as it was understood that the Government would not interpose any business to prevent the discussion on the matters of the Ipswich and Southampton election petitions, although they were not matters of privilege, wished to state that he had two notices on the paper for leave to bring in two bills, to make further provision for the government of New South Wales and Newfoundland; and he trusted that, as these were matters of importance, he would be allowed to bring them on at a later period of the evening.

hoped, that full opportunity would be given to the people of Newfoundland to know the nature of the noble Lord's measure, and to state their views.

said, that in point of fact, the constitution of Newfoundland was now suspended, and it was necessary to carry a bill to provide for the Government there

asked the right hon. Baronet a question relative to the act for the trial of controverted elections. That act would expire at the end of the present Session of Parliament, and he would ask whether it was in the contemplation of her Majesty's Government to bring in a bill during the present Session to continue it?

replied, that it was assuredly his intention to bring in a bill to continue the present act for a certain time longer, and when he saw the number of compromises, alleged to have taken place, it certainly gave him the impression that there was a more searching inquiry instituted under the new, than under the old act. He hoped that the House would never consent to part with its jurisdiction in election matters. Whether it would be right to make any modification in the existing act he would not now state; but it was his intention, by renewing the act, to ask the House whether they would retain the jurisdiction.

would say, that whatever change might be made, he did not think that the trial of controverted elections could be in worse hands than in those of Members of that House.

was glad that the House thought that the issuing of two writs for the two places whose representation was now vacant ought to have precedence, and preference over any other business, inasmuch as it was amongst the first duties of the House to decide upon them. He was glad also that, in consequence of the suggestions made by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, he was able to make a proposal to the House which would apply to two cases affecting opposite sides of the House, so that it could not be thought that what he proposed was in the slightest degree connected with political feeling, or that he wished to give any advantage to one side or the other. All parties were equally concerned in this matter, and it was equally the duty of all to use every means in their power to enforce the law already enacted, or if their was any deficiency in the law as at present established, they should frame a better one for the punishment of bribery and corruption. Since the subject had been last mentioned, he had again read over the evidence in the Ipswich and Southampton cases, and he was confirmed in the opinion that there was not in the evidence a sufficiently extensive measure of corruption to call upon the House to take any steps for destroying suspending, or altering the elective franchise in either of the two cases. There might be evidence of suspicion, but there was no evidence of a sufficiently extensive corruption to justify the bringing in of any measure to affect the rights of those who were not mixed up or concerned in these transactions. He had ever been ready to support such measures when it was clear that the corrupt on was general, or that the proportion of the constituency connected with the corruption was so great as to deprive those unconcerned of the efficient exercise of their rights. He did not think that in the present cases there were any grounds for a legislative measure; but the question was, whether in the instances which had come before them in the reports of their committees, showing it was their impression that extensive bribery did exist, an impression clearly supported by the evidence, the House would allow the matter to be passed over in silence—whether they would allow the individuals, whoever they might be, the bribers or the bribed, to go to other elections to repeat their crime, and whether such disclosures should be attended with no evil consequence whatever to the parties, but serve rather as an encouragement to them to pursue the same acts. In dealing with these cases he would take the two separately. On reading the evidence given before the Ipswich committee, he certainly found there was sufficient grounds for the opinion of the committee, that "extreme bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich."Of the existence of that bribery there could be little doubt; at the same time he was free to acknowledge, and before he proposed to the House that they should direct the Attorney-General to prosecute, he would state that he did see a difficulty which arose from the peculiarity of the evidence. That evidence was such as to leave no doubt of the practice of extensive bribery. Still it might be very difficult to establish individual cases. He would not, therefore, propose to take the same course as had been taken in other cases, and direct the Attorney-general to prosecute certain individuals, because it was impossible to say which it would be necessary to make use of as evidence, and also because there might be considerable reason to believe that this bribery prevailed upon one side as much as the other; and he did not wish to shut out the consideration of those cases. The committee had, of necessity stopped the hearing of this evidence: they had acted perfectly right; they could not enter upon the evidence produced to prove recriminatory charges. They must, therefore, have further inquiry and further investigation before the individuals to be prosecuted could be selected. He was quite aware of the difficulty which must attend any further investigation, because the motives to furnish the evidence must be slight; the desire must mainly proceed from party hostility, and not from a desire to further the ends of justice. This was the great difficulty in all these cases, and had probably led to some of those compromises which they heard had taken place. The parties in the election cases must look to what would be the probable result of the inquiry. It might prove bribery to such an extent as would lead to the disfranchisement of the borough, by which all would equally suffer; and, at any rate, it might injure neighbours and draw down public feeling against themselves, for the public feeling was such as not to give any countenance to these inquiries; on the contrary, they generally found that the feeling of the jury and of the populace was not with those who prosecuted, but with those who were guilty of bribery. He thought, therefore, he might fairly state there were great difficulties in the case. It was said why had not the House shown itself more careful to put down bribery? The House had never been wanting in a desire to put it down during the last 150 years. It had been stated that bribery at the last election had existed to an extent never before known. The House however had frequently brought forward measures to prevent it, some of which had met with the concurrence of the other House, and he knew of no measure that could be devised more stringent than these measures which had already been passed. The bribery bill of 1729 contained enactments imposing penalties on those who gave, or who promised a reward, and on the voter who asked for a bribe, or consented to be bribed. These penalties that House had fixed at 70l., and these penalties the House of Lords, not choosing to negative the bill altogether, had altered, interfering with what were considered the peculiar privileges of the House of Commons; the other House had raised the penalty to 500l. The House had wisely determined that its own privileges, though interfered with, should not be turned against itself, and instead of avoiding the penalty of 500l. it had acceded to it. Now, this act was read publicly before the commencement of every election, and no one could say, therefore, that there was not sufficient notice of its existence. But although by the provisions which this statute contained an indemnity was granted to any persons who should prosecute to conviction in a court of law any other persons for the offence of bribery, against any of the consequences of any act of bribery in which he was himself concerned, a similar indemnity was not granted to those who should give evidence of bribery before that House, or before a committee of that House. This, he believed, had proved a most efficient protection to corruption, and he sincerely hoped that a difficulty so striking might be removed; and as, for the first time, a bill had been sent down to that House from the House of Lords—a bill of protection of the privileges of the House of Commons—he for one was most willing to welcome that bill and to agree to it, so far as he approved of its principle; and he did agree with its main provisions, although in some particulars it did not receive his approbation. He for one was willing to render it applicable so far as was possible to the particular circumstances of this case. But he wished to ask, whether the House, looking at the cases of bribery which appeared from their proceedings to have occurred, and the system of bribery which had been carried on, would not institute a further inquiry into the subject, with a view to the prosecution of those who were guilty? He did not wish that any strict directions should be given to the Attorney-general, but looking only at these particular cases, he must certainly say that he thought they were instances in which it was highly probable that, on investigation, witnesses might be found such as to induce the Attorney-general to enter into proceedings against some individuals of a criminal nature. The evidence of the witnesses who had been already examined before the committee might require to be strengthened on particular points, and, therefore, while he proposed that the Attorney-general should be directed to prosecute the persons concerned in the bribery which had taken place at the late election at Ipswich, he should propose to leave a discretionary power with that learned individual, to be exercised by him after the inquiries which he should have made, in order that he might proceed in those cases only where the evidence should appear to be sufficiently strong to warrant such a step. For his own part he entertained feelings of the most sincere pain at the perjury and prevarication which appeared on the part of many of the persons who had been examined in these cases. Taking the case of Ipswich, two of the witnesses had admitted that there was evidence against the two late Members for that borough, and they said that a public speech had been made, in which it had been declared that it should not be 1,000l., 2,000l., or 3,000l., which should prevent their having their seats. The committee had not in this case stated on their finding that the sitting Members knew of the bribery which had been carried on, but from the statements which had been made to that House, hon. Gentlemen could not have the least reason to doubt that that omission had arisen from the fact of the committee not being aware of the direction contained in the late act of Parliament that they should do so, and if they had made a report upon the subject, there was little doubt that they would have declared that the practices to which he had referred were known to those Gentlemen. The speech to which he had alluded had been deposed to only by two witnesses, and others were called who had denied that anything of the sort had occurred, and if such a speech had been made, there was very little doubt that it could have been proved, as it must have been heard by a great number of persons. The committee, therefore, he thought, were right in not taking this as evidence that these Gentlemen were connected with the bribery proved. Other witnesses were called whom it was perfectly impossible to believe—who were determined not to tell the truth; who said that the occurrence had taken place nearly twelve mouths ago, and whether they had received money or papers from any individual they were unable to say. Now this was what convinced him of the necessity of having such cases repeated to the House, and which also convinced him of the necessity of continuing the detention of witnesses who were taken into custody for perjury or prevarication for a longer period than they were accustomed to sanction such detention. In the present case, he thought that they had no option but to institute an additional inquiry through the medium of the Attorney-general, supplementary to the inquiry of this House before the election committee, because that committee had had no prosecutor before them, and had had no one before them interested in conducting the evidence and in endeavouring to establish a case. He apprehended that on subjects of this nature the Attorney-general was the servant, not merely of the Crown, but of the House; the House might instruct him to institute proceedings, and he therefore moved that the Attorney-general be directed to prosecute such persons as shall appear to him to have been guilty of bribery in respect of the last election for the borough of Ips- wich. The right hon. Gentleman said that his motion, as he had given notice of, it, included also the case of Southampton; but. he should move that hereafter.

