impossible, if you well consider the terms of this resolution, but that you must have in your breasts the deepest sorrow and remorse for this rash act of yours, which, if it had not been animadverted upon, might have given the most dangerous wound to the constitution of this free country that, perhaps, it had ever felt; this country, free, because this House is so, which this House can never be but from the freedom of elections to it; and, amidst the too many ways for violating that, none can be more pernicious, because none more quick, decisive, and permanent, than what you might unhappily have set a precedent for, and which might have grown to an extremity, under the specious and ready pretences of fears and necessity, that supersede all law; a precedent that would have received an authority from the place it began in—the seat of the Government and Legislature of this kingdom. Necessity which is to take place of law, must be left to the circumstances of every particular case; the act must be presumed to be wrong, inquired into as such, and excused only by the clearest proofs that the necessity of it was real. What you have done is against one of the most essential parts of the law of the kingdom; has any real necessity been shown for it? There might be fears, there might be some danger, but did you try the strength of the law to dispel those fears and remove that danger? Did you make use of those powers the law has invested you with, as civil magistrates, for the preservation of the public peace?',

Now, was it not the duty of the magistrates of Roxburghshire, before they applied for a military force, and expressed a desire to have soldiers to act for them instead of the civil force, in order that their presence might produce tranquillity—was it not their duty to show that they had used other means, and found them to be inefficient, before they proposed to establish the dangerous precedent of calling in an armed body to their assistance; and was it not equally his duty, when they did not state what means they had at their command, to warn them of the consequences of calling in the military, and to order the military into the neighbouring county, to be employed only in case of the most extreme necessity? He owned he was at a loss to imagine why it was that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) did not state more distinctly upon what part of the correspondence it was, that he founded his charge of partiality. He declared that no sentiment had ever entered his mind beyond that of preserving the peace at the election in the most lawful and most constitutional way. Such an assurance might seem needless, or even impertinent; but the right hon. Baronet having stated, that his conduct had been marked with something of the feelings of a partisan, he was bound, in justice to himself, to observe, that he stood before the House with no other defence than the purity and integrity of his motives. The case to which he had referred—that of the Westminster election in 1741—was one of the most memorable cases in which the constitutional law of the country had been laid down. Other cases had been referred to in the course of the debate, especially that which occurred at Carlisle, a place with which the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was peculiarly well acquainted, in 1820. There was no question but that there was a very serious riot at Carlisle at the election in that year. It was stated by a right hon. Gentleman, whom he did not then see in the House, that many severe injuries were inflicted; and Sir Philip Musgrave, Lord Lowther, and Mr. Beckett, now Sir John Beckett, stated before the Committee that many men were knocked down, and that several had their legs broken. He did not believe that the excesses at Hawick had been of so violent a nature as those which took place at Carlisle in 1820. The right hon. Baronet said, that the excesses at Hawick were of a kind peculiar to Scotland, and thence he would have it inferred that they were of an aggravated nature. He could only say, that an hon. Friend of his at one of the Westminster elections had been subjected, in a street not far from that House, to a species of assault which he would not describe; and this, at least, he hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would not accuse him of partiality, when he said, that that beastly and filthy custom of Westminster was not peculiar to Scotland. Because he did not state, or did not admit, that the excesses at Hawick were of the very worst and most violent description, it was said, that he wished to palliate them. He repeated, that he did not attempt to palliate or to justify any of the riotous doings at Hawick. He felt most strongly that every elector ought to be allowed to give his vote according to his conscience, without fear and without molestation; but he maintained, that the disturbances at Carlisle in 1820, when the legs of several men were broken, were infinitely worse than any of the proceedings that had taken place at Hawick. A great part of the case against Hawick depended upon the evidence of Major Napier, who was passing through the town upon the top of a stage-coach, and had the short opportunity afforded to him of the change of horses of observing the conduct of the mob. Major Napier was asked by the committee whether the mob had bludgeons? He replied, that he did not observe whether they had or not; but he described them as a very violent and determined mob, from whom he expected great injury to Lord John Scott, who was a fellow-traveller with him by the mail. It did not appear, however, that Lord John Scott suffered any injury; and from the evidence it was plain that the only weapon employed by the mob was the "open loof." [Laughter.] He presumed it was understood by every Gentleman in the House that that meant only the "open hand." He was voting at Appleby at the late election, at the same time as his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), and certainly there was not a little violence there. Clubs and bludgeons were in the hands of the mob; houses were demolished, and the electors generally had great difficulty and no little danger in getting to the polling-place; yet he had never heard his right hon. Friend move that the polling should be removed from Appleby to some other place. But in the Carlisle election of 1820, even though limbs were broken, the introduction of the military was viewed as so serious a matter by that House, that a committee of privileges was appointed, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Williams Wynn), whom he did not then see in his place, but whose opinion upon that, as well as upon every other occasion, must have great weight with the House, as the chairman of that committee, reported, that although the committee believed, that there had been no evil intention on the part of the magistrates in calling in the military, although it was not intended by their presence to overawe the electors either on the one side or the other, and although the civil force was inadequate to meet the emergency of the occasion, yet that the introduction of the military was not to be justified. So far, therefore, it was determined that the presence of the military was not justifiable, even in a case of great difficulty. But at Carlisle, some years afterwards, there was a much more serious disturbance at the election, when the military were again introduced, and several lives were lost. And from what cause? Why, according to the testimony of a most honourable and high-minded witness, from this cause, and this cause alone—the introduction of the military, whose appearance was the signal for the commencement of a desperate tumult in a town which, previous to their arrival had been perfectly tranquil. And who was the honourable and high-minded witness who gave that evidence? It was his right hon. Friend opposite. With such proofs before him of the consequences which resulted from resorting to