Debates anb len:Kerbing% in Vatliament.

LEICESTER: BOROUGH CORRUPTION.

Shortly after the reassembling of the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. STAFFORD moved the issue of a writ for the borough of Leicester, in the room of Sir Joshua Walnasley and Mr. Gardner. The speeches which ensued were a rambling revival of the old arguments on both sides. Mr. Stafford and his supporters (of the Protectionist section) contended that it was unconstitutional to keep the writ waiting for the Borough Elections Bill; especially as that bill had but little chance of passing this session, 'since forty-eight other bills claim the attention of the House. On the other side, Mr. FREwEN and other Members maintained that Leicester is notorious for its corruption, and that the writ ought to be suspended in order to the inquiry under the Borough Elections Commission. Ministers accepted and supported the previous decision of the House on that general question, as it was pronounced in the Derby case; and Lord Jostry Rus- SELL cited precedents for-the suspension of writs— Soon after the Revolution, in 1696, when corrupt practices were proved against Aldbo,ough, the writ was suspended from September 1696 till December 1697; and it was only upon the petition of the inhabitants, stating their determination that the election should be conducted with purity in future, that the House con- canted to issue the writ. The case of Bishops Castle, which occurred in the time of Queen Anne, was a similar case; and instances of the same kind happened in the reigns of -George the Second and George the ThinI. So confirmed was this practice, not only by precedent but by act of Parliament, that 1820 Lord John himself, then being an independent Member of Parliament, asked the House to suspend the writs for certain boroughs, with respect to which inquiries were either Ordered or pending, not only for a certain period, but also for a period ex- tending beyond the period of dissolution. Lord Castlereagh, who then had such influence in the House that he could have stopped the bill at once, assented to its introduction. With regard to the remedy to be adopted now, he must say that be thought the House should come to a decision as to whether they approved of the principle of the bill brought in by the honourable Member for the Flint Boroughs or not.

In the course of the discussion, Sir Joan PARINGTON announced, that on Tuesday next he should move that the writs for all the vacant boroughs be issued, with two or three exceptions; and Leicester would form one of the exceptions. Mr. Humo hoped that Sir John would not take Tuesday, as it would interfere with his motion on the state of the representation, long on the Notice-paper, and respecting which much anxiety was felt. On the last occasion when he wished to bring it forward, a motion was made which he was told would only last half an hour, but it took. up the time of the House till eleven o'clock. Sir JOHN PARING- TON was afraid that be could not consent to postpone his motion; but he saw no reason to suppose that it would stand long in Mr. Hume's way. Mr. COBDEN drew from the whole discussion the moral that the subject of the representation must be discussed; and he suggested, that as Sir John Pakington's proposed motion related to a question of privilege, be might bring it forward on any night, without being limited to Tuesday. Later in the evening, Sir JOHN Painwcrow consented to change the day; and announced that he should make his motion on Monday or Thursday next.

Dlr. Stafford's motion, for the issue of the Leicester writ, was negatived, by 129 to 6.

After the consideration of some other matters, Sir JOHN HARMER moved the Committee on the Borough Elections Bill. As soon as the House was in Committee, Colonel SIBTHOR.P moved that the Chairman do report progress; but the motion fell to the ground: the result is thus recorded in the Vote-paper—" The Committee divided; Colonel Sibthorp was ap- pointed one of the tellers for the Ayes; but no Member appearing to be a second teller for the Ayes, the Chairman declared the Noes had it."

On the first clause, Mr. BANKES renewed his opposition to the measure generally; and thus raised a debate which retraced the same ground that had been traversed when the bill was last before the House. The argu- ment having been advanced that the honest voters ought not to be disfran- chised for the fault of the dishonest, Sir JOHN HANKER showed that even the honest voters could not repudiate liability— It was a very favourite argument, that, looking at the evidence taken before the Committees, it appeared that a very small number of corrupt acts, of one sort or other, were on any occasion actually proved. In the first place, he need hardly remark that the number of cases proved before the Committees went for very little. But he did not believe that honest voters, as they were called—men who were so far honest as that they did not sell their votes—were without fault in this matter; for they did not exercise the influence they ought, for the purpose of diminishing these evils. In several of the boroughs, meetings had been held in support of the motion fixed for next Tuesday [Mr. Hume's]; and people spoke for this or that sort of suffrage, or mode of giving it; but they had not yet stood manfully before their felloirtownsmen art ermight, saying—" The time is come

