Commons Sitting of 11 May 1840

RATING STOCK IN TRADE.
Sir Robert Peelhad given notice of a question which he intended to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, on a matter of very great importance, and which referred principally to an impost levied in this country of not less than seven millions a year. It appeared that the sum raised annually for poor-rates and county-rates might be taken at six millions, and the highway and other rates at 1,100,000 l. a year; and, consequently, upon an average of three years, there had been seven millions raised yearly upon these imposts. The question he had to put was, upon what principle was that impost to be assessed? He thought that, in consequence of the conflicting decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, and the almost known illegality of every rate that was made, Parliament ought not to separate without giving a practical answer to this question. At present, the utmost doubt arose as to the validity of any rate that might be imposed, and this would be proved by a short reference to the circular published by the Poor-law Commissioners. The Court of Queen's Bench had lately decided, that stock in trade ought to be rated, and the Poor-law. Commissioners had given notice to the country that no rate would be valid, or, at least, that any rate which did not include stock in trade was liable to be appealed against; on the other hand, it appeared that it was almost impossible properly to rate stock in trade, [cheers.] He was glad to hear by those cheers, that the hon. Gentleman and his friends were aware of the importance of this question, and if the proposition he had laid down were granted, it followed as a necessity that there could be no validity in any rate. An official publication, a kind of circular, had been put forth by the Poor-law Commissioners, containing much useful instruction on many matters which were the subject of the law, and this circular was taken as the guide by the subordinate authorities relative to the mode of administering the law. In this circular it was stated, that
1368
on the 6th of March last, the Poor-law Commissioners gave notice, that since the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of the Queen v. Lumsdaine, there remained no longer any doubt as to the liability of stock in trade to be rated, and that every rate might be successfully appealed against, if any inhabitant having productive stock in trade were not rated for it. The circular then proceeded to say, that a rate in respect of stock in trade could only be made upon such persons as were actually inhabitants, so that a large proportion of the property in every place, which belonged to persons who were not resident, was not liable to be rated. The Commissioners further stated, that it was not all the productive stock in trade which an inhabitant possessed that was liable to be rated. Suppose, then, the parish officers included the stock in trade of the resident inhabitants, what would be the consequence? It was only the clear liquidated surplus, after payment of all the owner's debts, that was liable; and it was decided in the case of Rex v. White, that personal property must not be rated at random, and that the overseers must be able to prove its exact amount. So that the parochial officers must find out the exact liability of the parties before they could enforce a rate. Besides, Lord Mansfield, in another case, laid it down, that personal property was only the surplus after paying the owner's debts, a proper sum for the maintenance of his family, and also other necessary expenses; and if a parish officer made a rate, not properly apportioning the sum after ascertaining these particulars, that rate was liable to be appealed against just as much as if the property had not been included at all. Such was the present state of the law with respect to an annual impost amounting to seven millions, and he thought that by this simple statement, he had clearly established the absolute necessity of preventing the confusion that must arise by a distinct declaration of the law. He would therefore ask, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to recommend Parliament to interfere, and pass a measure to reconcile the conflicting decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to satisfy the public mind upon the point, whether stock in trade ought to be rated?
The Attorney Generalsaid, that since the right hon. Baronet had given notice of his question, it had unfortunately hap-

1369
pened, that he had not been able to consult with his noble Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government in that House, but he felt no difficulty in stating his own opinion, and explaining the advice which he would certainly give, and which he had no doubt would be followed. He thought that a bill ought to be introduced immediately to apply a remedy. There was no doubt that ever since the statute of the 43d Eliz. the stock in trade was liable to be rated, and that such stock in trade must belong to inhabitants who were resident. But such were the difficulties attending the assessment, that throughout almost all the parishes in England the rating had fallen into disuse. The law remained, however, as he had stated; lately there was an appeal against the rate, in which he had the honour to appear as counsel, and the court decided, as he had anticipated, that a rate omitting the stock in trade was bad. Such a state of the law ought not to continue, for it forced a most inquisitorial research into the private affairs of individuals, and his recommendation would be, either that a separate bill should be introduced, or that a clause should be inserted in some bill during its progress through the House, to make that custom which had prevailed by universal consent a part of the law, and to declare that stock in trade should not be rated to the poor rates, and, consequently, not to the county rate, or any other rate.

LUDLOW—NEW WRIT.
The Earl of Darlingtonhaving been called upon by the Speaker,
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, that as the noble Lord had not given any reply to a request he had made in the morning, he would repeat the request in his place in the House, and it was, whether the noble Lord would consent that his motion for a new writ for Ludlow should be fixed for Thursday, the same day as that already fixed for the discussion on the writ for the borough of Cambridge? He asked this of the noble Lord, thinking that he should thereby effect a saving of the time of the House, and he did so with the more confidence, because on Friday night the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sudbury, consulting the general feeling of the House, had consented to postpone his motion for the Cambridge writ till Thursday, in consequence of the necessary absence of his
1370
noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies. He had also another ground on which to urge his request, and it was, that when a motion was made for printing the minutes of evidence, and then that the writ should be suspended till the 1st of June, his noble Friend had opposed that motion, stating, at the same time, the full understanding, that no one should move for a new writ without giving ample notice; and under these circumstances, believing that no inconvenience would be suffered by any parties by a delay of three days, he thought it was not too much to ask of the noble Lord that he would postpone his motion till Thursday.
The Earl of Darlingtonsaid, that, after the forcible appeal which had been made to him, he would be sorry to do anything that might seem discourteous, especially if the feeling of the House should be that he ought to postpone his motion. Still he felt great difficulty in complying with the request, consistently with good faith towards the constituency of Ludlow, without assigning for the postponement any strong or even plausible reason. Now, the only reason which had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman was the absence of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and the answer which he gave to that was, that he had given full notice on Friday that he would move the writ that day; and if the noble Lord had wished to take part in the discussion, he would have communicated his wish by note, or privately, through the hon. Gentleman. But when the hon. Gentleman called he did not understand that he came from the noble Lord; on the contrary, when he asked whether, if he postponed his motion, the noble Lord would not oppose it, the hon. Gentleman replied, that he could say nothing upon that point, because since the late lamentable occurrence he had had little or no communication with the noble Lord. There was, therefore, no reason assigned for postponement, and with all due deference to the House, and not intending to be discourteous, he must persevere in his motion, unless by postponing it he should have the assurance that it would, on a future day, receive no opposition.
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, the noble Lord was labouring under a mistake. What he said was, that he was not aware whether the noble Lord would oppose the motion; but he knew that the noble Lord was

1371
anxious to be present at the discussion, for he knew that it was the intention of the noble Lord to propose some measure to check the alarming and extensive system of bribery and corruption which had been proved in the two present cases; and it would ill become the House, after the reports which had been presented—
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. He objected to a discussion on the main question.
The Earl of Darlingtonthought, that no hon. Member of the House could have a reasonable ground for thinking that they should any longer withhold the writ from that borough. It was but justice to the inhabitants of Ludlow—especially to that respectable class of the electors to whom no stigma or reproach could possibly attach—that the House should now restore to them that privilege of being represented by two Members of Parliament, which had been conferred on them by the constitution. The House must be aware, that in all ordinary cases of a vacancy in the representation of a place during the sittings of Parliament, it was in the power of any hon. Member, without notice, to move for a writ, and the motion being made, the writ was granted without objection. He would admit, however, that the present was an extraordinary occasion. A committee had been appointed to examine into the circumstances of the late election for Ludlow. The report declared the election void, and from the evidence given them, the committee deemed it necessary to make a special report. He had no fault to find with the committee; he had no doubt that they acted from a conviction that bribery and treating had been practised at the election. The consequence of the special report was the suspension of the writ until the evidence should have been placed in the hands of the Members of the House. That was now the case. The printed minutes had been in their hands long enough for the perusal of all those hon. Members who desired to make themselves masters of the subject. The evidence was certainly voluminous, but those who had not already gone, would not go through it, he was sure if the issuing of the writ were postponed until the end of the session. Now, no one was more ready to condemn the practice of bribery and treating at elections than he; but though the practice of those acts at Ludlow might have been proved suffi-
1372
ciently to warrant the drawing up of a special report, he contended there was not sufficient evidence of bribery or treating, or whatever it might be, to make the whole of the inhabitants of Ludlow pay the penalty that might have been incurred by the misconduct of a few. Generally speaking, very little bribery had been proved. As for treating, he did not think it was a great offence, in elections, to partake of refreshments when they were offered; it was upon the candidates who tempted them that the penalty of the misconduct should fall. From the circumstance of Ludlow being in that division of Shropshire which he had the honour to represent, he felt a deep interest in this question, and he was the more inclined to contend for the preservation of the lights and privileges of the borough, when he remembered the many strong remonstrances and heavy complaints that had reached him from several of the most respectable inhabitants. They complained that they had been deprived of their second representative for no less a period than two months. Now, this was really a very hard case; it was making the innocent suffer for the guilty, and be trusted such a course of injustice would no longer be permitted. With these sentiments, he moved that a new writ be issued for the borough of Ludlow.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton moved, that the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. First, because the noble Lord who represented the Government in that House had intimated his intention of taking part in the debate, if it should be postponed until that day; and also, because when they should have occasion to contrast the performance of the Reform Bill with the anticipations of those who introduced the Reform Bill, it would be very inconvenient to point to those contradictions in the absence of the noble Lord, to whom they had frequently referred.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the amendment. If that had not been moved he was prepared to move that the writ be suspended for six months. The noble Lord said, that nobody would condemn bribery and treating more severely than he; and then he said there was no bribery. Now, if the noble Lord had read the evidence, he must have seen that a more flagitious, a more infamous case of bribery and treating had never been exposed to that House. And if the House did not repudiate such

