to the question. Now, with respect to the motion of the noble marquis, he would only say, that he was a very extensive, but he would not admit that he was a wild, reformer. He was very glad to take what parliament was inclined to give him; and he would feel deeply indebted to them if they would give him all he wished for. But, so long as parliament was constituted as it was at present, it struck him, that money must be able (he was sorry to say the word) but it struck him that money must be able to command a seat in parliament; and they all knew that it actually did so. Under that system, many persons who wished to sit in parliament, and who had not nerve sufficient to brave the marks of popular favour or disfavour, which were generally shown where a man was obliged to face a large body of representatives, endeavoured, by their wealth, to make their way into that House. To prove this, he would instance a case. How did the late Mr. Ricardo come into parliament? He had often spoken to that excellent gentleman on the subject, and Mr. Ricardo had told him, that if he were to stand a popular contest, he should be sure to be defeated; for there was something in his disposition which prevented him from encountering the parties at a popular election. The consequence was, that he laid out a certain sum of money, which gave him a vested right to a seat in that House; which seat he might have held on these terms if he had lived to the age of Methuselah. Now, such men as Mr. Ricardo ought to have seats in that House; and unless they consented to reform the system altogether, he could not agree to a proposition for getting rid of the small boroughs alone. It was on that account, that he would support the motion of the hon. gentleman, who meant this evening to move that a new writ should be issued for East Retford. He was, however, thankful to the noble marquis who had brought this subject forward; and he was much gratified by the conduct of the right hon. Secretary, who had too much good sense to resist the principle of reform altogether, but rested his opposition on the inexpediency of discussing such a measure in the present state of the House and of the country. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the hon. member had not treated him quite fairly in his observations. The fact was, when he saw the Speaker about to put the ques 1 tion, after the mover and seconder had spoken, and a few words had been said by the hon. member for Wiltshire, he deemed it right, under such circumstances, to make one or two remarks. Now, he would ask, would it have been fitting, when the case stood thus, for him to have entered into the whole of this question, or to have stated what his views with reference to it were? To prove that the House were not ripe for the discussion of the question, he need only refer to the fact that, in the ten minutes' speech of the hon. gentleman, he had entirely mistaken the nature of the motion. The motion was not for inquiry: on the contrary, the noble marquis proposed the utter condemnation of those small decayed boroughs, in support of which the hon. gentleman had made one of his ablest speeches. He hoped the hon. gentleman would not draw any inference, therefore, from what had occurred that evening, as to his impression with respect to parliamentary reform. thought he had shown that this was not the occasion on which the House ought to proceed to the discussion of such a question; and being of that opinion, he had met the motion of the noble lord with a direct negative. He Mr. Hobhouse.-All he had said was, that so long as the present system prevailed, he would not oppose the existence of certain openings for the admission of clever men to, parliament: but he by no means advocated the system. 1 Mr. W. Smith expressed his intention to vote for the motion. One effect, he was happy to find had been produced by the Roman Catholic Relief bill-an effect which its best friends had not anticipated: it appeared to have transformed a number of the highest tories in the land to something very nearly resembling radical reformers. The Marquis of Blandford, in reply, contended, that inquiry was of no use, unless the House determined to purify. itself, and do away with public grievances. The House then divided:-For the motion 40; Against it 114; Majority 74. List of the Minority. Whitmore, W. W. owick, Viscount Wood, Alderman ume, J. Wood, J. Maberly, J. Tellers. Marjoribanks, J. Maxwell, J. O'Neill, A. J. Paired off. Nugent, Lord Shut Out. Coke, T. W. whom the writ, if issued, must be sent. He had looked into the precedents, and he found none in which, when parliament intended to take subsequent proceedings, a writ had been issued. There were cases Blandford, Marquis of in which the writ was suspended for two sessions, and he now gave notice, that at the commencement of the next session, he should again move to transfer the elective franchise to Birmingham, and under such circumstances it would be of no use to issue a new writ, the only effect of which would be to give representatives to East Retford for the vacation. He trusted the right hon. gentleman would consider the situation of the great towns, and would, next session, bring in a measure to give them representatives-a course in which he would meet with the support of all the respectable classes of the community. The hon. member concluded by moving, by way of amendment, "That Mr. Speaker do not issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of two burgesses to serve in this present parlia ment for the borough of East Retford during the continuance of the present session. 