Mrhatr# anti Vratraing4 in lantlinnirnt.

1. PENSIONS. Mr. HARVEY, on Tuesday, moved for a return

...... " of all persons on the English, Irish, and Scotch Pension Lists hereto- fore paid out of the Civil List ; specifying with each name the sum received by Lath individual, the period of the grant, the public grounds, or other considera- tion, as far as practicable, on account of which they had been granted ; distin- guishing those who are widows or orphans of deceased public servants, and such as are in the receipt of any salary, profits, pay, fees, and emoluments, from any public source."

He said, that on former occasions the subject had been so unfairly itixed up with other considerations, as to give a triumph to the ene- riies of reform, which they would not otherwise have had to boast of.

knew that if he spoke of Military and Naval pensions alone, all the heroes of the House would spring up, and ask if they were to sacrifice upon a mercenary altar all those gallant souls who had so bravely de- fended their country in the hour of need. But the House would have VI prepare to make serious reductions.

Would the country credit it when he stated, that in pensions one way or ano- ther—by superanuuations' compensations, and the like—no less than nine mil- lions of money were annually paid—a sum sufficient to cover all deficiencies oc- casioned by the repeal of the Assessed and Malt Taxes. Of these nine millions, there were 22,912 persons receiving 2,788,000/. The full and half-palf of the Army amounted to 2,939,000!.; the Navy, to 1,583,799!.; the Ordnance, to 284,000/. ; the Civil List, to 478,9671.; Pensions of various kinds, 777,566/. ; pensions for loss of office, 12,020/. ; amounting altogether to nine millions of money. He was willing to acknowledge that the Government had gone a great length in the reform of these matters, but not such as bore any proportion to the aggregate. Lord Althorp's predecessor had limited the amount of the "pensions am the Civil List to 144,000/. ; it at present stood at 150,000/. ; one-half, how- giver, of which was charged on the Consolidated Fund. Now, his obiect was to Ilmow the real nature of these pensions—to ascertain for what services they were granted. In 1829, the Member for Middlesex had moved for a return of the 'lames of all persons receiving pensions; and Lord Althorp, then sitting on Mat side of the House had supported it: his object now was to follow up that rno- tion,—for he could see no use in the mere names, unless the consideration for the pensions was stated also. Having got the names, curiosity was now kindled.

He would remark, as rather singular, the great disproportion which the female world exhibited on this list.

In the pensions chargeable on the English, Scotch, and Irish Civil List, and the Four-and-a-half per cent Duties, there were 1,303 persons; of whom 1,022 Were of the fair sex ; and of 208 persons of title and distinction, 124 were ladies of family. When the House then considered the number of ladies, recipients of this bounty, it would, he considered, be a scandalous insult upon them to refuse a motion the only object of which was to know why and for what they were thus favoured. He did not ask for a Committee upon the subject, as some mom- Lets wished ; for, at this period of the year, he would not be instrumental in

i

brging one thousand and twenty-two -ladies before them.

The servants of the late King, ninety-eight in number, received in pensions 14,446/. annually. These were the things that gave offence. .ftt these things might be traced that growing feeling of hostility to .the Ministry, which every day became more palpable, and which proved, that the Government was strong not in the support but in the fear of the House.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP at once admitted, as a general principle, that no per- ton Was entitled to receive pay from the people, in the shape of sine- cure or otherwise, unless for public services past or to come : that was st. principle which the House had already recognized. He objected to ;Ave the returns so far as they related to persons who were paid out of funds appropriated to the Civil List, which was settled, and could not be disturbed. He would agree to the other part of the motion.

EpanisoN thought that the House might inquire into the na- ture of the services for which pensions on the Civil List were granted.

Mr. O'CoNNF,44. said that there Were certain pensions in Ireland which ought to be inquired into. There, was one to the proprietors of a newspaper called the Patriot, which had long ceased to exist, although the pension was continued. If Mr. Harvey's motion did not embrace an inquiry into the Irish Pension List, he would bring forward a spe- cial motion on the subject.

