having moved that the petition of William Henderson, agent for Lord C. Townshend, praying that the delivering of an attested copy of the bill, etc., on Thomas Clarke, solicitor to the Marquess Townshend, may be deemed good and sufficient service on the said Marquess Townshend, be taken into consideration.

begged to make a statement to the House in reference to his own conduct, and the course he had taken in the bill now before the House. He believed, that no person charged him with any personal fault in regard to the transactions to which the bill referred, though before the bill had been considered by the committee of the other House —he had been charged with very great faults by parties whose proceedings he thought deserved reprobation. It was hardly any satisfaction to him now, after the allusions which had been made to his conduct by one or two noble Lords in another place, that they had since ascertained there was no foundation for the statements which had been made to his prejudice. He would state to the House the reasons why he considered the bill was proceeding through Parliament at a pace so rapid that it was quite impossible for him and the other parties who would be affected by it, to defend their interests. The parties who had brought forward the bill, and who had collected the evidence on which it was founded, and on which the whole case rested, had been engaged —twelve or fifteen months in making good their case, and it could not be expected, that he should be in a condition, without time was allowed him, to collect evidence to contradict the statements of the other side, or to show the motives by which the witnesses who had been examined were influenced. It must he quite obvious, as many years had elapsed since the circumstances out of which these proceedings had originated took place, that it required long and' strict investigation, and considerable time to examine into them, so as to arrive at absolute proof. His object was to induce the House to postpone the measure for a time; and he thought, looking at all the circumstances, and how materially his interests were affected by the bill, that there was no reason why this request should not be granted. In written Chancery proceedings, extending from 1813 to 1819, he was clearly defined as the eldest son and the heir to the Marquess Townshend. And it was very hard on him now, that that evidence which then existed, and which justified parties adopting that course in these legal proceedings, should be deemed altogether useless. A lady and gentleman, Mr. and Mrs. Gardner, who at that time were living, and were intimately acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the family affairs of the late Marquess, and of his family on the mother's side, were since dead, and he thought it would have been much fairer in the other party if they had had the courage to commence those proceedings at an earlier period when all the witnesses were living. The opposite side, however, had shown great tact and ingenuity, after so many years of silence, in commencing their proceedings at a time when the parties attacked had no means of defence. Down to the previous year, no kind of intimation or notice had been given to him that any such proceedings would be instituted, nor was it stated to him by any person that he had no right to the title which he possessed. This he thought was a material point, for it was reasonable to presume, that if, previous to that time, Lord C. Townshend or any of the opposite party, had determined to carry on so systematic a course of opposition against him, some notice of that intention would have been given to him. He thought the House was bound to grant him the delay which he sought for; if not, he could not say that he had received the advantages of that open court, and fair trial which under the circumstances he had a right to expect. He was not requiring anything unreasonable, for it was not likely, at this advanced period of the Session, that the committee on the bill would have time to examine into and investigate the very voluminous evidence on which the bill was founded. It had been observed in the other House, that it was remarkable that no witnesses had been produced against the bill; but no opportunity had been afforded to bring forward evidence. He had, however, no doubt that if the House acceded to his present request, he should be enabled at a future time to submit evidence that would completely rebut the statements upon which the bill was founded.

rose to inquire of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any settlement had been made of the claims of the late Mr. Petrie, for his services in editing the collection of British historians, undertaken in pursuance of an address of this House; also to inquire whether the "large collection of materials" for that work, which was stated, in a return made to the House last year, to be still in the possession of Mr. Petrie's executors, had been transferred to the custody of the Master of the Rolls; and if not, why it had not been so transferred. Although Mr. Petrie did not in his life time receive any remuneration, yet two assistants employed under him bad been most liberally paid—one having been paid 4,000l., and the other 2,000l.;—1,000l. had also been paid for the transcriptions.

would feel sorry to speak with the slightest disrespect of the late Mr. Petrie, whose acquirements and competency to perform the work undertaken by him were undoubted. At the same time, the hon. Member must be aware of the fact that very great delay took place in the completion of the work which Mr. Petrie undertook. That gentleman began his task in the year 1822, and be had made so little progress in it in 1836, that the Lords of the Treasury felt constrained to write to him, and to intimate to him that he must cease to consider himself as employed by the Government. However, a very large mass of very valuable and important materials had been collected by him; a portion of which was placed at the disposal of the public—the remainder, until his death, being in his own possession — and since then in the possession of his executors. With respect to that portion placed at the disposal of the public, it had been handed over, by the advice of the Master of the Rolls, to the Historical Society, who were about to edit a work exactly according to the plan of Mr. Petrie. With respect to the remaining portion of materials collected by Mr. Petrie still in the hands of his executors, he (Sir J. Graham) agreed with his hon. Friend that, as Mr. Petrie did not in his life-time receive any remuneration, that gentleman's executors were entitled to some compensation. Whenever any claim should be preferred by the executors, an investigation should take place to ascertain what amount of compensation was really due; and he had no doubt that the executors would be dealt with in the most fair and liberal terms.

was the only remaining Member of the House, be believed, who was on the original commission for promoting these publications. The House would, perhaps, permit him to state generally that the labours of Mr. Petrie were for a considerable time very great indeed. Unfortunately, Mr. Petrie was a constant martyr to the gout, and for the last ten or twelve years of his life it was impossible for him to prosecute his labours. Still his natural partiality for an undertaking which he had himself suggested, prevented him from giving up the execution of it to other hands. With respect to remuneration, he could state, that it was Mr. Petrie's own express wish that no remuneration should be made to him until the commissioners, the House, and the public, were able to judge of the manner in which the work he had undertaken was executed. About ten or eleven years ago, the first volume was completed, all but the index; and he hoped that measures would be taken for completing some of the other volumes which were in a state of forwardness, and a considerable portion of which had been printed, but unless the whole were completed, that which had been done would not only be useless, but, instead of reflecting credit upon the country, would reflect great discredit, particularly at a time when the other nations of Europe were imitating the example of such publications.

asked the right hon. Baronet whether it was his intention to introduce during this Session any bill to render the enfranchisements of copyhold and customary lands compulsory.

said, that within the last fortnight, a measure had passed the House of Commons, and had been sent up to the House of Lords, giving greater facilities to voluntary enfranchisements of copyhold and customary estates. That experiment had not yet been tried, and until it had been, he was not prepared to propose a measure of a compulsory nature.

> in answer to questions put by Mr. Hawes, said, he believed that as the law existed, and as he proposed it to stand, it would be very much the same. At the present time, those who were subjected to the compulsory law were persons between the ages of nine and thirteen. It was proposed to reduce the age from nine to eight. At present children were liable to work in factories for eight hours, and to be educated at any period during the twenty-four hours. It was now proposed that the children should only work six hours and a half each day; and that they should not work both in the forenoon and the afternoon; but that the six hours and a half should either be in the forenoon or in the afternoon, and that in five days out of seven they should be educated for three hours, either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. By the present law, no notice was taken as to the place where the education was given, or as to the system of instruction that was adopted. Now, it was proposed by the present bill that the Privy Council should have the power to appoint inspectors to visit all the schools to which certificates were granted; and on receiving a report from the inspectors as to the inconvenience of the place, or as to any objection in the method of education pursued, the Privy Council were empowered to notify to the schoolmaster the defect so reported; and unless within three months that defect should be remedied, the Privy Council would have the power of stopping the grant made to the school. He believed he had now stated exactly the extent of the alterations proposed, without omitting anything of the least importance.

presented a petition from 600 electors of Nottingham, praying that the House would vindicate the rights of the honest voters of Nottingham, as well as the privileges of the House.

said, that before he called the attention of the House to the petitions which had been presented relative to the election for Nottingham, and which had been printed with the votes, he might be allowed to refer to the part he had taken with respect to those petitions. On the very day after that on which he took his scat, as Member for that Borough, two petitions were presented complaining of the return. He had never imagined that those petitions would be proceeded with. A petition from certain electors of Nottingham was forwarded to him, which he was requested to present, praying the House not to permit the petitions to which he had just referred to be withdrawn, and requesting that, in case of the withdrawal of those petitions, the House would institute an inquiry into the proceedings at the election. He informed the parties who forwarded this petition to him, that whatever might be their opinion as to the proceedings at the election, they had been called upon to appear before a legal tribunal to answer for their conduct at that election; and that until they had appeared before that tribunal, and had proved the propriety of their conduct, he felt it would not be right to proffer such a petition to the House, and under the circumstances he declined to present it. After the report of the committee had been presented to the House, he had presented those petitions to which he was now about to call the attention of the House. He was about to call the attention of the House to a borough in which the greatest abuses had for a long period prevailed at Parliamentary elections— abuses which had been proclaimed by a committee of that House to be a disgrace to the country. He would, however, say, that two pure elections in succession had been conducted.by two candidates. In the first case Mr. Walter and Mr. Sturge were the candidates; and he would say that on the part of Mr. Sturge no corruption bad been practised; and he believed, that so far as Mr. Sturge was concerned, that was a pure election. In the first petition, from electors of the town of Nottingham, they set forth, that

"At the elections which took place in the months of April and June, 1841, for the said town, certain corrupt practices were carried on, which were afterwards fully inquired into and exposed by a select committee of your honourable House."

The petitioners then proceeded to state,

"That in the month of August, 1842, an election of a Member to represent the said town of Nottingham in the place of Sir G. Larpent, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, was held, and Mr. John Walter and Mr. Joseph Sturge were candidates. That at such election the said Mr. John Walter, by the expenditure of large sums of money, amounting, as your petitioners have reason to believe, to nearly 4,000l., was returned as duly elected; but that petitions were presented against such return, on the ground of extensive and systematic bribery and treating on the part of Mr. Walter and his agents. That such petition were tried before a committee of your honourable Douse in the month of March last, and extensive bribery and treating were proved to have been practised by the agents of the said John Walter, and he was in consequence declared not duly elected; but that much more extensive, systematic, and general bribery and treating had really taken place at the election of the said John Walter than were proved before the said committee."

He might also show how this subject had presented itself to the acute, and impartial, and judicious mind of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg). On the 23d of March that hon. Gentleman, in speaking on this subject, said he did not mean to state that the bribery which Sad taken place in the town of Nottingham was limited to the twenty-six or twenty-seven cases which the committee had reported, for the bribery and treating_ went considerably further than they had reported. On a subsequent occasion the hon. Member stated, that

"No case of casual bribery would have influenced his mind, as a member of the committee; but that the acts of bribery Committed in this borough were not single or isolated cases."

