of Oxford and six other most respectable
magistrates of that city, confirming the
statements in the second petition to which
he had referred, and praying the attention
of the House to this most important sub-
ject. It might not become him as a new
member of the House to endeavour to im-
press upon it the propriety of complying
with the prayer of these petitions, by direct-
ing to them its earnest and immediate con-
sideration; but he hoped he might be ex-
cused for expressing his humble conviction
that no matter of privilege more imperi-
ously demanded the scrutinizing investi-
gation of the House than the interference
of peers in the election of its members,
and he conceived that the House would
think it due to its own dignity, to institute
a most active and diligent inquiry when
such a case as this was represented to be,
of open and undisguised interference, was
distinctly pointed out to its notice. The
charges preferred against the noble duke,
the petitioners had fully pledged them
selves to substantiate. But though he
entirely concurred in their sentiments,
supposing those charges to be well-
founded, he begged to be understood as
in no degree participating in the responsi-
bility of that pledge, which they had so
given. At the same time he was fully
persuaded, and this persuasion arose from
the great respectability of the peti-
tioners, that they entertained a perfect
conviction of the truth of their state-
ments; but he sincerely assured the
House, and the connexions of the noble
duke, if any of them were then present,
that it would afford him genuine gratifica-
tion to find that the petitioners had
laboured under a misapprehension re-
specting the conduct of the exalted indi-
vidual in question, the very mention of
whose name and title brought with it
some of the proudest recollections of
which this country could boast, and he
should most gladly be convinced that the
noble duke had not been unmindful of the
delicacy of that political station which a
peer of this realm holds in the constitu-
tion. But if, on the other hand, it should
appear that the privileges of that House
had been infringed in any one of the parti-
culars stated in the petition, he trusted the
House would know how, by some decisive
measure, to assert and vindicate those high
privileges on the preservation and integrity
of which all the freedom we had enjoyed,
not only constitutionally, but practically
depended. He then moved that the peti-
tion be brought up.

Mr. Bathurst, after the result of the former petition, could not perceive how this could be received. The petitioners had had an opportunity of proving their allegations in the only way, in which charges of this nature ought to be decided-before an election committee. That was the tribunal to which resort ought to have been had; because the facts charged, if they could be proved, would go to vitiate the election itself; but that opportunity was not embraced; recognizances had not been entered into, and the matter was suffered to drop. He did not see what step the hon. member could take upon it as it now stood, except it would be to move a set of angry resolutions, and they would be productive of no other effect; at least not the effect of removing the member mentioned. He should therefore oppose the petition being brought up.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow observed, that there was nothing before the House to justify the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman, that the subscribers to the present petition were those from whom the former petition emanated; and argued, that, from the rejection of the former petition, or the abandonment of that petition by the petitioners themselves, it did not follow that other gentlemen should be precluded from complaining of a breach of privilege; and in this case the breach was alleged to be of the grossest nature. It was the duty of the House, in his opinion, to examine this complaint, not with any view to the angry discussion which the right hon. gentleman deprecated; but in order that, if the duke of Marlborough should appear, upon inquiry to have been guilty of the improper conduct imputed to him, the House might come to an appropriate resolution, condemnatory of such conduct, and also pass an address, requiring the prosecution of his grace, by his majesty's attorney general. The House ought, indeed, in this case, to follow the precedent in the reign of Anne, when sir John Packington complained of a breach of privilege on the part of the bishop of Worcester, in using undue influence at an election for the city. But as this case was of great importance, he thought that time should be afforded for its further consideration, and therefore he moved an adjournment of the debate until the 27th instant.

Mr. Wynn thought that the case of the bishop of Worcester was not relevant to

rious consideration of the House. If it did not, the situation of that House would be singular, and he could not conceive upon what ground the petition could be rejected, unless it were meant that no breach of privilege of that House should be investigated by the House itself. Was it to be understood that the interference of a peer at an election, or any other violation of the privileges of that House with regard to an election, could be taken cognizance of only before an election committee? All that the House had to do at present was, to receive the petition, and institute an inquiry into the allegations it contained.

Mr. Goulburn said, that the learned gentleman had misunderstood the real question under consideration. The question was not, whether the House would not investigate a charge with regard to breach of privilege, but whether it would act according to law by refusing investigation upon such a subject in any other form than that which the law prescribed. For the sake of the character of the House, and the consistency of its proceedings, it became necessary to discountenance a petition of this nature.