99 EAST RETFORD.] Mr. H. Fane presented two petitions from the aldermen and burgesses of East Retford, in which they complained that they had now been, for two sessions, deprived of the advantage of having representatives in that House to watch over their interests, and prayed that a new writ for East Retford might henceforth be issued. The hon. member said, he fully agreed in the prayer of the petition. In his opinion, the withholding from the electors of East Retford the right to return representatives to parliament was an arbitrary act, not justified by any legal constitutional doctrine. He then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for electing of two bur-adopted. gesses to serve in this present parliament for the borough of East Retford, in the room of the hon. sir R. L. Dundas and W. B. Wrightson, esq. whose election has been declared to be void." or Mr. Lumley said, he should support the motion. He thought he might appeal to the hon. member for Blechingley, whether this borough had been fairly dealt with. It seemed to him, that it had been sufficiently punished, and he trusted the House would, in consideration of that punishment, allow it to re-elect two members. Mr. Tennyson rose, to move an amendment, which he said he did the more willingly, when he recollected that the petitions proceeded from the great body of the corrupt electors of East Retford, and that amongst the signatures was to be seen the name of the returning officer, who had received election-money, and to He Lord Howick, though convinced of the corruption of the borough of East Retford, should vote for the original motion. had voted for the transfer of the elective franchise to Birmingham, not as a punishment, but as one portion of a general measure which he should wish to see He did not agree with the principle adopted in the House of Lords, with regard to the Penrhyn Disfranchisement bill-namely, that the borough ought not to be disfranchised unless the guilt of corruption were proved against all the electors. He was as much opposed as any one to corruption in elections; but he did not feel, and would not pretend to feel, that indignation which no man really felt against bribery of this sort in the present day. It was notorious, that a large proportion of the members of that House obtained their seats for value in money; and he might ask even the hon. member for Blechingley, and the right hon. Secre tary, the member for Westbury, whether the public services of the one or the other had alone secured them the honour of their seats? He would ask them, whether a bribe was less a bribe because it consisted of thousands instead of single pounds, and because it went into the pocket of one rich instead of into the pockets of many poor individuals? .... inflict a lesser punishment upon East Retford, than to deprive it altogether of any share in the elective franchise. Mr. Duncombe deprecated the further postponement of the decision of this question. Postponement and procrastination seemed to be the order of the day in this session; so that the people felt now convinced, that the government had no decided opinion on any question. should support the motion, as he thought the question ought to be determined. He Mr. Sykes supported the motion for the issue of the new writ, on the ground that the guilt of the voters of East Retford had not been sufficiently established. Sir John Brydges said, that having voted for transferring the elective franchise Lord Oxmantown said, he was decidedly from East Retford to the hundred of against what was called parliamentary Bassetlaw in the last session, rather than reform, because, when he saw the labours to the town of Birmingham, nothing that performed by the members of that House, had fallen from honourable members in this he could not think the people inadequately session had induced him to alter his opi- represented. In this case he did not think nion; but, after every consideration, he that corruption had been proved to such was confirmed in it. He thought a harsh an extent as to warrant the disfranchisemeasure of punishment had been dealt ment of the borough; but if the House out to this borough, in depriving it of its should be of another opinion, he should elective franchise, as thereby many inno-have no objection to transfer the franchise cent persons suffered for the crimes of the to Birmingham. guilty. But, as the House had come to the resolution already so to act, the next step for consideration was the best means to substitute a fit representation in lieu of it. He confessed he did not think that conferring this privilege on the town of Birmingham would be the best step, and he was doubtful whether it was desirous of it. No such desire had, at least, been expressed that he had heard of out of that House; it had been alone advocated in it. Its inhabitants felt, perhaps, as he did upon this occasion-that the interests of this great town were sufficiently protected and advanced by the two excellent members for the county in which Birmingham was situated, and that it would willingly dispense with the expense, as well as the feuds and heart-burnings, that too frequently ensued after a contested election. The argument that had been made use of in this debate that, by a decision one way, the agricultural, and by the other, the trading interests would be forwarded was an invidious and a false one; it was drawing a distinction between