for a purer exercise of this great right of citizenship: thepossession of it is i claimed by many who have it not, and we may expect some impatience on their part; but it is ism:unbent upon as to do all in our power to put down corruption

in this borough, 'and in order to that, to make it our first and main consideration —now that a certain line of political and fiscal policy is agreed on, to put aside all other politicaluaestions, and avail ourselves of the present lull in party strife add unite to ptitdown this-venality." He did not know an instance in which that

course had been taken, but he did know instances in which it ought. He knew instances in which questions arose at the last election with regard to very consi- derable places, whether or not particular individuals should stand: he knew that particular individuals had declined every solicitation to stand, and the reason was publicly stated, that they did not choose to stand for that place because they

knew they could not do so without being implicated in these corrupt practices. There seemed to be nothing, then, in this argument about " offending a just pride," either with regard to those who were palpably dishonest or those who were called honest electors.

The discussion turned partly on the inquisitorial powers which the bill gave to the proposed Commissioners of inquiry, and to an innovation, hitherto unexplained, by which the first appointment was vested in the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Sir Iowa ROMILLY explained the reason of this arrangement—

It was a mistake to suppose that they were to disfranchisehoroughs. The whole object of the bill was to establish the most convenient and least expensive tnode of collecting evidence, which the House was afterwards to decide upon. There was undoubtedly, an apparent inconsistency in the Lord Chief Justice nominating in the first instance, and the Speaker afterwards. That arose in this way. It was, usual to name the Commissioners in the bill; but it was thought that if that course were followed objections might be taken that the parties named were se- lected for party purposes, and it was therefore deemed better tove the selection

of the Commissioners to an individual who could not be to be inflaenced by party motives. Consequently, the Lord Chief Justice was chosen for this duty; the Speaker not being desirous to perform it in the first instance. ("Hear hea" " from the Opposition.) On every subsequent vacancy, however, the Speaker might appoint the person, as in the Sudbury case, to fill up the vacancy.

The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill; which was affirmed, by 108 to 39. The Chairman reported progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

Der/am-Jaz OF THE SPANISH AMBASSADOR. On Thursday, Mr. BAxxxs having made inquiries respecting the departure of Seiler Isturitz, the Spanish Ambassador, Lord Joint RUSSELL made this reply—" The dismissal of the Spa- nish Ambassador from the Court of her Britannic Majesty has resulted from a correspondence which has passed between my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Spanish Minister; and has not been the result of any recall from his own Government. My noble friend will lay upon the table of the House additional papers, by command of her Majesty; and the papers in question will relate to the dismissal of Sir Henry Bulwer as well as to the dismissal of the Spa- nish Minister."

THE PUBLIC HEALTH BILL was farther considered, on the report, on Thurs- day. The Earl of Luecous announced, that he so far agreed with amendments which Lord Morpeth had made in the bill, that he should not press certain other amendments of which he had given notice; although he thought Lord Morpeth wrong in abandoning the power of supervision by central authority—a power which has worked so well in the cases of gaols, factories, and schools. Captain PECHELL endeavoured to set aside that part of the bill which gives a plurality of votes to owners and ratepayers: but his amendment was negatived, by 46 to 18; and the report was agreed to. THE RAILWAY COMMIsStON. The Hon.ie of Lords reassembled on Thursday. The chief business consisted in some interrogatories respecting the Railway Com- mission; and the Government reply. Lord REDESDALE questioned Ministers as to the functions of the Commission; suggesting that it was of no weight or in- fluence, because Government did not lend it sufficient support, or give effect to its recommendations. The Marquis of LANsDowNE replied by enumerating all the functions of the Board,—examining lines newly built, inquiring into accidents, regulating cheap. trains, revising by-laws, settling disputes between companies, considering colonial schemes, &o. No fewer than 780 lines had been inspected and reported on last year. Lord Lansdowne admitted that the decisions of the Commission are not binding; but great moral weight attaches to its opinions.