Commons Sitting of 5 March 1834

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, for Paisley.
Bills. Read a first time:—Foreign Enlistment Act Repeal.—Read a second time:—Mutiny; Sugar Duties; and Equitable Apportionments.—Read a third time:—North American Postage.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. STRICKLAND, GROTE, BAINES, GREENE, G. W. WOOD, AND PEASE, LORDS LCMLEY and MORPETH, AND SIR R. FERGUSON, from a Number of Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. DUNCOMBE, from a Number of Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest; and against any Alteration in the Com Laws.—By Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, from Stafford, against the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.—By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Glasgow, for the Abolition of the Corn Laws; and from Eaglesham, for Relief to the Hand-loom Weavers.—By Mr. JOHNSTON, from one Place, against the Existing System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Colonel LETTH HAY, from the Shipowners of Peterhead, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties Act.—By Mr. CHARLES FITZSIMON, from two Places, for the Repeal of the Union; and from St. George's, Dublin, that the Provisions of the Valuation Act may be Extended to them.—By Sir RONALD FERGUSON, from Nottingham, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws; and from Kenilworth, that the Elective Franchise of Warwick may be Extended to that Place.—By Mr. PEASE, from Hillsborough, for Mitigating the Penal Law for Offences against Property.—By Mr. CHICHESTER, from the Deanery of Craven, against any Measure tending to weaken the Efficiency of the Established Church—By Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR, from Rolleston, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. HALCOMBK, from Carrickfergus, against the Disfranchisement Bill.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from Lannock, against any Measures injurious to the Interests of the Established Church.

HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.
Colonel Torrenspresented three Petitions from Bolton, Lancashire, and its vicinity, praying for the Appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Distress, which existed among the Hand-loom Weavers, and to adopt the most practicable mode of Relief. The first of those petitions was signed by 10,000 persons; the second by the Magistrates, the Boroughreeve, and the Clergy: and the third by forty-five of the manufacturers themselves. The prayer of the petition suggested the forming of Local Boards; or any other mode which could afford the desired relief. He was glad to find that his hon. friend (Mr. Maxwell) had given notice of a Motion to a similar effect; he begged of his Majesty's Government to give assent to it, and permit it to pass without any opposition. No doubt great benefit accrued to society from the introduction of power-looms; but they superseded hand-weaving, and of course threw the hand-weavers into great distress. It was seldom that a general change took place for the benefit of the public, without entailing partial distress on some particular class; and it was the duty of the public to relieve those classes which suffered. Whatever mode of relief might be suggested, it was clear that something ought to be done speedily; perhaps a more efficient mode of relief might be found out than what the petitioners suggested; but something should be done to afford speedy relief to their

1145
great distress, or it would come too late. They felt, too, that they were not directly represented in that House; which aggravated their condition, and impressed them more strongly with the notion that the attention of that House should be distinctly called to their case.
Mr. Bollingbore testimony to the privations under which the petitioners were suffering. He did not know whether a Board of Trade was applicable to their situation. One had been instituted, however, at Glasgow, and voluntarily adopted by the masters themselves. He begged to call the particular attention of the House to the propriety of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the grievances of the petitioners, with a view of remedying them.
Mr. John Maxwellsaid: Sir, in answer to the question of the member for Bolton, I beg to repeat my conviction of the benefit of such regulations as would secure to the weaver the utmost remuneration for his severe toil, which the interests of the trade, the fair profit of the manufacturer, and the means of the consumer, will permit. At present under the absence of such agreements, and compacts, or rather the absence of legislative sanction, the reckless speculations of persons with more ambition to drive an extensive sale than resources or sympathy, force labourers, in a famishing condition, to give their work at prices unnecessarily low for the consumer, and utterly ruinous to the workman and his family; and not only not beneficial but absolutely injurious to sound and substantial manufacturing establishments. For these wish to give and continue to give as good prices for labour as the selling price of their stocks allow, and are driven to low prices by the competition of speculators and half-paid weavers, by whose joint selfishness and misery they are undersold. Machinery, taxation, and protecting duties, united to absenteeism on the part of the rich, immigration on the part of the Irish poor, and reduction of soldiers and sailors, all contribute to this state of excessive supply of weavers, and low price of goods; and each and all of those obstacles to the adequate remuneration of labour are extremely aggravated by the deficient circulation of money under the Bank cash payment. Were the suffering of this industrious, moral, well-informed, and very numerous class of men to be beneficial to the community,
1146
some consolation—some pretence for its continuance—might be alleged; but on the contrary, the tradesman, the farmer, the shopkeeper, and householder, all suffer from their destitution; while the wealthier classes are obliged to make up in charity donations, subscriptions, and assessments, far more than any saving in getting below their value the productions of their suffering countrymen. Besides, that the Church and schools were deserted by many of these men and their families for want of clothes—the bridewells and gaols were filled—and crime and vice were upon the increase, as the Kirkintulloch petition and the statements of that able and well-informed gentleman, Mr. Clelland of Glasgow proved. Now, Sir, even the last article to which poverty drives these men for almost their sole subsistence (oatmeal) is subject at this moment to a duty of 100 per cent. If corn, woollen, cotton, and silk be property, so is labour; and if they merit protection from competition from less taxed commodities, does not labour demand equal protection? Let us protect British industry at its source, and aid human welfare, until we can, by reducing taxes, and placing the debt more on the wealth and less on the poverty of the nation, arrive at free trade, without sacrificing the welfare of one class, and consequently the loyalty, morality, and the peace, power, and comfort of the empire.
Mr. Bainessupported the prayer of the petition. There was no description of persons in this country who laboured under greater distress than the hand-loom weavers, who had suffered the most extreme privations from the difficulty of obtaining a proper price for their labour. In so saying, he did not wish to be considered as attacking the use of machinery, which had extended itself to the great benefit of the country at large. He thought the recommendation in the petition of the establishment of local boards of trade deserved the serious consideration of the House; he thought they would do much good, for they would combine the masters and the workmen in one common object, and prevent the institution of the trades' unions, which brought the masters and workmen into collision. He therefore, supported the prayer of the petition, but without pledging himself to all its details; for with some of the inferences to be drawn from it he could not conscientiously agree.
Mr. Hardythought, that in a short time the Table of the House would be loaded with petitions from hand-loom weavers, if the present system of exporting the raw material to foreign countries were suffered to go on. In the year 1832, millions of pounds of wool and yarn had been exported and manufactured in foreign countries, and then these countries, as they could get the yarn, imposed a duty upon the manufactured article, so that it was impossible for the manufacturer in England to compete with them. The raw material which used to be the support of thousands of industrious persons, was sent abroad, and thus the means of employment was taken from the hand-loom weavers, either of cotton or woollen goods. If it was necessary that the artisans of the country should be supported, the House should at once interpose, and put a stop to the further exportation of the raw material.
Mr. Fleetwoodsaid, if any person should stand up upon the present occasion it was himself. As the hon. member for Leeds had alluded to the Trades' Unions, he would say that the hand-loom weavers had borne their distress with a better grace than almost any other class. He thought the House should at once institute an inquiry into the extent of their distresses, if it were only to show that they were worthy of the attention of Government as well as any other class, and as a reward of the patience with which they had borne their sufferings. He gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Gillonbegged earnestly to support the prayer of these petitioners, and to call for the sympathies of the House on behalf of this most respectable, most industrious, most intelligent, yet most oppressed class of his Majesty's subjects. Hon. Members were probably not aware of the immense numbers dependent on the hand-loom for their support. It appeared from the investigation before the Committee of last Session, that they amounted to not less than half a million; and he was sure that the estimate was rather under than over the truth. The hon. member for Ipswich, in seconding the address, in the statement of manufacturing and commercial prosperity which he had made to the House, and which he believed existed only in the brain of the hon. Member himself, had alluded, among others, to the hand-loom weavers; he had stated,
1148
that they were now in a comparatively flourishing condition; that there had been a rise of twelve per cent on their wages; and that they could find employment for their children in other branches of productive industry. He did not credit the statement when it was made, but he had since taken care to inform himself more minutely on the subject, and he found that the hon. member for Ipswich had been most grossly misinformed. It was true that a rise of from ten to twelve per cent had taken place on the prices of the finer fabrics since the worst times of last year; but he begged the House to attend to the amount of this rise. It had been proved that the hand-loom weavers of the finer descriptions could earn only about 5s. 6d. per week. A rise of twelve per cent on this would bring up their wages to not more than 6s.; but in the coarser fabrics, it had also been proved that the weavers, working from fourteen to sixteen hours a day, could not earn more in clear wages than 4s. 5d. per week. A rise of twelve per cent on this would not bring their wages up to 5s., out of which they were to provide lodging, cloathing, food, and education for their families. But the fact was, these weavers of the coarser fabrics had not experienced a rise of more than from five to six per cent. He begged to ask what was the object of all Government?—For what each member of society resigned a portion of his individual liberty? Was it not to obtain security for his life, and protection to his property? This was all the hand-loom weavers demanded. They prayed to be protected against the unprincipled speculations of those who, embarking in the trade without capital, were only enabled to maintain themselves in it by the ruin of the more respectable manufacturers, and the starvation of the industrious operatives. In this prayer they were joined by-the respectable manufacturers themselves. This was the meaning of the boards of trade for which they prayed. He was much pleased with the petitions presented by the hon. member for Bolton, emanating as they did from the master manufacturers, and from the clergy and Magistrates as well as from the operatives themselves. He trusted that in this appeal to the House they would not be met by the cold-blooded speculations of political economists. They complained of a practical grievance, and they demanded a practical remedy. If that

