I have to acquaint the House that her Majesty has been attended this day by both Houses of Parliament with their address, to which her Majesty was graciously pleased to return this most gracious answer:—

"My Lords and Gentlemen;

"I receive with heartfelt gratification this loyal and dutiful Address from my two Houses of Parliament.

"I am thankful to the Almighty, whose merciful care has protected Me and the Prince my beloved Consort.

"I humbly rely on this good Providence of God, who is able to save Me from every danger; and firm in this trust, and sincere in My desire to promote the happiness of My People, I am comforted and supported by the renewed assurance of your attachment to My Person and Government."

rose to present the petition of which he had given notice, with reference to the personation of electors, by attaching their signatures to a petition presented to the House on a previous occasion. The petition which he now had in charge, did not emanate from the general body of electors, but from those persons who, from their official positions and high station in the town of Southampton, felt it to be their special duty to watch over the morals of the town. It was signed by the mayor, bailiffs, a large majority of the aldermen, a majority of the councillors of the town, and by many gentlemen, merchants, and tradesmen of the highest character. They said that they had seen a petition, purporting to be that of certain electors of the borough of Southampton, and that they could not forbear expressing their surprise at many of the persons who had signed the petition representing themselves to be electors of the borough. The petition went on to state, that the former petition, which purported to be signed by 171 electors, was signed by thirty persons who were not electors. It is also stated, that some of such petitioners, by themselves and agents, offered to compromise the petition presented against the return of the Members. Petition read at length.

moved, that it be printed with the votes.

wished to know, whether it was the intention of the hon. Member to found any motion on the question.

thought, that he had only done his duty in presenting the petition, and having shown the fraud that had been committed, would leave it to the House to say whether they would call upon any of the parties to support these statements. He did not intend to take any further steps upon the subject.

had only asked the question because the hon. Member stated, that it was his intention to found a motion upon the petition.

said, that he had received communications from very respectable parties in Southampton, denying the statements and impressions intended to be conveyed by the petition now presented by the hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Fleming). The petition complained of was signed by Mr. Atherley, the brother of a gentleman who formerly long represented that town, and who was himself a most respectable banker and a magistrate. The next person who had signed this petition was a magistrate, and the third was a most respectable banker of the town, and also a magistrate. He could point out others of equal respectability, so that manifestly there was no reason in the world to impute to any of those petitioners the intention to commit a fraud on the House.

had received a return from the town clerk, who stated, that he had gone over the register of electors, and he did not find the names of the thirty persons alluded to. He was ready to place this statement on the Table of the House.

observed, that the rule was, not to print a petition with the votes, unless an hon. Member intended to found a motion on it. He doubted, after the statements of the hon. Member, whether it would be right or necessary to have the petition printed.

said, the rule had been broken through the other evening, when a petition presented by the hon. Member for Finsbury was ordered to be printed, although contrary to the rules of the House, because it would throw light upon this very case of the Southampton election. The reason was, that the case partook somewhat of a judicial proceeding, and as this person offered to give evidence, and he then stated, that he thought that the rule should be broken through. There was, therefore, a precedent for this motion.

thought, that the cases were hardly parallel. The former petition had reference to a motion for a select committee, to inquire into the proceedings at the late election for Southampton. If the hon. Member for South Hampshire un dertook to affirm that the present petition was calculated to throw light upon the subject they were about to discuss, and would state that on Thursday, or some other day, he would draw the attention of the House to the subject, then there might be some reason for printing the petition.

said, that the motion for printing the petition was not a substantive motion, but an amendment. How did hon. Members know that it was his intention to postpone moving for the writ until to-morrow?

thought, that the House had acted very properly in deciding that the petition of John Wren should be printed, because it was calculated to throw light upon the discussion on which they were about to enter. If the present petition had been calculated to throw light upon the subject, the hon. Member ought to have presented it before, as he had had it for more than a week in his possession; but it appeared that it would not suit the purposes of the Conservatives of Southampton to have light thrown upon the subject. He did not think that there was the slightest importance to be attached to the petition.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire had acted very discreetly in abstaining from presenting the petition until this evening. He had attained his object, which was, to show that the petition presented by the hon. Baronet was a fraudulent one. He did not say, that none of the persons who had signed the petition were respectable, but certainly vast numbers of them were not what they represented themselves to be. The hon. Member for Hampshire having gained his object, he saw no reason for having the petition printed.

had a petition to present of a greater importance than the last. A petition from John Wren had been printed, and the present petition, which was numerously and respectably signed, was from persons who stated, that in their opinion that individual was not to be believed upon his oath. In a very few hours the petition was signed by upwards of 250 electors of the town of Southampton, and if it could have remained longer, it would no doubt have been signed by four times as many. The petitioners stated, that they heard with astonishment, that John Wren had presented a petition with relation to the corruption which he said had taken place with a view of delaying the issue of the writ. They stated, that the said John Wren did not in any degree possess the confidence or esteem of his fellow-towns men; nor was the estimation in which he was held such as to afford any grounds for confidence being placed in his statement. That opinion was entertained by persons of all political creeds. The petitioners prayed the honourable House not to give credence to statements coming from such a quarter, and that they might not be deprived of their political privileges. Petition to lie upon the Table.

then moved, that the petition be printed and circulated with the votes.

was sure that he only faithfully expressed the opinions and wishes of a large number of the most re spectable in habitants of Southampton, when he said that it was desirable that everything that the hon. Member had offered to the House should be printed; and that the most searching inquiry should be made into the whole proceedings before the House proceeded to issue the writ. It could not have escaped the observation of the House that the hon. Member for Hampshire had not produced the effect which he was desirous of producing in bringing forward his indictment against the former petitioners. The hon. Member evidently entertained an opinion that he should be able to produce an impression on the House that the petitioners had committed a fraud which would lay them open to severe animadversion. Now, what were the facts of the case? A few of the individuals who had signed the petition had changed their residences, and were not on the present register. Those parties, however, who were complained of for having signed this petition were stated to him to have been on former registers, and expected to be on the next. He had received a letter from a most respectable individual at Southampton, who stated that the inhabitants of that town were anxious that the House should make the most searching inquiries into this matter, which, they stated, would prove, that no fraud whatever had been committed against the House by the petitioners complained of, but that the complaint was made in tone and manner more deserving the character of fraud and contrivance than the petition which was so improperly impugned.

hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed with the motion for the printing of the petition, as the continuance of that discussion was only calculated to keep alive ill-feeling on the subject. If they agreed to the motion of the hon. Member for Hampshire, they could hardly agree to the issuing of the writ that night. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion, in order that they might come at once to the main question.

was anxious that the House should not set aside the statement of a witness on oath for the statement of a petition. All he could say was, that as the unseated Member lost his seat upon the evidence of Mr. Wren, if that evidence were not to be believed, then the unseated Member had been hardly treated.

said, that any one who had read the evidence could not be surprised that Wren had refused to give all the evidence in his power. That witness, when under examination, declined to answer questions put to him, on the ground that by answering them he should compromise himself. He now offered to give evidence, and asked for indemnity to enable him to do so. It would strike a person unacquainted with Southampton except by the evidence, as very strange to find it asserted that Wren was disbelieved by the whole town, when it was shown that he was a regular election agent. It was stated that he was the principal objector in the registry courts where the battle of the Constitution was fought, and that he also possessed the confidence of the Conservatives, and fought their battles at the election by distributing money to the voters.

Sir, Notwithstanding the threat held out by the hon. Member opposite in his amendment to my motion, I appeal with confidence to the House on the subject, satisfied that when the case is laid before the House, and thoroughly examined, full justice will be done to the constituency of Southampton, and a new writ will be granted. I have no feeling or interested motive whatever, it is to me a matter of perfect indifference whether the writ is granted or not, so far as I am personally concerned. As I wish the case to be thoroughly understood, and to have no concealment whatever, I will read to the House the report of the committee on the late election, which is as follows. That the said select committee also agreed to report to your honourable House the following acts of bribery:—

" First. That Charles Coombe Callen was bribed with ten pounds, paid to his wife for him;

"Secondly. That Joseph Whitmarsh was promised a bribe of twenty pounds, the whole or some portion of which was afterwards paid;

"Thirdly. That Joseph Redwards was bribed with five pounds;

" Fourthly. That William Andrews was bribed with five pounds; and,

" Fifthly. That Giles Paskins was bribed with three pounds; each of them to vote for Lord Bruce and Mr. Martyn."

" That the evidence given before your committee relative to an extensive system of treating carried on through the means of local associations, the payment of large sums to chairmen and colourmen, many of whom were voters, and the expenditure of a sum of money for the purposes of the election, amounting to nearly five thousand pounds, and therefore far exceeding the ordinary legal charges, is deserving of the serious consideration of the House."

"That the Committee feel they have been prevented from ascertaining the exact mode in which the whole of this money was expended by the loss or destruction of the vouchers and other documents connected with those payments, especially in the case of William House Mabson, who, after being served with the Speaker's warrant, disposed of those in his possession."

From this it appears that five individuals were bribed at the last election, and that a sum of 5,000l. was expended in the contest; but what is there in this report to prevent the issuing of a writ? In the year 1837 it appears a larger sum than 5,000l. was expended, and yet a writ was issued. Now I would beg leave to call to the mind of hon. Members, that on Thursday last a writ was issued for Ipswich, and that the report of the committee on the Ipswich case was much more unfavourable than the report for Southampton, it was as follows:—

"That this committee are of opinion from the evidence given before them, that extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, that the issuing of the writ be suspended until the evidence be printed and submitted to the House."

Now, Sir, if in the case of Ipswich a new writ has been ordered, what possible ground or what rational argument can be used for preventing or withholding the issue of a writ for Southampton. Sir, I think I can pretty well guess the line of argument or of opposition that the hon. Member for Anglesey will make to my motion; he will say, that the committee on the Southampton petition, of which he was a member, were unable to sift the evidence sufficiently, and therefore that another committee is required, can anything be more fallacious than such an argument; on looking over the names of the gentlemen of whom that committee was composed, I see the names of men of talent and experience, and of high consideration in this House, of men exactly qualified for the purpose, and why the hon. Member should cast such a slur on the committee, really is beyond my comprehension. If the hon. Gentleman had been in a minority in the divisions of the committee, if he had desired to sift out evidence which was refused him, then I think there might be some colour of plausibility in his desiring another committee, but such was not the case. On looking over the divisions in the committee, I find the Member for Anglesey always in a majority with only one exception, he therefore cordially agreed with all the proceedings of the committee, and after this requires at your hands another committee to sift evidence which was before done by that body of which he was an active member. What possible advantage, then, could arise from the formation of another committee, and from the course of proceeding recommended by the hon. Gentleman in his amendment to my motion; what purpose it could answer I am at a loss to conjecture. After, it would seem, cordially supporting the proceedings of the Southampton committee, the hon. Member turns round and says to them by his amendment, "You have not done your duty; give us another committee that they may endeavour to do better than you have done." Unless, therefore, you have some lethal proof, some satisfactory assurance that some evidence can be brought forward which could not be obtained by the last committee, why should you suspend the writ? Look at the anomaly, at the monstrous precedent you are likely to establish if you refuse to issue the writ; you deprive a constituency of fifteen, now almost seventeen hundred, of their elective franchise, of their just constitutional rights, and you act in such a manner because an individual chooses to present a petition to this House, Why if this principle were adopted, any borough or county may be deprived of its elective franchise by some vagabond or dissatisfied person, of whom abundance will be found in every Place, ready to pour in petitions to this House to suspend the issue of a writ on every occasion. Would the establishment of such a precedent be in accordance with the constitutional law— with the custom of Parliament? Would not such a precedent be of dangerous tendency; might it not arise that if such were established, a corrupt minority in this House might keep out a majority. The numbers of this House are 658; suppose a minority of 325 were in the House, having ten places for which Members were to be returned, which Members when returned would vote with the remainder of the House against the 325; suppose that writs were to be issued for the ten places alluded to, and ten petitions from various vagabonds in those places were presented and the writs were in consequence withheld, the result would be, that, instead of a majority of 333 against the 325, there would only be 313 against the 325, and consequently the minority would be the powerful body in the House, and carry on the business of the nation in opposition to the real majority of its representatives. Would such a state of things be tolerable, and are you not establishing a precedent that might lead to these results by withholding the writ for Southampton on account of this petition from John Wren. Now this John Wren, of whom I know nothing beyond the fact that he was brought to the Bar of your House by the late committee for prevarication or refusing to answer such questions as were put to him by counsel. It is on the petition of such an individual that you refuse to issue the Southampton writ, and withhold the elective franchise from 1,700 electors. Now, supposing even that you formed another committee, what possible result could take place, what evidence could be adduced that was not given before the last committee? It is said that John Wren can furnish fresh evidence, but what dependence can be placed on a person who betrays the secrets of his own party, with whom he has acted, according to his own statement, for years. Sir, if the Gentlemen opposite would direct their attention to the forming of some legislative enactments to prevent bribery at elections, either by penal statutes or by some other means, they would deserve well of their country and of this House in putting down an evil that we all in common deplore. Having given my sentiments to the House on this subject, and reserving to myself the right of answering any argu- ments that the hon. Member for Anglesey may adduce in his amendment to my motion, I will at once move that a writ be issued for the election of two burgesses to serve in Parliament for the town and county of the town of Southampton.