These words were sufficiently expressive of the opinion entertained by the hon. chairman of the committee appointed to inquire into that election. The petitioners further stated,

"The friends and partisans of Mr. John Walter the younger, and who had, before that time, been supporters of the said John Walter the elder, again resorted to a system of treating and promising money to induce the electors to vote for him, the said John Walter the younger,"

He had no doubt that the petitioners would be able to prove before that House that most extensive treating had taken place on the part of Mr. John Walter, jun. The petitioners proceeded to state,

"That after the decision of the committee, which unseated the said John Walter the elder, and before the election of the said Thomas Gisborne, several persons who had been influential and active supporters and partisans of the said John Walter the elder, and who afterwards supported the said John Walter the younger, declared their determination to win the election if possible; but that if they could not, they would petition against the return, and were resolved not to rest satisfied until. they either succeeded in electing a member of their party, or procuring the town to be disfranchised, That in pursuance of such resolution, two petitions, signed respectively by Mr. William Hannay, one of the magistrates of the said town, and Mr. Thomas Hollins Smith, were prepared and sent up to your honourable House within four days of the return made by the sheriff; and that the partisans of Mr. John Walter the younger publicly boasted that such petitions were sent, and would meet the said Thomas Gisborne on his taking his seat in your honourable House."

The next representation of the petitioners was, in his opinion, the most material allegation. The petitioners stated, that

"Immediately after his (Mr. Gisborne's) election, a commission composed of the friends of Mr. John Walter sat at an inn called the George 4th, in the town of Nottingham, whence they sent forth emissaries—many of them of bad character—to all parts of the town, among the poorer classes, offering money to induce them to give evidence of transactions which had taken place, or which were alleged to have taken place, in the course of the election,"

The petitioners complained that the other party thus endeavoured, not to find a case, but to make one; and it. appeared that for six or seven weeks the commission, to which he hail alluded persevered in its endeavours to obtain evidence by these means. The petitioners stated also,

"That on the trial of the said petitions before a Committee of your honourable House, proof was given by several witnesses of money having been paid by the hands of the said John Douglas Cook, William Mark Fladgate,—Ratcliffe, and Edward Pilbeam Cox, to such witnesses for their having given evidence, and that, had the inquiry been further prosecuted, proof would have been adduced before such committee that, in a vast number of instances, money had been offered and paid to persons to induce them to give evidence before such committee; but the petitioners, fearful of the disclosure, hastily withdrew their case, in order to prevent such proof being given."

He now came to consider the manner in which the petitions against his (Mr. Gisborne's) return had been presented. The election — the polling—took place on Thursday, and the return was sent up on Friday; but, as the House did not sit on Saturday, the return was not made to the House. On the Monday he took his seat, and on the very next day two petitions were presented against his return. He had on a former occasion asked the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lincoln) whether he had any connection with the petitioners against his return; and the noble Lord had admitted that he was connected with the petition, that he had advised its preparation, that he bad counselled its prosecution, and that by the noble Lord's advice or direction, Messrs. Clarke, Fynmore, and Fladgate, were appointed the agents for the petitioners. The noble Lord could not have heard the result of the election before Friday or Saturday, but it appeared from a statement made by Mr. Rawson, the chairman of a Conservative dinner which took place on the Mon.. day at Nottingham, that on that day a messenger came down from the London agents with a draught of the petitions, and that at twelve o'clock on Monday Mr. Rawson had to get the petitions engrossed, in order that they might be presented on Tuesday. It was necessary, Mr. Rawson said, that that should be done, because the House adjourned on the Wednesday for the Easter recess. He thought that if any person of caution—he might almost say fair dealing—had been applied to as the noble Lord was, he would at once have said, "There is no need of this hurry. Are you sure of the case? Are you sure your opponents have been guilty of the conduct imputed to them?" Instead of that, however, the noble Lord said, "Present helter-skelter petitions. Charge personal bribery against the Member. Charge bribery against his friends—against his partisans—against his agents, and demand a scrutiny." He wondered the noble Lord omitted the question of qualification, and that that was not made a matter of petition. The noble Lord, it appeared, determined that a petition should be prosecuted, and at once sent down the petitions to Nottingham—he had almost said with indecent haste—to be engrossed, in order that the idle boast, that a petition should meet him on his taking his seat might be fulfilled. He did not charge the noble Lord with any connexion with the getting up of evidence in support of the petitions against his return; but he must be allowed to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the noble Lord. It appeared from the noble Lord's own evidence before the Compromise Committee, that he was not present at the election in April, 1841, though he was in communication with some persons who were members of the committee; but the noble Lord, having no opposition to encounter to his own return, was present at the election for Nottingham in June, 1841, and stated that he arrived in the town on the day of nomination. The noble Lord was present at a meeting of the friends of Mr. Walter held on the clay of the nomination. The noble Lord was also present at a meeting that took place on the morning of the polling day, He (Mr. Gisborne) would proceed to show what took place there, and by doing so he thought he should show what title the noble Lord had to be the person to come forward and advocate purity of election. His first witness should be a gentleman of great credit in the town of Nottingham, Mr. Hannay. This gentleman was qualified to speak on the subject of parties in the borough of Nottingham, from his long residence in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of Mr. Hannay at considerable length), to show that corruption and bribery had been practised for many years at Nottingham, particularly by the Conservative party. That was the account Mr. Hannay gave of the general state of the Conservative cause in Nottingham. Mr. Rawson, a solicitor in great practice at Nottingham, was also examined before the Compromise Committee, and Mr. Rawson did not deny the presence of the noble Lord at a certain meeting that took place early in the morning of the polling day. It appeared in evidence, that 5,500l. had been spent on that election; Mr. Walter himself, who must know best, had said that 3,500l. was what he spent; about 2,000l. was spent by the other gentleman's friends; making altogether 5,500l. Then came a meeting at five o'clock in the morning, at which the noble Lord attended; and what said Mr. Rawson? Again the hon. Member quoted the evidence of Mr. Rawson and Mr. Hannay, to show that one election had been carried by bribery, and that at another they would not go to the poll be- cause they could not bribe sufficiently high. He would show (the hon. Member continued) that the noble Lord was a party to that meeting, that he was consenting to that bribery; in fact, that he was urging on the meeting that that bribery and corruption should be carried still further. Failing in that front want of funds, what did the noble Lord do? He turned round on the borough and took up a petition for its disfranchisement, and that petition was given up merely because it was not convenient to prosecute it, as the House would see presently. However, with respect to this meeting, everybody in it was for giving up, except the noble Lord; he was the only person who urged that the election should be continued. Would the noble Lord get up and say he did not know how the election was to be continued —how the 5,500l. had been expended? Would he say he did not know that the election could only be continued by the most violent, depraved, and corrupt means? He would not; and yet for an hour and a half the noble Lord deprecated giving up the contest, and urged that the election should be continued, though it was to be so continued only by the means he had referred to; and the noble Lord himself had stated that he only gave way because he thought it wrong to involve thy candidates in farther expense when their own partisans were against their going on. But what farther expense could they have been involved in? Every expense that was a legal expense had been already incurred; the hustings had been paid for, the polling clerks engaged, all other legal expenses had been determined and satisfied—what farther expense remained? None but bribery, so that in point of fact, the noble Lord was here seen, without any disguise, engaged in corrupting the electtors of Nottingham. It was manifest that the noble Lord was the party who opposed the putting a termination to that corruption; and that when he found that he could not carry the election, he said, then—

"We will put ourselves in a condition to petition, that if they have beaten us here we may turn their flank and beat them elsewhere."

And with this view the noble Lord urged that a few votes should be polled. The noble Lord had also discussed with the meeting whether they could put themselves in such a condition as not to run any risk of recrimination. The noble Lord had told them to petition, but not to ask for the scat; then there could be no recrimination, and their man could stand again. The noble Lord, before Mr. Roebuck's committee, told them on what grounds he had acted; that Mr. Walter was the original petitioner, but that he was frightened at the expense, and at length gave it up; that then the noble Lord took it up, and appointed his own agents to conduct it. The noble Lord stated to this committee that he had done so—

"With a view of exposing the transactions in the town, and laying the whole matter before the House of Commons; and if the House of Commons should see fit, showing grounds for the disfranchisement of the borough."

The noble Lord said he had employed Messrs. Clarke and Fladgate to get up the case, who, he said, had been recommended to him—

"As parties who had some experience in getting up cases for committees of the House of Commons."

Such was the noble Lord's ominous phrase, and the noble Lord went on to state, that he was prosecuting the petition in concert with certain friends at Nuttingham, and that one specific object of it was the disfranchisement of the borough, and that he had no personal interest whatever in the matter, but undertook it on public grounds alone. He bad seen a weatherglass formed in shape of a house, on which when the sun shone, a lady stepped forth with a parasol; when the sun retired under a cloud, a man armed with a Mackintosh and a stout umbrella made his appearance. The noble Lord resembled the gay lady with the parasol. When, the sun shone on him and his party then he was all for elections; but when the sun was averted, and shining on the Liberal party, then moody discontent and disfranchisement assumed the dominion over his mind. He thought it quite depended on the state of the political aspect of things which of these characters the noble Lord should take up. But a compromise had been made. The evidence came before the committee. The noble Lord got out the facts in a way he never could have expected; and when the compromise was made, they heard no more about disfranchisement. The noble Lord on the last division having dropped all ideas of disfranchisement, voted for issuing the writ. Well, Mr. Walter was unseated. The noble Lord again wished to disfranchise. Haying failed to corrupt and enslave the borough he determined to disfranchise it. He would show, also, what had been the conduct of the noble Lord with respect to the petitions. The noble Lord, on a former occasion, had said he was ready to go before a committee and give an account of each of his several election transactions, and the noble Lord had dared him to do the same. He had anticipated the noble Lord, for before a Committee of the House of Lords he had made a clean breast of his sins in this way; he had told them what was the whole amount of the corruption and bribery that he had been engaged in during his life; in fact he had never made any disguise of it. He had purchased a seat from the freemen of Stafford before the Reform Act. He might have bought one from the noble Lord's father, or any other borough monger in those days—he might have bought one from the Government of that time—he had had an offer of a seat on those terms from the Government. He had never had any hypocrisy about the matter; there was no danger—the bribery oath was never put at Stafford. He remembered well, on his second election, that 3l. a head was given for votes; and when one of his men came up to the court house to vote he said openly, "that he had got 3l. and should vote for Gisborne;" he remembered another who declared, "he had his money and would never sell him for 30s." In short he had never had any disguise about it. If the committee should be granted him, it would he open to the noble Lord to ask him any questions he chose, and he should exercise the same privilege with respect to the noble Lord. One question which he should put, if the noble Lord did not answer him at present, was where the money came from to prosecute the petition against him (Mr. Gisborne). However the petition having been presented, he should now proceed to show that there was not the slightest ground for it. 1,801 men had polled for Joseph Sturge in his contest with Mr. Walter, and no suspicion had been raised that any corrupt practices had been resorted to on Mr. Sturge's part. If those 1,801 persons voted for Mr. Sturge without any suspicion of corruption, it was not to be supposed that the 1839 electors who voted for him were actuated by impure motives. and there was no ground for any imputation deducible from that fact. The evidence which had been adduced before the committee in itself proved that there was no foundation for the petitions. It was clear, too, that the petitions had not been presented in consequence of information; but, on the contrary, that they had been presented at random, and he would show the House in what manner an attempt had been made to support them by evidence. A committee, amongst whom were Messrs. Fladgate and Cook, the latter a near relative of Mr. Walter, sat at the George 4th, for seven weeks for the purpose. The people of Nottingham must be very slow of apprehension, for the emissaries of the committee went about, week after week, before any person came to give information, and it was only after it was well dinned into their ears—" If you go to the George 4th, and make a statement which will give grounds for a petition, you shall receive 2l."— it was only after this that persons were found who said to themselves, "We may as well go and make out something." When he first heard of the proceeding he thought these parties were, in some measure, excusable for what he would call their folly, when such men as Messrs. Clarke, Fynmore, and Fladgate, used such means to procure witnesses to state something which they wished to have stated, wholly ferent whether or not the statement were true. It would be seen by the evidence of William Coxon, that he received 4l. before coming to London, and 2l. before going into the witness-box, independent of his expenses to London, and back to Nottingham; and, moreover, that his maintenance in London was paid for, to- gether with an allowance in the way of compensation for loss of time. The witness Albey, before leaving Nottingham, had a sum of 5l. 13s. 6d., together with a coat, waistcoat, and pantaloons. In fact, he had no idea of the extent to which inducements had been held out, until it was discovered by the inquiry before the committee, and he treated the petition against his return with such contempt, that he did not even employ an agent until the Saturday previous to the Monday upon which it was to be heard. They should have known nothing with respect to the clothing which had been issued out to them were it not that Mr. Austen's attention had been attracted to a coatee of New market cut, and he requested the witness to inform him where he had procured it. It was thus by accident, that they arrived at the fact that a great quantity of clothing was placed at the George 4th, with sacks of boots and shoes, to which the witnesses had access, each to fit himself as best suited his person. The hon. Member entered into more details, to show how the petition had been got up. That was the way (he continued) the attempt had been made to back up the petition, and, after all, there was not even the semblance of evidence in support of it. If there had been any evidence, it would have been brought forward, but none could be procured. Messrs. Clarke, Fyumore, and Fladgate, had, on the failure of the first petition, set forth another, in which they admitted the payment of money to the witness, and then attempted to justify it. They stated in the commencement, that—