felt considerable difficulty, as he always must feel, in rising to address the House, in opposition to anything which had been urged by so distinguished a Member of that House as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down;but he felt so strongly the difficulties which were in the way of the motion which the right hon. Gentleman had made, that notwithstanding the diffidence under which be had stated that he laboured, he was induced to intrude himself upon the notice of the House. He thought, that the House stood at this moment before the public, in rather a peculiar position, and that it would be very inexpedient that they should aggravate the peculiarity of those circumstances by taking any steps such as those which were proposed He was not aware, that any directions had been ever given to the Attorney-general, in the general form which was now proposed, and he was fortified in this belief, by the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself stated, that he believed that this proceeding was at variance with the course usually adopted. He had heard it said in that House, and he agreed in the opinion that it should be only on very strong occasions that the House should direct any prosecution to be instituted. Generally speaking, such a direction would operate to the prejudice of the defendant, but he must say, that in the present case he did not feel that any such disadvantage would arise, for, on the contrary, he firmly believed, that the very fact of the prosecution being ordered by that House, would rather induce an acquittal of the person charged. He had had some experience in reference to what had occurred, even before those discussions which had taken place in the course of the present Session of Parliament, for the House had in a former Session directed him to prosecute several persons in the St. Alban's case. Whoever had read the evidence in that case, together with the speeches from counsel, and the summing up of the learned judge, would, he was satisfied, feel convinced, that some peculiar circumstances, not arising out of the evidence, must have led to the conclusion which had been arrived. There was no doubt in his mind, that there was at present so strong an impression in the country regarding the existence of bribery in the conduct of the Members of that House, that any prosecution ordered to be undertaken, unattended by some general measure directed to the suppression of the evil, would be viewed as a persecution, and as being directed in a spirit of hypocrisy, and with the object of bolstering up the system now so universally decried, rather than with a view to putting it down. He was convinced, that no one felt more than the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this motion, how desirable it was to sustain the honour and integrity of the House, and that it was with such an object, that the right hon. Gentleman had been induced to suggest this prosecution, but, at the same time, he would beg to ask, did any one expect that any public good would result from the prosecution proposed? So long as those proceedings were confined to a few cases —were confined to individuals of little influence — to the conviction of one or two miserable individuals, no other effect would be produced, than to excite sympathy for the persons charged, and disapprobation for the conduct of those who had selected a few individuals, in order to make a pretended show of hostility to the system of which they were the supporters. It would naturally occur to the public to inquire "if bribes be received, who give them?"and when they looked at the quarter from which the money proceeded, by which guilt was induced, and found, that that House had produced funds to seduce the people whom they afterwards prosecuted, he thought that such an inquiry might well be made. But, first of all, he thought that great practical difficulties stood in the way of the proposition now before the House. The committee who had inquired into this case had presented no individuals to the House by name as having been guilty of bribery, with such evidence as enabled the House to appreciate the probability of conviction; and they were unable, therefore, to point out any individual who should be made the object of any direction which they should give. What means had the Attorney-general to ascertain the probabilities of the case—to call witnesses before him and to examine them? What agents must he employ to effect such an object? What means had he of going or sending into those quarters where inquiries should be made, and of making such an investigation as could enable him to obtain that in- formation which he required? He conceived that it was not the duty of the Attorney-general to persecute individuals —to institute prosecutions without the probability of success. In the case to which he had alluded, he stood in this position, in consequence of the orders of the House. When he examined into the evidence, upon the directions which were given to him to institute a prosecution, he was satisfied that there was no evidence upon which a conviction could be looked for. The orders of the House, however, had been given, and he had thought it right to say that the prosecution should be suspended until he could make a communication to the House upon the subject, for he did not believe that the House had issued the orders which they had given, and that they wished those orders to be carried out without a reasonable ground to expect a conviction. When the House sat again he was out of office, but he had no doubt that the prosecution subsequently instituted was not undertaken without some good reason — upon the ground of some new evidence having been obtained, or of some other circumstances which induced a belief that a conviction would be obtained. The House, before they directed a prosecution, must be convinced that there were reasonable means to induce a belief that the prosecution could be supported. But he was satisfied that the Attorney-general would not have the means in this case of getting at the evidence which was requisite. But supposing that he did possess such means—that he should devote six or nine months to the case, sending down agents to make inquiries, and receiving their report, it was after all upon that mere report that he must act. The last thing which a consul could do was to see any witnesses himself before they came into court; it was considered to be matter of the greatest consequence that this rule should be strictly attended to, because it was natural to suppose that the course of his inquiries would afford the witness the means of knowing the particular part of his evidence which was important, in reference to which, therefore, he might shape his testimony in court either favourably or unfavourably to the prosecuting party, as he might feel disposed; and therefore it was that this rule, which applied to all except witnesses whose testimony was of a scientific character, in respect of which, therefore, it might be desirable that the counsel should obtain some information from him, was strictly adhered to. The Attorney-general, therefore, must act entirely upon report—he would not have any personal means of information. But if, after all, he could do that, which he said the Attorney-general could not, he begged to submit to the House, most respectfully, that considering the reference to a committee which they were about to make for the purpose of inquiry, considering the extent of the system of bribery which had been carried on, this was hardly a fit moment for them to direct such proceedings as were proposed, if they did not also manifest their desire to put down the general system by some legislative measure. The course of defence in the St. Alban's case bad been that bribery was so common in the House of Commons, that nothing but party motives could have induced that prosecution to be directed to be undertaken. Whether the jury adopted that view he would not say; but he must say that nothing could more disparage that House than such a prosecution being ordered. Speeches delivered in that House might be quoted before the jury, which would would rather excite disgust, than any desire to convict; and he thought that what had passed in the present Session even rendered such a prosecution highly inexpedient. Any one sitting in that House during the present Session must have been very much struck with the exhibition of feelings and views—which, if quoted, would tend very little to show a good feeling to be entertained by that House. What had happened? Every committee which had taken any steps with regard to this question had been charged with a vindictive spirit, and had been held up as consisting of persons of illiberal views; while every witness who was made to suffer the displeasure of the House had been regarded as an object of sympathy. If any hon. Member, influenced by the best feelings, deemed himself bound to bring forward the question of bribery, what was the consequence? He was charged with ruining the character of the House, and everything which had tended to impede or to prevent inquiry into the system which had been carried on had been viewed as matter of satisfaction, rather than anything else. If an individual Tendered himself obnoxious to the censure of the House, the greatest degree of anxiety was exhibited until he was delivered from thraldom; and a few days' or hours' con- finement were abundantly sufficient punishment—nay, too much for his offence; and yet the House was to put individuals to great expense, and to the disgrace and harassment of an indictment, although it could not but be seen that the orders by which proceedings were directed could not be the result of a sincere desire that such prosecution should be carried out. He, therefore, hoped that the House would forbear directing any proceedings to be taken in the general terms of this motion, and would forbear to proceed to the cases pointed out, for until it had taken some measures to set itself right in the public mind, by showing that it was sincere, and by punishing, not those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, but those who had furnished the means of bribing, it appeared to him that no practical good could arise from such a proposition as the present, and that every circumstance connected with the subject rendered such a proposition inexpedient. Undoubtedly this was an awful moment for the country— the extent of bribery carried on rendered it fearful, for the House would remember the expression—the prediction of an eminent constitutional writer. He had said that the sign of the ruin of this country would be when the constituency was more corrupt than its representatives. He feared that that was the state of the constituency at the present time, and though he would hold up to censure those who furnished the means of corrupting the people, the disposition to receive bribes was so universal as to leave the constituency in a state very little likely to discharge its duty to the country. In such a case, the prosecution of a few cases would operate with no practical good effect—it would disparage the House rather than raise it in the public estimation, and public justice would not be advanced by the proposition being carried out.

perfectly agreed with the greater part of the observations of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, although he was not sure that he should resist the present motion upon the same grounds upon which his hon. and learned Friend had opposed it. It appeared to him to be somewhat extraordinary that this House should say that they would not institute a prosecution, because they thought that a prosecution by the House would have the effect of inducing the jury to acquit the person charged. He was not disposed to agree in this proposition, nor in that which had been held by his hon. and learned Friend, that because bribery was, unfortunately, very general and very extensive at the last election — because they had seen many cases of this nature in that House, therefore that House should take no steps to put down the system until they brought forward some measure for that purpose. And he thought that it would be a very bad thing to hold out impunity to those who might take bribes at an election, and to say that, in the present state of the law, the House was not prepared to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute. He did not think, therefore, that he could agree to resist this motion on these grounds. There was one thing in which they must all agree — in lamenting the extensive nature of the bribery which had existed at the late election; and when his hon. and learned Friend had said that this House had shown no desire to put down this system, he hoped that that was not a true representation of the feelings of the House, for he was sure that there was no hon. Member who was not deeply interested in attaining that object; for he was satisfied that nothing was more likely to injure the constituency and every institution of this country than the general prevalence of bribery. And therefore he did not agree that it was the feeling of that House not to take steps for the prevention of that offence, but, on the contrary, he was sure that as it was the interest, so it was the wish of every hon. Member to adopt some measure to put an end to the continuance of the system which unfortunately prevailed. Now, what was the best course to be taken? With regard to this motion he entertained very serious objections to it. There had been many cases of bribery, and the course had been this. If the case was made out before the committee of the House of Commons, and there was evidence offered, fixing the guilt of that bribery on any one, the invariable practice had been for the committee to make a report, and for the House then to direct the Attorney-general to institute proceedings against that person. But the argument of the right hon. Gentleman had been this that in reading over this evidence with regard to Ipswich, which was now before the House, a great deal of evidence appeared to have been offered of acts of bribery committed by particular individuals, but the right hon. Gentleman could not state himself that the witnesses were worthy of credit, or that the parties had been shown to have been guilty of any offence. But the right hon. Gentleman said, "Let the Attorney-general be directed by the House to take this report, and to investigate these cases, and that the Attorney-general shall exercise his own judgment whether these persons should be prosecuted."But the answer to this was, that the Attorney-General had no means of doing that. He could take the report as it stood, and the evidence which appeared upon the face of it, and he could form a judgment upon it whether it was sufficient to make out the charge; but if he was to examine witnesses—to investigate the matter—to make inquiries— by what means was he to do so? He had no means of compelling witnesses to come before him, or of making a proper investigation. It was true that if the House should direct the Solicitor of the Treasury to proceed to the spot, and to make inquiries, it might be done, and some good result might be expected to be produced. But that was not the motion, and besides it was not usual for the House to adopt that course. The usual course for the House to take was to find whether there was a case against any individual in the report which was made by the committee, and if it was so, to direct a prosecution; and the consequence of proceeding in any other way might be, that the Attorney-General must altogether get rid of the order of the House, or might institute a prosecution which, according to his own views was improper. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it was an injudicious course for the House to take to direct a prosecution to be instituted on light grounds, or in cases where there might be a doubt as to the conviction of the parties charged, and that cases ought to be brought home to the parties charged to induce the House to interfere. He objected, therefore, to the motion that it was contrary to precedent—that it was not in accordance with the usual course—that it supposed a power to exist in the Attorney-general which he did not possess; and he hoped, therefore, that on these grounds his right hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his proposition. But he wished again to guard himself against the supposition of his offering an opposition to this motion on the grounds taken by his hon. and learned Friend. Certainly the House should take every opportunity not only of expressing, but of showing a determination to do what they could to put down this system, and he, as an humble Member of that House, should be most happy to give his assistance to any measure brought forward on either side of the House—either a general legislative measure or otherwise, which might have the effect of putting down or checking this evil. He believed that any measure likely to be attended with any good result would receive the support of his hon. Friends around him, and of the majority of the House. With this feeling, at the same time, he could not support the motion of his right hon. Friend, nor could he believe that it would be attended with any good practical results.

felt very much the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, but it appeared to him that if the House was inclined to adopt the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-general must take one of the two courses which had been pointed out. The one would be to find such cases as might appear from the report of the election committee, and from the evidence, which in the present instance the right hon. Gentleman did not think was sufficiently strong to induce him to move that the Attorney-general should proceed against any particular individuals, to be likely to be sustained. The House must suppose, however, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, which he believed to be well founded, that the Attorney-general would not be likely to succeed in any prosecution which he might undertake. It would be a great misfortune if prosecutions, directed by the authority of that House, should be found to rest on such grounds, that the Judge should say that there was not sufficient evidence to support them, or that the jury should arrive at the same conclusion, and he was sure that the House would not willingly order such prosecutions. But there was another course which the Attorney-general might take. He might apply to the Treasury, and might say that he had not sufficient means himself to direct the investigation, and he might desire that, as in some cases of some prosecutions for crimes, such as riots and so on, the solicitor of the Treasury should be directed to inquire what evidence could be produced against whatever parties there might be who were supposed to be guilty of bribery. Now, he did not say that the House might not, on consideration and deliberation, think that such a course was expedient, but on the first view of the matter, he was not prepared to adopt such a line of proceeding; because they must of course suppose that the Government, and the Attorney-general, acting under the direction of the Government, could not be without some bias with respect to the great party struggles in boroughs in political elections, and it would be rather a dangerous precedent for the House to adopt, to say that an officer appointed by the Crown should determine that with respect to certain individuals there should be a prosecution, and that with respect to others, both being charged with the same offence, there should not be a prosecution, even without saying that there would be partiality in the execution of that power. Yet, if it should be found that a prosecution was directed against a Liberal attorney, or tradesman, and the Tory attorney, or tradesman, was not prosecuted, it was obvious that there might be conclusions drawn, although there were no grounds for supposing that it had been done from feelings of political partisanship. He thought, therefore, that it was inexpedient to take the course proposed. He certainly could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester, for he could not agree that that House should at once admit that there were any views in that House favourable to bribery, and that therefore they were unfit to direct a prosecution to be instituted. Hitherto, when any persons had been found to be guilty of bribery, he had always been ready to concur in a vote that directions should be given for a prosecution to be instituted; and there was great danger in the admission that they were not as competent as ever to direct prosecutions in such cases. But there were some grounds for saying that there had been occasions on which the House had shown some favour to parties who had been examined before committees of the House, and he must refer to what had occurred in one case, because the course which had been taken in that case had somewhat surprised him. He had been in the House when the hon. and learned Member for Woodstock had given notice of a particular motion. There had been a case with respect to a particular witness, who was supposed to have refused to answer questions, and the chairman of the committee had stated to the House that the committee thought it would be advisable that he should be retained in custody until the Monday following. He had concluded that the House would agree in the opinion expressed by the committee, as they usually had done, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said that at the next meeting of the House he should move the liberation of the person referred to. It had occurred to him at the moment to ask whether, by the term "the next meeting,"the hon. and learned Gentleman meant the Monday following, this having occurred on Saturday, but he thought that to put such a question would look so much as if he suspected the hon. Gentleman of unfair dealing, that he resolved to abstain from putting it, upon the supposition that he could not mean any other day. He subsequently learned, however, that late in the night, and towards one o'clock in the morning, a motion was made that the House, instead of adjourning until Monday, should adjourn only to Saturday, and on Saturday, at two o'clock in the day, the witness, whom the committee had decided should be kept in custody until the following Monday, was liberated. Nothing, he thought, could be more gross and partial than this conduct. Many hon. Members might have left town very early on the Saturnine morning, under the impression that the House had adjourned to Monday, and thus surreptitiously, and without any notice, it had been resolved that the House should meet on the Saturday, and when the House did meet, that this witness should be discharged. If he had been on that committee, he confessed that he should have felt that the House was not prepared to support any witness who gave evidence of acts of bribery—that in this case the House had favoured bribery, and that wherever a witness refused to give evidence with regard to that offence, he might look to be screened from punishment by that House. If there had been the intention of acting fairly, due notice should have been given, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should have distinctly stated that he intended to move that the House should meet on Saturday. This would have been the course consistently with common fairness; be, therefore, thought that his hon. and learned Friend was justified in saying that there was a disposition in that House to screen witnesses in particular cases. He agreed with the Solicitor-general as to the inexpediency of adopting the motion before the House.