the aid of the military, would it have been right in him to have assented to the application made by the sheriff and some of the magistrates of Roxburghshire for the introduction of soldiers at the election for that county. He certainly must regret, that his right hon. Friend, in discussing the application made to him, while he seemed to have seen and read, did not at all advert to, the evil consequences which had arisen on former occasions from the introduction of the military at elections. Could his right hon. Friend, too, conceal from his acute and sagacious mind, that the publicity given to such an application, signed by ninety-five persons occupying an influential position in the county, and calling for the introduction of the military, under the idea that disturbances would take place, was similar to the means by which was produced that irritation in the public mind which was so fatal at Carlisle on the occasion to which he had referred? Could it be supposed that the people at Hawick had not as strong a dislike to the presence of a military force as the people at Carlisle regarding the introduction of the military at the election as one of the greatest outrages that could be offered to their rights and privileges as free and independent citizens? He had endeavoured to show that which he thought a much more important question than misconduct or default of duty on this point—that the great constitutional question which had uniformly been asserted by the House, had not been departed from in the late election for Roxburghshire. When the application was made to him by the sheriff, he thought, that a case arose in which that great principle was involved, and after the best consideration he could give the subject, and remembering the sad consequences which had resulted from the introduction of the military in other cases, he determined not to accede to the request made to him. Had he done otherwise he should have considered, that he, and not the sheriff, would have been justly subject to the same reprobation which, in 1741, was pronounced by the Speaker upon the magistrates of Westminster. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the measure now proposed by him would be of greater efficacy than the punishment which the law inflicted. He had only one other word to say, and that was in reference to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's charge in which he attri- buted to him a violation of duty, because he became a member of the Roxburghshire election committee. Was he not to expose himself to the ballot on that occasion? Would he have acted a manly part if he had not? If he had been conscious of the smallest bias, or of acting from the smallest party feeling, or if there had been any delinquency on his part, he might have absented himself from the ballot. There were two other ballots on the same day; and that he should have been chosen on the Roxburghshire committee was not what he had the least reason to foresee. He could not have been chosen upon it unless the contending claimants considered that he was a fitting person to be on it; nay, more, unless they considered, that he was a more fitting person than any one of the eleven other persons to whom they objected. Neither of the claimants having chosen to object to him, he certainly became a member of the committee. He did so from no wish or party feeling, or from the smallest idea, that his conduct would have called forth blame from persons for whom he entertained the greatest respect. As to those anonymous slanderers who were hired to do their dirty work, he wholly disregarded them—their attacks had never, for a moment, excited any feeling one way or the other. But having been chosen a member of the committee, he entered it as free from bias or party feeling as the right hon. Baronet himself. But the censure of the right hon. Baronet was, in fact, establishing a new law. He could be condemned only by a new law and by a new canon of this House. It was necessary for the right hon. Baronet first to establish a new rule in order to justify attributing blame to him. He was far from saying, that the right hon. Baronet, in the course he declared he should have observed on the occasion, was not perfectly sincere; and if he had had an opportunity of conferring with the right hon. Gentleman, he might have been convinced, that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman was the correct one; but not having had that opportunity, he sat upon that committee not being aware of any ground upon which the slightest imputation could be made against him. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced another proposition which appeared very extraordinary. It was, that being elected chairman of the committee, he was responsible for the proceedings of that committee. Although the chairmen of those committees, the members of which were nominated by the chairman might be considered responsible in a great measure for the proceedings of the committee, yet he differed from the right hon. Baronet in considering, that there was the smallest reason for holding, that any one member of an election committee was more responsible than another. All the members delivered their opinions openly, and all were equally bound to give an honest decision. The chairman, indeed, had the peculiar duty of endeavouring to preserve order and regularity in their proceedings; but was it not the fact, that a person might perform all the duties of a chairman without voting or taking any part in the decision of the committee? Certainly, at the earlier part of the meeting of the committee it was understood, that it was necessary in election, committees that the votes of the members should be taken down, and, therefore, on the first four or five divisions the votes of the members were taken down; but on all of those occasions it so happened to be his lot to vote in the minority. But he blamed no man on that account, because he felt, that the decision to which he arrived was not more honourable or firm than that of the other members who differed from him. But after that, it was understood, that there was no occasion for the votes being taken down, and that the chairman might vote or not as he pleased; and he did not recollect, that he ever gave a single other vote during the remainder of that inquiry. He acted honestly in that committee, and his reason for not again voting was, that he thought, that the person who was discharging the duties of a chairman would do better by avoiding to give any vote, because it would enable him the better to regulate the proceedings of the committee. The right hon. Baronet said, that he did not attack the decision of the committee. If not, then he certainly did not feel it necessary to defend that decision. But the right hon. Gentleman did insinuate, that if other persons were disposed to arraign the decisions of political committees, and to distrust the tribunals of that House, the decision of the Roxburghshire committee might very well form one of the topics of their censure. But he would say it fearlessly, whether he differed from that committee or agreed with it, there was not one decision come to by that committee which could be considered by any fair or honorable person as discreditable to the members of it. Those decisions would stand a comparison with the decisions of any committee that had ever sat. He had, nevertheless, no doubt, that the right hon. Baronet would have come to a very different opinion upon the evidence adduced. According to the testimony of Mr. Cragie, who could not be considered to have any political partiality for him, on the second day of the election there was no rioting or any violence whatever; but that Gentleman said, that there was a moral obstruction on the second, not from any violence on that day, but from the proceedings on the first day. If a moral obstruction arose from a riot at an election the whole proceedings of the election must necessarily be void.