1149
House did not step forward to protect them—if their country treated them as a severe step-mother instead of as a kind and fostering parent—the social bond was at an end; and where no protection was afforded, allegiance could not be expected. The hon. Member concluded by tendering his most strenuous support to these petitioners.
Mr. Mark Philipsconsidered, that the tendency of the discussion which had taken place only showed that hon. Members were at variance as to the different nostrums that were calculated to remove the difficulties under which the petitioners laboured. Although he felt as deeply interested for the interests of the petitioners as for those of the manufacturer, he should consider himself as guilty of avowing a dishonest opinion if he held out any hope to them of relief by the establishment of boards of trade. If he was convinced that the adoption of such a course would benefit the petitioners, he would give the petition his most hearty support. Should, however, a Committee be appointed on the subject, and he had the honour of taking part in that Committee, no one would enter more zealously into the service than himself. He, however, was of opinion that no beneficial results could arise, and he would therefore not foster hopes and expectations that could not be realised.
Sir Francis Burdettconsidered it necessary, in consequence of the course taken upon the presenting of the petition, to draw the attention of the House to the adoption of some regulation for the government of its own proceedings. If discussions like the present were to take place upon the presentation of every petition, it would be impossible that the business of the country could be carried on. Numbers of hon. Members were waiting to present petitions, and if no limit were given to discussions upon questions, perhaps that would never be brought before the House—if abstract principles of trade were to be talked of for hours together, it would be impossible that half the Members of that House could present their petitions. He was sure, that every Member would agree with him, that the removal of the distress of the country equally animated the breast of every Member in that House, but unless some different practice was adopted, it was impossible that all the distresses of the country could be made
1150
known. What, therefore, he should propose was, that the old practice relative to presenting petitions should be renewed; that hon. Members in presenting petitions, should simply state their object, the general opinion which they entertained with respect to them, and conclude by praying that they might be laid upon the Table. Too much valuable time was consumed in the presentation of petitions and premature discussions. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would adhere to the former system of presenting petitions without enlarging on their contents before the due time.
Mr. Henry Bulwerdiffered in opinion from the hon. Baronet, and deprecated all such remarks. It was of importance, that his Majesty's Government, and the country at large, should be put in possession of the feelings of the people, and be made to know the particular wants of particular classes; surely that could not be effected by any means except by presenting petitions and describing their contents. The subject before the House was a very important one; he differed from a great authority upon a main point of it. He differed from the hon. Gentleman on the left, who considered the establishment of Boards of Trade impracticable. There were many instances to prove the good effects of Boards of Trade. Let them look at France, and the continent in general, and they would find what had been effected by their institution. The corporations of France were, in a great measure, destroyed at the period of the Revolution. The consequence was,' that perpetual hostilities occurred between different classes; and those hostilities were found to cease in proportion as the old institutions were re-established. He agreed with the general prayer of the petition, and must urge the adoption of some mode of redress for the petitioners.
Lord Lumleyconsidered, that certainly the time of that House might be occupied unfairly by some hon. Members presenting too many petitions from their own constituents, to the exclusion of others; but he would say, that no petition deserved the attention and time of the House more than the present, which had been submitted to it.
Mr. Fieldenremarked, that two hours and a-half had been spent yesterday upon a subject not more important than the one now under consideration. A numerous

1151
class was suffering the greatest distress, which arose as much from bad remuneration, as from scarcity of work. There were a great many points to be considered on that subject, for remedies should be sought for one cause of the distress, as well as for another. It was not the fault of those persons who were suffering, nor yet was the distress to be attributed to power looms. The hon. Member read a statement, for the purpose of showing the great and gradual depression in the price of labour of the hand-loom weavers from 1795 to 1833, in the latter of which years the price was 5s. 6d. per piece—only one piece being within a man's power to make in a week. Out of that 5s. 6d., he had also to submit to a reduction of 1s. 4½d. before he could provide himself or family with coals. Then 4s. 1½d. was all the poor man got: and, in Bolton, there were not less than 23,500 men earning so much and no more. According to a statement which had been made upon inquiry, it was ascertained, that, in Bolton and its neighbourhood, there were not less than 70,000 hand-loom weavers; and although mills had been erected to a great extent, the persons were in full work, but they only received 4s. 1½d. a-week each. He would read to the House an extract from a Report as to these poor men—[No, no.] He must make his statement to the House; and he would make it, unless he was put down, in order to show what these poor men were suffering. One man, who was engaged in making muslins—which were an article consumed by the rich—was asked what he had for breakfast, and he said, two quarts of butter-milk, which he got for 3d. The man was then asked, what he had for dinner, and he said, two quarts of buttermilk: and, if he could procure them, he added potatoes, when they were cheap. When asked what he had the remainder of the day, he answered, sometimes nothing, and sometimes two quarts of buttermilk again—at times, one pound of oatmeal. The House had heard much of the Irish having been reduced to buttermilk and oatmeal; but he could state for a fact, that there were hundreds of thousands in England, who were equally badly off. He concluded by hoping, that the House would listen to the prayer of the petitioners, and grant the Committee of Inquiry.
Mr. Methuen, said the hon. member for Oldham had needlessly wasted the time
1152
of the House, in going into details which were only applicable for a Committee of Inquiry. As he was on his legs, he would take the liberty of making a suggestion, which he trusted would be adopted by the House. If hon. Gentlemen who had petitions to present on the same subject, would present them in a lump, and not one by one, as they did now, it would save much valuable time, and this could be easily ascertained by hon. Members consulting with each other. If some plan were not adopted, it would be quite impossible for hon. Members to lay all the grievances of the country before the House.
The Speakersaid, it was impossible for the human mind to suggest any distinct or positive plan for such a purpose. It must be left to the discretion of each individual Member. The subject-matter of petitions was of so very varied a nature—some were of so slight, and some of so serious a character—some were so intricate, and others so clear, that it must be quite obvious, as they varied in their nature, the option of dwelling upon them at greater length, or not, would occur to different persons. As he had said before, that must be left to the discretion of hon. Members, who could have no object in wasting the time of the House. Anything not referable to the subject of the petition, was a waste of the time of the House. He believed, if persons presenting petitions, confined themselves to the subject matter of such petitions, less time would be employed.
Mr. Ruthvenwould confine himself strictly to the petition before the House. It was the petition of persons who had not found so many advocates in that House, as either the commercial or landed interests, and who had not so many friends as the Church Establishment or the tithes. These persons were destitute—they were reduced below what many persons could form an idea of. No person knew their condition better than the hon. member for Oldham, and the country ought to feel grateful to him for laying their case before that House. It was difficult to say what should be done for them—their wages were reduced so low, that they were unable to subsist. This had been caused by the vast increase of the productive manufacturers, which, although it had made fortunes for many, had reduced thousands to misery and poverty. Much of this

1153
might be ascribed to the introduction of steam machinery. They could not hope for peace, comfort, or tranquillity, unless the distresses of these persons were relieved; and he trusted, that the hon. Member who had presented the petition, would move for a Committee of Inquiry on the subject.
Mr. Duncombesaid, that the best plan would be, to move for a Committee of Inquiry, where evidence on both sides could be taken. He must say, that the length to which these discussions ran, far exceeded the bounds of moderation; and it was impossible, that the business of the country could go on while the time of the House was occupied in discussing the merits of petitions. There were many other subjects which required the attention of that House, and 13 or 14 hon. Members were waiting with petitions to present upon various subjects, which it was impossible they could present, if the present plan were persevered in. He hoped hon. Gentlemen, in future, would abstain from consuming so much time in these discussions.
Mr. Cobbettdid not see, that the House deserved the lecture which the hon. Gentleman had read to them. He was told, that the petition embraced 70,000 persons; and he was told by his hon. Colleague, that there were 600,000 persons in the same state of distress, and, therefore, if that were not a subject worthy of their attention, he knew not what was. He considered, that their constituents would be better contented with their conduct in discussing that petition, than if they had passed it over without comment. He, at least, must say, that he most cordially supported its prayer.
Petition laid on the Table.