was perfectly astonished at the course the noble Lord had thought proper to pursue, upon a totally different subject, without the slightest notice to him (Mr. Thesiger) —without giving him the least intimation. The noble Lord had thought proper to advert to the circumstances that had occurred in a former debate—a most irregular course; and, above all, a debate in which he had taken occasion to explain, as he thought, to the satisfaction of the House, his conduct with regard to the motion for the release of the witness. The noble Lord not being in his place at the time, and not having heard the explanation he had given, chose to bring forward a charge again, when, as he understood, the whole matter had been satisfactorily explained and settled. It would, therefore, be necessary for him to explain again, rather for the satisfaction of the noble Lord than that of the House, what was the course he had proposed with regard to the release of that witness. The noble Lord was mistaken in supposing, that the witness had been ordered to be imprisoned till Monday. The committee directed, that he should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms; and they then reported to the House, that he had suppressed certain documents, which he had been served with an order to produce, and which he did not bring before the committee. The matter was adjourned on the suggestion that the warrant was illegal. He entertained a very strong notion on the subject, and he thought it his duty, therefore, to come down to the House prepared with a notice for the release of the witness, who had been, in his opinion, illegally detained. He inquired who was to move the usual adjournment of the House from Friday till Monday, and was informed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should make the motion. He immediately gave him notice of his intention to oppose that motion, and to move, that the House do meet on Saturday, and at the time, he believed, that the motion would be made at an early period of the evening, when the House would be full, and that he should have an opportunity of bringing before the House the question whether they would detain a witness for a length of time illegally, or whether they would meet for his discharge the following day. His right hon. Friend told him, that he should not move the adjournment at the usual time, because it would interfere with a question which he was anxious to bring before the House. It was, therefore, merely by an accident, that the subject, and, of course, his motion to meet on Saturday, had been thrown back to a later period. He had given notice of his intention to every hon. Member on his side of the House. [Cheers.] Hon. Members should not cheer so soon, for he was about to add, that he had given notice to hon. Members also on the other side. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Cirencester, could inform the noble Lord, that he had communicated the fact to several hon. Members on the other side that it was his intention to oppose the adjournment of the House to Monday. The Chairman of committees had said, that he was aware of his intention to do so, and, therefore, he thought he was justified in saying that he had given every public notice in his power, and that every one was prepared for an opposition to the usual motion. He thought it was rather hard that the noble Lord should, at that late period, come forward to charge him with having been guilty of bringing forward the motion surreptitiously, and with unfair conduct in moving the adjournment of the House to Saturday. He thought he had justified the course he had pursued, and he had trusted the noble Lord would have been generous enough, not to have taken that opportunity of bringing a charge against him, as he might have alluded to the explanation of his conduct which he had given, or he might have received it from hon. Members on his side of the House. That being wholly beside the subject matter of the present debate, he certainly did not intend to have said a word on the present occasion, but having been so pointedly referred to by the noble Lord, he could not avoid giving this explanation. With reference to the present question, he would observe, that it struck him, that it would be very inconvenient, if the House were to direct prosecutions to be instituted for bribery on the grounds suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He had a great objection to the House directing proceedings in such cases. He did not think it correct, and he doubted whether it were a constitutional mode of proceeding. He did not think any prosecution should be instituted on light and trifling grounds. There should be the clearest evidence, that the parties, if they were placed at the bar of a court of justice would be convicted by a jury. In all cases where a jury looked upon a prosecution as being instituted from political motives, it became most objectionable. He thought, also, that it was derogatory to the dignity of the House to delegate its authority to another individual, by directing the Solicitor of the Treasury, or any party, to procure evidence against the parties concerned.

in explanation, said he was not aware, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had communicated his intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Member of the House. What he complained of was, that it had not been openly announced to the House, because he should have opposed the adjournment of the House to Saturday, and instead of leaving the House at 12 o'clock, he should have remained, and he believed many other hon. Members left the House, without being aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intentions.

was one of the majority who supported the adjournment of the House to Saturday, and his reason was not to protect or favour a man who had been guilty of bribery, but because he had heard the Attorney-general declare, that the warrant was illegal. He thought it his duty, therefore, to support the motion. Nay, he had done more, for he had moved the immediate discharge of the witness; and in doing that he had been charged with having made the most unjustifiable motion, that had ever been submitted to that House.

was anxious to say a word with regard to the interlocutory debate that had been introduced. He begged to say, that on the Friday night, when the motion was made by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Woodstock, his hon. and learned Friend had given an explanation, which he considered, so far as his hon. and learned Friend was concerned, perfectly satisfactory. But inasmuch as the House was then very thin, his hon. and learned Friend repeated his explanation the following day, and then also it appeared to be satisfactory. He had certainly differed from his hon. and learned Friend on the motion for adjournment till Saturday, but with regard to the course his hon. and learned Friend had adopted, he thought the explanation then for the third time given was perfectly satisfactory. He was satisfied, that his hon. and learned Friend had given all the notice in his power. With regard to juries being influenced by the fact of the prosecutions having been instituted by order of that House, he doubted it very much, and he did not think they were influenced by any such feeling. As to the case to which reference had been made, the House should bear in mind that one of the witnesses had been recently confined in a lunatic asylum, and that the other was familiarly called by a name intimating an utter want of veracity. The House had no more right, in his opinion, to call in question the verdict of a jury, than to call in question the conduct of a judge, except in the regular and constitutional way. The present motion was one which called upon the Attorney-general to use the discretion, and exercise the judgment of the House of Commons; it was placing him in a position to do what was the duty of the House itself; and, although he should not shrink from the honest discharge of whatever duty might be cast upon him, he should protest against being placed in so delicate and responsible a position, unless there was some very strong case calling for it. Nothing but respect for his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Worcester, had induced him to go on with the prosecution of Swan. That prosecution had been instituted from the report of the committee laid before the House; but it had been carried on from information derived from other quarters. The House was not sitting at the time; but he was not sure whether, had the House been then sitting, he should not have felt it his duty to have come down and made a communication to it on the subject. He believed great inconvenience would arise from the House directing prosecutions to be instituted without being sure of its ground, because it would be a sort of inducement to other persons to fish for evidence against the parties selected for prosecution. He trusted, under these circumstances, his right hon. Friend would not press his motion, but withdraw it, when he could bring it forward again, naming the individuals, where there was a certainty of the charge of bribery being brought home against them.

said, even if the right hon. Gentleman made out a clear case of bribery, he should not support his motion. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, that the House did not stand sufficiently high in public estimation, and was not in such good dour, as to enable them to bring forward prosecutions like the present with any chance of success. In the last Session of Parliament, the House had directed that Dr. Webster, of St. Albans, should be prosecuted for bribery. What occurred? Previous to its being instituted, it was staled that a most disgraceful compromise had been entered into between the two places against which petitions had been presented—namely, Canterbury and St. Alban's; and it was arranged that the petitions in both these cases—although, had they been proceeded with, it was quite clear, from what had transpired, that the allegations would have been proved, and that neither of these hon. Members had any right to sit in that House for the remainder of the Session—it was arranged that the petitions should be withdrawn, and a most corrupt compromise had been clearly entered into, much worse than any of the cases that had been brought forward during the present Session. What was the consequence? Dr. Webster was prosecuted, but the public looking at the tainted source from whence such prosecutions emanated, considered all men so prosecuted more as martyrs than as criminals. What did the mayor of St. Alban's, Mr. Rumbold, say when the statement was made of money being brought by the man termed "Lying Adams?" By the way the Attorney-general had admitted that there was no doubt about the character of the man, but the House should have known it when it instituted the inquiry. The mayor said he was surprised at the occurrence of money being shown on the hustings, but not at hearing that bribery had been practised in town. Baron Alderson said,

"You were not surprised at bribery being carried on, but at its being publicly admitted?"(and the answer of the witness was) "Just so."

The judge, at the conclusion of the trial, said it behoved the jury to come to a fair decision between the Crown and the parties before it; but that as for a reading a lesson to any other persons besides themselves, by the decision which they should pronounce, it was extremely idle. The jury retired for three quarters of an hour, and then delivered a verdict of "Not Guilty,"which was hailed with loud and long-continued cheers. That was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's last motion for prosecuting one of the individuals who had been pronounced by a committee of that House guilty of bribery. Such motions as these were perfectly useless, and as the hon. and learned Member for Worcester had said, if they hoped to bolster up the system by such measures as these, they would signally fail. Nothing would do to secure public respect for that House but an entire remodelling its framework, and extending the class of electors by whom its Members were to be returned. He should vote against the motion, because he considered it partial and most unjust.

said, that two of the witnesses on the trial alluded to had not given their evidence in a satisfactory manner, and a jury might be unwilling to convict upon their testimony. They had, however, stated that they had received bribes from a certain medical gentleman, and that gentleman having corroborated their evidence to a certain point, refused to answer the question whether he had given them money lest he should criminate himself. Thus, although there was in the case sufficient to enable a committee of that House to come to a conscientious conclusion, yet there would be a difficulty when it came to a prosecution; because, if the proceedings were instituted against the two persons who had received the bribes, there would be no evidence against them but that of the medical gentleman; and if the latter were made the object of prosecution, the only testimony tending to inculpate him would be that of the two who had received the money.

said, he was not cognisant of any compromise having taken place in the Canterbury case, and never was more agreeably surprised than by hearing on the morning when the petition was to have been tried, that it was abandoned. He had reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for Finsbury had spoken of the gross bribery, as it was called, at Canterbury. That hon. Member would think it hard, if he accused him of exercising corrupt influence in the borough of Finsbury; and yet he had as much right to make such an attack as the hon. Gentleman had.

said, that Canterbury and St. Alban's might settle their accounts as well as they could, but the worst of it was, that there had been a great deal of bribery which it would seem was not known to the Gentlemen in that House. He was sorry it was not in his power to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The public were persuaded that there never had been so much corruption and bribery as at the last election; and every Gentleman who spoke in that House acknowledged that it had not been confined to either party, but had been most impartially shared by both. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to find a remedy for the evil. There were means of facilitating the punishment of bribery, and thus preventing the practice. There had been an act passed requiring committees to inquire into charges of bribery without first establishing agency, and thus getting rid of the obstacles which had formerly existed on account of the difficulty of defining what was agency; but the House had not gone far enough. The refusal of a party to criminate himself was the great impediment to justice. Why did not the Attorney-general— no man was more competent—bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses who gave evidence before committees. He belonged to a Government which was powerful enough to carry such a measure, and while that step was not taken, however sincere, and however creditable the intentions of Gentlemen might be, the public would not give credit to them. By taking such a course, they would have men of the first rank in the country in the box, if they meddled in this dirty work, and it was impossible that such an amount of bribery should have taken place without many who were there listening to him having been deeply involved in it. If they neglected the course he pointed out they would have, in addition to the public opinion of universal bribery, a persuasion that those who condemned it were yet ready to avail themselves of its results. He opposed the motion, because he did not think it would lead to a useful result, being directed against the lower classes—the poor wretches who received bribes, and would not touch the miscreants who gave them.

