rose, to call the attention of the House to the Petition from the county of Carmarthen, presented on the 29th of May last, complaining of the interference of the steward of a peer at the last election for that county. The act complained of was, that Earl Cawdor, being a peer of Parliament, had interfered in matters affecting the election of Members of the House of Commons, and had the acts done by the noble Earl, a peer of Parliament, been lawful in a commoner, he should have used his influence with the complaining parties not to bring the matter before the House, but as the nature of their complaint was, that Earl Cawdor, through the means of his agents, had exercised improper influence and coercion over his tenants at the last election of Members of the House of Commons; conduct which would have been improper in a commoner, he was induced to bring the matter before the House. The matters complained of were stated on the authority of the two petitioners, who, he admitted, were active partisans on behalf of Sir James Williams, the opponent of Colonel Trevor and Mr. Jones, the candidates on the Conservative side. The event complained of, took place in two polling districts of a part of the county of Carmarthen, where the property of the noble Earl lay. The statement of Mr. Hall, one of the petitioners, related principally to the events which occurred at the Newcastle Emlyn polling district. In Llandilo, the transactions rested on the statement of the other petitioner, Mr. Adams, jun. With regard to the interference of the noble Earl there, he had several distinct original documents which had been set forth in the petition. Those he would now read seriatim. The first documents to which he would call the attention of the House were three letters addressed to Thomas Tobias, William Jones, and David Hopkins, tenants of Earl Cawdor, by Mr. Richard Bowden Williams, who was the steward of the noble Earl. The first letter was addressed to Thomas Tobias, and dated the 27th of July, 1837, from Stackpoole-court, the residence of the noble Earl. It was right that he should first state, that, at the period of the election, the noble Earl was not in this country, having gone to the continent shortly before the election, for which reason the memorial to which he had adverted had not been presented. The letter addressed by Mr. R. B. Williams, the steward to Thomas Tobias, dated Stackpole-court, July 27, 1837 (the election having taken place on the 7th and 8th of August following), was as follows:—

"Mr. Thomas Tobias, I shall depend upon you to plump for Colonel Trevor at the coming election, who is the only candidate supported by your noble landlord, and I have no doubt that you will do so. Your wellwisher,

R. B. WILLIAMS,"

The petition stated, that in consequence of this letter from the noble Lord's principal residence in South Wales, Tobias gave his vote to Colonel Trevor alone. The next letter was similar, dated from the same place and on the same day, and addressed to another tenant of Earl Cawdor, named Jones, and was in these terms:—

"William Jones, I shall depend upon your giving a plumper vote in favour of Colonel Trevor at the coming election, and hope not to be disappointed. Your wellwisher,

R. B. WILLIAMS."

The third letter was of the same date, and addressed to Mr. David Hopkins in similar terms:

"Mr. David Hopkins, I shall rely upon your giving a plumper for Colonel Trevor at the approaching election, who is the only candidate supported by your landlord. Your wellwisher,

"R. B. WILLIAMS."

Now, if the interference with the tenantry of the noble Earl had been confined to these three letters, he (Mr. Warburton) was not certain that he should have brought the matter forward. But he had other letters to which he must call the attention of the House, and one of them was a letter written by Mr. Williams to Thomas Evans, a tenant of the father of Mr. Adams, the petitioner, for his land, and of the noble Earl for his house. Evans, as he was informed, had built an inn on the lands of Lord Cawdor, and relying on the excellent private character of the noble Earl, both as a gentleman and a landlord, had not taken a lease of the lands on which the inn was built. Evans had been applied to by the petitioner Adams, to vote for Sir James Williams, and had stated that he had been directed by Mr. Williams to plump for Colonel Trevor, but added, that he would write to Mr. Williams, the steward of the noble Earl, to ask permission to split his vote between the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Trevor) and Sir James Williams. Such a letter had been written by Evans to Williams; and this was the answer of Richard Bowden Williams to the application of Evans for permission to split his vote:—

"Sir,—Your noble landlord's interest is given to Colonel Trevor, and all support has been withdrawn from Sir James Williams; so that I cannot comply with your request, and I shall hope to find that you shall have plumped fur the Colonel.

"Your well-wisher,

"R. B. WILLIAMS."

