fected; whilst the hon. member for Hertfordshire having, in this instance, carried his unfortunate amendment, and pledged so many members in its support, the sooner. the whole thing could be got rid of the better.

Sir C. Burrell said, that, in the case of Shoreham, a club of persons had been formed, constituting a majority of the voters, who, it had been proved, had received bribes for their votes. On the occasion of that disfranchisement, the right of voting had been thrown open to the Rape of Bramber; which, he thought, was a better mode of disposing of the franchise, than that of transferring it altogether to a strange place. He objected to the irregularity of urging the motion for the writ issuing forthwith, as no notice had been previously given of it, and as many of those members were absent who took an interest in the subject.

sentatives in that House, as organs of their interests and sentiments. In the case of Penryn, the first law authority in this country had declared, that unless proof of corruption was adduced against the majority of the electors of a borough, it did not warrant its disfranchisement. In the case of East Retford, the principal proofs of corruption and bribery had taken place so far back as 1812, and the proposed punishment, he thought disproportionate, in the case made out, by the evidence adduced at the bar of the House. This subject had already engrossed much attention: it had proved a dangerous topic, and had been almost as fatal in breaking up cabinets as the Catholic question itself. He did not doubt that the House had the power of disfranchisement; but they ought to take care that that power should not be exercised in a harsh or in an unguarded manner. The hon. members for Blechingly and Hertfordshire appeared to have entered into a sort of hostile partnership, for keeping up this question. The motions which they introduced were like a manifold writer-a polygraph-in which various motions were inserted among the notices, and kept up from the commencement to the close of the session. He thought it was high time to put an end to these discussions, and that the burgesses of East Retford should not be left without representatives in that House, at a time at which their interests required that they should be represented. On the motion for bringing up the petition being disposed of, he should move that a writ for a new election for members for the borough of East Retford be issued forthwith.

Mr. Hudson Gurney hoped, that the hon. member for Dungarvon would proceed to move the writ. The House were in that situation that much evil might arise from the renewal of these discussions, and no possible good was likely to be effected by them. He did not wonder, considering the immaculate places which the member for Blechingly had hitherto represented, at his great sensibility to any suspicion of corruption; but if there were to be now a new election for Retford, he might feel pretty certain, that no wholesale bribery would be, in that place, ventured on. Every thing had been gained that could be gained. The House had recognized the desirableness of the introduction of the great towns into the representation, whenever opportunity should arise in which it could be efVOL. XXI.

Mr. Fergusson adverted to the various proceedings in the case of the East Retford election. A strong case had been made out against the electors, which they were invited to repel; and which, if they could repel, ample opportunity had been afforded them for doing so. The corruption which had been proved against them was such as could leave no doubt of the mal-practices of the borough; and he hoped that all the evidence which had been given in support of the charges, would not be set at nought, and that they would not hastily proceed in the adoption of any course upon a subject which had undergone so long and laborious an investigation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not now enter into the case of East Retford. He rose simply for the purpose of submitting to his hon. friend, whether it would be consistent with the usual course of proceeding in that House, to press the motion for issuing a new writ forthwith. The present case was different from that of moving a new writ in ordinary cases; and as his hon. friend had given notice of presenting this petition last evening, but had not given notice of his intention to follow it up with a motion that a writ should issue forthwith, he would suggest to his hon. friend, that although he might think it fair, yet the effect upon the minds of others would be, that a proceeding so much at variance with the customary mode of conducting business in that; House, would not be quite fair.

Mr. Sykes expressed his willingness to support the motion for a new writ. He was

2 A

main question until the 5th May, for the express purpose of avoiding such a debate at the present period. At the same time, it was his duty to state shortly the character of the petition now before the House-to develope the falsehood of its allegations, and expose the parties from whom it proceeded. He felt called upon to do this, because the petition appeared to have disposed some hon. members to agree to the issue of the writ. In the first place, the petitioners alleged, that there was no evidence against them of a more recent date than the payments made in 1814, on account of the electionmoney of 1812. Now, what would the House think of the effrontery of these parties, when he stated, that of the eightyone freemen who had signed the petition

induced to do so, from a consideration of the length of time that had elapsed since the alleged offences had been committed. Most of those offences had taken place in the year 1812, and he was not disposed to visit the present electors with punishment for offences which their ancestors had so long ago committed. He had not hitherto interfered in the dispute, on one side or the other; but he should certainly now vote for the writ issuing forthwith. The hon. members for Blechingly and Hertfordshire might continue their sparring match on this question, as they had done for the two last sessions; but he was unwilling that a representation which had slept so long, should remain in a state of suspended animation any longer. He did not see why the House of Commons should continue any longer mutilated in one of its members. For his own part, he had determined, for reasons which satisfied himself, and which those who heard him, might, perhaps, understand, not to vote for the disfranchisement of places, on account of charges brought forward on the score of bribery. He looked at the great inconvenience and injustice to voters, against whom no charges of improper conduct had been preferred; and, looking at the question in this point of view, as well as in reference to the distance of time at which the alleged offences were committed, and to the greater fairness with which further proceedings on the subject might be continued, if the borough was represented, and had an organ in that House, he would support the motion that the writ should issue forthwith.

