DOVER ELECTION.] Mr. Halcomb rose to move to be allowed time to deposit a particular of his qualification to be returned as a Member of the House, as required by a standing order of this House, dated 21st November, 1717, with the proper officer, till Monday next. He stated that having already complied substantially with the Standing Order, by handing in a full particular of his qualification to the clerk on taking his seat, he trusted the House would extend its indulgence to him for a single day. His failure to furnish the required document on the petition against him was entirely owing to misconception and accident. The fifteen days expired on the day before Good Friday; and as it was not expected that the House would sit upon that day, he had been thrown off his guard, and having received a sudden and pressing summons to go to Warwick, on the Wednesday he left town, and the matter escaped his memory. In conclusion he again threw himself on the indulgence of the House, to deal with him as it might see fit. He wished to be allowed to deliver a paper containing his qualification to the Clerk of the House on Monday. Mr. Wynn must observe, that the indulgence requested was very unusual, and, he might say unprecedented; and, as he knew of no precedent precisely similar, he would recommend the adjournment of the debate upon the subject to search for precedents. The right hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving, as an Amendment, that the further debate on the subject be adjourned until Monday next. The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 46;- Noes 54;-Majority 8. The discussion on the original Question was resumed. Mr. Wynn said, that the Committee which would have to try the Petition would not be bound by the Standing Order of the House, but by the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and must see that the hon. Member had complied with the latter. He was disposed to give his vote in favour of * Ilansard, xxxiv. p. 1151. the extension of time sought for by the hon. and learned Member. Mr. Murray contended, that no sufficient grounds had been shown why the Standing Order should not be enforced. If the House had hitherto observed the Standing Order, it should continue to do so. Mr. Philip Howard contended, that in the case of the Marylebone Election, the House had, but a few days ago, decided against an extension of the time. He had heard nothing to convince him that the two cases were not, as nearly as possible, similar. The hon. member for Marylebone might well complain of being harshly treated. if this indulgence were granted at the suit of the member for Dover, which, in like circumstances, was denied to him, when the House, by a large majority, came to the resolution of abiding by its own standing order. He (Mr. Howard) moreover, thought, that they would be doing a great injustice to the petitioners, who were not present to defend themselves, if further time were granted in the present instance. Every consideration of consistency and of equity compelled him to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member. The Speaker said, that the non-compliance with the Standing Order was a question entirely between that House and the sitting Member. The petition under all circumstances, must go before the Committee, and they would have to decide on the allegations made in it. It was for the Committee to decide on the question of qualification or no qualification. If the petitioners should think themselves prejudiced in any way by the Standing Order not having been complied with, they could appeal to that House, who would deal with the infraction of the Order as they should think fit. The House divided-Ayes 36; Noes 54: Majority 18. all Bills for Continuing or Amending any Acts concerning Turnpike Roads, from 27th February, 1829, to the present cap. 6. time. On the Motion of the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, an Account of all Ecclesiastical Property vested in the Crown, in Pursuance of the Irish Statute, 6th Anne, Petitions presented. By the Duke of GORDON, from the University of Aberdeen, for a Revision of the Apothecaries Act.---By Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from Roseland, to make Truro the Assize Town instead of Launceston. By the Earl of RADNOR, from St. George's, Middlesex, for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, Vote by Ballot, and a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.-By Lord GRANTHAM, Taxes.--By the Earl of RODEN, from Bewdley; and by a NOBLE LORD, from two Places,-against the Sale of Beer Act.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Haddington, against the present System of Church from St. James's, Westminster, against the Assessed Patronage in Scotland, and from the same Place, for an Alteration in the Forms and Practice of the Scotch Law Courts. By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from the Synod of Merse and Teviotdale, against the New System of Education in Ireland.-By the Bishops of BANGOR, LINCOLN, GLOUCESTER, Lord REDESDALE, and the Earl of RODEN, from a Number of Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, the Earls of RADNOR, UXBRIDGE, CLARENDON, GREY, RODEN, and ALBE MARLE, Viscount MELBOURNE, Lords RoLle, Dacre, and by the Bishop of LINCOLN, from a great Number of expense and trouble to themselves for the purpose of memorialising Government, and the circumstance showed the strong feeling entertained in the country as to the necessity of settling the question. He would take the opportunity of saying, that the memorial in question had not emanated from the London Anti-Slavery Society, and that not one member of that society was on the Deputation, with the exception of the gentleman who introduced it to the noble Lord. Earl Grey said, that as far as he was concerned he had no objection to the production of the document. His only doubt was as to the form in which it could be called for. It was a memorial addressed to him, in