This showed the sort of influence which Mr. Williams exercised over at least one tenant of the noble Lord. Of the next document to which he should call the attention of the House, he had not got the original, but only an extract, the authenticity of which, however, he should be able to establish. It appeared that a person of the name of Daniel Rees, a subagent or under-steward of Earl Cawdor, had been particularly active on behalf of Colonel Trevor, at one of the polling-places, and that various applications had been made by him to induce the tenants of the noble Earl to plump for the Colonel, and that on the first day of polling, a meeting of the tenants had been held at an inn at Llandilo. It appeared that four of these tenants had been called by Daniel Rees into a private room, and there a letter from Mr. Richard Bowden Williams had been read to them by Daniel Rees. It was dated Stackpole-court, 2d August, 1837, and was as follows:—

"Mr. Daniel Rees,—You had better see Evan Evans, of Llandybie Mill, David Stephen, smith, Stephen Griffith, of Bryngwynne, and William Morris, of Abertrinant, and tell them, that as they are so very independent, and so very ungrateful for the indulgence and favour shown to them by their landlord, that I hope to receive their rents to Lady-day last on my return to Llandilo, and then I shall see what further is to be done in the matter. I am glad that the other parties are safe, and I am very much pleased with Mr. Daniel Thomas's exertions, who can tell the parson that he had better attend to his own concerns, and leave the Earl's tenants alone. We wish every man to plump for Colonel Trevor. Be sharp and very careful on the days of polling. In haste,

"Your well-wisher,

"R. B. WILLIAMS."

These four tenants of Earl Cawdor had been repeatedly canvassed by Daniel Rees to vote for Colonel Trevor, and had refused on the first day; they were carried into a private room, and there the letter of Mr. Richard Bowden Williams was read in their presence by Daniel Rees. The authenticity of the letter was proved by Mr. Thomas Williams, a printer, at Llandilo, to whom Rees had shown it, and by the four tenants themselves, viz.—Evan Evans, David Stephen, Stephen Griffith, and William Morris. Each of these four parties was willing to depose to the facts he had now stated. Now, although the first letters he had recited were not sufficient to justify his calling the attention of the House to them, yet when he coupled them with the letter to Rees, there was a series of transactions not only unworthy a Peer of the realm, but unworthy of anybody, and were such as called for the attentive consideration of the House. The question, then, arose as to the manner in which it would be proper for the House to notice the matter. He confessed, he attached no very great importance to the resolutions of the House, that it was an improper thing for a Peer of Parliament to concern himself in the election of Commoners, and he did not wish to call attention to such conduct on the part of the noble Earl, as in a Commoner, would be justifiable; he, therefore, meant to conclude by a motion that this petition be referred to a committee of privileges. When, on a late occasion, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury sought to introduce a bill, the object of which was, by pains and penalties, to prevent the exercise of intimidation, he had opposed the motion, because he was of opinion that no pains and penalties, or positive enactments of that nature, would prevent or check the exercise of intimidation by landlords. Conduct of that kind could not be prevented by pains and penalties, and he thought the best check upon the practice, was moral reprobation. No one was more deeply impressed than he was with a sense of the blameless and estimable character of Earl Cawdor, in every relation of life; but if a nobleman of such a character exercised improper influence over his tenants, what legitimate ground of expectation could they have, that the mere influence of moral reprobation would prevent any Peer or Commoner from exercising undue influence of this description? Most probably it would be said, that what Lord Cawdor had done was what every no leman and commoner, on whatever side of the House he sat, was in the constant habit of doing. If this were to be put forward as the justification of Lord Cawdor, he desired nothing more, for the admission of the malpractice was the first step to its cure. And, in his belief, the only effectual remedy which could be provided, would be found in enabling the electors to give their votes under the protection of secrecy.