was anxious to offer himself to the notice of the House, in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Limington, and he was aware, that in doing so, he was taking an extraordinary course. He was aware that it was extraordinary to ask the House to suspend the writ for a place, but he thought that he could show, that the evidence taken before the Southampton committee would satisfy the House, that this was the proper course to take. In addition to this, circumstances had taken place since the election committee had made its report, which, he thought, should induce Members who had already made up their minds on the subject, now to agree to suspend the writ until further inquiry had taken place as to what had occurred at the late election. He had been an attentive observer of what had taken place before the committee, and he was satisfied that they had not obtained the account of all the expenses incurred at the last election for Southampton. Certainly much evidence was adduced to show that there was most extensive treating, and he believed that it was much more extensive than the committee had been able to obtain evidence of. He believed that if evidence were gone into, it would be shown that there was equally extensive treating on the other side. He would now proceed to state the nature of the evidence taken before the committee. On the evidence taken, the committee made this special report:—

"That the evidence given before the committee relative to an extensive system of treating, carried on through the means of local associations, the payment of large sums to chairmen and colourmen, many of whom were voters, and the expenditure of a sum of money for the purposes of the election, amounting to nearly 5,000l., and, therefore, far exceeding the ordinary legal charges, is deserving of the serious consideration of the House."

He thought, after this special report, the House should take into its consideration the report so made, and should at once accede to the proposition to make further inquiry. With regard to treating, the committee had proof before it that the sum of 5,000l. was expended. And here be must observe, that as on this part of the subject he should have to comment on the evidence of a Member of that House —he hoped he might say, that he was most anxious to avoid giving offence. It was proved that 4,000l. was expended in treating previous to the election. It appeared from the bankers' books that 500l. of the sum so expended came from the hon. Member for Hampshire, and the hon. Member admitted it when called before the committee. Being asked from whom he had received that 500l., the hon. Member said—

"I must at once explain to the committee, that finding there was a great deficiency of money to defray the expences, I undertook myself to apply to my friends in the town of Southampton, and the neighbourhood of Southampton, and from them I received subscriptions which I paid into the bank to the credit of the Conservative party; and I consider I could not mention the names of the persons from whom I received the money without a betrayal of their confidence, which would be improper and dishonourable on my part; therefore I must at once throw myself upon the feelings of the committee, whether I am to be placed in the painful position of being compelled to betray that confidence, which, as a Gentleman, I think 1 ought not to betray."

The hon. Member further said,—

"This subscription took place a considerable period after the election, a period of six weeks. Finding that the legitimate expenses were not paid, and which I consider were only the legal expenses, I said I would do the best in my power to obtain subscriptions to relieve them from the difficulty; I did so from various persons, and I will not, under any circumstances, betray that confidence which they reposed in me."

The House would bear in mind that the hon. Member had refused to answer the question. The House being appealed to, declared that the hon. Member ought to answer it. On a subsequent day he appeared before the committee, and being asked for what object he had collected the subscriptions, he said:—

"The agents' expenses were not paid. I was told, that they had not paid the agents; and I was told also that the bill at the Dolphin was unpaid, which I apprehend must have been a very expensive one, as that inn was engaged, as you have just heard, from a very early period, of those proceedings. I should think it would be at least six weeks before the writ came down. I do not know what was paid. I am sure, if I may judge from what I heard about the charges at the Star, it must have been very considerable indeed; and the small sum that I collected would go but a little way to defray it but, however, whatever I could do I was very happy to exert myself in doing, for the purpose of assisting in paying it. I ought to have said, the Dolphin being constantly resorted to by the Conservative party during that six weeks, the charge must have been large."

It appeared, that besides the 500l., a further sum of 200l. or 300l. was collected and paid in by the hon. Member, and he subsequently stated, that he had paid 200l to Mr. Lefevre, the sums in all amounting to 1,000l. Now, it appeared in evidence that no demand had been made for the rooms in the Dolphin occupied by the committee, and that only a trifling sum of 13l. had been paid. The day before the 31st of August a sum of 200l. had been paid to the agents, Messrs. Hunt and Blanchard, and a sum of 80l. to the town clerk for the legal expenses of the hustings. But the evidence before the committee of that House afforded no satisfactory explanation of how that large sum of 1,000l. could have gone in legal expenses. That point required further investigation, and he thought, if a bill of indemnity were granted to witnesses coming before a select committee, that further evidence on that point would be procured. It appeared that bribery to a considerable extent had been carried on by means of paying messengers, colourmen, porters, and others nominally employed, 3l. for their votes. One witness, Mr. Lisle, had received 600l., in the usual way, he could not tell from whom, and paid it away without order or direction from anybody, one-half to porters, messengers and colourmen, and one-half to chairmen and voters for attending the candidates at the day of the declaration. It appeared that Southampton was divided into five wards, in each of which there was a Conservative association. The chairman of one of these associations (Mr. Cheese-man) was examined, and hon. Members would be amused with his evidence. It was proved that Mr. Cheeseman had received about 400l., which appeared to have been spent in a system of treating. Mr. Cheeseman was asked,—

"Give me leave to ask you of what nature? In forming the society.—What were the great expenses incurred in forming the society? Roast beef, plum-pudding, grog, and wine.— Did you find that the expense increased as you got on towards the period of the election? I suppose that the expenses did not diminish? Why, our first expenses were heavy when we had these dinners; that was before the election; that was on the 2nd June I believe the dinner was,"

In fact, the greater part of 5,000l. had been conveyed away in corrupting the electors of the town of Southampton. With respect to the evidence of Mr. Wren, he was not there to stand up for Wren. Wren was a friend of the hon. Member for South Hants. There was no direct evidence of personal communication between Mr. Wren and the hon. Member; but the hon. Member rode into Southampton every day to see what was going on, and was every day in the committee-room, to which Wren was constantly going to consult and communicate with those with whom the hon. Member was associated. Wren was employed by the Conservative party, and he withheld as much as he could from the election committee. He could hardly be got to answer a question, constantly asserting that the answer might criminate himself. This man, however, some of his evidence having been contradicted and discredited by some of his own party at Southampton, presented a petition in which he said,—

"That if your honourable House will, by indemnity bill, protect your petitioner from legal consequences, he will submit himself to the pleasure of your honourable House, and disclose most material facts within his knowledge, respecting bribery and corruption, practised for a series of elections, at the late elections for Southampton, and especially at the said last election in question. That your petitioner is able and willing (so indemnified), to inform your committee of the names of resident electors in Southampton, partizans and agents of the late sitting Members, who organised and accomplished an extensive system of bribery and treating at the last election for the said borough; and which parties, summoned to the Bar of your honourable House, or before a select committee, must (when indemnified) disclose full particulars of such extensive corruption of the constituency. That your petitioner is in possession of a certain memorandum book, not produced before the select committee, which, contains divers entries of sums of money, corruptly given as bribes to several electors, and also the names of several bribers who were electors: and that the said book contains also the signature of one of the returning officers at the said late election, authorising the bribing of a particular elector, and who was bribed accordingly."

When such a statement as that was made to the House, he did not think that it could be overlooked. When, moreover, the committee had declared the last election void, and found the sitting Members guilty of bribery by their agents, he thought the writ ought to be suspended, until further inquiry had taken place. He believed the same system of extensive treating, of which evidence had been given, was carried on, at this moment, by the Conservative associations. He did not think, that electors, corrupted in this manner, or those who, to the number of, at least, 200, had been bribed as colour-men and chairmen, should now be allowed to exercise the franchise which they had so grossly abused. He thought the House ought to take this subject into its serious consideration, with a view to pass such laws as might prevent a recurrence of such corruption, and they ought not to issue a writ for Southampton, until they had taken effectual measures for securing, that a real return would be made to it. He should, therefore, move, as an amendment: —

"That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the extent of the bribery and treating which had prevailed at the last election for Southampton, and that a writ be not issued until some preventive measure had been passed through that House."

seconded the amendment. He said, that the evidence given before the Southampton Election Committee, and the petition recently presented from Mr. Wren, rendered it the bounden duty of the House to prosecute inquiry into this matter to the utmost extent. He had read over every word of that evidence with the greatest attention, and it showed, in the clearest and most decisive manner, that a systematic, extensive, and admirably arranged system of corruption, prevailed in the borough of Southampton. It was arranged in the most effectual manner for corrupting the voters and preventing discovery. In the whole course of the evidence of the leading witnesses, it would be found, that their memory always failed them at the most convenient time, and with respect to the most material facts. No particular authority appeared to be necessary for the most important transactions. No accounts were kept of the amount of checks. The check-book lay on the table of the committee-room, and any respectable person, it appeared, might draw sums of money from the bankers; and no one knew what had become of the check-book. Large checks had been drawn by particular individuals, but when questioned as to the objects, their memory appeared to be a perfect blank. As to the petition of Wren, it contained one most important statement. The petitioner stated, that he had a memorandum book, containing the signature of a returning officer, authorising the bribing of a particular elector. He might be told, that the witness refused to produce this book before the election committee. The witness, indeed, had not been asked for a book, but for a paper, and might have satisfied himself with that quibble. Yet it was a quibble with which the party, whom Wren served, found no fault with, so long as he was true to his colours. He said, if this memorandum book existed, they ought to have it. The statement respecting the returning officer, involved one of the gravest constitutional charges that could be adduced against any man. The man who made this statement had been long employed by the party opposite. He had been twenty years an elector of Southampton, and for fourteen years had voted on the same side. It was now attempted to blacken his character, and the hon. Member for South Hants had read a letter from Southampton for that purpose. He had also had a letter, stating that Dawkin, one of the hon. Member's correspondents, had been turned out of the tradesmen's rooms at Southampton, as a notorious liar, never to be admitted again. He stated this to show that if dirty pettifogging stories of individuals were allowed to influence the judgment of the House in this matter, they were as easily produced against one party as the other. The corrupt practices which had been already proved, would be repeated in Southampton the moment a writ was issued. A petition had been presented, signed by 290 electors of Southampton, exclusive of forty names, of which there was some doubt, confirming the conclusion of the election committee. If the House was in earnest in wishing to put a stop to corruption, they would not repeat the great mistake they had made in the Ipswich case. They would not issue this writ until they found to what extent corrupt practices had prevailed in Southampton, and had provided against their repetition.

