under which the decision contained in the report had been come to. The agent of the petitioner produced the poll-book before the committee. They called for a poll clerk, in order to verify certain votes. He had no reason to suppose that this ob jection would be made; but in consequence of it, applied for leave to send over for the poll clerk, who was living in Dublin. The committee would not grant permission, and so the petitioner's cause was lost. The determination was, in his opinion, harsh and severe in consequence of it, no gentleman from Ireland was to look for justice henceforward, without bringing forward every individual poll clerk at the election, the expense of which would be enormous, since the poll clerks, not being persons in a very high state of life, dispersed themselves in different ways on the conclusion of an election. If the precedent were to be followed, no gentle man from Ireland would petition in fuand it would become the interest of every candidate, per fas aut nefas, to secure the returning officer in his favour, as the election would ultimately depend upon his discretion. He should at present, however, content himself with moving, That the Minutes of the Committee be laid before the House. ture; Sir T. Baring said, the votes had not been proved by the best evidence the case would admit of. Neither the poll clerk nor sheriff had been brought before the committee. The only evidence the person who had the poll book could give was, that he had received it in a sealed parcel from the town clerk of Limerick, but of its contents he knew nothing. He would allow, however, that the case was a very hard one on the Irish members, and he should willingly go a great length in allowing them to authenticate votes in another manner. If the poll clerk of every barony was obliged to attend, it might be necessary to bring over eighteen or twenty of them. Mr. S. Bourne asked, whether the poll book had been produced by the person to whose custody it had been intrusted? Mr. Wynn was hostile to discussing in the House a point decided on by a committee, but he thought the correctness of their decision questionable, and quoted two precedents that seemed to impeach it. Mr. Abercromby was aware that there was great inconvenience in discussing such a question before the House. All must think, that a case of greater hardship If than the present had never occurred. He The motion was agreed to. PENRYN ELECTION.] The order of the day being read, for renewing the adjourned debate on the amendment proposed to be made to the question, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown, to make out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve in this present parliament for the borough of Penryn, in the room of Henry Swann, esq. whose election has been determined to be void," The Speaker said, that before the House proceeded to the adjourned debate, it might be convenient to them to know in what state of forwardness the minutes of evidence were which had been ordered to be printed. From their length he did not think they would be in the hands of members before Thursday. The House would therefore see what time might elapse before members were put in possession of the information which might be necessary on the subject. With respect to the ques tion of suspending the issuing of writs upon special reports, he had before expressed what had occurred to him at the moment. Since then he had looked into all the cases since the year 1770, and from these it appeared, that in all cases where reports were made, charging bribery and corruption upon a number of electors, the issuing of the writ was suspended until the House had before them the minutes of evidence taken before the committee. In the case of Ilchester, indeed, the report charged some individuals with bribery, but did not call for any general resolution. In that case the House ordered the new writ, and directed the attorney-general to prosecute the offenders for bribery. Sir C. Burrell was of opinion that it would be more convenient if the House did not proceed with the consideration of the question until the minutes of evidence anxious for this, as he had heard, that the evidence of one witness was objected to before the committee; and so nicely balanced were the votes, that it was only rejected by the casting vote of the chairman. In order to show the spirit which prevailed in this borough, he would beg to have the report of a committee which had sat in 1807, to examine the allegations of a petition against the return which had then been made for it. The clerk then read the report of the committee. It was dated Feb. 4th, 1807, and stated, that sir C. Hawkins, the sitting member, was unduly elected, and that Henry Swann, esq. was one of the sitting members, and that John Trevanion, esq. ought to have been returned as the other member. The committee also passed a resolution that sir C. Hawkins had been guilty of bribery, and that several electors of the borough had been proved to have accepted bribes. were found to have been bribed, would, notwithstanding that resolution, be entitled to vote, till they were convicted in a court of law, or disqualified by act of parliament. He might here allude to precedents, from which it would appear that there was no case where the House had delayed to issue a writ to supply a vacancy, unless the report of the com. mittee was of a more general nature, and implied more flagrant acts of corruption. In most of these cases the chairman of the committee moved the House to postpone issuing the writ; whereas in the present case he moved that it should