The remedy proposed by the right hon. Baronet for the disorder he had found out, appeared to be a most extraordinary mode of proceeding; for what was the proposition? Why, that they should remove the election from Hawick into other parts of the county, where it was at the same instant declared, that a system of revenge was to be apprehended. It had been said, that former riots had occurred at Hawick. He had not been able to discover an instance of any charge against the electors at Hawick for riot on any former occasion. There were cases of assault; one took place at the election in 1832, on Lord John Scott, when the offender was prosecuted to conviction. The learned Lord, in conclusion, contended, that the authorities in Scotland had, on no occasion, been neglectful of their duty, in cases of riot and disturbance at elections. There had been fewer prosecutions in England for rioting, than at elections in Scotland. It was impossible that any delinquency could have been prosecuted with more zeal than those which formed the subject of the present debate.

said, that the learned Lord had with great ability vindicated himself from charges which had never been made against him, and had with equal judgment abstained from treating of those parts of the case which really pressed, as influencing the decision of the House upon the matter which was now before them, while he had naturally, not unjustifiably, but he (Lord Stanley) thought honourably to himself, dwelt principally, not upon the case which affected the merits of the elec- tion of 1837, the election of 1835, the election of 1832, in the borough of Hawick, which were brought forward with so much ability by his right hon. Friend last night, but had dwelt upon those personal points in which he conceived, that his individual character as a gentleman and a Member of that House, and as a law-officer holding a high station in Scotland, were principally involved. But he did not complain of the learned Lord for taking that course; but still he must say, that while the learned Lord was thus ably vindicating himself from charges which were never made, the learned Lord had abstained from touching that which was the main point upon which the decision of the House was to be formed. The learned Lord had supposed, that his (Lord Stanley's) right hon. Friend last night had charged him with improper conduct, because he had refused to permit the introduction of the military into the town of Hawick previous to the election for Roxburghshire. But his right hon. Friend made no such charge; he never in any respect impugned the right of the learned Lord to exercise his judgment on such a subject; nor did he attempt to express an opinion on the propriety of the application made on the 26th or 27th of July previous to the election; he never expressed an opinion whether the military should or should not have been introduced into the town of Hawick; but the learned Lord having obtained these popular topics, dwelt upon them, and diverging into a vindication of himself, on a charge which was never made against him, entirely departed from the election for Roxburghshire in 1837, and referred to the Carlisle election, for he knew not what year, and to the Appleby election, and quoted the well-known maxim of the Constitution, that it was against the law of Parliament and the practice of the Constitution of this realm, to introduce the military into any town for the purpose of influencing the proceedings of an election. But the learned Lord very cautiously omitted this fact, that neither the petition nor the motion, neither his refusal nor assent, in any one way involved this question, whether military ought to have been in the town of Hawick, for in that town they never were; they never were till after the election. ["Oh, oh!"] Would hon. Gentlemen who called "oh, oh!" venture to assert to him—would any one hon. Member, having read the evidence, say, that he was ready to state, that the military were called into the town of Hawick; or that they made their appearance there till after the poll had been closed on the second day of the election? Yet the argument of the learned Lord was this, that riots had happened in England upon former occasions—riots in which his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) was one of the parties involved in the contest which led to them, and he quoted his right hon. Friend's authority for saying, that the military ought on no occasion to be called in at the time of an election. But in that case it was not the introduction of the troops into the town, but into the way of the people, into the very polling place, that was complained of. Carlisle was a garrison town, and the troops were regularly quartered there. No complaint was made of the troops being in the castle, which formed the outer wall of Carlisle; but the complaint was, that, being so quartered, they were called into the market-place and interfered with the election. What was the case of the Appleby election? Great riots, said the learned Lord, had occurred there, yet nobody thought of sending the military into that town. The learned Lord spoke with regard to the presence or non-presence, the calling for, or the non-calling for, the military at the election, of the riots there, and he stated, that the distance from Denholm to Hawick was five miles, and from Temple Sowerby to Appleby was precisely six miles. But he would repeat, that the point in question was not whether the troops were sent or not within the town of Hawick; but the sole question was this—whether, in the state of the town of Hawick, it was prudent that the troops should have been at the distance of fifteen or twenty miles, at St. Boswell—or whether they should have been brought into the neighbourhood of Hawick, for the purpose of being at hand in case of disturbance. Now, this had been called a case of overawing. He would venture to say, that there was not a contested election in England where there were not troops within the distance that Denholm was from Hawick. And he was quite certain that, in no case where there was a contest in a manufacturing or populous town, would it be matter of complaint that there was a military force within five miles' distance which might be called in in case of any disturbance arising. But, he again repeated, his right hon. Friend made no charge, either in direct terms or by implication, against the learned Lord in respect of his conduct regarding the military. He might say, in passing, that the reflections of his right hon. Friend on the learned Lord's conduct formed a very small portion of the speech in which his right hon. Friend embodied the history of the proceedings at the election at Hawick. The name of the learned Lord was included almost in a parenthesis. No partiality was imputed to the learned Lord either in his conduct or his correspondence. But this his right hon. Friend did impute, that the sheriff of the county, and the magistrates, knowing from previous experience that they had reason to anticipate a disturbance, and knowing that an organization was established for the purpose of getting up a systematic riot to interfere with the election, proceeded to call upon the Lord Advocate to take steps, or to sanction their taking steps for the preservation of the peace of the county, for which the sheriff was responsible; that the Lord Advocate advised the sheriff to communicate with the authorities of Hawick; that some correspondence took place; that the bailies of Hawick, only one of whom was a magistrate of the county, took upon themselves to tell the sheriff that they would not in any way cooperate with him; that they would not assist or aid him, as it was their duty to do, in preserving the peace of the town; that if he anticipated riots, they did not; but that if any riot occurred, and if the sheriff and the magistrates would denude themselves of the authority which the law vested in them, and would give to the bailies of Hawick the sole responsibility and authority, then, upon that, and upon no other condition, they would lend their assistance to preserve the peace of the town. Now, the learned Lord did not deny, that two of those bailies of Hawick were known to be violent partisans of one of the candidates at the election which was about to take place under their jurisdiction. The sheriff stated to these bailies that the law did not give him any authority to come to such an agreement with them without the consent of the Law-officer of the Crown, and he accordingly applied to the Lord Advocate for his permission to transfer from the legal authorities to other, not impartial, but notoriously prejudiced authorities, the full power of preserving the peace during a contest in which it was most likely a disturbance would arise, in which the prejudices of those very magistrates would be deeply engaged. Now, the charge which his right hon. Friend made was a charge of indiscretion against