Mr. HARVEY amended his motion, so as to meet Lord Althorp's views.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in assenting to Mr. Harvey's motion did not concur in the arguments or state:bents on which it was founded: he believed tkem to be partial and unfair.. The motion was then put and carried.

2. HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX. Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, on Tues- day, moved, " That from and after the 5th day of October 1833, all taxes affecting Houses and Windows do cease and determine." He supported his motion in a speech of considerable length ; in which he dwelt upon the unfair operation of these taxes, and argued that the re- moval of no other burden would afford so much direct relief to the na- tion. He considered that the concession made by Lord Althorp of half the duty on houses connected with shops, was hardly worth having. Mr. Alderman WOOD seconded the motion.

Even if the tax were repealed in April, it might give some satisfaction. The people were now reduced to a state of distress which wholly disabled them from paying the tax in question any longer. In the district in which he sat as a Ma- gistrate, be had, within a short space, been called upon to issue five hundred summonses for the poor-rates. • Could there be a stronger proof that the people were no longer able to pay the Assessed Taxes; especially when it was re- membered that all those summonses bad been issued against the owners of houses valued from 40/. to 45!.?

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that the question before the House now was, whether they would repeal 2,500,000/. of the taxes without any substi- tute whatever. He asserted that the tax did not fall with peculiar se- verity on any one portion of the community ; and defended his asser- tion by many examples of sums paid by the occupants of houses in various parts of the Metropolis. He contended, that if the faith of the country was to be maintained, and efficient establishments kept up at home and abroad, the abolition of so important an impost was out of the question ; especially as no substitute was proposed, which a prudent Minister could rely upon.

Colonel EVANS maintained that the pressure of the tax was unequal. He said that the shopkeepers in the Strand and in Regent Street were almost all in a state of bankruptcy, and could no longer afford to pay it. He contended that the deficiency which the repeal of this duty would occasion might be nearly made up by an increased consumption of exciseable articles, and a reduction of the Army.

Sir WILLIAM HORSE (Attorney-General) opposed the motion, on the ground that, with a surplus of only o00,000/., it was impossible to spare 2,500,000/. for which no substitute was proposed.

Mr. BaornEaTos supported the motion.

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE felt it his duty to oppose it.

If the motion had been to take the subject of the Assessed Taxes into con- sideration, he would have supported it ; but at present, and till some substitute were found for the taxes to be repealed, the motion involved, in fact, a breach of faith with the national creditor.

Sir W. INGILBY had some difficulty in obtaining a hearing ; as, ac- cording to the Morning Chronicle, the uproar in the House was tre- mendous. He was understood to express his surprise that the Me- tropolitan Members should vote against this motion ; which be was prepared to support, though he had himself been so scurvily treated the other night on his great question.

And here Ile could not but deeply regret the manner in which the two great interests of the country had been arrayed in a compelled opposition to each other—though there would be strength in their being united. In fact, the Ministers seemed to have resorted to every method in order to suppress the attempts of the People by their Representatives for relief from their overwhelm- ing taxation. However, Lord Althorp might rely upon it that he had not done with him yet; for he intended to bring the Malt question again before the House whenever the House went again into Committee on Supply.

Mr. ROEBUCK rose to speak, but the cries of "_ Question" were deafening ; and Lord ALTHORP said, that if the debate were not allowed to go on at that hour—only between ten and eleven—there would be no prospect of bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion either to the country or to members themselves.

Mr. ROEBUCK then proceeded to argue in favour of the motion. Mr. TOOKE declared his readiness to go the full length of the motion. Mr. WARD opposed it. Mr. HUME strongly condemned the impolicy of reducing part of the Assessed Taxes and retaining all the expense of collecting them. The real deficiency in the revenue might be made up by savings out of an expenditure of 22,000,000/. Now was the time to try Ministers ; leave them a million minus, and see if they could not make it up as they had done before.