said, it would be right to facilitate investigation into cases of bribery so far as was consistent with justice, but it was a dangerous doctrine to lay down that those who received bribes should escape with impunity because those who administered bribes were also culpable. Where bribery was found to have long existed amongst a constituency of 300 or 400 persons, he did not think the offence was justified or palliated by the position of the parties; and if the House could select some few instances for prosecuting with success those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, he thought it would be a just punishment to the individuals, and a useful example to the constituent body at large. The hon. Gentleman opposite, it seemed, had expended 30,000l. at elections, and that large outlay might go a considerable way towards explaining the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm on the subject. The question was not without difficulty, but he owned he thought the arguments were rather against prosecuting. They bad the authority of great legal opinions against it; but, independently of that, there were other considerations which led him to think it not expedient. He objected to the Treasury taking persons opposed to them in politics and sending them to trial, which he thought would be very unjust, and would give to the counsel on the trial the ground of a powerful appeal to the jury. It would be a very unfortunate result if such proceedings should fail from the weakness of the law against bribery, or the want of power of the House of Commons to bring such offences to justice; and as he could not consent to the Treasury finding additional evidence, and as he felt the difficulty of prosecution, he thought on the whole the arguments were in favour of abstaining from it. As to the statements that there had been more extensive bribery at the last than at any former election, and that a million and a half had been expended upon it, he believed there never was a more unfounded assertion. The hon. and learned Member for Cork said, that alterations had recently been made in the law for the purpose of facilitating the proof of bribery by enabling committees to take evidence of bribery without proof of agency. Now, by whom was that measure originated? By the House of Commons; and the House of Commons went much further, and he, therefore, did not think that House could be justly charged with a desire to shield persons guilty of bribery. On the eve of a general election, the House of Commons sent up to the Lords a bill which dispensed with agency, and contained other enactments which were objected to as much loo stringent. Therefore, he said, it was not just to make a charge of connivance against the present parties in that House. He should be sorry if an impression were produced in any constituent body, high or low, that that House was unwilling to prosecute in clear cases. He could never consent to forego prosecution on that ground, but as the noble Lord had given notice of a bill for facilitating inquiry, and as an hon. and learned Member had a motion for inquiry into five different cases, —as there was also a bill on the votes, having for its object the prevention of bribery, he thought, considering that these were all measures of a general tendency, they had better wait the result of the discussions upon them than institute a prosecution against individuals. He acknowledged that he came to this conclusion with reluctance and doubt, for he thought it would be very unfortunate if it were supposed that the House abstained from prosecuting in a clear case of bribery, where the parties implicated belonged to the upper classes, and it would be a very dangerous doctrine to encourage that the particular class to which the party belonged could in any degree palliate the offence. With regard to a question put to him as to the working of the present system of committees, he certainly had not had much leisure this Session to attend to the proceedings of election committees, but taking these two instances, he had never seen fairer tribunals, as shown both by their proceedings and their results. In the Ipswich case there was not a vote come to by the committee which could be impugned as being influenced by motives of partiality—which did not, on the contrary, show that party considerations had been entirely excluded —and with regard to the final resolutions, in one case the sitting Members were unseated, and declared to have been guilty by their agents of bribery. In the case of Southampton, that resolution was carried by a majority of six to one, and in the Ipswich case, the decision which unseated the sitting Members was unanimous. Judging, therefore, by the ten our of their proceedings, and by their resolutions, he must say that, notwithstanding all he had heard this Session, he was not unfavorable to that jurisdiction, for he thought the committees had shown a strong desire to investigate cases of bribery, and, at least in these two cases, they had come to decisions excluding all party considerations.

had given notice of a motion to suspend the writ for Southampton, on the ground that a great deal had taken place into which the committee were not able to inquire, in consequence of a witness, named Wren, having refused to give certain evidence, and respecting which it was necessary that an inquiry should be instituted.

believed that a sufficient number of Members to turn the majority of this House—though he would not say all—had been returned by bribery. No effectual remedy had yet been proposed, and he asked if the House were disposed to sit down quietly, with the feeling at present existing in the country that they were not disposed to check bribery. The public believed that hon. Members were averse to adopt a remedy, that they were not desirous of doing that which was necessary to purify this House, and that if they singled out a few victims for punishment their consciences were satisfied. Let there be an extension of the suffrage, let them adopt the vote by ballot, and a stringent act against bribery and corruption, then address the Queen to dissolve Parliament, and go to a new election, and the country would be satisfied.

thought the hon. Member for Montrose had furnished the key by which he and other hon. Members hoped to accomplish their object of altering the constitution, and that was to diminish the confidence of the public in Parliament. The reason given by the hon. Member for Worcester against prosecuting persons for bribery was, that bribery was so common. In that opinion he did not agree, but he took the same view of the question as the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-general. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had stated that there were instances of Members of this House having been returned by bribery, and he would endeavor to purify the assembly and remove the stain attaching to it; but he did not think that object was to be effected by the proposition of the right hon. Member for Montgomery. Could not the two committees on the Southampton and Ipswich elections tell who had been guilty of bribery. Surely nothing would be easier than to get from the committees, which had declared that the last elections for these boroughs were void on the ground of bribery, who those individuals were who had received and paid the bribes. And he wanted to know why the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the motion, had not framed it with a view to the prosecution of the individuals who must have been proved before those committees to have been guilty of bribery. If the motion had been so framed, he should have given it his support; but as it was framed in so general a way, without knowing who the Attorney-general was to prosecute, he must give it his opposition.

said, the misfortune of such a motion as this was, that it led to a discussion upon bribery in general, instead of confining their deliberations, as it ought, to the important matter before the House. For his own part, he thought it was quite useless to agitate the House on the general subject. He feared it was not so much the Members of that House as the electoral bodies who were tainted with corruption. He did believe that the constituent bodies were not sufficiently alive to the sacred character of the trust reposed in them by the act which gave them the power of electing representatives. It was the duty of the House to endeavourer to cure this fault by kindling a better feeling among the electors. This, how-ever, was scarcely the best way to set about their task. Indeed, he could not disguise from himself that the motion before them was wholly insufficient to act as a check upon bribery. If they would effect that desirable end, they must probe the very root of the system. They must set to work and repeal past laws and enact new ordinances capable to meet the practice in all its ramifications. At present the laws were all but inoperative for the prevention of bribery. Let them take an instance in point from the law against the distribution of election rib ands. It was well known that formerly immense sums were spent by candidates in giving rib ands to their Friends. Many candidates had spent as much as 800l. at a time in the distribution of these favours; or rather in taking off the old stocks of the riband manufacturers, who, it was notorious, dyed and made up their old and dirty ribands for electioneering purposes. Well, a very salutary law was passed to prevent the use of these ribands, but the statute was wholly inoperative. And why? Simply because the drawer of the bill forgot to insert a provision giving costs to the prosecutor, so that no one would attempt to put down the system, because he was certain of being called upon to pay for it. Then, when they talked of bribery, what did they say of treating? Treating had been determined to be bribery in another form, but he would venture to say that there was not at the present day a committee to be collected in the House who could draw the line between the legitimate and illegitimate treating. The fact was, that bribery and treating were looked on through-out the country just as smuggling and poaching were regarded by a certain class of the population. People said, "There is no moral offence in these practices; the acts to put them down are tyrannical—let us combine to render them ineffectual."There was no Member probably in the House who had not proved these facts in the course of his own experience. If people did not want to be bribed in one way, they required to be bribed in another. Every one knew that constituents were constantly coming to Members and applying for places, or some other favour, saying, "Sir, I served you, now you must serve me."It was for the House to inculcate the salutary maxim, that a vote given in the administration of a great political trust was not to be looked on as a personal or party service. He would not undertake to say what steps they ought to take to enforce this salutary doctrine; but it was clear that something they must do. Whether they were to aim at increasing the education of the people, or to endeavourer to show, by their own conduct, that they were acting on patriotic and not on party principles, what remedial measures they were to take, he did not know, and would not attempt to determine; but he was sure, if something was not done, and that very speedily, no one would believe that they were serious in the condemnation or anxious to put a stop to the practice.

since he had sat in that House, had heard more debates on this, perhaps, than on any other subject. He was always hearing Members expressing an anxiety to put an end to such immoral practices, but he could not find what they had done to insure a practical remedy. In fact, the evil arose out of that assembly itself. It was an evil of the law under which elections took place, that bribery, intimidation, and treating prevailed. Why, they began with money, and it was nothing but money throughout. They established qualifications of 300l. for one class of representatives, and 600l. for another, estimating the value of a man, in fact, not by his worth or attainments, but by his cash in hand. They carried the same principle down to the constituent bodies. They said to one, you shall have a vote because you hold a house at a rental of 10l. a-year, to another you shall not have a vote because you only pay 9l. 10s. So long as such a system continued, bribery would prevail, and let him tell them, intimidation would prevail too, so long as they refused the voter an adequate protection against those who had the power to coerce him. They knew well enough that the richer men would influence their tenants. They knew that a 50l. tenant at will must vote as his landlord desired him— that money would have its power— that wealth would have its sway, and would exercise its influence over the result of a contest. What a mockery was it, then, to say that they disliked corruption, when they knew that so long as they continued the system so long the practice would exist. He was satisfied that whilst they refused an extension of the suffrage, a re-distribution of the suffrage, and the protection of the ballot, so long would all they did be regarded as a delusion on the public, and a perfect mockery in the face of the people.

was surprised to find, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, that he had so soon forgotten all the benefits that were to accrue from the Reform Bill of ten years since—from that glorious measure which was to make our constituencies miracles of purity—to render our elective system bright and radiant in the eyes of the whole world—which was, in fact, to change England into a perfect Utopia. With such a glorious system in operation, against what was the hon. Member vociferating? The hon. Member for Weymouth had, in his observations, furnished the House with materials for thinking, and not for acting. It would be well to ascertain distinctly what was to be considered a bribe. A bribe depended much upon the relative position of the parties offering or accepting it. In some instances an invitation might be considered a bribe; in others an appointment to a commissionership, a tide-waitership, or some other office. In his opinion, bribery consisted in corrupt motive, and anything was a bribe which had the effect of inducing a man to vote against his conscience. But how was a knowledge of this to be acquired? It might not be difficult to trace a 5l. note hidden under a plate, but how were they to trace other inducements which were not of so tangible a nature? As regarded the motion before the House, he concurred with the high legal authorities who had spoken upon the subject, that to press it on would be highly inexpedient.

said, that as the feeling of the House seemed to be against him, he would not press the motion, notwithstanding that the committee had made their report upon good grounds, and such as warranted him in bringing the subject before the House. It had been said, that in cases like the present it would be idle to proceed against individuals, but it appeared to him that it was only by such proceedings the law could be vindicated. Where was the use of passing acts of Parliament unless means were taken to enforce them.

moved that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the borough of Ipswich.

did not think it was expedient to proceed with the motion after an intention had been expressed of providing some remedial measure to meet the abuses which had been practised in that borough. The committee had come to the conclusion that Messrs. Wason and Rennie had not been duly elected—that they by their agents had been guilty of bribery —that from the evidence given before the committee the existence of an extensive system of bribery had been proved, and the report recommended that the new writ should be suspended until the evidence was printed and submitted to the consideration of the House. Under these circumstances he thought hon. Members would not stand well with themselves in agreeing to issue a new writ. The three last elections for Ipswich had fully proved the corrupt state of the borough. He trusted there would be no objection to allow the writ to stand over for three weeks or a month, within which time the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would have brought forward his bill, and the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. Member for Bath would have made their report. He should move as an amendment, "That the debate be adjourned to this day month."

said, he did not see sufficient reason for resisting the issue of this writ. He wished to punish individual voters who might be proved guilty of bribery, but he thought it would be unjust to punish the whole constituency of a borough for the crime of a portion of them. He did not think it a good precedent to establish, to suspend the issue of the writ on the mere ground that an individual Member of the House had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery. The evidence in the case was not, in his opinion, sufficient to warrant them in interfering with the constitutional right of the electors to have a new writ issued at the earliest possible period.

thought it a matter of very great doubt whether they ought to suspend the writ in this instance. Although it was certainly a strong power to use, yet it had been used in several instances shortly after the revolution, as well as in the well known Sheppard case. His opinion was, that an inquiry ought to be instituted by the House in cases where bribery and corruption were alleged to have been employed, and where the parties did not chose to go to the expense of an election committee. In such circumstances it would be right to suspend the writ pending the inquiry.

begged the House would consider for a moment the consequences of immediately issuing the writ in this case. In Nottingham, Reading, and other cases, there was a suspicion that bribery had prevailed. Hon. Members immediately said, "God bless us, only think that there have been persons bribing— we never heard of such a thing before, "and the House suspended these writs, on suspicion of bribery. Then came a case in which there was not mere suspicion, and in which an actual conviction for bribery had taken place, in which a committee appointed by the House declared that there had been extensive bribery. The House immediately said to the guilty par- ties, "You are not merely suspected, but proved to be guilty; you shall have a writ, and go on with your election immediately."What was this but for the House of Commons to say to the convicted bribers "Carry on your old tricks, you have been found guilty, go and do the same thing again. We invite competition on the part of men with large fortunes to corrupt this corruptible constituency again."It was, in fact, saying that all the inquiries as to bribery were nothing but solemn farces,— that an inquiry might be made, but nothing more would be done. He was really astonished that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who took such a common sense and practical view of this subject, should have been led away by the ordinary old fashioned compunction felt for those interesting boroughs, which abused their electoral privileges so grossly as to lead to a vacancy in the representation. [An hon. Member: The bribery was managed by the agents.] Why, of course. Was there ever a briber without a bribee? It did not appear that the bribes had been offered to indignant virtue; or that the electors of Ipswich had scornfully rejected them. The amount of bribes detected was limited only by the forms of the House preventing the inquiry being carried on. If the House wished to give the public any proof of being in earnest about this matter they ought not to give to a constituency which had been found guilty of gross and extensive bribery the opportunity of repeating the crime. He thought the just course would be at least, to wait till a bill was passed which would throw new difficulties in the way of the bribers.