the learned Lord for having, under such circumstances, assented to such an arrangement and to such a denudation of the ordinary legal authorities. In that charge he confessed, with all the respect he bore to the learned Lord—and he declared that he entertained a very sincere respect towards the learned Lord—in that charge he so far concurred that he did think it would have been infinitely better if the learned Lord had thrown upon the sheriff that responsibility which devolved upon him by law; if he had declined to sanction a departure from the ordinary course of the law, and to lend his authority to what must have borne upon the face of it the suspicion of its being a party proceeding. The learned Lord then proceeded to comment upon the supposed charge made against him for being a Member of the committee appointed to try the merits of the Roxburghshire election. He very truly said, that in order to debar him from sitting upon such a committee, there required some new canon, and some law of Parliament. This was true. There was no disqualification to prevent him from sitting upon that committee. The learned Lord also stated that it was very improbable that his name should be called upon that ballot. He (Lord Stanley) admitted it; nor did he charge the learned Lord with any design in coming down to be appointed upon the committee for any party purpose. But finding himself placed upon that committee, the learned Lord would excuse him for saying it was a mere question of feeling, he thought that if he had been in the place of the learned Lord he should have tendered to the House his apology. He thought he should. He thought that if the mere fact of a person having voted at an election disqualified him from sitting on a committee relating to that election, still more strongly, whenever inquiry involved the event of an election in consequence of the mal-conduct of these bailies, who, by the permission of the learned Lord himself, in his official capacity, usurped an authority to which they had no legal claim, should a person in the learned Lord's place feel himself morally disqualified from sitting on that inquiry. If he had been in the learned Lord's place, he should have felt inclined to have thrown himself upon the indulgence of the House, stating the peculiar manner in which he was connected with the circumstances of that election; but he would frankly add this in answer to an objection made by the learned Lord himself, when he said, that the opposing candidate had the power to strike off his name—that if he had been the rejected candidate, and had seen the Lord Advocate's name on the balloting list, and knowing how intimately informed he was of all the circumstances connected with the case—knowing how high his authority stood in Scotland in point of law, and knowing how strong an inducement there was upon him, arising from every motive, to act, as he had no doubt the learned Lord did act, most fairly and impartially, that learned Lord would have been the very last man whom he should have felt disposed to exclude from that committee. The learned Lord had said, that although there had been many cases of election riots and interventions of the military, yet the House had never proceeded to adopt so extreme a remedy as that of transferring the polling from one town to another. No, they never did, but the learned Lord forgot, that they were now proceeding upon a new state of things, and also that the very object and intention of the Reform Bill introducing various polling places was to check the ebullitions of popular feeling which almost inevitably arose in large towns where the population of voters was concentrated in one polling place. But that remedy, with respect to England, was not left for Parliament to apply; the magistrates in quarter Sessions had the power, if they thought fit, of changing and appointing new polling places. But did the learned Lord mean to say, that upon former occasions this step had never been taken to remedy the abuses arising from riots at elections in England? He must surely know, that in many cases it had occurred, when there was only one polling place for a whole county, a transfer to another place had been made. This was a much stronger measure than transferring one only out of three or four polling places. But to his great astonishment the learned Lord quoted the riots of Nottingham. ["Oh, oh!"] At any rate it was quoted by some other Gentleman—Oh! the case of Nottingham was referred to, not by the Lord Advocate, but by the Judge Advocate. And what happened with respect to Nottingham? In 1802 Mr. Scarlett was counsel for Mr. Birch, the sitting Member. For the first three days of the poll, which then lasted for fifteen days, great disturbances took place. After the third day one of the candidates left the town, saying that it was hopeless to think of getting up the voters; but afterwards the peace of the town was preserved and the poll was kept open for the three subsequent days, though no voters polled, those were the days of corrupt committees and of nominees. It was proved, that there was no disturbance after the first three days, yet the nominees and the counsel and the committee said, that the previous moral obstruction which was now so much sneered at, and which had been successfully practised during the three days, rendered null and void the whole election; the voters were enabled to come up during the last three days, but the committee declared, that the return was vitiated by the previous obstruction; the election was declared null and void, and in consequence of the notorious want of prudence and foresight on the part of the local magistrates, the committee recommended, that the county magistrates should have concurrent jurisdiction. He admitted, that the present case did not run on all fours, but here there was notorious obstruction on the first day; and, though hon. Gentlemen talked lightly of the marks left on the voters, yet witness after witness who was called before the committee bore those marks, and stated that they should do so all their lives. One was injured in the hand; another had a contracted finger, which would never be restored; a third had a wounded leg, produced by a kick from a shodden shoe, by which he supposed was meant a shoe which was iron shod; another was dragged out of the river bleeding and exhausted, whilst some of the by-standers, possessed of more humanity than their fellows, called upon the mob for God's sake to desist; another was dragged from his bed and mutilated, and was only saved from the cry of the mob, which was to crush the bed down upon him, and to murder him. It was nothing in Hawick to be stripped of all clothes, and to be driven naked through the town—it was nothing to be dragged, half drowned, out of the river. [Laughter.] Ay, let hon. Members laugh, but he would defy them to laugh at the next case which he would adduce. They would not laugh when they were told that a man was dragged from the river naked, or nearly naked; that he was obliged to take shelter in a neighbour's house; that, naked and stripped, he knew not how to get away, when his sister, hearing of his flight, went to supply him with clothing. But did she succeed in doing so? No. In her attempt to minister clothing to her naked and wounded brother, she was stopped and driven back, and it was only accomplished by the artifice of putting on her clothes over his own, and by thus concealing her intention. This was one of the cases proved by the evidence before the committee, and he would tell hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that these things were not so insignificant as they seemed to suppose. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last night, the Member for Cockermouth, had said, that there was a popular collision, but that there was nothing serious and nothing in the nature of a riot; but the committee were of a different opinion for they were of opinion that "at the late election for the county of Roxburgh, riotous and tumultuous proceedings took place; in consequence of which, according to the evidence produced before this committee, prosecutions were instituted in the Justiciary Court of Scotland, in which prosecutions certain of the offenders were convicted;" but then the committee were fortunately of opinion—that is, most fortunately for the sitting Member—"that the riots were not of such a nature, or of so long duration, as to prevent the votes of the electors of the said county of Roxburgh being taken in the matter of such election." The opinion of the committee, therefore, went a little beyond that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but Lord Mackenzie went a little beyond the opinion of the committee, an opinion which he did not dispute, as far as the matters in the election were concerned, but which on this point, he did dispute, when it was opposed to that of Lord Mackenzie. Lord Mackenzie had said,

