wished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. A report had been recently made on the grand jury system, suggesting the adoption of legislative measures with reference to that subject. What he desired to know was, whether it was the intention of the Government to act upon that report?

was understood to say, the report the right hon. Gentleman referred to had only been lately made, and as the Government required ample time to consider the important questions involved in it, there would probably be no legislative measure on the subject introduced during the present Session.

said, he had, some time since, given notice of his intention to proceed with the property- tax that evening. He believed, it was also the impression of the House that it would certainly be proceeded with. There were a number of preliminary arrangements which it was absolutely essential to make, if the measure was brought into operation on the 5th of July; and, taking that circumstance into consideration, he did hope that no objection would be offered to proceed with the bill at once; and that he might be permitted to appeal to hon. Members to agree, that no question likely to lead to a discussion—not even a question of privilege—should be interposed. Several motions were accordingly postponed.

begged to inquire of the hon. Member for South Hants, at what time he proposed to submit the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the petition which had been presented from Southampton, on the proceedings at the late Southampton election? This question had been rendered necessary by the course taken by the hon. Member for Lymington.

intimated that he should present the petition immediately before the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington for the issue of the writ for Southampton came before the House.

had been entrusted with a petition upon this subject, which the House would perhaps think it would be convenient that he should present at once. It had been his intention to present that petition at the time when the motion of the hon. Member for Lymington came under discussion, but the postponement of that motion induced him to think that it was highly desirable that the petition should be printed with the votes, in order that its contents might be made known to all hon. Members; and he was convinced that when the allegations which it contained were made known to the House, there would be no hesitation in refusing to issue the new writ for this borough. The petition proceeded from John Wren, the witness who had been in custody, in consequence of what had passed before the election committee, and it stated a variety of circumstances, and pressed upon the House the necessity of a further and searching inquiry, in which the witnesses should under the protection of an indemnity, into the scandalous corruption which had taken place in the borough of Southampton. The petitioner further prayed, that the House would delay the issuing of the writ. He moved that the petition be printed with the votes.

should certainly oppose the motion.

Surely, upon a subject like the present, the House must wish to have all the information which they could possibly procure; and it was impossible that they could reject the offer of the witness, who came before the House and tendered his evidence. Petition drawn up, and

intimated that it was not in accordance with the practice of the House that a petition, being thus presented, should be printed with the votes, but the petition must be referred to the committee on public petitions.

said, that having read the petition, he thought that it was of the utmost importance that it should be printed, and that it should be in the hands of all hon. Members as speedily as possible. The petitioner declared that if he were granted an indemnity and examined, he should be able to disclose the circum- stances connected with a most extensive system of bribery, not only at the last, but at the two previous elections for the borough of Southampton.

would beg to observe that this petition was from the very per- son who bad behaved so ill before the committee. He put it to the good sense of the House whether they would violate the common understanding of the rules of the House for the purpose of printing a petition which showed that the evidence which this very person had previously given was not to be believed.

said, that there had been a time when the conduct of this man, so far from its calling for animadversion from hon. Members opposite, had demanded their sympathy. But circumstances now seemed to be changed. The object of his hon. Friend in making this motion at the present time was to save the time of the House. He put it to the hon. Member for Lymington, whether he could bring forward his motion until the petition had been printed.

As a motion was to be brought forward, and as it was distinctly stated that this petition had reference to the subject matter of that motion, the question was whether this was not a case which was exempted from the operation of the general rule of the House. If the hon. Member for Finsbury had given notice of his motion, it would have been competent to him to have moved that the petition be printed; but as the petition related to a motion about to be brought forward, he thought that the case was one in which the rule might be broken through. It was, no doubt, of great importance that the rules of the House should be adhered to, but this might be looked upon as a case which justified an exemption. Whether the character of the witness entitled him to credit was a question upon which they would be able to form a judgment on seeing the petition; but with reference to issuing the writ, as the allegations on the petition had a strong bearing on it, he should think that it was important that the motion should be acceded to.