, when he considered the period of the Session, the pressure of public business, and the somewhat peremptory statement which had been made last night by the noble Lord opposite, in reply to the application of his right hon. Friend near him, to have precedence given to his bill for the regulation of the trial of controverted elections, he was amazed that a member, possessed of so much discretion and experience as his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, should have determined to take precedence on the ground of privilege for such a motion as this. Upon the very outset he had abandoned it as such a motion. The hon. Member had not hesitated to admit, that it was not with any particular reference to Lord Cawdor's conduct, as a Peer of Parliament, he had brought it forward, but that he would have done so equally with reference to a commoner. He had, therefore, admitted his total failure upon the ground of privilege. He had thrown overboard even the larger portion of the documents to which a reference was made in the petition. He had abandoned the memorial of the tenants, and admitted that Lord Cawdor was absent from England at the time wheri the transaction which was complained of had occurred. He had admitted the blameless and estimable conduct of Lord Cawdor in every relation of life. If he mistook not, the hon. Gentleman rested his case upon a solitary letter, the original of which he did not possess, and from which some extracts alone were contained in his brief. He would state to the House the facts of this case upon the part of his noble Friend Lord Cawdor, with whose intimacy he had long been honoured. Lord Cawdor did not deny that he had given his support at the last election for Carmarthen to the hon. Friend who sat behind him; but the entire facts of the case were such, that in justice to his noble friend, he thought he was entitled to state them to the House, In the county of Carmarthen there were 5,500 electors. The representation was closely contested at the last general election, and the sitting Member was returned by a small majority. A large proportion of the whole number of electors was polled. By how many did the House believe that the present petition was signed? By just two out of the entire constituency. The first of these was a Mr. Adams, the eldest son of a gentleman who had represented the county in a former Parliament. [Sir James Graham shewed, that the father of the petitioner had applied to Lord Cawdor for his support in 1832, and obtained it, for which he addressed to the noble Earl a letter of thanks, which the right hon. Baronet read.] The second petitioner was a provincial barrister, having, as he was informed, barely the qualification to vote in the county. This gentleman was also one who had exhibited not the slightest reluctance to apply for the active support of Lord Cawdor at former elections. [The right hon. Baronet read a letter making an application.] It was quite obvious that the present petition had its origin in the disappointment of these parties at the last general election. The petition had been smouldering now for seven months. In the month of November last it had been brought to the right hon. the Speaker with a great flourish of trumpets, by a deputation consisting of three members; and the Speaker was asked to present it in his official character to the House as a gross breach of privilege, such having in early times been the practice in certain cases. The Speaker had, however, declined to take notice of the petition. How had it been dealt with out of doors? His noble friend had been traduced by the provincial press from time to time with the greatest acrimony, as well as in that journal which was considered principally to represent her Majesty's Government. He was anxious, in consequence of these repeated attacks upon Lord Cawdor's character, to call the attention of the House to some correspondence which had taken place between that nobleman and Sir James Williams, who might be considered as the immediate promoter of this petition. In the memorial of the eleven electors, which had been cushioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the regret of the memorialists was expressed that his Lordship had ceased to support those principles of reform which he had for- merly asserted; and that in consequence of threats which had been held out against them, they would support Sir James Williams. Now, with regard to this allegation of threats, the only letter alleged to contain threats upon which the hon. Member relied in support of that charge, was a letter bearing date the 2nd of August, although the memorial bore date the 21st of July. Where were, then, the proofs by which the memorialists supported their case? It was necessary to lay before the House some correspondence which had taken place between Earl Cawdor and Sir J. Williams, in order fully to vindicate that nobleman's character, now that it was dragged before the public. At the period of the general election in 1831, his noble Friend had written the following letter to Sir J. Williams, who was a candidate for the county of Carmarthen at that period, when the noble Lord opposite, on the part of Lord Grey's Government, had brought forward the Reform Bill. Lord Cawdor wrote this letter to ascertain precisely what length Sir J. Williams would go with regard to the Reform Bill:—[The right hon. Baronet quoted the letter which was of the purport he stated. The right hon. Baronet also quoted Sir J. Williams's answer, which explained his political principles, and asked the noble Earl's support.] It was, therefore, clear that no great coyness was exhibited at that period about obtaining through Lord Cawdor's influence, a seat in Parliament. After being returned for the county in 1831, through Lord Cawdor's influence, the terms upon which this gentleman was with Lord Cawdor's agent (Mr. Williams) might be inferred from the peremptory expressions in the following letter, which he forwarded to that individual:—

"My dear Williams,—Pray stop any opposition in the borough, which has been ill concocted and hopeless; it will only entail upon me a retaliation for the county and much expense: Jones's return appears certain. However, you must use your own discretion; if no opposition is offered in the borough, Goring Thomas will be recommended to retire."