"In criminal matters, particularly in prosecutions carried on in the name of the Crown, the payment of money for information is openly resorted to."

There could be no doubt that such was the fact, for the safety of society requited that offences should be punished, but there was nothing in such a case analogous to the attempt of purchasing evidence to create a crime. If a dead body were found with marks of violence, it would be clear that an act of murder had been committed; but here were men paid to make a crime which was not itself apparent. He did not suppose that such arguments would come out of the mouths of any person but some pettifogging practitioner, thoroughly imbued with the air of the Old Bailey. The petitioners com- plained, that a gross deception bad been practised upon them. No doubt they expected to hear from the witness-box the same evidence which had been given at the George 4th in Nottingham, and they took their chance that such would have been the case; but if they, experienced and practical men as they were, took for truth, the evidence given at the George 4th, they must have been the most gullible beings in existence. There were seven weeks spent in collecting the in- formation. They should have placed some confidence in it if they considered it to be true; if they thought it false, they might have suspected it; but the fact was, they were aware of the character of the testimony, and they produced the witnesses in the hope that these latter would persist in stating before the committee what they had previously stated at the George 4th. Under these circumstances, Messrs. Clarke, Fynmore, and Fladgate, turned round on their own witnesses and said—

"Your petitioners were greatly surprised, on the trial of the said petitions, at finding that a gross conspiracy had been planned and executed by and amongst certain of the witnessess summoned on the part of the petitioners, and by and amongst other persons, to defeat time ends of justice, and that in con. sequence of such conspiracy the ends of justice were defeated, and the petitions were with-drawn."

It was clear, however, that what the witnesses stated in the witness-box before the committee of the House was true, and that what they stated in Nottingham, at the George the Fourth, was false. Two of the principle witnesses had admitted to certain parties that they had previously concerted the statements which they had made at Nottingham. They had been cross-examined on the point, and that testimony had not been shaken. It had been made abundantly evident that they had arranged between them to give the evidence which had been tendered at the George the Fourth. The whole of the, matter would have been exposed before the committee, had not the petition been given up. There was no redress, then, to be had in the case but by the House assenting. to his motion, and that brought him to; another part of the question, which he wished to submit to the consideration of the House. The hon. Member entered into some details as to the mode of con- ducting the petition against this own return, and concluded by moving that—

"A select committee be appointed to investigate the circumstances detailed in petitions from Nottingham (presented on the 12th 21st, and 27th of June) complaining of proceedings at elections for that place."

said, the hon. Gentleman who has made the present motion talked in the course of his long speech of his unwillingness to vapour across the Table of the House; but he has given no answer to the challenge I threw out to him on a former occasion. As to the hon. Gentleman's professed unwillingness to vapour, those hon. Gentlemen who had thought it worth their while to remain and listen to his speech, would judge how far that profession had been carried out. On the occasion I have referred to, the hon. Gentleman gave me no answer, but in the intervening time he has felt it necessary to pore through the blue-book which was the result of Mr. Roebuck's committee, and has endeavoured to represent my character in as bad a light as possible as far as regarded election proceedings at Nottingham. A more ungenerous and unfair proceeding never occurred on the part of a Member of this House. What is the motion before the House? It is a motion to the effect, that the House should take into consideration certain petitions presented on the 12th, 21st, and 27th of June. How then, could I have expected that the hon. Gentleman intended to carry back his investigation into elections long antecedent, or that one hour out of an hour and a half occupied by his speech, would have been spent in heaping charges on me, whose conduct the hon. Gentleman has chosen to characterize as neither honest nor high minded? It being the hon. Gentleman's intention to make such charges and to characterize my conduct by expressions which I believe were scarcely Parliamentary, but (at all events, I ant glad the hon. Gentleman was not interrupted in the use of them), the courtesy which one hon. Member ordinarily displays towards another under such circumstances ought to have induced him to inform me that he was about to call the attention of the House to the evidence received before Mr. Roebuck's committee, to direct my attention to those points upon which he proposed to assail me, that I might be prepared with at least a refreshed recollection upon the subject. I do not, however, shrink from an investigation of that evi- dence; but I labour tinder the disadvantage of having had no notice of the hon. Gentleman's intention to advert to that evidence. I have, since the commencement of the hon. Gentleman's speech, sent for the evidence taken before Mr. Roebuck's committee, but not having had time to refer to it, I can only speak from recollection; but I can state that anything more unfair than the extracts given from that evidence I never heard. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my evidence, and to the evidence of Mr. Rawson and Mr. Hannay, and has endeavoured to link together different statements without reference to dates or circumstances, so as to form one charge. In replying to the hon. Gentleman's observations, I must say, in the first place, that if I had had the slightest idea that the hon. Gentleman was about to make this attack on me, I should have requested some Member of Mr. Roebuck's committee to attend in his place, in order to make known to the House, by his testimony, what was the impression on the minds of that committee with respect to my proceedings. If the hon. Member for Bath were now present, I would appeal to him on the subject, and ask him what was his view of the case before and after his investigation. That hon. Member had been informed that I had been mixed up with transactions in Nottingham, reflecting most seriously on my character, and as the hon. Member is not now present I will only read from the evidence the first few questions the hon. Member put to me, and the answers I gave; and I wish the House to notice that these questions could have had no relevancy before the Compromise Committee unless some such impression as I have described existed in the mind of the hon. Member for Bath. The questions and answers to which I allude are these:—

"Your Lordship represents one of the divisions of the county? I do. You are a deputy-lieutenant of the county I am. And in the commission of the peace?—Yes: I think your Lordship has acted as a magistrate of the county?—1 have. And you are an officer in the Yeomanry corps there? I am. Did you take any active part in behalf of either of the candidates at the Nottingham election in April, 1841? I was not present at the election in April 1841."