1373
proceedings, and mark their opinion of them by a severe decision, the character of the House would be for ever lost in the estimation of the public, and henceforward it must be supposed that the House, instead of objecting to bribery and treating at elections, was rather disposed to reward such conduct. It appeared upon the evidence, that parties at Ludlow openly sold their votes, at from 30 l. to 50 l. a-piece; and that in one instance, an agent was authorised to give 500 l. for a vote.—He did not mean to condemn one side, for both sides seemed to have been equally engaged in those practices. But he considered it was the duty of the House to take care that the electors of Ludlow should not have another opportunity of disgracing themselves, by selling the most important rights of their countrymen.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be a very dangerous precedent to move the suspension of a writ. There was scarce a question of a public nature on which it had not been customary to postpone discussions on grounds similar to those staled by the hon. Secretary for the Treasury, when he applied for a delay on account of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Colonies; but the present was a peculiar question. It involved the right of a part of the constituent body to be represented by two Members in that House. If notice had been given of a motion for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the representation of Ludlow, and for having a distinct inquiry at bar, such as had already taken place, then there might be some ground for acceding to the suspension of the writ. But no such notice had been given. Here the printed evidence had been for several days in the hands of the Members of the House, every one had had a full opportunity of reading, and no notice had been given of an intention of calling the attention of the House to it, until the application that was now made that the writ should not issue in the ordinary course. He doubted the policy of suspending the issue of the writ on the special ground of the absence of the noble Lord; for it was easy to see that if they established such a precedent now, the majority of the House might hereafter suspend the issue of writs for places in which they might apprehend returns unfavourable to their views. This would be a most fatal precedent, and
1374
most dangerous consequences would result from it. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had already asked and obtained a postponement of the issuing of the writ for Cambridge; but that was on the ground that the evidence had been on the table but a couple of days, and that Members had not had an opportunity of reading it. The right hon. Gentleman made this application on Friday, and the motion for the issue of the writ was postponed till Thursday. He then knew that the case of Ludlow was to be discussed this day, yet he said not a word about postponing it. The application for postponement was now made for the first time, but, however, great his respect for the noble Lord on whose behalf it was made, he (Sir R. Peel) must say that in this case the noble Lord should be considered only as an individual Member of the House. They had no notice of an attempt of this kind before. Was it their intention to suspend the writ until a new act should have passed? they might say that they did not intend to disfranchise Ludlow, but if it was not their intention to postpone the writ for an indefinite time, until the Commons had conferred with the Lords, and a new bill had passed, what was their object in applying for a suspension of the the writ to-day? The writ for Cambridge had been suspended until Thursday. Now upon that day the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would have a full opportunity of stating his views respecting bribery and treating. The postponement of the writ for Ludlow would give him no additional facility to do this. If they were to consent to the issue of the writ for Ludlow on Thursday, they could give no satisfactory reason why they did not consent this day, for they would not be justified if on Thursday they admitted that the borough was entitled to its representative, by stating that they held back the writ for three days on account of the absence of the Minister.
Viscount Palmerstondid not wish to commit the House to any of the principles alluded to by the right hon. Baronet. He would only ask the House to postpone the debate until Thursday, on the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the noble Lord, and upon which he thought the noble Lord would have acceded. He supported the motion for the adjournment on account of the desire the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies,

1375
had expressed to be present at the discussion; and he thought there was nothing more in the request that had been made to the noble Lord than was warranted by the practice and courtesy of Parliament. They were not at a loss for precedents to support their application. They could show that a recent measure of great importance had been postponed, in order to enable some leading and distinguished Members of the House, who desired to be present, to attend, but who, at the time originally fixed, could not come to the House. Now, he thought his noble Friend, not only from his position as the acknowledged organ of Government, but also from the part he had taken in all matters connected with the representation in the House, was an individual who was fairly entitled, to the courtesy of postponing the motion for three days, as was now requested. If a longer delay were asked for, he (Lord Palmerston) might admit that the ground of personal inconvenience would not constitute a sufficient claim. But as the report was only made on the 2nd of May, and as the postponement required was only for three days, so that the questions of the Cambridge and the Ludlow writs might come on on the same day, he trusted that the favour they asked would not be considered too much to be expected from the courtesy of the House, especially as in agreeing to it, they would not pledge themselves to any opinion on the case.
Mr. Wynnsaid, if this was a particular question on which the Government, as a Government, were desirous to give an opinion, he should feel called upon to adjourn the discussion until the noble Lord could attend, not on the ground of courtesy but of propriety. But what was this question? This was a judicial question. They were called upon to declare that the borough of Ludlow was entitled to a writ for a new member, unless the House should perceive strong reasons for altering the constituency and introducing a special measure with reference to it. He trusted that every hon. Member would feel it his duty, not only to that borough, but to the constituency of the empire at large, to vote that the writ should issue forthwith, unless urgent reasons for withholding it should be assigned. Did the noble Lord ask for a delay in order to state some objections to the issue of the writ? If the noble Lord meant to introduce a bill to
1376
alter the constituency of Ludlow, then there would be reasonable grounds for meeting his personal convenience; but it was too much to ask the House for a postponement to enable him to make some remarks, which he might make as well on the subject of the Cambridge writ. Now, they had no right to postpone an act of justice to a public body merely to enable the noble Lord to make a speech, or to come forward with a general measure for the prevention of bribery and corruption. He (Mr. Wynn) agreed with the hon. Baronet, that it would be a dangerous precedent if a majority of the House were to refuse to issue a writ on the ground that a reformed Parliament was about to prepare a new measure for the suppression of bribery and corruption. The like was done once in the time of the Rump Parliament. Numbers were expelled who were adverse to the majority; new writs were not issued, and the constituencies were not allowed to elect other representatives in their room. And what was done before, might, unless they were cautious, happen again. He remembered when, on a former occasion, a motion was made, that the issue of a writ be suspended for six months, the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. Lord Colchester said the issuing of a writ was a matter of right to the unrepresented constituency, and that, therefore, the shortest possible delay should be allowed. He hoped that principle would be observed on the present occasion. The only ground for refusing the writ would be the proof of such general corruption in the electors as to require that their constitution should be altered. If any gentleman meant to bring in a bill for that purpose, he should pay all attention to the arguments that might be adduced in support of it; but if such were not to be the case, they would be neglecting their duty, and committing an act of the greatest injustice, if they postponed the issuing of the writ for Ludlow any longer.
The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:— Ayes 215; Noes 226: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, G. R.

Andover, Lord

Adam, Admiral

Archbold, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bainbridge, E.

Aglionby, Major

Bannerman, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Alston, R.

Barnard, E. G.

1377

Barron, H. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Barry, G. S.

Guest, Sir J.

Beamish, F. B.

Handley, H.

Bellew, R. M;

Harland, W. C.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Hawes, B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bernal, R.

Heathcoat, J.

Blackett, C.

Hector, C. J.

Blake, M. J.

Heron, Sir R.

Blake, W. J.

Hindley, C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bowes, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Brabazon, Lord

Hollond, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Horsman, E.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hoskins, K.

Brocklehurst, J.

Howard, F. J.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Browne, R. D.

Humphery, J.

Bryan, G.

Hutchins, E. J.

Buller, C.

Hutt, W.

Buller, E.

Ingham, R.

Busfeild, W.

James, W.

Butler, Colonel

Johnson, Gen.

Byng, G.

Labouchere, H.

Callaghan, D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chapman, Sir M.L.

Lister, E. C.

Chester, H.

Loch, J.

Chetwynd, Major

Lushington, C.

Childers, J. W.

Lynch, A. H.

Clay, W.

Macaulay, T. B.

Clements, Visct.

Macnamara, Major

Collier, J.

M'Taggart, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Maher, J.

Cowper, hon. W.

Marsland, H.

Craig, W. G.

Martin, J.

Crompton, Sir S.

Martin, T. B.

Currie, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Curry, Serjeant

Melgund, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Dennistoun, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Morris, D.

Divett, E. T.

Muntz, G. F.

Duff, J.

Murray, A.

Duke, Sir J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Duncombe, T.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

O'Brien, C.

Dundas, F.

O'Brien, W. S.

Dundas, D.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Edwards, Sir J.

O'Connell, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ellice, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ellice, E. jun.

Ord, W.

Ellis, W.

Oswald, J.

Evans, G.

Paget, F.

Feilden, J.

Palmerston, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R.A.

Parnell, Sir H.

Ferguson, R.

Pattison, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Pease, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Pechell, Captain

Fort, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Gordon, R.

Phillipps, Sir R.

Grattan, J.

Phillips, M.