Lord ALTHORP said that Mr. Rice's speech had not yet been an- swered, and he would leave the case on that speech. He must decidedly oppose the motion. Mr. HAWES moved, as an amendment, that the tax should cease from the 5th of April next. Mr. TENNYSON spoke briefly, amidst much noise, in favour of the motion.

Sir S. WHALLEY replied. Mr. Hawes's amendment was negatived without a division; and the House then divided upon the original motion : for it, 124; against it, 273; Ministerial majaity, 149.

The House sat till half-past three.

3. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. On the order of the day being read, on Wednesday, for the second reading of this bill, Mr. JEFFREY (the Lord Advocate) presented a petition in favour of it, from various students and others of the city of Edinburgh. He said thatthe undoubted respectability and character of the Subscribers should give the greatest weight to their prayer.

Sir ROBERT INcLis then opposed the bill, at great length. He complained of the absence of all his Majesty's Ministers : it was not the first time that they had absented themselves from important dis- cussions.

This was a most important question ; for it was a question whether we were to be a Christian people or not—whether the Supreme Legislative Assembly were to consist of men professing one faith, or was to be made up of a set of men who blasphemed the sacred name of Christ, and who revilid all Chris- tians as blaspheming idolators ? The House might then on become a medley of men of all faiths, and of none—of Jews. Turks, and Heathens.

He maintained that the House should decide this question upon Christian principles.

It was most absurd to call disability persmution. Besides, he would show that this bill was not wanted. r,....were trim divisions of the Jews ; and he question. Not one of the Synagogues had petitioned Mr it. Ile would go further—he would state to the House, that the inure conscientious of the per- suasion were strongly averse to having this " boon ;" and, among others, that great luminary, Rabbi Jacob, in a communication which he held in his hand, expressly said, that " this start for emancipation was a deadly crime against the Almighty ; that it had been set on foot wholly by a set of obsenre Jews, who desired honour and profit, and to be made freemen among this pc{ ple, wholly forgetting the sacred principle, that a Jew can be a freeman of no country but the land of Canaan. It was true that Joseph and Daniel had been exalted to civil posts in foreign countries a lung time ago; but it was not because they were Jews, but because they were men possessed of miraculous powers ; and there were none such now.

He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. SINCLAIR seconded the motion. He would give the bill his de- cided opposition, and would rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer in such a cause. - Mr. BUCKINGHAM spoke at some length in favour of the bill.

Mr. FINCH opposed it.

Sir Oswian MORLEY said, that if this bill were passed, they would no longer be a Christian country.

The Catholics were Christians, and that was a striking difference between them and the Jews. The Jews blasphemed the sacred name of Jesus. ("No, no!" and cheers.) They held up the Christian to scorn. ("No, no ! ") Gentlemen said "No, no!" he should be glad to have a proof of the correct- ness of their opinions. It was on the verge of possibility, if that bill were to pass, that they might have a Jew Speaker. Would that gentleman have to choose a chaplain ? Could he be present at pronouncing the name of Jesus ? That would be a solemn mockery. That WiLS his view of the measure. If it passed, the country would cease to be Christian ; and every body who voted for the bill would do an irreparable injury to the country.

Dr. LUSHINGTON supported the bill.

Some of the members, who were the loudest and most vehement in their pro- fessions of Christianity, seemed at the very moment of making these professions, to overlook the chiefest Christian doctrine, inasmuch as they imputed inten- tions and ascribed motives to an intelligent and upright race of men, with a view to fix on them deprivations, degradations, and exclusions ; against which, if they suffered one twentieth part of them in their own proper persons, they would cry out as a grievous injustice, and as the offspring of the most malignant inten- tions. He would send them back to their I3ible; he would tell them to study it with greater advantage; and they would learn from it, that one of its great doctrines was to do unto others as they would be done unto.

Every objection which was now brought forward to emancipate the Jews, had also been advanced against the repeal of the Test and Cor- poration Acts, and of the Catholic Disabilities. The one set of men had been denounced as idolators, the other as blasphemers; but where had been the injury?

Mr. E. BuLLEa and Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the bill.

