§ Mr. Eyre ,chairman of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition complaining of an undue election for the borough of Guildford, reported, that Mr. Sumner was not duly elected, and that the petitioner, the hon. Chapple Norton, was duly elected; but that the opposition of Mr. Sumner to the petition was not frivolous or vexatious. The clerk of the crown was ordered to attend the next day to amend the return, by erasing the name of Mr. Sumner, and inserting that of Mr. Norton in its place.—On the motion of Mr. Hobhouse, it was ordered that, at the rising of the house that day, lord Bruce, who had been taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms, in consequence of default at the election ballot, should be discharged, on paying his fees.—On the motion of lord Temple, a new writ was ordered for the election of a member for the borough of Buckingham, in the room of sir W. Young, who had accepted the office of governor of the island of Tobago.—Mr. Courtenay moved, that the order for the consideration of the Culross election petition, be deferred to the 16th of May. Sir J. Anstruther said, that though the sitting member was willing to agree to a reasonable 114 delay, he could by no means agree to a delay which would, perhaps, be the means of putting off the trial of this case to the next session. He would agree to a delay of three or four weeks. The consideration of the Culross petition was then fixed for April 16.—Lord John Thynne moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Bath Common division bill. Lord Ossulston opposed the motion, as the bill went to interfere with one of the principal and most airy walks of the invalids who resorted to Bath. He moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time t hat day three months. The bill was defended by lord John Thynne, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Hobhouse. A division took place; for reading the bill a second time now 49, against it 78, majority 29. A second division then took place on the question for reading the bill a second time that day three months: when there appeared for the motion 57, against it 49. The bill was of course lost by a majority of 8.