I repeat that these questions could have had no relevancy unless it was expected that a case would be made out against me proving me to be unworthy of the position I held in the county. The hon. Member for Bath had been misinformed as to the part I took — misinformed by the same party, probably, as that which has instructed the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. [Mr. Gisborne: "No."] When the hon. Gentleman inquired of me what concern I had in the petition against his return, I replied that I had been asked by certain electors of Nottingham if I would advise them to present a petition against him; and the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to prove that it was impossible for meat that time to have data on which to give an opinion. He has stated that the polling took place on a Thursday, and that a petition was presented on the Tuesday, and that it was impossible that I could have heard the result of the election until the Friday or Saturday after the polling. Now I, and almost every hon. Member in the House, heard the result of the election on the Thursday night, and in the course of Friday I was asked whether I would recommend a petition. I inquired what grounds there were for a petition, and I was told by the parties that they had the means of proving that in the afternoon of the day of polling the return of the hon. Gentleman opposite was obtained by gross bribery and mal-practices. They stated to me facts which, with my experience of Nottingham elections, and knowing the state of the poll at various hours, made me have no hesitation in avowing my conviction that the hon. Gentleman's return was produced by the means represented. These statements having been made to me, I did advise that a petition should be presented; but so far from its being true that I sent down the draught—[Mr. Gisborne: I did not say so.] I took particular notice of the hon. Gentleman's words, but if he did not mean to say so, I am ready to accept his explanation. [Mr. Gisborne: I said your agents sent it.] The hon. Member stated, that the draught of the petition had been sent down, and that Mr. Rawson had announced at a public dinner that such a petition was to be presented. Now, I had nothing to do with the draught of the petition. I simply gave my advice when asked for it, and by whom the draught was drawn up I know not. It could not have been sent down by any agent, because it was impossible there could be an agent before a petition was agreed on. The petitions were afterwards sent up in the usual form, and were presented on the day when the hon. Gentleman took his seat, and I am quite ready to admit, that it must have been a great disappointment to the hon. Member to find the extreme readiness which existed to petition against his return. I trust, however, that the committee moved for by the hon. Gentleman will be granted, and I shall then be able satisfactorily to prove all I have asserted. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that I sent down Mr. Fladgate, whom he said I had on a former occasion characterized as a good getter-up of a case. I did use that expression, and I give the hon. Gentleman all the advantage which it is possible for misconstruction to derive from any use of those words. He has characterized Messrs. Clarke, Fladgate, and Fynmore, as my agents; but if he had read the volume from which he had quoted so copiously with that case, and impartiality which he has affected, he would have seen that I was asked whether they were my agents or solicitors, or my father's, and that I replied in the negative; and on being asked why I recommended them, that I said, that having been appealed to, to recommend a solicitor to conduct the case, and having on inquiry found that Messrs. Clarke and Fladgate were acquainted with election proceedings, I recommended their employment. Until that, I never saw Messrs. Clarke, Fynmore, and Fladgate in my life. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, in his usual rhetorical manner, that I presented this helter-skelter petition, charging every thing. I do not know, what the hon. Gentleman means. I simply advised, that the hon. Gentleman, having been seated by bribery, an endeavour should be made to unseat him; and how my conduct in so advising can be characterized as neither honest nor high-minded I know not. As for the hon. Gentleman's assertion, that it was unworthy of one hon. Member to prosecute another. I told the hon. Member what concern I had in the matter, and he ought to have hesitated before using such expressions. Being anxious for the fair representation of Nottingham, and being intimately connected with that town, I advised a petition to be presented against the hon. Member, when I thought the facts warranted such a petition; and the hon. Gentleman himself, having no intimate connexion with Leicester, has always been considered to have taken an active part in presenting a petition against the return of two hon. friends of mine. [Mr. Gisborne: I was asked to make a motion in this House, and I did so—nothing more.] I am quite willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. The hon. Member proceeded to ransack the blue book (containing the evidence given before the Compromise Committee), and endeavoured to prove that I was concerned in all the bribery and nefarious transactions which have disgraced the town of Nottingham. Now, as far as the House is ready to accept a positive denial, I am ready to give one to this statement, on my honour as a private gentleman. I wish the hon. Gentleman had given me an opportunity, AS he ought to have done, of meeting his charges. It is exceedingly difficult to bring forward negative proofs to rebut the charges of the hon. Gentleman: a positive denial I have given to them; but I would have endeavoured to do something more if I had had an opportunity. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the proceedings on the morning of the poll at the general election, and has endeavoured to prove that my advice was given to prosecute the election at that time. The expressions of the hon. Gentleman were, that "I was a party consenting to the bribery which took place, and that I urged that the election should be carried on, and not abandoned, and that it was given up contrary to my wishes—that I stated, that the election could not be carried without more money, and that more money should be spent." This I deny, and the blue book will bear out my denial. I was present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. The discussion was going on when I entered the room, and my opinion was asked. I was utterly at a loss to conceive the reason why the election should be abandoned, having understood on the previous evening that there would be a majority of 300 or 400 votes for Mr. Walter; and, under these circumstances, I urged that the election should not be abandoned; but I did not urge that money should be spent. I did not urge that a single farthing should be spent; on the contrary, over and over again, long before Mr. Walter ever dreamt of going to Nottingham—nay, eight, nine, or ten years ago, I urged the party in Nottingham to fight, as it was locally Called, the purity battle, and I so urged them in the hope to regain the character of the town; not only then, but also on this very occasion to which I am now adverting, I gave the advice to proceed with the election, in utter ignorance of the fact that the electors had been outbribed in the course of the night by Sir John Hobhouse and Sir George Larpent; but when it was explained to me, that under the circumstances I have mentioned the majority of 300 in favour of Mr. Walter had been turned into as large a majority on the other side, I certainly did give the advice, that a few votes should be polled in order to lay the ground for a petition. It, however, is not true that I gave advice that such a petition should be presented as would prevent recrimination. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to apply those extracts which he had read from Mr. Raw son's evidence as having relation to circumstances which had taken place in my presence. All I can say is, that if such an object was professed, it was not suggested by any advice on my part; and, again, I must complain of the very unfair manner in which the hon. Gentleman has throughout endeavoured to apply the deuce of others to me. The hon. Gentleman next referred in the course of his speech to the exceedingly pretty simile of a barometer, a weather-glass; and had drawn a comparison between my conduct and the variations of the barometer. The hon. Gentleman stated, that at one time I was anxious to disfranchise the town of Nottingham, and at another time to seat a Conservative Member. I admit, that I was anxious for the success of the Conservative party, and I will not deny, that I subsequently wished that the town should be disfranchised, and for this reason—because corruption had laid such inveterate hold of it, that I thought nothing but disfranchisement could effect a cure, and whether that disfranchisement were effected by the Legislature, or by each party in the borough returning one Member would be immaterial. The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but with regard to parties in this House, which are much more interested in the matter than the people of Nottingham, the election of a Member of each party would be the same as disfranchisement. Nottingham is not much interested in the question, for, as regards the local interests of Nottingham, I defy the hon. Gentleman, however many years he may continue to represent that town, to pay greater attention to those interests than I, as Member for the county, have invariably done; and I ask —nay, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to appeal to those very gentlemen who, at the, dinner given to him, so grossly and so foully maligned me and my proceedings, whether in my transactions with the local concerns of the town I have not shown the same attention to the friends and supporters of the hon. Gentleman as I have exhibited towards my own friends. The hon. Gentleman, then, in one of those flights of invective in which, throughout his speech, he so much indulged, said, that as I had failed to enslave and corrupt the borough, I ventured upon a second attempt to disfranchise it. This also I totally and entirely deny. I did not male any second attempt to disfranchise the town of Nottingham, and as to the charge of an attempt to enslave or corrupt it, I throw back the imputation upon the hon. Gentleman with scorn. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for such a charge. No act of mine can justify such language. The hon. Gentleman has not proved the charge. I defy him to prove it. As to any attempt to enslave the borough, I know not what it means — an attempt to corrupt it is a charge that is plain enough, and easy to comprehend; but this I will say, that whatever the hon. Gentleman may have done, I deny that I have made any at. tempt whatever to corrupt it; on the contrary, I have used every exertion to prevent its corruption. The hon. Gentleman said, it was not for me to attempt to disfranchise the town, for, continued the hon. Gentleman, "there arc no hands more impure than those of the noble Lord." Here, again, it is useless for me to ransack the hon. Gentleman's vocabulary of invective; the assertion can only be met by the most positive denial on my part, and by my reminding the House that the hon. Gentleman has wholly failed to prove any case against me, notwithstanding his laborious research through the pages of the blue book of Mr. Roebuck's committee. But the hon. Gentleman then Went on to state, that I returned to the attempt to disfranchise the town. My reply is, that I did no such thing. Before proceeding further, let me observe, that it has been stated in Nottingham, that the hon. Gentleman's advice had been asked as to the petition against Mr. Walter, and at the same time it was remarked that the hon. Gentleman had done himself great honour, by the advice he had given, and that the electors were greatly indebted to him for his services. This I understand the hon. Gentleman to admit. Now, what is the grave imputation the hon. Gentle. man makes against me? It is this—that I, a Member of this House, had recommended a petition against his return, and had rendered assistance in the furtherance of that object. Be it so. The hon Gentleman has himself done the same thing, and is he to claim all the virtue and excellence of such service to himself? What is the difference, I beg to ask, between the giving advice before the presentation of a petition and the giving advice as to its being carried on? But I challenge the hon. Gentleman to state, whether he was not as much surprised with the result of the petition as I was when I came down to the House, and when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beverley brought up the report of the committee. I knew the transactions which had taken place at previous elections, and, having heard the report of the committee announced to the House, I thought there must have been very different evidence adduced before the committee than I had heard out of doors or read of in the abstracts published in the newspapers, and therefore I did say, that time ought to be given to investigate the whole of the evidence before a new writ should be issued; but when the evidence was printed and an opportunity had been afforded for considering it, I took the earliest opportunity of saving that there was not ground for any further proceedings, and, therefore, that the new writ ought to issue. If, then, the course I pursued on that occasion is alleged as an attempt to disfranchise, I say the charge is unfounded. I do not admit the charge at all —neither will I deny, that I told the Compromise Committee that my object on the former occasion was to disfranchise the town. I did so because I thought the greatest boon would be conferred upon the town if I succeeded. I am perfectly aware that many may differ from me; but having seen the demoralization of the town, the failure of its trade, and the misery of its inhabitants consequent upon the system of its elections, I am firmly convinced, that I am right in my opinion. The hon. Gentleman seemed to complain of the very cruel injury which I had done his unsullied character by the introduction of the petitions to this House, and yet almost in the same breath in which he resented the imputations on his virtue which the petition against his return contained, the hon. Gentleman announced to us that he had twice purchased a seat for the borough of Stafford. [Mr. Gishorne: No; once.] Well, once. The hon. Gentleman not only avowed that, but he also subsequently avowed, that he had afterwards endeavoured to betray the constituents he had so bought; and this the hon. Gentleman had publicly announced. The hon. Gentleman first justified the purchase of his seat for Stafford, and then, with that spirit of animosity which he had exhibited against me on account of the expense he was put to in defending his seat for Nottingham, he proceeded to say he defended the course he had taken, because he thought it a much less crime than purchasing a borough from any boroughmonger; and the hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he might have purchased a seat from my father. [Mr. Gisborne: No, I did not.] I took down the hon. Gentleman's words. I appeal to the House, and I defy contradiction; I assert positively that the hon. Gentleman used the words, "I might have purchased a seat from the noble Lord's father." Now, I tell the hon. Gentleman that he might not have purchased a seat from my noble father, and I will tell him why. My father never sold a seat in Parliament in his life. My father certainly inherited property in two boroughs, and during the time they were in his possession he invariably, under the form of the then constitution, did return four Members to the House; but, instead of receiving money for the seats, he himself spent such money as was necessary for the expenses of returning those Members. I think hon. Members may, from this single parenthetical statement, form an opinion of the spirit in which the whole attack has been made by the hon. Gentleman upon me. I have no hesitation in giving to this assertion of the hon. Gentleman's the most direct contradiction. I give the same positive contradiction to the charges derogatory to my character which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward. If the House shall please—as I trust it will—to grant the committee sought for by the hon. Gentleman, I shall be ready to enter into a further investigation and to give any explanation that may be called for. I will not trouble the House with any further observations upon the part of the case to which the hon. Gentleman devoted so much time, especially in his attack upon me. I regret that he has done so, because I do feel that it is irksome for any Member, however attacked, to occupy the time of the House on matters personal to himself, and still more so to one who, like myself, so seldom addresses the House, and who has now been called upon to listen to an attack of an hour and a half's duration, and to reply to a series of criminatory topics. I will only add that if I have omitted any points upon which I have been assailed, I hope the House particularly under the circumstance of that attack being unexpected, will not think that I desire to shrink from any defence here, or investigation elsewhere. Dismissing, therefore, that part of the case, I now proceed to that which forms the groundwork of the motion of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice, and which I thought would alone have occupied the attention of the House. With all his ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman will hardly attempt to mix me up in those charges, unfounded, as I believe they are, and as I hope to be able to show, except so far as he has done by representing that all the evils which have arisen were justly chargeable upon me, because I advised the presentation of the petition. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the people of the town of Nottingham were justly indignant when they heard the petitions had been presented. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the petitioners as weak and unprincipled men. The hon. Gentleman delights in hard words, which he throws about without much regard to consistency. He attacks three gentlemen (with one only of whom, Mr. Hannay, am I personally acquainted, and that gentle-man, weak as he is represented to be, has proved his strength against the hon. Member, and that may have led him to call that gentleman unprincipled, although he is known to be, and I believe him to be, as honourable a man as any in the town of Nottingham), he attacks, I say, three gentlemen, Mr. Hannay amongst them, as weak and unprincipled, and yet, in another part of his speech, he characterizes Mr. Hannay as a man of the greatest consideration and the highest character. He abuses him at one time, and extols him at another, just as suits his own temporary purpose. But the hon. Gentleman spoke of the indignation which had been aroused by the presentation of the petitions—that anything more frivolous had never been got up—that they had been presented without any serious intention of being prosecuted—and that, though emissaries had been sent out to obtain evidence, it could not be obtained, and the people were quite confident, until they were prosecuted, that the petitions would be abandoned, Why, if that were the cases, did not the hon. Gentleman apply to the committee to have the petitions voted frivolous and vexatious? It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to state that no election committee ever found a petition frivolous and vexatious, for this statement he was obliged to amend, and to say that no such instance had happened under the new law. Let the House and the hon. Gentleman remember, that the new law had been but a very short time in operation. In my recollection there have been cases in which petitions have been voted frivolous and vexatious. The Ipswich case was one instance. At any rate, it would have cost the hon. Gentleman nothing to have asked the committee to find the petition frivolous and vexatious. It is possible that the committee would have considered such an application, but the hon. Gentleman's own counsel, knowing that their case was not defensible —were but too happy that the petitions should be abandoned, and, therefore, gladly accepted the abandonment. [Mr. Gisborne: That I totally and entirely deny.] The hon. Gentleman may deny it if he chooses; but if this committee is granted, as I hope and trust it will be, it will be proved that the hon. Gentleman's counsel jumped at the offer, and were but too happy to have the petitions abandoned and not to ask for their costs. The hon. Gentleman next observed that the petitions had not been grounded on the evidence of Mr. Albey, Mr. Whitehead, and so forth; but that it had been collected in a manner which be deprecated. Now, the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the only course that can be pursued in such cases is, first, to get a general notion as to whether bribery has or has not been practised, and then, when the petition has been presented, to collect evidence to support the allegations of the petition. But the hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state that a commission, as he was pleased to call it, had gone down to Nottingham, consisting of "Mr. Cook, a near relative of Mr. Walter, and of Mr. Fladgate, the agent of the noble Lord opposite." Now, in the first place, Mr. Cook is no relative of Mr. Walter at all; and in the next place, Mr. Fladgate is no agent of mine. When I say, that Mr. Fladgate is no agent of mine, I beg the House to understand that I do not mean by disavowing him as an agent to cast any imputation on his character. I wish not to be understood by the disavowal as conveying anything at all derogatory to the characters either of Mr. Fladgate or of Mr. Cook; on the contrary, I firmly believe that neither of them has done anything either discreditable, illegal, or unbecoming the character of gentlemen. The hon. Gentleman next arrived at that part of his case, to which I had expected he would have exclusively confined himself—namely the payment of certain voters for the purpose of procuring evidence. Of course, upon this point I am only able to give a contradiction as I am informed by others; but I am constrained to believe that no money was given to procure evidence at all. True, money was given to witnesses, but how given? Why, exclusively, as I am informed, for the loss of time whilst attending to give their testimony. I believe that no witness had more than 5s. per day, and that none received more than 1l. in all. I am instructed to deny—and I firmly believe the denial—that any money was given either for the purpose of a reward for previous perjury, or as an inducement to a witness to state any fact. I am further told, that so far from this being carried to any extent, that the whole sum that was paid to 100 witnesses for their loss of time in giving evidence did not amount to 60l. I think that one fact alone would be conclusive as to the charge brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to a statement made by one of the witnesses, that he was promised 101. if he would make a good statement, and 20l. or 30l. if he would make a very good statement. The hon. Gentleman would have acted more fairly, when stating this part of the case, if he had stated also that it was most positively denied by all concerned. I do not believe, that the statement was ever made to this man at all; but, if it was made, it must have been made by some parties who were not employed to obtain evidence, and was unauthorised. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his firm conviction that the evidence given by these witnesses in London was perfectly true, and that which they gave at Nottingham was false. Now, I can only put my conviction against that of the hon. Gentleman. My conviction is, that the evidence given at Nottingham was true, and that that given in London was utterly false. I am much inclined to think that a very different interpretation may be put upon these conflicting statements from that put by the hon. Gentleman, Is the hon. Gentliman prepared to state that none of these witnesses were tampered with either in Nottingham, or in London, by his friends? Is he prepared to state that none of his friends offered to give them larger sums than they were promised, if they would give false evidence in London? Is he enabled to state that none of his friends were employed to deter these witnesses from coming forward, and that a system of intimidation was not pursued, to prevent their coming forward at all—whether they were not threatened with loss of employment, and whether Newgate was not held out to them for giving testimony of their own misdeeds, and personal violence threatened? As to this statement about the sackful of clothes, certainly, I for one do not justify that gift. I am told that none of the agents of the petitioners were concerned in this at all; but that a zealous Conservative friend did give clothes to some of the witnesses, many of them being in the lowest condition of life, even in rags, and not, as this zealous friend thought, in a state fitting to appear before a committee of the House of Commons. I certainly think it would have been much better that they should have appeared in their usual garb. But I am told, that the exact amount for all these clothes, given to sixty-five witnesses, amounted only to 13l. 15s. 8d. Now, I hope, I have gone through the statements of the hon. Gentleman, and the main facts of the case. I was anxious, if possible, to have seconded the motion of the hone Gentleman, I could not, of course, make up my mind until I knew the exact form in which he would put his motion; and following up his conduct with respect to his attack on myself, he did not, as is the usual practice, put on the books the exact terms of his motion, But, if now I move an amendment, it is simply to extend the inquiry a little further. I can only say, in conclusion, that I am anxious for this inquiry on account of the gentlemen who have been attacked by the hon. Member; and I am additionally anxious for it, now that the hon. Member endeavours to mix me up in transactions derogatory to my character. I am most anxious for the investigation; and I only trust that those who have courted and braved this inquiry, may pass through the ordeal with as little to reflect on their character through the whole of the transactions, as I am perfectly convinced will he the case, not only with myself, but with those whom the hon. Member has attacked. I beg to move as an amendment:—