OATHS USDER THE IRISH REFORM ACT.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Carrickfergus Reform Bill, having been read, and Mr. O'Connell having risen to move the second reading of that Bill,
Mr. William Rochebegged his hon. and learned friend's permission to intrude for a few moments on his privilege, by offering to the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, a few remarks on a subject arising out of the interchange of some observations which took place yesterday evening, between the right hon. Secretary and his (Mr. Roche's) hon. and
1154
learned friend, in reference to the Irish Reform Act. In those observations he (Mr. Roche) understood the right hon. Secretary to say, it was his intention to introduce some amendments, or correct some defects, in that Act, whenever an improvement of the English Acts should be brought under the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Roche) would, therefore, thus early take the liberty to suggest to the right hon. Secretary the propriety of including, amongst those amendments in the Irish Act, the removal of an anomaly, a disadvantage, and injustice, which, whether inadvertently or otherwise, was suffered still to subsist,—in the necessity imposed on Roman Catholic voters, and on them alone, of taking the Oath of Allegiance, and producing to the Returning Officer at each election a certificate of their having done so before they could be permitted to exercise their elective franchise. That this was both invidious, unwise, and prejudicial, tending, as it did, to cast an undeserved imputation on the loyalty and character of the Irish Roman Catholics; tending, also, as it did, to keep alive the expiring embers of religious distinctions and sectarian feelings, which it should be the policy to extinguish, and which it was the object of the Catholic Relief Act to bury in oblivion,—the language of the preamble of which says, that its design was to "knit together all classes of his Majesty's subjects in one bond of harmony and concord." Mr. Roche proceeded to say, that it proved further disadvantageous, especially to the interests of popular candidates, in perhaps two-thirds of Ireland, whose progress in polling was retarded, and their return consequently endangered by the confusion, obstruction, and delay created in bringing up and administering this Oath to perhaps thousands of Roman Catholic voters; and that, during the very few days to which elections are now limited, while the voters of any other religious persuasion could give their suffrage at once, and thus rapidly advance the interests of their friends,—an advantage quite obvious to all those at all acquainted with electioneering tactics. Mr. Roche added, that he himself experienced this disadvantage at his election for the city of limerick, when he was obliged to relinquish all attention to its conduction or proceedings, and confine himself to his functions as a Magistrate, in thus quail-

1155
fying the numerous Roman Catholic voters,—a disadvantage that might have been fatal to his interests had it not been for the kind and preponderating feelings of his fellow-citizens in his favour. "But, Sir, (Mr. Roche continued) is it not also matter of serious consideration, that this so solemn obligation must, under such circumstances of hurry and confusion, be unavoidably administered with a precipitancy ill becoming such a solemnity." On the whole, Mr. Roche said, he trusted he had adduced ample cause and reason for the removal of so obnoxious a distinction and disadvantage. He had certainly heard it doubted whether, since the Irish Reform Act, there existed an absolute necessity for such oath and qualification; but that, as a contrary opinion rather more powerfully prevailed, and as, at all events, it was deemed safer not to dispense with its practice, it surely became necessary to clear up all doubt, and remove every uncertainty in so important a matter.

CARRICKFERGUS DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. O'Connellthen proceeded to move the Second Reading of the Carrickfergus Disfranchisement Bill. In doing so, he was exceedingly glad to congratulate the House on knowing that those who objected to some of the details of the Bill, did not object to the principle of the measure, and, therefore, that this reading of the Bill would not be opposed. This obviated the necessity of his trespassing at any length on the attention of the House. This much he desired to say; he had not volunteered this task,—on the contrary, he had desired to avoid it,—but it had been forced upon him as an imperative duty, in consequence of his having been the Chairman of a Committee which decided that Mr. Dobbs had been returned as the Representative of Carrickfergus by bribery and corruption. In the discharge of this duty he entertained not the slightest, party feeling. The Bill he brought in was simply for disfranchising the borough of Carrickfergus, without proposing any substitution. He did not think, however, it would be doing Ireland justice to take away one of her Representatives without substituting another in his place; and, in his opinion, if a substitution should take place, that substitution ought to be given to another part of the province of Ulster. He had understood it was the intention of
1156
the hon. member for Donegal to nominate another part of that province to which the franchise should be given; should that hon. Member do so, he should feel it his duty to support such a proposition. At present his Bill was purely one of disfranchisement, without regard to any substitution. In stating the grounds for his Motion he should be very brief. In the election to which he had alluded, it was proved that the practice of bribery was fast rooted in that borough, and that it had been of long standing. The contest appeared to be between two noble families, who struggled for the supremacy; and whoever succeeded, did so at an enormous expense. After the passing of the Reform Bill, there was, in most places, a strong contest between Reformers and Conservatives, but in Carrickfergus there was no struggle of that kind. In Ireland there was generally a struggle of a different kind, namely,—upon the subject of religious differences; but, at Carrickfergus, there was neither a religious nor political distinction, it was generally a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence; and whoever had the longest purse carried the election. He took this opportunity of totally acquitting the electors of Carrickfergus of allowing any political or religious opinions to influence their votes. There was one family which, in order to increase its interest, made fifty-three tenements, with three potato grounds, worth some 3l., 4l, or 5l. a-year, in fact, as tenants at will, but apparently in perpetuity; yet it appeared that, at the last election, only seventeen of those persons voted for the person who gave them subsistence; and, consequently, there must have been a very strong reason for the others voting against the interest of the person who gave them bread to eat. If the practice of bribery were confined to the poorer classes, there might, possibly, be some extenuation of the crime; but it extended itself to other classes. One of the individuals who had been bribed refused to take the bribery oath when tendered. He had a paralytic conscience,—it was dead at one side (that on which he was bribed), but alive on the other, and he rejected the oath. Woe to the individuals of higher rank who had brought that wretch into the situation of refusing to give value for the money he had received, or of burthening his conscience with the further crime of perjury! As Christians, it was

1157
their duty to abolish the temptation to the commission of such offences. To show how far the public mind in Carrickfergus had been contaminated, he would appeal to the evidence of Mr. Brierley, a Magistrate, an active partisan, and one of the committee of a candidate who was examined before the Committee appointed by the House. That gentleman denied everything; but in the course of the investigation, a letter from Mr. Brierley was read, dated from the election committee-room, referring an elector to his agent, Mr. Legg, which agent offered the man a bribe of 6l.; and it also appeared, that Mr. Brierley accompanied the agent to the elector. He was sorry to be obliged to mention the name of an individual who was, by his education, a gentleman,—he meant the Rev. Mr. Cheyne, of the Established Church;—but the House could estimate what was the state of the public mind in Carrickfergus, when that reverend gentleman held in his hands a sum of money which he knew was to be distributed in bribery. There was no doubt that it was for such purposes. How contaminated must have been the public spirit when no species of shame was attached to such proceedings, even in the person of a clergyman! The words of the witness before the Commissioners proved, that the only feeling which existed was one of regret on the part of those who had not the means of being corrupted, because they had not a franchise to sell. After the first examination that took place before a Committee of that House, in which he was Chairman, the Corporation demanded a re-examination. That was granted to them; and what was the evidence after all? Why, by the Report of the Committee, it was pronounced to be a case most deserving of disfranchisement. He would trouble the House with one fact more. The Corporation of that town actually wanted to take the franchise into their own hands; and he could prove, that the sum of 450 l. was subscribed towards disfranchising their own freemen. Mr. David Legg, who was the acting man at that moment in London, to prevent the disfranchisement of this borough, was the agent of the Corporation upon the occasion he alluded to. The same Mr. Legg swore, that he only bribed five persons; but Mr. James Legg, his brother, concurred with a Mr. Cohen, in stating, that they had bribed 214 persons. That gen-
1158
tleman, who was so active in the work of corruption, instead of being tarnished by that, was rewarded by being appointed to the office of High Sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus. The same gentleman would probably be mayor in some few years hence; and on a future occasion that House would have the pleasure of seeing that gentleman take his seat as Member for the renovated constituency of Carrickfergus. He had to apologise for having troubled the House at such length; but he considered it his duty to use the strong hand in putting down bribery, and seek the only remedy that was left to purify a corrupt constituency. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid, that, so far from opposing the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, he should give it his most cordial support. He was prepared to visit, to the extremity of severity which that House was authorised to exert, every and any individual who might be convicted of violating or abusing his elective franchise. He was as anxious as the hon. and learned Member could be, to see every individual who had been guilty of bribery at the late Carrickfergus election disfranchised. It was for the purpose of carrying that into effect, that he was willing to vote for the second reading of this Bill. But he did not hesitate to say, that he differed altogether with the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to the extent to which he wished to carry his propositions. He was willing to admit, that bribery had been carried on, to a certain extent, by one class of the electors; but it did not, therefore, follow, that this bribery had extended among them all. He should be prepared to show to the House, on the committal of this Bill, that the Carrickfergus constituency was, as a constituency, unimpeachable. The hon. member for Dover had a Motion, he believed, with regard to the business before the House. He hoped that the hon. Member would see the propriety of withdrawing that Motion, as he (Mr. Tennent) should, for one, oppose it; and he should oppose it on the same principle as he voted for the second reading of the Bill before the House.
Mr. Halcombe, in rising to propose an Amendment, would only say, that, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, and