said, he had never been more surprised than at the declaration of the right hon. Baronet. He had always thought that the right hon. Baronet was perfectly sincere in the propositions he had made of a desire to put down bribery, of which the present case offered so fearful an example. Could anything be more pernicious, anything more preposterous, than to issue a writ to this borough under the circumstances in which it was now placed? The committee reported that extensive bribery had prevailed in the borough of Ipswich, and unanimously recommended that this writ should be suspended until the House should take the subject into consideration. What consideration had the House bestowed on the subject? What proceedings had been adopted by the House in consequence of the report made by the committee? Was the House now about to show the hypocrisy of all its professions by re-issuing the writ to those most guilty parties, and giving them full license to perpetrate all the iniquities they had so recently committed If the House did issue the writ, he hoped they would hear no more of the anxiety of the majority to put down the practices of bribery. He was sure the hon. Member for Oxford would vote with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) on this occasion, and that he would give his virtuous vote for the punishment of bribery. His belief was that there was sufficient evidence before the House to suspend the writ permanently, and that it would be a proper example to deprive this borough of the power of abusing its privileges for the future. Then, if that was true, could they object to suspend the writ for a month? Were they prepared to vote for a motion to suspend it permanently? If he made such a motion would the right hon. Baronet give it his support? He hoped the House would take some step showing that they were sincere in their wish to get rid of those disgraceful and immoral practices, which were lowering the character of the House and destroying the utility of its legislation.

said, the report of the committee was limited to his recommendation, that the writ should not be issued until the evidence was laid on the Table of the House. [Mr. Wakley. Taken into consideration.] The hon. Member seemed to suppose that the evidence could not be taken into consideration without a motion being formally made in the House, and a vote taken on the subject. If there were evidence sufficient to warrant a disfranchisement of the borough, let that be done; but if the committee did not recommend that, and if they felt that such a proceeding would be unjust, let the writ be issued.

thought that the hon. Baronet had not put the matter exactly in a proper light. He wished to recall the attention of the House to the actual state of the facts as respecting the general question. At the present moment there was a general notion abroad—a notion also entertained in a great degree by that House—that a case of suspicion had been established against a large number of boroughs with respect to bribery. There had also been a general expression of opinion in the House from all parties that some immediate steps ought to be taken for the purpose of preventing the continuance of that crime in future, in order that they might obtain purity of election. At the present time it was that which was in the contemplation of the House. Four or five of these boroughs were, at the present time, under the consideration of the committee. Suspicion attached to them that bribery had been committed within their precincts. Others there were that had been already convicted of this crime by the election committee, the judicial tribunal created for the purpose of deciding upon facts of that nature. If, as the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had truly stated, this writ were issued, there would be afforded the contrast of four or five boroughs, with respect to which no more than suspicion existed, in which the writs were suspended. He now came to the proposition of the hon. Baronet opposite, who accused the House of waiting three weeks without passing or moving anything. Now, he submitted that this was hardly a fair way of staling the case. The House was at the present moment considering the question. The House wished to understand the question thoroughly, that they might be enable to fashion such a measure as would have the effect of preventing the crime. They did not wish to rush hastily to conclusions, but preferred to wait until they should, after instituting full inquiry into the circumstances, and having before them complete evidence in other cases besides that now under consideration, be enabled to frame a general and comprehensive measure. It was said that they had only to choose between two courses, either to issue the writ or to suspend it effectually. Now, in his opinion, they had yet another alternative; which was not to issue the writ, but first to take the question into consideration, and then, by-and-bye, when they had had time for deliberation, to decide concerning the issue of the writ. After the decision of the committee that gross bribery had existed at Ipswich, he could not conceive how the House could rush to the conclusion that a new writ ought to be issued. What was the view taken by that committee after hearing the evidence given before them?

"That extensive bribery had prevailed at the last election for Ipswich, and that the issuing of a new writ ought to be suspended until the same evidence should have been taken into the consideration of the House."

The writ was not to be issued until this evidence had been printed and submitted to the consideration of the House. The House then was thus requested by a judicial body to take the evidence which had now been laid before them into their serious consideration. He would ask had the House done so? No; the House had done nothing as yet upon the subject. He did not think because this report had been printed that the House would be warranted in refusing to take the whole question into its consideration. He took it that the imputation of bribery and corruption was thoroughly and clearly brought home against certain parties. He therefore entreated the House to give the subject its most grave and most serious consideration. The House should consider what was now asked of them. They were not asked to suspend the writ perpetually—no such thing. He was only asking them simply to take this evidence into their serious consideration—(An hon. Member, "We have done so.") He did not know what the hon. Member meant by saying that they had done so. He denied it. They were bound to take this evidence sent to them by the committee, so that by-and-by they might be able to frame some measure for the prevention of such crimes for the future. Without further trespassing upon the patience of the House, he believed that the wisest and most judicious course for them to pursue would be to do what the committee required of them, and that was to take into consideration the whole of this very difficult subject, and not to come too hastily to any conclusion, but from the cases of convicted bribery and corruption which they had before them to frame some legislative enactment which would effectually put a stop to it. They then could issue their writ under their newly-acquired safe-guards for the purity of election.

wished to mention another subject connected with the history of this Ipswich inquiry, of the importance of which he might certainly make a wrong estimate. Considerable importance, however, he thought should be attached to it. In the newspapers certain statements connected with this election had been authenticated by the signatures of the two late Members, which showed the attempt which had been made during the progress of the inquiry before the committee to compromise the business, by one of the two sitting members consenting to accept of the Chiltern Hundreds, and thereby allow the prosecuting party to take a seat in this House unopposed. It appeared by those letters that two proposals were mentioned—one, before the inquiry, by the election committee, and the other during the progress of the inquiry It was there distinctly stated that the seat to be vacated should be that of the Member against whom the charge of personal bribery could be proved. It appeared to him, and he offered his opinion with the greatest diffidence and humility, that if the House thought fit to treat any compromise of this nature, entered into for the purpose of screening an hon. Member from the charge of bribery and corruption, as a breach of the privileges of this House, the House could not by any means neglect to take notice of the attempt in this case to commit such a misdemeanor. He thought that this attempt to screen a charge of bribery was, in fact, an attempt to screen a breach of the privileges of this House. The form of proceedings before this committee would not admit of a more thorough investigation than had already taken place. In supporting the motion which had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he must say that he would have been most happy to have supported a motion for having this case referred to the committee which had been obtained by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. There might not as yet have been evidence sufficient to warrant the introduction of a bill for the disfranchisement of the borough, but he thought that there was amply sufficient evidence to warrant a further inquiry into the circumstances connected with the Ipswich election. If even no notice of this motion had been previously given, if even as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had expressed it, there was no announcement given of any definite proposal, he could not see how the House could do wrong by consenting to an in-definite suspension of this writ. In reference to the remark of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) when this question was at a former time under discussion, he with the greatest deference and respect to that right hon. Gentleman, begged leave to differ from him. He should be disposed to consider the electoral franchise rather in the light of a duty than a right, and he should be slow to admit that the absence of representation was a greater evil than misrepresentation. He thought that the presence of two Gentlemen in this House who gained their seats by such corrupt practices, and who called themselves the representatives of the people, was one of the greatest evils which the country could labour under, so far as these persons were concerned, for, instead of speaking the wishes of their constituencies, they were misrepresenting the party that were supposed to have sent them there.

thought that in a matter of this nature the House ought not to proceed on a mere denunciation against bribery. The question was, on what footing was it expedient that the House should interfere to prevent a town from sending members to that House—on what footing should they put the power of the House to interfere. He could not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath. The arguments of that hon. Gentleman went to establish the principle, that because there was a general notion afloat of the existence of cases of suspicion in several boroughs in the country, that therefore, in the case of this particular borough, they should withhold the writ. What he proposed was, that they should not depart from the principle to which Parliament had hitherto adhered, of having before it a definite case, upon which the House had taken proceedings to disfranchise a borough, or a case, the inquiry into which would be likely to lead to disfranchisement, before they should decide upon suspending the writ. Such were the limits within which the proceedings of Parliament in such cases, as regarded the issuing of writs, were confined; and these were the limits they ought not to go beyond. It had been said, "You have cause for suspicion against Ipswich, nay more, you have the report of the committee—the decision of the committee." That report only applied to the seats of the Members in this House; but the committee had recommended the suspension of the writ until the evidence of the case was printed and laid before the House. The report had now been on the Table for nearly a month, but no hon. Member seemed to think that the case was of such a nature as to warrant a disfranchisement of the borough. The only motion that had been made in direct reference to it was that of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who moved for the prosecution of certain individuals. The House seemed, however, to think that such a course was not a proper one to be pursued. By agreeing to further delay of the writ, the House would seem to have the idea that it was better to have no representative at all than one not quite satisfactory. On these grounds he thought that it would be establishing a dangerous prececent to adopt the course proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose, and therefore, although he was aware that his motives might be liable to misconstruction, feeling as he did that there could be nothing more dangerous than to exercise the power they possessed of excluding the representatives of large bodies of constituents on a vague plea of general bribery, he should certainly vote against the amendment. If bribery was so prevalent at Ipswich as had been represented, any bribery that might be committed at the ensuing election would be open to the investigation of a committee of that House to Censure and to punishment. The hon. Member opposite, the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Christie) had adverted to some correspondence between the late Member for Ipswich relative to a compromise with the unsuccessful candidates. Whence the hon. Member derived that information, or on what grounds his statement was made he knew not; but he could undertake to say, on the part of a right hon. Friend of his, who was one of the candidates, that he was no party to any such proceedings, either as regarded the petition or the alleged compromise.

said, there was a clear ground, independent of what had been said, for continuing the suspension of the writ. See how the case had come before the House; Ipswich had been convicted of bribery, extensive bribery, and not for the first time either. It had been previously convicted, and the Members had been unseated during his recollection. Here then was a conviction on the clearest evidence of extensive bribery, but let the House recollect this extensive bribery was proved of only one party in Ipswich, for the petition in this instance was not a petition from the defeated candidates, praying for the seats. But they took care not to come before the House; and could not the House see that there were certain motives for their conduct? The course they had adopted was quite consistent with their guilt. The investigation had, therefore, been only partial, because the committee had been shut out from taking into consideration the whole case. Now it remained to be seen whether the opposite party had not been equally guilty of bribery, and that could be effected by a motion for a committee to inquire into the bribery in general, and if no other hon. Member brought forward such a motion, he would himself, if the writ should be suspended, move for a committee to make further inquiries, and he now called for the present suspension of the writ, in order that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of that motion. Perjury was too often in cases of bribery mingled with it, and the investigation should be co-extensive with the constituency. Was not there ample grounds for such an inquiry? Were not the sitting Members to go into the case, and prove bribery against their opponents? That could be shown from the evidence, and there was a strong prime facie case made out. But if the House refused to suspend the writ, that would be refusing his committee, and what would be the judgment of the public? This was not a case of mere suspicion, but of downright conviction, and it might be carried out to the full extent of the constituency. It was not confined to one party, for the witnesses in their examination showed that such was the propensity to receive bribes, that bribery was proceeded with in the public streets. The case was pregnant with the greatest suspicion—it was a full conviction of many, and was it such a system, one for the House to throw its shield over, while they talked of their antipathy to bribery and their horror of perjury? If the House did not suspend the writ, it would get credit for neither the one nor the other. He trusted, therefore, the House would allow the writ to be suspended, and leave the case for the committee of inquiry.

said, that with reference to the statements made by the hon. Member for Weymouth, with respect to certain alleged offers of compromise during the recent proceedings before the committee, the petitioners were not candidates, they were electors, and, therefore, no compromise could be made between those parties. The hon. Member for Bath had been talking of what the committee meant, but he could assure the House that what the committee felt was, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant them in recommending the disfranchisement of the borough. But the committee had not taken the responsibility upon itself, and they wished, that the House should examine the evidence, and judge for itself, before the writ should be issued. Such were the wishes and the intentions of the committee. He would further say, that as far as he could collect the opinions of the committee, that its Members had determined to take no further part in suspending or obtaining the writ. The committee did not think, that the writ would be suspended, until after the general measure for the prevention of bribery should have been introduced.