"That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the transactions connected with the late elections for the borough of Nottingham, and with the petition presented in consequence of the returns for the borough of Nottingham."

as he had had the honour of being the chairman of the Nottingham committee out of the proceedings of which part of these transactions had arisen, thought it due to the committee to make a few observations, because in one of the petitions the conduct of that committee had been impugned. And although the noble Lord did not impugn the conduct of that committee, he yet spoke of the statement contained in that petition, which if true, reflected on the committee. The noble Lord seemed to hint, that the committee ought to have made up a report which would have induced the House to ascertain whether these witnesses had been tampered with or not. With regard to the question whether these witnesses had committed a gross fraud on the petitioners, he had not the slightest doubt in the world that they did commit a fraud on the petitioners, they stated so distinctly in the evidence; but it was no part of the concern of the committee to attempt to ascertain this. It was utterly impossible that the committee or the House could in any way punish them for the fraud on the petitioners. No doubt, if the committee had been of opinion that the witnesses had committed perjury before them, it would have been their duty to report their conduct to the House. He would only say that the thought of the witnesses having committed perjury had not crossed the minds of any of the committee. The witnesses stated distinctly that they went before the Gentlemen who sat at the George the Fourth for the purpose of telling a lie; they stated that they communicated together beforehand, for the purpose of concerting a lie, and they told their friends that they had done so. God forbid that he should palliate or excuse such a proceeding. The question before the committee was, whether the witnesses had perjured themselves before the committee? His conviction was, and he was sure that be spoke the opinion of the committee generally that the witnesses had not perjured themselves before the committee but had told the truth; and all the cross-examinations to which they were subjected did not in the least degree tend to shake the belief of the committee as to the truth of what they stated. An attempt was made to shew that the witnesses had been tampered with. What the fact might be it was not for him to say; but the attempt to show that they had been tampered with had entirely failed. It was suggested in two or three instances that they had had consultations with the agents of the opposing party. So far as the examinations went, the proof of this had entirely failed; so far, therefore, as the allegations in the petition went, that either the committee did not perform its duty in not bringing the witnesses before the House for having committed perjury, or for not making a statement of the witnesses having been tampered with, there was no evidence to induce any Member of the committee to believe that there was any foundation for such a statement. The committee were of opinion, that improper practices had been resorted to at Nottingham for the purpose of obtaining evidence. That was the unanimous opinion of the committee. The committee certainly felt that it would be improper in them to report parties without giving them an opportunity of defending themselves before it. The committee had not the power of calling the parties before it, and as soon as the petition was abandoned, the functions of the committee ceased, and its power of examination ceased, and consequently, the committee did not report its opinion as to any parties whatsoever. He was perfectly ready to say, that no evidence given before the committee necessarily inculpated the agents of the petitioners. It was distinctly in evidence before the committee that sums of money were offered by parties, he did not say with the sanction of the agents, in proportion to the value of the evidence given—that application was made from time to time to the witnesses—that they distinctly stated that they never should have given this evidence but for the inducements held out to them, the committee thought, therefore, that it would best discharge its duty by moving that the evidence be printed, stating its unanimous opinion that circumstances which led to the commission of improper practices had taken place at Nottingham for the purpose of procuring evidence. He was exceedingly glad that this committee was moved for, for if evidence was to be procured in this way it was exceedingly objectionable, and he thought it very right that such an inquiry should be entered into. He would not go into the question whether the petition were frivolous and vexatious; he would not undertake to say that the principle on which costs were withheld was not a good one; whatever opinion he might have upon that question he thought it better to reserve till another opportunity. He only thought it right to state to the House the motives which had influenced the committee, and to show that it was not liable to the imputations made against it in the petition, and which were alluded to by the noble Lord.

and the Earl of Lincoln again severally addressed the House confirming their respective statements.

Sir, I know nothing whatever of this case but what I have heard in the course of this debate. I find that the parties in these transactions appear willing that an inquiry should be instituted into them. But I wish to call the attention of the House to the nature and effect of the precedent they would establish by agreeing to the motion. In the first place, would it be just to those hon. Gentlemen who may have gone through the ordeal of defending their seats, and have succeeded in defending them, that a petition should be presented after an adjudication by a tribunal appointed for the purpose by the House? Will it be right for the House to permit another committee to be appointed, not under the same sanctions, and not possessing the same powers, to inquire again into the matters of an election already decided upon? It is well to remember, that every hon. Gentleman might then be liable, after having by evidence upon oath succeeded in vindicating his seat, to another inquiry. I think it is of importance not to exclude any inquiry into improper proceedings which do not bear upon the tenure of the seat. No one is more anxious than I am for every inquiry; and that in this case the parties themselves are anxious for inquiry is quite clear. I, therefore, can have no other motive than to call the attention of the House to what may be the consequences of establishing such a precedent as this. A petition has been presented and referred to the committee; and that petition specially intreats the House to institute a strict and rigid inquiry by a committee of the House in to the corrupt practices of the last two elections for Nottingham—not the last only, but the preceding. Every Gentleman then may consider to what he is liable, and what security he may have for his seat. Such an inquiry may be called for when he has not the means of disproving the allegations made against him, and that after he may have gone to great expense in defending his seat. I would ask hon. Gentlemen—those who would scorn to hold their seats by bribery— whether through animosity, even after an election petition may have been adjudicated upon, they might not be subjected to great inconvenience by the reception of a second petition, in which the petitioner would declare himself ready to prove bribery? If this House lightly consents to appoint a second committee, hon. Gentlemen, who hold their seats not by bribery, but by the free-will of their constituents, may be subjected to the most harassing annoyances. And observe this—the committee is to collect its evidence at the public charge. There is no limit, of course, to the number of witnesses or to the duration of the proceedings. The public must pay the cost, and there is no check as in cases where private rights are to be determined, where there is a check upon the number of witnesses and vexatious proceedings by the parties being compelled to pay expenses. Such an inquiry might extend over several years, and the public would have to bear the cost. If there were any charge not immediately connected with the subject before the committee of the election, if there were any tampering with witnesses, I for one should be unwilling to exclude inquiry into it. But I do think that there ought to be some consideration of the objects to which this inquiry is likely to lead, that some definition of the time over which the inquiry is to extend ought to be given; and that some information should be afforded to the House as to what are to be the particular subjects of inquiry. If a petition had been presented against the return of the hon. Gentleman after he had established his right to his seat, and that second petition should charge the hon. Gentleman with corrupt practices, and say that the petitioners were ready to establish that which they could not before prove, I never would consent to that second inquiry. I think it would be most unfair to subject the hon. Gentleman to a second ordeal after having passed a first. If we were to put this case on inquiry at the instance of the hon. Gentleman, I do not know how other hon. Gentlemen might be affected. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a little time to consider what is to be referred to the committee, what is the specific object of inquiry? By the adoption of this precedent, however, those who have opposed corrupt practices, and provoked hostility in some boroughs where such practices formerly prevailed by the determined manner in which they set their faces against them, such hon. Gentlemen—the very best Members in the House—may incur the risk of their seats, or, at the least, be subjected to great inconvenience and annoyance. Conceiving it to be a public duty in the position I hold to call the attention of the House to the nature of the precedent this motion would establish, I would, in addition, suggest to the House whether it would be just to adopt a practice which would affect the comfort or interfere with the independence of Members of this House.