The misconduct of the witness when before the committee had consisted in his refusing to answer a question, lest he should criminate himself. He now came forward and said that if he was indemnified he would give evidence. It was obvious that he would be able to make some disclosures, because he had been one of the most active men at the election; and there was no doubt he knew all that had occurred.

had presented the petition merely for the purpose of saving the time of the House; for if he had not presented it now, he should have done so on Wednesday next, when a considerable discussion would no doubt have ensued. They would find in that petition, that so far from Wren not having spoken the truth, the charge was that he had spoken too much of the truth, and that he was now, in consequence, placarded all over Southampton as having betrayed his party; and the public were now cautioned against dealing with that individual, in consequence of what he had stated. The petitioner further said, that he had not mentioned one-tenth of the transactions which he knew to have occurred at the elections, and that he had a book in which the several sums of money expended in bribery were set down. If they resisted the printing of this petition, and would not receive the information which was now offered them through that petition, he wanted to know what the public would think of that transaction. The book to which the petitioner referred contained the entries relating to various sums amounting to 6,000l., and one of the pages of this book was stated by him to be signed by the returning officer. That was a very important point to be inquired into; and if the petition were printed, he really thought that no hon. Member would vote for the issuing of the new writ.

said, that Mr. Wren had not only told all that he knew, but a great deal more. If the House wished to know the character of Mr. Wren, he would read to them a letter. The hon. Member was then proceeding to read a letter, when

rose to order. If that letter was to be read, the petition ought to be read first.

had had a communication from the returning officer, whose letter, after what had been said, ought to be read. He had also a letter which showed the general character of this person Wren. The letter was addressed to himself, and the writer said, that having read the proceedings before the late election committee, and having observed that Wren had been represented as a respectable tradesman in the town, he considered it to be his duty to inform him, as the Member for the county, of a circumstance which had occurred to himself. He then stated that at an interview which he had had with Wren some time since, a conversation had sprung up respecting a person who was an insolvent debtor, and who was about to be heard in London before the commissioners. The writer of the letter remarked, that he did not consider the person referred to would get through the court if he spoke the truth; whereupon Wren said, that "he should not himself speak the truth in such a case; and that as for an oath, he did not value it, and that he would swear through thick and thin to get through the court," or words to that effect. [" Name, name."] The writer's name was Robert Tomkins, and he was a respectable tailor at Southampton.

rose to order. It was not in order when a person came before the House, tendering information, for any hon. Member to rise in his place to blacken the character of that individual by statements such as those that had been read. His belief was, that the hon. Member would have quite enough to do to defend his own conduct. [" Order."] The Speaker said, that an hon. Member rising to order could hardly make such observations as those made by the hon. Member for Sheffield.

The hon. Member for Finsbury had gone into the case of Mr. Wren. There could be no objection, he should think, to have this petition printed; but with regard to Wren's character, as the hon. Member had chosen to state some of the allegations contained in the petition, his hon. Friend felt that he had a perfect right to say, that he believed that a greater vagabond did not exist.

had also received a communication from Mr. Abraham, the returning officer. This letter was dated the 20th May, and the writer said, that the proceedings of the select committee having been laid before the House, he took the liberty of stating that the evidence given by Wren, with regard to the vote of a person named Whitmarsh, was wholly untrue; that Wren had spoken to him with regard to Whitmarsh, was true; but so far as Wren had sworn, he had had a private communication with him he denied, for he had positively refused to hold any communication with Wren on the subject, and had expressed his surprise at his mentioning such things to him, he being then the returning-officer. The writer added, that he had been in London several days during the sitting of the committee, in obedience to a Speaker's war- rant which had been served on him by the petitioners, and, had he been called, he should have stated these facts. They, how- ever, had not called him, and he had been compelled to take this course to make known the truth; he thought it due to himself to make this statement, and thus publicly to vindicate himself. This letter was signed "A. H. Abraham." By way of postscript, the writer added, that Wren had come to his House, and had stated to him that an agent of Messrs. Hutchins and Mangles had come to him, and in the presence of two persons, named Wood and Wilkinson, had offered him 300l. if he would give the agent some information with regard to the election.