Greenaway, C.

Phillips, G. R.

Greig, D.

Pigot, D. R.

Grey, Sir G.

Pinney, W.

1378

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Power, J.

Thornely, T.

Protheroe, E.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Pryme, G.

Tufnell, H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Turner, E.

Redington, T. N.

Turner, W.

Rice, E. R.

Vigors, N. A.

Rich, H.

Villiers, C. P.

Roche, E. B.

Vivian, J. H.

Roche, W.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Roche, Sir D.

Wakley, T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Walker, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Wall, C. B.

Sanford, E. A.

Wallace, R.

Scrope, G. P.

Warburton, H.

Seale, Sir J.

White, A.

Seymour, Lord

White, H.

Sharpe, General

White, L.

Sheil, R. L.

White, S.

Smith, B.

Wilbraham, G.

Smith, G. R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Smith, R. V.

Williams, W.

Somers, J. P.

Williams, W. A.

Somerville, Sir W.

Wilmington, Sir T.

Standish, C.

Winnington, H. J.

Stanley, W. O.

Wood, C.

Stansfield, W. R.

Wood, Sir M.

Steuart, R.

Wood, G. W.

Stewart, J.

Wood, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Wrightson, W.

Stuart, W. V.

Wyse, T.

Stock, Dr.

Yates, J. A.

Strutt, E.

TELLERS.

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Boldero, Captain

A'Court, Captain

Bradshaw, J.

Adare, Lord

Bramston, T. W.

Alford, Lord

Broadley, H.

Alsager, Captain

Broadwood, H.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Brooke, Sir R. A.

Archdall, M.

Brownrigg, S.

Ashley, Lord

Bruce, Lord E.

Bagge, W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Bagot, hon. W.

Bruges, W. H.

Bailey, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baillie, Col.

Burr, H.

Baillie, H. J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Baker, E.

Burroughes, H. N.

Baldwin, C. B.

Calcraft, J.

Baring, H. B.

Campbell, Sir H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Canning, Sir S.

Barneby, J.

Cartwright, W. R.

Barrington, Lord

Chapman, A.

Bassett, J.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Christopher, R. A.

Bell, M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bethell, R.

Clive, hon. R.

Blackburn, I.

Cochrane, Sir T.

Blair, J.

Codrington, C. W.

Blakemore, R.

Cole, hon. A.

Blennerhassett, A.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Bodkin, J. J.

Conolly, E.

1379

Cooper, E. J.

Holmes, W.

Coote, Sir C.

Hope, hon. C.

Copeland, Alderman

Hope, H. T.

Corry, hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Cresswell, C.

Hotham, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Houldsworth, T.

Damer, hon. D.

Houston, G.

Darby, G.

Hughes, W. B.

Darlington, Earl of

Hurt, F.

De Horsey, S. H.

Ingestrie, Lord

Dick, Q.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Irton, S.

Dottin, A. R.

Irving, J.

Douglas, Sir C.

Jackson, Sergeant

Douro, Marquess of

James, Sir W.

Drummond, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Duffield, T.

Johnstone, H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Jones, J.

Dunbar, G.

Jones, Captain

Duncombe, hn. W.

Kemble, H.

Dungannon, Lord

Kerrison, Sir E.

Du Pre, G.

Kirk, P.

East, J. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Eastnor, Lord

Knight, H. G.

Eaton, R. J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Egerton, W. T.

Lefroy, T.

Ellis, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Estcourt, T.

Litton, E.

Farnham, E. B.

Long, W.

Feilden, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Fector, J. M.

Lucas, E.

Fellowes, E.

Lygon, General

Filmer, Sir E.

Mackenzie, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Foley, E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Follett, Sir W.

Manners, Lord C.

Forester, hon. G.

Marsland, T,

Fox, S. L.

Marton, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Gaskell, J. M.

Miles, W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Glynne, Sir S.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Goddard, A.

Morgan, C.

Godson, R.

Neeld, Joseph

Gordon, hon. Captain

Neeld, J.

Gore, O. W.

Nicholl, J.

Goulburn, H.

Norreys, Lord

Graham, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Granby, Marquess of

Packington, J. S.

Grimsditch, T.

Palmer, R.

Grimston, Lord

Palmer, G.

Grimston, hon. E.

Parker, M.

Hale, R. B.

Parker, R. T.

Halford, H.

Parker, T. A. W.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Peel, Sir R.

Harcourt, G. S.

Perceval, Colonel

Hardinge, Sir H.

Perceval, G. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Pigot, R.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Polhill, F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Hillsborough, Lord

Powerscourt, Lord

Hodgson, F.

Praed, W. T.

Hodgson, R.

Price, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Pringle, A.

Holmes, W. A'Court

Pusey, P.

1380

Rae, Sir W.

Thomas, Colonel

Reid, Sir John

Thompson, Alderman

Richards, R.

Trench, Sir F.

Rose, Sir G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Round, C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Round, J.

Verner, Colonel

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Vernon, G. H.

Sanderson, R.

Vivian, J. E.

Sandon, Lord

Walsh, Sir J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Williams, R.

Shirley, E. J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Wodehouse, E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Sotheron, T. E.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Sturt, H. C.

TELLERS.

Teignmouth, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Thesiger, F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

On the question being again put, that the writ do issue,
Mr. Wakleyrose to offer his decided opposition to such a course. Referring to the report of the committee, he must say, that if such practices as that report disclosed were passed over, the dearest rights of Englishmen would be at an end, and, in such a case, the representation of the people in that House was, and must be, at an end. It was proved that the grossest acts of bribery had been practised. Even one of the agents of one of the candidates made a speech to the effect, that if the other party gave 10 l. he would give 20 l.; that, if they gave forty, he would give 50 l.; if they gave sixty, he would give 70 l.; and so on to the amount of hundreds. It was proved that even 500 l. had been offered for a vote. It was also proved that a body of ruffians were brought from Shrewsbury and Bridegnorth, to prevent the free exercise of the franchise, and that the most shameful practices prevailed. And after all these things, there was a writ proposed to be issued for another election. Why, what did the corrupt electors want but another void election? What did they want but another opportunity to make money? They could have in fact, nothing better than another void election; but that ought to be prevented. They had now special grounds on which the writ ought to be withheld, and he would say that, even in Gatton and Old Sarum, greater corruption had never been exhibited than was proved to have occurred at the last Ludlow election For himself, he represented a population pf 240,000 persons, and the expenses of his

