§ Sir Edward Knatchbullsaid, he had been intrusted with a Petition from certain freemen of Canterbury, to which he would call the particular attention of the House. It had reference to a petition which had been presented the other evening by the hon. Member opposite, complaining of undue interference on the part of certain persons in the late Canterbury election. No sooner did the intelligence of the presentation of that petition, and of the statements contained in it, reach Canterbury than the present petition was prepared, which denied in toto the assertions of the former petition, and expressed an anxious desire on the part of the petitioners for the fullest inquiry and investigation into the matter. He had no personal know- 96 ledge of what had occurred at the last Canterbury election, but he was quite sure that the hon. Member would not contradict him when he said, that the charge made against the aristocracy residing in the neighbourhood, of having interfered in that election, had no foundation in fact. He was sure, that no such thing occurred. He had himself never, either directly or indirectly, interfered in the elections of Canterbury, and having many friends amongst the gentry, in that vicinity, he thought he could safely say the same on their part. He thought, that the hon. Member, as well as the parties to the petition he had presented, had been warmed by their zeal into somewhat indiscreet assertions on the subject. He recollected, that on a former evening, the hon. Gentleman himself had mentioned an occurrence of a rather singular character. He had said, that he had been called up early in the morning on one of the days of the election to witness some proceedings that were going on, and that on taking his station in a tavern, he saw three or four clergymen at that early hour (seven o'clock in the morning) endeavouring to tamper with some of the electors. Now, this was the more extraordinary, considering that the election took place early in January. Perhaps he misunderstood the hon. Member, but he understood him to make that statement. He would repeat, that the petitioners denied all the statements contained in the former petition against them, and that they were ready to meet any inquiry, that the hon. Member might move for, or that the House might think proper to institute.
§ Mr. Frederick Villierswould just say a few words in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member. What he did say was, that he was sent for on one of the days of the election, to witness from a house opposite five clergymen endeavouring to tamper with two electors, who had declined to vote. He did not mention the hour at which that had occurred. He had mentioned another instance where he was informed, that at seven o'clock in the morning three clergymen, one of them the brother of the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, were seen tampering with a coach proprietor, and endeavouring to get him to vote for the Government candidate. He had every reason to know, that the clergy in Canterbury had acted with the greatest zeal against him. Twenty- 97 four clergymen polled against him, and one of them actually went to two polling-places, and polled twice against him. He first went to one of the district booths and polled there, and he afterwards went and polled at the Guildhall. When taxed with it, he said that it had been done by mistake. It was very fortunate, however, for him (Mr. Villiers) that no more mistakes were made in that way.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.