must make one re- mark upon this subject. It was very clear that this John Wren, whose character was so very strongly impugned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who was represented as one of the greatest vagabonds in the country, was a very great Conservative; but however great a vagabond he was, he had been admitted into their ranks for years, and great confidence had been reposed in him. It appeared now, how- ever, that they would be glad to get rid of him, whatever his former position might have been, and that they desired to shift from themselves the odium which might result from the disclosures which he might make.

thought, that the petition ought to be laid fully before the House, in answer to what had been said in the letters read by the hon. Member opposite and he begged to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Baronet to the allegations in the petition. The petitioner said that he was in possession of a memorandum-book, not produced before the committee, which contained an ac- count of sums of money with which certain electors had been bribed, and containing also the signature of the returning officer, authorising the bribing of a certain elector, which elector was bribed accordingly. It was quite obvious that this petition must be printed and come before the House before they could pursue the proceedings with respect to bribery. Those proceedings would become an absolute farce, if, when a man was knocking at their door, and offering to produce such evidence, they should refuse to hear him.

did not know why the hon. Gentleman should refer to him, because he had already said that there were fair grounds to warrant the printing of this petition. He thought that the issuing of the writ involved a question of a judicial character, and it was the duty of the House to see what evidence could be procured bearing upon it. His opinion was, that this evidence ought to be examined before the issuing of the writ was determined upon. Petition ordered to be printed with the votes.

had heard a report, which he believed to be well founded, that the Government entertained an intention to alter the condition of the common law courts in Ireland; and, from what he had heard, it appeared as if the measure to be introduced was in some degree oppressive. He wished to know whether the measure in question had received the sanction of the judges in Ireland.

said, that a bill had been drawn up in accordance with the report of a commission appointed to investigate the subject, and that a copy of it had been transmitted to the judges of Ireland; and that the bill would not be proceeded with until the decision of the judges should be known.

wished to know from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether her Majesty's Government had advanced any sums of money to the East India Company, or whether they had sanctioned the East India Company in raising any?

said, that the question of the hon. Member was rather a complicated one. It would be better that it should be repeated to-morrow, when he would be prepared with an answer.

agreed that it was very desirable that, when a question of such a nature was to be asked, some notice of it should be given.

had thought that the subject was so entirely within the department of the right hon. Baronet, that there could be no necessity for any notice of it. The question was one which was of considerable importance in reference to the Property-tax Bill, which was now about to be brought under discussion.

thought it was very im- portant, that when an answer to a question was given, it should be afforded with the greatest accuracy possible. If he had received any intimation of the intention of the hon. Member to put this question to him, he would have been prepared to give him an answer; but when answers were given without due consideration, so much misconception was likely to arise, that, especially in cases like the present, involving considerations affecting the Government and this great company, it was better that an answer more particular than could be afforded on the moment should be given.

moved the third reading of the Property-tax Bill.

moved as an amendment,

" That as by the existing laws, a large proportion of the people of this realm are excluded from voting for Members of Parliament; and as it also appears, by the reports of different election committees, that corrupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of Members to this present House of Commons; and as, from both these causes, this House cannot be considered a fair representation of the people; it is therefore unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by Parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode of electing the Members of this House, shall be first redressed."