Mr. FINN, as an emancipated Catholic, felt bound to support it. Lord Join,' RUSSELL would support the principle of the bill.

He could not anticipate any real danger to the Constitution from this measure. Out of the 27,000 Jews, probably three or four would be admitted to the bar, five

or six to inferior offices of state, and one or two to seats in that House ; but they might be sure they would never hear from these latter any sentiments which would lead to the opposition of the peculiar tenets of the Christian and the Jewish religions.

Mr. R. GRANT replied; and the House divided: for the second reading, 189; against it, 52 ; majority, 107.

It was agreed that the bill should be read a third time on Friday the 31st May.

4. WORKING OF THE REFORM BILL. Mr. TOOKE, on Wednesday, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire what alterations were required to be made in the Reform Act with a view to lessen the expenses and difficulties of registration. He referred to a great many technical difficulties in the working of the Act, which he thought should be amended.

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL opposed the motion.

• The Government had entered into a consideration of the doubts said to arise upon the face of the Reform Bill ; and after carefully considering those doubtful points, and the difficulties stated to be thrown in the way of easy and cheap re- gistration, they had come to the opinion that no alteration of that measure ought to be introduced in the present session.

The difficulties were not so formidable as was imagined; and he wished the House to wait till the next session, when it would appear that many of the objections now conjured up were of no value what- ever.

Mr. WARBURTON said, there were many points on which different Committees had given contradictory decisions' and these points, he thought, ought to be settled before there was any dissolution of Parlia- ment.

If they were not, he should like to know how the Registering Barristers, in July next, were to decide these disputed points, when they could only refer to ' contradictory authorities?

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL (Solicitor-General) opposed the motion. This was not the proper time or the proper manner of introducing amend- ments into the Reform Act.

A desultory conversation then took place; in which Colonel Evias,

5. Timor Crionert REFORM. Lord A LTHORP, on Monday, moved the order of the day for the House going into a Committee on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.

Mr. GiLLoN disapproved of the bill, because it did not go half far enough ; and moved an amendment, to the effect, that the revenues of the Irish Church be applied to purposes of general utility, after the demise of the present incumbents.

Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON, Mr. Fisix, and Mr. ROEBUCK supported the amendment. Lord ALTHORP, Mr. RomNsoN and Mr. SINCLAIR opposed it. A division took place : for the amendment, 16 ; against it, 125; Ministerial majority, 110.

The House then went into Committee on the bill ; and the clauses from No. 1 to 19 were agreed to, with some unimportant amendments. Lord Armione, on the reading of the 14th clause, said that lie intended to alter the schedules of the bill, so that the incomes of the poorer clergy should not be taxed.

6. BANK CHARTER. Lord ALTHORP, on Tuesday, gave notice, that he should bring forward a motion on the subject of the Bank Charter on Friday the 31st May.

7. FACTORY COMMISSION. Lord ASHLEY, 011 Monday, postponed the second reading of his bill for regulating the hours of labour in &a- tones, till Monday the 17th June ; stating at the same time, that he would then bring it on whatever the Government business might be, as he could not compliment away the lives of .50,000 children.

8. Pnivsc CouNcit BILL. Sir J. CAMPBELL, on Wednesday, the House being in Committee on this bill, proposed a clause empowering the King to grant 4001. per annum each to four retired Judges, in ad- dition to their retired allowances, as compensation for services to be rendered by them in the hearing of appeals before the Privy Council.

Mr. JEnvis opposed the clause, on time ground that the retiring allowance of Judges was large enough, and because the clause would enable Ministers to get rid of a Judge by giving him this additional pension, and thus make way for another. It was understood that there was a member of that House, connected with Government, who was desirous of being made a Judge : what connexion that circumstance had with the introduction of the present bill, was more than he could say. Mr. HosrE, Mr. BITI.LEn, and several other members, expressed their concurrence with Mr. Jervis. • After some further conversation on the subject,—in which Lord EBRINGTON, Sir J. CAMPBELL, and Mr. G. YouNe, took part,—Mr. HUGHES moved that the House be counted ; when there being only 28 members present, an adjournment took place, at a quarter past two.