"It is impossible for any party, take what view of it he may, to regard it in any other light, than as a serious case in every respect. It is serious, because it was a disturbance of the peace of the grossest description. The mob seems to have taken possession of the town, to have overpowered the authorities, and to have rendered the zealous interposition of some, probably of all of the magistrates, of no effect, and we cannot doubt that this state of things excited the utmost alarm in the minds of the lieges. In reference to the design of these proceedings, to the occasion on which they took place, to the purpose for which they were got up—in this light I also view the case as one of a very serious description."

And then the noble Lord went on to say, "Some attempt was made to represent the riot as of a trifling description, but no eloquence, no ingenuity could sustain such a view of the case. It was a mob evidently intended to have the effect of controlling the right of free election of a Member of Parliament. This I can never consider otherwise than as a most dangerous species of crime. "This was the decision delivered from the judgment-seat of Scotland, although the Lord Advocate, and though the committee had in a technical manner distorted the evidence of the sheriff-substitute, that the voters could come up to the poll; yet they had determined only that riotous and tumultuous proceedings had taken place, whilst other hon. Gentlemen treated the matter, as hardly bearing the name of a riot at all. But it was not on the simple fact of the riot, that his right hon. Friend proceeded in the present motion; it was because it was foreknown—that it was preconcerted—that it ought to have been provided against; and that it was not provided against by the local authorities. When on the first news of the contest, on the entrance of the mail, which was suspected of conveying the persons of the voters, the parties were driven to the house which afterwards became the fortress of the party, the Tower Inn, and yet no steps were taken. And what was the course of proceeding on the following day? The voters were driven like sheep in a pen to the poll; in the earlier part of the day porches were erected, which prevented the mob from having a free view of the voters. Those porches were so placed, that the mob could not precisely tell what part each individual elector took, but on the application of the agent of the Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, in the early part of the day, these porches were removed; full access was given to the mob, to have a clear view; every person who gave his vote did so under the control of the mob, and he was delivered over to the tender mercies of the mob, who ministered brutal maltreatment for venturing to exercise his franchise. And were these voters assaulted in the absence of the magistrates in some obscure corner of the town? No, but under the eye of the magistrates themselves, on their exit from the polling-booth, in the sight of those magistrates who it was proved were wearing the colours of one of the candidates. But then it was said, that there were 300 constables, at the least, surrounding six square yards of ground; why, the chief difficulty of the electors was, to escape in consequence of the density of the constables from the hands of the mob, to whom they were delivered. Some were deterred from coming up, to give their votes at all, whilst others had given it in evidence that they were intimidated into giving different votes from what they had intended. Throughout, the proceedings of the bailies were wavering and improper; those men to whom the peace of the town was committed by the Lord Advocate were not such as was to be expected of him, and no one man was taken into custody by any one constable during the election. He had said, that the riots were foreknown, and that they were foreseen; the county magistrates had met before, and had recommended steps to be taken; they apprehended at this election, knowing the previous conduct of the parties, a renewal of the riots which had taken place in 1835, which had commenced in 1832, and had attended every election since the bestowal of the franchise; the riots were therefore foreseen, and they were foreknown to the local magistrates. The hon. Member for Roxburgh had last night made a bold and able defence of his friends and confederates in Hawick, who, he had somewhere said, were unused to the election disturbances known in England. In 1832, there was one case of assault, Lord John Scott was ill treated; and be it observed, that the riots in Hawick were always against the same party. They were against the same party in 1832, against the same party in 1835, and against the same party in 1837. It was always the party opposed to the hon. Gentleman, which was ill treated, and there was no one case where the other side had been attacked. There was no prosecution in 1832, and it was admitted, that this was owing to the leniency of Lord John Scott. But what were the facts in 1835? Oh, it was said, that there was no riot; it was true, that one man died from the injuries he received then. He made the statement on the authority of an official communication made by the sheriff to the Lord Advocate; at any rate it was supposed, that the man had died in consequence of the injuries he received; it was true, that the Riot Act was read; it was true, that the sheriff appeared at the window to read it; and it was equally true, what hon. Gentlemen appeared to consider was the natural consequence, that the people had a cockshy at the sheriff. Yet this was not a riot; that which happened in 1837 exhibited somewhat more of violence; but still there was nothing like a riot! Some few were stripped naked, others were taken home bleeding and ill-used; one had his leg broken, and the cry of the mob was, "Break the other, and make both his legs alike;" but still there was no riot. He said, with his English notions, that the proceedings at the two last elections did bear some appearance of a riot; and he was prepared to say, with his right hon. Friend, and he would be surprised if the House did not concur with him, that when the progress of riot had been traced in a perfect system, beginning at the first exercise of their privileges, increasing in 1835, and shown to have grown to its height in 1837—when it was proved, that the constituted authorities had not checked it, and that the two persons to whom the Lord-Advocate had delegated the peace of the town were incapable, and when the judges had in the strongest terms denounced those actions as a heinous offence against the freedom of election, it was not too much to ask of the House to maintain that freedom, as well against the exercise of tyranny on the one side, as against popular violence on the other; and that they ought, therefore, to give the sheriff of Roxburgh the same power which was now possessed by the magistrates of every quarter sessions in England, of choosing some other polling-place in lieu of Hawick.