1159
who was unknown to him, it appeared to him that the hon. Member had taken an extraordinary course in declaring what his vote should be upon a proposition the merits of which he at present must be perfectly unacquainted with. It was inconsistent with his (Mr. Halcombe's) notions of legislation, that any hon. Member should state, that he should give his vote against a proposition to be submitted to the House, before he had condescended to attend to a single observation, or before the hon. Member who meant to bring forward the Motion, had had an opportunity of addressing the House. With regard to the Amendment which he meant to propose, he could assure the House, that he made this proposition to them after much, and anxious consideration,—after full examination of the course which had hitherto been pursued by the House in furtherance of just objects, when they were sought to be enforced against boroughs alleged to be in circumstances that entitled the House to deal with their elective franchises. Without one single exception, whenever a Select Committee had reported, that delinquency existed in a borough, the House had resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, in order that the parties accused might have an opportunity of defending themselves at the Bar. The House, and not the Committee, had afterwards determined what course ought to be pursued. He hoped that the House, by now pursuing a different course, would not involve itself in a long train of inconsistencies, and lay itself open to the charge of dealing differently with different boroughs, under precisely the same predicament. Only a limited number of freemen were bad in the present case; and if they were disfranchised, all the ends of justice would be attained, and the unimpeached portion of the constituency might be left in possession of the franchise. If the House would only give the accused parties an opportunity of defending themselves, he understood that they pledged themselves to prove, that forty of the charges against individuals were destitute of foundation. He called upon the House to be consistent with their own proceedings in the boroughs of Shoreham, Grampound, Cricklade, East Retford, and all other accused boroughs; and he should not only submit an Amendment to that effect, but he should take the sense of the
1160
House upon it.—[The hon. Member, who throughout his speech had been much annoyed by various signs of impatience, now became nearly inaudible, but he was understood to say,]—He never intruded himself on the attention of the House, and he thanked the House for the kindness of its attention towards him. The House, by proceeding in the manner now proposed, would involve itself in judicial cases, not with five, but with fifty or sixty boroughs, for so many would be before the House in a similar manner. The noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, had brought in a Bill, in which he had displayed what were his views, and the views of Government, as to the course which the House ought to pursue in cases of this nature. The noble Lord's Bill had allowed the accused parties the advantage of a review; and the borough itself was not to be dealt with otherwise than by an Address of the two Houses to the Crown. The noble Lord now got rid of the duties of this House by delegating its powers to three Barristers, who were to be paid so much a day for saving the Committee trouble. He felt that he was offering to the House observations worthy of any Legislative Assembly, and he was not to be deterred from his duty by taunts of any sort. The House was about to bring it-self into a collision with the other House; and he would maintain, that the other House had lately risen exceedingly in public estimation in comparison to the Assembly he was addressing. The country would at last find safety in the Refuge for the Destitute. ["Hear" and laughter,] He hoped that hon. Members did not mean to insult his person,—if they did, he begged any man to stand forth and tell him so. He was as independent a Member as any man in that House; and humbly as he might think of himself out of it, he would yield to no man in the character which attached to him as a Member. In the case of Ashby v. White, in Hatsell's Reports, it was decided, that the House had no right to go further than to decide upon the fitness of the person elected to sit within its walls; and that it ought not to determine upon the delinquency of particular constituents. Mr. Canning had warned the House not to tamper with elections, lest, as a popular Assembly, it might be urged on by party spirit to act improperly in the discharge of its judicial proceedings. He would

1161
move, as an Amendment, "That the House will, on the 19th of March instant, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the Report and evidence taken before the two Committees with respect to the borough of Carrickfergus, and in the meantime that further proceedings in the case be suspended."
The Speakersaid, the hon. Member could not put his Motion in that shape.
Mr. Halcombetherefore altered his Motion as follows: "That the further proceedings of the House on this Bill be suspended, and that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the 19th of March."
The Speakerdid not see how such a Motion could be put. If the hon. Member wished to submit any Motion, he must proceed according to the regulations of the House.
Mr. Halcombesaid, he was but a young Member, and must ask instructions how he was to proceed. His wish was, that further proceedings on the Bill should be suspended, and that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the 19th instant.
The Speakersaid, that this was only the converse of what the hon. Member had before put. The hon. Member's object was to get the House to resolve itself into a Committee, to consider certain Reports, and then, if they adopted his Motion, that they follow his further views upon the case.
Mr. Halcombewould move only the first part of his Amendment, "That the House would, on the 19th of March instant, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the Report and evidence of the two Committees with respect to the borough of Carrickfergus."
Sir John Byngcould but congratulate the hon. Member on the unenviable position he had taken up as the champion of all the corrupt boroughs.
The Speakerrequested the hon. Member to address himself to the question and not to the person, and still less ought he to address any person in that House disparagingly.
Sir John Byngapologised for the breach of order, and assured the hon. and learned member for Dover that it had not arisen from any want of personal respect towards him. He spoke as Chairman of one of the Committees, and, in his opinion, the
1162
evidence of corruption was so complete, that Parliament would neglect its duty, if it did not disfranchise the borough. He gave the Bill his cordial support.
Mr. Ruddel Toddwas a member of the Committee, and thought the evidence of the bribery complete. He, therefore, should oppose the Amendment.
Sir Robert Peel, being now called upon to exercise functions of a judicial nature, felt himself bound to state to the House why he for one did not think himself competent to discharge that duty satisfactorily. He had no personal interest whatever in the borough of Carrickfergus, and it was a matter of indifference whether it were or were not disfranchised; but before the House divided on the principle of the Bill under consideration, which destroyed for ever the right of voting in that large and respectable town of the sister kingdom, he ventured to ask whether it possessed sufficient information to enable it satisfactorily to pronounce a judicial opinion on the question? If the hon. member behind him (Mr. Halcombe) felt a deep impression that the House was not in a condition to act judicially with perfect impartiality—if he felt it incumbent on him to call the attention of the House to this difficulty—he did not think that the hon. Member was open to sarcasms, or that he ought to be taunted as the champion of corruption. The hon. Member might act as the champion of this borough, and without any other motive than that of seeing impartial justice administered. If general corruption were proved against any borough, he could readily conceive many cases in which there would be no alternative but to make a public example, although this should be done at the expense of many unimpeachable individuals in it. Though private individuals might sustain private wrong; yet a borough might justly be disfranchised if, as a borough, it was disqualified to perform its duty of electing proper Representatives for that House. Public consideration, in that case, would overweigh private feelings; but before he came to any such determination, he must take care to know the precise extent of the corruption that prevailed. In neither of the Reports—the Report of the Election Committee, nor the Report of the Select Committee—was there any information as to the proportion of corrupt votes.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the number of

1163
householders was 105, and of freemen 885; and the evidence against the freemen was so strong, that they were given up by every one.
Mr. Tennentsaid, that 240 freemen out of 885 were proved to have been corrupt, but that there was not a tittle of evidence against the remainder. The number of freeholders and householders was 144, and there was no evidence against them.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the House must perceive, from the statements of the two hon. Members, how little was known of the facts of the case. The Committee had not given a detail of the facts on which the House was now called to act judicially. They were called on to affirm that, "Gross and scandalous corruption had prevailed at the late election for the town of Carrickfergus, and that the great proportion of the constituency, composed of freemen of the Corporation, were influenced solely by bribery in giving their votes; that similar practices have prevailed at former elections; and that the borough should, therefore, be excluded from hereafter returning a burgess to serve in Parliament." Now, that gross and scandalous bribery did prevail, he could, perhaps, with a safe conscience pronounce; but surely the parties who received the bribes, and still more, those who offered them, were the just objects on whom to visit the penalty. They were called on to dispossess the town of its franchise; but, before any opinion could be pronounced in favour of its forfeiture, it was necessary to know the precise state of the facts of the case, the details of the alleged corruption, and the extent to which it had prevailed. The charge of bribery, as it now stood, applied to the constituency generally. But there were two classes of voters in this borough, the freemen and the 10 l. voters. Hitherto, they had no means of ascertaining whether the charge of bribery applied to one only, or to both of these classes; or whether, if both were guilty, one of them was guilty to a greater extent than the other. His wish was to obtain information. He spoke quite disinterestedly on the subject; in fact, he had not seen or been consulted by any party in reference to it; but be could not help saying, that the Report of the Committee was most unsatisfactory. The country had been agitated for two whole years by discussions on the elective franchise. These discussions were conducted in a manner which implied that
1164
the elective franchise was little less than an absolute right; and would they now dispossess persons of it upon a Report of this kind, and without any further evidence—without going into such inquiry as would enable the House to decide in a more satisfactory way than it was possible to do at present? The Committee should at least have given a digest of the evidence. In place of this, they reported an opinion, that gross bribery took place. Had they even informed the House that a majority of the freemen had been bribed, or a majority of the 10 l. voters, they would have communicated important information. Instead of this, they had merely reported their opinion that corruption having generally prevailed, without going into detail, the borough should be disfranchised. What satisfaction could such a Report give? They ought to have dwelt on the state of the constituency, which consisted of two classes: with respect to the free-men, for example, they should have stated bow many were entitled to vote, and how many, after weighing the evidence, there was every reason to believe, had received bribes at the election. They ought, in short, not merely to have given their opinion, but to have accompanied it at the same time with a statement of facts. He must say, he was not in a condition in which he could, with satisfaction to his own mind, vote for the disfranchisement of the borough upon the Report of the Committee. Another very important question arose: by the Reform Bill, a new class of constituency had been called into active existence—the 10 l. householders. Before the House determined that this town, which appeared to be the 13th or 14th in the ratio of importance in Ireland, should altogether lose its franchise, ought they not to have the opportunity of maturely considering whether it was just to disfranchise the whole of the freemen, and whether it might not be possible in that case to find a good constituency, not open to bribery, from the 10 l. householders? Sir Frederick Yates was one of the Commissioners appointed under the Reform Bill—a Gentleman, he was bound to believe, of intelligence, and, from the situation he filled, sufficiently capable of forming a correct opinion. The opinion given by him before the Committee was, that the freemen ought to be disfranchised, but he was favourable to the retaining of the franchise still in the householders. It