said, that supposing the whole of these allegations to be proved, what was the House to do? It was admitted that the petition was got up in that sort of way which his hon. Friend had stated, and that there had been corrupt practices at Nottingham. No doubt there were corrupt practices and gross bribery always, and at all elections at Nottingham. One of these petitions referred to a former petition. But before he referred to that point, he would say, that although some of the hon. Member's expressions were rather strong, yet he was not surprised at the fact, when he considered how really frivolous and vexatious were the objections to his return. It so happened, that he had been at Nottingham at the time of the election, and really from what he could judge, he never saw less evidence of bribery than at that contest. He had said so at the time. He believed that election was one of the purest elections that had ever taken place in Nottingham. He remembered reading it stated as one evidence of bribery, that the sitting Member had absented himself from the poll between eight and nine o'clock, he being at that time in a minority, and the other party sixty or seventy a-head. The tide turned soon after, on which it was said, "Oh! Mr. Gisborne must have been bribing whilst he was away, and that has caused the influx of Liberal voters." That was the inference drawn from the hon. Member's absence; but nothing in point of fact could have been more absurd or erroneous, for the truth was, that Mr. Gisborne came to breakfast with him at his hotel, and during the time they were together, they never saw a single soul except the waiter. That was the fact; and before they had concluded their breakfast a message was sent up to Mr. Gisborne, telling him to come to the hustings, for some of the electors fancied that he was not treating them with sufficient respect. So, on hearing that there was a complaint about it, Mr. Gisborne left his breakfast and went to the poll-booth too. That all these charges should have irritated his hon. Friend he was not at all surprised; nor could he be surprised that he had that night used some rather harsh terms in addressing the noble Lord; for, as he had said before, never was there a petition more truly frivolous and vexatious. The hon. Member had called the attention of the House to the character of the petitions which must be referred to this committee, and particularly to the petition of a Mr. Edward Pillbeam Cox. Looking at all the facts the hon. Member continued and concluded, he must say that he thought it would be better to bury the whole matter in oblivion than to re-excite such an angry contest. The last election, as he said before, had been comparatively pure, and he did hope that before future elections the people of Nottingham would have seen the error of their ways, and would have decided on foregoing all such disgraceful doings. What could be done if the committee were appointed he really did not know, but he did hope that, appointed or not, his hon. Friend would take time to consider what the right hon. Baronet had so wisely suggested.

thought that so long as both the factions in that House supported bribery and corruption in the unfortunate manner in which they now supported and backed it, so long they would encourage repeal in Ireland and Rebecca and her Daughters in Wales.

felt the force of the objection which the right hon. Baronet had taken as to the re-trial of cases already settled. There was, however, one point which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, and which had also been referred to by the committee, not indeed specially, but in bringing up their report, upon which he thought an observation advisable. He referred to the allegations that certain practices had existed in Nottingham with regard to procuring evidence to be adduced before the committee. Now, he did not say whether any improper practices had been carried on or not; but certainly if such practices had been put in execution it was not only a great impropriety and deserving the reprobation of all honest men, but it was a flagrant breach and contempt of the orders and privileges of the House. Whilst, therefore, the House rejected all inquiry into practices at the elections at Nottingham, he did think that this; subject having been brought under their notice by an hon. Member who founded his motion on the report of this committee—he did think that it was not for the House under such circumstances to reject inquiry into the mode of suborning evidence. He would suggest, therefore, that the inquiry should be limited to that part of the transaction, and with that view he would move, that a committee be appointed—

"To inquire whether any witnesses before the Nottingham Election committee had been tampered with in defiance of the privileges of that House, either for the purpose of procuring evidence in support of the petition, or of deterring them from giving evidence in support of it."

The original motion and amendment having been withdrawn, Mr. Baring's motion was put.

then said, that he was sure the hon. Member for Nottingham would feel with him that neither of them was so much involved in this inquiry as the mutual friends of each. He would therefore suggest to the hon. Member that this discussion should stand over until Monday, and in the mean time they might both consult their friends as to how far a committee thus appointed would meet their respective views.

was sorry to differ from the noble Lord, but he really hoped the House would judge for itself. Decidedly they ought not to waive the exercise of their functions in order to satisfy any private individuals. For his own part he really saw no ground for this inquiry. He saw the hon. Member in possession of his seat—he saw him confirmed in it by the decision of a committee—he had heard the chairman of that committee say that no perjury had been committed by the witnesses, and he really could not see the utility of appointing a committee to satisfy gentlemen out of doors—private friends of hon. Members— for whose convenience they were farther asked to forego the discharge of their duty until another day. He must say, that he did not think they would be taking a right course by doing anything of the sort. As he bad said before, he knew nothing about the facts, but it was evident that a salutary lesson had been read to the electors of Nottingham; and it was also clear, from the admission of both parties, that there had been much less bribery at the last election for that borough. He admitted that he thought the hon. Gentleman's motion an improvement; but was there any matter before them sufficiently distinct for the appointment of a committee? He freely owned that in his own opinion it would be better not to institute an inquiry at all. He thought there were not sufficient grounds for it; but at the same time, if there was to be a committee, he thought that now moved for would be the better.

said, he had been present during, the whole debate, and after hearing the charge upon one side, and the explanation from the other, he could not but ask what Parliamentary grounds there were for this inquiry? He would advise the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, after their statement and vindication, to let the matter rest where it was.

in pursuance of notice, rose to move a resolution against the continuance of the Parliamentary allowance to the King of Hanover. He did not intend in any way to arraign the character of the illustrious person whose case he now brought under the attention of the House. It was impossible, however, to disguise the fact, that there were so many Members in this House connected with the aristocracy, that it was difficult to expect an expression of feeling against a person in the position occupied by his royal Highness. The only important point of objection which he had heard against the discontinuance of the allowance to his royal Highness was, that it would be a breach of public faith. If he could think so, there was no one who would more strenuously oppose such a proceeding than himself. On the contrary, he believed that the motion he was about to make would be in strict consistency with, and fulfilment of the intention of the Legislature, which originally granted this allowance; and, consequently, that all who opposed the motion which he was about to make, would be acting in direct opposition to the intentions of that Parliament. The hon. Member referred to the terms of the vote upon the message of the Crown in 1778, when 60,000l. a-year was voted for the support of the King's six sons, with benefit of survivorship, which resulted in an income of 15,000l. a-year to his royal Highness, and to the grant, in 1806, of 6,000l. additional to his royal Highness. He had said on a former occasion, what he now repeated, that he was of the opinion of Mr. Fox upon subjects of this kind. Upon the 9th of May, 1777, when some royal grants were under discussion, Mr. Fox said—

"It had been always the policy of this country to make a suitable provision for the different branches of the royal family; it rendered them independent of Ministers, and bound them by interest and sentiment to preserve that constitution under which they enjoyed such preeminent and solid advantages."

He held, that Mr. Fox had never contemplated that the Parliament of that day had never contemplated that money should be granted to princes of the royal family when they became sovereigns of foreign countries. He held, that these grants were given to them as Members of the British royal family, sitting in the House of Lords; and when they ceased to be dependent upon the country, the grants should be discontinued. From the moment that the Duke of Cumberland became the King of Hanover, he should not have received one farthing of his pension. The question simply was, whether an annuity might not be granted for the performance of certain duties and purposes, and whether, if these should cease to be performed and accomplished, the annuity should not be discontinued also. He had seen the Duke of Cumberland leave the country with great pleasure, and had seen his return with great regret. When a pension of 3,000l. was the other night granted to the Princess Augusta, what had been the answer to his representations against it? Why it was, that the Duke of Cambridge, her father, was a good man —that he attended charity dinners—that he was a popular character. Well, then, if it was fit and proper that they should vote money to a popular man, was it not, by the same rule, fit and proper that they should withhold a vote of money to an unpopular man. He firmly and conscientiously opposed this grant, and he now asked the House to agree to certain resolutions upon the subject. There had been peculiar objections found to the form in which his two previous motions upon this subject had been couched. Nothing of the kind could be urged against the present proposition. The first two resolutions were merely expressive of facts. They were, first―

"That it appears that Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, received for many years under the sanction of acts of the British Parliament, a pension of 21,000l. sterling from the British Exchequer, for his maintenance and support as a prince of the royal family of England; that, in the year 1837, on the death of William 4th, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, succeeded to the throne of Hanover, and became an independent sovereign, and a member of the German confederation."

And secondly,

"That he has been King of Hanover since 1837, and has received annually since that period the sum of 21,000l. sterling from the taxes of the United Kingdom."

Then the resolution which he proposed to found on these facts, and to which he asked the assent of the House was—

"That the payment of a pension to an independent foreign sovereign from the taxes of the United Kingdom is a waste of public money, and unjust to the people of England; and, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the pension of 21,000l. having been granted by Parliament to Ernest Augustus for his maintenance whilst Duke of Cumberland, ought to be discontinued whilst he continues King of Hanover."