9. THE FINES AND RECOVERIF.S, INHERITANCE, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, DOWER, AND COURTESY BILLS, were all read a third time in the House of Commons on Monday, and passed.

10. THE METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL. Mr. LAMB, OTI Monday, moved the third reading of this bill ; and supported a clause introduced by Mr. PEASE, for the suppression of bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and other cruel amusements, within five miles of London. After some ob- servations from Mr. WYNN, Mr. JEnvrs, and Mr. WARBURTON, the House divided ; when the clause was carried by 24 to 16. The bill was then read-a third time, and passed.

11. OMNIBUSES. Mr. ROTCH, on Friday, presented a petition from the inhabitants of Oxford Street, complaining of the nuisance of omni- buses, which were continually blocking up the road, or driving three abreast.

Mr. Alderman WOOD said, the question of nuisance became very difficult, when it was the practice of merchants, bankers, professional men, and even members of Parliament, to take a sixpenny ride in the course of their passage through the City.

12. GRAVESEND PIER BILL. Mr. HODGES, on Wednesday, moved the third reading of this bill. It was opposed by Sir E. CODRINGTON, Admiral FLEMING, and Sir T. TROUBRIDGE, and supported by Mr. Hum: and Mr. YOUNG. The House divided : for the motion, 68; against it, 37. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

13. SOAP DUTIES. Mr. RICE, in answer, to a question from Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, on Wednesday, when the rcnort on the Soap- Duties Bill was brought up, stated, that the drawback had been adjusted in a manner to satisfy the manufacturers—it bore precisely the same Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. WYNN, Mr. O'CoNNELL, Mr. HALcolmu. Mr. SPRING RICE, and Mr. HUME took part.

Mr. WARBURTON proposed, as an amendment, that a Select Com- mittee be appointed to inquire especially into the contradictory opinions of Revising Barristers and the discordant decisions of Election Com- mittees.

Mr. RICE, Mr. C. GRANT, Mr. A BERCROMBY, and Sir J. Gamiorm, opposed the amendment. The Solieitor- General said,. that certain alterations in the Reform Bill had already attracted the notice of Mi- nisters ; and that a measure would be introduced by them next session, embodying the necessary alterations. Mr. C. BuLLEit hoped Mr. Warburton would divide the House on this question, and not leave the subject to the discretion of Govern- ment— First because his Majesty's present 'Ministers might not, perhaps, be in office solemnly assured the House, that none of the higher orders of that people had next year, and the motion should therefore not be postponed ; secondly, because expressed any desire for this "boon," nor even took the slightest interest in the his lajesty's Alinitcrs had quite enough to do already ; thirdly, because his 'Majesty's 3lmisters did not do every thing so well that he thought the House ought to confide more to them than was absolutely necessary ; and fourtuly, be- cause the motion was one which ought to emanate from the House generally, and not from the :Ministers.

Mr. ELUCE thought, that if the Ministers had done nothing more than carry the Reform Bill, that alone should exempt them from such remarks as fell from Mr. Buller. Ile wished for a little delay till the present pressure of business was removed. They could not do every thing at once.

Mr. Warburton's amendment 'being withdrawn, the House divided on the original motion : for it, 68; against it, 94; Ministerial majority, 20. proportion to the new as to the old duty. Steps had been taken to remedy, as far as was at present possible, the inconveniences felt in the i trade n Ireland. Mr. HAWES said, that the soap-manufacturers generally were satisfied with the bill. The report was then read and agreed to.

14. OFFICIAL SEATS. Sir ROBERT HERON, On Wednesday, gave notice of a motion for the 13th of June, to bring in a bill to prevent the necessity of a. Member holding an office under the Crown vacating his seat in Parliament upon a change of office.

15. FORGED PETITION. Mr. HUME gave notice, on Monday, for a motion on the 30th instant, to inquire who were the persons concerned in getting up a petition from Stroud which he had presented to the House, and which he had since discovered to be an impudent forgery.