said, however little he might be personally interested in the immediate question before the House, it was really quite impossible for him to hear the statements and accusations that had been made without some attempt on his part to disabuse the House of the erroneous impressions which those statements were cal- culated to produce; and at the very outset he must warn hon. Gentlemen who were without any local knowledge of the subject against those persons who had lent themselves to a foul conspiracy, which had been undertaken by a certain class of parties at Southampton in revenge for a positive rejection of an offer made by them to enter into a compromise for the purpose of screening that bribery and corruption of which they now expressed such a virtuous horror, the condition of the proposed compromise being that the overwhelming majority of Conservative electors of Southampton should consent to the election of one Member for that borough of their (the proposers') political opinions. This it was that had originated the misrepresentations which had imposed upon the hon. Gentleman, and of the charge that 300l. had been given to the witness Wren for the perjury he had committed. He had not had the opportunity of reading the votes, having been absent from London; and he had, therefore, not read the petition presented by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; but he understood that his name had been very largely discussed. He begged to say, that it was a matter of indifference to him what was said of him by such a witness as he who had signed the petition, and who had been perfectly described by the learned and talented counsel before the committee, when he said, that he did not know what seat in that House would be secure if the evidence of such a witness as Wren were to be believed. As to the comments of the hon. Member for Anglesea, upon what he had done, he would only say, that he did not feel that he had done anything wrong. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought proper to believe such statements as those which had been brought forward, they were welcome to do so. If they had the bad taste to do so, he could not help it; but he hoped, that they did not concur in the assertion that had been made, that he would have enough to do to look after his own character an assertion which the hon. Member for Sheffield, who made it, had not had the courtesy to withdraw. He could only say, with regard to it, that such a statement was false, scandalous, and unfounded.

hoped the hon. Member would retract an expression which must have fallen from him unintentionally. The hon. Gentleman had said, that a statement made by an hon. Member of that House was false and scandalous. Those were words that could not be permitted in that House.

was quite ready to withdraw the expressions he had made use of in deference to the opinion of the chair. But, at the same time, he thought it rather hard on him to be told, that he would have enough to do to take care of his character.

begged to remind the hon. Member and the House, that the expression made use of by the hon. Member for Sheffield, was not, that the hon. Member for South Hants would have enough to do to take care of his own character, but that he would have enough to do with respect to his own conduct in reference to the matters stated in the petition.

had really not been aware that so much importance had been attached to what had fallen from him on the occasion in question. Words would often escape in the heat of debate which would not be uttered in cooler blood. The fact was simply, that on the occasion of a very severe censure being passed on certain parties by the hon. Member for South Hants, he observed, looking at the petition, that there were statements in it that would give the hon. Member enough to do to defend his own conduct. That was what he had said. If there was anything in it that was unparliamentary or offensive to the hon. Gentleman, he need hardly say, that he would be one of the first to express his regret.

would enter no further into the subject of the evidence entered into by the hon. Member for Anglesea. No doubt similar statements were made before the committee, and all he would say was, that he hoped they would not induce the House to agree to the suspension of the writ. With respect to the evidence before the committee, living as he did in the neighbourhood of Southampton, and feeling a sincere interest in the maintenance of the good character of the borough, it was naturally a source of satisfaction to him, that after a most laborious investigation, in which more than forty-one witnesses were examined, only five cases out of thirty or forty, alleged by the learned counsel in his opening speech had been sustained; that out of those five, two were of payments made to electors for services actually performed, the only penalty for which would be, that they would be prevented from, voting. With regard to the case of Whitmarsh, who, it was stated, had received 20l., which was authorised by the returning officer to be paid, he could only repeat, that he had already declared that gentleman's most positive denial of the assertion, and his readiness to substantiate his denial on oath before that House if necessary. As regarded the other cases reported by the committee, the opinion of the committee rested wholly on the uncorroborated evidence of the witness Wren. With regard to the charge, that 5,000l. had been spent on the election, he could state, that the amount actually spent was 3,960l. He stated this from the account of the bankers of the money paid into their hands and disbursed by them. If he was rightly informed, two candidates who were nearly connected with the hon. Gentleman opposite, were prepared to contest the election; he would only say, that nothing would please him more than that they should come forward.

would be very brief in what he had to say, for a case which lay in a smaller compass he had never seen. The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the issuing of this writ might be reduced to this single point, Because you granted the issuing of the writ for Ipswich on Thursday last, therefore you ought to agree to the issuing of the Southampton writ to-night. That appeared to him to be the sole argument of the hon. Gentleman; if he had used any other it had escaped his notice. Now, he conceived, that the writ for Ipswich was wrongly issued. He regretted the issuing of that writ on a ground which was certainly not one of a party nature, for, looking at that subject as a party man, that defeat must rather be considered a victory but because he hardly thought the issuing of that writ consistent with the course which the right hon. Baronet generally pursued on questions of this sort, a course which he held to be deserving of high praise, and because he felt convinced, that it was not in the power of either party, by itself, to get rid of this execrable practice one which threatened not more the dignity and character of that House, than the morality of the people at large. He felt quite convinced, that the concurrence of both the parties in that House was necessary, in order to put a stop to that practice. Nevertheless, he must say, that the present was a much stronger case than that of Ipswich. As far as he understood the right hon. Baronet's argument with regard to Ipswich, it was, that there existed in Ipswich a most unsatisfactory state of things, and that there was a great deal of ground for suspicion; but that it did not appear to be a case affording grounds for disfranchisement, and that there did not appear any reason to think, that if there was an investigation, the case would be made much more clear than it was at present. Now, such an argument could not apply to Southampton, for in this case it was intimated by the committee itself at the end of their report, that they had been prevented from ascertaining many things which they believed would have led to more important conclusions; and following this declaration of the committee comes a person and tenders information, if the House would indemnify him. Thus, this case differed from the Ipswich case in a most important point, and that, too, the very point upon which the right hon. Baronet's support of the Ipswich writ was founded. The circumstance of the evidence being offered by a person on whose character such reflections had been cast was utterly immaterial. Where did they expect that they would obtain information about rogueries of this sort? Whence could the evidence of bribery having been committed be extracted, except from the agents in the practice of that bribery? An old proverb said, "When rogues fall out, honest men get their own," and every criminal court made it a practice to avail itself of the testimony of persons who had been engaged in the crime. Thurtell was hanged upon the evidence of Probert, Burke was hanged upon the evidence of Hare; and it certainly would have been thought most extraordinary if, when Hare and Probert were brought forward to give their evidence, the counsel on the other side had risen and said, in the tone of meaningless taunt which had come on this question from the other side of the House "I wish you joy of your auxiliary." It really did appear as if this petitioner could be of some use to the public on this occasion. If it were true, that the witness had in his hands a book with a signature in it of such importance, then, whatever might be the character of the person producing that book, even if he had been a perjurer twenty times over, that ought not to prevent the House from getting at evidence of this kind; because, notwithstanding all that had been said on the other side upon the character of Wren, it did not appear, that there had been any denial, that there was the signature of the returning officer appended to a particular item of bribery. As to the imputation that had been thrown out by the hon. Gentleman who moved the issuing of the writ, he must say, that a more unfounded proposition he had never heard. The hon. Member said, that they on that (the Opposition) side, were blinded by party in regard to this question. Had they been blinded by party in the case of Nottingham? Had the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the circumstances that attended the Nottingham case a case involving a town of much greater size and importance than Southampton? [A cry of "No."] He did not know who the hon. Member was who cried "No," but if he meant that Nottingham was a town inferior in wealth and population to Southampton, he very much miscalculated its relative importance. The evidence in regard to the Nottingham case was, that an hon. Member of that House stated in his place, that he was prepared to make out a case of corrupt compromise as regarded Nottingham; upon which, the right hon. Baronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, afterwards remarked, that the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, was borne out by the fact, that Sir G. Larpent had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. This appeared to him to be a ground, that had been far too much insisted on as a reason for the suspension of the writ; for if Sir G. Larpent had been guilty of a single case of bribery by means of his agent, that would have been reason as sufficient for a compromise, as if he had bribed 4,000 electors of Nottingham. Nor was the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, or the compromise, supposing it to be proved, to be taken as evidence of general corruption of a nature to justify the suspension of a writ; it was worth no more than as an evidence of a single act of bribery, which single act of bribery would have afforded as strong a reason for a compromise as a multitude of cases would have done. The only evidence in the case of Nottingham was, that a petition had been presented, and an hon. Member of that House declared his belief that there had been a compromise. In the South- ampton case, on the other hand, evidence had been given before the committee, proving bribery in the clearest manner; and there was, furthermore, a witness offering himself for examination, stating, that he was in the possession of evidence which the committee had themselves declared they thought they could elicit, if they could carry their examination further. All this would be precluded if the right hon. Baronet took the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman who had moved the issuing of the writ, and he must say, if the right hon. Gentleman, after having opposed the issuing of the Nottingham writ, where there might appear to be some reason to cast suspicion upon the supporters of the late Government, now, in the face of tenfold evidence compared with that of the Nottingham case, supported the motion for issuing the Southampton writ, the whole country would cry out that all the feeling of aversion expressed on the other side of the House towards bribery and corruption, was a mere pretence that it was all hypocrisy—and consequences would follow that were beyond all description. He had said this upon the hypothesis that the right hon. Baronet would, on the present occasion, support the motion for the issue of the writ—an hypothesis which he hoped, and indeed believed, to be untrue; because he could not but think that the right hon. Baronet, in spite of his unfortunate vote of last Thursday, did entertain a desire to maintain the credit of that House, of which he was so distinguished a Member, and to preserve the morals of the people from that great taint which all must regard with so much loathing, but which recent events seemed to show had acquired so wide spread and universal an influence. He trusted, the right hon. Baronet would avail himself of the opportunity which this motion afforded.