it is chiefly in consequence of the office which I hold, and of having had some correspondence with respect to these occurrences that I think it necessary to say a few words. With respect to the debate itself, I think that we have almost heard enough to decide on this grand, imperial question. With respect, however, to the charges against my right hon. Friend, made with a sort of candour which was accompanied with great obscurity, I am not surprised that my noble Friend should rest satisfied, for I think that the speech of my right hon. Friend completely dispelled the ground of all charge against him; and if there were anything wanting in my right hon. Friend's speech to affect this object, the speech of the noble Lord, who has just sat down, supplies the deficiency. The right hon. Baronet brought two grounds of charge against my learned Friend; the first ground related to the answer which he gave to the application for the interference of the military; but as the noble Lord says, that he does not charge my right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate, with any partiality in his conduct of the correspondence, I will not enter further upon that point than to declare my opinion, that in such correspondence he acted with firmness and discretion. The other ground of charge was, that he permitted himself to be a Member of the Select Committee which was sworn to try the merits of the Roxburgh election. I own, that I think the answer of my learned Friend to be sufficient, that there were eleven other persons whose names the petitioners had thought fit to strike out before his. Surely it was the object of the Grenville Act, by giving the privilege of striking out a large number, to strike out every person who might be thought to have any partiality; and then, as if the right hon. Gentleman's answer was not enough, the noble Lord gives another answer, for he said that the Lord Advocate was so well fitted to act upon the committee by his knowledge of the law of Scotland, by his previous acquaintance with all the circumstances of this election, and by the scruples which it was known that he would have, and which would induce him to turn the balance against his own party, that the learned Gentleman was a particularly good Member for the committee, and that nothing would have induced the noble Lord to strike his name out. Why, Sir, if the Lord Advocate had declined to serve on this committee, what a curious entry must have been made upon the Journals of this House! "The Lord Advocate having been chosen one of the thirty-three Members ballotted for to try the merits of the Roxburgh election, and it being stated in this House, that the Lord Advocate was peculiarly fitted, from his knowledge of the Scotch law, from his acquaintance with the circumstances of this election, and from his bias against his own party, therefore this House, seeing his peculiar fitness, was pleased to excuse the Lord Advocate from attendance on the said committee." I think, Sir, therefore, that so far as the Lord Advocate is concerned, whatever may be the decision with respect to Hawick to which this House may come, he will have no reason to complain; and although, Sir, the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord dealt kindly towards my learned Friend, yet it was well known in Scotland—it has been mooted loudly there—that a charge was to be made against the Lord Advocate by which he was to be overwhelmed, and that the charge was to be brought forward in a debate raised by the right hon. Baronet. It must, Sir, be most satisfactory to my right hon. Friend, that not only did he make a complete answer to the charge, but that even those who brought it forward did not insist, that they had any longer a serious charge against him. With respect to the proposition before the House, I object to it for a reason which is very short, and which seems to me to be very decisive. I will not take part in the description of the offences which were committed at Hawick; I will neither agree in the description of those who insist on their great enormity, nor will I coincide with those who seek to palliate them, but I will take the description given of them in the courts of Scotland. I am, Sir, satisfied with that description, and I am also satisfied with those results. Be it observed, however, without in any manner palliating these offences, that cases of disturbance have, unfortunately, arisen elsewhere, for which prosecuting officers could not be found, and the perpetrators of which could not be ascertained. In the present case, however, did the law officers fail in their duty? Let any one read the speech of the Solicitor-General, and it would be at once said, that it was impossible to state a case more clearly or to produce a greater effect upon the jury than had been produced by the Solicitor-General for Scotland upon the late trials. The prisoners were convicted, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, has referred to the description given of the offences by a learned judge, and a most learned judge he is; and on reading his description, I am the more confirmed, in my own opinion, that it is better to leave such cases as these to the learned and impartial decision of those judges than to make them party questions, and to bring them before a tribunal of a very different description. With respect to the judgment of Lord Mackenzie, I will refer to a few passages. I shall commence reading where the right hon. Gentleman left off; and I do so for the purpose of showing that these offences have been brought before the legitimate tribunals of the country, that the judges have given their decision, and that though a lenient sentence has been passed, yet that it was such as was considered sufficient for the offence. Lord Mackenzie, Lord Cockburn, and the Lord Justice Clerk, may differ in their political opinions, but they agreed in the description of these offences, and they agreed also in the punishment to be awarded. Lord Mackenzie said,

"I look on the case calmly, and am willing to take as low a punishment as can have the effect of preventing such riotous proceedings in future, and checking in these men, and the many others who shared their guilt, the supposition that they can, with safety to themselves, continue to commit such disgusting outrages."

Lord Cockburn, who followed after, said,

"We are at the beginning of a new system in Scotland, and I am anxious to see it begun rightly. I am anxious to see the law enforced from the very first, that the people may not be betrayed into the intolerable thought that elections are to be the occasions selected for popular outrage and personal violence. I do trust that this case will make an impression, not only on the minds of the prisoners, but that it will go forth to the minds of all electors throughout all the elections of the country, so that every man disposed to mobbing and rioting, and such scenes as these, shall know that we never shall have a public prosecutor by whom such things shall be overlooked, that we never shall have a court that will not administer justice, and probably never have juries that will not remember their oaths, but that all will resolutely set their faces to protect freedom of election, by repressing those outrages by which that freedom is destroyed."

And the Lord Justice Clerk, lastly, in awarding the sentences, said,

"I do hope the result of the proceedings in this case will have a salutary effect on the country at large—that Scotland will no more be disgraced by such scenes—that electors and non-electors will be taught that if they take part in such proceedings the arm of the law is sufficient to reach them, and effectually to repress such crimes."

Here, then, Sir, we have the statement of the judges agreeing, in their judicial opinion, that the public prosecutor has done his duty, that the jury have done theirs, and that the sentence will, for the future, prevent the commission of such crimes; and now I ask the House, whether it is not satisfied with the fair and impartial decision of the court of justice, and whether they will consent to make a party decision, that one political party may be favoured, and another political party lowered. This is my reason for opposing this motion; and I think that I may fairly apply the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and say, that he has been guilty of a "great indiscretion in bringing forward this case;" for even if his object should be attained, of removing the polling place from Hawick to Melrose, does he think that such a decision or a party debate is likely to discourage riot so much as the decision of a court of justice, where the evidence is taken without heat, and where the judgment is pronounced without the suspicion of party zeal? I cannot sit down, however, without saying one word as to a noble Lord, a colleague of mine, of whom I thought that unwarrantable mention was made in the first speech in this debate. It was said, that Lord Minto took a strong part in this election, and that he went so far as to head a party procession. I have since asked my noble Friend, and he has distinctly denied, that he ever headed an election procession, and that on the only occasion on which a large procession took place, he took especial care to take a different road, so that he might not fall in with it. Indeed, in the evidence before the Committee, a person who was not exceedingly willing to give any statement favourable to the noble Lord, replied, "I certainly understood it was owing to Lord Minto that we had peace restored in the town." I believe, Sir, that the interference of Lord Minto was in consequence of the wish expressed by the magistrates of Hawick and of Lord Lothian, that he would interfere to preserve the peace of the town. As to the calling in of the military, I will not enter upon that question, except to say, that at least the magistrates were willing that an inquiry should take place: they applied to me to institute one. I communicated with the noble Lord, the Lord-lieutenant of the county, Lord Lothian, and from the explanation I received I was satisfied that the magistrates acted to the best of their discretion in the affair, and I thought that it was not necessary to institute an inquiry; and I am perfectly sure, Sir, that the magistrates acted rightly, and that everything which Lord Minto did was to preserve the peace of the country, and not with the design of using any unnecessary interference.