16. STAFFORD BRIBERY BILL. On the motion of the Earl of RADNOR, on Saturday last, this bill was read a third time, and passed.

17. NEW WRIT FOR STAFFORDSHIRE. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, On Monday, moved for a new writ for South Staffordshire, in the room of Mr. Littleton, who has accepted the office of Secretary for Ireland.

lg. CARLOW ELECTION. Sir ROBERT HERON, on Monday, brought up the report of the Committee on this election ; which stated, that

the sitting members were duly returned. • • 19. Wanwicx ELECTION. It was ordered, on Tuesday, on the mo- tion of Sir RONALD FERGUSON, that the new writ for the borough of Warwick should not be issued before the 17th June.

?A BRISTOL 13RIBERY. Mr. WARBURTON, on Tuesday, presented a petition from Bristol, signed by 2,500 electors, praying that the evi- dence taken before the Bristol Election Committee should be laid be- fore the House.

• Mr. Bait.i.in said, that the last election cost only 9001.; and declared that there never was an election at which less corruption was practised.

Mr. PRYME and Mr. FITZSIMON supported the prayer of the petition.

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN said, that the petition was calumnious and libellous, and ought not to be received.

Mr. Waitisinerosr asserted that the evidence proved the existence of extensive corruption.

Lord ALTHORP, after such a statement, would not resist the investi- gation of the case.

On the motion being put that the evidence taken before the Bristol Election Committee be laid before the House, there was a division for the motion, 42; against it 8.

21. Dom:. ELECTION. Lord CLIVE, on Wednesday, brought up the report of the Committee which confirmed the election of Mr. Hol- comb.

22. CARNARVON ELECTION. The Committee reported, on the same day, that Sir C. Paget was duly returned.

23. MONTGOMERYSHIRE BOROUGHS ELECTION. The Committee on this election reported, last night, that Colonel Edwards was duly re- turned.

24. CLONMEL ELECTION. The Committee last night reported, that Mr. D. Ronayne was duly qualified and returned.

25. HERTFORD ELECTION. Mr. BERNAL, last night, submitted these two resolutions- " That the bribery and corruption which had prevailed during the last elec- tion for the borough of Hertford deserved the most serious consideration of the House."

" That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the best means of preventing bribery and corrupt practices at all future elections for the borough of Hertford." He supported them in a speech full of details of the illegal practices by which the return of Lords Mahon and Ingestrie had been secured at the last election. Out of a constituency of 690 voters, 670 polled at the last election, and 300/. was allowed to have been expended in treat- ing. This sum was much too large. It was acknowledged that 2,500/. had been expended previously to the testing of the writ, and upwards of I,700/. remained unpaid of money spent during the election. A club had been formed, called the" Union Club," the object of which was to secure the return of the "two Lords ;" and the members of this club were regularly treated by Mr. Nicholson, the Under Sheriff. There had been a practice in the borough of distributing dinner tickets, or, as they were called, refreshment tickets. He had known something of elections, and, to his mind, this distribution of dinner tickets was a matter of perfect no- velty. In the month of August the first issue of these tickets took place. The general number of these tickets consisted of orders to the amount of 2s. 61. and as. each. The great agent for the two noble lords appeared to have been a Mr. awk. That person had become a man of great importance under the fostering care of Mr. George Nicholson. On the evidence of Mr. Nicholson, from his own distinct avowal, and from the confession of his partner, it appeared that at least 100/. had been paid in August last for this issue of tickets upon this occasion. These tickets were a sort of paper coin which circulated through the borough of Hertford, and were exchanged at certain shops, some of them opened for the purpose, for hats, stockings, calico, tea, sugar, and tobacco. There were a number of tradesmen who had bills varying in amount from 10/. to 270/. for refreshments and other materials of bribery furnished during the election. Doey, Newman, Dock, and Twaddle, were the names of the principal agents in this business.

