POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT.

The House of Commons was startled, last night, from the monotony of its ordinary occupations, by Mr. ROEBUCK, who tore aside the veil, from several private " arrangements to dispose of seats in the House, putting, formally and courteously, criminatory questions to several, Members. He first asked Lord Chelsea, one of the Members for Read- ing, whether he was cognizant of any arrangement by which either himself or his colleague was to vacate his seat, although he might be declared duly elected by the Election Committee ? Lord CHELSEA said, he considered matters of that kind strictly private, and therefore felt bound, most peremptorily and unequivocally, to decline giving any. answer.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he was quite satisfied with the answer. He then put the question to Mr. Charles Russell, the other Member for Reading. Mr. RUSSELL said, that if any doubt existed as to the mode in which the petition against his return was withdrawn, it was for the Committee to have judged ; and he denied Mr. Roebuck's right, personal or Parlia- mentary, to question him as to his intention of retaining his seat. If Mr. Roebuck drew any inference from that reply, the inference would. be just as pertinent as the question. Mr. ROEBUCK was perfectly satisfied. He asked Captain Plum-age,. the, Member for Penryn, if he was cognizant of any agreement that he should accept the Chiltern Hundreds in July next, although he should be declared duly elected by the Election Committee ; it being notorious that acts of bribery were committed at that election ; and whether he was cognizant of those acts ? Captain Plarmantee said, he was not cognizant of the arrangement until after it was made ; it did not please him, and he still thought it premature.

Mr. ROEBUCK thanked Captain Plumridge his extremely candid

answer. He asked Sir John Cam Hahouse, ther he was about to

take advantage of an agreement, that a sum of money should be paid down to avoid investigation into the alleged bribery at Nottingham;. and that a further sum was deposited in pledge that another gentleman [Mr. Walter] should be allowed to walk over the coarse, as it was. called ? Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE said, that he should not answer the ques- tion: he thought no more was called for.

Mr. ROEBUCK agreed that nothing more was called for. He could not put the same question -to Sir George Larpent, because late last night it was intimated that Sir George had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. He asked Mr. Elphinstone, whether he was cognizant of an agree- ment that the question of bribery was to be drawn from the consider- ation of the Lewes Election Committee, and that a gentleman was to come into the House who had not been returned by the returning- officer ? Mr. ELPHINSTONE replied, that an agreement to that effect was entered into before the Committee ; that he was no party to it;. and that he did not contemplate accepting the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. ROEBUCK thanked him. He then put a similar question to Major Beresford and Afr, John 'Mums!, the Members for Harwich. Major BERESFORD replied for both, (his colleague being absent on account of indisposition,) with a direct refusal to give an answer. If Mr. Roebuck had any charge to make, let him bring it before the House ; and before that tribunal the Major would state all he knew.

Here the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER interrupted Mr. Roebuck, by moving the order of the day for going into Committee on the In- come-tax. But the SPEAKER having sanctioned Mr. Roebuck's claim to precedence for a motion on breach of privilege, and the general wish of the House being manifested to proceed with the stirring question newly raised, after some contestation, Sir ROBERT PEEL consented to the temporary suspension of the Government business by the with- drawal of Mr. Gmlburn's motion.

Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded to state in each case the charges implied in the questions ; accusing the catechized Members, all and severally, each to his face, of bribery. By the existing law, any one presenting a peti- tion against a Member's return had the right to withdraw it ; and thus it was that the offence imputed could be withdrawn from the cognizance of the tribunal appointed to judge it. He gave an illustration— Suppose there is a general election, and that the town of Nottingham is about to be contested : a sort of Parliamentary Napoleon determines to con- quer the town, or, in the language of the historian, to "jump on it with both his feet." He rushes down to the town, bribes every man, frightens his oppo- nent out of the town, and is returned to Parliament as Member for the place. The opposing candidate enters a petition against his return. Say that the Committee for the trial of that petition is to be struck next Monday. Fear seizes upon him when about to come before the tribunal which the law provides for the investigation of his proceedings, and he desires to escape from that tribunal. What then do the successful parties do ? Why, they enter into a compromise with the opposing candidate ; propose to pay down a sum of money, for the purpose of exculpating themselves and escaping the scrutiny of the Committee ; and further pledge themselves to allow the ousted candidate to walk over the course. He had queetioned Sir John Hobhouse, as the party most acquainted with facts : what would have been the conduct of a Member who was not cognizant of such transactions ?—he would have said, in the face of the House and of the country, that the whole statement was a foul lie and a gross calumny : but Sir John Hobhouse had refused to answer ; and Sir George Larpent had done, what at five o'clock the day before he anticipated would be done accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. He could conceive one valid excuse for withdrawing from the judicial contest—it might be said for the party withdrawing that he could not at Ind the expense of contesting the seat before the Committee : but in the Nottingham case, he could prove, that money had been promised or paid down, for the purpose of escaping the scrutiny of an Election Committee. Was the Home prepared to say that the bribery of a whole town was not a gross breach of its privileges ? In Nottingham near:y the whole of the voters were cor- rupted ; many of them were " cooped" or shut up •, and the large and exten- sive system of corruption and intimidation which had been brought to bear by the admirable strategies and machinery of the right honourable Baronet had been successful for its purpose. It appeared that enough had been done by the opposing candidate to frighten those who were the sitting Members of the House : but he would ask the House, what was to become of it—what was to become of all the principles of Parliament—all the honourable feeling that conducted their proceedings, if after an election-petition had been thus pre- sented, making grave charges against the Members of that House, it should be hushed up in an hour, and an arrangement made to screen the grossest cases of corruption ever practised ?