common with others of his Majesty's Ministers, and he doubted whether it could be considered such a public document as their Lordships could move for by address to the Crown. He would admit, that the deputation was a most respectable one, and that the memorial was very ably drawn up. That, however, did not alter the question, whether they could call by address for a document which might be considered in the light of a private and not a public document. The calling for it in this way might establish a very inconvenient precedent. However, he had no objection to lay it before the House as a private document if it could be consistently produced. Lord Rolle had no objection to the production of any document on the subject. His great wish, as an owner of West India property, was, that the slaves should be placed in a situation of comfort and happiness. He could say of his own slaves that they had always cost him a consider able sum, and their happiness was shown by the circumstance that they had increased from 130, to near 400. COLONIAL SLAVERY-RETURNS.] Lord Suffield said, he was about to move for a certain paper which he thought would be very interesting and important to their Lordships. It had been announced in the other House of Parliament by a member of the Government, that the Government were about to introduce such a measure regarding the state of Slavery in the Colonies as would permanently settle that question. That announcement had given great satisfaction throughout the country, and meetings had, in consequence, been held in various places on the subject. Not only that, but a deputation, consisting of 339 gentlemen had been sent up from all parts of the country to wait upon Earl Grey and the Government, who presented a memorial on the subject to Earl Grey on Friday last. That memorial had much in it which he thought might be valuable to their Lordships, and he should therefore beg leave to move that "An humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he might be graciously pleased to lay before the House a copy of the resolution and memorial presented to Earl Grey on Friday last, the 19th instant, by a deputation of gentlemen from various parts of the kingdom." He (Lord Suffield) believed it to be an unpre- The Marquess of Lansdowne had no cedented circumstance, that so many gen-objection to the production of the memorial tlemen should come up to London at great but he doubted whether it could be called Lord Rosslyn considered the document to be a private one. They might as well call for the production of a private letter addressed to any of their Lordships. It was quite impossible it could be asked for by means of an address to the Crown. Lord Suffield contended, that if any document could be called a public one, it was that for which he moved. It was a memorial presented by 339 persons in an official meeting to the Ministers of the Crown. Lord Ellenborough contended that the for by an address, or by an order of that the same sort was intended on the present House. The noble Lord might obtain it occasion. Be that as it might, after the by an understanding among their Lord-presentation of the petition now before the ships, but it clearly impossible other House, two gentlemen, who had been that it could be asked by an address from engaged in the election, called on Mr. the Crown. Ellice, with whom the present Bill originated, and stated that out of 526 electors who voted for one of the successful candid. ates, 524 received bribes of money. Those gentlemen, in corroboration of their statements, produced several money tickets which had been presented to the voters, and he held in his hand a further proof of the truth of their representation; which was nothing else than the poll-book of the voters in favour of the successful candidate, and he found only two names out of 526 to which the letters "p-d" were not attached. He conceived at first that these letters were put down to signify "polled," but on turning to the beginning of the book he found the word "paid" written in full, and in some parts of it the sums actually paidsometimes 10l., at others 12-were entered. This was such an abominable case of bribery and corruption, that it behoved their Lordships not to refuse dealing with it; and he could not help thinking that they would not be acting wisely or with graciousness towards the House of Commons if they did not assist in eradicating this evil. He had documents in his possession, which showed that all parties agreed as to the necessity of rooting out this system of corruption, and disfranchising the borough. The noble Earl read certain resolutions, agreed to by a number of gentlemen in Stafford, admitting the prevalence of the grossest system of bribery in that borough and an extract from a letter written by the mayor, who was returning officer of the borough, in which it was stated that bribery had been so long practised in the place that it had almost assumed the character of a prescriptive right. The letter concluded by stating that the borough exhibited manifest symptoms of its political death, and that the sooner it was dead and buried the better, provided the cost was not great to the chief mourners. He stated these facts for the purpose of showing that the corrup tion and bribery of Stafford was notorious, and of such a gross nature as required some remedy to be applied to it. He understood several of their Lordships felt objections to the wording of particular parts of the Bill; but that was matter for consideration in Committee, and ought not to be any obstacle to the Second Reading. As far as STAFFORD BRIBERY BILL.] The Earl of Radnor, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he scarcely expected any opposition to it, because it was founded on the same principle as several Bills which had of late years been introduced without any objection into their Lordships' House for the purpose of indemnifying witnesses who might give evidence of the existence of gross bribery and