The hon. Member throughout the whole of his speech was most imperfectly heard. We understood him to say, that it was a fundamental principle of the constitution that a Money Bill should not originate in the House of Lords, on the ground that the people should only be taxed by their representatives in that House. He denied that under the present system there was even a virtual representation of the people. If they compared the return of the population, with the representation of the people in Parliament, it would appear, that in England and Wales the electors were not in greater proportion to the population than one to eighteen and a half; and in Ireland, the proportion was one in seventy-seven; and in Scotland, it was one in thirty. The proportion was now probably somewhat different, so as to render the number of the electors in a still smaller proportion to the population. At the above rate, the average of the United Kingdom would be as one to forty-two of the population, or as one voter in every nine families. Of nine male heads of families in the United Kingdom, on the average only one has the right of voting. This, to his mind, was undeniable evidence of the corrupt state of the representative system. No greater proof of this could have taken place than the conduct of the House on the motion of the hon. Member for Fins- bury, when he proposed that every Member appointed on the committee on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to inquire into the recent election compromises, should take a pledge at the Table that he had never done an illegal act to promote his election. And when it appeared there were not sufficient Members in that House who would take that pledge, it appeared that there were not less than forty places returning Members to that House against which petitions had been presented on the allegation of bribery. If a review were taken of the proceedings and reports of the different election committees and other disclosures since the Reform Act, we should find up- wards of forty towns tainted with the imputation of bribery. He believed, this would be a list of places in which bribery has been proved since the Reform Bill, and reported by the committees:Hertford, Carrickfergus, Newry, Derry, Warwick, Ipswich (twice), Evesham, Newcastle-under-Lyne (twice), Ludlow, Cambridge, St. Alban's, Walsall (treating), Sudbury, Southampton. Cases in which compromises have been made to avoid exposure: —In 1837, Bridgnorth, Norwich, Yarmouth; in 1842, Bridport, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Harwich, Penryn; in 1841, Canterbury. Cases in which bribery was proved before the general committee of bribery at elections:—Maldon, Cambridge, Norwich, Leominster, Hereford. Special committees have sat and reported on the bribery at Yarmouth and York. Gross bribery has been proved to exist in Lon- don, Hull, Liverpool; and places where the bribery is notorious, Pontefract, Beverley, Berwick, Stafford, Maidstone, Bridgwater, Boroughs in which petitions remain still to be tried, in which bribery is charged:—Belfast, Barnstaple, Sunderland. Again, he felt, that in consequence of the state of the representation, this nation had been engaged in wars which had been most disastrous in every sense of the word. To show the feeling which existed on this subject, every member of the Birmingham conference on the subject of reform, with the exception of two, signed the following declration:—

" We, the undersigned (many of whom are convinced of the utter inconsistency of all war with Christianity), and all of us deeply impressed with a sense of the terrible evils inflicted by it upon our race, the heaviest temporal calamity under which society groans, hereby record our solemn protest against it. We deem it our duty, more especially at the present moment, when the horrors of the system are brought out in vivid relief before our eyes by the recent loss of human life in Affghanistan, to declare our full conviction that the hostilities now carried on by this country in the eastern world, whether in China or beyond the borders of British India, having originated in glaring injustice, cannot be expected to terminate otherwise than in national disaster and disgrace. We believe the commencement of these hostilities to have been as unjust, impolitic, and unnecessary, as their progress hither- to has been calamitous. We have just reasons to fear that their continuance will be protracted, and we are sure that they will be productive of an incalculable amount of evil, both social and moral. We enter our solemn remonstrance against them as not only anti-Christian, but barbarous; and we deeply deplore that the public press of this country should, with few exceptions, lend its aid to kindle in our population the most vindictive passions, and to dif- fuse sentiments worthy only of the darkest ages of feudal ignorance and tyranny. We hold it to be the duty of every friend to his species in every possible way to discountenance those organs of opinion which labour with no small assiduity to foster a warlike spirit, and to in- cite the country to the perpetration of injustice which will make the name of Englishmen in- famous in the estimation of the whole world. Great Britain is already suffering in an enormous load of debt, and in commercial and manufacturing distress, consequent upon the pressure of that debt, the penalties of former wars. As a people we are ill able to bear up under the heavy burdens which have thereby been imposed upon us. We are now called upon to submit to an inquisitorial Income-tax, the necessity for which is clearly admitted as traceable to the hostile operations we hate undertaken, in the face of all laws, human and divine, in China and Affghanistan. We have thus to pay, in an increase of taxation, for the demoralization at home, and the bloodshed and ruin abroad, which these hostilities have already produced, to feed from our rapidly diminishing resources the monster which is making havoc of our fellow-men. Therefore, we, the undersigned, feeling the necessity of using every peaceable method of checking the evil, lay this our solemn remonstrance before the public, and record our devout hope, that the day may not be far distant when our countrymen will be sufficiently enlightened to refuse to enter upon a profession, the spirit and tendency of which is to inflict the most grievous and irreparable evils upon our race,"