two interests, neither of which could flourish if the other decayed; and it was the duty of every member, whether a representative of the landed or the commercial interest, to endeavour to uphold an equal balance of prosperity between the two. As that House had already decided, that bribery and corruption had been proved against East Retford, consequently that as a borough it ought to be disfranchised, he should vote against the motion now under discussion; and, considering it immaterial to the general benefit of the empire, whether representatives be appointed in Birmingham or the hundred of Bassetlaw, he should, whenever that question came under consideration, give his vote for the latter; because he considered this was to Mr. Ure observed, that the venality of the borough was admitted: it seemed to have descended from father to son. What was the inference from this case? The inference was, that capital would be represented in the country, and if an attempt was made to check it directly, it vindicated its power indirectly. He would refuse to restore the elective franchise to the corrupt electors of East Retford, upon the same ground that he voted for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. When the House could adopt, as in the present case, a safe method of reform, it was worse than folly not to take advantage of it. Lord W. Russell agreed, that the case of East Retford was not one of peculiar delinquency, inasmuch as nine-tenths of the members of the House were returned by the means now so severely deprecated. If an opportunity of giving the writ to Birmingham had offered itself, he should most readily have availed himself of it; but as there was no chance of that, he should vote for the issue of the writ rather than throw the franchise into the hundred. Sir J. Sebright said, he would not give a silent vote lest he should be supposed to be actuated by tenderness towards this borough; but bad as it was, the hon. Mr. N. Calvert wished to make an observation upon the petition to which reference had been made. A more gross petition had never been brought before the House. Most of those who had signed it were persons who had received forty guineas each for their votes; and they now asked to be afforded another opportunity to receive the bribe. Mr. Bright thought, that the House had not done its duty in this case. It ought to have persevered; and he did not think it right now to take the strong measure of suspending the writ, owing to its own neglect. member would not improve it by extend- | the legislature. If East Retford were ing the franchise to Bassetlaw. guilty, the course was plain and straight forward. It would only be disfranchised by a bill, originating in that House, and adopted by the king and the lords. East Retford was not disfranchised: no bill för the purpose was ever before the House, and as long as the writ remained unissued, the House was not full, and the representation of the people incomplete. The same reason which had recently influenced the House in issuing the writ directly for the county of Clare, ought to induce it not to withhold the writ from East Retford. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. baronet, that on the score of corruption it was, perhaps, a less evil to return the writ to East Retford, than to give it to the hundred of Bassetlaw. The inquiry had been pursued for three successive sessions, and had failed; and yet, what was the House called upon to do? It was required to punish East Retford because it had not been found guilty: at no time could that punishment exceed six years; but in this instance it might not amount to more than forty-eight hours, for the House would adjourn in two days, and the parliament might possibly be dissolved immediately afterwards: in that case the writ would be directed to East Retford as a matter of course. No man respected the hon. member for Blechingley more than he did; but he must say, that the amendment he had moved was of a paltry nature, yet full of solemnity and mock-dignity. It declared, come what may, that no new writ should be issued to East Retford, for the whole of the rest, residue and remainder of the present session; which rest, residue and remainder amounted only to forty-eight hours. thought it would have been much better to have met the motion by a simple and direct negative. He would vote for issuing the writ. Mr. Brougham said, he partook very much in the feeling that this subject had been so often discussed, that the House had reason to be tired of it; but he hoped that it was now about to be brought to a close, at least for the present. He could not coincide in the reasons which some honourable gentlemen had given for voting for the issue of the writ, although he arrived at the same conclusion by a different road. He entertained sanguine hopes that the inquiry regarding East Retford would be renewed in the next session; but, in the mean time, he thought there was no inconsistency in issuing the writ, and on some accounts that course was preferable, inasmuch as the investigation might hereafter be conducted in the presence, and with the assistance, of two representatives, to guard the interests of the borough. Such had been the course in the case of Grampound. It was one thing to vote that East Retford was corrupt, and ought, therefore, to be disfranchised by statute, and another for the House to declare, that without the concurrence of the other branches of the legislature, it would prevent the issue of the writ to the extent