was sorry, that the right hon. Gentleman should have argued on an hypothetical case. When he came down to the House, he had determined what course he should pursue with regard to this question. The issuing of a writ involved judicial considerations. Upon such considerations he had, when he came down to the House, resolved to give his vote, and he still adhered to the same opinion. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing but the cordial co-operation of parties on both sides of the House could afford them a hope of checking, or of extinguishing that practice which was gradually tainting and under mining the character and authority of that House. As the popular branch of the constitution, their power was derived from their connection with the people, and the confidence of the people in their power, and fitness to represent them. If that confidence were shaken, then, of course, the influence and authority of that branch of the Legislature must be weakened. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that only in the cordial co-operation of both parties did there lie a chance of effectually removing the evil so generally complained of. He would himself be prepared zealously to co-operate as far as he could in the accomplishment of such an object with any party whatever, however opposed he might be to them in political views; but, at the same time, when he had to deal with an individual question of a judicial nature, he should strictly apply judicial principles to that question. With regard to the case of Ipswich, all he could say was, that no political feeling whatever influenced his decision that he had studiously voted with regard to the Ipswich case upon the same principles which would now guide him as regarded the present case, and without attempting to exercise that sort of influence which it was needless to attempt to deny was exercised over a party when the question was one of a political nature. He could also state, that at the time he gave his vote in the Ipswich case, he was ignorant of the relative strength of the conflicting political interests in the borough. On the contrary, he knew that parties opposed to him in opinion had been returned at the last election, so that the presumption, if any, rather was, that persons of similar opinions would be returned at the next. He therefore had given his vote uninfluenced by any considerations of a party nature, and if he had to give it again, he should give it in the same way. As the right hon. Gentleman had observed, he admitted that it was a case of great doubt and much suspicion, but how did the case stand when the question came before the House? Three weeks had passed without any Member of the committee having given an intimation of his intention to propose a further inquiry, and he then found a motion suddenly brought forward he found it proposed, that the writ should be sus pended until a certain bill should have received the sanction of that and the other House of Parliament; and, thinking as he did, that the evidence with regard to Ipswich showed that the representation of that borough was in a most unsatisfactory slate, believing that there was strong reason to think, that if Ipswich did not reform itself it would hereafter run the risk of incurring very severe punishment, yet still, aware of the very great importance of the right of constituencies to have the new writ issued at the earliest possible period, unless any good reason was shown to suspend it, he had, uninfluenced, as he had said, by party considerations, given his vote for the issuing of the writ; and with regard to Newcastle or any other case, that might be brought before the House, he should reserve his right to form a judgment upon the individual case, and upon the evidence adduced in connexion with it. Two cases might apparently approach very near each other, and yet opposite decisions might be come to upon them. The same thing must occur in all judicial cases. Each of these cases must be judged upon its own merits, and the course which he meant to pursue was, to determine in each case on those merits, whether there were sufficient grounds for the course which in each might be recommended. But because be might take a different view in the case of one borough from that which he felt bound to adopt with reference to another, he protested against being, therefore, considered not fully sensible of the evils of bribery, or not desirous of interposing to check it. He now came to the Southampton case, the evidence of which he had read over as attentively as he could; and if he were to form his judgment upon the report of the Southampton committee, observing, that there had been an expenditure much too lavish in connexion with a system of treating, which he believed, however, was not peculiar to Southampton, he should be disposed to say, that unless they laid down some rule with respect to treating, they were not likely to meet all the difficulties which cases of the kind presented. In counties, there then existed a practice of treating, which did not partake exactly of the character of bribery, but which, in effect, was almost as pernicious. He knew how fortunes were injured by this practice. It was said, that the law allowed it, and that, therefore, it was no offence; but where thousands and tens of thousands were spent in treating, although the fact did not partake of the legal definition, or even of the immoral character of bribery, it was evident, that the effect was most pernicious. [Mr. O'Connell: It is punishable by law.] Yes, if it were corrupt treating. With regard to Southampton, he must say, that upon the report of the evidence, and speaking judicially, he did think, that it was not so strong a case as that of Ipswich, because in the Ipswich case it was stated distinctly, that there had been extensive bribery. In the Southampton case there were these facts:—300 voters had petitioned the House of Commons to suspend the writ; and he certainly should vote for a bill, if proposed, which should enable the House of Commons to institute an inquiry upon the allegation of a sufficient number of electors which allegation they should undertake to substantiate, that bribery prevailed in the borough, but which in consequence of a corrupt compromise, or for some reason or other, the committee appointed by the House had not the power of investigating. They must have some inquiry independent of the inquiry of the committee of the House. If 300 electors came forward and stated, that bribery prevailed in their borough, and called in consequence for the suspension of the writ, he thought it highly desirable to provide some mode of inquiry by which that allegation could be substantiated or refuted, even if the question as to individual right had gone off before the election committee. Viewing the proceedings before the Southampton committee, and the appeals that had been made to the House, he would take that course which he considered the justice of the case required. He had seen a person at the Bar who, from his conduct at the Bar, appeared to him to be a person entitled to respect; and although he might be totally unable to substantiate the allegations of the petition, yet in the face of the House of Commons he stated facts which did make an impression on his mind, and did raise in it a difficulty about issuing the writ until they had done something with respect to those allegations. In his petition he stated—

"That, if your honourable House will by indemnity bill protect your petitioner from legal consequences, he will submit himself to the pleasure of your honourable House, and disclose most material facts within his knowledge respecting bribery and corruption prac- tised for a series of elections at the late elections for Southampton, and especially at the said last election in question; that your petitioner is able and willing (so indemnified) to inform your committee of the names of resident electors in Southampton, partisans and agents of the late sitting Members, who organized and accomplished an extensive system of bribery and treating at the last election for the said borough; and which parties summoned to the bar of your honourable House, or before a select committee, must (when indemnified) disclose full particulars of such extensive corruption of the constituency; that your petitioner is in possession of a certain memorandum-book, not produced before the select committee, which contains divers entries of sums of money corruptly given as bribes to several electors, and also the names of several bribers who were electors; and that the said book contains also the signature of one of the returning officers at the said late election, authorizing the bribing of a particular elector, and who was bribed accordingly; that the agents and partisans of the late sitting members deputed to a local sub-committee in Southampton, the money arrangements and organization of the said bribery, and that your petitioner can inform your honourable House of the names and of many of the acts of such bribery managers."

Forming his opinion on judicial considerations, he did not think it would be fit to issue the writ immediately, or until they determined what course they should pursue. He voted for the issuing of the writ in the Ipswich case, and might therefore be charged with inconsistency for the course he was taking in this, but there was a clear distinction between the two cases and he conceived he would not be acting either a judicial or a worthy part were he to do otherwise than he had determined. He had viewed both cases judicially, and, whether right or wrong, consistently or not he had come to different conclusions upon them. It would be most satisfactory to him, if the House would for the present suspend the issuing of the writ. He was afraid that the appointment merely of a select committee, without the necessary powers to obtain evidence would lead to no satisfactory result. If the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should bring in a bill likely to meet with the assent of the House, he thought it would be worth consideration whether cases of this kind might not be included in it. At all events he thought it desirable to suspend the issuing of the writ for the present, until the noble Lord stated to the House what were the principles of the bill he meant to introduce. On these grounds he was prepared to vote for the suspension of the writ for a certain period; but he confessed it would be desirable that the House should have time to consider what upon the whole was the course which it was advisable to pursue.

said, he should be glad to know, if the House agreed to the issuing of the writ without inquiry, what was to become of the petition of John Wren and of the allegations it contained, and in particular those quoted by the right hon. Baronet? It was clear that extensive bribery prevailed in the borough, and equally clear that the fact ought to be inquired into. He thought the right hon. Baronet had exercised a sound discretion in not agreeing to the issuing of the writ, and also his attaching some importance to the petition of John Wren, whom the hon. Gentleman opposite facetiously described as the" veracious John Wren." Now, that petition was presented by him, and he must say, that he not only believed the whole of the allegations it contained; but believed also that the petitioner had it in his power to prove them. He must also be permitted to observe, that in all the annals of political ingratitude he knew none to equal the ingratitude of the Conservative party towards their old Conservative associate, John Wren. He believed that Mr. Wren had been for a considerable length of time not only an agent for the Conservative party at Southampton, and a protector of voters at the registration, but the associate of several of the most respectable individuals in the borough, and also of the hon. Member for Hampshire himself. He believed that this John Wren had been the very life and soul of the Conservative conviviality at Southampton. Whenever the hon. Member for Southampton was to grace the dinner table of an alderman of the borough with his presence, the notification which John Wren received of it was, "Mr. Fleming is coming; you, Wren, must come too." And yet this individual was now told that he was unworthy of credit. What was the reason of all this vituperation and reproach with which the Conservative party now loaded John Wren? Clearly and solely because he would not agree to perjure himself before a committee of the House, and that he was able to prove. The hon. Member for Hampshire stated that Mr. Abrahams, the returning officer, denied ever having signed a memorandum book, as alleged in the petition of John Wren. "Here," said the hon. Member, holding up a small book with a red cover, "here is the record of your crime, and here is his signature authorising the payment of 5l." Was not that a fact that ought to be inquired into? He would let Mr. Wren speak for himself by reading a letter he had that day received from him: —

"London, May 31, 1842.

"Sir,—I beg most respectfully to return you my most grateful thanks for the interest you took in my welfare in presenting my petition to the House of Commons, and supporting its prayer; and I beg to enclose you the memorandum-book, for your inspection, used by me at the late election, containing the signature of Mr. Abrahams, one of the returning officers for the borough, and with the signatures of others. I leave it in your hands, to make what use of it you may think proper. I cannot refrain from making a few remarks relative to the opinion formed of me by Mr. Fleming and other hon. Members of the House of Commons. It is an opinion formed of me only within a very short period; for no longer ago than at the death of the late Earl of Elgin, and when one of the representatives, seats for Southampton became vacant I mean the seat of Lord Bruce in the House of Commons a candidate was sought for to fill the vacant seat. Mr. Mildmay was the gentleman fixed upon, and in order to obtain the feelings of the Conservative committee of Southampton, meetings were held at the offices of Mr. Blanchard, solicitor, in the borough, to which I had an invitation to attend, and I did attend them. I beg respectfully to state that I was on one occasion invited to attend one of those meetings by Mr. W. J. Lefevre, one of the aldermen for the borough, and on another occasion I was invited to attend a second meeting for the same purpose by Mr. Stebbing, the sheriff of the borough, and at one of those meetings I had the honour of meeting Mr. Fleming. It was at the meeting when it was unanimously agreed to support Mr. Mildmay. I have been a supporter of Mr. Fleming and his hon. Colleague, Mr. F. C. Compton, long before the passing of the Reform Bill, and ever since, and neither of those gentlemen thought it beneath their dignity to ask me for my vote and I have assisted in fighting the Conservative cause in the borough for years. And why am I to be persecuted by the general body of the Conservatives, and branded as I was by one of the hon. Members of the House of Commons as a vagabond? Because I would not perjure myself before the select committee appointed by the House of Commons to try the merits of the late election. It must be evident, as I shall be able to prove, that I was a companion of the parties concerned, and in the secrets of the late election; or why should a party come to me and say, ' he was directed to offer me a sum of money if I would make Mr. Martyn's seat secure? This offer was made the first time the chairman of the select committee cleared the room to decide whether I should answer the questions or not, I again repeat my thankfulness to you, and beg to remain, most respectfully, your devoted servant,

"JOHN WREN

"To T. Duncombe, Esq., M.P."

Now, that was the head and front of John Wren's offence. When the committee-room was cleared an individual came and offered him a large sum of money, saying, "I know you are a good Conservative, take this and make Martyn's seat secure. Here was a charge of a most serious character; because the resolution agreed to at the beginning of the Session, declared that any one who tampered with a witness, or endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing to give evidence before a select committee, should be deemed guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. If the committee suggested were appointed, this was a point which should also be investigated. He conceived that Mr. Wren stated quite enough in his petition to justify the House in suspending the writ until further inquiry took place, and he conscientiously believed, if that inquiry were instituted, that the allegations contained in the petition would be proved, and that it would plainly appear that not only at the last election, but at the last four or five elections, and for a considerable length of time, a systematic course of bribery and corruption had prevailed in the borough of Southampton. In conclusion, he had only to recommend those hon. Gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood of Southampton, and those worthy aldermen, who were the associates of Mr. Wren, to reflect upon this before they presented petitions libelling the character of an individual who was quite as respectable as most of the Conservatives in the borough of Southampton.

said, that after the speech of the right hon. Baronet he regretted to hear one of so different a character, and so tinged with party feeling, as that just delivered by the lion. Member for Finsbury. If he had rightly collected the sense of the House, he believed there were few Members present who, if the question stood upon the evidence taken before the committee, would feel called upon to vote for the suspension of the writ. He, therefore, wished to allude for a moment to that evidence. The memo- randum book with the entries alluded to in the petition of John Wren might be genuine or fabricated; and what he wished to point out was, that if genuine the witness had made a statement on oath before the committee of a totally different character. He was asked,

"Did you at that time keep a list of voters whose promises you had secured? No. I do not think I kept any list at all; it was merely from my own memory. Did you keep a memorandum? I might have done so. Did you? I believe I had a small piece of paper in my waistcoat-pocket. Have you got it?— No, I have not. Have you lost it? I have not seen it since the day of election. Do you know where it is? I do not."