Mr. Fane complained of the unfairness of pressing such a motion at the present

moment.

Mr. Tennyson rose and said, that notwithstanding the formal notice which his hon. friend, the member for Dungarvon had given, of his intention to present this petition, it had occasioned him much surprise when he had intimated, at the close of his speech, an intention to move, at once, for a new writ to be issued conformably to the prayer of the petitioners. The hon. member and others had seized upon this occasion for reviewing the whole case of East Retford; but he (Mr. Tennyson) would not permit himself to be drawn into that discussion, however he might feel tempted to correct the erroneous statements and recollections of his hon. friends, since he had postponed the

all who were voters in 1820-the last election at which head-money could be paid-had, to the entire satisfaction of the House, been individually proved guilty of participating in the corruption of 1818, and some of them also in that of 1820, except eight persons of those eight persons, three were admitted as freemen between the elections of 1818 and 1820-but he must observe that at the time of the examination, he (Mr. Tennyson) had not discovered (as he since had) the pay-list for the latter year; and two were non-resident in 1818, to which year the pay-list produced, alone applied; the remaining three, he admitted to be untouched by any evidence before the House. At the commencement of these signatures there was a formidable array of aldermen ;-eight persons signed themselves as such. There was alderman George Thornton, the corrupt agent in 1826; alderman Hudson and alderman Danber, who were the senior and junior bailiffs and returning officers at the last election, and both of whom received the election money in 1818; next came Mr. alderman Clarke, who stated, at the bar, that he had received forty guineas as election money for 1818, and twenty guineas for 1820. Then appeared Mr. alderman Appleby, who had likewise admitted at the bar of the House, that he had received his election-money in 1818 and 1820-forty guineas each time. How, he begged to ask, could these gentlemen dare to state to the House as they did, that there was no evidence against them more recent than that which applied to the election of 18123 And what sort of

a foundation did such a petition afford to the proposed motion for issuing the writ! He saw also the name of Mr. William Elvidge, one of the present bailiffs, and who would be a returning officer upon the election to ensue, if that motion should succeed; yet he (Mr. Elvidge) received the election-money in 1818. There were other names; Hodson, Buxton, Banks, Grant-who had all admitted at the bar that, in 1818 and 1820, they received the head-money, Was it possible, then, that this petition could have any weight? As to the statement of the hon. member for Dungarvon that the corruption of a majority of the voters had not been proved, he would appeal to the general recollection of the House; but he would not now be dragged into a restatement of the evidence which, in the last session, produced so decisive a conviction, that the whole body, with a very limited number of exceptions, was corrupt. An hon. member had said, the House bad been sleeping over this subject. His hon. friend might have slept, and judging from his present impressions with regard to this case, he thought he must have done so; but he was satisfied that no one else had slept over it during the last session. He (Mr. Tennyson) well knew that he had not had much sleep during the stormy debates which had taken place upon it. Notwithstanding what had just been said, he thought the House would not feel disposed to impute blame to him on the ground of neglect. He had introduced the measure originally in 1827. The bill was read a second time, and then the session closed upon it. At the very commencement of the last session, he had again brought in the bill, which was constantly under discussion from the first days of the session down to the last hours of it. This was not sleeping. Now, with regard to the present session. Considering the important and engrossing character of the deliberations in which, since parliament met in February, this House had been constantly engaged with regard to a measure now in progress through the other House of parliament, he was confidént honourable members would feel, that it would have been bad taste and bad judgment in him to have intruded this question of East Retford, which although one of considerable importance, was undoubtedly, very subordinate in point of interest to that other question to which he