said, as many hon. Members of that House had expressed their detestation of the system of bribery, he hoped they would be found voting for the suspension of this writ. He could not conceive how this could be considered a party question. What possible party motives could he have in voting for the suspension of this writ? Ipswich returned two Members who sat on his side of the House, and they could not tell that at the next election, Members entertaining similar sentiments, might not be returned. He mentioned this circumstance to show, that this was not a party question. His reason for voting for the suspension of this writ was, that he entertained a detestation of bribery, and was determined to do all in his power to put it down, and he thought an opportunity was afforded, on this occasion, of discountenancing the system. He thought the Chairman of the committee ought to have been the person to have moved for a new writ, and the reason he had not done so was, that the Chairman thought the evidence did not justify him in moving for a new writ. But one side alone of the evidence as to bribery had been reported to the House; would any one suppose that the other side was pure? There was, therefore, he said, a case for inquiry. They were treading on dangerous ground, and tampering with the feelings of the public; they were expressing opinions which did not correspond with their conduct. The more they endeavored to prevent inquiry, and persisted in giving Members to boroughs convicted of bribery, the more they would be condemned by the country at large. He did not think, that the evidence made out a case for disfranchisement, but it was a case for inquiry how far bribery did prevail in that borough over and above what had been proved. Means ought to be adopted to put an end to this system, which not only sent false Members to Parliament, but demoralized the country.

must take the liberty of saying, that he was as little connected as the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken with the borough of Ipswich. He must also take the liberty of saying, that it was very possible that the result of the new writ might be, not the return of Members with whom he was politically connected, but the return of Members connected by politics with that part of the House in which the hon. and learned Member sat. And if that hon. Member took credit that he and those who voted with him had no political motive for supporting the motion for a new writ, they (the Conservatives) might take the same credit, when, as the hon. Member said, the new return might result in the return probably of Members of the same political principles as the last. [Mr. Aglionby: I said I knew nothing about it.] The presumption was, that the opinion of the town would remain unchanged, and consequently the hon. and learned Gentleman could not suppose that he had any political motive in not opposing the motion for issuing the writ. But what he did claim from the House was this—that it would not presume those to be guilty of whom it had what the hon. Member for Bath called "a general notion of a very extensive suspicion"of guilt. "But,"said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you ought to suspend the issuing of the writ."For how long? For what purpose? To any definite extent? ["One month !"] But why one month? They had suspended it one month already. They would suspend it for one month more, and what did they mean by it? ["There was a notice of a motion."] Yes, now when the issuing of the writ was moved for; but why had that motion not been moved before; Was it because the House was not satisfied with the charge against the borough till now? But the hon. and learned Member thought there were no grounds for disfranchising the borough, though the case had been taken up by the committee. There was some discrepancy between the third and fourth resolutions come to by the committee. The first was,—

"That the evidence be taken into the consideration of the House."

And the other was,—

"That a new writ be not issued till the evidence be printed and considered by the House."

The chairman had stated, that it was not his intention, nor the intention of any Member of the committee to take any further steps; but, on the contrary, that neither he nor any Member of the committee meant to oppose the re-issuing of the writ. The writ had been suspended on the recommendation of the committee, and had remained suspended for one month; and on that point, all sides of the House were agreed, on the discussion of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that they should search and investigate into the cases of bribery, and take remedies for the future, but that in the mean time they should not interfere longer than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of suspending the writ, and preventing the borough being represented. The hon. Member for Bath brought forward his motion for inquiry into certain elections in which there were grave cases of suspicion. Why had he not extended his inquiry to Ipswich? ["There was no compromise."] No, there was no compromise; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had made an addition to the substance of his motion; he had added an inquiry whether bribery had taken place in certain boroughs. Why, therefore, had he not included Ipswich? Why had not the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had acted as inquisitor-general, and who had acted as such very indiscriminately, and he must say very impartially, why had he not moved that Ipswich should be included? But the hon. and learned Gentleman had done no such thing, but had distinctly laid down the principle that while they were inquiring into the elections of these boroughs, they should take especial care that they did not deprive them of representation in the mean time. But, an hon. Member said, they had suspended the re-presentation of five or six boroughs in the mean time. They had done no such thing; the other boroughs were all enjoying full representation. The Members for Southampton, Lewes, Reading, and Nottingham, were not labouring under suspension, or prevented from taking part in the discussions of the House. No; pending the inquiry, the boroughs were considered innocent. They admitted, that they would inquire into the circumstances of the guilt or innocence of the boroughs, but till convicted they should be considered innocent, and have a right to be represented in Parliament. Why did they propose to take a different course where a borough had not been convicted, but where they themselves said, that there was no ground in the evidence for disfranchising the borough? If there were no grounds for that, there was no ground for holding the borough convicted of whole-sale bribery, and suspending the writ. Let them inquire if they pleased into the bribery at Ipswich. His right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomery shire, had asked them to inquire, and to do more— he had asked the Attorney-general to prosecute individuals supposed to be guilty of bribery. The House had refused to accede to this, and his right hon. Friend had withdrawn his motion. Upon the same evidence that they admitted there were no grounds for disfranchising the borough, they admitted that it was a great social and political evil that the writ for the borough should be indefinitely suspended, and should thereby be deprived of its representation before it was convicted of a Parliamentary offence. Unless they subverted all the principles of the English law, they could not condemn before they had convicted. Let them inquire if they pleased, but in the mean time permit this borough to exercise its franchise, of which they were unjustly depriving it by an indefinite suspension of the writ.

said, upon the statement of an individual Member of the House they had agreed, not only to suspend the writ in the case of Nottingham, but to institute an inquiry. What was the case of Its-wich—a borough convicted the second time? Upon its second conviction, they refused even to suspend the writ, whereas with regard to the borough of Nottingham, upon the simple assertion of a Member of that House, who stated that he believed there had been gross bribery there, they suspended the writ for Nottingham. He asked, on what principle they could justify the suspension with regard to Nottingham, and not suspend the writ issuing for Ipswich, a second time convicted? But it ought not to be suspended during inquiry. To be consistent, the House ought to let all the suspended writs issue while the inquiry took place? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to fear for the constitution if they refused to issue this writ. They would in vain hope to oppose the progress of bribery if on occasions like this they shrank from its investigation. It had been well put by the hon. Member for Weymouth that a new writ should not issue, because the constituents were corrupt. He thought, unless the House were prepared—and the House did not dare to take that step—to revoke the order made on the motion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, they would be acting a most inconsistent part in now refusing to suspend this writ during this inquiry. They had the pledge of the hon. Member for Cork that he would move for the inquiry. What difference was there between the cases of Nottingham and Ipswich? He left out of view all the other boroughs. The two cases were perfectly coincident; and he should think the House grossly inconsistent, if, in the case of Ipswich, they refused to inquire into the bribery, and issued the writ, having taken an opposite course with regard to Nottingham.

should vote for the issuing of the writ, because, in this case, no inquiry had been proposed, and had not been thought necessary.

said, although he was certain that no man was more anxious to put down bribery than the right hon. Baronet, he could not agree with him in the case he had urged. The case appeared to stand on peculiar ground. It was first of all stated, that the borough of Ipswich had a right to have its representatives in that House, but the country also had its rights as well as the borough of Ipswich; and although he admitted that no writ should be stayed on light grounds, he by no means agreed with any Gentleman in saying that the present case presented light grounds. He should be glad to know what hon. Gentlemen thought a proper case for suspending a writ, for he could not believe that they would be able to state any grounds or principles which would not justify a suspension of the writ on this occasion. What length of time the suspension might occupy whilst the inquiry lasted no one could state. If the inquiry were prolonged for an indefinite period, was that a reason why it should not take place at all? What, then, were the grounds on which they were proceeding? The House had thought it right to grant a committee of inquiry into certain corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into in order to prevent investigations into bribery, and that committee had been appointed on the statement by an hon. Member of his suspicions. In the case of Nottingham they had been compelled to act. What had they done? Suspended the writ. In other cases they had acted consistently, by refusing to act until the case should be ascertained by an inquiry. In the case of Nottingham, then, they had suspended the writ—first, because they had reason to think that a corrupt compromise to conceal bribery had been entered into; and, secondly, that there was bribery to conceal. Would, then, the House agree to suspend a writ on the suspicion of an hon. Member that a compromise had been entered into, and would they not suspend the writ on the report of a committee of the House, upon oath, that bribery had been committed? He prayed hon. Members to attend to the terms of the report. The committee reported that they were satisfied that extensive bribery had taken place. If hon. Members said, "We know not the extent of the bribery," that was because the committee were prevented from going into the extent of it. But what kind of argument was this, or what argument of any kind was worth a moment's consideration, or could be of force in the case, when they were told that a borough which had been convicted before was convicted again of extensive bribery? Was it to be said, then, that in face of a report founded not on suspicion, but on evidence, and made on the oath of Members of the House, the House was, nevertheless, impatient to issue the writ? In such case ought not a prosecution for bribery immediately to take place? It ought to be considered that the committee had already found that on one side extensive bribery had been practiced. Why not inquire into the practice on the other side? If the House refused this, would it be decent to send down the writ to a constituency who were proved to be so corrupt? It was said, no inquiry had been moved for; but that was the duty of the Government, if of anybody. On the 3rd of May the papers had been laid on the Table, and here was the 26th. But what had been done since? They had had the holidays, they had in fact little more than a fortnight in which anything could have been done, and then the first Member that brought forward the matter at all, brought it forward as a motion for issuing the writ. But he would say, that it was not the duty of one Member more than another; it was the duty of every Member, if it were not the duty of the Government. The House had not done their duty; he felt that he himself, among the rest, had not done his duty; but was the country to be stopped because they had neglected their duty? What was the value of such an argument? Surely, if they had hitherto neglected their duty, that was the more reason why they should perform it that evening. If he in common with other Members had neglected their duty, that was not a reason why a writ should issue to a corrupt constituency. The committee had reported that bribery was found extensively to prevail in the borough. Surely the House ought not to send a new writ without inquiry into the extent of the bribery so found. The House had no pretence for doubt or difficulty in the case; they had a conviction before them; it was upon record; and the only ground for opposing inquiry was, lest it should lead to such disclosures as would oblige the House to stay the writ. He would say, that if the House, with the knowledge that bribery prevailed in this borough, sent down this writ, it would be idle and ridiculous to appoint committees in future to investigate and report upon bribery. In the name of the country he called upon the House to slay this writ until an inquiry into the alleged corruption could be gone into, with a view, in the event of its proving necessary, of disfranchising the borough.

said, (amidst considerable interruption) that he seldom ventured to address the House, and never at any length, but he warned those who heard him, or rather who seemed unwilling to hear him. that if they did not now do him justice by listening to him for a few minutes, he would do them justice hereafter by visiting them with a few tedious specimens of his oratorical powers. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was responsible for the odium of these discussions, for in October last he had himself declared that wholesale and enormous bribery had been committed in all parts of the country, and that for the character of the House, it was absolutely necessary that examples should be made when any information upon the subject came to its knowledge. He believed, that at the time the right hon. Baronet was speaking in good faith, and if anything could make him doubt it, it was the course he had adopted that night. The right hon. Gentleman, like a good tactician, had made an apostrophe in favour of his own majority when charges were made against them. He did not wish to say that the majority of the right hon. Baronet was essentially corrupt; but he must say, flatly and plainly, that he believed all sides of the House to be generally tainted. He believed it from the evidence he had him-self with much pain acquired, and from the evidence of the right hon. Baronet himself. And strong as the right hon. Baronet was in executive power, he must, without any disrespect, and yet most distinctly, say, that after the declaration the right hon. Gentleman had made in October last, if he were not the respectable man he knew him to be, he had acted disgrace-fully in not having himself taken a large, comprehensive, and radical initiative, consistently with the principles he was now acting on in putting down corruption.

would merely observe, that there was a general rumour abroad, that the hon. Member who had last addressed the House had spent several thousands of pounds in corrupting the electors of the city of York.

was religiously in earnest (Laughter)—he was really and religiously in earnest. He was sorry that religious allusions were so offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he was religiously in earnest, and desirous of purifying the House; and if the circumstances connected with the election for the city of York, whether in reference to himself or to his hon. Colleague, were to be made subject of inquiry in that House, he would individually lend the House every possible assistance in his power; and, furthermore, for the purpose of purifying that House, which was much wanted, if the country would guarantee that purity would be effected by his so doing, he would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds to-morrow.