If the House should affirm these resolutions, he would ask for leave to bring in a bill founded upon them. Let him not be misunderstood, however. If the King of Hanover should be from any cause deprived of the Crown and revenues of that kingdom, he should have no objection to vote money for his maintenance at home. Would any one deny, that the King of Hanover was an independent sovereign, and was it consistent with justice that an independent sovereign should receive a large annual sum paid by the taxes of the people of this country? Besides, they should not pay from the Exchequer money to any sovereign, because it might enable him to act contrary to the wishes of the people over whom he was placed; and one of the great principles of sovereignty should be to make the sovereign as much as possible dependent upon the will of the people. He wished he could say, that the money which the King of Hanover had received had been well employed. He believed the reverse had been the case. But this he would say, that he did think that it was improper that this country should pay money to a sovereign, who, by his connection with the German Confederation, might become engaged in war, and aid any enemy we might have upon the Continent. If the King of Hanover were not connected with a certain political party in this country, he would not receive the support which was now offered him. It was the Ministers of the Crown who ought to bring forward a motion of this kind, as being the guardians of the public purse. He had received that day a copy of a resolution agreed to at a meeting of artizans and tradesmen, held to consider the subject, to the effect, that the amount paid to the King of Hanover yearly would support 1,050 poor families, and should be devoted to some such purpose, rather than be sent out of the country. That was the way, he could assure the House, in which the matter was considered out of doors, and that was one of the grounds on which they should not commit themselves to the continuance of the pension. He had hoped that the King of Hanover, seeing the little support which he received in his claim from the general feelings of the country, would have given up his allowance. He had hoped that some such generous feeling as that which had actuated the King of the Belgians would produce a similar effect upon the King of Hanover. The claim of the former, too, rested upon unimpeachable grounds; very different was the claim of the latter. Here was a contrast to be drawn between the two Sovereigns; but as he saw the King of Hanover reconciling himself daily to many matters which would have given him much pain so to put up with, he could not be much surprised with his proceedings in the particular case under consideration. Now, was there anything in the King of Hanover's conduct to entitle him to this pension? If any other man had done what the Duke of Cumberland had done, he would have been arraigned for high treason. He himself had accused the Duke of Cumberland of having grossly violated military law. He had so far forgotten his duty to his Sovereign and his country, at the time when he held a Field-marshal's rank, as to take part, against the express orders of the Commander-in-chief, in promoting in the army societies calculated to give rise to disorder and disobedience. On the 4th of August, 1835, he had proposed certain resolutions to the House, which were agreed to. The hon. Member quoted some of them, for which see Hansard, vol. 30, third series, p. 58, and following pages. The last of the resolutions which he (Mr. Hume) had proposed upon the subject, was—

"That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange lodges in his Majesty's army, in contravention of the general orders of the Commander-in-chief of his Majesty's Forces, issued in the years 1822 and 1829, which strongly reprobate and forbid the holding Orange Lodges in any of his Majesty's regiments; and also, to the circumstance of his Royal Highness Ernest Duke of Cumberland, a field-marshal in his Majesty's army, having signed warrants, in his capacity of Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Deland (some of them dated so recently as April in the present year), which warrants have been afterwards issued for constituting Orange Lodges in the army.

The House should observe that he bad not shrunk upon former occasions from bringing the conduct of the Duke of Cumberland before it. His resolutions were agreed to, and an address presented to his Majesty stating the circumstances. That address was carried up, and a message was returned to the following effect,—

"I have received your dutiful address, submitting to me certain resolutions on the subject of Orange Lodges in the army, My attention has been, and shall continue to he directed to practices contrary to the regulations and injurious to the discipline of my troops. I owe it no less to the dignity of my Crown, than to the safety of the country, and the welfare of my brave and loyal army, to discourage and prevent every attempt to introduce secret societies into its ranks, and you may rely upon my determination to adopt the most effectual means for this purpose."

He contended that these were considerations which ought to be taken into account when the public money was lavished upon the King of Hanover, and he called upon the House to compare the conduct pursued towards the Duke of Cumberland with that observed towards the Dorchester labourers, who were punished for the self same offence of belonging to secret associations — associations which Mr. Justice Wightman, in his charge to the jury, had characterised as most injurious to society. No part of his royal Highness's conduct when Duke of Cumberland, and resident in England, especially in connection with these Orange lodges, could be otherwise than reprobated; I and as Grand Master of those lodges, he had violated not only military but civil law. He contended that, according to the Act of Parliament, the King of Hanover had no claim to the pension, for it had been granted for the maintenance of a Peer of the realm, which he had ceased to be, and had become an independent Sovereign, and a member of the German Confederation, which might any day be leagued against England. On public grounds he objected to the grant to the King of Hanover, for he would not even take into the argument the amount of distress that existed in the country, although, on that account, it ought to be a consideration with the King, whether he should take money from the people. On public grounds, then, he thought he had a right to call upon the House to support the motion, which he begged to place in the Speaker's hands. It was as follows:—

"To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" it appears that Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, received for many years, under the sanction of Acts of the British Parliament, a pension of 21,000l. sterling from the British Exchequer for his maintenance and support as a Prince of the Royal Family of England; that in the year 1837, on the death of William the Fourth, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, succeeded to the throne of Hanover, and became an independent Sovereign, and a member of the German Confederation:—That he has been King of Hanover since 1837, and has received annually during that period the sum of 21,000l. sterling from the taxes of the United Kingdom:

"That the payment of a pension to an independent foreign Sovereign from the taxes of the United Kingdom is a waste of public money, and unjust to the people of England; and, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the pension of 21,000l. having been granted by Parliament to Ernest Augustus for his maintenance whilst Duke of Cumberland, ought to be discontinued whilst he continues King of Hanover."

said, if the Government had any regard to the feelings of the country, they would support the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. When the King of Hanover resided in this country, and before he ascended the throne of an independent state, the people had not grudged him the means of maintaining his rank and station; but, having ceased to stand in the same relation to this country. he ought no longer to be a pensioner upon the people. The King of Hanover was, he believed, a despotic sovereign; for he had destroyed the constitution he found in his dominions, and he had the means of exacting as much money as he pleased from his own subjects. No just and honest dealing man could stand up in that House and justify the payment to the King of Hanover out of the taxes laid upon the people of this country, He knew the motion would be rejected, because the House of Commons did not represent the feelings and wishes of the people—if it did, they would not dare to insult the people by the continuance of this impost.

said, he would state shortly the grounds upon which, on the part of her Majesty's Government, he felt it impossible to consent to the proposal of the hon. Member, and those grounds were briefly that he considered it would be inconsistent with the good faith of Parliament to withhold that pension or allowance which Parliament had granted, and to the continuance of which he thought he should show to the House, the faith of Parliament was pledged. The hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of his speech, had taken credit to himself for having on former occasions, when he brought this question under the consideration of the House, studiously avoided all reference to personal and party feelings; and he must express his sorrow that the hon. Member should, on the present occasion, have been betrayed into a departure from the salutary rule he had before observed. He thought it would have been infinitely better had the hon. Gentleman adhered to his own principle, for he did not think the hon. Member had acted quite fairly when he introduced the transactions connected with Orange lodges into such a debate. Parliament had taken notice of what had passed with regard to those lodges, and he thought they had a fair right to consider that it was the opinion of Parliament that the transaction was closed. But subsequently to the particular vote to which the hon. Member had alluded, the attention of Parliament was in the following year called to the subject of Orange lodges, and an address was carried with the almost unanimous consent of the House, praying the Crown to exercise all its influence for the purpose of suppressing them whether in the army or any other institution. The resolutions to which the hon. Member had this night referred, were passed in 1835, and the subject was brought generally under the consideration of the House in 1836, and a motion was made on an amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, as the organ of the Government; and that noble Lord did not give his vote on that occasion more cordially than he did, being then in opposition. An address was passed by this House, if not with an unanimous consent, yet with a predominance of opinion, and presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to take measures for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a different religious faith, and using signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches. On both sides of the House that resolution was concurred in, it being the general understanding that every effort should be made to discountenance and discourage Orange lodges. He might refer to hon. Gentlemen on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, whether at that time there were not a sincere desire to put an end to Orange lodges. Now observe what was done upon that. The noble Lord, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lord J. Russell), felt it his duty to communicate to the Duke of Cumberland the resolution of the House and the address founded upon that resolution, and also the answer which his Majesty returned to that address. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Henry Maxwell having announced that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland had taken steps to put an end to Orange societies, Lord J. Russell said that he was sincerely glad at the course which his Royal Highness' had taken. It was a course in perfect accordance with his Royal Highness's sense of duty, and he hoped that the House would think that he had only done his duty in transmitting to his Royal Highness a copy of the resolution of the House, and also of the answer of his Majesty to the address founded upon that resolution. To that communication his Lordship received the following reply:—

"St. James's Palace, Feb. 26, 1836.

"My Lord—I have received your Lordship's letter with the enclosed printed copies of the resolutions of the House of Commons containing an address on the subject of Orange lodges, and other similar societies, together with his Majesty's most gracious answer. Before I had received your Lordship's communication, I had already taken steps, in conjunction with several official and distinguished members of the Loyal Orange Institution in Ireland, to recommend its immediate dissolution, in conformity with the loyal principles of that institution. I have only to add, I shall take immediate steps to dissolve the Loyal Orange institution in Great Britain.—I have the honour to be, yours sincerely,

"ERNEST

"To the Right Hon. Lord J. Russell."