The noble Lord began his speech with a sarcasm on the grand and imperial nature of the question now before the House; and he says, that on the discussion which has taken place, the House is competent to decide on this great and important question. Now, I do not know exactly what is the test of an imperial measure. I suppose, that an imperial measure, talking in political language, depends on the length of the debate. Now, we were perfectly ready to close this debate last night; but the noble Lord never dreamt of such a proceeding, seeing that he was in a minority; and, therefore, if an undue importance has been given to it, it is the noble Lord who has meted out the imperial standard, and has extended the length of the debate. He says, that supposing that the learned judges of the land shall punish the rioters, the House of Commons has no jurisdiction in the matter. He says, at least, that the punishment of the rioters should be left to the judges of the land, and that the House of Commons should not interfere. And he has quoted some parts of the learned judges' decisions, complaining that my noble Friend had stopped at the point which was material in support of the views of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. Now, I will trouble the House also with an extract in the speech of Lord Mackenzie, and I will begin where he left off. And this is the account that Lord Mackenzie gives of his views on the subject:—

"There may be many things done against the freedom of election, many things done improperly, many things done criminally, and many things which ought to be restrained; but it is evident to common sense, that of all the dangers to the freedom of election, none can be so great as that of the application of unlawful force to the persons of the electors on the very occasion of giving their votes. If men, when they come forward to exercise their franchise, are to feel themselves delivered up to violence at the discretion of lawless and furious persons, there is an end to all freedom of election. It would be a jest to talk of a Constitution founded on the representative system if such things as these were allowed to go on, or were not to be checked by the strong arm of the law. They could have no other erect than to overthrow the Constitution altogether."