1381
election did not amount to more than 140 l. He, for one, was prepared to go any length to prevent the issuing of the writ, and if twenty Members went with him, he would avail himself of all the forms of the House to prevent the issuing of the writ. It appeared by the evidence, that the grossest means had been resorted to to make money, and he would contend that the proper punishment for such conduct would be, to suspend the writ as long as possible; but the present proposition was, that it should only be suspended till Thursday. He would, therefore, move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Briscoeseconded the motion, and regretted that, in the absence of the noble Lord (Russell) such a decision should have been made as they had just come to. He regretted to see that, since the passing of the late Reform Bill, parties did not scruple to use every means of bribery and corruption to prevent the free exercise of the elective franchise. If such things were to be permitted, no liberal Government could exist—no enlightened politics could prosper—no good measures could be carried into operation. He felt strongly on the present subject, and would support the motion for the adjournment.
Viscount Palmerstonfelt as strongly as any hon. Member the reasonableness of the request that the debate should be adjourned till Thursday next, and he thought that the refusal to adjourn was a departure from the ordinary courtesy of the House. The House, however, having decided against the adjournment, he did not wish to offer further opposition. His hon. Friend having moved the adjournment of the House, he still thought that the question should be postponed to enable his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to be heard in the debate, and he thought that there were strong grounds why his noble Friend should be heard, because he had been called upon, on matters connected with the privileges of the House, to address them as a Member of the Government. He would, however, put it to his hon. Friend (Mr. Wakley), whether, under all the circumstances, it would be right to avail himself of the forms of the House, as such a course might have the effect of retarding the public business. He should not be able to vote for his hon. Friend's amendment, and would suggest to him not to press it.
Mr. Horsmanhad been a member of
1382
the committee who made the report, and there having been no party feeling whatever exhibited during the inquiry before the committee, from the beginning to the end, he should regret exceedingly to see a feeling of the kind prevailing at present. He thought the strongest case of corruption had been made out, and under these circumstances, he was willing to vote for the motion of his hon. Friend, in order that the issuing of the writ might be postponed. He would remind right hon. Gentlemen, that a distinct pledge had been given to the noble Lord that time would be given for consideration before the writ should be issued. And how was that pledge carried out? Why, that on Friday night notice was given to bring on the question on the next night, when it was known that the noble Lord (Russell) would not be present. The papers were delivered only on Monday—on Wednesday, it was known that the noble Lord would not be present, and on Friday notice of this motion for issuing the writ was given. He thought in a case where bribery had been proved against persons who wished to become Members of that House, that the postponement till Thursday ought to be allowed.
Viscount Sandoncould say, as a member of the committee, that no party feeling had interfered with the inquiry. As to the charge of bribery, he denied that it formed a sufficient ground for delaying the issuing of the writ. As the charge of bribery was against two persons on each side, he could not agree in the statement that it was very general; and if writs were to be suspended because of such proof of bribery to such an extent, he should like to know how many writs they would be called upon to suspend. He would put it to the hon. Member for Finsbury himself to say whether it would be right to act upon such a principle? I only required one or two scoundrels, if such practice were adopted, to disfranchise a whole constituency. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury, they only proved that large sums had been offered and refused. However extensive the practice of treating might have been, it had never been considered ground sufficient for suspending the issuing of a writ. Upon what did the present case rest; it rested on proof of treating only, which had never been considered a ground for suspending the issuing of a writ.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool could not have read the evidence, or he had mistaken it—when he said there was but one case of bribery. He could mention five or six cases. The party was so convinced he was guilty, that as soon as the first case was established he retired. He could refer to the pages, for he had only read them twenty minutes ago, and he regretted that he had not been in the House to record his vote upon the first division, but he had travelled seventy miles that day to vote against one of the most infamous systems of bribery and corruption he had ever heard of. He had never heard of such a system. Every ale-house in the borough was open, and he had the names of them all. Any man might go in, eat and drink, and get drunk, get sober, and get drunk again. 10 l., 20 l., 30 l., 40 l., and 50 l., were given for a vote. One man received a bribe to vote for A, and then voted for B—and when his wife was asked whether that did not surprise her, she said, "Oh no, it has been so long the custom in the borough of Ludlow." A jury would have brought in Mr. Holmes guilty to a considerable extent. He begged pardon if he was out of order, but he thought he was perfectly in order in mentioning the name of an individual stated in the Report. He did not even know whether that Gentlemen was a Member, or whether he had not, like his friend Mr. Clive, accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and retired. It would be preposterous to say such a system of corruption should be allowed to continue. The parties by their agents had introduced into the borough from fifty to one hundred bludgeon-men, and he most solemnly declared that if the eight or ten witnesses before the Committee had spoken the truth, he had never read of such a case of corruption as was made out against the borough of Ludlow. His hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Hobhouse) had once stated that if the Thames were turned into that House it would not be purified. He thought it was time to try. But he trusted that the honest and sterling virtue of the people of England would correct these evils. He trusted there was among the independent electors integrity enough to stop this atrocious system of bribery. It was the duty of the electors to send Members to Parliament who would stop it; and it was the duty of the House to adopt some plan by
1384
which the repetition of those shameful scenes might be avoided. He could put his hand upon his heart, and say, that if he voted for the issuing of this writ, he should consider himself a dishonest man. But it appeared that Members on the other side of the House not only tolerated and suffered such disgraceful and corrupt practices, but that they even had the hardihood to defend them.
Viscount Sandonhad not only read the report, but had also heard it read, and he could only say that it had produced a very different effect on his mind from what it appeared to have done on the mind of the hon. Member who had just sat down.
Mr. Humereprobated the conduct which had been pursued by hon. Members on the opposition side. He could not understand why the right hon. Baronet would persevere in opposing so reasonable a proposition as the adjournment of the further consideration for three days, till the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies should be able to bring in a bill to prevent the future recurrence of such scenes as had disgraced these elections. The committee that produced this report was the production of the right hon. Baronet's own bill, and he would therefore appeal to the right hon. Baronet to pay some consideration to the first result of his measure. If they should not accede to the present motion for adjournment, what opinion could the people have of their proceedings? They would all clearly see that the object was to cover the delinquencies of a corrupt and worthless constituency.
Sir R. Peelwould answer the appeal which the hon. Gentleman had made to him. About three weeks since there was a supposed vacancy—it afterwards turned out to be an actual vacancy—in the representation of the county of Perth, in consequence of the death of the late Earl of Mansfield, and a motion was made for the issue of a new writ. The Opposition thought there was not sufficient evidence offered of the right of the present Earl to go to the other House, and they asked for one day's delay in order to ascertain the bearing of the precedents, so that, if the precedents were in favour of the issuing of the writ on the next day, there would be no opposition. On the ministerial side there was then a casual majority, and what was the principle on which they defended their conduct? They said that the

1385
electors had an inherent constitutional right to have all vacancies supplied as soon as they occurred. Well, the delay was refused on the broad principle that the people had a constitutional right to have the writ issued, except under special and peculiar circumstances. The question now was, were there in this case those special and peculiar circumstances? He was disposed to argue this question with perfect fairness, and he would ask what was there in this case which would justify them in suspending the issuing of the writ? The question was not now whether they would take new precautions against bribery; it was one of treating only; there was no case of bribery. Were they then to establish the principle that certain cases of bribery should disfranchise a borough? Even if so, that could not effect this borough, for here there was no proof of bribery. The words of the committee were, that "a general system of treating prevailed previously to and during the last election." Here there was not a word about bribery. If the committee felt that there was that general system of bribery there of which hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke with such confidence, then the committee neglected their duty in not denouncing it. They did not say a word as to bribery, but merely as to treating. That was all that affected this borough. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to his measure for improving the constitution of committees. But what had the form of that tribunal to do with the ancient and constitutional principle as to the issuing of writs? He had never intended by anything in his bill to affect the constitutional right of constituencies to be represented. All the hon. Gentleman's observations on this point were, therefore, quite irrelevant to the present question, whether the writ should issue or not. They were not to consider themselves entitled to depart from the ancient and constitutional precedents as to the issuing of writs. An attempt of that kind was made in the last session. He wanted to inquire how long they proposed to delay the issuing of this writ? [An hon. Member: Till Thursday.] He had that, then, admitted. Then he must say there was no man in this House who carried courtesy to political opponents farther than he, but when they asked for the suspension of a writ for three days on account of the absence of a
1386
Member of Parliament, he felt that he should not be justi6ed in complying. Political questions they might suspend for a few days on such grounds, but if there was a constitutional question they would not be justified in suspending it. It was on that ground that he could not agree to the proposal for staying the issue for three days. Would the hon. Gentleman engage to issue the writ on Thursday? Did the hon. Gentleman say that his proposal was not merely to suspend the issuing of the writ till Thursday, but to take into consideration then the propriety of issuing it at all. The House had already determined to issue the writ, but now it was to suspend the issuing of it for an indefinite period. If they were to apply this principle to the issuing of writs, the constituencies of England would hold their rights by sufferance of the majority of this House. But even a minority might prevent the issuing of writs, and, by repeated adjournments, deprive the people of England of the right of representation. If they were about to establish the rule that treating was to disfranchise a constituency, they should not mix up this question with the question whether a new measure ought to be introduced to prevent abuses. If the noble Lord should bring in a bill calculated practically to prevent those abuses, there would be no man more disposed to co-operate with him in carrying it into a law. It would be an advantage to both parties that the law on treating should be defined. He thought that they were all in jeopardy from that law. The present law, allowing carriage and some other expenses to voters, opened a way to various abuses. He could assure the House that there were few Members who would listen with greater pleasure to any proposition for preventing bribery and treating; but there being no indication of such a measure now before the House, they would not be justified in suspending this writ for three days, and so establishing a precedent which would be capable of being perverted to other, and probably worse purposes.
Mr. Hawessaid, the question of bribery or disfranchisement was not now before the House. The simple question was, whether the debate should be adjourned to Thursday. The substantial question was, whether they should take the question of disfranchisement into consideration on Thursday next. It had been said, that

1387
very few cases of bribery or treating had been proved, but the House must be aware that the Committee only took one case of a class, and therefore there was no proof in that of the extent to which the system Lad been carried. If the issuing of the writ was of so much importance, he put it to the lovers of the Constitution on the other side of the House, why they had suffered a whole week to elapse without taking any steps for that purpose. It was stated that there were twenty-seven public-houses open in the borough, and any one might go in and do as he pleased, thus giving the greatest possible temptations to dishonesty and corruption. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had said, that the suspension of the writ would be an act of tyranny to all the electors of the empire; he (Mr. Hawes) wished to protect the honest electors from a tyranny infinitely more dangerous, namely, that which the rich exercised over the poor voters, and that in every part of the country. The advocates of purity of election on his side of the House wished to maintain something like independence among the constituencies of the empire. Hon. Gentlemen might depend upon it, that the debate was not to be put an end to that night—for he was convinced that there never was a more unjust course undertaken, than to issue a writ to the borough, under its present circumstances. If there was one ground more than another on which they ought to refuse to issue the writ, it was the fact of its being the first borough under the new Act, which had been convicted, by the unanimous resolution of the Committee, of bribery and corruption. It was necessary that they should let the constituencies see beforehand what they were likely to experience from the House, in the event of bribery and corruption being proved against them. Notwithstanding the coalition that had had taken place between the noble Lord, who, he was sorry to say, had deserted his character of a reformer—and the other side of the House, he hoped a steady band of the friends of liberty and freedom of election, would be at their posts, to assert the rights of the people, and of the constitution, which were endangered by the present motion.
Mr. B. Baring,as a Member of the Committee, could state, that there were only five cases of bribery brought before the Committee, and of these five cases
1388
three were attempts at bribery, which had not succeeded. Under these circumstances, he did not think that a case of general bribery and corruption had been made out.
Mr. Elliothad suggested to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sudbury, to postpone his motion with respect to Cambridge, on the grounds that Members had not had time to read the evidence. The hon. Baronet had not even the courtesy to answer his question. Another application was made to the hon. Baronet to postpone it, in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and in compliance with that application, the motion was postponed. Now the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said, that if they postponed the present motion out of courtesy to the noble Lord, they would be neglecting their duty, and doing that which they ought not to do. He, for one, certainly did not understand that species of logic.
Mr. Prymesaid, the question before the House was, whether there were sufficient grounds for suspending the issuing of the writ, or whether, by enlarging the constituency, disfranchising individuals, or any other means, they could put a stop to the present system of bribery and corruption. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had argued, that the writ ought not to be suspended, because there were so few cases of bribery proved, but the House should recollect, that a single instance was sufficient to disqualify a Member.
Mr. Villiers Stuartsaid, that punishing the borough by the suspension of the writ for bribery and treating was very like an ex post facto law, and he should therefore vote against the adjournment.
The House divided on the question of adjournment:—Ayes 123; Noes 189:— Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blewitt, R. J.