of its power. There were constitutional grounds for objecting to allow any portion of the body of the people to be unrepresented. In cases of extreme necessity and of extreme delinquency, this defect had, however, been permitted to exist; but it was a most difficult, delicate, and dangerous power, because it was liable to abuse, for the House of Commons to exercise the power (he would not call it privilege nor right, because, constitutionally speaking, it had no such right) of doing that which could alone be properly done by the three branches of He Mr. Secretary Peel thought, that there would be greater inconvenience in now issuing the writ than in withholding it. When the House had almost unanimously declared that the borough of East Retford was corrupt, and that it deserved punishment of some kind or another, it appeared to him very improper to issue a writ, empowering these corrupt voters to return two members to parliament. He should vote, therefore, for the amendment of the hon. member. It would have been better, indeed, if the amendment had not been put into its present form by the hon. f member, and if he had met the question by a direct negative. He was desirous to meet it so; and if the hon. member would withdraw his amendment, and meet the motion by a direct negative, it should have his support. He begged leave to take that opportunity of replying to some charges which had been made against the government, of wishing to postpone every question till the next session. If ever there was a parliament which could be complained of for not doing business, this was not that parliament. He recollected that, at the early period of the session, the complaint made against the government was not procrastination. They were then accused of hastening their decisions beyond what was proper, and of having made up their mind on the questions that were submitted to them, too hastily. He did not think that the charge of wishing to escape responsibility was at all deserved; but it was not extraordinary that the members of government, whose time had been occupied, should desire, when questions were submitted to parliament involving most important principles, which the individuals who brought them forward had mastered by their undivided attention-it was not extraordinary, that ministers should desire to have the recess, in order to make themselves masters of these important subjects. Mr. G. Lamb expressed his determination to vote for the motion. He thought the House ought long ago to have come to a decision on the question, and he saw no reason why they should not do so in the present session. Why could not the session be prolonged for a fortnight? The House was told, that the question could not be disposed of, because the session must be closed. It would seem as if some invisible power controlled the House. Honourable members were to be forthwith sent about their business. Every thing was postponed. In future, when the practice of the court of Chancery should be under consideration, let no member condemn the judge of that court for procrastinating; for here they had been occupied four sessions with the East Retford case; the evidence was all taken, day after day they carried the papers home with them, but yet they were unable to come to any decision. Sir E. Carrington said, he would vote for the original motion. The amendment having been withdrawn, the House divided on the original motion: For the motion 44; Against it 135; Majority 91. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, June 3. SLAVERY IN THE MAURITIUS CONDUCT OF SIR R. FARQUHAR.] Mr. F. Buxton rose to move for Copies of certain Papers connected with the State of the Slaves in the Mauritius, and for the Observations of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Condition of the Slaves in that Island. Sir R. Farquhar said, he was desirous to know whether the hon. member intended to proceed with the motion, of which he had long since given notice, respecting his conduct while intrusted with the government of the Mauritius. He called upon the hon. member in his place to say whether it was his intention to proceed with that motion; and he conceived he had a right to put the alternative to the hon. member, either to proceed with that motion, or to retract the charges which he had preferred against him. Now, Mr. F. Buxton said, that the delay had been on his part inevitable. Early in the session of 1827, the right hon. gentleman opposite, in the name of Mr. Canning, had applied to him to withdraw his motion for a committee on the subject for a certain time, and to that application he acceded. He had subsequently proceeded to the investigation, and he had only been prevented from following it up by unavoidable circumstances. The hon. baronet said, that there were now two courses open to him-that he should either proceed with his motion, or retract the charges which he had made against him. it was utterly impossible that he could retract the charges which he had madeit was utterly impossible that he could withdraw the charge-that slavery, to a considerable extent, had been carried on under the government of the hon, baronet. If his majesty's ministers were not prepared to assent to a commission on the subject, as he believed they were, he begged to assure the hon baronet, that next session his challenge would be accepted, and that he would be then afforded a full opportunity of refuting, if he could, the charges made against him while governor of the Mauritius. He had only to remark |