Considering the notice which the House of Commons took of this subject, considering the intimation conveyed by the answer from the Crown, and by the communication to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, through the noble Lord, in 1836; and, considering the manner in which that communication was received by his Royal Highness, and his declaration, that in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, he had taken steps for dissolving all connexion with Orange lodges, he did think it was not necessary, nor was it quite fair for the hon. Member for Montrose to make allusions on this occasion to what had passed with respect to Orange lodges. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly cognizant of these facts, when, in 1838, he brought forward this question of the allowance to the king of Hanover; and he was perfectly cognizant of them also in the year 1840; and yet his own good sense and good taste dictated to him at those times to abstain from topics which he had unfortunately introduced to-night. He knew of no one single reason why the hon. Member should now have departed from his former course. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he was challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so; but the hon. Gentleman must have anticipated the challenge it was quite clear, as his pockets were loaded with documents. However, he (Sir R. Peel) did not rely upon that ground, for his opposition to the motion of the hon. Gentleman. His reliance was upon the fact that the subject of the Orange lodges had been closed by the opinion expressed by the House of Commons, and by the Crown, and by the willing deference paid to that opinion by his Royal Higness the Duke of Cumberland, and very wisely paid. His (Sir R. Peel's) objection to the motion was, that he considered it to be unjust. The King of Hanover received from this country at this time 21,000l. That sum consisted of two annuities— one a sum of 6,000l. and the other a sum of 15,000l. The 6,000l. was granted in 1807 by au Act of Parliament during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. [Mr. Hume: He is no longer Duke of Cumberland.] You call him so. It was an annuity granted during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. The 15,000l. per annum was not granted at the first upon exactly the same terms. That sum until 1831 was payable to his Royal Highness with a distinct understanding and virtual engagement that it should be continued to him during his life, but it did not stand upon exactly the same Parliamentary footing as the 6,000l. annuity did. But in the year 1831 an act was passed which guaranteed to the Duke of Cumberland during his life the remaining sum of 15,000l. a year, thus making the whole sum of 21,000l. an annuity, not merely during the life of the Sovereign, and not chargeable upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, but chargeable upon the consolidated fund during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. In order to remove all possibility of doubt upon the subject, he would refer the House to the eleventh clause of the 1st of William 4th., being the Civil List Act, by which certain annuities to their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Cumberland, Sussex, and Cambridge were charged during their respective lives, upon the consolidated fund. Thus the two annuities in 1831 were placed upon the same footing, and obtained the same Parliamentary guarantee. So far as Parliamentary assurance could be given, it was conferred by the act of 1831. But the hon. Member for Montrose said that these were grants to the Duke of Cumberland as' Duke of Cumberland—whereas there was no longer a Duke of Cumberland, because the Duke of Cumberland was now the King of Hanover. Now he was perfectly certain that in private life the hon. Gentleman never would resort to such a mere quibble as this. Parliament might have foreseen that the Duke of Cumberland would become King of Hanover. It might have been an oversight on the part of Parliament in not making a provision for such a contingency, but Parliament did not make that provision; and what he contended for was, that the Duke of Cumberland had a perfect right to rely upon these grants, since Parliament did not make any exception in the case of the contingency of his Royal Highness becoming King of Hanover. The country was bound by the Acts of Parliament, and the House had no right to avail itself of any supposed oversights of former Parliaments in order to deprive the Duke of Cumberland of these annuities, guaranteed to him by an Act of Parliament. But, observe, in 1831, Parliament must have calculated upon the probability that the Duke of Cumberland might be King of Hanover. It was not a remote contingency. In 1831, when the Parliamentary guarantee was given for the permanence of these annuities, the Duke of Kent was no more; the Duke of York was no more; and the Duke of Cumberland stood next in succession to the throne of Hanover, unless King William should have a son—which was a remote probability. Therefore, when in 1831 Parliament, with a full knowledge of the high probability of the Duke of Cumberland becoming King of Hanover guaranteed these annuities to him for his life, without making any exception in case of such a contingency happening, the inevitable inference must be that these matters were in the contemplation of Parliament at that time. He would put it, then, to the House whether, under these circumstances, it would be consistent with justice for Parliament now to interfere for the purpose of depriving the Duke of Cumberland of these annuities. He thought it was of infinitely more importance that Parliament should maintain its credit by an adherence to a Parliamentary engagement—that it was of much greater consequence that the credit of the Government should be upheld, and the credit of Parliament be kept entire, than that by an act which he must consider would be one of injustice, the mere pecuniary advantage of 21,000l. a year should be saved to the country. The hon. Gentleman had complained of having been deserted by some of his own friends on former occasions. He (Sir Robert Peel) hoped that in the division of to-night, there being a fuller attendance than on any of those former occasions, the hon. Gentleman would find his proposition rejected by a still larger majority. The very fact of Parliament having twice before refused to interfere gave additional force to the rejection of the proposal now. He trusted that the House would reject the proposition riot because they were the political adherents of the Duke of Cumberland, but because they considered the proposition of the hon. Gentleman to be unjust. He hoped the House would not consent to a proposition which was inconsistent with good faith, and if adopted would be derogatory to the dignity of the country.

had voted against a similar motion on a former occasion, and he saw no reason for changing his opinion. He therefore could not do otherwise than oppose the motion. He would repeat what he had observed when that subject was previously before the House,—that it would not only reflect much credit upon. his Royal Highness, but would be conducive to the interest of the country if the King of Hanover followed the example set him by his Majesty the King of the Belgians, and by Lord Camden.

said, that in the several regiments in which Orange lodges were found, the Duke of Cumberland was proved to be perfectly ignorant of their existence. The hon. Member for Montrose had not substantiated a single charge which he had made against the King of Hanover. He should vote against the motion.

said, that having been a member of the Orange lodge committee, he could say that the most extraordinary facts came out before that committee. It might have been better not to have referred to the connexion of the Duke of Cumberland with the Orange lodges of Ireland; but the subject has been introduced already. When that Parliamentary committee was formed, the Duke of Cumberland refused to come before It to give evidence. The committee wished to examine the Duke as to the warrants—the blank warrants which had beet signed, and signed too with views inimical to the sovereign on the throne. He did not mean to say that the Orange lodges had any such intention, but the Duke of Cumberland was summoned to appear before that committee, and refused to attend. The committee had only one object to bring to light—the unconstitutional, the extraordinary, and illegal character of those societies. It was said that the Duke of Cumberland did not know of the proceedings of the Orange lodges. But did he not know that he was signing warrants, which he did, when sitting in the chair in Lord Kenyon's house? He admitted the existence of the statute to which the right hon. Baronet has referred, but the money was given to the Duke of Cumberland as a maintenance, and as he had left the country, he ought to surrender it to the public Exchequer.

said, that as a Member of that House, and as an Englishman, he was not ashamed to say that he respected and honored the King of Hanover. The King of Hanover had long stood up manfully against the taunts and misrepresentations of his enemiestaunts and charges which hon. Members only dared to make behind his back. The King of Hanover had met those charges boldly in the courts of law, and he had left those courts unspotted. And who was the Member who made this attack? A Member of that House who first obtained a seat within its walls by the influence and under the patronage of the King of Hanover, and who afterwards applied to him to use his influence in order to obtain for him a seat for the borough of Weymouth. He thought the hon. Member was the last person in that House who ought to have brought forward such a motion. Why had this attack upon the King of Hanover been made at the present time? Could nut our gracious Sovereign invite her own uncle to visit her? [Cheers from the Opposition.] What! did hon. Members opposite sneer at this? Would they deny to the Sovereign those privileges which even the humblest of her subjects might exercise? Her Majesty had invited her Royal uncle to visit her; and what had been the conduct of the hon. Member for Montrose? He firmly believed that if the hon. Gentleman had brought this subject forward as a substantive motion, every hon. Member would Have quitted the House in a spirit of just indignation. He believed that it' any Englishman—and the King of Hanover was an Englishman had a right to be defended from such an attack as the present, the King of Hanover had that right. The King of Hanover was charged with being an Orangeman; but of what were Orangemen guilty? Of loyalty to their Sovereign? He knew where, if any struggle took place, the Orangemen would be found when they were called upon to do their duty. They would stand by their Sovereign, and would preserve her Majesty upon the throne not only of England but of Ireland. They would not preach sedition, or court unprincipled villains in America and elsewhere,—men who styled O'Connell "President O'Connell." They would uphold the Sovereignty of her Majesty as Queen of Ireland, as well as of Great Britain; and they would not betray their countrymen to such despicable creatures as those to whom he had referred. He would tell the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams), that the working classes of this country did not begrudge the pension to the King of Hanover. Those classes were far more loyal than the individuals who made such strong protestations against the extravagance, as they termed it, of the Government. They knew what it was to have the protection of an act of Parliament, and if an act of Parliament was to be passed one Session and repealed the next, at the bidding of the hon. Members professing the principles of the hon. Member for Coventry, what would be the condition of the working classes? Nothing could restore them to their former position but a return to those loyal and constitutional principles which placed the House of Hanover on the throne of these realms.

was about to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and was desirous of stating that he did not pursue this course from any personal hostility to the King of Hanover. It was always his principle never to attack personally any individual who was exceedingly popular with the great body of those whom he might be addressing; and he observed that the conduct and character of the King of Hanover had secured the very enthusiastic regard of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. He conceived, that the grants made to the members of the Royal Family were not unconditional grants, to be continued during the lives of the recipients, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought j those grants stood upon this footing—that it was necessary for the nation to make honourable provision for the support of the younger branches of the Royal Family. The Crown having given up the hereditary revenues had no means of making such provision; and if they did not wish the character of the monarchy to be degraded by the situation of the younger branches of the Royal Family, it was necessary that the nation should step forward and make provision for their support. He understood that this was the ground on which these grants had always been made. The preamble of the act of 1806 recommended the granting of annuities to the Royal Dukes during pleasure. But what were the circumstances of the case now under consideration? Since the adoption of that act, the Duke of Cumberland — now King of Hanover —had been rendered independent of Parliamentary bounty. Considering the situation of the Royal family, and the inability of the Crown to provide for them from its revenues, the nation stood to the younger branches of that family in loco parentis. But, suppose the father of a family made provision for the support of his younger children, and one of them subsequently came into possession of a valuable estate which rendered him independent, would the parent continue his allowance to a child in such circumstances? On what ground, then, was the continuance of the grant now under consideration supported? Was it to maintain the dignity of the younger branches of the Royal family? He thought it was an unnecessary waste of money to apply it to a purpose for which it was no longer required. He did not wish to say anything offensive with reference to the King of Hanover, but he understood that monarch had exercised to the utmost extent those legal rights which he possessed by virtue of his sovereignty, that he had claimed every particle of plate, and jewellery, and money to which he had any title. Then, if his Majesty had thus acted upon the strict letter of the law, why should not they follow his example? He thought that the House ought not, on any light ground, to continue this grant. It could not be said that it was necessary for maintaining the dignity of the Royal family, or that the faith of Parliament was pledged to its continuance. It was, in fact, giving a sum of money which the people of England would willingly bestow for the honourable provision of the Royal family, to swell the large income of a foreign prince. He must impress on the House that it was not wise to try the patience of the people too far; that they willingly supported the cost of monarchy, because they thought monarchy was, on the whole, the best form of government and worth the cost; but that they would not willingly support profligate expenditure; and if they saw any such expenditure indulged in, they would not meet it with those feelings of confiding acquiescence with which they had been used to come forward on any occasion of a grant to the Royal family.

deprecated the ungenerous feelings which led hon. Members, after two distinct decisions of this question in this House, to bring it forward again, at this particular time, to imbitter, as it would appear, the last days, and perhaps the last visit of the king of Hanover to the country of his birth, to the scenes of his youth, to pay his homage as a Peer of the realm to his sovereign, and to renew intercourse with his family and friends. It has been asked, what father of a family, who had made provision for the support of his younger children, would not withdraw his allowance from one, who should afterwards come into the possession of a valuable and independent estate. He would mention a case in point. When Greece was erected into a monarchy, and Otho selected, from among the royal families of Europe, to ascend that Throne, very considerable allowances, to be provided by the kingdom of Greece, were settled upon him, amounting to 1,000,000 of drachme a year. The king of Bavaria, his father, might have withdrawn from his son the appanage of about 10,000 sterling a year, which he enjoyed as a younger son. But the king and states of Bavaria disdained to do this, and sent Otho to Greece with his appanage untouched. This, he contended, was a case in point; it was a precedent of a kingdom, poorer than this, acting generously towards one of its princes, and it would be to the eternal disgrace of the British Parliament, and the British nation, if we, listening to the suggestions of the hon. Members opposite, make this discreditable saving, by breaking faith with the royal personage, the object of this attack.

said, he would not have risen if it had not been for the great stress which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had laid on the presumption that Parliament, having once given to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland a certain pension, had no right whatever to take it from him. Now when he and other officers of his standing, entered the navy, their widows, if they left widows, were entitled to a certain pension. Since then, it had pleased Parliament to take away that pension from their widows, if they were left a certain sum of money. He maintained that his Royal Highness was exactly in the same situation. One sentence which had fallen from the hon. Member for Knaresborough he was rather surprised to hear. The hon. Member told the House that Ireland was now in the hands of traitors. He had believed, till he heard it from the hon. Member, that Ireland was in the hands of her Majesty's Government.