Most sincerely Yours,

J. H. WILLIAMS.

At the general election in 1835, the county was about again to be contested, and great anxiety was evinced as to how Lord Cawdor's influence would be given. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Ebring- ton) was most anxious to obtain for his brother-in-law the support of Lord Cawdor, and wrote a letter to that nobleman, requesting that he would give his influence to Sir J. Williams, as circumstances prevented Sir J. Williams, from asking that influence for himself. Lord Cawdor yielded to the solicitation of the noble Lord, and sent a particular friend with a message to Sir J. Williams, intimating, that though he could not offer him his support, he wished for some explanation of his opinions as to the questions of the ballot, and universal suffrage, and also as to a question which circumstances then made of moment—the question of a voluntary principle as applied to the Church. Sir J. Williams answered this intimation from the noble Lord in the following letter. {The hon. Baronet quoted the letter which referred the noble Earl to former publications by Sir J. Williams for his political statements. The right hon. Baronet also quoted the addresses referred to by Sir J. Williams, in which he stated, that he was a friend to the Reform, and the enemy of the annihilation of the Church.] Lord Cawdor answered the letter containing these addresses by one which he would read to the House:—

Stackpole-court, Jan. 1, 1835.

"Sir, I have this moment received your letter of yesterday's date, and hasten to reply to it. There seems to be some misapprehension on the subject of my having offered you my support. I was applied to, to know what course I intended to take in the approaching contest for the county of Carmarthen. My answer was, that I was willing to wave all personal feeling, and that if I could be satisfied that you did not entertain Radical opinions, I was willing to give you my support, but it certainly never occurred to me to make any offer of it. What I have now to consider is, whether your letter and the enclosures are such as do, in fact, give me that assurance which I require. I find in the address dated April, 1831, an explicit statement to this effect—that the Reform Bill having passed, you feel it due to the authors of that bill to declare, that you will ask for no further reform. The meaning I affix to these words is, that you will not require vote by ballot, or an extension of the elective franchise, to both of which measures I am decidedly opposed. I find also in the address dated August, 1832, language which induces me to believe, that you are ready to maintain the church as a national establishment, in contradiction to what is called the voluntary principle. If I am right in the meaning I attach to the language of these addresses, I am ready to support you; but if the meaning I affix to them is not the correct one, I trust to your honour to refuse my support, and refer the matter entirely to your decision, which I will thank you to notify to my friend, Mr. W. Hughes."

Sir James Williams returned to that letter the following answer:—

"Carmarthen, Jan. 1, 1835.

"My Lord,—I regret that any misapprehension should have occurred on the subject of your having 'offered' me your support. I have no hesitation to assert, that the addresses which I enclosed to your Lordship, conveyed my real sentiments, in accordance with your Lordship's construction of them, and I should have acted with the greatest duplicity, had I forwarded them to your Lordship for the purpose of obtaining your support, entertaining at the same time different views. Your Lordship has afforded me an opportunity of availing myself of your support as a man of honour, and as a man of honour I accept it. I cannot conclude without expressing to your Lordship my warmest thanks. Believe me, my Lord,

"Your faithful and obedient Servant,

"JAMES WILLIAMS."

"The Earl Cawdor."