The House would here observe two statements, both of which could not be correct; and he therefore hoped they would turn their attention to this part of the evidence before the question came again under consideration.

had heard with great satisfaction the recommendation of his right hon. Friend, as it entirely agreed with the opinion he had formed upon reading the evidence which was taken before the committee. How far the character of Mr. Wren was affected would remain to be seen; but it was perfectly possible that his character might be successfully attacked, and yet that the document he produced was substantial. He thought also that it was highly probable a circumstance not before adverted to— that the description given in the evidence of the state of Southampton merited an inquiry as to whether similar practices might not have been resorted to by the other party. It was not now, however, his duty to discuss what would be the probable result of the inquiry, how far Wren would be able to substantiate the allegations he had made in his petition, but he felt satisfied that an opportunity should be given of following the investigation. He would strongly press upon the movers both of the original motion and of the amendment, the propriety of withdrawing their motions, and allowing the issue of the writ to be suspended for a fortnight, at the end of which period, if the inquiry had not terminated, or if the House was not satisfied as to the steps which ought to be taken, the writ might be again suspended. This was the course taken under the advice of the then Speaker, in the case of a writ for the borough of Aylesbury, and he could not but think that the precedent set on that occasion might not be inconveniently followed now. Another motion for the issuing of a writ he alluded to the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme— stood upon the paper of the House for that evening. It would, he thought, be desirable that the two motions should 1 stand over together, and he would, there fore, suggest to the hon. Member for North Staffordshire that his motion should stand over until the same day.

did not know whether he had made himself clearly understood in the reference he had made to the amendment of the hon. Member for Anglesea. He had not wished to give any opinion 1 against such a course being taken. He felt that it might be advisable hereafter to resort to such an expedient as that he suggested indeed, they might have no other course open to them, and it might be necessary to take, if not exactly that course, some steps of the sort. But at the same time he felt it would be as well that they should hear what was the measure intended to be introduced by the noble Lord, and that they should have an opportunity of seeing whether he proposed to constitute any tribunal by whom complaints of this sort might be heard. As he before intimated, he would not prejudice the proposition indeed, he desired to give no opinion upon it; but at the same time he thought it convenient, and he could wish that it might be postponed. At the end of a fortnight, if nothing satisfactory occurred, they would have the power of renewing the suspension, or it would then be competent to bring the motion again before the House.

was perfectly prepared to follow the course suggested. He felt well assured that the right hon. Baronet would lend every facility to pass such measures as might be necessary to check the system now too extensively in operation.

really must ask what was expected from the motion of the hon. Member for Anglesea? It appeared to him that the motion would be useless at any time, and that even if they got their committee, the result of its investigations would only be to show that a little more bribery existed in Southampton than was previously known to the public. He thought Gentlemen opposite might do something better than devote their abilities to cases of this sort. It would be much more useful to the community if they would lay their heads together and assist the noble Lord the Member for London in preparing some general measure to meet such cases. With regard to the facts adduced on the other side in the course of this debate, he could not but refer to the letter from Mr. Wren, which had been read by the hon. Member for Finsbury. That letter certainly showed that Wren had betrayed the secrets of his party, and he for one could entertain no respect for an individual who could so act. With respect to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, he was desirous of following his recommendation, and would, therefore, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion, and give notice of his intention to renew it that day fortnight.

having been chairman of the Southampton Election Committee, wished to remark that the report of the committee was chiefly drawn up with a view to call the attention of the House to the subject. The opinion of the committee was, that the laws relating to treating had proved ineffectual; that treating taking place before the test of the writ was as corrupt a proceeding as treating after the writ had been issued, and that the law should be altered with regard to that particular. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet opposite in thinking that it was not on light grounds that they ought to suspend a writ. Immediately after the close of the Southampton Election Committee's proceedings he had expressed an opinion that the evidence taken before them was not sufficiently conclusive to make out a case for the suspension of the writ, and he had privately given expression to the same opinion when the matter came on last Monday evening. But the facts asserted could not be passed over without notice. The present was a stronger case even than that of Nottingham, for it was not a mere case of bribery, not a mere case of compromise between candidates, which might not have been any great ground for suspending a writ, but here they absolutely had the evidence of an individual offered to them, that individual not being an indifferent party, but a man who was prepared to detail in evidence, if called before the committee, and indemnified, all the circumstances of the bribery at the election. For these reasons he should have voted for the suspension if the matter had come to a division.

wished particularly to call the attention of the House to some portions of the evidence of this man, John Wren. He was asked (question 2,728) —

"Will you swear that you did not hand in a list of sums that you wanted, the total amount of which was 90l., and that you showed that to them? I do not recollect that I did."

"Will you swear that you did not? I will not swear that I did not."

"Have you any doubt that you did, upon your oath? I must decline to answer that question."

The opinion of the committee was then taken, and the committee decided that he should answer; on which he stated,—

"It was not to that amount."

Then Mr. Serjeant Shea went on with his examination, and put to him,—

"To what amount was it? I think it was between 50l. and 6ol"

The book was not produced, and he contended, either that Wren must have perjured himself before the committee, or else that he must have manufactured the report since.

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury had done him the honour to show him the book he had in his possession, and he could find nothing that was contradictory to the evidence given before the committee.

said, he had strong objection to this clause. It first related to the granting of licences; but what had that to do with steam-boats on the river? He must object to that part of the clause which imposed a fine of 5l. or three month's imprisonment, on the steward or stewardess of a steam-vessel, if they sold spirits or wine on the Sunday morning. Suppose a boat arrived early in the morning, or was about to sail early in the morning for Calais, Hamburg, or other foreign ports, in which boat most probably there would be ladies as passengers, perhaps some of them sea-sick; for persons often were as sick on the commencement of a short voyage as at the end. Were they to say was the House of Commons to say, that in such cases a drop of brandy or a glass of grog should not be supplied without the party supplying it rendering himself liable to a fine. The gallant Officer opposite (Captain Rous) said, that this clause only extended to the banks of the Thames. Would it not affect steam-vessels and ships laying at anchor in the middle of the river, or those about to start on a voyage, and who probably might have some one on board unwell? He considered this clause most objectionable, obnoxious and vexatious, and had nothing to do with the general principle of the bill. He should have thought the gallant Officer the last man to propose dealing with steam-boats in such a manner. He should oppose the clause. He did not think it necessary to the bill. Some parts of the measure he had no objection to. He wished to aid widows in easily obtaining a transfer of licences held by their deceased husbands; but he must contend there was no occasion to interfere with steam-boats ships about to sail. With respect to vessels lying in wharfs the case might perhaps be somewhat different, and he trusted the gallant Officer would make some arrangement on the subject, or otherwise he must oppose the clause.

said, the clause could not by possibility be so construed as to effect steam-boat passengers. There was no such intention. The fact was this; to the disgrace of the City of London it was the custom of a number of persons to go on board steam-vessels and ships, smoke their pipes, and drink their grog at a time when the regular licensed public-houses were closed. Such a custom was a scandal to the city, and ought to be put a stop to. He thought it was not right that the steward of a vessel should have this privilege, when it was denied to Licensed Victuallers, whose expenses were much greater in every respect than those of a steward or stewardess of steam-vessels. He had no doubt the clause would be beneficial and promote morality. It was necessary for the protection of the Licensed Victuallers, for it was now well known that wine and spirits might be obtained on board vessels lying in the river, during divine service, and at times when public houses were obliged to be closed.

Parliament had legislated on this subject for eight years, and he believed it was now decided as to what were the proper hours for closing public-houses. In some districts the hours were not the same as in others. At all events he thought the clause ought to be confined to vessels lying close to the shore.

suggested that if the clause was altered so as to exclude vessels lately arrived or about to start on their voyage the object would be obtained.

hoped the hon. Member for Brighton would withdraw his objection altogether.

thought the gallant Captain not pressing this clause had reference to a serious and growing evil. Public-houses were now closed at twelve o'clock on Saturday nights, and not opened until one o'clock on Sunday, and thousands, tens of thousands of families now got a comfortable dinner on the Sunday, and the father was at home sober. Did the House wish to have floating public-houses open during divine service on the Sunday? The Licensed Victuallers said, and said justly, that if such a system was allowed to continue, it would be unfair to them. They were not allowed to sell, but parties had only to go on board, and they might obtain what they wished for to drink. He trusted the clause would be agreed to by the House without alteration or modification in any shape. He was convinced it would do good. With respect to the insertion of the words proposed, of "vessels about to sail," that would be useless and inoperative, as who could tell for a few hours when a ship would sail.

objected to the clause altogether. The terms "Metropolitan District" would affect steam-boats from Falmouth and from the West Indies; and, in his opinion, such partial legislation would have the effect of materially interfering with the steam navigation of the country, which ought to receive the the greatest encouragement. He should like to know whether the penalties inflicted on licensed victuallers of the metropolitan districts were payable to the Police Receiver, or to the parish in which the offence was committed. [An Hon. Member: They are paid to the police funds."] He was not before aware of that, and he thought it exceedingly objectionable to place funds of this description in their hands.

proposed a clause defining the usual hours of divine service to be from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to one o'clock in the afternoon, and from three o'clock in the afternoon until half past four o'clock in the afternoon The hon. Member said, that the present system was one of the most anomalous that could possibly be conceived— public-houses being allowed to keep open on one side of the street, as was the case in many places in the Borough, which he had the honour to represent (Southwark), whilst on the other, they were compelled to keep shut, and therefore he was anxious for the sake of public morals, as well as of every other consideration, that the law as regarded divine service should be properly defined.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Southwark, in the clause which he had brought up, and he had himself proposed a similar clause in the original bill. He had given way on that occasion to his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rather than sacrifice the interests of those for whom he was interested. With respect to opening public-houses during divine service in fashionable parts of the town, divine service did not begin until half-past eleven, and in the neighbourhood of Oxford-street not until half-past twelve o'clock, and thus, alternately houses were continually open and shut. They made one law for themselves, and another for the lower orders. The rich had their club-houses to go to, whilst the poor were not to be allowed to go into a public-house; and his idea was, that the best way to act was, for the clergy to take as much care as they could of their religious education, for the improvement of the poorer classes would much more depend on that than on any legislative restrictions which they might impose with regard to public-houses. There were thousands of people in Westminster who had no churches whatever to go to; and yet, within a hundred yards of where they now sat, they had a magnificent Abbey, with nine churches, which only afforded accommodation to about 200 I poor persons; and yet this establishment I was maintained at a cost of about 25,000l. per annum. Now it was, perhaps, presumptuous for him to say what he would do if he were connected in any way with the management of the Abbey; but if he were, he would endeavour to procure religious instruction for twenty or thirty thousand people, and instead of making these restrictive enactments and tying down people to particular hours, he would appeal to their good feelings and self-respect, which he was sure would have a better effect than by the adoption of any other means; for if a man chose to make a beast of himself, no act of Parliament could prevent him. He had, therefore, great pleasure in seconding the proposition of the hon. Member for Southwark.

said, if the case was as had been described by the hon. Member for Southwark, the public had no cause to complain, as they could get accommodated at every hour of the afternoon by merely passing over the way. The restriction went only to maintain decorum during divine service in each particular parish.

was quite of opinion that his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Westminster, would become a most popular representative of that city, if all his political views on other subjects were as sound as those which he had expressed with regard to Church reform. For his own part, he never heard better opinions in his life, even from the greatest Radical, with regard to the enormous salaries and small duties of the dean and chapter of Westminster Abbey. The question, now, however, was not as regarded this subject; but whether they should encroach still farther on the rights of that important class of her Majesty's subjects, the licensed victuallers. With regard to shutting up from Saturday night until one o'clock on Sunday, that appeared to have been done by a sort of consent, and he thought it was the best sort of compromise that could have been entered into; but with regard to the present proposition, he thought it would be a still further encroachment on the rights of the licensed victuallers, and the wants of those who frequented their houses. The hon. Member for Sheffield said, that he would have objected to it if it had been proposed to extend it to Sheffield, but he considered, that that was unfair, for it he objected to it as regarded Sheffield, why not object to it in the present instance? For his own part he should oppose it in every stage.

warned the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster against persisting in the present clause, for if he did it might endanger the bill in another place. Besides, he did not understand how it was reconcileable with the General Licensing Act, 9th of Geo. 4th.