be issued. Finding, however, on the Journals of the House, that corruption had existed in this borough on a former occasion, and similar disgraceful practices appearing on the present occasion, he would accede to the hon. baronet's present motion. Mr. A. Wright said, that seven or eight persons had been proved to have received bribes in this borough. This was the extent of the bribery proved. As to the notion that a hundred voters had been bribed, it was entirely without foundation in the evidence. Sir C. Burrell said, that after what the House had heard of the base and mercenary spirit which prevailed in that borough, they would see the necessity of not proceeding with the discussion until they should have the minutes of evidence Sir J. Newport approved of the adfully before them. He would therefore journment. He understood, that in admove, that the debate be further adjourn-dition to bribery, it was proved that neither ed till Monday. Mr. Masterton Ure said, there were few subjects coming under the consideration of parliament, of greater importance than those connected with the rights of electors, and the privileges of the House; and he felt desirous that on the present occasion they should so conduct the proceedings as to show to the people of England that if there were many persons who thought the elective franchise should be more extended, and others of a contrary opinion, that they would take care that those who had the elective franchise should exercise it, fairly, freely, and constitutionally. And here it was important to observe, that by acceding to the hon. baronet's motion, the House would enable those who had proved themselves so unworthy of being electors to repeat those acts of corruption so disgraceful to themselves and injurious to the public; while by postponing the writ it would be liable to the charge of depriving the bona fide electors of Penryn of their due share in the representation of the empire: for it should be observed, that those electors who, by the resolution of the committee, (VÓL. XXXIX.) one party nor the other had tendered the bribery oath to any voter. He understood also, that a paper had been offered to the committee, which though not accepted, as it could not be brought home to either party, tainted the character of the whole borough. It was no great punishment, after the second time of the borough being brought before the House for bribery, that its franchises should be put in suspension for a time. Mr. A. Wright said, there was no proof before the committee, that the bribery oath had, or that it had not, been administered. Sir J. Newport said, that the omission of any notice of the bribery oath in the poll book decisively proved the negative. Mr. C. Harvey agreed in the propriety of waiting for the minutes of evidence, and observed, that when they were laid before the House, it would be found that some of the assertions would not be borne out by the evidence. Mr. Bankes acceded to the motion for delay, on the ground that this borough had been brought before the House at two not very distant periods. (3 B) Mr. Denison thought there was sufficient evidence to show the system of gross bribery which had been practised in this virtuous borough. One fact alone would prove it: the electors were assembled at a public breakfast, and each of them received 241. for his vote. With these circumstances before them, he trusted the House would adjourn the debate till Monday. The debate was then further adjourned till Monday. PETITION OF THOMAS GRADY.] Mr. Hutchinson, in rising to present a petition from this gentleman, observed, that it would not be necessary for him to go over the same ground which he had gone on a former occasion when this question was before the House. He was the less in-clined to this, because he understood it to be the general feeling of the House that there would be no opposition to his release. His wish was to conciliate all parties, and not to offer any thing which might prejudice the cause of the gentleman whose petition he was about to present. The petitioner expressed his sincere sorrow at having in any manner offended the House. At the same time he solemnly declared, that he never had any such intention. He, therefore, prayed that he might be released from custody. The petition was then brought up, and read by the clerk. It was in substance such as Mr. Hutchinson had described it. Sir Robert Wilson hoped the House would consider the age of the petitioner and his ill state of health, and also that some days had elapsed since he had been committed to prison. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. After which, Mr. Hutchinson moved, that Mr. Thomas Grady be forthwith brought to the bar, for the purpose of being discharged. Mr. Bootle Wilbraham did not intend to oppose the motion, but he would suggest, that the old usage of the House should not be departed from in the present instance. It was the practice on occasions similar to this to move, that the person in custody be brought up, not forthwith, but on the following day. Besides, if Mr. Grady were to be brought to the bar in the course of the present evening, it would probably interrupt the debate which was about to commence. He therefore suggested, that instead of the word "forthwith," in the motion, the word "to-morrow" should be inserted. Mr. Hutchinson had no objection to alter his motion as the hon. member had suggested. Mr. Bankes said, that unless it were meant that the petitioner was to to be reprimanded upon his appearance at the bar, he should feel it his duty to make a special motion on the subject. The Speaker conceived that the order for the prisoner's appearance at the bar, previous to his release, necessarily implied a reprimand. Mr. Wynn said, that to prevent any doubt upon the object for which the prisoner was to be brought up, it might be better to let the word "reprimanded" be inserted. This was done accordingly, and the motion was agreed to. MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF GAOLS AND OTHER PRISONS.] Lord Castlereagh said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the important subject to which his notice referred, he should endeavour to state shortly the objects to which he proposed that the committee, for the appointment of which it was his intention to move, should direct its inquiry.