1165
would be monstrous to deprive the innocent householders of their franchise in consequence of the guilt of the freemen, and that, merely in consequence of an opinion expressed by the Committee in a single sentence, and without having the details before them of the evidence upon which that opinion had been formed. The case presented matter of great difficulty; and although it might be right, perhaps, that Ministers, as such, should not take any-very decided part in the details of such proceedings, he was most anxious that Government should throw out some general principle by which such proceedings should be regulated. Hitherto the House, on disfranchising a borough, had reserved to itself the important preliminary of examining the witnesses at its bar; and, not till after due investigation, should they proceed to visit convicted delinquency with forfeiture of the elective franchise. They had passed the Grenville Act, because it was found, that when party feeling ran high, its influence was unavoidably felt in the determination of the rights of election. By the right of challenge given by that Act, and the examination of evidence on oath, the influence of party feeling had been prevented; but the utility of that would be set aside, if they were to decide upon the report of another Committee which pronounced its opinion upon evidence not taken upon oath. He was aware, it might interfere materially with the progress of public business in relation to questions of pre-eminent importance, that, on such occasions as the present, the witnesses should be examined at the bar of the House; but some scheme should be devised by which questions of this kind could be settled. He would seriously recommend the House to take into consideration the propriety of establishing some tribunal, to act under the authority of that House, and receive evidence, sanctioned by oath, on such matters, which should be called on to report its opinion in detail, verified by a reference to the facts which would give some satisfaction to a man desirous fairly to administer justice, and enable him to decide whether a case of corruption were established, rendering it expedient to make a public example, while they guarded as much as possible against committing injustice on individuals.
Sir John Byngfelt himself called on to disclaim having made use of the ex-
1166
pressions attributed to him by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in allusion to the hon. and learned member for Dover (Mr. Halcombe). He had never used the liberty of characterizing that hon. and learned Gentleman as the champion of corruption or corrupt boroughs in that House.
Lord John Russelldid not think it was right that Ministers should, on such occasions, take a part as a Government, in the discussion, so as to influence the opinions and votes of that House. Certainly, if they did so, the evil complained of most justly by the right hon. Baronet, of bringing party influence to bear on such questions, would, instead of being removed, be greatly and alarmingly increased. But as a Member of that House, he had, in former times, paid a good deal of attention to questions of this kind, and having gone through some very laborious inquiries, he had certainly thought it his duty to apply the best of his judgment to the different cases in detail. The right hon. Baronet complained, that, in the present instance, they had not had an examination that established the case upon oath before the Committee, and that it ought to be instituted at the Bar of the House. With regard to the latter part of the objection, the right hon. Gentleman said, in that respect, answering his own objection, that there were so many cases, that the time of the House would be entirely taken up if it were insisted on conducting the examinations at the Bar of the House. With respect to the other point, it was certainly a great and serious objection; but it was the misfortune, and not the fault, of that House. For several years he had proposed Bills to that House, which it had shown itself most willing to adopt, by which the examinations into such questions by Committees should be conducted upon oath; being empowered to summon witnesses, and go through the whole of the case, in order to enable the House to arrive at a proper judicial decision. A bill of this nature, had, two years ago, passed that House, but was rejected by the House of Lords. He had also brought in a bill of the same character last year, which had received very serious and ample discussion before a Select Committee; but he had been induced to refrain from proceeding with it in consequence of the pressure of other questions of great magnitude and importance, then demanding

1167
the urgent decision of the House. Having thus passed a bill to enable them to conduct such grave and serious inquiries before a Committee on Oath, which was rejected by the other House, they found themselves in this dilemma—either they must have an inquiry which was in some degree imperfect, by submitting such questions to a tribunal which could not have the sanction of an oath administered, or take the other alternative, and say, because the Lords refused that power, the House should sit still and allow all cases of corrupt boroughs to pass unnoticed and untouched. Whatever, therefore, the inconvenience might be, and it was certainly great, of having to act on reports of that kind without evidence upon oath, it was not the fault, but the necessity under which the House found itself; and certainly he did hope, that if another Bill should be introduced, and passed this Session, to meet the case, when sent up to the other House, it would receive a more favourable reception, and that they would be ultimately enabled to enter upon and adjudicate such questions relative to the franchise of elections, which, if not kept pure, was not worth preserving at all, with that satisfaction of mind, having every means of examination furnished to them, which the nature and importance of the subject undoubtedly required. With regard to the question immediately before the House, although the Committee had not embodied any digest of the evidence, and of those facts which induced them to come to the conclusion that the borough of Carrickfergus should be disfranchised; yet Members of that House were hardly entitled, he thought, to say that they had not read the evidence, which he admitted, was an irksome task, and therefore were not prepared to vote on the subject. He had carefully read the volume, and was amply convinced by the evidence at the latter part of it, that the borough ought to be disfranchised. The noble Lord referred to several parts of the printed evidence, and at considerable length, for the purpose of establishing the case of general bribery and corruption, extending not only to freemen of the corporation, but also to the 10 l. householders of the borough. The evidence distinctly proved a wholesale and long-established system of corruption. The question therefore was, whether a constituency could be found, who really possessed the bonâ fide
1168
qualification, and against whom there was no imputation of bribery. It did appear to him, that the greater part of the 10 l. householders having been bribed, as well as the freemen of the corporation, and especially as no attempt had been made to prove the possibility of finding in Carrickfergus an uncorrupted constituency, it was the duty of the House to carry through the present Bill, and send it to the other House. He should therefore vote for the second reading.
Mr. O'Connellexplained. The course which they had agreed to adopt was, if the second reading was carried, on a Motion in Committee by the hon. member for Belfast, the question should be discussed, whether the franchise of the 10 l. householders should be continued? Having no personal end to serve in the matter, he had no objection, if the House thought proper, to procure further evidence.
Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid, a petition from Carrickfergus was now lying on the Table of the House, offering to prove that an uncorrupted constituency could be found.
Mr. Jamesexpressed himself in favour of so extensive a franchise as would render bribery impossible. In fact, he thought it should be universal; no man had a sufficiently long purse to bribe a whole community [Some hon. Member called, "Liverpool."] He was aware, that corruption had existed in that borough, of which he was a freeman; and it had first commenced when the present Lord Chancellor went down in 1812 to contest it with Mr. Canning. He could not help thinking, that these disfranchisement bills were partial and unjust, because they invariably confounded the innocent with the guilty.
Mr. Aglionby, being a Member of both Select Committees which had sat on the Carrickfergus election, was anxious to address a few observations to the House. Being altogether free from prejudice in this matter, the first question he had proposed to himself was, whether they should inflict individual hardship for public good? and in that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that cases might occur in which such a course was the obvious and direct duty of the House. The next point he had to decide was, whether there was any thing which might lead him to believe, that there could be a full, fair, and honest constituency left after disfranchising those who might be con-