recommended his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, to withdraw his motion, for he thought the bill was sufficiently complex without it.

said, the present system was as full of complexity as could well be imagined. If the committee adopted his clause the public-houses throughout the metropolis would be shut from three o'clock to half-past four on Sundays.

said, the hon. Member was right in supposing the law for closing public-houses in the morning of Sunday was clearly defined, but in the afternoon it varied in different districts. With respect to the observations made by the gallant Officer on Westminster Abbey, a reform had already taken place, by which the Church duty was increased.

thought there was an uncertainty as to how many hours a man had to keep his house open on a Sunday afternoon. Whether it was right to keep keep public-houses shut from three o'clock to half past four on Sundays, he was not prepared to say, but his opinion was that they ought to be closed during divine service.

could not avoid a strong impression that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. He never knew that truism more amply exemplified. They were always calling aloud in that House, Church! Church! Church! He should like to know how the poor man who worked fourteen hours a-day during six days, were to rest from labour and enjoy themselves on Sunday, if they were forced to go to church? How did hon. Members in that House enjoy themselves? They went to clubs and rode out in carriages, but the poor working men had no such advantages. The knowledge of this made them feel disgust at the humbug, when, under the mask of morality, without allowing them time to bolt their food, they drove them to church. Was that treating them like human beings? It was not the way to acquire the good opinion, of the people.

admitted, that the object of legislation should always be the comfort I and happiness of the people; but he certainly agreed with the gallant Officer who had said, if they could rely solely on the good sense and morals of the people, there would be no necessity for restriction at all.

did not wish for a general restriction on licensed victuallers on Sunday, but was astonished to hear the representations made on this subject in behalf of licensed victuallers.

supported the amendment. The proposed regulation of keeping public-houses closed from three o'clock to half-past four would define the time and add to the convenience of the publican.

said, he wished to set his hon. Colleague right with respect to the wishes of the licensed victuallers. The object of the licensed victuallers was, that their houses should remain open after one o'clock on the Sunday; but his hon. and gallant Friend had said, that if the houses of publicans were opened from one o'clock, the Government would oppose the clause. He should say, in considering the merits of a class of tradesmen, the licensed victuallers, they had nothing to do with the controlling power of her Majesty's Government. "Let the public-houses remain open after one o'clock. That is what I want, and I do not mean to give up my opinion for any Government. "If hon. Members wished to consult the wishes of licensed victuallers, they should leave the houses open after one o'clock. The licensed victuallers were a numerous and respectable body of tradesmen, and they would not suffer their interests to be frittered away. They were a great and powerful body, and they would not allow their rights to be defeated.

said, this was not a case in which they were to act according to the wishes of licensed victuallers. The question was, whether they could make the law more simple and specific? It appeared they had times for opening their houses on Sundays of a vague description. They were to open at one hour in one place, and at another in other districts.

objection to the other clause was, that whilst it purported to keep the working classes from one class of houses on the Sunday, it did not keep them out of another class. If these public-houses were closed against them on the Sunday, they would go into the country to what was termed the Whist-houses, and indulge in excesses.

said, when the Beer Bill was under discussion some time ago, it was contended, that public-houses should be shut up from twelve o'clock on Saturday night to one o'clock on Sunday, and after that hour they were to be free. He could not understand how they wished to make the publicans shut up their houses in the middle of the day. He never heard in the City of any information against houses kept open after one o'clock. The publicans should have freedom to keep open their houses after one o'clock. It was said, they might not be open before the evening. More persons went to church in the evening than in the morning, and that circumstance proved the inconsistency of their legislation.

rose to move the adoption of the amendment which he was desirous of adding to the bill, namely, to make all public-houses throughout the country, remain closed from twelve o'clock on Saturday night to one o'clock on Sunday. The hon. Member observed, that he was in no way opposed to the licensed victuallers. He was one of those who would be the last to deal harshly with that body; but morality overruled everything. He wished the clause he had to propose might be the law of the land. It had been introduced in a private bill applicable to Liverpool. In the bill of which he was speaking, a clause, making the regulation he proposed was agreed to without opposition. He thought it ought to be extended over the country. He had received many representations from various parts of England on the subject. One stated, that it would prevent men in the country from spending the wages they ought to carry home to their families. A letter from an old licensed victualler at Bath, and one from a person of the same trade in Plymouth, begged he would persevere in his endeavour to make his proposal the law of the land. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, that any licensed victualler or other person who shall open his house for the sale of wine, spirits, beer, or other fermented liquors, or shall permit the same to be sold therein on Sundays, Christmas-day, or Good Friday, before the hour of one in the afternoon, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, to be recovered within three calendar months after the commission of such offence, before any two justices acting in petty sessions for the county, city, or jurisdiction, within which such offence shall have been committed; any portion of such penalty, not exceeding one-half, to be awarded, at the discretion of such justices, to the informer, and the remainder to be paid to the treasurer of the county, city, or jurisdiction within which such offence shall have been committed, to be by him applied towards defraying the expenses of such county, city, or jurisdiction; and if such penalty, so adjudged, shall not be forthwith paid, it shall be lawful for such jus- tices to commit the offender to any gaol or house of correction within their jurisdiction, for any term not exceeding one calendar month, such imprisonment to cease if such penalty shall be sooner paid; provided always that nothing herein contained shall extend to prevent refreshment to travellers."

said, that he was not one of those who were disposed to loosen the bonds of the law in this country in favour of drunkenness. He would not, however, support the motion of the hon. Member. He did not see how the hon. Member could obtain the object which he had in view. It might be a good thing to promote sobriety amongst the poor, but the object might be attempted by means the most mischievous. They were about to create a great number of crimes. They were about to extend the liability to the imputation of crime for three calendar months, and to admit informations as to the commission of that crime to be received during all that period. He perceived that an hon. Member opposite intimated his dissent as to the fact of the creation of a great quantity of crime; but would not the House, if it assented to the motion of the hon. Member, make crimes by law? Making things crimes by law would not, however, prevent the occurrence of those crimes, but it might create much evil. When it was proposed to make things crimes which were not at present crimes by law, it was necessary to prove that some great good would result from such legislation. The hon. Member must know something about the worshipful justices of the peace. He confessed, that he knew, as far as his knowledge went, no class of men more unfit to administer the law than these worshipful justices. Hon. Members must know that the law, as administered before these men, was nothing more than a matter of battledore arid shuttlecock. Every one knew, that there was nothing like certainty in the administration of the law before the justices. In fact they did not pretend to know the law. Then again, there would be nothing like publicity in the proceedings before them, as related to the present matter. In the private parlour of the magistrate the information would be taken, and those informations might be given and decided upon three months after the time when the offence might be alleged to have taken place. Suppose that, at a period of three months past, a licensed victualler might have opened his door to give a cup of coffee, and an information had been laid against him, the licensed victualler would, after that period of time, be called on to prove that he had merely given coffee. And what would be the consequence if he was unable to meet the charge after that period? He would be confined for one calendar month in the county gaol. Such was the clause moved by the hon. Member. He had always been taught that he ought to bless God because he lived in a country where he could not forfeit his liberty without a trial by his fellows. Yet this extraordinary power was to be given to any two justices sitting in their private parlour. He wished the House and the hon. Member to recollect, that he was not opposed to the object which he sought to attain. He believed sobriety was a good thing, but at the same time he believed, that more evil than good would be attained by the success of the hon. Member's clause. It might be well to introduce a stringent system of police with regard to the large populations of London and Liverpool, but he objected to their establishing the stringency of their police regulations amongst the green fields of the country. He believed, that if they left the prohibition of crime more dependent on public opinion if they separated it less from the incarnation of man they would have a more loyal and better organised population than if they gave to every pelting petty officer the power of vexatious interference.

would also oppose the clause. He knew that sailors frequently landed on Saturday evenings. When the steamers arrived the hotels were open to the cabin passengers, while the men, who had borne all the severity of the weather, would be prevented by the clause of the hon. Member from regaling themselves in their own holes. He thought there was no sense or justice in that. It was known that the Liverpool Watch Committee had applied to the Secretary of State to know whether the regulations which were established in London in this respect would be extended to Liverpool, and an answer was received in the negative. The late Government were not so absurd as to adopt such a course as was now proposed, and he hoped the present Government would avoid it. What had been the consequence of their legislation in London? It was notorious, that in the neighbourhood of Drury-lane there were houses where, after twelve o'clock on a Saturday night, not only drunkenness but vice of other kinds was encouraged where there was, in fact, a perfect saturnalia. If men were disposed to be drunk and vicious they would be so, notwithstanding all their legislation. By the bill which applied to the metropolis on this subject, they had devolved the duty of complaint against licensed victuallers on the police; but the proposed clause would establish a set of informers through the country. He should oppose the clause.

thought, that it would be unfair to the working classes to close the public-houses until one o'clock on the Sunday morning.

said, that an hon. and gallant officer had opposed the clause because sailors arriving in port would by it be prevented from obtaining admittance to public-houses. That hon. Member should recollect, that at present there were two principal ports to which the regulation of closing public-houses until one o'clock on Sundays, already applied he meant the ports of Liverpool and London. It was not considered so great a grievance that it should apply to those ports. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Bath vituperate the county magistracy. That hon. Member, when appointing a committee to investigate the subject of bribery at certain elections, had nominated country gentlemen, of which class the magistracy was principally composed. The hon. and learned Member had said, that those magistrates would decide in their parlours. That was not the case. The magistrates would decide in petty session, but not in their parlours. His hon. Friend only endeavoured to apply to the country districts of England a principle which was found to work well in the metropolitan districts. The hon. and learned Member for Bath ought, if he were consistent, to move for a repeal of the law which applied, on this subject, to London and Liverpool. He would support the clause.

did not wish to vituperate any class of men, and had not vituperated the country magistrates. He had only said, that they were not learned in the law. He did not think also that it fol- lowed, because he was obliged to ask certain hon. Members of that House to investigate, as a committee, certain matters of fact, the magistrates of the country should, therefore be qualified to decide on questions of law. However high an opinion might be entertained of the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, it did not follow that he would make an excellent Lord Chancellor.

believed, that the magistrates of the country discharged a most important duty with the utmost fidelity. He was not about to discuss the question of the composition of the committee which the hon. Member had obtained. With respect to the question before the House he had voted on the last occasion against the motion of the hon. Member for Southwark. He had a strong desire to leave the law for the present undisturbed. He thought, that in the metropolitan districts the law had worked well. He did not, however, feel disposed to extend its provisions to the rural districts. He believed his hon. Friend was wrong in stating, that the metropolitan regulations respecting public-houses extended also to Liverpool. There was a clause in a bill before the House to that effect; but it had not yet become the law. He thought, that three months was too long a period during which to leave the licensed victualler liable to the prosecution, and he was also convinced that the penalty provided by the proposed clause was too heavy a penalty for the offence. He objected not only to the machinery of the clause, but also to the extension of the principle embodied in it to the rural districts. It was said, that the working classes would be prevented by this clause from resorting to the public-house for the purpose of obtaining tea or coffee, as was the habit in the country. For his part, he saw no objection to their regaling themselves with bread and cheese and a glass of ale. He understood that it was generally the habit of the working classes to breakfast, in the country, in the public-houses. He knew of no objection, in like manner, to their having the innocent gratification of reading the newspaper in those houses. He was sorry to oppose the clause of the hon. Member, but he could consistently pursue no other course.

said, that in their present legislation they were dealing with a most respectable body of men. Those men were already under a peculiar restriction, that the magistrates at the end of the year might refuse their licences if they misconducted themselves. He would ask, why should the House confine the prohibition to have their houses open to one o'clock on the Sunday, and not extend it to the whole day? He thought the present proposition was a riduculous one. He thought that the licensed victualler might well be left to the opinion of his neighbours, who, if his house was not properly regulated, might call on the magistrates to refuse his license.