In consequence of that letter Lord Cawdor supported Sir James Williams in 1834, and he held in his hand a letter of thanks from Sir James Williams to the noble Lord, in which he stated, "I have been induced most reluctantly to reenter upon public life, as I have before assured your Lordship. Allow me, however, to return my best thanks for the powerful support your Lordship has given me at this election." Support was given by the noble Lord, his support succeeded, and there was the letter of thanks from Sir James Williams. He would not pursue very minutely the line of conduct pursued by Sir James Williams, but would merely state three facts. Sir James Williams voted, in 1836, on the motion of Mr. Rippon, for the expulsion of the bishops from the House of Lords. He was an active member of Mr. Leader's committee in Westminster, in 1837; and in a local contest which took place at a vestry meeting in the parish of Llansamel, in Carmarthenshire, the question being whether the assessment of a church-rate then proposed should be taken into consideration immediately, or that day six months, his agent with his authority voted for the postponement. Previous to the last election, Lord Cawdor told Sir James Williams personally that it would be impos- sible he could ever again give him his support for the county of Carmarthen. He, after that statement would leave it to the House whether there was the slightest justification for the assertion, that Lord Cawdor had ceased to support those principles of reform which from the year 1831 to the present moment he had uniformly, steadily, and honestly maintained, in contradistinction to the dangerous doctrines he then opposed, and was still determined to oppose. He would distinctly state, that Lord Cawdor, after what had taken place, entertaining apprehensions of the success of Sir James Williams, did instruct his tenants to plump for one of the opposing candidates in order to prevent that success. Lord Cawdor had directed him to state, that his wish was, at the time, that his tenants should know that he had ceased to think Sir James Williams entitled to his support, and that every influence which he could consistently with his character exercise with his tenantry should be made use of to prevent Sir James Williams from representing the county. Lord Cawdor went abroad, gave instructions to his agent how to act, but by no means withdrew himself from the responsibility of any act on the part of the agent which might not have been in strict accordance with those instructions, or attempted to deny any letter which his agent might have written. With regard to the resolution of the House respecting the interference of Peers at elections, he considered it would be impossible, because too dangerous, to act upon it. The right hon. Baronet defended the influence of rank and wealth in elections, and maintained, that landlords might appropriately guide the judgment of the tenants. With regard to the letter referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he must say, that it contained expressions of a very unguarded nature, and was a violation of the principle and liberty for which he contended. It alluded to a threat respecting rent; but he called upon the House to recollect that Lord Cawdor was not in England at the time. Besides, most improper means had been resorted to, to swerve the judgment of Lord Cawdor's tenantry, and it became indispensably necessary, in order to counteract that interference, to take steps of a stronger nature than were usually resorted to. But what had been the result? Had any parties suffered? It was admitted that the tenants were in arrear of rent; they continued so still; they were tenants at will. Had they been ejected? No such thing. One of them, whose name was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—David Stephen, he believed—had not only not been deprived of what he possessed, but had been successful in acquiring what, at the period of the election, he was not led to expect. He had been made an officer of excise in a neighbouring town. For this Lord Cawdor had been traduced in the Cambrian and other newspapers. The subject had been suspended over his head for the last seven months, although not a single tenant who had voted against his wish had been punished in the slightest degree; they all remained in undisturbed possession and still in arrear of rent. The case he looked upon, therefore, altogether as a trumpery one, which he should most strenuously resist.

Sitting in that House as the eldest son of a Peer, he would merely say, that there was a certain legitimate influence attached to property, which Peers, in common with other landed proprietors, had a right to possess and exercise, and did possess and exercise, over their tenantry. But if they abused such power by unjust interference, by threats or intimidations, he was of opinion that their conduct should be most severely reprobated, if not punished. He was sure, at the same time, from his long knowledge of Lord Cawdor, that he was incapable of acting towards his tenantry in a harsh or severe manner on account of any political course they might choose to pursue. With regard to the letter which had been written by Lord Cawdor's agent, the right hon. Baronet had said, and he agreed with him, that it was a most improper and unjustifiable letter to have addressed to a tenant, and such a one as he was sure the noble Lord would not have sanctioned had he been consulted on the subject.

at first doubted the possibility of bringing home to Lord Cawdor the conduct of his agent; but that point, the only link wanting in the chain of evidence, had been supplied by the hon. Baronet, who had admitted, that Lord Cawdor was ready to take upon himself the responsibility of every act of his agent. There was no one, he was sure, in that House who would object to the legitimate exercise of the influence of a Peer, at the same time, that every one must admit the present to have been a case in which that exercise of influence way anything but legitimate.

wished to say on the present occasion, that attempts to blacken the characters of individuals should not be permitted, especially when such an attempt was merely supported by such trumpery cases as the present.

observed, that the purpose of the Reform Act was to put an end to nomination, and he contended that the present was a gross case of nomination.

