it would be improper to bring it before the House.

Sir F. Burdett said, that the petition appeared to contravene no rule; nor did the petitioner state, that he had committed perjury. He stated, that a fraudulent conveyance had been made to him of property, to enable him to vote; and after he had voted, an attempt was made to take that freehold from him. He considered, that if he acquiesced in that demand, he should have been guilty of perjury. Legal proceedings had been commenced against him. Some persons might contend, that this was a breach of trust on the part of the individual. But this man asked for no interference as to the courts below, but humbly prayed, that the House would take the matter into consideration, to prevent the fraudulent exercise of the elective franchise, whereby ignorant persons like himself might be involved in ruin, or in the crime of perjury.

Lord Cochrane considered all those perjuries at elections, and in courts of law, as emanating from the corruption of that House. There was scarcely a contested election where those who made oath that they neither received nor expected any reward for their votes, did not know at the very time the wages of their iniquity. Unless the House wished the country to be totally demoralized, they were bound to inquire into the present complaint. He would soon bring forward specific instances of this evil, and should not have so long delayed the motion of which he had given notice, but for urgent private business. Mr. Long said, he was authorized by his noble friend who was mentioned in the petition to deny that any persecution or legal measures had been promoted by him, against the petitioner. With respect to the petition, he saw no reason for its being received by the House. The petitioner stated, that he was of a very tender conscience, and could not give up the conveyance of the property which he had sworn to be his own. But, if he mistook not, this man had not long since written to him, asking him for a sum of money, and expressing his willingness, notwithstanding the tenderness of his conscience, to give up the conveyance if he received the money. He alluded to the facility with which the hon. baronet received accusations against every person in office, and stated an illustration of it, that he had frequently received letters in his office from persons complaining of grievances, (VOL. XXXVI.)

and threatening, if it was not remedied by return of post, to put the complaint in the hands of sir Francis Burdett. It would perhaps, not only relieve the House from some inconveniences, and the hon. baronet from much trouble, if he occasionally inquired as well into the character of the accusers as of the accused. If he had done so in the present instance, the petition would not have been offered to the House.

Mr. R. Ward said, that by a letter in the petitioner's own hand, so far back as February 1813, it appeared, that he had been in possession of his freehold in 1811, 18 months before the election. If that were so, the petitioner must have deceived the hon. baronet. The freehold was vested in him for life, upon paying a quit-rent. He was in arrears for 3 years. The prosecution was, to recover the arrears. With respect to himself, if the forms of the House would allow, he wished for nothing so much as to have an inquiry on the subject, in order to give the lie to the petition.

Mr. W. Smith said, it did not follow, because the noble lord knew nothing of any hardships having been practised towards this man, that none had been committed towards him by some of his agents. The main question on the petition was, whether it did not contain matter which really called for inquiry? Was not the matter, if true, vitally connected with their privileges? He should certainly vote for receiving the petition.

Mr. Brand said, that if Mr. Ward's statement was correct, the petition, stating a contrary fact, ought to be inquired into for that very reason. If, however, this freehold was in the petitioner's possession 18 months before the election, it was the only freehold of that kind, as he had occasion to know when that subject was before the committee, of which he was a member.

Mr. Ward rose to order.

Mr. Brand contended, he was perfectly in order, for this reason, that the hon. gentleman had asserted that the freehold had existed for a certain period; he, on the other hand, wished to state a fact that militated against that assertion, in order to show the necessity of inquiry. If therefore he was in order, he would proceed to state why be

Mr. Long maintained, that if it was the practice to state such facts, it was a most inconvenient practice, (3 X)

Mr. Brand said, this was a most singular dilemma. The committee were precluded from inquiring into the case, and the House, therefore, will not inquire into it. The committee was precluded by the laws of evidence from inquiring. The House will not inquire because the committee had not inquired. He did not wish to state what had come under his observation, since the gentlemen opposite had shown so much delicacy on that point; but to say that any thing in the petition was unfounded, while inquiry was refused, was more an argument against the noble lord than against the petitioner.

The Speaker said, there was a peculiarity in the petition which he thought it his duty to point out to the House. The prayer was different from the circumstances of complaint. If he went into those circumstances, he should go beyond the line of his duty, and disgust the House; but he conceived it right to say, that one part of the petition set forth a grievance as to an individual, while it concluded with praying the House to guard its own privileges. It was for the House to judge whether the subject was such as they could or ought to receive, or whether the grievance was merely an ejectinent. On the one side, they were not to be misled by the generality of the prayer; nor on the other side to refuse what was fair and just.