said, that if this question rested upon the original motion, of suspending the writ for an indefinite period, without any notice having been given for bringing forward a motion for a further inquiry, be would certainly declare that the writ ought to issue. He did not think that the House would do its duty by suspending the writ, unless it were in cases where it was in contemplation to adopt some legislative measures, or to institute a minute inquiry. If upon the motion he had made that night, any hon. Gentleman had stated his readiness to carry the inquiry further, he would certainly have given way; and it seemed to him that the House could not consistently adopt any other course under the notice given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork of an immediate inquiry, which was not to depend on any others, than to suspend the writ in the mean time.

replied. When he moved the writ, he did it under the expectation that there would be no opposition and he had not therefore stated fully the grounds why he saw no reason for its further suspension, the committee had not recommended any disfranchisement, they bad confined themselves to moving that the minutes of evidence should be printed, and a month had elapsed, during which no motion had been made or any steps taken.

rose, to move as an amendment, the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the bribery that had taken place in the borough of Ipswich. There were many grounds on which he now urged upon the House to agree to this motion. In the first place, Ipswich had been twice convicted of bribery, and the practice of bribery had become regularly established in that borough. In the second place, and this was with him a strong reason, the constituency of Ipswich was composed of the old freemen, and every Member of that House well knew that wherever the freemen remained who were electors before the Reform Bill, there also existed corruption and bribery. But a still stronger ground with him for adopting this proceeding lay in the report of that committee which had unseated the late sitting Members, Messrs. Wason and Rennie. He would not go into the proceedings of that committee, further than to remind the House, that while they had made such a report as to unseat the two then sitting Members, they had felt themselves precluded from going into evidence as against the petitioning candidate with respect to bribery. The point was raised in the committee, whether they should go into the evidence offered in support of the allegations of bribery against the other candidates; but the committee felt coerced and did not think that they were empowered to do so. But still there was the report of the committee distinctly asserting the existence of extensive bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and that, he contended, independently of their refusal to enter into the bribery alleged against the rival candidates, was primâ facie case enough to justify the present motion. He was sure he need not call the attention of the House to what they had done with regard to the Nottingham petition, nor need be do more than remind them that they had granted the hon. and learned Member for Bath a committee upon what was, after all, mere matter of report, surmise, and personal statement. His present motion did not rest upon any small ground—it rested upon the report of a committee— upon the decision of seven Members of that House. This, he apprehended, gave him a stronger hold upon the House than any which the hon. and learned Member for Bath would have had. He was sure he need not remind the House of the vast importance of such a subject, When the hon. Member for York had made use of an expression to the effect that he felt a religious earnestness in the matter, the House had been disposed to receive his remark with hilarity. He regretted that such a feeling should have arisen. A more awful subject for the immediate consideration of that House could scarcely be conceived, than this of bribery and the consequences to which it gave rise. To refuse the inquiry which he now asked for, would be to throw a shield over iniquity. Had the question arisen in ordinary times —in times when no unusual suspicion had been created on the subject of bribery in the public mind—if no suspicion had gone abroad as to the means by which the late elections generally had been carried, there might then have been some excuse for refusing this inquiry; but if it was true that the public generally were convinced that the late elections had been gained by bribery and corruption, it afforded the most forcible reason to the House for it at once proceeding to vindicate its character, and, in regard to the borough of Ipswich, ascertaining, not the existence of bribery, for that was proved, but the extent of that bribery, and the circumstances under which* it had taken place. With regard to the time at which he brought the motion forward, it might be said that he ought to have made it sooner. It was on the 3rd of May, however, that the report of the committee was delivered, and since then the vacation had intervened. He did not think the lapse of time was such as in any way to prejudice the motion, and he had himself been prevented from bringing it forward earlier. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for the committee.

said, he thought this motion involved the character and honour of that House, which would be at stake if they allowed bribery to go on without making any attempt to put an end to it. He had heard the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government express his anxious wish to put an end to bribery. Here was a clear case, and he asked the right hon. Baronet why he did not now take the opportunity that was afforded to him of putting an end to it as far as regarded the borough of Ipswich? The right hon. Baronet had told them, in long and plausible speeches, of his wish to put an end to bribery. He believed the right hon. Baronet did wish to put an end to bribery—he believed that no party in that House was interested in keeping it up; but he would much rather that the right hon. Baronet would do one practical thing towards putting an end to bribery than hear his plausible speeches on the subject. Why did not the right hon. Baronet grant the inquiry, instead of making his plausible speeches against bribery? In October last, the right hon. Baronet had told them his belief that extensive bribery prevailed throughout the country, and yet when this case of bribery at Ipswich was brought forward, what did the right hon. Baronet's Government do? Had they said one word about inquiry? No, they were perfectly silent; once for all, he would be glad to know which course the Government meant to take, whether they meant to put down bribery by plausible speeches, or by acting up to their declared wishes when cases such as this of Ipswich were brought under their notice. They must agree to this motion if they were really in earnest, and if the whole subject was not matter of collusion. That it was matter of collusion was the belief of the public out of doors—they did not think the House were in earnest in their wish to put down bribery. But he was in earnest in his wish, and he therefore wanted to know whether the right hon. Baronet would or would not avail himself of the opportunity afforded by this proposed inquiry.

did not know where the noble Lord could have been during the last two or three hours, but judging from what had just fallen from him, he could not have been listening to the debate that had gone before. He had accused the Government of having been silent, when the fact was, that Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister had spoken. Not with-standing what had fallen from the hon. and learned Mover, and after him from the noble Lord, he should be, for one, prepared to vote against the motion. [Cheers.] He must have some better argument than those cheers to induce him to change his resolution. He would state his reason why he objected to the appointment of this committee. He objected to it because, from the very nature of its constitution, it would have less weight than the regular tribunals appointed by act of Parliament for the trial of election petitions. The Members forming those committees were sworn, and the witnesses examined before them were sworn. But the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be sworn, nor would the witnesses examined before it, and that committee would, literally speaking, have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses. He did not see why the question should be referred to a committee so constituted, after it had; already been considered by the committee appointed to consider it under the existing law with regard to election petitions. But he objected to the motion also on the score of the long time that had elapsed since the report of the committee was originally on the Table. Since the 26th of April, when the report of the committee first came before the House, there had been ample time for the inquiry which the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed at this advanced period to institute. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman could not bring the subject forward, because he was attending his duties else-where; but he had friends in that House who would not have been wanting to take up the question. As to the vacation having intervened, that was precisely the time in which hon. Members would have had leisure to look into the case. Believing, as he did, that even the tribunals which sat, surrounded by all the sanctions of the law proposed by his right hon. Friend, had scarcely the confidence of that House, and still less of the people out of doors, and believing that the tribunal to which the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would refer the question, would be still less entitled to that confidence, he should certainly oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment.

said, that no one could accuse the hon. Baronet of inconsistency, because he had resisted the appointment of the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and had also opposed the motion for suspending the writ for Nottingham; but he could not conceive how those who had acquiesced in the motion for inquiry, and in the suspension of the writ for Nottingham, could resist the inquiry now proposed. In the election petition against Nottingham, bribery was alleged; and so was it in the petition against the Ipswich election. Thus far the cases were similar. But the only proof the House had of bribery in the Nottingham case was the rumor and belief of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; whereas, in the case of Ipswich, they had the report of a committee, who had informed the House that bribery had prevailed in that borough to a very great extent. Those, then, who had assented to the appointment of a committee of inquiry in the Nottingham, could not with any consistency refuse to inquire into the Ipswich, case. How did her Majesty's Government intend to act with respect to the motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire, for they omitted all inquiry respecting bribery in the cases included in the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath? Did they mean to reverse the decision the House had already come to? If not, with what appearance of consistency could they resist an inquiry into the Ipswich case, when the existence of bribery there had been actually reported to the House by a sworn committee? If they had the slightest regard for the character of the House, and were anxious to act upon a consistent rule which the country could understand, it was impossible that those who had acquiesced in the previous motion for inquiry could now resist the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin. It might be very well for the right hon. Baronet and those who supported him to say that they were anxious to put an end to bribery, but if they were not prepared to take the first step and inquire into bribery when a case was reported to them, it seemed to him to be perfect nonsense and an absurdity to talk of taking other and ulterior measures.

had given his vote, the other night, for the inquiry moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and he intended to give that hon. and learned Member the assistance he might require for the purpose of making that inquiry effectual. He had voted also for the suspension of the writ in the case of Nottingham, and he did so upon this ground: the hon. and learned Gentleman charged certain Members of the House with what he called a corrupt compromise, for the purpose of preventing inquiry into bribery, and he stated that he should be able to establish certain facts, and would undertake to prove them if the House would give him the opportunity by instituting an inquiry. It was needless for him to refer to the other four cases included in the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion. In the case of Nottingham, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was alleged that money had been lodged, and that it had been stipulated that no opposition should be offered in the event of a vacancy of the seat, and of a new election. The hon. and learned Gentleman further stated that this allegation did not rest upon his own mere unsupported assertion, but he adduced in corroboration of the statement the fact, that although the committee had declared that the sitting Members were entitled to their seats, yet, notwithstanding this, one of the sitting Members immediately after accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and vacated his seat. Under these circumstances the House assented to appoint the committee. and it was under these circumstances also that he gave his vote in favour of the suspension of the writ. A Member having been seated, his election having been declared a good one, and his seat having been vacated the next day, did appear to be a fact in strong confirmation of the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The noble Lord opposite on that occasion expressed his intention of opposing the appointment of the committee moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. No doubt the noble Lord did so from a conscientious view of the case. He had never charged the noble Lord with making plausible speeches against bribery, and then refusing all inquiry. He really thought, that if Gentlemen were permitted to take their own views, in cases of this kind, without being subjected to imputations as to their motives, it would be much the better way. With respect to this borough of Ipswich, he absolutely knew nothing about it. What the result of an election there might be, he knew not. It probably might end in the return of two Members supporting the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or Members who would support the views entertained by his side of the House; but surely, it was hardly necessary for him to say, that no considerations of that kind, could influence, in the slightest degree, the vote he should give. He had said from the first, that he thought the House ought to be careful how it interfered with the right of the constituencies to have representatives in that House. He made the declaration that he thought it would be a dangerous precedent for the House to interfere with the rights of the constituencies, and if they once began to exercise that power, there was no assignable limit to the abuse of it. It was a power lodged in the House to be exercised on the independent and uncontrollable authority of the House, and to be exercised, therefore, only under grave considerations, and after full reflection, as to the consequences of the precedent that might be established. Although, in the case of Ipswich, he voted for the suspension of the writ, until the sense of the House had been taken upon the motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Wynn), still he retained the opinion, that if the House acted in conformity with the principles upon which it had hitherto acted, it would not now withhold the issuing of the writ. The report of the election committee had been before the House nearly a month. It recommended the writ to be suspended, till the evidence was printed. A notice of motion for printing the evidence was given by the Chairman of the committee. Shortly after that notice, the Chairman intimated to the House, as the organ of the committee, that it was not his intention to move the suspension of the writ for the purpose of adopting further proceedings. That public notification was given to the House. Now, he had referred to the evidence, and although there was much in it which he regretted to read, yet he did not think himself justified upon that evidence to institute any measure for the disfranchisement of the borough. He presumed, that that was the understanding to which the House had come, for, notwithstanding the time that had elapsed since the opinion that was given by the Chairman of the committee, and notwithstanding no other Member of the committee had given notice of an intention to take any steps in pursuance of their report, yet it was not until this night, that a notice of a motion for an inquiry was given, and the motion made. The House, he must repeat, had had the evidence before it for three weeks. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Wynn) gave notice of his motion to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute. It was perfectly open to any Gentleman, when that notice was given, to have stated, that it was not a satisfactory step, and that he should move for a fresh inquiry. But no such thing was done—no such notice given. They came to-night to discuss the question whether the Attorney-general should prosecute; and the House came to the conclusion that he should not. The debate for issuing a new writ then began, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) moved as an amendment, the indefinite postponement of the writ. It was intended, the hon. Member said, to bring forward a bill for the prevention of bribery, and he wished the writ to be suspended, till the fate of that bill should be known. Then the hon. and learned Member for Bath said, that he had obtained a committee for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into bribery, and that upon the result of that inquiry, the bill for the pre- vention of bribery must depend; that it was most material that the House should know what were the characteristics of the system of bribery so extensively carried on, and then they might found some legislative measure upon the evidence to be gained by the labours of that committee. It was, therefore, argued, that the issuing of the writ for Ipswich should be suspended until the result of that inquiry were known. Now he protested altogether against the postponement of the writ upon such grounds. He had argued that no formal notice had been given of an intention to introduce a bill to prevent bribery. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) and himself had professed a desire to co-operate in some measure for the prevention of bribery, but no measure had yet been brought before the House; it would be contrary, therefore, to all precedent, and to the uniform practice of the House, to prevent any constituent body to send representatives to the House until some legislative measure should have been brought forward and assented to by both branches of the Legislature. It was impossible for him to know what bearing any new bill might have upon the constituency of Ipswich. These were the arguments he had urged against the amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. At a late period of the debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell), feeling the pressure of these arguments, and especially as to the effect the new bill might have upon Ipswich, upon a sudden gave notice that he would move for an inquiry. He must say, that a motion for inquiry, brought forward under such circumstances, was not entitled to much weight. It would, and must appear to the country, as if the House had determined to suspend the issuing of the writ, at all events, and that every other motion for that purpose having failed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the instant got up and made an extemporaneous motion for this inquiry. Such was the history of the circumstances under which the issuing of the writ had hitherto been suspended, and such were the circumstances under which the present motion for inquiry had been made. He could not vote against the motion for inquiry upon the ground stated by his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis), because he had confidence in the committees of this House. He believed they were competent; but without discussing that point, it was sufficient for him to say, that he did not think the evidence taker, before the Ipswich committee was sufficient to justify the House in instituting any further proceedings before the writ issued. No notice of any motion for inquiry having been given was strong presumptive proof that hon. Members did not feel that this particular case was one which could justify a suspension of the writ and the disfranchisement of the borough. To suspend the issuing of the writ upon this evidence would be contrary to the practice of the House, and would constitute a dangerous precedent, of which a majority might hereafter avail themselves, to the gross violation of justice, and to the great prejudice of the public interests. He did not deny that there was evidence of brihery. Nay, he believed that there had been bribery committed in the borough of Ipswich. He was satisfied that that was the case. He thought that the decision which the committee had come to was just; but upon the whole he did not think that sufficient ground appeared in the report to justify the House in depriving the honest portion of the constituency of that borough of their franchise. There was no evidence to show what were the comparative numbers of the bribed and unburied. At all events he thought the danger of the precedent which the suspension of the writ would establish, would outweigh any advantage to be derived from the adoption of the motion for inquiry. He must therefore prefer the issuing of the writ to the instituting of a special inquiry, originating under such circumstances as the present motion had done.