said, that the-country, he was sure, would be grateful to the hon. Member for Dorchester for the liberal sentiments he had expressed. It was not alone the agricultural population which were interested in the present question, but he knew that it was the habit of the manufacturing population to walk out in the country on a Sunday morning, when, no doubt, it would be a gratification to them to have an opportunity of taking a glass of ale. He thought the House would take materially from their comforts if it acceded to the present motion; whilst it would not, at the same time, improve their religion. It would also unnecessarily throw a great slur on a respectable body of men.

said, that the same arguments which the right hon. Member for Dorchester had used had been used in that House with regard to the Metropolitan Police Bill with, he regretted to say, less effect than was likely to attend them on the present occasion. Admitting for a moment that the clause were to become the law of the land, he wished to remind the House that a different class of persons were to administer it in the country from those who administer it in London. In London the law was administered by the stipendiary magistrate, who knew the law; and he fully agreed with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bath respecting the ignorance of the law of the country magistracy. In the country the law would be administered by gentlemen having local interests and prejudices. He, for his part, wished that there were only stipendiary magistrates throughout the country. He believed that on this subject there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. He protested against the law on this subject, as it related to the metropolitan districts. He did not think that it worked well. They only drove the working men from the public-houses to worse places. What did the working men do at present? Knowing that the public houses would be closed until one o'clock on the Sunday, they brought home a stock of gin, which they consumed either in parties in their own houses, or in worse places. If the licensed victualler were ill-behaved, his license might be refused. He now asked the country gentlemen how they liked the application of this principle to the rural districts? He would not return evil for evil, and would, therefore, oppose the clause.

said, that the hon. Member for Droitwich forgot that in the rural districts the church was generally in the centre of the parish, and those who attended the church generally had a considerable distance to walk in the morning, and required their breakfast, or some slight refreshment, in the public-house, before the time for divine worship arrived. He would vote against the clause.

said, that he had been entrusted with a petition against the proposed clause, and he should oppose it.

at first had been disposed to listen favourably to the proposition of the hon. Member for Droitwich, but the statements he had since heard on the subject induced him to change his opinion. There was one suggestion which had been thrown out, and which he thought it might be well to adopt; he referred to the suggestion that public-houses in the country ought to shut at ten instead of as at present at eleven, as that would give an hour longer to prepare for church.

congratulated the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Finsbury on the opportunity which his motion had afforded them of heaping their abuse on the county magistrates. The hon. Member for Bath seemed to be very much disappointed that justice could be administered by gentlemen who were not lawyers. With regard to the machinery of the measure, he was willing to make several modifications in it. The liability to imprisonment for a month was, perhaps, too severe a penalty. With regard to the fine of 5l., the House ought to recollect that that was the highest amount allowed, while it was left to the discretion of the justices to make it as much lower as they might think fit. He was also willing that instead of the fine being forthwith paid, it should be left to the discretion of the justices to fix the time for its payment. But while he was ready to admit that the machinery of the measure would admit of modification, he had heard nothing that evening that would induce him to withdraw his motion.

said, that no modification which the committee could make would render it possible to carry out the hon. Member's views, He thought the best way would be to withdraw his motion, and re-introduce his clause in an amended form on the bringing up of the report. The hon. Gentlemen's clause made no provision for an appeal against the decision of the justices at quarter sessions. He and the hon. Member must see that there must be some court of appeal. He was favourable to the principle of the clause, though opposed to the clause itself; and, therefore, it was that he was anxious to see the clause withdrawn, and re-introduced in an amended form.

moved a clause to the effect, that, that all public-houses within the metropolitan district should be kept open on Sunday, Good-Friday, and Christmas-day, during divine service, after one o'clock in the afternoon. On the question, that the clause be read a second time,

thought, that the existing law regulating the opening and shutting up of public-houses on Sundays, ought not to be disturbed for some time. It was quite clear, that the act now in operation intended that public-houses should be closed on Sunday afternoons during the hours of divine service, as well as in the mornings.

had hoped from the liberal sentiments he had that evening heard from the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that he would not have opposed this clause. The restriction would produce no good. The rule observed was different in the city and other parts of the metropolis.

objected to the clause shutting up public-houses in the afternoons of Sundays when it was originally proposed; and it was only agreed to because the late Government wished that it should be so. The object of the clause by his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Humphery) was to destroy the anomaly which at present existed; for, in two parishes, the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington, public-houses were shut and opened at different hours, divine service being at different periods of the afternoon. In the one parish the houses shut at three o'clock, while houses across the road, in the other parish, did not shut till four o'clock. AH that was asked by the clause before the House was, that there should be an equality on this point. If the question was one of morality, why were not all the public-houses closed on Sundays? If not a question of morality, why were they not all open on that day?

said, that no reason had been advanced why the clause should be adopted. His acquaintance with licensed victuallers in the provinces led him to believe that they were quite satisfied with the law as it now stands.

most particularly wished that the licensed victuallers of the metropolis should have the liberty of keeping their houses open the whole of Sunday after one o'clock. In point of morality, the shutting-up of public-houses on Sundays was the grossest humbug. He did not understand the course which was pursued on this subject. They (the friends of the licensed victuallers) had all the argument on their side. The licensed victuallers ought to be allowed to open their houses at one o'clock, and then shut them when they pleased. If you treat men like men they will behave themselves like men. If you treat men like children, you either drive them stark staring mad, or make them become like children.

said, there was a great inconsistency in the law as it now stood; for in some parts of London you had only to cross the road to get one public-house open if you found another closed. You cannot make men go to church by act of Parliament. If you wish to make people moral and religious, you must first become moral and religious yourselves. Steam-boats sold spirits at all hours on Sunday; it was therefore strange that Government should uphold the law as it present stood.

moved the second reading of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill.

opposed the motion, contending that the proof of bribery against some of the electors was no ground for the disfranchisement of all.

said, if they looked to the precedent which was followed in the cases of Carrickfergus and Stafford, they would see that it was necessary, before the second reading of a bill of this nature, to serve a copy of the bill on the returning officer.

said, if the House would agree to the second reading, he would not ask them to come to any decision until the returning officer had been served with a copy of the bill.

said, that he had this day presented a petition from certain of the inhabitants of Sudbury, who stated that they felt it extremely hard that they should be treated in the manner proposed, while other boroughs were equally guilty.

thought that Government ought to state their opinion on a question of such importance. East Retford, Shoreham, and other places had been rectified by adding to the borough certain agricultural parishes. Why should not the same course be adopted in the present case? He begged to move that the debate be adjourned to this day.

said, that in his opinion they would never get quit of bribery so long as they hunted down boroughs and not individuals. He begged the House to consider well the consequences before they proceeded to disfranchise even so small a borough as Sudbury, because it was setting a precedent which might be extended to boroughs with a much larger population.

said, that he did not wish to oppose the motion made. He merely wished to state, that during the past week he had presented a petition signed by 120 electors of Sudbury by a magistrate and three dissenting ministers The petitioners stated that they highly approved of the resolution to which the committee had come, in reporting that gross bribery had been practised at the last election, and they also stated that bribery had existed for many previous years. He felt quite certain that the hon Member opposite could confirm that statement. The petitioners suggested that if the limits of the present constituency were greatly extended, and if the votes were taken by ballot, that this would be a sufficient protection against intimidation and bribery. He had thought it right to remind the House of this petition, and he had only further to state that he cordially concurred in the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he should not propose at that late hour of the night to go on with the motion he had made on last Saturday morning, if he were now to deal with the motion as he had originally proposed it, but it appeared to him, that he had now to do with an altered proposition, because the House the other night had decided the main principle, and left for to-night nothing but comparatively small matters of detail. He had acceded at once to the proposal to postpone the further consideration of the subject, in order to give time for deliberation as to the mode, merely in which the inquiry might best be carried into effect, and he should not trespass on the House at present, by going into any statements in reference to those explanations which he had been requested to make in contradiction to the charges which had been brought forward against Mr. Warburton. He would merely state the position in which he conceived the question now stood. The House, by a large majority, had passed this resolution,

"That an inquiry be made into certain corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into for the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross bribery which had been alleged to have been practised at the election for the borough of Bridport in June last, and also whether such bribery has taken place in the aforesaid town:"

The House having thus determined that inquiry should take place, he presumed that they would not stultify themselves by their vote on the present occasion, and, therefore, he should proceed without any apprehension of the result to-night. He could not anticipate any objection to the proposition, that the case of Bridport stood on the same grounds—and on that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had the other night fully agreed—as those for inquiring into which the committee of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) would enter; nor was there any question that a corrupt compromise had taken place previously to the compromises brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend, nor that the bribery took place at the same time as in the other cases. Therefore, in point of consistency, the House should have taken this case of Bridport the very first of all the cases. He moved, therefore, that the case of the borough of Bridport be referred to the committee which had been appointed on the motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He adopted this course, because he thought it better that the case should go before them, than a new and separate committee; for the House had already got a good committee, which was one reason why he wished it to go before them; and in the next place, by making this reference, he should avoid any of those imputations of partiality in the formation of a new committee which had been made before, and might have been made again.