had referred. If, therefore, he had introduced it at an earlier period, it must have been generally unpalatable, and would not have received the attention it demanded. Even yet the mind of the House was so absorbed by the great measure now approaching to its completion, that so far from feeling that he merited any charge of undue delay, he was conscious only of having yielded to a general wish when he postponed the consideration of the subject of East Retford until the 5th of May, on which day he pledged himself to bring it forward. His hon. friend, the member for Hull (Mr. Sykes) had said, that the member for Hertfordshire and himself (Mr. Tennyson) were engaged in a sham fight upon this question. Now, although nothing, he was sure, would disturb the good feeling which personally subsisted between him and his hon. friend (Mr. N. Calvert), yet he could assure the hon. member for Hull, that the fight to which he had alluded, was on his (Mr. Tennyson's) part, no sham fight, but that on the 5th May, whatever course other gentlemen might be pleased to pursue, he should go straight forward, and again seriously and strenuously endeavour to persuade the House to adopt the view he had originally taken, by disfranchising altogether the borough of East Retford and bestowing two representatives upon the town of Birmingham.

Mr. Stewart observed, that, with a single exception, there was not one untainted witness to prove the existence of bribery and corruption in East Retford. If there were any chance that the measure which might be introduced on the subject, could go through both Houses in the course of the present session, he would concur in the propriety of not moving the new writ now. For himself, he had invariably voted against the disfranchisement of the borough; conceiving that, although bribery and corruption to a certain extent had been proved to exist in it, it had not been proved to be so universal as to justify so strong a measure.

Alderman Waithman begged to make one remark. The petitioners complained of the hardships which they suffered, in not being represented in parliament at this particular time. He did not know to what they alluded; unless he could guess at it from another petition, which they had presented on the important subject which

in the present session. But, it was rather extraordinary that those who had violated the duties of electors should petition against a measure which they declared violated the constitution. A circumstance had struck him, which he thought ought to make some impression on the House. The petitioners contended, that the right of representation should be retained for this place in Nottinghamshire. Now, on a late occasion, it would seem, that there was not a man in Nottinghamshire capable of being returned for a place in that county; and it was found necessary to go for a representative to Leeds, which town, he and others had always said ought to be represented. They had always contended, that Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds ought to be represented. Yet, when a representative was required for Newark, he was brought from one of those unrepresented places which he had mentioned.

Mr. Lumley hoped the hon. member for Dungarvon would not press his motion at present. He admitted, that the evidence which had been given on the subject before the House was unquestionable; but he was sure that, in any other place, and on oath, it would break down.

Mr. Lamb defended himself from the charge of endeavouring to take the House by surprise. Nothing could be farther from his intention. He complained strongly of the delay that had already occurred, and said he had little hope, that any measure would be adopted during the present session. The motion which he proposed making he was willing, however, to put off till after the holidays.

Ordered to lie on the table.

SPANISH CLAIMS BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Benson, after adverting to the ineffectual efforts of a late right hon. gentleman on this subject, eulogized the courtesy, patience, and perseverance which had been manifested in the conduct of the question by the noble earl, who was at present the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had been requested by the claimants to express their grateful sense of that conduct on the part of the noble earl, to which they were indebted for the restoration of their property.

Mr. Robinson was glad to hear that

had alluded were satisfied. There was one class of persons, however, who would not be satisfied; and that was, the Spanish Claimants on the British government, whose claims were, by the convention of 1823, transferred to Spain. He was ap prehensive, that this circumstance might occasion, the re-opening of the question..

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the same remark had been made on a former occasion by the hon. member for Taunton. The hon. gentleman appeared to have mistaken the article in the convention to which he had alluded. It was only to the effect, that if Spain did not fulfil the agreement made with her, which was a compromise, the parties claiming should be allowed to prefer their full demand.

The bill was read a second time.

SWAN RIVER SETTLEMENT BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Fergusson objected to the bill, that it gave the making of the laws for the government of the colony to the governor. Now, he thought that to invest one man with such a power, without some restric tions being put upon the nature of the laws to be framed by him, would be exceedingly dangerous. He would therefore propose as an amendment, that the words "such laws and ordinances not being repugnant to the laws of England " be introduced into the bill.

Sir G. Murray agreed in the general principle upon which the amendment of the hon. gentleman was founded; but, in a new colony, it might be necessary to arm the executive with some extraordinary powers. It would be his duty, however, and one which he should attend to with peculiar pleasure, to see that the rights of British subjects were respected, both there and in all the other colonies.

Mr. Hume wished to know whether, in New South Wales, the provisions of a bill recently passed had been carried into effect, relative to the council and the establishment of grand and petit juries? He wished also to know, what was the amount of expense incurred to this country by the colony.

Sir G. Murray said, it was the intention of government to establish a council, and grand and petit juries; but of what class of persons that council was to con