1169
victed of corruption. With respect to the second question, he was led by the evidence to this conclusion, that, in Carrickfergus, the leaven of corruption was so great, and had been so long in action, that an honest constituency was not to be expected. It was the evidence taken upon oath, that led him to this conclusion. To be able to form a just opinion on the force of evidence, it was not enough to see it in writing. The countenance and manner of the witnesses under examination must be observed. The hon. Member quoted some of the facts given in evidence to show the prevalence of bribery. That evidence was, he thought, quite sufficient. In fact, the only notion which the people of Carrickfergus had of independence, was to be released from the thraldrom of one family to be placed under the yoke of another. A large body of uncontaminated electors could not survive the disfranchisement of those who had been bribed; and the evidence on which he had come to that conclusion was upon oath. At the same time, he did not wish, that his opinions should bind any other individual, and therefore he was not inclined, if the House found it consistent with its forms, at some subsequent stage of the proceeding, to preclude further investigation.
Mr. Littletonhad given a close examination to the evidence, but before he stated what the result of that examination was, he would observe, that he considered it very unfortunate that the House had not a better and more efficient mode of taking testimony. He hoped that before the next Session of Parliament his noble friend near him would bring in the same Bill which he had introduced in the last Session of Parliament, to enable a Committee to take testimony upon oath. After reading the evidence, the bias of his mind certainly was in favour of totally disfranchising the present constituency of Carrickfergus. If the hon. Gentleman, however, could show that there was any mode of obtaining an honest 10 l constituency, he should be acting contrary to the principles which he had always advocated if he were to oppose any measure of that description. He should support the second reading of this Bill.
Colonel Leith Hayhaving been a member of the second Committee of last Session, wished to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in his remarks
1170
on the proceedings of that Committee. He had entered upon it, and he could safely say his right hon. and gallant friend the Chairman had also done so, with an anxious desire to preserve the franchise of the burgh if they could do so consistently with justice, and visiting the corruption proved with its well-merited punishment. In following this principle of conduct an examination was instituted to ascertain, if possible, the means of separating the innocent from the guilty, and preserving the rights of the former—to visit with punishment those who had been satisfactorily proved to have participated in the most barefaced bribery. This investigation was carried on under the disadvantages described by the right hon. Baronet of the persons examined, not having an oath administered to them, but it so happened that the principal evidences on the first Committee, whose testimonies were taken on oath, became the most important witnesses during the second inquiry; they also gave their evidence not only with their former assertions recorded, but under the peculiar circumstance of having been in most instances themselves personally implicated and consequently unlikely to advance facts of an over-coloured description, when those points must essentially tend to criminate themselves. With regard to the injustice of disfranchising the householders, because the freemen had proved corrupt, no injustice could be made out, inasmuch as many of these freemen proved to have been bribed stood in the double capacity, and it was consequently impossible to discriminate. He had said thus much in defence of the proceedings of the Committee; and he could assure the right hon. Baronet and the House, notwithstanding his conviction that no case could be made out calculated to induce another decision than that arrived at by the Committee of which his right hon. and gallant friend was Chairman, still wishing, as he did, and anxious as he ever should be, to save any inhabitant of this country possessed of the elective franchise from being deprived of it, if that could be done consistently with public duty, he should be happy to see this case again submitted to a tribunal calculated to elicit truth, if that had not been already arrived at, and finally to decide upon the claims of the inhabitants of Carrickfergus to retain their franchise or not, as was most consistent with the public good.
Sir Robert Peelhad not defended the conduct of the electors of Carrickfergus, as had been supposed. He had said, that if corruption prevailed in that place to the extent stated, it ought to be punished as a warning to others. He thought, if the House determined to proceed with the Bill, that it would be more convenient to enter into the investigation in the morning sittings. The inquiry would probably be got through in three sittings; but if it were thought that would interfere too much with the public business, it would be better to appoint a Select Committee.
Sir Edward Knatchbullwas not in favour of disfranchisement. He thought that it would be much better to make it imperative for every Member to swear at the Table that he had not been guilty either directly or indirectly of bribery. He was as desirous as any Member to put down corruption, but, in his opinion, that object would be better attained by punishing the Member or candidate who was guilty of it. With respect to the present case, the evidence taken before the Committee was of so loose a character that no reliance ought to be placed upon it. It ought also to be observed, that there was not a word affecting the 10 l. householders, and they ought not to punish the innocent with the guilty. He thought that it would be better that some general measure should be passed, by which the various Disfranchisement Bills before the House might be disposed of.
Lord John Russellthought that there was quite sufficient evidence before the House to justify their proceeding with the Bill. If, however, the hon. Member for Belfast proposed that an inquiry should take place before a Select Committee he would not oppose it. If there were sufficient 10 l. householders in the town to form an upright constituency, there would be no necessity to pass the Disfranchising Bill. If there was only one Bill of the kind before the House, he should agree with the right hon. Baronet that evidence should be examined at the bar; but there were several.
Sir Robert Peel, after the explanation of the noble Lord, would not vote against the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. O'Connell, in reply, stated, that he had undertaken the conduct of the Bill with the greatest reluctance, and that he was at any time prepared to give it up with the greatest delight. As long, how-
1172
ever, as it remained in his hands, he was bound closely to prosecute it; and to declare that he was ready to give evidence of the grossest corruption existing in the borough in question.
The Bill was read a second time.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.
Sir Thomas Freemantlemoved that the Bill for disfranchising the Borough of Stafford be read a second time. He contended that the evidence taken before the Committee proved there was no nucleus in Stafford for the formation of an independent and honest constituency. He should be happy if any other course could be devised to satisfy the House; but he, at the same time, did not believe that further inquiry would lead to any beneficial result. It might, perhaps, be said that a case had not been made out for disfranchising this borough; but if it were proved, as it undoubtedly was, that a majority of the electors of this borough had been guilty of bribery and corruption, he should like to know what other course could be followed than that which he proposed? The number of electors of all classes who voted at the last election for Stafford was 1,049, and of that number at least four-fifths were proved to have received money. It would, however, be for the House to determine whether that were a sufficient proportion to justify the disfranchisement of the borough. When the House had determined on purifying the constituency of the country generally—when nomination and rotten boroughs had been put an end to—he should like to know whether, in a case like the present, the interests of private individuals ought to stand in the way of the public good. If the House refused to interfere in the case of Stafford, hundreds of similar cases would in all probability occur; and unless they put down corruption by vigorous means the reforms which had been effected would soon become a dead letter. The hon. Baronet then moved that this Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Halcombehoped the same justice that was dealt out to other boroughs would be granted to the borough of Stafford. His principal object, in rising, was to call the attention of the House to a distinction that existed between this case and the case of the other boroughs against which corruption had been alleged. In the case of the borough of Stafford no Election

1173
Committee had sat, and the evidence, which was heard by the Select Committee that had been appointed to inquire into the matter, was not given under the obligation of an oath. The Report, however, bore as hardly upon the sitting Members as it did upon the voters, and, if the intention was to act fairly, the one should not be punished, and not the other. But he would put it to the House whether it were right to found a measure so penal in its nature as the present, on testimony given in the manner he had described?
Captain Chetwyndsaid, that in justice to the constituency he had the honour to represent, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet for the second reading of this Bill. The Report on which it was founded was full of inaccuracies, and this would be manifest on the face of it to any hon. Gentleman who was at the trouble of reading it. In the first place, it was untrue that a sufficient opportunity had been afforded by the Committee to rebut the charges. He had himself applied for the names of the witnesses who had been examined, but it was not until after the lapse of two or three days that an imperfect list was furnished him. He meant no disrespect to the Committee by this statement, and merely used it as a fact among others to show that full justice had not been done to the parties inculpated by the Report. Again, it was not, as the hon. Baronet stated, true that a majority of the electors had accepted bribes. The number out of the 1,049 voters who had been proved to have acted corruptly did not exceed 344. The hon. Member quoted the evidence at considerable length, and commented on it to show, that it was in many particulars most inaccurate. He then observed, that because a minority had been guilty of disreputable conduct, to punish the majority, on whom no imputation could rest, would be a great injustice. He must say, that such a proceeding would be most unjust. Severity of punishment was not, however, the best way of correcting abuses, or putting a stop to bribery; and if, therefore, instead of disfranchising the borough, they were to augment the number of the constituency, they would accomplish all that could be desired. The greater part of the voters were anxious to vindicate themselves from the imputation of corruption which had been alleged against them, and it was by them suggested in two peti-
1174
tions which they had presented to that House that the best mode of correcting the abuse complained of would be to comprehend within the limits of the borough the inhabitants of the town and parish of Stone, and of another place near Stafford. By such a course bribery at all future elections would be effectually prevented. But was it not clear that if this Bill were passed, it would establish a most dangerous precedent? It would, in fact, decide that any borough in which ever so small a number of voters were venal enough to accept bribes should be on that account—and notwithstanding the great majority of the voters had acted purely—disfranchised. This would be a monstrous doctrine to lay down, and, therefore, he hoped the House would reject the hon. Baronet's Motion. But there was another reason why this measure should not be carried. The hon. member for Bradford (Mr. Hardy) had avowed his intention to introduce a Bill for preventing bribery at elections, and if that measure were passed the hon. Baronet's Bill would be rendered unnecessary. He moved, as an Amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire further into the extent of the imputed corruption in the borough of Stafford.
Mr. Ordcould not recollect any attempt to make out a case that had so signally failed as that which was made on the present occasion. There had been a total failure of the attempt to impeach the credibility of the witnesses; and, in his opinion, the Committee succeeded in laying before the House sufficient grounds for the entire disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford—a mode of dealing with the matter infinitely preferable to any extension of the franchise to the adjoining district, or to any towns in the neighbourhood; besides, if they did not adopt that course, they would lose a good opportunity of setting an example that might, and he was sure would, be beneficial to the country at large,—that would act as a warning to electors, and be received as an evidence of the value which a Reformed Parliament set upon the suffrages of unbought and independent electors. He, therefore, hoped that the Bill, as it at present stood, might pass into a law.
Mr. Fryercontended, that they could not have a better constituency than that which might be derived from the union of Stafford, Stone, and Eccleshall; and He