denied, that the present was the case of what was called a close county. He had fought three contests in that county. For his part, he felt perfectly satisfied with the defence made by his right hon. Friend; and he had no doubt that that defence would prove perfectly satisfactory to the House and the country.

said, that when the ballot came again under discussion, the present case would furnish the supporters of that mode of voting with a very striking illustration of the defects of the present system. As to the resolution of the House in reference to the interference of Peers, it clearly appeared to be waste paper. No one wished to deprive Peers of their legitimate influence in elections, but that legitimate influence, much as it had been so eloquently and beautifully described by the right hon. Baronet, might with equal effect be exercised by them under the secret mode of voting.

said, he had himself triumphed over Sir J. Williams, by the mere influence of his own character and station in the county, and without any outlay of money, notwithstanding that Sir J. Williams was a man of large fortune in the county, and that a large number of freeholders had been coerced to give him their votes. The charges now brought forward were most invidious and unjustifiable. As to the county voters being dragged up to the poll like sheep, he believed this description applied much more accurately to the wretched artisans of Sheffield, by whose votes the hon. Member Mr. Ward attained his seat; and he believed further that if the ballot, which the hon. Member so loudly called for, were introduced, those votes would no longer be given in the hon. Gentleman's favour. It was a mistake to say, that Sir J. Williams was a justice of the peace for the county; he was, it was true, in the commission, but he had not taken out his dedimus.

said, the statements he had just heard confirmed him in the opinion he had long entertained, that he was wrong in voting for the 50l. tenant-at will clause. Tenants would be in a better situation without any franchise at all.

said, he had on former occasions stated his opinion, that in the present position of circumstances it was impossible to impugn a peer for an interference which every body allowed to be practised by other landowners. He certainly did not think the House could act on the strict letter of its resolution, but, on the other hand, it was not so clear that it would be expedient at once to expunge that resolution, or not to renew it, for he was by no means sure that a very considerable effect was not produced by the mere existence of the resolution, and of the sort of feeling to which it gave rise that it was not proper or decorous for Peers to take an active part in elections; and he much doubted if they were to rescind the resolution, and give full licence to Peers to interfere as they thought proper, whether it would not be found that Peers could be considerably more influential in the return of Members than they appeared to be in the present petition. In reference to the present case he found little to remark upon beyond the melancholy condition in which Lord Cawdor's tenants appeared to be placed, wandering about in search of information as to which way their landlord was going to vote, what they were to do with one of their votes, and what with the other. Their embarrassment on the approach of elections must be great indeed. It was suggested, indeed, that the adoption of the vote by ballot would entirely relieve voters in such a situation from their very unpleasant dilemma, and he must confess that he should be willing to go great lengths to succour men in so distressing a state of doubt; but he was sceptical as to the proposed mode of relief, for it really appeared to him that if these parties were so beset with doubts under the present plain system, the introduction of a secret mode of voting, and the mysterious procedure of putting their names in ballot-boxes would only add to their confusion, and render them still, more puzzled and unhappy than even at the approach of elections. He hoped it would not be taken for granted, in consequence of the decision the House came to on this motion that if a landlord, who found his tenant had refused to obey his wishes with respect to the vote he gave, immediately turned him out of his farm, or exercised some other mode of coercion with regard to his tenant's vote, the House had no means of proceeding, as that such conduct would pass without any notice being taken of it by the House. He conceived that the law of Parliament, declaring that there should be a free exercise of the parliamentary franchise, did mean something substantial—that it did mean, that the voter should not be coerced to give his vote at the dictation of any man. It should be borne in mind that in the present case it was said, that no man had been visited vindictively on account of the vote he had given. [Sir James Graham, one had been rewarded.] He was gratified to find from the statement of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, that one individual, who had exhibited some spirit of independence on the occasion of which they were speaking, and who, he supposed, had shown more intelligence than others, had had a little encouragement extended to him. He received that information with very great satisfaction. He thought it an exceedingly proper thing to give encouragement to independence of that kind, and trusted that the reward given to the voter was only a trifling evidence of the great improvement that was taking place in this respect.

had gained his object in getting the letter avowed, in Lord Cawdor's recognition of the acts of his agent, and in the admission of the fact of the universality of the practice.

Motion negatived.