Aglionby, Major

Bridgeman, H.

Archbold, R.

Brotherton, J.

Baines, E.

Bryan, G.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, C.

Barren, H. W.

Busfeild, W.

Barry, G. S.

Butler, Colonel

Beamish, F. B.

Callaghan, D.

Bernal, R.

Chester, H.

Blackett, C.

Chetwynd, Major

Blake, M. J.

Collier, J.

Blake, W. J.

Corbally, M. E.

1389

Crompton, Sir S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Currie, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Pattison, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Pechell, Captain

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Pendarves, E.

Duke, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, D.

Elliot, J. E.

Power, J.

Ellice, E.

Pryrne, G.

Ellis, W.

Ramsbottom, J.

Evans, G.

Roche, E. B.

Ewart, W.

Roche, W.

Fielden, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Sharp, Gen.

Gillon, W. D.

Smith, J. A.

Grattan, J.

Smith B.

Grattan, H.

Somers, J. P.

Greenaway, C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Greig, D.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Guest, Sir J.

Steuart, R.

Handley, H.

Stewart, J.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hawes, B.

Stock, Dr.

Hawkins, J. H.

Strangways, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Strutt, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Style, Sir C

Hector, C. J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hindley, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Turner, E.

Hollond, R.

Turner, W.

Horsman, E.

Vigors, N. A.

Hoskins, K.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Humphery, J.

Warburton, H.

James, W.

White, A.

Jervis, S.

White, L.

Johnson, Gen.

White, S.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wilbraham, G.

Lister, E. C.

Wilde, Sergeant

Lushington, C.

Williams, W.

Macnamara, Major

Williams, W. A.

Maher, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Martin, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Melgund, Lord

Wood, G. W.

Murray, A.

Wood, B.

Nagle, Sir R.

Yates, J. A.

Noel, hon. C. G.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Baring, W. B.

Adare, Lord

Barrington, Lord

Alford, Viscount

Bateson, Sir R.

Alsager, Captain

Bell, M.

Arbuthnott, H.

Bentinck, Lord

Archdall, M.

Bethell, R.

Bagge, W.

Blackburne, I.

Bailey, J.

Blair, J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Blakemore, R.

Eaillie, Colonel

Blennerhassett, A.

Baillie, H. J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Baker, E.

Boldero, H. G.

Baldwin, C. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Baring, F. T.

Broadley, H.

1390

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Brownrigg, S.

Hillsborough, Lord

Bruce, Lord E.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hodgson, F.

Bruges, W. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Holmes, W. A'C.

Burr, H.

Holmes, W.

Burroughes, H.

Hope, hon. C.

Canning, Sir S.

Hope, G. W.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hughes, W. B.

Chapman, A.

Hurt, F.

Christopher, R.

Ingestre, Lord

Chute, W. L. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Irton, S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Irving, S.

Codrington, C. W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Cole, hon. A. H.

James, Sir W. C.

Conolly, E.

Jermyn, Lord

Corry, hon. H.

Johnstone, H.

Cresswell, C.

Jones, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Jones, Captain

Darby, G.

Kelly, F.

Darlington, Earl of

Kemble, H.

De Horsey, S. H.

Kerrison, Sir E.

D'Israeli, B.

Kelburne, Lord

Dottin, A. R.

Kirk, P.

Douro, Marquess of

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Drummond, H.

Duffield, T.

Knight, H.G.

Dugdale, W. S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Dunbar, G.

Lefroy, T.

Duncombe, W.

Lincoln, Lord

Dungannon, Lord

Litton, E.

Du Pre, G.

Long, W.

East, J. B.

Lowther, Colonel

Eastnor, Lord

Lucas, E.

Eaton, R. J.

Lygon, hon. General

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Ellis, J.

Mackenzie, W.

Estcourt, T.

Mackinnon, W.

Fellowes, E.

Marsland, T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Marton, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Follett, Sir W.

Miles, W.

Forrester, hon. G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Fox, S. L.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Gaskell, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Gladstone, W.

Neeld, J.

Goddard, A.

Nicholl, J.

Godson, R.

O'Neill, hon. J.

Gordon, Captain

Packe, C. W.

Gore, O.

Pakington, J. S.

Goulburn, H.

Palmer, R.

Graham, Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Grey, Sir C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Grimsditch, T.

Parker, M.

Hale, R. B.

Patten, I. W.

Halford, H.

Peel, Sir R.

Hamilton, C.

Perceval, Colonel

Hamilton, Lord

Pigot, R.

Harcourt, G.

Planta, J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Polhill, F.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Hawkes, T.

Powerscourt, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Praed, W.T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Pringle, A.

1391

Pusey, P.

Stuart, W. V.

Rae, Sir W.

Sturt, H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Richards, R.

Thesiger, F.

Rose, Sir G.

Thomas, Colonel

Round, C. G.

Thompson, Alderman

Round, J.

Trench, Sir F.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Vere, Sir C.

Sanderson, R.

Vernon, G.

Sandon, Lord

Vivian, J.

Shaw, F.

Wynn, C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Young, J.

Smith, R. V.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Stanley, Lord

Baring, H.

Question again put.
Mr. C. Bullerwas somewhat surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared inclined to assume that the treating which had taken place in the Ludlow case was not essentially different from the sort of treating which had formerly prevailed to a great extent in almost all elections, and which in former times had been considered as an offence by no means of grave character. He begged to point out the difference: this was not a mere case of giving refreshment to voters, of enabling them to indulge in social festivity at an election; it was, as reported by the committee, treating with a deliberate purpose of debauching and corrupting the voters. He would ask if there was anything palliating in this or in the mode in which it was carried on? He would ask if this was not corruption in its worst form? It was not hard money which he could carry home to his wife, or with which he could pay his creditors, but it was drink that debauched himself. If hon. Gentlemen opposite succeeded in upholding such a system as this, it would be a disgrace to England, and to any Christian country. He would not occupy the House, but would propose an amendment, which, perhaps, might startle the House, but which, nevertheless, was a very honest and a very straightforward course. If the House were determined that the borough of Ludlow should be put up for sale, he should wish that it should be put for sale for money, and not for beer. He should, therefore, propose, as an amendment, that Mr. Speaker do insert in the public papers an advertisement stating that the vacant seat for the borough of Ludlow was for sale, and that all persons desirous of purchasing the same should send in their tenders to Mr. Speaker by Monday next, the amount offered to be paid in money, or public securities, and not in beer or spirituous liquors.
The Speakersaid, that before he put such an amendment, he wished to appeal to the hon. Member as to what effect might be produced by the insertion of such an amendment on the journals of the House.
Mr. Humewould suggest, that the Speaker should not put the amendment, as it would be clearly illegal to carry it into effect, even in the event of the House agreeing to it. He would therefore suggest to his hon. Friend, that he should withdraw his amendment.
Mr. C, Bullerwould, of course, withdraw his amendment, if there were any objection to it on a point of form. He would at once avow that his object in proposing it had been to throw on the question all the contempt it deserved.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Horsmanwould take the liberty of moving an amendment. He could not but suppose that most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were entirely unacquainted with, the evidence which had been given before the committee, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, who had, of course, read it, had not, he must say, on this occasion, exhibited his usual quickness of apprehension. They were not now considering whether they should entirely suspend the issuing of the writ for Ludlow or not, but only whether they should postpone the consideration of that question until Thursday, in order to enable the noble Lord, the leader of that House, to be present at the discussion, and what he complained of was, that the noble Lord had had a distinct pledge from the opposite side of the House, that he should have due notice of any intention of moving for the issuing of a new writ, and he would ask if such notice had been given to the noble Lord? The right hon. Gentleman said, that nothing had been reported by the committee as to the existence of a general system of bribery, but the nature of the proceedings did not enable the committee to go fully into that question. The counsel on each side had agreed that they would go into two or three cases of bribery only, and that if they failed in those, they would go to others; but if they proved those, then they would take the decision of the committee on those cases. The conduct of the case was therefore left entirely in the hands of the counsel. A reference to the evidence would show, that at least three distinct cases of