the present question, as it did not arise out of any election petition. He did not know how far the present case ought to be considered as a breach of privileges. As far as he recollected the petition, it stated a distribution of money from the duke among the electors, and that one member had been actually proposed and supported by the duke. It would not, however, be right to receive these allegations as true, without examining into their correctness, as there was scarcely any question which affected an election that did not involve a breach of privilege. He threw out these objections cursorily, and should wish the House to determine whether they were entitled to have any weight. Mr. Denman thought that this petition ought to be read, as the House would then be able to understand the allegations of it. He deemed it to be extremely strange that the rejection of the former petition should lead to the rejection of this also. The question appeared to him to be within a very narrow compass, and to be in plain English, nothing more nor less than this, whether the House would or would not allow their privileges to be violated. When such a question was brought before the House, it was, in his opinion, the duty of the House, to enter into an investigation of it without delay. When he had the honour of presenting a similar petition from the same quarter, within the first fourteen days, it was objected that "here is a petition affecting the return of one of our members in a case upon which a committee is appointed to decide. It may prejudice the minds of that committee, if it be noticed by the House in another shape, and therefore to avoid the consequences the Grenville committee alone should decide upon it." This argument led the House to decide that the former petition should go to a Grenville committee. The fact was, that the former petitioners declined to prosecute their petition in this way, because they were not disposed to incur a most enormous expense of an inquiry before such a committee, the result of which might be the return of a gentleman about whom the petitioners felt no parti-parties themselves, who were then sent to cular interest. The present petition, however, appeared to contain some additional facts as to the breach of privilege, discovered since the former one was abandoned, and as it was not open to the objections urged on the former occasion, he thought that the subject should meet with the se

Mr. Tennyson observed, that as part of what had been said, particularly by the hon. member (Mr. Wynn) attributed to the petition statements which it did not contain, it was, in his opinion, clearly the proper course that the petition should be brought up and read, and then the debate might be pursued upon the question whether it should go to the committee of privileges. The former petition had been (as the House had determined) an election petition, from certain individuals who had not thought fit to prosecute it, and vindicate the privileges of the House at an enormous expense, a situation he thought the petitioners ought not then to have been placed in. The present was a petition and complaint from another set of individuals, upon a matter of privilege, and was quite another question. That it was so would be seen, if the petition was brought up and read. It had on the former occasion been urged in debate, that the

an election committee, might, if they did not like to prosecute their case there, prefer another petition, confined to the question of privilege. This course had been taken; and they were now to be told that the matter had been previously disposed of. Surely this would be a most ex

was extremely unsatisfactory. The committee had reported, that corrupt practices existed in the borough; and yet they had made out no case of bribery. He should therefore move, that the speaker do not issue his writ until the 26th of April, and that the minutes of evidence taken before the committee be printed.

Mr. Manning thought, that very strong grounds ought to be assigned, to induce the House to delay the issuing of the new writ. Mr. Grenfell said, that as the report of the committee expressly declared, that no distinct acts of bribery could be fully established, it was not likely that any good purpose could be answered by the printing of the minutes.

Mr. Mildmay said, that every thing was kept so nicely within bounds, that it was impossible to lay hold of a single circumstance upon which to ask the House to interfere. There was one single vote only which could be at all laid hold of; and that was upon so unimportant an occasion, comparatively speaking, that it was not thought worth bringing before the House. He should be happy if the minutes were ordered to be laid before them; and thought some strong resolution was required to mark the sense of the House upon the occasion.

Mr. S. Bourne begged the House to remember, that if there had been a majority for the sitting member, he would have been declared duly elected. Was it fair to adopt now such a proceeding as delaying the writ?

Mr. B. Wilbraham said, that the com

tigating the merits of a case where there were only 23 electors. They had not been able to produce one act of bribery, and he contended, that in such a case there was no necessity for any delay in issuing the writ.

Mr. Macdonald begged to state, that in the only case in which two of the witnesses before the committee were brought in support of the fact of an act of bribery, they gave their evidence in such a way, that both were committed to Newgate.

Mr. Moore thought that every subject coming before them, which affected the important question of purity of election, ought to receive the utmost attention of the House. It was not merely the bo-mittee had sat nearly a fortnight in invesrough of Camelford that was here concerned, but the character of that House. Mr. Macdonald was of opinion, that the committee ought to have presented a specific report to the House, as a guide for future proceedings in such cases. It really appeared to him to be the most inane thing that ever came into that House. The committee said, " we are satisfied in our own minds that certain corrupt proceedings existed in this borough, but there are no facts to justify such a step as asking the interference of parliament." He believed there was no precedent for such a proceeding as this. Some of the members of this committee, who were present at the drawing up of the report, had said, "there are no precedents for this, but why should not we establish one?" But, for himself, he had a great respect for precedents. With regard to delaying the writ, what good would that effect, unless there was a hope of being able, in the mean time, to establish a case of corruption?

Mr. W. Douglas having been on the committee, said, that when the resolution was proposed to the committee for this Special Report, it was shown that there was a system of corruption existing in the borough, which deserved the attention of the House. The number of electors was only 23, and from this circumstance it would be seen, how easily so small a body might be corrupted. Such corruption as was proved to bave existed there, was very nearly connected with bribery, and a strong combination also was proved.

Mr. F. Douglas contended, that it was a report founded on vague surmises only, and could only have been justified, had some specific and distinct case been made out.

The House divided: For the original motion, 103; against it, 15. A motion was then made, "That the Minutes of the Committee be laid before the House;" which, after a short conversation, was negatived.

JOHN CHAPMAN AND JOHN EVELYN REPRIMANDED FOR GIVING FALSE EviDENCE BEFORE THE CAMELFORD ELECTION COMMITTEE.] On the motion of Mr. Manning, John Chapman and John Evelyn, who had been committed to Newgate for giving false evidence before the Camelford Election Committee, were brought to the bar, where they received the following Reprimand from Mr. Speaker:

"John Chapman and John Evelyn, you were reported by the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the