Are we not guardians of the Constitution? And would not the representative system be made a mockery if such violent proceedings as those which took place in Roxburghshire were allowed to pass, because the House of Commons had no jurisdiction. Suppose a case of violent riots taking place, and suppose that the evidence should be insufficient to convict the offenders, according to the strict rules of law, by which, of course, such a case must be governed as well as all others, was that any reason why such a system as this should be supported, and it should be admitted, that the House of Commons had no jurisdiction? See to what length this doctrine would lead. Suppose a system of bribery to be carried on in an election, will it be concluded hat it is sufficient to convict the principal bribing party? Will it be said, that it is sufficient that the individual charged with bribery should be brought before a court of law, and that the House of Commons ceases to have any jurisdiction, and that the matter may not be inquired into by a Committee? But supposing a strong case of the system to occur, will it be said, that the mere inquiry before a court of law is sufficient, and that the House has not any jurisdiction to interfere to take away the franchise of the borough? I affirm that that is the case, for if we suffer such violent conduct as this to interfere with the exercise of the elective franchise, and the fears of any respectable man to be so acted upon as to prevent his exercising his right to vote, is it any satisfaction to that man to say, that one man has been convicted by a court of law; and are we not bound to take measures not only to punish the individuals concerned, but to stop the system of violence which has caused the mischief complained of? It is said, then, that these riots in Scotland are exaggerated in importance, and that they are no more than a mere election row in England, and would have produced no more attention. That was the defence made at the court before the judges by the learned counsel, dealing in all sorts of legal quibbles, by whom it was said that these riots were nothing but English rows. And what do the judges say? "It is said in the observations of Lord Mackenzie, indeed, that in a neighbouring country, liberties are taken in this respect at elections. It may be that many things are done there which are not correct or proper, or agreeable to good manners, and which, nevertheless it may not be always expedient to follow out to their full consequences; but that anything similar to what has existed in this case is there tolerated I have not the most distant conception." Did any of us ever hear that at Westminster, or any where else, the place of giving the suffrage was beset by a mob; "that men when returning from giving their suffrages were taken prisoners by that mob, and treated as the voters of the county of Roxburgh have been proved in this case to have been? Was a case ever heard of where voters were laid hold of in the streets of Westminster?" What! are cases of outrage so prevalent that you have nothing but them? First, says the hon. Gentleman, that it is the ordinary rule of practice in this country, and this I am told, that these riots are prevalent in every part of the empire; but in saying this do you not give me conclusive proof that Parlia- ment is called upon to give its authority to say, not that this town shall forfeit its franchise, not that the inhabitants shall no longer possess the right of voting, but that it should not continue to hold the poll? And the more you prove that these practices are permitted, the more should you desire that the poll should be taken away from towns where such disorders take place, and the more do you prove to me that the jurisdiction of the judges alone is insufficient. But I must say, that the encouragement which the mob of Hawick has received in the course of this debate, the tone and temper of the defence which has been made for the outrages which they committed, is ten times more alarming than the outrages themselves. It appears to be assumed as a matter of course that the holding Conservative opinions at Hawick in itself involves a positive offence against the law. Why, what is the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite? In the first place, and speaking of 1835, as was remarked by my noble Friend near me, the Member, the representative, who embodies sentiments of the people of Hawick—so far as I can see a very worthy representative of them—what is the doctrine which he holds. He says, "When the sheriff read the riot act it is true he was pelted, but then the snow was on the ground." Now, flesh and blood cannot resist that. [a laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen's fingers seemed to itch for a snow ball. It began by the boys pelting the sheriff, but it seems that it soon extended to the men, and when the sheriff read the riot act, nothing was more natural than that they should make him a cockshy. But then the hon. Member for Cockermouth, when we tell of the voter for Lord J. Scott being ill-treated, says—"Oh, yes, it is true he was abused and ill-treated; but then he was mistaken for the factor. You mistake in supposing that he was ill-treated as an independent voter; not at all; he was mistaken for the factor, and all the sufferings which he was compelled to undergo were meant for the factor." So that in the opinion of the good people of Hawick it is an offence against the law to hold Conservative principles, and not only so, but even to be a factor to a Conservative proprietor. But then it is said, "You charge the people with robbery; but so virtuous are the people, that although they take the money from the pockets of the persons whom they strip, yet they take pains immediately to return it," Why, this is the miserable defence which has always been made for mob-riots. This is the very defence set up for the mob at the time of the French revolution. I say the principle is the same; they murdered the magistrate, but they did not steal his property; but having abstracted it from his pockets, they brought his watch and his purse to the Hotel de Ville, and they were lauded as the most virtuous of people, who limited their vengeance to the purpose which called it forth, and so virtuous and well principled were they that they would not soil their hands with pillage, for after they had murdered the man, they took care not to steal his money. Then there was another charge, that violence was used for the purpose of intimidation, and that there was a system of intimidation employed for the purpose of influencing the voters, and of preventing them from supporting that candidate whose principles they approved; and in answer to this it is said, that the committee have reported, that the voters had full opportunity and power to go to the poll. They did get up to the poll, and it was true that they did vote, but the most disgraceful outrages were committed afterwards on the unoffending men. Then we are told that the river is not deep: but is it not a sufficient violation of one's freedom and one's safety to be thrown into a river over the bridge, no matter how deep or how shallow the water may be? It is something too monstrous to contemplate, that because a river is shallow a man may be thrown into it with impunity. Here are individuals coming up to exercise a franchise, which they have as much right to exercise as any hon. Member of this House has a right to vote, and they are seized by the mob, and indignities offered to them worse than death itself. They are stripped naked in the streets—they are exposed to every species of degradation and humiliation—they are lessened in their own esteem, and then you tell us that it is sufficient to get up and say that they have given their votes. But what effect has it on the voter who has not given his vote, if he finds his predecessor has voted, but has been half murdered in consequence? Then, what says the hon. Member for Cockermouth, that these outrages are not on account of the vote which has been given, but because the voter has changed his opinion. That is Hawick law again! You cannot change your opinion at Hawick. Can any thing be more monstrous than this? It is held out as a de- fence that you are wrong in supposing that the voter is maintaining the Conservative opinion which he has always entertained. Oh, no! he was a Liberal formerly, and because he has changed his political opinion he is liable to be attacked in the manner adopted here. I am sure that the hon. Member will not say that this is intimidation, but as it is put forth it strikes me that it is impossible not to consider it so. The hon. Member says, too, that the question lies in a nutshell. I agree with him; but if so, why have all these extraneous matters been introduced into the subject? What have we to do with the case of Selkirkshire? And with what object can that have been introduced but to divert the attention of the House from the proper subject. The question is not whether the military were properly applied to or not; but the question is, whether there has been on several occasions such proofs of systematic violence at Hawick as to disqualify it from being allowed to continue in the position of a polling-place? The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that the reason for the commission of these outrages was the indignation of the people at seeing the military sent for, and that the threat to send for military assistance instigated the people to commit acts of violence; and he refers to those men who were advocates for the freedom of election, and who, he says, were indignant to think that the military should be called in. The military were not called in until the next day. I will admit, for the sake of argument, that it was wrong to send for them at all; but I will say that these outrages were sufficient of themselves to give the House a sufficient reason for passing this bill. I said that I would not trespass long on the attention of the House, and I will keep my promise, and I will offer only a few more observations; but this I must say, that, recollecting other times, when a Conservative Government had authority—I mean official authority—if the whole of these transactions had occurred, from beginning to end—if, in the case of a Whig constituency, a peer and First Lord of the Admiralty had been present in the town at the nomination, and if he had taken part, with whatever good intention with respect to the maintenance of the peace of the town, his brother being a candidate—if the Conservative candidate had offered an insult to the Whig sheriff; as the natural result of an inherent disposition in a man to make the sheriff a cock-shy—if three members of the Conservative candidate's family had permitted the poll to be taken near the Tower inn—if, in the case of the particular friend of the Conservative candidate the preservation of the peace had been entrusted to him, and he had got up the votes—if one magistrate offered his protection to another, as by the magistrate, in this case, protection had been offered to Major Napier—if it had been considered that it was a positive crime to change your opinions in the place—if to rescind the whole in case of an election committee, my hon. and learned Friend near me, as Lord Advocate for Scotland, had sat on that committee, and had made a report thereupon—if, after all these things, there were riots which were not sufficient, still, to prevent the voters from going to the poll then, he would venture to say that the roof of this House never would have rung with such clamorous cries as would have come from those Members of the House who were opposed to that Government, and that, too, because the practical exercise of the elective franchise happened to be intrusted to a Conservative Government.

.—The question as simply confined to the point, as to whether the polling-booths of Hawick should be removed to some other place, it was a matter which was of little importance, because it was equally competent for any hon. Member to move, that the polling-place for Westminster should be removed from Covent-garden to Drury-lane. A more frivolous and childish proposition could not be made. The hon. Member was so frequently interrupted, that he was compelled to resume his seat.

in reply, said, that some observations had been made by an hon. Member, with reference to Mr. Scott, the opponent of the hon. Member opposite at the last election, with regard to some signatures which he bad obtained to the petition which he had presented to this House. Mr. Scott, in his letter, referred to two voters named Bramah, who had been alluded to, and who were both now in town. Mr. Scott stated, that he had called on those persons with the petition, and had explained to them the nature of its prayer, and he believed, that at the time he was doing so they both understood him, and had their eyes on the paper itself, and, therefore, were acquainted with its contents and, that they both signed it being fully cognisant of these things, and in consequence of their being so acquainted with them; and having made this statement, he would leave the subject in the hands of the House. After the best reflection, that he could give to the statements and counter-statements, his opinion had only been shaken on one point, and he would acknowledge, that he had been mistaken as to one of the statements made to him. He alluded to that respecting Lord Minto having headed the procession, that entered Hawick; this information he found to be erroneous. With this exception he adhered to every statement, that he had made. It was the boast of the Long Parliament, that it had abolished torture; and would it not be a matter of reproach and shame to the present Parliament if it did not, by adopting the motion which he proposed, discountenance that system of contumely and indignity to which voters had been exposed in the exercise of those rights conferred upon them by the constitution, and which was utterly incompatible with the maintenance of the free institutions of this country? As lovers of those institutions, and as being anxious to preserve them, he trusted the House would sanction his motion.

The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 272:—Majority 22.