1393
bribery had been brought forward— a partisan agent had been sent for from Shrewsbury to do the dirty work. On his arrival at Ludlow a list of persons was put into his hands to be bribed, and opposite the names were placed the names of persons supposed to have the most influence over them, and the agent himself, who was supposed to have influence over two of these persons, found his name down opposite theirs, and was told that he was to look after them. He then stated that he was ordered to go to Mr. Williams and Mr. Holmes and receive their instructions. It was not necessary for him to state whether he believed all the allegations or not; he was only stating what appeared on the evidence. The witness said he had waited on Mr. Holmes, and had received from him instructions. Now there could be nothing clearer than this, that the evidence of an accomplice was legal, and, where confirmed, was entitled to credit. What, then, was the fact in this case? Why, that Wade and the other person whom they examined, stated he had been employed to bribe, came before the committee, and corroborated every syllable Mr. Williams had said. Nor was this all. There was a barber brought from Shrewsbury, whose proceedings were not minutely inquired into by the committee, because the committee was not called upon to inquire into them. Then they found Mr. Meux stating that he had been offered a bribe of 20 l., which he had refused, saying to the person who offered it, "I understand you are giving 30 l. a vote," and this was not denied. Then there was Mr. Fitzgibbon Clive, a witness, who said that men were employed on each side to do the dirty work, and who further stated that at a large public meeting, Mr. Coppock said that if the other side bribed, they must bribe higher, and if they gave 20 l., he would give 40 l., and if they gave 50 l., he would give 100 l.; and this announcement was received with loud cheers by a vast assembly of people. There was evidence tending to show that each party had indulged extensively in a system of bribery and treating, quite sufficient, he should say, to establish the charge of a general system of bribery. All the public-houses in the town were open, although each candidate declared he had given instructions to have nothing to do with treating, the publicans at the same time saying that they had received no in-
1394
struction. The bills were given in to the agent, and they were paid by an invisible hand. There was ingenuity about this system which could only be the result of long practice in the ways of corruption, and he should therefore move, as an amendment, that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Bingham Baringwisked to ask the hon. Member whether, after the manner in which the witness Revis had given his testimony, and as that testimony implicated the character of an hon. Member of that House, he was inclined to attach any credit to it?
Mr. Horsmanwould at once state his opinion. Revis had been the confidential agent of the party; he had long been employed by them; he had received a sum of money from them when he left Ludlow, and they had given him the highest testimonials. He had been sent for to canvass; he had made these allegations respecting Williams and Holmes. His statements had been partly confirmed; and he must say, that until his statements should be contradicted, he believed them.
Lord Sandonwould confess that he was surprised at what had just fallen from the hon. Member. He had not before been aware that any Member of the committee entertained such an opinion of that evidence. His own opinion had been that the direct contrary had been the general feeling in the committee. This man came before the committee, having received 150 l. from Mr. Coppock, the agent of the opposite side, on a note of hand determinable at sight, so that, as one of the counsel had expressed it, he came before them with a noose about his neck, the other end of which was in the hands of the opposite party. When he recollected the evidence of that man he was surprised that any weight should be attached to his testimony. With regard to the general allegations of bribery, they rested only on the merest surmises and the vaguest allegations; and he was surprised, such being the feeling of the hon. Gentleman, that he had not proposed that a general investigation should take place into the acts of bribery alleged to have been committed in the borough of Ludlow. No such notice had, however, been given, and he saw no reason for refusing to issue the writ.
Mr. Horsman—While he might admit that the unsupported evidence of Revis was not entitled to much weight, yet con-

1395
sidered that where it was supported, it at least required contradiction.
Mr. Holmessaid, that if he had abstained from giving the contradiction required before, it was only because he was engaged in taking steps for the purpose of applying to the authority of another tribunal, where the statements of this individual would undergo investigation. The hon. Member had said that where the statements of that person were supported by others, he was inclined to believe them, and he said that two other persons who had been called had supported them. Those persons had only said that Revis had chosen to make them offers; one of them was a person to whom Revis owed 300 l., and he went to that person and stated, that Mr. Holmes had authorised him to offer that person 500 l. Now, so far was he from having had any communication with Revis, that he solemnly declared, that he had never seen him until the Saturday night before the election, when Revis came up to him in the street and spoke td him. The second time was on the Tuesday, when the man came to make some communication to him, and on that occasion two other persons were present. He protested that these were the only occasions on which he ever saw the man. He abstained from going into the committee, because he was determined to go forward and contradict Revis's statement; and he thought that if he went into the room, an objection would be made to his giving evidence. But when he went down for the purpose of insisting on being examined, Mr. Austin told him that there was not one on the committee who believed the statement of Revis. He hoped that he might have an opportunity of contradicting that statement on oath before another tribunal.
Mr. Handleywas not sorry that the debate had taken place, as it would show the country who were the parties in that House, who wished to encourage and screen treating and bribing at elections. The House, in ordering the evidence to be printed, was pledged to take some further steps. He appealed to the candour of the right hon. Baronet opposite, whether the notice given on Friday night last for a motion for a new writ, on this night, when it was known the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would not be in his place, was a due notice in the sense in which that term was understood, in
1396
the conversation which took place on a former occasion between the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet?
Sir R. Peeldid not think that the noble Lord meant to call for a notice to be given to himself. But it could not be pretended that the writ had been moved for without notice, and the attendance in the House to-night showed that the notice was sufficient. With respect to the absence of the noble Lord, he (Sir R. Peel) must say, as he had already said, that he did not think the absence of any Member, however high his station, and eminent his talent, should be a ground for postponing the issuing of the writ.
Mr. Humesaid, it had been understood to be the sense of the House, formed on the report of the committee, that a new writ should not be issued until after the evidence had been printed; and further, that after the printing of the evidence, due notice should be given. He put it to the candour of the right hon. Baronet, whether due notice had been given?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the conversation alluded to had taken place before the evidence was printed. As no Member of the committee, nor any one else, had founded any motion on the evidence since it was printed, the House was bound to issue the writ without delay.
Mr. Hawessaid, that due notice had not been given. It was generally understood amongst Members, as a matter of course, that the writ would not be moved for in the absence of the noble Lord.
The House divided on the question, that the debate be adjourned—Ayes 96; Noes 156—Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

D'Eyncourt, T.

Aglionby, Major

Duke, Sir J.

Archbold, R.

Duncombe, T.

Baines, E.

Elliot, hon. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ellice, E.

Barron, H. W.

Ellis, W.

Barry, G. S.

Evans, G.

Beamish, F. B.

Ewart, W.

Bernal, R.

Fielden, J.

Blake, W. J.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Blewitt, R. J.

Gillon, W. D.

Bridgeman, H.

Grattan, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grattan, H.

Brotherton, J.

Greenaway, C.

Bryan, G.

Greig, D.

Busfeild, W.

Guest, Sir J.

Chester, H.

Hastie, A.

Chetwynd, Major

Hawes, B.

Corbally, M.

Hawkins, J. H.

1397

Hayter, W. G.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Smith, B.

Hector, C. J.

Somers, J. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Horsman, E.

Steuart, R.

Hoskins, K.

Stewart, J.

Hume, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

James, W.

Stock, Dr.

Jervis, S.

Strangways, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Strutt, E.

Lister, E. C.

Style, Sir C.

Lushington, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Maher, J.

Turner, E.

Martin, J.

Turner, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Vigors, N. A.

Melgund, Lord

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Murray, A.

Warburton, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Wemyss, Capt.

O'Brien, W. S.

White, S.

O'Callaghan, C.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, J.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Williams, W.A.

Pattison, J.

Winnington, H.

Philips, M.

Wood, G. W.

Pigot, D. R.

Wood, B.

Power, J.

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Redington, T. N.

Buller, C.

Roche, E. B.

Handley, H.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Adare, Lord

Conolly, E.

Arbuthnott, H.

Corry, hon. H.

Bagge, W.

Cresswell, C.

Bailey, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Bailey, J., jun.

Darby, G.

Baillie, Col.

Darlington, Lord

Baillie, H. J.

De Horsey, S. H.

Baker, E.

D'Israeli, B.

Baldwin, C. B.

Dottin, A. R.

Baring, W. B.

Douro, Marquis

Barrington, Lord

Drummond, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Duffield, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Du Pre, G.

Blackburne, I.

East, J. B.

Blair, J.

Eastnor, Lord

Blennerhassett, A.

Egerton, W. T.

Bodkin, J. J.

Ellis, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Estcourt, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Fellowes, E.

Broadley, H.

Filmer, Sir E.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Fox, S. L.

Brownrigg, S.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Gladstone, W. E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Goddard, A.

Burr, H.

Godson, R.

Burroughes, H. N.

Gordon, Captain

Cartwright, W.

Gore, O. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Goulburn, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grey, Sir C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Grimsditch, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Hale, R. B.

1398

Halford, H.

Morgan, C. M.

Hamilton, C. J. H.

Neeld, J.

Hamilton, Lord

Nicholl, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Harcourt, G. S.

Packe, C. W.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Pakington, J. S.

Hawkes, T.

Palmer, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Palmer, G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Parker, M.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Peel, Sir R.

Hillborough, Lord

Perceval, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Polhill, F.

Hogg, J. W.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Holmes, hon. W.

Powerscourt, Lord

Holmes, W.