Mr. Roebuck then alluded to the ease of Lewes ; where the charges of bribery, bettiog, treating, and other corruption, were so sweeping that -the number of objections to voters on the part of the sitting Members - were 560, while the highest number of electors polled was 411. The petition against the return of Penryn was withdrawn, but the sitting Member was to retire in July— The honourable Member was ifraid, or his friends were afraid, or his lawyer was afraid. That was it. (Cheers and laughter.) He, who knew what the result would be, brought his legal acumen, sharpened by experience in trials of this nature, to bear on the consideration of the question, and said, "The case is up; we cannot go to trial, and you must retire in July." And was he not -to retire in July? No answer was returned to his accusation ; but why ? for what reason ? It was not from ill health — (Laughter)— the honourable and gallant Member was perfectly equal to the discharge of his Parliamentary duties—as equal as ever he was. Why then retire ? • Captain PLIIHRIDGE—" Because I made a bad bargain." (Shouts of laughter.)

Mr. ROEBUCK asked the people of England if that was the kind of language to be used on such an occasion ? Was the honourable Member to come there and make such a declaration to his fellow-countrymen, whose interests be was sent thereto,protect ? Was Ile to turn round and say, "I made a bad bar- gain?" 'He entreated the right honourable gentleman in the chair not to per- suit such language. He wished to brand such bargains with shame. . -In Harwich, one of the sitting Members retires to let in Sir Dennis .le Merchant; who, after accusing him of bribery, treating, and corrup- tion; bad withdrawn the petitions against the return. In the case of Fenryn, the lawyers thought that the petition could not have been withdrawn had the inquiry lasted five minutes longer, because the thing wotild have -been so plain, that the members of the Committee, being on . their oaths, could not have let the guilty escape. These were the grounds on which he asked for inquiry and legislative interference-

" And what is the legislative interference I ask for? Why, something that shall enable this House to regard an election-petition as something more than -a fight between A and B. At present, the return to a seat in this House is considered as a mere matter between A and B. If A gains, his party is pleased ; and if B gains, his party is pleased. But the public and the great business of this empire are totally unconsidered in the matter; and we buy and sell the constituencies of this country as if they were flocks of sheep. Look at the case of Nottingham. The right honourable Baronet on this side of the House, as I said before, bought the whole constituency ; and I say, Mr. Walter bought them of him. Perhaps the right honourable Baronet may have thought he had made a bad bargain, and may, therefore, have sold the constituency for -less than he gave for them. Nevertheless, he has sold them. These arc the transactions I wish to inquire into, in order to expose them to the people of this country. I have not confined my accusations to one side of the House or to the other. I have made no party question of this. I do stand up fur the purity of this House; and, God willing, we will make it pure." (Cheers.)

Mr. Roebuck moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the mat- ters which he had brought before the House.

Mr. Frrzeor seconded the motion ; warmly challenging inquiry into 'his own conduct : he had stepped into the seat for Lewes merely be- cause Mr. Harford had retired, without obtaining it by any unworthy means, though a needless and expensive inquiry of three weeks' dura- tion had been avoided. Mr. ELPHINSTONE, however, declared, that both parties had been guilty of bribery ; and that if the inquiry had proeeeded, none of the four candidates would now have been Members -of the House, and the lawyers agreed that one Member should retire : but he had made no compromise. Captain PLUMIUDGE declared before the House, the world, and his God, that he had never given one penny towards the expenses of his election.

Mr. CHARLES Witput observed, that the subject was of very great im- portance; and as it was also an important consideration whether the question should be reserved for a Committee or should be examined by the House, he moved to adjourn the debate till Monday. Mr. WARD seconded the motion ; which was assented to at once by Mr. ROEBUCK, and affirmed by the House.

The House then went into Committee on the Income-tax Bill, and The remainder of the clauses were agreed to with as little difficulty as the former half of the bill encountered. Three divisions took place. In the rules for assessing incomes under Schedule D, Mr. HUME moved 'that the profits of trade be calculated on the profits of the last year only, instead of the last three years : but the original proposition was affirmed, 'by 76 to 27. On clause 88, he moved as an amendment, that the act -should be in force till the 6th April 1843, instead of the same day in 1845: the amendment was rejected, by 174 to 52. Mr. REDHEAD YORKE mowed a clause to exempt attornies, solicitors, and proctors from -the tax, to the amount of the duty on their certificates : it was rejected, by 183W 18. The bill was reported, and further consideration of the report reserved till Monday.

Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that the Tariff would be brought forward on Tuesday, when he would give a general outline of his intentions.

The Southampton Election Committee reported, yesterday, that the election was void ; and they call the attention of the House to particu- lar cases of bribery, and the fact that 5,000/. was spent in the election.

In the House of Peers, Lord Buouonam introduced a bill to appoint a joint Committee of the two Houses to investigate the charges or bribery at the General Election.