What he recommended as a remedy to these evils was the extension of the suffrage, the division of the country into electoral districts, the ballot, and the shortening the duration of Paliaments. He had already, during the present Session, brought a motion to that effect before the House, and all inquiry into that matter had been refused. Was not the general prevalence of distress throughout the country a proof of the badness of their legislation? He might be asked what would take place if this resolution was carried? The result would be, that the House would immediately take into consideration the state of the representation, and have a new Parliament altogether. He did not call upon the House to adopt the principles of the Charter, but only at once to declare that it would proceed to redress all just causes of complaint. In bringing forward this motion, he was not influenced by any party considerations. He had always advocated the amendment of the representation of that House, and he always supported the principle that representation should be equivalent with taxation. At present, when new taxes were proposed, he thought that it was a most appropriate time to bring forward the motion. The hon. Member concluded with proposing his motion.

trusted, that the hon. Member would not charge him with any want of respect if he declined to enter into the discussion of this motion, which the hon. Member's speech, however, held out every inducement to do. He thought that much more favourable occasions could have been adopted for proceeding with a proposition for a change in our representative system. The hon. Gentleman, on his former motion on this subject, stated very strong opinions that that House did not represent the feelings of the people, and that the whole system of representation was defective. The hon. Gentleman's motion, which involved the main principle of his resolution of that night, had already been fully discussed. The proposition which was now made was even of a more extensive character than that made on a former occasion, for the hon. Member now declared that the House of Commons, as at presented constituted, was incapable of performing its functions, and that the only step they ought to take was immediately to resolve upon an extensive reform in the representation. If the House was not at liberty to impose an Income-tax, they were hardly competent to reform the tariff, and were not capable of performing any of the constitutional functions which had been assigned to it. If the House was unfit to impose this measure, there was no other act which they could justly perform. He was very much afraid that the hon. Gentleman's motion would go to the extent of declaring, that the House could not even reform itself. In short, all the functions of legislation must be stopped until this reform took place. He thought that this would be most unwise in the present state of the country. He had already stated the substantive objections he entertained to the proposition on a previous occasion, and he would not then repeat them. He thought also, that it would be most inexpedient to discuss the question of Parliamentary re- form on a motion for the third reading of the Income-tax bill. He trusted that the hon. Member would not think that his abstaining to say any more on the present occasion arose from any want of respect.

confessed, that the motion might have been made in a more convenient form, but still he could not concur on all that had been advanced by the right hon. Baronet. There was an impression in the minds of many hon. Members who had obtained their seats by no unfair means, that if the time should come when the alterations which they thought necessary were definitively refused to be made by giving a bonâ fide suffrage, the period might also come when they would be induced to give more obstructions to the measures of Government than hitherto. That it was necessary to purify the House from bribery was no longer a matter of declamation, but of positive proof. The right hon. Baronet must not be surprised, therefore, if he met with further opposition to a Government which would not consent to further Parliamentary reform.