Sir F. Burdett said, he could discover no good reason for the rejection of the petition but the reluctance of the House to hear disagreeable truths. If the circumstances of a petition were such as did not meet the wishes of members, a thousand objections were mustered up against it; while, on the contrary, if they were agreeable, the petition was received without any inquiry, and even against the usual forms of the House. He had no knowledge of the petitioner. He was actuated purely by a sense of public duty; and seized the present occasion, not because it was one of rare occurrence, or uncommon delinquency, but because it was one example of the prevalence of a system of seat-dealing, which he thought himself obliged, as a member of parliament, to expose to the House and to the country. His objection to lord Lonsdale's conduct referred to him not as a private individual, but as a borough-monger. He obHe objected to his sending members to that House to vote away the public money while those whose money was thus voted

away had no influence in the election. The noble earl, he understood, had little property in the district, the representation of which he thus disposed of; while his members had an unlimited power of drawing upon the purses of those who were the principal proprietors. He might not even know of the transactions which took place in his name, but it became the House to inquire and to know.-He had been accused of believing, without sufficient proof, the representations of this petitioner; but unhappily, it did not require a man to be very credulous to believe that a peer who had the power of returning a member to parliament would do so. The character of the parties was not to be taken into consideration at all. He would allow the petitioner to be as great a rascal as those who opposed his petition chose to make him; and he would contend that, on the supposition, he strengthened his ground of attack, on the system which this person was employed to carry into execution. It would appear, that he at least enjoyed the confidence of the noble earl when he received his vote; the worse therefore the agent, the worse the transaction in which he was engaged, indeed, all the branches and transactions of the borough-mongering system were equally bad; there was no conscience, no principle, no justice, truth, or right, to be found in any part of it; and this was only a fair sample of the whole of which he might say "ex uno disce omnes."

it his duty to vote against the bill.

The Earl of Westmoreland said, it was admitted on all hands that there might be circumstances under which it would be proper to resort to this measure; and some of the noble lords opposite who had spoken against the bill, must allow that there had been times when the measure was necessary. Then, the short question was, is this a proper time for the suspension? It had been objected to this proceeding, that the act would be in existence at a time when parliament would be prorogued, or perhaps dissolved: but it appeared to him only the more necessary, that the power should exist at that period, because, in case a particular emergency should arise, government could not immediately apply to parliament for assistance. Then it had been objected that a period of peace was a very improper time for such a measure: but whether the time was a time of war or of peace was not the question. The question was, whether the exigency existed? But he thought that the reason for such a measure might be stronger in time of peace than in time of war, because in time of peace the country was in a great measure disarmed. But the question was, whether the exigency existed? Now, there could be no question that conspiracies and plots against the government had been and were still carried on to an extent sufficient to excite alarm for the public safety in the minds of all, except in the firm and tranquil minds of the noble lords opposite: this was the conclusion come to by two committees of their lordships. It might be asked, why the duration of the suspension had not been at first continued for a longer period? The answer was, that ministers were anxious that these powers should not continue longer than parliament and the country might think them necessary. Then it had been said, that the suspension might be allowed to expire, and that if a particular emergency arose, government migh call the parliament together, and procure a renewal of those powers.

But

if that were done, then it would be objected, that ministers had not thought proper to apply for the renewal in a full parliament, but had suffered the suspension to expire that they might get it renewed by a few of their own friends. The noble duke had asserted that the employ ment of spies was unconstitutional. That was rather an extraordinary assertion,

of state was called upon to swear that part of the secret service money would be employed by him in detecting conspiracies at home. But the fact was, that such agents had always been employed by government, and that it was impossible to detect conspiracies of this nature without them.

The Earl of Donoughmore observed, that the noble earl who had just sat down had said he could answer for the majority of parliament, which, perhaps, he might do; but, as to the people, he was not only convinced the majority of them were not with the ministers in the measures they were now pursuing; but he was satisfied the statement to this effect would excite amongst the people a feeling of indignation, he had almost said though he rather believed it would excite a feeling of a very different kind. It seemed, however, from what had been said by the noble earl, that spies and informers were associated with ministers that they were to be treated with respect; that such men as Castles or Oliver (of whom they had heard something on a former night), or a man who had procured several Irishmen for a rebellion in which he had participated, being himself first a rebel, and then an informer, were all to be treated with respect, and considered as gentlemen. No one could hear what had been said by a noble duke without attaching great importance to what had been said. The noble earl who followed him, had endeavoured to pick holes in that speech, but he had shaken no material part of it. The noble duke had given evidence to them, and most material evidence. He had stated what he himself had done in the government of a country which certainly was not one of the least difficult to govern well, as the noble earl well knew. But certainly the noble earl did not find Ireland in a state so disturbed as it was found by the noble duke, nor did he leave it so quiet as the noble duke left it. The noble duke had stated what he had found the best mode of governing the Irish, and which would also be found the best mode of governing British subjects-conciliation. The cir cumstances under which they were called on to re-enact the law which had given such power to the ministers, were such, that no man who was at all in the habit of addressing the House should give a silent vote. If he had been in the House when