hoped that the reproof which the right hon. Baronet had given by implication to the hon. Member for Knaresborough would have its due effect. The right hon. Baronet had expressed his wish that hon. Members would abstain from imputing motives, and would allow others to exercise their own judgments upon these questions. Now the hon. Member for Knaresborough had most irregularly travelled out of the debate to make a grave charge against the hon. Member for York (Mr. R. Yorke), upon a matter having no reference whatever to the subject under discussion. He hoped that the lesson read by the right hon. Baronet to the hon. Member for Knaresborough would not be lost upon him. He should vote for the suspension of the writ, because he thought the whole of the night would be completely wasted if the writ were now to issue for the borough of Ipswich.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent persons in England and Wales from losing their votes at an election by removal after the preceding registration.

said, he should divide the House against the motion.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not oppose the introduction of the bill. The subject was one worthy of consideration, and although he was not by any means prepared to express himself In favour of it, still he wished the bill to be introduced, in order that the House might see the nature of its provisions.

rose to ask leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the Government of Newfoundland. Although it might not excite much interest, he could assure the House that this was a subject of considerable importance. [Interruption caused by Members leaving.] He knew it was impossible to ask for the patience of the House, and he was quite ready, if the House thought proper, to ask leave to introduce the measure without saying a single word, but if they wished that he should explain the object of the bill, he hoped they would at least allow him to hear what he was saying himself. In 1831 a constitution was granted for the first time to the colony of Newfoundland, on the declaration by the colony of their willingness to take on themselves the expenses of their own administration, and relieve this country from the burden. Out of this circumstance arose the necessity for the appeal he was now making to Parliament, the object of which was to enable the Crown to restrict the extent of the elective franchise then established in the colony. He did not think the House would be of opinion, when he stated the circumstances, that he proposed very largely or improperly to restrict the amount of the franchise. He was very unwilling to enter at much length into the circumstances which had led to the state in which the colony was at present placed. The late governor of the colony had represented to the noble Lord who preceded him in the charge of the Colonial Department, that such was the state of the colony, that it was quite impossible that he could undertake to summon an assembly under the constitution as it now stood, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies concurring in this opinion, authorized the suspension of the sittings of the Assembly until time should have been taken to consider the state of the colony. A committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the whole circumstances on the motion of the hon. Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington); but their inquiries were cut short by the dissolution of Parliament, and all that they were able to effect was a partial examination of some questions affecting the religious differences of the island. He was happy to learn that the animosities springing out of this source had to a considerable extent subsided, and with the religious part of the question he did not propose in any way to deal. Although a nominal qualification for both the electors and the elected was ordained under the new constitution, it was in point of fact no qualification at all. The state of society was in many respects peculiar. Formerly the inhabitants consisted chiefly of fishermen, with a few persons who were attracted to the island by commerce, but in the course of time another interest had grown up, consisting of agriculturists and other persons resident in the colony. Between the different classes considerable jealousy prevailed, which divided the people into two parties. The inhabitants were distributed over a large extent of sea-coast with but small means of communication with the interior. The bulk of the population was extremely poor, and as a natural consequence extremely ignorant, with but few persons possessed of property. The qualification of a voter hitherto had been the possession of a house for twelve months, which might be a mere log-hut of a few boards, such as was called in the North American provinces a shanty. The qualification for representatives was the having occupied a house for seven years. The result had been, that the House of Assembly had consisted generally of very uneducated persons, one of the fifteen of: which it was composed having been unable to write his own name, and some of the others being menial servants, who had to ask their masters' leave to enable them to sit in the House. He thought the House would agree with him that in such a state of things some check was called for, and that the restriction he proposed on the franchise was not unreasonable. The qualification which he should now propose for the electors, in conformity with the opinions of both the present governor and his predecessor, and with the consent of most parties in the island, was in the country districts the possession of a 40s. freehold, the person being resident on the spot, paying no rent, but being in undisputed possession, even if unauthorized. In the towns he proposed the occupation of a 5l. house, which rent being exceedingly low—indeed, in the country districts no such thing existed—would, in fact, include the great bulk of the householders. With respect to the qualifications of candidates, he should propose the possession of 100l. a year, or property to the amount of 500l. Enough of persons properly qualified at this standard would be found in the colony. One other restriction he proposed to introduce, in compliance with the constitutional practice in this country, and to which he did not believe any objection would be made on either side of the House, and that was, the origination of money votes by the Crown. The effect of the present jealousy between the commercial and agricultural interests was, that each grudged any expenditure of the public money in behalf of the other, and in consequence objections were made to the money votes, and no supply was granted for the public business. He thought it would be a proper control for this state of things to enact that money votes should originate with the Crown, and not with the House of Assembly. On all these points there was no difference of opinion in the colony itself. There was another provision, not made indeed with the general consent of the colony itself but to which he attached considerable importance, as tending to smooth the course of public business. The Council, as things now stood, checked the House of Assembly, and the two bodies acted with mutual jealousy. He proposed to incorporate both into one chamber, combining the principle of election with that of nomination by the Crown. At present there were two separate chambers, one nominated by the Crown, the other by the people. He proposed to convert them into one council, consisting of twenty-five members, of whom ten, or two-fifths should be nominated by the Crown, and fifteen or three-fifths should be elected by the people. This plan he thought would tend to produce more harmonious legislation, and prevent that suspension of public business which used formerly to occur when questions of precedence and dignity occupied the time which should be devoted to public business. These were the principal changes which he proposed, and he was anxious to hasten the measure on, and not leave the colony, as it was now, without any representative body.

viewing the whole scheme of legislation proposed by the noble Lord, would implore him rather to introduce a bill to annihilate all representation in the colony, and take the Government of the colony altogether into his own hands, than mock them with such a semblance of a representative body. The people of Newfoundland had been extremely ill-used, not only by the Government of which the noble Lord had formed a part, but also by the preceding Government. The committee appointed by the noble Lord, the Member for London, to consider the state of Newfoundland, had made its report on ex parte statements, as none of the residents of the colony had an opportunity of being examined before it. The whole power of the colony was placed in the hands of a few London houses, and the Legislature was in reality vested in them. Of this he was convinced, though he imputed to the noble Lord no motive or. intention other than what the noble Lord had declared. He had heard from persons resident in Newfoundland, that before the constitution was granted, the colony was a burden to the mother country; but, since then, the case was altered, and public works of an extensive nature were undertaken. Amongst others, a thousand miles of road had been laid down, and the country was prospering exceedingly. The proposed alteration of the qualification would be nothing less than a transfer from the many to the few. The greater number of the poor voters at present were Roman Catholics, who would be deprived of their votes, and the feuds which were complained of would be renewed under another name. If ten of the persons in the House of Assembly were named by the Government, it would require but three adherents of the Government to be amongst the elected body to give it complete sway over the Assembly. When he saw the bill of the noble Lord, he should give it his best attention, though he was, at the same time. convinced, that he should be compelled to give it every opposition.

greatly regretted the introduction of this bill, because he thought, with the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, that it was not calculated to restore harmony in the colony, for whose better government it was intended, but that its effect would rather be to perpetuate the disagreements which already existed there. He approved, however, of those portions of the scheme which proposed to give to the Crown the origination of money grants, and by which it was suggested, that the House of Assembly and the Council might be incorporated; but he thought, that with respect to the latter, it was not merely the general principle, but the relative proportions of the two bodies, with reference to the influence of the Crown, which ought to be looked to. And he could not help pointing out what would be the effect of the measure proposed. The House of Assembly, according to its new constitution, would consist of twenty-five members, ten being the nominees of the Crown, and fifteen being the representatives of the elective body. But, supposing three only of the latter number to be returned upon the influence of the Crown, the effect would be, that there would be an invariable majority over the representatives of the people. He could not help thinking, that there must be some exaggeration in the statement of the noble Lord, that any members of the House of Assembly were menial servants, and compelled to ask the permission of their masters before they could take their seats, although he certainly did admit, that the accomplishments of reading and writing were not universal in the colony. He was of opinion, that the alteration of the elective franchise would have a bad effect, because it would be in truth changing the governing body of the country; but he admitted the great difficulties of the case, and that a vast portion of the measure was exceedingly sound and proper.

in reply, said, that he had proposed no restrictions whatever, but had only given to Newfoundland the legislature which had been held in abeyance by his noble predecessor in the Colonial-office, in consequence of the state of the island. Leave given.—Bill brought in and read a first time.

in moving for leave to bring in a bill to make further provision for the government of New South Wales, said, that the constitutional act in that colony had been renewed by successive acts since 1836, and as it would expire in the present year, he proposed to introduce the present bill, founded in the material parts, on the measure proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for London, last Session. He had considered the provisions of that bill, and had made some alterations, which were suggested by persons representing different opinions in the colony. The bill would considerably extend the popular rights in New South Wales, but not more so than he thought the population, wealth, and importance of the colony were fairly entitled to; and it would also constitute, for the conduct of local affairs, municipal districts and bodies which would be required by the Legislature about to be given under the sanction of Parliament. Leave given.—Bill brought in and read a first time.

moved the second reading of the Witnesses' Indemnity Bill.

said, that on looking into the bill he must call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Bath to a verbal amendment in the second clause. He thought it was taken from the bill that was sent down from the House of Lords, and seemed to imply that the first clause had given either House of Parliament power to appoint a committee, instead of the House of Commons alone.

said, he thought that the second clause must be altered as suggested by the right hon. Baronet.

thought, that leave was simply granted to the hon. and learned Member for Bath to bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses, and the hon. and learned Member appeared so sensible of that, that he confessedly limited himself to that object. It was to indemnify witnesses, and until this bill was delivered on the preceding day, no individual could have collected from what had passed in that House, from what appeared in the journals, or from what was stated by the hon. and learned Member in his place, that the object was to do more than to indemnify witnesses. In taking that course the hon. Member would have followed the precedent which had been set in the case, he thought, of East Retford. He had referred to the case of Grampound, but he there found no bill like this. By the second clause of this bill, it was proposed, that it should be lawful for such committee, at their discretion, to certify that any witnesses examined before them, or any person touching whom any evidence should be given before them, should be saved harmless. That might be right or it might be wrong; in his opinion it was wrong; but he thought that the House in giving leave to bring in a bill to indemnify witnesses did not intend to give a power to indemnify all persons.

said, that if the hon. Baronet would refer to other cases, he thought he would find the same principle embodied in the acts relating to them. He had been accused of spitefulness, but his real object was to obtain information upon which to legislate, and for that purpose he wished that all persons should be indemnified.