corruption in certain boroughs. He admitted, that the present measure was not accompanied, like those to which he had just referred, by a proposition of disfranchisement; but their Lordships ought not on that account to reject it. The Bill was founded on the notoriety of gross and abominable bribery existing in Stafford. He understood that at the last election there were three candidates for the representation of that borough, and that the return of one of the successful candidates was petitioned against on the allegation of bribery. He had, however, good reason for believing that this proceeding was a mere ruse de guerre, for the purpose of getting some portion of the defeated candidates expenses paid. He knew that, on a former occasion, a gentleman who started for the representation of Stafford with every prospect of success up to the day before the election commenced,-having received promises of support from more than twothirds of the voters, was, notwithstanding defeated by an individual not at all connected with the place. The reason of this was, that this last gentleman had 14,000l. to spend in the election, while the other candidate could only spare 6,500l.; and it was actually a fact that the voters in the interest of the more wealthy candidate went to the poll with bank notes in their hats; and taunted their opponents with receiving only Birmingham counterfeits, while they got real bank notes. A petition was presented against the successful candidate, but upon his agreeing to pay down 3,000l. all further investigation was stifled. This having occurred on a former occasion he could not but think that something of he was concerned, he should offer no opposition to any amendment which did not interfere with the principle and efficiency of the measure. The noble Earl moved the Second Reading of the Bill. propriety of appointing a secret Committee up-stairs to inquire whether any bribery had prevailed at the last and two preceding elections for Stafford, and in case any bribery did exist, to Report to the House what persons it might be fit to indemnify for the purpose of proving it. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that, "the second reading of the Bill be postponed, and the matter referred to a Secret Committee to inquire as to the bribery said to be practised at the last and the two preceding elections, and to Report to the House what persons it might be proper to indemnify." Lord Wynford said that, whenever corruption was clearly proved against a considerable portion of the inhabitants of any place, he should be ready to concur in the proposition to disfranchise them and transfer the elective franchise to other persons more likely to exercise it properly. But the noble Earl's speech from the beginning to the end had convinced him that it was impossible for their Lordships to pass the present measure. He objected to this Bill, Lord Ellenborough thought that the because it was not like former Bills of a House, though it had precedents of indemsimilar nature founded on an inquiry pre- nifying witnesses, was placed at present in viously instituted by the House of Com- a very difficult situation, for the other mons. They were asked by the Bill to House had not adopted any means of declare that the borough of Stafford was getting exact information as to the necessity grossly corrupt. In his opinion the same of the present Bill. The Commons had character might justly be given to nine- not examined evidence or adopted any tenths of the boroughs in England; and method of clearing away the doubts that he had always expected that this would be might rest upon their Lordships' minds as the case when the elective franchise was to the case before them, and even if they given to that class of persons to whom votes had, it would be still somewhat difficult were of no value, unless they were per- for their Lordships to decide upon it. As mitted to sell them. He always thought the matter stood it was most difficult, since that the effect of the Reform Bill would it turned upon the circumstance of two be to put up to sale the representation of persons having informed the right hon. the country, and that expectation had been Secretary-at-war (Mr. Ellice), that, at confirmed by what had passed at the late the last election, 524 out of 526 voters had election; but, while he was ready to admit been bribed, and, perhaps, that was all the that nine boroughs out of ten throughout other House knew of the business. As England were corrupt, he was not sure their Lordships' House was the highest that Stafford was not the virtuous excep-judicial body in the realm, they should be tion, and he was, therefore, not prepared to give his assent to the preamble of this Bill, without having its allegations proved by evidence. Assuming the fact that there had been bribery at Stafford there was one part of the Bill which he considered obnoxious to very serious objections; it offered indemnity not only to those who gave evidence, but also to every person who was implicated in the corrupt transactions of the borough. It indemnified the great criminal who had bribed, as well as the pauper who had been bribed. In all former cases their Lordships had had a Report of a Committee to act upon, which pointed out that bribery had been practised, and also pointed out the proper persons to admit as witnesses, and consequently to include in the Bill of Indemnity. If they proceeded without such an inquiry they would shake one of the most useful principles which guided their Lordships proceedings. Under these circumstances he would suggest the very cautious how they established any precedents affecting the rights of the people, and the due investigation of all judicial matters which came before them. He saw great difficulty in dealing with the case, but, on the whole, he thought that it would be better to postpone the second reading of the Bill until to-morrow or the next day, that their Lordships might have time to satisfy themselves with