As to what was termed direct bribery, this case might want the marked and disgusting features obtruding themselves in the instances of East Retford or Penryn ; but it was clear that there was a corrupt influence—au atmosphere of corruption always floating about the town of Hertford ; there were always plenty of 11Iephistophiles whispering in the ears of the voters, like the Demon in Goetlie's Faustus, when the heroine in a celebrated passage was obliged to call upon her neighbour for the loan of her smelling-bottle. Swift had talked of a shower of mitres, but in Hertford there was a constant pouring down of new hats, new coats, and new shoes, which would not fit all the voters, but seemed measured to a nicety for the heads, backs, and feet of the electors in the interest of one of the parties. Upon this subject he begged to refer the House to the evidence of Edward Hardy and John Meade ; and it would also be seen, besides, that a Mr. Drew cut an important figure, as he presented one voter with bed, blankets, and shoes ; and mother with 61. WI. and a couple of fat pigs. Mr.

Twaddle offered a person of the name of Tysoe 30/. if he would support " the two my Lords ;" and to others he presented smock-frocks, shoes, stockings, and hats, out of his own repository.

The report of the evidence was full of facts of this description, and if any man could read. that report and not come to the conclusion that the constituency was most corrupt, the state of that man's mind was to him most amazing. He trusted that the House would appoint the Committee he moved for. There were many hamlets and towns within a radius of a few miles of Hertford, and in case the House should think proper to extend the limits of the borough, he was puzzled to decide how far they should be extended.

He thought that a Committee might trace out new limits for the borough, by which fresh blood might be introduced for the purification of that which had become corrupt. He believed that they might amalgamate a new constituency with the old constituency- to such a degree, that if the old corrupt ipractices could not be exterminated altogether, they might at least be rendered nnuxious and harmless.

He concluded by moving the first resolution.

Mr. WALTER seconded the motion.

Mr. W. STEWART contended that no case had been made out to warrant the disfranchisement of the borough.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET thought that a case had been made out for unseating the sitting members, but not for disfranchising the borough. He said that the evidence did not warrant the belief of that general corruption which would justify the House in voting for Mr. Bernal's motion, which he would therefore oppose.

Mr. CLAY said it would appear from an examination of the evidence that 300 or 400 electors were in the habit of receiving IL each for their votes. There W/IS therefore a *bad facie case made out that they were not fit to be entrusted with the elective franchise. The only way to re- tain a strong hold on the affections of the people was to institute a searching inquiry into all cases of corruption Which might arise.

Mr. WYNN contended that as only twelve or thirteen cases of direct bribery had been proved it would not be fair to disfranchise 695 voters on that account ; as to treating, they must abide by the law, good or bad, as it was at present.

He contended that there was nothing illegal, if a Member were elected in November, in going down and distributing money among the electors, provided it was not given under a previous promise to vote. Such a state of the law might be a good reason fur altering it, but at present it was the law.

Sir W. floata, Mr. HARDY, the Earl of KERRY, Mr. WasoN, and MILDMAY supported the motion.

Mr. WARD said, that even now the peace of Hertford was disturbed by gangs of bullies, who had been employed at the last election. These bullies were still summoned by the sound of the bugle, and wreaked their vengeance on the peaceable inhabitants.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET appealed to the Speaker to decide whether Mr. Ward's remarks were not irrelevant.

The SPEAKER decided that they were.

Mr. WARD then merely declared his determination to support the motion.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, and Mr. GOULDURN, opposed the motion,—on the ground that there was no reason for treat- ing Hertford with unusual severity. In the case of Newry, bribery had been proved to have been practised to a considerable extent ; but the member who supported Government, was allowed to retain his seat; and only one individual was criminally prosecuted.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL strongly supported the motion. No injustice would be done to the Hertford electors ; they would not be condemned unheard. A bill might be introduced into the House against which, as in the case of East Retford, they might be heard at the bar by coun- sel and witnesses. Besides, the bill if it passed the Commons would have to undergo the ordeal of the Lords.