Praed, W. T.

Hope, hon. C.

Pringle, A.

Hope, G. W.

Pusey, P.

Hughes, W. B.

Rae, Sir W.

Hurt, F.

Richards, R.

Inglis, Sir R.

Rose, Sir G.

Irton, S.

Round, C. G.

Jackson, Serj.

Round, J.

James, Sir W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Rushout, G.

Johnstone, H.

Sanderson, R.

Jones, J.

Sandon, Lord

Jones, Captain

Shaw, F.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Kelburne, Lord

Somerset Lord

Kirk, P.

Stanley, Lord

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sturt, H. C.

Knight, H. G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Knightly, Sir C.

Thesiger, F.

Lefroy, it. hon. T.

Thomas, Col. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Trench, Sir F.

Litton, E.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Long, W.

Tuffnel, H.

Lowther, hon. C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lucas, E.

Vernon, G. H.

Lygon, Gen.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Wynn, C. W.

Mackenzie, W.

Young, J.

Mackinnon, W.

Marsland, T.

TELLERS.

Maunsell, T. P.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Baring, H.

Question again put that the writ be issued,
Mr. Horsmanwould at once move, without prefatory observations, an amendment, that a select committee be appointed to examine and report how far treating, bribery, and corruption, had been carried in the case of the late and the former election for Ludlow, and that in the meantime the writ for electing a Member to serve for that borough be suspended.
Sir C. Greysaid, he had voted against the adjournment as long as he believed the adjournment had been urged as a reason for delay in coming to a decision upon the very important question before the House; but the moment that he found in this instance, that an hon. Member had

1399
stated that there was matter enough upon the face of the proceedings in this case, which might he made the subject of very grave inquiry hereafter, he then conceived it to be his duty to give scope for that inquiry, and had therefore voted for the adjournment.
The House again divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of: the question:— Ayes 148; Noes 91: Majority 57.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Filmer, Sir E.

Arbuthnot, H.

Fox, S. L.

Bagge, W.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bailey, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bailey, J., jun.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baillie, Col.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baillie, H. J.

Goddard, A.

Baker, E.

Godson, R.

Baldwin, C. B.

Gordon, Capt.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gore, O. W.

Barrington, Lord

Goulburn, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Graham, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackburne, I.

Hale, R. B

Blair, J.

Halford, H.

Blennerhasselt, A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Boldero, H. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Harcourt, G. S.

Broadley, H.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Brownrigg, S.

Hawkes, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Burr, H.

Hodgson, F.

Burroughes, H.

Hogg, J.W.

Canning, Sir S.

Holmes, hon. W.

Cartwright, W.

Holmes, W.

Christopher, R. A.

Hope, hon. C.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, G. W.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Codrington, C.

Hurt, F.

Codrington, C.

Irton, S.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Conolly, E.

James, Sir W.

Corry, hon. H.

Jermyn, Earl

Cresswell, C.

Johnstone, H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Jones, J.

Darby, G.

Jones, Captain

Darlington, Lord

Kemble H.

De Horsey, S. H.

Kelburne, Lord

D'Israeli, B.

Kirk, P.

Dottin, A. R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Douro, Marquis of,

Knight, H. G.

Drummond, H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Duffield, T.

Lefroy, T.

East, J. B.

Lincoln, Lord

Eastnor, Lord

Litton, E.

Egerton, W. T.

Long, W.

Ellis, J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Estcourt, T.

Lucas, E.

Fellowes, R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

1400

Mackenzie, T.

Rickford, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Rose, Sir G.

Mackinnon, W.

Round, C.

Marsland, T.

Round, J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Rushout, G.

Neeld, J.

Shaw, F.

Nicholl, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Somerset, Lord

Packe, C. W.

Stanley, Lord

Pakington, J. S.

Sturt, H. C.

Palmer, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Palmer, G.

Thesiger, F.

Parker, M.

Thomas, Col. H.

Peel, Sir R.

Trench, Sir F.

Perceval, Col.

Trevor, hon. G.

Polhill, F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pollen, Sir J.

Vernon, G. H.

Powerscourt, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Praed, W. T.

Wynn, C. W.

Pringle, A.

Young, J.

Pusey, P.

TELLERS.

Rae, Sir W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Richards, R.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Aglionby, Major

Hodges, T. L.

Archbold, H.

Hoskins, K.

Baines, E.

James, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Jervis, S.

Barron, H. W.

Johnson, General

Beamish, F. B.

Lister, E.C.

Bernal, R.

Maher, J.

Blake, W. J.

Martin, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Martin, T. B.

Bridgeman, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Briscoe, J.

Melgund, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Morris, D.

Bryan, G.

Murray, A.

Buller, C.

Nagle, Sir R.

Busfeild, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chester, H.

O'Connell, J.

Chetwynd, Major

O'Connell, M. J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Pattison, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Power, J.

Ellice, E.

Pryme, G.

Ellis, W.

Roche, E. B.

Evans, G.

Sandon, Lord

Ewart, W.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Fielden, J.

Smith, B.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Somers, J. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Steuart, R.

Grattan, J.

Stewart, J.

Grattan, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Greenaway, C.

Stock, Dr.

Grey, Sir C.

Strangways, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Handley, H.

Style, Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Tufnell, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Turner, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Turner, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

1401

Wakley, T.

Wilmington, H.

Warburton, H.

Wood, G. W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Wood, B.

White, S.

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Horsman, E.

Williams, W. A.

Hume, J.

Original question again put.
Mr. Hawessaid, he felt the House ought to reject the motion upon, he thought, new grounds, since the right hon. Member for Tamworth had declared that he would lend his cordial assistance to any proposition, or to any means which would get rid of bribery and corruption at elections in future. He was in hopes that if the same opposition were continued to be shown to the amendment, they would have two or three more divisions upon this question tonight, since they might be expected to derive some two or three votes, in addition to minority upon each renewed division, in the same way as they had in the last division obtained the suffrage and support of the hon. and learned Member, and the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. The cheers proceeding from the opposite side of the House only added strength to his conviction of the propriety of persevering in moving, as an amendment, that the question be adjourned.
The House again divided on the amendment, that the debate be adjourned: Ayes 76; Noes 145: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hastie, A.

Aglionby, Major

Hawkins, J. A.

Baines, E.

Heathcote, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hector, C. J.

Barry, G. S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Blake, W. J.

Hodges, T. L.

Blewitt, R. J.

Horsman, E.

Bridgeman, R.

Hoskins, K.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Bryan, G.

James, W.

Buller, C.

Johnson, General

Busfeild, W.

Lister, E. C.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Maher, J.

Chester, H.

Marsland, H.

Chetwynd, Major

Martin, J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Martin, T. B.

Duke, Sir J.

Maule, hon. F.

Duncombe, T.

Morris, D.

Dundas, F.

Murray, A.

Ellice, E.

Nagle, Sir R.

Ellis, W.

O'Brien, W.

Evans, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ewart, W.

Pattison, J.

Fielden, J.

Philips, M.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Pigot, D. R.

Gillon, W. D.

Pryme, G.

Greenaway, C.

Redington, T. N.

Handley, H.

Roche, E. B.

1402

Seale, Sir J. H.

Warburton, H.

Smith, B.

White, S.

Somers, J. P.

Williams, W.

Stewart, J.

Williams, W. A.

Stock, Dr.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Strutt, E.

Winnington, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Wood, G. W.

Turner, E.

Wood, B.

Turner, W.

Vigors, N. A.

TELLERS.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Briscoe, J. I.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Freshfield, J. W.

Arbuthnott, H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bagge, W.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bailey, J.

Goddard, A.

Bailey, J., jun.

Godson, R.

Baillie, Colonel

Gordon, Captain

Baillie, H. J.

Goulburn, H.

Baker, E.

Graham, Sir J.

Baldwin, C. B.

Grimsditch, T.

Baring, W. B.

Hale, R. B.

Barrington, Lord

Halford, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Blackburne, I.

Harcourt, G. G.

Blair, J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Blennerhasset, A.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hawkes, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Bolling, W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bramston, T. W.

Hepburn, Sir T.

Broadley, H.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hodgson, F.

Brownrigg, S.

Holmes, hon. W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Holmes, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hope, hon. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hope, G. W.

Burr, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Burroughes, H.

Hutt, F.

Canning, Sir. S.

Irton, S.

Cartwright, W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Christopher, R.

James, Sir W. C.

Chute, W. L. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnstone, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Jones, J.

Codrington, C.

Jones, Captain

Cole, hon. A. H.

Kemble, H.

Conolly, E.

Kelburne, Lord

Corry, hon. H.

Knight, H. G.

Cresswell, C.

Knightley, Sir C.

Dalrymple, A.

Lefroy, C.

Darby, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darlington, Earl of

Litton, E.

De Horsey, S. H.

Long, W.

Dick, Q.

Lucas, E.

Dottin, A. R.

Lygon, General

Drummond, H.

Mackenzie, T.

East, J. B.

Makinnon, W.

Eastnor, Lord

Marsland, T.

Egerton, W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Ellis, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Estcourt, T.

Neeld, J.

Fellowes, E.

Nicholl, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

O'Neill, hon. J.