must be allowed to say for himself and some other hon. Members, that they were not compromised by the decision which the House had come to the other night, with which he, for one, was not satisfied, and at which he had met with no one out of the House who was not surprised. In fact, he thought that a most dangerous precedent had been set. Not stopping at the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, they were now about to take a step to the results of which no one could look with certainty, all must look with apprehension. Henceforth, if they adopted this motion, whenever there was an unsuccessful candidate anywhere, who might not have thought fit to present a petition in the ordinary way, the door was opened for him to come forward at any length of time after the election was over, and demand an inquiry in this way. ["No,no."] He insisted it was so; and he knew not how, after this, they were to shut the door against any candidate in such circumstances who might find it convenient to come and demand a reference of his case to some unheard of committee to inquire into the truth of any allegations by which he might consider himself aggrieved. Why, an instance had occurred that very night; for it had been stated in a petition presented by the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), that the Member for Lichfield had obtained his seat by means of corrupt practices. But the petition had not been listened to as Mr. Warburton's was, because the names appended to it were those of people whose names were unknown there; and moreover, there was no one to take up their case; but he must be allowed to say, that that petition had as much right to be treated with attention as that of Mr. Warburton; and the House might depend upon it that if they allowed such petitions as that of Mr. Warburton's to be treated as his was, that they would find plenty of disappointed candidates who would follow up this course, which would have the recommendation of superior cheapness to the appointed method of going before an election committee. Observe the course that had been adopted. The petition of Mr. Warburton was presented by a Gentleman who expatiated on the wounded feelings of the petitioner, which he stated to be the reason why the petitioner came before the House; in fact, the hon. Gentleman stated himself to be a personal friend of Mr. Warburton. But he said, that these wounded feelings of an unsuccessful candidate, the House was not bound to follow, on the ground, that it was the case of a friend, who brought forward the case of his personal friend. Next, who got up to advocate Mr. Warburton's cause? Another personal friend, the late Solicitor-general, the most powerful advocate of the day, who was called up, not in defence of public justice, but as a private friend of the party, and as a friend he was heard, and as a friend the House respected his feelings. Nevertheless, he would say, that were not sitting there to listen to private feelings, still less, were they sitting there to hear charges of private spleen. The circumstances of this case had no reference to any public proceedings; it did not arise out of any public investigation, and there was the main difference between this case, and those which had been referred to the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. For his own part, with respect to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, he should have thought that the House would have acted more consistently with its usual desire to secure the respect of the public, if they had not come into the decision on the proposition with quite so much haste, considering how serious might be the consequences, and how powerful were the weapons which they were about to place in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He did not dispute the decision to which the House had come, in granting the hon. and learned Member his committee, but for the considerations he had stated, he trembled at the idea of carrying out the principle any further. That principle was known to the House—it was founded upon peculiar facts—facts importing, that the decisions of those tribunals which were appointed by the House, for the peculiar purpose of judging questions relating to elections, had been contravened by means of certain corrupt compromises, as they had been designated by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. As he had already observed, he would have been better satisfied, had there been more deliberation applied to the question, before that committee was appointed; but still it was a principle, and he could well understand it. The application made in the present instance, however, was founded upon no principle, and he did see, that mischievous consequences might—nay, must—follow from the adoption of the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Liskeard, offered for their acceptance. There had been, already, a majority on this question, but there was also a minority on that occasion, whose views he had taken the liberty of stating. It was true, that the majority was large, but those who composed it, were very far from being of one opinion, either as to the results to be expected, or as to the course which ought to be pursued. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, stated, that he had no desire to refer this case to the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. ["No, no!"] He certainly was sitting near the noble Lord on that occasion, and he thought he rather heard him urge on the House, that this case should not form part of the inquiry before that committee. His right hon. Friend, at the head of the Treasury, did not express himself very exactly as to his ulterior views with regard to the subject. He stated, that he should feel some difficulty in supporting a bill of indemnity for witnesses; but, at the same time, admitted, that without such a bill of indemnity, the inquiry would be wholly nugatory. But what would be the consequence of including this case? Why, that the bill of indemnity would be made to apply to an inquiry, the motives of which were avowed to be not public, but private and personal. Was that a fit case in which to grant a bill of indemnity? The hon. and learned Member for Bath seemed to be surprised, when, a few moments ago, he spoke of the weapon which the House would place in his hands. Might not a bill of indemnity be described as a weapon of the most powerful kind — one which they ought not to intrust to any man except for the most important purposes, and certainly to no man in whom they did not feel a confidence that he would use it rightly? A bill of indemnity was a contravention of the known law of the land; it was to enable those to whom it was intrusted, to act contrary to those known principles of the law of the land, which all admitted, ought not in general cases to be adhered to. For if they ought not to be adhered to, why was there not a general indemnity bill to apply to all witnesses whatsoever? If the general principle, that a person should not be allowed to criminate others without being exposed to the legal consequences of his actions, was to be superseded—if a person in the confidence of others was to be permitted to betray that confidence,—why, a bill that would be universal in its operation would be the best mode of altering the law. But if it was right to grant this bill of indemnity for the purposes of the inquiry embraced by the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and he went with him to that extent, surely the House would not go further and say that it was right as regarded this case of Mr. Warburton, which rested on avowedly different grounds. He, for one, never could concur in any bill of indemnity grounded on a demand which came forward as this demand of Mr. Warburton did, which proceeded upon complaints of private injuries, avowing motives of private pique, and urged upon the House by means of the claims of private friendship. He was justified in thus characterizing the motion, because the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard prefaced his statement by a declaration that he had been actuated by private and not by public motives in bringing it forward. He did feel that the hon. Member would, on reflection, feel that this was not a case in which he, with those legal and constitutional feelings which he so eminently possessed, would urge upon the House a course which must, of necessity, under such circumstances lead to this case of Bridport being included in the Indemnity Bill—without such a bill he must be well aware that the inquiry must be nugatory. Above all, he did not think the hon. and learned Member for Bath could wish this case to be added to his committee. He thought, too, the majority of the House would be of the same opinion, and if the motion were therefore negatived, it would then be for the House to consider whether they would refer the subject to a separate select committee. For his own part he should oppose the motion.

said, if hon. Members would bring on opposed questions at this late hour, (five minutes to one o'clock), he had no alternative but to move the adjournment. He could only teach the House a lesson in that way; and if the motion was seconded he should divide.

seconded the motion.

granted he had offended against the rule, and that he was liable to the punishment threatened by the hon. Gentleman, but he hoped the House would allow him to state the additional reasons why he had brought forward this question at so late an hour. The case was this:—The hon. and learned Member for Bath had proposed a bill of indemnity, into the preamble of which bill he, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, meant to persist in asking the House to introduce the name of Bridport. Now, that bill was to come on to-night. [" No, no."] Well, if not to-night, at all events very soon; and what he wanted was, to have his motion disposed of before the third reading of the bill came on for discussion, because, though the House of Lords, taking cognizance of the votes of that House, might insert it, he would rather it was inserted here. Should the House refuse to insert it in the preamble of the hon. and learned Member's bill, then he would have to apply for an indemnity bill of his own.

entirely concurred in what the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had said as to his having no desire that this case of Bridport should be included. The hon. Member, however, had said, that the House were about to invest him with great powers. He utterly disclaimed every thing of the sort. The House had constituted a committee to inquire into a particular matter of public policy, and it proposed to give that committee certain powers. He thought it rather hard upon him that it should be put in the invidious form that he was to wield a power which, in fact, the House shared with him. The simple case was, that the House had confidence in that committee of nine, and had given to it I certain powers for the purposes of the inquiries desired by the House. It was not a judicial inquiry. The House had determined to undertake the inquiry. He had suggested it as an inquiry into what he deemed to be an omitted case in the law of elections. He had declared to the House that he could show, from facts which had come to his knowledge, the means by which the desires and laws of J the House with regard to elections had been evaded and eluded by certain proceedings. For the purpose of making those facts known to the House he had moved for this committee, which the House from motives of public policy granted. What was the omitted case in the law of elections? It was that certain parties before the inquiries could take place before the regular tribunal had made what he called corrupt compromises—a phrase which had since been used to designate those transactions. If the hon. Member could withdraw the case of Bridport from the category, he should prefer it. He should recollect that he was arguing against himself for he did not want further inquiry. He thought the load already heavy enough for the committee to bear, and he therefore only pointed out things which militated against his own interest, but which he considered it fair and just to notice. Mr. Warburton was the private friend of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who brought forward the petition through feelings of private friendship, in which he sincerely concurred. But, putting aside those feelings, what were the facts? Why, that they had discovered, no matter how, and they could hardly have had a better mode of discovery than in the statement which had been presented to the House they had discovered by that statement that offenders there had been— that three gentlemen, Mr. Warburton, and the hon. Members for Bridport, had been, according to their own statement, guilty of a compromise. As far too as rumour was concerned, all parties were involved in the question of bribery, which was stated to have been resorted to by all. One of the hon. Members for Bridport spoke the other evening, when the question was being discussed, of the remark able absence of the Member for Bath Now, in the first place, he was labouring under severe indisposition an excuse, if excuse were necessary, sufficient to account for his absence; and, in the next, he was confident that the House did not mean to impose upon him the calamitous obligation of listening to all the nonsense that was spoken on the subject of bribery in the course of these discussions. It was somewhat hard, therefore, that he should, by having absented himself on the occasion alluded to, have been subjected to the charge which had been made against him by the hon. Member. It had been his fate, as counsel in a court of law, to have seen many of his countrymen sentenced by law to transportation; but he had never heard it made matter of charge by a criminal in the dock that a counsel who had prosecuted on Monday was not present at a similar prosecution, in which he was not concerned, on the following Tuesday. He mixed up no private feelings in the case; he knew nothing of his own personal knowledge; he had no concern in the matter, and, so far as his interest was concerned, he could only say, that if the House did not see any difference between the case now before it and those other cases which had been disposed of by a reference to the committee, and if it should think that committee a fitting committee for conducting the inquiry, he should deem it his duty to bow to that decision.

said, that he had no objection that the case should be referred at once to the committee, as proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard. Indeed, he considered that discussions of this nature ought to be avoided, and that the sooner the case was so referred the better. He had not blamed the hon. Member opposite for absenting himself. [Mr. Roebuck informed the hon. Member he had not alluded to him as having said so.] The hon. Member for Bath had said, that there had been an admission of bribery on his part; but if the hon. Member looked to the petition he would find, not that he was charged with bribery, but that he had spent a sum of money which was unknown. With regard to the question of compromise, he was quite willing to refer it to the committee.

did not consider this at all a personal matter, and he had very great objections to refer it to the committee. He must say, that in a matter of this im- portance the hon. Member for Bath had pursued a course which was hardly justifiable, for he first produced one motion and then another.

rose to order. The hon. Member, he said, was introducing a question wholly irrelevant to that before the House.

that he was perfectly in order. The course of the hon. and learned Member, he maintained, was hardly justifiable, and had been objected to by the noble Lord opposite. The hon. Member's first motion did not include the inquiry into bribery in boroughs; it merely referred to the question of compromise. Both the noble Lord ((he Member for London) and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said, that they could not consent to the inquiry into bribery, except so far as necessary to establish a corrupt compromise. The hon. Member, therefore, was not consistent in speaking of the defined powers of the committees, for he contended that those powers were totally undefined at the present moment. They were to have the power of inquiring generally, notwithstanding the objection made by the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. A motion was now made for inquiring into alleged bribery at Bridport. Before the case was referred to the committee, he wanted to know what the powers of the committee were to be. He was giving a reason why this debate should be adjourned. Until the powers of the committee were defined, he should object to the present motion; for he was convinced, if it were agreed to, the House would involve itself in an inextricable abyrinth.

said, the House had agreed to refer the question to a committee, and the only point now at issue was, whether the committee was to be the same committee to which the other cases had been referred. The point they must decide was, whether or not the cases were at all parallel. There were alleged compromises for concealing bribery in the cases already referred. He made no charge against either of the sitting Members; but the late Member, Mr. Warburton, admitted the fact, that he did retire to prevent an investigation into bribery which had taken place in the borough of Bridport, and no one denied it. He thought, therefore, that Bridport fell pre- cisely within the category of those places whose conduct the House had already agreed to refer to the hon. Member for Bath's committee

really must be permitted to say a few words on the charge which had been brought against him, of acting unjustifiably by the House, and he did trust hon. Members would bear with him whilst he said a few words in his own justification. What was the charge? It was, that he had made a motion in terms complained of as not sufficiently definite. When he had heard that complaint made he immediately attempted to render the motion more definite. The motion as it was re-worded was also complained of. A third attempt was made, and the motion, with some alterations, was agreed to. Every Member was present at that time. They were there with their eyes wide open they were there with their ears erect—they were there with their minds clear to judge and to decide. One hon. Member who had taken part in that debate (Sir J. Walsh) had even specially spoken of the case of this very borough of Bridport. Now, the House being full, all attention being excited, no confusion prevailing, but, on the contrary, there being a perfect and clear understanding upon the case, how could he be said to have done anything that was liable to be styled unjustifiable? The right hon. Baronet had assented to the motion at the time, and he had never heard him say that he had found cause to quarrel with it since. No objection whatever was made to it, except by one hon. Member, the hon. Member for; he forgot where he sat for now, but formerly he was Member for the borough of Sudbury; therefore, he must say, that he thought he stood fully acquitted from this charge before both the House and the country. There were present the noble Lord the Member for London, and the right hon. Baronetߞthere were all those whom he now saw before himߞall clear-sighted and cautious politicians, and yet they said that he had not only obtained his committee unjustifiably, but that he had absolutely palmed it upon them against their better judgments. Really such an accusation as this he could not pretend to understand.

said, the hon. Member was rather too sensitive. He had not attributed to him that he had palmed anything whatever upon the House, but what he had taken objection to was his pressing forward his motion in an overhasty manner.

said, that in a previous part of the debate he applied the word "unjustifiable" to the hon. Member. What he had meant to convey by it was, that the hon. Member, when he brought forward his motion, changed the words very frequently; and he must be permitted to observe, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had been understood by many to object to the motion on the ground of its indistinctness. He really did not think the House was now prepared for another change, which, instead of more strictly defining the terms on which the inquiry was conducted, opened the door still wider. Motion for the adjournment withdrawn, and the House divided on the original motion,ߞ

" That such inquiry be referred to the Select Committee appointed to inquire whether such compromises have been entered into, and whether such bribery has taken place in the towns of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn and Falmouth, and Reading."