respect to the statements made in the preamble of the Bill. It was not safe to proceed to the second reading, merely on what had been stated by the noble Earl. The Lord Chancellor was perfectly ready to admit, that the proceeding upon the present Bill was novel and unprecedented, at least to the extent of not hearing evidence at the bar of their Lordships' House. Though no inquiry had been instituted, such as he believed had always been resorted to on such occasions, yet he was clear in the opinion that they ought not to interpose any obstacle in the way of the due execution of justice, but that, on the contrary, they should give it every possible facility in its course. The question for their Lordships was, how they could best effect that object conformably with the practice of Parliament? In the first place, he would beg to observe, that he could not agree with his noble and learned friend in thinking that persons giving evidence before a Secret Committee of their Lordships would be exempt from penal consequences, if they had been guilty of any offence connected with the circumstances which that evidence might bring to light, though no doubt means might be devised for insuring to them that protection which the necessity of the case might demand; but, without some special arrangement, witnesses might be subjected to serious consequences arising from the evidence given before a Committee. There would, indeed, be a difficulty about finding against them, for if an appli. cation were made to the House to permit any noble Lord of the Committee to be examined as a witness against them; that would scarcely be granted, yet if it were the witnesses might be convicted in the Courts of Law by their own testimony, or at least by a circumstance, which that testimony might bring to light. That, however, was so very unusual a proceeding; and the chance of its being resorted to so remote, that it need not for a moment be taken into account; and he, therefore, thought that his noble and learned friend had a right to say, that witnesses would be perfectly safe in giving their testimony. Notwithstanding that, however, he begged to remind their Lordships, that the appointment of a Secret Committee would be itself a novelty in the proceedings of that House, and he, therefore, should wish for time to consider a proposition of that nature, and time to look for precedents. He would recommend his noble friend, the Earl of Radnor, to agree to the adjournment of the debate for a few days. He must add, that there were some things in the Bill which he did not approve of, but as his noble friend professed his readiness to admit of alterations, he would not then enter into the subject. Before he sat down, he begged to observe, that whatever bribery might have been committed in Stafford, it had no connection whatever with the great measure of Reform; for he took it for granted, that there was not a noble Lord in that House who did not well know that the bribery took place in that borough long before the Reform Bill was introduced into the other House. It was well known that, during an election in Stafford, it was no uncommon practice for electors to walk about the town with bank notes stuck in their hats by way of cockades; and that practice prevailed, and open and notorious bribery prevailed, long before the late measure of Reform had been heard of. He believed his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) did not mean to depreciate the value of that important measure; but he must be allowed to say, that his noble and learned friend had stepped a little out of his way to make a remark in reference to it, which was anything but favourable. The Bill then before their Lordships was one which required their attentive consideration without any reference to party feelings; and he hoped that they would come down, on the next occasion, prepared to discharge their duty to the country-to the borough of Stafford, and to the other House of Parliament, by devising the most effectual means for investigating those scandalous practices with which the borough stood charged. Debate adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. EMER SON TENNANT, an Account of all Monies deposited with Sheriffs, or other Returning Officers throughout Ireland, during the late general Election, and the manner in which that Money was disposed of. New Writs issued. On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES Wood, for Worcestershire (West), in the room of the Hon. THOMAS FOLEY, (now Lord FOLEY); and for the Inverness Burghs, in the room of JOHN BAILLIE, Esq., dePetitions presented. By the Marquess of CHANDOS, Lord ceased. W. LENNOX, Sir JOHN TYRELL, Mr. W. BANKES, Mr. DUGDALE, Mr. W. EVANS, Mr. C. MARJORIBANKS, and Mr. LOCKE, from a Number of Places,-for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. WATSON, from Cranbrook, against Legislative Enactments for the Observance of the Lord's Day.-By Mr. ROEBUCK, from London and Westminster, for Facilitating the giving of Instructive and Scientific Lectures on Sundays.-By Lord DUDLEY STUART, Sir FRANCIS BLAKE, Sir JOHN TYRELL, Sir G. PHILLIPS, Mr. GORE, Mr. SLANEY, Mr. R. WILLIAMS, Mr. BRODIE, Mr. N. CALVERT, Mr. PETER, Mr. COLLIER, Mr. C. BERKELEY, Mr. POULTER, Mr. A. WILLIAMS, Mr. GASKELL, Mr. M. A. TAYLOR, Mr. W. EVANS, Mr. DUGDALE, Mr. W. F. HANDLEY, Mr. WATSON, Mr. WINDHAM, Mr. H. HANDLEY, Mr. HALL, Mr. R. SHAWE, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. C. MARJORIBANKS, Mr. BRIGSTOCK, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. TURNER, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. ROBERT WILLIAMS, and Major HANDLEY, from a Number of Places,-against Slavery.-By Mr. W. BANKES, and Mr. H. HANDLEY,-for Removing the Civil Disabilities of the Dissenters.-By Mr. DIVETT, from Exeter; by Mr. W. EVANS, from Leicester; and by Mr. WATKINS, from Brecknock, for correcting Corporation Abuses.-By Mr. WATSON, from Canterbury; Mr. WINDHAM, from Norwich; Mr. TENNYSON, from |