1403

Packe, C. W.

Shaw, F.

Pakington, J. S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Palmer, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Parker, M.

Stanley, Lord

Peel, Sir R.

Sturt, H. C.

Perceval, Colonel

Teignmouth, Lord

Polhill, F.

Thesiger, F.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Powerscourt, Lord

Trench, Sir F.

Praed, W. T.

Trevor, hon. G.

Pringle, A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pusey, P.

Vernon, G. H.

Rae, Sir W.

Vivian, J. E.

Richards, R.

Walsh, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Wood, Colonel T.

Rose, Sir G.

Wynn, C. W.

Round, C. G.

Young, J.

Round, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Rushout, G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sandon, Viscount

Baring, H.

Original question again put.
Mr. Humestated, that he and his Friends had been asked why they did not promote inquiry into this flagrant case of corruption at an election. This was the object of the frequent divisions moved tonight, but the opposition did not deign to offer any opposition to the amendments made in the absence of her Majesty's Ministers, upon whose support he thought his friends might have reckoned had they been present, He conceived, that all that remained to be done by him and his friends was to put an end for the present to the debate, and move as an amendment, that the House do adjourn.
Sir R. Peelwould confess he never had, on any previous occasion, so many times in one night divided upon the subject of adjourning a topic of discussion, and against its adjournment. He, however, believed, that in the present instance he had pursued the proper course; first, because it would be an act of injustice in such a case as this to suspend the decision of the House upon it; and, secondly, because he thought that when the sense of the House had been fairly taken upon the question, more especially by the means of so large a majority against postponement, the minority ought not to persist or persevere in reproposing the adjournment of the principal question at issue. He well knew and appreciated the power pf a minority, although it were but as the present was, a dwindling minority. He also was conscious that the minority to-night had prevailed, and he knew too, that if they could continue to divide until tomorrow evening, and only count three
1404
Members for an adjournment upon each division, the minority would prevail. The present motion had been differently framed—it was for an adjournment of the House; but he would tell them this would not prevail, and that upon the altered motion, they would meet as much firmness and decision, and as decided a negative, as upon the question of adjournment of their decision in respect to this election, or as their party was determined to display. And he would now tell them, and give them notice that, though he should not oppose the motion of adjournment itself, he, for one, would not suffer any other public business to be proceeded with in that House until the question of this writ for Ludlow was disposed of. He had the satisfaction of thinking that he was about to make a proposition, in which he thought, notwithstanding the tendency to opposition which prevailed to-night in the House, both parties would be disposed to agree. If, then, it were improper to go on with this motion in the absence of the noble Lord, surely it would be equally improper to go into committee of supply, and vote away millions of the public money in his absence. It was now understood, that the noble Lord would be in his place on Thursday next—the motion for the issue of the new; writ for the borough of Ludlow must then take precedence. Now, he would give notice for himself, and those with whom he acted, that they would object to the proceeding with any other public business whatever until that time. He apprehended that that proposal would be generally acquiesced in. There was some difficulty in point of form to his moving an amendment that the House do now adjourn till Thursday next, but they might revive the discussion to-morrow, by moving, at five o'clock, that the writ do issue. He believed it would be quite competent for them to do so. That motion would be met, he supposed with opposition, as it had been that night, on account of the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. The noble Lord would not be present to-morrow, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, he supposed, would not allow any decision to be come to. The House would, therefore, be involved in the same difficulty to-morrow evening as it was in at present. Now, that was what he wished to avoid. He did not think it creditable to the House to be engaged in

1405
dissensions of this nature, and he was sure it must be most painful to hon. Members themselves. He must, however, repeat, that if any other public business were brought forward before this question was decided, he would himself move the adjournment of the House. He would, however, suggest an arrangement, by which he thought the difficulty might be avoided, that was, that it should be distinctly understood on both sides, that so far as the public business was concerned, that no motion should be brought forward—that no question of public business should be proceeded with until Thursday, when this motion for a new writ for the borough of Ludlow must have precedence. He would not suggest the postponement of the private business, as that might be attended with great inconvenience to private parties; but that all public business should be deferred until this question should be decided. This was the proposition he had to make to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he assured them he made it in the most perfect good humour. And he would put it to them, was it not better that they should separate good humouredly upon this understanding, than they should continue a useless system of hostility and contention, such as they had that night witnessed.
Mr. Humeassured the right hon. Baronet, that no one regretted more than himself the necessity which was imposed upon hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of that House of having recourse to this means of opposing the present motion. He submitted, that it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who were unreasonable in this matter, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was now about to be still more unreasonable by putting a stop to the progress of all public business. Let the House decide upon the present motion as they might, he, for one, should be sorry to agree to any such proposition as that which the right hon. Baronet had now proposed.
Mr. T. Duncombewished the House and the country to understand what was the nature of the proposition which the right hon. Baronet had submitted. It was this—that because the House would not agree to encourage treating and bribery, the right hon. Baronet would obstruct the progress of all public business. If hon. Gentlemen opposite should ever come into office again, he thought they could not
1406
complain if those who might be in opposition to them, took a leaf out of their book. He thought the proposition of the right hon. Baronet would prove a most dangerous precedent in future cases. All that hon. Members on the Ministerial side asked was, a postponement of the motion, on account of the melancholy occurrence which had taken place in the family of the noble Lord, the leader of that House, and which prevented his attendance in his place. He thought that was a reasonable request, and, after the concession that had been shown to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) on a former evening, when his bill for depriving the people of Ireland of the elective franchise was discussed, one that they might fairly expect to be granted. The House had, on that occasion, consented, at the request of the noble Lord, to sit until five or six o'clock in the morning, in order to allow the noble Lord to leave town to attend the sick bed of a near relation. He hoped the Government, and Members on his side generally, would refuse to enter into any compromise. They had, in fact, won the battle, the writ could not be issued that night. Then let them meet to-morrow, and let the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and those who supported him, obstruct the public business if they thought proper. They might depend upon it, that the people of this country would judge who was in the right.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyobserved, that it had been said that the ground upon which he had urged upon the noble Lord, the Member for Salop (the Earl of Darlington), to postpone the motion for the new writ for the borough of Ludlow was, the short time that elapsed since the evidence had been printed, and in the hands of hon. Members. That was not the ground he had taken. What he objected to was the motion being brought forward in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), who had stated his intention to propose some means for preventing the recurrence of such proceedings as had taken place at the last Ludlow election. His noble Friend had certainly understood that the motion for the new writ would not be brought forward in his absence, and it was on that ground that the noble Lord had objected to the motion which had been suggested by an hon. Friend near him for postponing the issue of the writ till the 10th of June.

1407
He did not say there was sufficient evidence to justify the ultimate suspension of the writ; all he asked was that the motion should be postponed until they had an opportunity of seeing what course his noble Friend proposed to pursue.
The Earl of Darlingtonbegged to observe, that when the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down waited upon him on this subject, he did not state that he came with any communication from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. In fact, when he put the question to the hon. Member whether, if he consented to postpone the motion till Thursday, the noble Lord intended to oppose it, his reply was that he did not know, for that he had had no conversation with his noble Friend since the melancholy event that had taken place. If the request had been made to him as from the noble Lord, he should have considered it due, in courtesy to the noble Lord, to have acquiesced in it.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyhad distinctly stated the other evening, when the notice of motion was given for the Cambridge writ, that the ground upon which he asked for the postponement was the absence of his noble Friend. He was not in the House when the notice for moving the Ludlow writ was given, but as the Cambridge writ was postponed because of the absence of his noble Friend, he had conceived that the same course would have been taken with regard to the Ludlow writ.
Sir R. Peelwould explain what was his impression upon the subject. He was asked on Thursday or Friday last by the noble Lord, the Member for Salop, whether, as ten days had then elapsed since the evidence taken before the Ludlow election committee had been laid upon the table, the motion for the issue of the new
1408
writ for that borough not to be made. He replied that in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion it ought, but that notice of the motion ought to be given. Notice was given on Friday last that the motion would be made on the Monday. Subsequently the hon. Member for Sudbury had given notice that he would move the issue of the Cambridge writ also on that day. That was contrary to his advice; for, as in the Ludlow case, it had been thought necessary to print the evidence of the committee, a longer notice ought to have been given. But the moment his hon. Friend, the Member for Sudbury, gave notice of his intention to move the Cambridge writ on that evening, the hon. Member for Cornwall, the chairman of the Cambridge election committee, rose up and declared his intention of supporting the motion. Subsequently the hon. Member (Mr. E. J. Stanley) had asked for the suspension of the Cambridge writ till Thursday next, which was at once acended to, but it was not until that afternoon he had heard any wish expressed for the suspension of the Ludlow writ. He had understood, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, desired to have an opportunity of stating his opinions generally upon the subject of treating at elections, and he (Sir R. Peel) had done all he could to afford the noble Lord that opportunity, and had succeeded in prevailing on his hon. Friend (Sir J. Walsh) to postpone the motion for the Cambridge writ until the noble Lord could be present on Thursday next.
Mr. Horsmansaid, that the right hon. Baronet was mistaken, in saying, that ten days had elapsed after the delivery of the papers, whereas, six days only had then passsed.
House adjourned.