1175
should therefore vote, not for total disfranchisement, but for the extension of the franchise to those places. Not that he had the slightest objection to see every one of those persons disfranchised who could be proved guilty of bribery; but he should not, on that account, deprive honest men of the right of voting. Accordingly, he should give his support most cordially to any proposition for enabling those places jointly to return a Member to Parliament.
Mr. Edward Bullerwas well acquainted with the borough of Stafford, and perfectly concurred in the opinion, that equal weight was not to be given to evidence not taken upon oath, as to that which was sworn to; but he could not agree with the hon. member for Newport (Mr. Ord), that the witnesses were reluctant ones. The fact was, that Stafford was the very hot-bed of dissension. They were there ready to tear each other to pieces, to inflict deathblows for the gratification of their personal animosities. William Dudley's evidence was opposed. He had stated he never was bribed, which was contrary to an hon. Member's assertion. Biddulph's evidence was in opposition; but Biddulph came forward from party feeling. In the contest it was, he admitted, strange that Mr. Blount should have had 161 votes, and Mr. Chetwynd, who was so nearly connected with the town, only 121. Mr. Blount had not been much known. He was the agent of a nobleman, Lord Stafford, who did not reside there. All the objections that could be mooted would be obviated by the junction of the neighbourhood from which, as had been before stated, a pure constituency might be obtained. Warwick and Stafford, it was admitted, were equally guilty. And why, then, should Stafford be treated with greater forbearance? Treating and bribery, he considered, were equally criminal. He saw no difference in the shade of guilt of him who gorged himself with ale and hot suppers, and those who felt the gold and spent it at home. One, indeed, might be considered more brutal than the others. In Warwick 4,990 l. was spent in twenty-eight public houses. Ought that to be passed unnoticed? Was it, indeed, because there was a noble Lord in the case who looked proudly from his castle walls on the scene of so much corruption?—who came, like Jupiter, in golden showers upon the town; who objected to the incorporation of Leamington with it,
1176
in which he evinced some taste and charity; for youth, beauty, and health, should not be wedded to the decrepitude of age. In conclusion, considering there would be no difficulty in finding an adequate constituency in the neighbourhood of Stafford, he should oppose its disfranchisement.
Mr. Wardconfessed, that he had entered the House with no little curiosity to hear what the hon. and gallant member for Stafford would say in defence of that borough; and, though he must admit, that his hon. and gallant friend had taken up and handled, with the greatest ability, every point that could be urged in favour of his case, his hon. friend's arguments had not had the effect of shaking his opinion upon the merits of the case. He really thought that, after the ample inquiry which had been devoted to this subject, both in the Committee above-stairs and by the House, there could not remain any grounds for a division of sentiment. He would, therefore, not detain the House with any discussion, though there were one or two points on which he could not but make a remark. In reference to the witness Biddulph, whose character had been called in question in the course of those discussions, he must say, he thought the treatment that individual had experienced was hardly worthy of that House. With regard to the alleged case of a stolen watch, he (Mr. Ward), as one of the Committee, had been deputed to investigate the matter; and, being so appointed, had pushed his inquiries until he really was ashamed of going any further. There really was not the shadow of a ground for the accusation. He had now only one observation to urge against retaining to Stafford its elective franchise, and that was, the difficulty of finding a constituency for that borough. An hon. baronet had stated, that there were 434 unimpeachable freemen in that borough. He was not prepared to admit this; he did not wish to assume the guilt of any of those individuals; yet, on the other hand, he did not feel inclined to assume the innocence of all of them. Some of the witnesses before the Committee, when asked upon this point, said there might be 300, others 200, voters in the town above taking a bribe; perhaps, even the latter number might be beyond the fact. Now, the propriety of including neighbouring places in the elective franchise of any corrupt borough must depend upon

1177
the extent of corruption existing in that borough. If it was entirely corrupt, the infusion of a little pure blood would not be enough to reanimate its healthy functions. His hon. friend on the other side of the House had certainly made out a very bad case against Warwick; but he had also made a very bad case for Stafford. All his arguments went to show was, that Warwick was as bad or worse than Stafford, and should share the same fate. He hoped that it would turn out so, when the case of Warwick came before the House in Committee that evening. His hon. and gallant friend's pathetic appeal, on the ground that Stafford was a county town, he thought of no validity. The very circumstance of Stafford being a county town rendered it a more fitting case to make an example of. He should, therefore, give his hearty concurrence to the Motion before the House.
Mr. Forsterthought, that if there were sufficient evidence to attach a charge of corruption and dereliction of duty on any of the electors of the borough of Stafford, the Attorney-General should have been instructed to proceed against such persons for their offence, rather than bring the case thus generally and confusedly before that House. What had that House done in the prosecution of this inquiry? Why, so far from punishing the offending parties for their misconduct, they had actually passed a Bill of Indemnity in favour of all those who gave evidence in proof of misdeeds in which they had themselves participated. He must urge the House not to disfranchise the whole borough of Stafford, interesting as it was by its association with the name of Sheridan, because some part of its constituency had misbehaved themselves; but rather to follow the same course as they were about to adopt in regard to the borough of Warwick, where great bribery had been proved to exist, that of increasing, rather than destroying, its elective constituency.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 5; Noes 167—Majority 162.
The Bill Was read a second time.

WARWICK ELECTION BILL.
Sir Ronald Fergusonmoved, that the House resolve into a Committee on the Warwick Election Bill.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Halcomberose, and, amidst much
1178
confusion, said, before the Speaker left the Chair, he would draw the attention of the House to a case of breach of privilege. The complaints he had to make arose out of a passage in the Report of the Committee on the case before the House, in which it was stated, that two petitions had been presented from the borough of Leamington, the one for and the other against the extension of the elective privilege, both very numerously and respectably signed. Now, as to the respectability of the individuals who signed the petition in favour of that proposition, he would only say, that out of 418 who were said to have signed it, no less than 280 were not to be found; not one of them were on the rate-lists of the parish; and, besides these, there were eighty-five who were lodgers, and eighteen who were rated at less than 10 l., and were, consequently, not at all interested in the matter. He had made a most diligent inquiry into the history of this petition, and he had discovered that it had been drawn out and set a-going by a person who was the Chairman of the Birmingham Political Union; and he would now ask of the hon. Baronet, the Chairman of this Committee, whether the Report of the Committee had not been drawn up by Mr. Joseph Parkes, the Secretary to the Birmingham Political Union?
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, he knew nothing about the person who drew up the petition alluded to.
Mr. Halcombesaid, that the hon. Baronet's reply could only be accounted for by deafness on his part. He had not asked him who had drawn up the petition, but who had drawn up the Report of the Committee of which he was Chairman.
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, he did not know who had drawn up that Report.
Mr. Halcombesaid, it seemed to him to be very extraordinary that the Chairman of a Committee should not know to whom the task of drawing up the Report of their proceedings had been confided. But to return to the two respectable petitions. Whilst the one in favour of the extension of the elective privilege was signed by only 633 l. worth of the rental of the town, the counter petition against that measure was supported by freemen to the amount of 47,000 l. rental. The hon. Chairman and Mr. Parkes had endeavoured to show that this statement was impossible, because the total rental of the place amounted to only 20,000 l.

1179
In this, however, they had fallen into error by calculating the rental at the old rate, which was hardly a third of its actual present value, which would be found to be upwards of 60,000 l. The petition praying that the town of Leamington might not be incorporated with Warwick was signed by 757 out of 850 ten-pound rate-payers; thirty-seven of the 850 signed the other petition, thirty-five were absent, and the remainder refused to sign any petition whatever on the subject. He contended that the introduction of a petition such as the other was to that House, bearing fictitious signatures, was a breach of its privileges, and that that called for inquiry. The grossest falsehoods were put forward to the House, calculated to mislead it, and so artfully contrived that they could not be answered immediately, and indeed not until the evil they were designed to work was in some degree effected. He would not say that the statements charging some persons opposed to the extinction of the franchise with not being qualified as rate-payers were untrue with reference to a particular date. They might not have been rate-payers then; but they were the owners of houses who had paid their rates since, and were now qualified. The reasons alleged by the petitioners (and, be it recollected, they were almost all the independent householders of the town) for declining the elective incorporation of the town with Warwick were good and valid ones. They were not such as faction or Birmingham Union schemes would suggest; they were purely practical, and resolvable into the protection of the interests of the inhabitants. The petitioners stated, that the franchise would be destructive of the interests of the town, which had risen from a humble village by a number of co-operating circumstances—its mineral waters, its scenery, and general salubrity—to its present distinction. It was a resort for infirm persons, and those who liked calm enjoyment. During the last election persons flocked to it from the surrounding towns, for there they expected to enjoy undisturbed security; whereas, if it were made the scene of electioneering strife, the general tranquillity of the place would be interrupted, and the town would be probably deprived of the residence of its usual visitors. He would take leave to refer to what had fallen from the Chairman of the Committee. He stated, that that petition
1180
had only asserted that the possession of the franchise would be no advantage to the town. That was not the attenuated statement of the petition; and it was an injustice to the people of Leamington and a fraud on that House to put the case in that way, for the petition stated much more. Then it was said, that there was another petition very numerously signed, praying for the extension of the franchise, thus placing both on an equality, as if one were to counterbalance the other. He was not surprised at the efforts made to smother the prayer of the petition, and at the Report of the Committee, when he recollected the agency that was employed to collect materials for justifying the enfranchisement of Leamington and for drawing up the Report. When he recollected that the individual who conducted all the proceedings was the directing spirit of the Birmingham Political Council, Mr. Joseph Parkes, a man who commanded the ear of a high personage in the Cabinet—["Oh, oh," "Hear, hear, hear," and confusion]—when he considered that that Gentleman was the conductor, if not the author, of the Report, he was not surprised at the attempts made. The hon. Member read the names of the following gentlemen whom he proposed to nominate on a Committee to inquire into a breach of privilege:—The Chairman of the Committee (Sir Ronald Ferguson), Lord Eastnor, Mr. Tancred, Mr. Estcourt, Lord Ebrington, Lord Granville Somerset, Mr. Plumptre, and Mr. Halcombe. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following amendment, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of an alleged breach of privilege, as regards the signatures and presentation to the House of a Petition purporting to be signed by certain inhabitants of Leamington Spa, praying for the extension of the borough of Warwick to Leamington."
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, the object of the present Motion was, to prevent the House, by a side-wind, from disfranchising the town of Warwick; and every one in the House should see the necessity of not concurring in any thing that would stop the proceedings relative to that town.
Mr. Goulburnrecollected similar cases of imputed fraud in petitioners, in which inquiry was instituted. In one case, when the facts were true, the House marked strongly its sense of the conduct