had no hesitation in saying, that the House did not at present represent the feelings of the country; but with respect to the form of the motion, he must say, hon. Members were placed in a difficulty, because they were not able to obtain a direct negative on this question. For his part he decidedly objected to the Income-tax, thinking that other means might have been adopted for raising the required amount of taxes; and he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the measures he proposed would give the relief to the country which he anticipated. Every hour, in his opinion, brought more proof that those measures were a mere palliative of the evils of the present crisis. There was a great mass of proof that what the people wanted was employment and food, which they would have if they could get employment. By the operation of the Corn-laws on wages the House had placed the whole community under that ban that they must starve; and there could be no hope without a revival of trade. That revival this country would never see until they had a free communication with America and other countries who had that which we wanted to give in exchange for our manufactures. A vast deal too many of our acts of Parliament were acts to support monopoly in one shape or the other. As to the corruption and bribery at the late election, every hour proved it. Another borough (Lyme) had just been brought within the line, and a new form of bribery had been disclosed — bribery, namely, in the form of money lent to the voters for a number of years, in order to secure their votes. That was distinctly bribery. All these things supported the position that the House of Commons did not at present represent the feelings of the people. He should vote for the amendment, and should oppose every stage of the bill now before the House. As to the operation of the Income-tax, it would only increase the evil. There was no transfer of the burden from one class to another, as the right hon. Baronet assumed; it was an additional tax.

had no doubt that this motion originated from a new society for Parliamentary reform which had sent a circular to the Members of the House. These stated, that the chief part of the newspaper press of the country, including all the metropolitan press, being under the influence of one or other of the two great parties, it was impossible that Members could be fully made acquainted with the feelings of their constituents, and that, therefore, the House did not represent the wishes of the country, and the system of representation ought to be reformed. With that conclusion, drawn from such pre- mises, he did not concur, and he should like to know what portion of the population it was, that could not obtain a full and free expression of their grievances by means of the press. In his opinion there was no class so well represented in the House as the middle class—the shop-keepers and farmers. With respect to the Income-tax Bill, he supported it because he looked upon it as a bold—and believed it would be a successful—attempt to diminish the influence of wealth; to which, and not to the influence of aristocracy, a great part of the present evils were to be attributed.

observed, that the adoption of the amendment of the hon. Member would go to the extent of making the House declare, that it was incapable to perform the functions of legislation. He should oppose the amendment and should also take the sense of the House on the third reading of the Income-tax Bill The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 156; Noes 21:—Majority 135.

rose, and was proceeding to bring forward an amendment, when

who had just previously been called out of the House by Sir J. Graham, rose, amidst loud cries of "hear," and addressed the house in the following words, at least as nearly as we could collect them, for the right hon. Baronet's excitement well nigh overpowered his utterance:—Whatever may be the inconvenience to the public service resulting from delay, yet still I think it would be inconsistent with my duty, with my position, and I feel certain it would be unsatisfactory to the House, were I not, after what I have just heard, to propose that the consideration of the question now before us be postponed. I ought to premise, that the information I have received is so imperfect that I must repeat it with great distrust as to the entire accuracy of it; but, since I came into the Mouse, information has reached me that an attempt has been made on her Majesty's life—an attempt which a merciful Providence has rendered abortive; and I have reason to believe, that the assassin is now in custody; and he will, consequently, at as early a period as possible, be subjected to an examination. Under these circumstances—[Mr. C. Wood: Is the Queen quite safe] Perfectly so. I would, under these circumstances, suggest that we do now adjourn, and if this proposal be agreed to, the debate can be renewed to-morrow. My noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, has received a pledge of precedence for his motion to-morrow at five o'clock, but immediately after that is disposed of, the right hon. Gentleman's amendments can be taken. At present I do not think that, our feelings being naturally all so excited, we could pay proper attention to the subject; and therefore would suggest that, not only out of respect to our Sovereign, but from our inability, under the circumstances, to pay the requisite attention to the question before us, it will be better to postpone the debate, and I therefore move, that the House do now adjourn.

I beg to second the motion. The excitement that we must all necessarily feel at the news which we have just heard, our horror at the attempt which has been made, and our delight that her Majesty's life has been saved, concur to throw us into that frame of mind which would prevent our paying- anything like due attention to the matter before us.