§ Mr. Long Wellesley, on presenting a Petition from the inhabitants of Marlborough, in favour of the Reform Bill for England, said, there were some circumstances connected with the petition which required observation. A short time since, the hon. member for Marlborough presented a petition of an entirely opposite nature, from the same place. He (Mr. Long Wellesley) was instructed to state certain facts, as to the manner in which that petition had been got up when it was presented. He had therefore stated, that the petition did not express the political sentiments of the great body of the inhabitants of Marlborough, and that the signatures attached thereto had been obtained chiefly by the influence of certain persons belonging to the Corporation. He had further stated, that the parties who had got up the petition had also resorted to intimidation to induce individuals to sign it, and that a Corporation fund, which ought to have been appropriated to charitable purposes, had been perverted from its legitimate object for the purpose of rewarding those who had signed that petition. The remarks which he had then made had produced the petition which he then held in his hand, which contained a direct contradiction of the declaration made when the former petition was presented. He hoped therefore the hon. Gentleman would declare, that he believed the statements contained in the petition which he now had the honour to present were correct. The petition was most respectably signed by persons who were conversant with all the concerns of the borough, and who would state nothing but what was founded in strict truth. He was himself connected with the town, and was prepared to say, that to the extent of his knowledge he believed the petition contained only matter of fact. If the hon. Gentleman was pre- pared to acknowledge his error, he would not press the matter farther, or produce any illustration of his statement. He must say it was the duty of every Member of that House, not to advance anything as matter of fact, unless he should beforehand have cautiously and diligently satisfied himself of its truth. The petitioners recited all the circumstances to which he 725 had alluded, and stated that the sentiments of the inhabitants of Marlborough in favour of Reform were not expressed in the petition formerly presented. He begged it to be understood, that he meant to cast no imputation on the noble Lord, who he believed was the patron of the borough. That noble Lord had no doubt acted in the same manner as all other persons similarly circumstanced, and left every thing to his agent. He should not enter into any further debate, unless obliged, when he should be ready to go into a history of certain matters connected with the election of the hon. Members for that place.
§ Mr. William Bankeswas at a loss to know why the hon. Member should have uttered the concluding paragraph of his speech: after his previous call, he could not suppose he would allow the petition he had presented to pass without observation. He felt surprised after the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the subject of making unfounded and unwarrantable assertions, that he should have made himself the instrument for promulgating such coarse and unfounded attacks as were contained in this petition. He apprehended the object of the hon. Member was to neutralize the effects of the petition formerly presented, not from the inhabitants, but from the householders of Marlborough. It was said, that the former petition did not contain the sentiments of the majority of the inhabitants of that borough; he, on the contrary, asserted that it did. The number of signatures to the petition just presented was 119: in order to obtain even this number persons went from house to house soliciting signatures; the petition he had presented was signed by 130 persons, forming a numerical majority over the signatures to the petition presented by the hon. Gentleman, and further, the individuals who' signed the former petition were all bona fide proprietors of property in the borough, and it was agreed to at a public meeting. The supporters of the Bill would not be under an obligation to the hon. Member for the reference he had made to the former petition, because that petition prayed for the establishment of the Vote by Ballot. He held in his hand a paper, signed by a considerable number of householders, declaring the sentiments in the petition presented by the hon. Member, respecting corporation and other property, unbecoming and unfounded. The hon. Member bad appealed for the correctness of his 726 statement to the head waiter of the principal inn, an authority that was not to be disputed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman adopted the words of the man in the play— "Oh I am no head waiter, I am a Knight Templar: "the hon. Gentleman's witness was not to be contradicted, and it was to be hoped the custom of the Crown Inn would not suffer from the charges this head waiter had made against the most respectable persons in the place. Another allegation was, that he (Mr. W. G. Bankes) had no means of forming an accurate judgment of the public feeling in Marlborough as he was unacquainted with the inhabitants. This was a most singular assertion, he having been returned for the borough three times. He had seen his constituents frequently, and had somewhat more than ten or eleven acquaintances. His grandfather too had sat in Parliament for the same place, so that he had an hereditary acquaintance with the Burgesses. He really was acquainted with more than 100 persons, and many of whom were wholly unconnected either with the Corporation or with Lord Aylesbury.
§ Mr. Long Wellesleywould recommend the hon. Member not to indulge in ridicule, and not to rely upon mere assumption. He knew all that he had himself stated with regard to Marlborough to be true, and he challenged the hon. Member to prove the incorrectness of any one of his statements. He had made no allusion to any head waiter. The petition made some allusion to the Corporation being under the control of Lord Aylesbury, and the hon. Gentleman had also touched upon it. He could state, that an officer of the Corporation had been turned out because he refused to do the bidding of his Lordship, and when he gave way, and consented to perform what he was ordered to do, he was reinstated in his office. The petition in favour of Reform was signed by a large portion of the respectable inhabitants. The first name that of a much respected banker in the town, the second was that of a most respectable Officer in the royal navy. He was satisfied he had not gone beyond the truth, in any one particular. The hon. Member had stated, that he had an extensive acquaintance with the inhabitants of Marlborough, grounded on the fact, that his grandfather formerly represented that place. He knew not how long the hon. Gentleman's grandfather had been 727 dead, but he knew that the hon. Member was returned by eight or ten persons, who were under the immediate control of Lord Aylesbury; the Corporation having been so for the last fifty years, and his nominees had invariably been returned. The Corporation had even generally been composed of the steward, butler, footman, and other dependants of the family. The present Mayor of Marl- borough (Mr. Bruce) was an agent of Lord Aylesbury, and he believed his steward. If the researches of the hon. Member had been as great in Wiltshire as they had been in Egypt and Jerusalem, he would not have made so many mistakes. The Corporation always acted on the instructions they received from Mr. Bruce or other agents of Lord Aylesbury, there was no instance of a division in that select body of eight or ten persons, and they would have returned a Member of very different political sentiments to the hon. Member, had the patron required them. He had never represented the borough of Marlborough, but he had the county of Wilts, and he had frequently been at Marl borough to act as a Magistrate or, to canvass, so that he could claim some acquaintance with the place, and he knew the inhabitants were most anxious that the Corporation should be abolished, because it was directly under the control of Lord Aylesbury. The inhabitants of Marl-borough and of the county of Wilts were in favour of the noble Lord's Bill, for the truth of this he appealed to the hon. Members for the county. The hon. Member was therefore not justified in the aspersions he had thrown out.
§ Mr. William Bankeswas authorized by Lord Aylesbury to contradict the allegation that he had ever interfered in any way with respect to either petition, and neither gave orders to sign or refuse signing. With regard to the dispossession of a person in the Corporation for not doing his bidding; the simple facts of the case were these.—The mace-bearer of that body had signed a petition which reflected strongly upon that body, and charged them with an improper discharge of their duties. The Corporation thought, most properly, that it was inexpedient this man should continue in office, and therefore they removed him. The mace-bearer, however, petitioned to be replaced, and stated, that he thought the petition he had signed was for a reduction of taxation, and that 728 nothing should have induced him, if he had read the paper, to have signed it.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.