1181
of the parties, and of the outrage offered to its privileges. He hoped the Amendment would not be set aside on the ground of any inconvenience.
Lord John Russellsaw nothing in the statement of the hon. member for Dover to induce him to vote for the course proposed by him, in preference to that proposed by his hon. and gallant friend. If the allegations of the hon. Gentleman were well founded, they might be a good reason for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into them; but he saw no reason why the appointment of such a Committee should prevent the House from proceeding with the Bill. He, therefore, without taking into consideration the propriety of appointing a Committee, at a future period, to inquire into the circumstances alleged by the hon. Member, would vote for the Motion of his hon. and gallant friend; and he could but say, that he considered the present course taken by the hon. member for Dover as an unwarrantable and unreasonable interruption.
Mr. Halcombesaid, there was a petition to that effect.
Lord John Russellsaid, when the question was regularly brought on, he would not object to inquiry. But the proper business, he thought, should be allowed to go on.
The Amendment was negatived; and the House went into a Committee on the Bill for the Disfranchisement of Warwick.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if bribery were proved, he would not deny that the House should disfranchise, or incorporate the constituency with some other. But there should be sufficient evidence of the fact. Now, in the present case, there were only twenty-one voters who were proved to be corrupt. Of these, ten voted for one candidate and ten for another; and those bribed voters were non-residents. The proper plan would be, not to visit the sins of a few on all, but to disqualify the corrupt. One hon. Gentleman had stated that he would vote for disfranchisement, not because of the corruption, but of the undue influence of the Earl of Warwick. Now, the conduct of the Earl of Warwick was not before the House, and there was no evidence to prove undue influence. On the contrary, it appeared from the evidence of Colonel Stuart, that the candidate supported at
1182
one of the elections by his Lordship's influence was defeated. If he possessed that influence, it was odd that his friend should be rejected, when Mr. Tomes was returned. Only twenty-one cases of bribery out of a constituency of 1,300 were proved. On such facts he protested against the disfranchisement of the borough. A second Committee was appointed to investigate the whole extent of bribery, and a single case more of bribery they could not prove. Treating was another charge; but it was treating only before the teste of the writ, and that was legal; and was the town to be disfranchised for what was legal? If the law be bad, let it be altered.
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, the right hon. Member imagined there was no crime without direct bribery. But when he found persons receiving presents not only before the teste of the writ, but up to the time of the election, he considered that bribery. It was said that only twenty-four cases of bribery were proved. That was enough for him. Every one knew how difficult it was to prove even one case. With respect to other circumstances, the right, hon. Gentleman had kept in the back ground the illegal manufacture of votes, and the consequence of the barrister going down was, that those voters were struck out of the registration. Further, there had been threats. But the whole of the facts were before the House, and he was disposed to move that the borough be totally disfranchised. If, however, the House thought proper to unite Warwick to another town, and that of Leamington Priors was so adverse to the union, the town of Kenilworth had petitioned to-day that it viewed the corruption in Warwick as so distressing that it would not object to a union beneficial to the country.
Sir Grey Skipwithsaid, knowing the feeling of the people of Leamington, he wished to rescue them from the injustice they would suffer by being joined to Warwick. The people of Leamington were seriously alarmed at the prospect of the change, from the risk of deterioration to which it would subject their property. He would, therefore, move, "that the words 'the limits of the said borough of Warwick, as far as respects the election of Members to serve in Parliament, shall comprise the parish of Leamington Priors, do not stand part of the Bill."
The Chairmansuggested, that the preamble was before the Committee, and it would be better to defer the Amendment until the enacting clause was under consideration.
Mr. Hughes Hughescontended, that the private interests of Leamington ought not to outweigh a public good. He should, therefore, support the Bill as it stood; but it was the only Bill of the four disfranchising Bills that he could support.
Mr. Halcomberose, and was proceeding to address some remarks to the Committee, but was so frequently interrupted by-laughter and ironical cheers, that
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. He put it to every hon. Member of the Committee whether such a mode of treating the statements or arguments brought before it was likely to raise or support its character as a judicial body. If the Committee were too fatigued to pursue the subject further, surely it would be better for it to adjourn than by impatience to prevent hon. Members from being heard.
Mr. Halcombeagain rose to speak, and was proceeding to vindicate a petition from Banbury, when he was again interrupted by the cries of "Hear, hear." The hon. Member said, that he rarely paid any attention to personal interruptions; but he would tell the hon. member for Cheshire (Mr. John Stanley), that if he thought proper to persevere in his insolent interference—[Hear]
Mr. John Stanleysaid, that he had only expressed his admiration at the conduct of the hon. and learned Member in the way which admiration and approbation were usually expressed in that House, The hon. Member had, that evening, risen five times to defend the parties who were delinquents before the House, and as he had presumed that the hon. Member had risen a sixth time for a similar purpose, he had expressed his admiration at the candour of such conduct.
Mr. Goulburnagain rose to order. He was quite sure that, the Committee must see the necessity of avoiding such personal altercations if any subject was to be discussed. The hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. Halcombe) had naturally felt irritated at the manner in which he had been interrupted, and had perhaps expressed himself in a manner which, in calmer moments, he would not have adopted. He could not, however, but
1184
put it to the Committee to consider the necessity of hearing patiently such arguments as might be adduced before it.
The Chairmansaid, he had no doubt the feeling of the Committee was to discuss the subject fully and patiently. Hon. Members, however, would probably feel that they could not be exempt from those signs of impatience which would sometimes occur.
Mr. Halcombesaid, that he should make no further allusion to the personal interruption he had experienced. The hon. Member then defended the petition from Banbury, and contended that it did honour to those who had signed it, among whom was the dearest connexion he had upon earth. In rising so often to address the House, he had merely discharged his duty. The hon. Member adverted to the evidence taken before the Committee on the Warwick election, in as far as it referred to fictitious votes, and contended, that it proved that the pink and blue party had made more than 100 fictitious votes just previous to the passing of the Reform Act. He also contended, that it appeared by the evidence of General Master and others, that, where the party implicated by the Report of the Committee had made one fictitious vote, the pink and blue party had made four. He denied that the influence of the Castle was considerable in the borough of Warwick, or that it had been exercised there; but he would ask, what was the predominant influence in the town of Leamington? It was that of the hon. member for Banbury. Mr. Tomes was a great shareholder in the pump-room, and the largest householder, and in those circumstances were to be found the real spring to the present proceedings. With respect to the money which had been expended, the amount was not at all exorbitant, and was easily accounted for.
Mr. Langdalehad been a member of the Committee, and denied that any person not a member of the Committee had drawn up the Report, as had been stated by the hon. member for Dover.
Mr. Halcombeasked the hon. Member if he could say that the Report had not been so drawn up?
Mr. Langdalewould say, that to the best of his knowledge it had not. The evidence not only justified the Report, but the Committee had no choice, if they did their duty, but to make it.
Sir George Phillipssaid, that some of the remarks made by the hon. Member (Mr. Halcombe) were rather singular. He had accused his (Sir George's) hon. friend, the member for Banbury, of seeking the disfranchisement of Warwick, in order that the borough of Leamington, in which he was a large proprietor, might have the elective franchise extended to it. He thought it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should come forward, as be had done, with such a statement. The fact was, that so far from Leamington wishing to have the elective franchise, a large majority of the 10 l. voters of that borough had expressly disclaimed any wish to be connected with the borough of Warwick. He however thought, that by joining Leamington and the other borough with Warwick, they might have an independent and respectable constituency; and in order that so great an object might be gained, he (Sir George) would vote for the union of Leamington with Warwick. He was sure it would be doing a great favour to the respectable and honest part of the constituency of Warwick, either to disfranchise the borough entirely, or to unite Leamington to it. In Cornwall and other places, where corrupt boroughs were disfranchised by the Reform Bill, the people were very thankful for it. So, he was satisfied, would be the people of Warwick in a few years. But as he thought that an independent borough might be created by adding Leamington to Warwick, he would vote for such union, rather than that the elective franchise be entirely withdrawn.
Lord Eastnorsaid, it had been admitted on all hands, that a large proportion of the 10 l. voters of Leamington were adverse to the junction of the two places. He therefore thought it worthy the consideration of the House, whether they should disfranchise Warwick in consequence of the few cases of bribery which had been proved.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the question was, not whether Leamington or Kenilworth should be enfranchised, when the franchise was in the possession of the House, but whether a case had been made out which would justify the disfranchisement of Warwick. It was not pretended that the majority of the electors were guilty. Had they been so, it would have been but right that the minority should have been punished along with them. But he con-
1186
tended, that it was altogether unfair that so large a majority should suffer for the offence of a very small minority. Out of 1,277 electors, twenty-one only were proved to have been guilty of bribery. He complained also of the preamble of the Bill. It charged the electors of Warwick with being guilty of gross bribery. The charge was altogether unwarranted. The circumstance of proving one or two, or twenty-one, to have been guilty of the offence, would not justify the charge of gross bribery, as applied to the borough.
Mr. Towermaintained, that a case had been made out to justify the disfranchisement of the borough. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, respecting the use of the terms gross bribery, as applied to the electors of Warwick, he (Mr. Tower) contended, that the Committee were perfectly justified in using that language. It was not to be supposed that, because they had only proved twenty-one cases of bribery, no more had occurred. When the Committee made out that number of cases, they thought it quite sufficient for their purpose.
The several Clauses of the Bill went through the Committee—the House resumed.