He was perfectly ready to vote for the motion, and that by which it was to be followed, considering it the duty of the Committee not to bring in a bill, but to declare what they think the best means to promote the purity of the borough. He trusted they would not stop in their efforts to preserve purity of election. They had already got rid of the abuse of seats being sold by individuals—let them now get rid of the remaining abuses, springing from the corruption of a small class of voters. It was their bounden duty to set their faces against such practices.

Mr. BERNAL replied. If the House did not choose to be wilfully blind, here was a case which imperatively called upon them to do some- thing.

Allusions had been made to the cases of East Retford and Penryn, but they were not analogous, for there the proposition was take away the franchise alto- gether, and to transfer it to other places, whereas it was proposed to incorporate other districts with the borough of Hertford. It had also been asked why he had not brought in a bill in the first instance, but considering the number of populous circumadjacent places in the district of Hertford, he felt it more ad- visable that it should be dealt with by a Committee.

The House then divided on the first resolution : for the motion, 227; against it, 55; majority 172.

The second resolution being then put, Colonel EVANS moved as an amendment, "That gross bribery and treating having prevailed during the last election for the borough of Hertford, it is expedient, with a view to the better management of the election for the same, that the members to represent that borough should in future be elected by ballot.

Mr. tYNTE had not been a friend to the ballot, but the circumstances which had been disclosed before the Hertford Election Committee, of which he was a member, had decided him in favour of it ; and he would therefore vote for Colonel Evans's proposal.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY thought, certainly, that the present was not a bad opportunity for making a trial of the ballot—an experinientunz in corpore viii; but at the same time he thought it ought to be left to the Committee.

Mr. O'CONNELL thought that Colonel Evans's motion would defeat his own object. . The only fruits which they could anticipate from the introduction of•the ballot into a borough in which such, miserably row and depraved corruption had pre- vailed, would be, the return of some honourable member athe corps of twaddle, who might be less hurtful than those who were introduced by corruption, but WRU14 nut be wore useful. He hoped, therefore, tkRo /Ais knowable and gallant

friend 'would alioiv the Committee to be appointed, and the constituency to be enlarged. He might then move the introduction of the vote by ballot, when he should certainly command one vote at least in favour of it.

Colonel EVANS defended his amendment.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that if the amendment succeeded, it was plain there would be no Committee ; and, turning to Colonel Evans, said, "Don't you perceive it?" (A laugh.)

Colonel Evaxs withdrew his amendment, and the Committee was appointed.

Mr. BERNAL then moved that the issuing of a new writ for Hertford be suspended to the 1st of July. This was agreed to.

Colonel EVANS then again proposed his amendment, in the shape of a recommendation to the Committee.

The SPEAKER said, "that the motion was either of such a nature to give to the Committee the power of doing what they could already do—viz, to inquire into the hest means of preventing bribery and corruption in the borough of Herd( ; or it went to impose upon them a species of restraint which was inconsistent with inquiry. Colonel EVANS said, then, if the Committee should recommend any bill upon the subject in question, he should propose a clause for the in- troduction of the vote by ballot.

26. CARRICKFERGUS ELECTION. Last night, Mr. O'CoNNeta. moved, at first to bring in a bill to disfranchise the county of the town of Carrickfergus; but, subsequently, altered his motion to a declara- tory resolution that gross bribery had been practised in Carrickfergus. Ile stated a number of cases, which had been proved in evidence, rela- tive to the shameless corruption practised there.

Mr. SnAw admitted that Mr. O'Connell had taken a fair course, and made out a strong case ; and he would offer no opposition to his resolution.

Lord ALTHORP gave his hearty consent to the motion.

Mr. WI:N:4 said, there never had been a clearer ease for the inter- ference of Parliament ; but at the same time, every facility ought to be afforded to the elector to make a defence.

The resolution was then agreed to.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the issue of the writ for Carrickfergus should be postponed to the 1st of July. This also was agreed to.

Mr. O'CONNELL then obtained leave to bring in a bill to disfran- chise the borough.

The House adjourned at a quarter past two, till Thursday next.