-At the outset he felt it necessary to advert to the mo. tion of which an hon. and learned gentleman had given notice for to-morrow evening, because that motion was closely and intimately connected with the purposes comprehended in the motion with which he meant to conclude. The object, indeed, of the hon. and learned gentleman, was directly and immediately involved in the inquiry for which he (lord C.) proposed to move; and he apprehended that if the tenor of his notice upon this subject had been distinctly understood, the hon. and learned gentleman would have felt, that the motion of which he had given notice was unnecessary. But he doubted whether the notice given for him by his right hon. friend at an early period of the session, was clearly comprehended; for that notice did not refer merely to the state of gaols, but to the best mode of providing for the reformation, custody and punishment of offenders. It was not, he believed, so understood by the hon. and learned gentleman, or he would have naturally conceived that the object of his notice would embrace the state of crime and the character of our criminal laws, not incidentally or indirectly, as the hon. and learned gentleman and others ap peared to think, but directly and imme- | state of gaols, without looking also at the diately. That such was the purpose of state of crime, which must necessarily inhis motion, that he did not mean to con- volve a consideration of the character of fine the proposed inquiry to the state of the penal code. The only difference, then, gaols merely, but to extend it to the cri- which he could figure to himself to exist minal code, with all its direct and colla- between the course of inquiry which he teral consequences, was, indeed, he proposed to pursue and that of which thought necessarily to be inferred from the hon. and learned gentleman had given the observations which he had the honour notice was this, that the hon. and learned of submitting to the House, upon the dis- gentleman would direct the investigation cussion of the motion brought forward by to the character of the law, without conan hon. gentleman with respect to trans- sidering its full effect and operation, while portation and the hulks. But looking to he would extend the investigation so as to what he said upon that occasion, com- ascertain whether the prejudice raised bined with the notice which had been sub- against the penal code was well-founded, mitted to the House, he was surprised to and if so, what practical remedy could find any doubt existing that it was his in- be devised. With this view, it was obvitention to make his motion upon this in- ously essential to consider the effect of teresting question, as broad and compre- secondary punishments, in order to ascerhensive as possible. He apprehended, tain what substitute should be established indeed, that there was no solid difference for any part of the penal code that was between the object of the hon. and learned found to be decidedly objectionable, and gentleman, and that which he had in view, therefore he proposed to include in his and that it was equally the wish of both motion a consideration of the several systo bring the proposed inquiry to a satis- tems of the penitentiaries, the hulks, and factory conclusion. But there would be transportation. Without such considera material difference between them, if, as ation, indeed, he conceived that it would some appeared to imagine, he (lord C.) be quite impossible to decide fully and intended to limit the inquiry to the mere fairly upon the character of the penal state of gaols; for if that were his object code. He would put it to the hon. and -if he proposed only to inquire into the learned gentleman and to the House, wheconstruction of prisons, or into the disci- ther great inconvenience was not but too pline or classification of prisoners, a com- likely to result from any decision upon the mittee of that House would not, in his system of the penal law, without first view, be the fittest place for the conduct duly considering the effect of the seof such an inquiry. On the contrary, condary punishments. For himself, he thinking such an inquiry to be of a minis- felt that he could not too strongly depreterial and official character, he should ra- cate the idea that parliament should prother think it right to move an address to nounce any sentence of condemnation the Crown, for the appointment of a spe- upon the criminal law of the country, cial commission, to investigate the con- without duly and deliberately considering struction of the several prisons, and the what remedy should be applied. To send system upon which they were conducted. forth the judges, indeed, to administer a But his view was of a more comprehensive system of law against which parliament nature; it was, to consider the state of had decided, would lead to many and obprisons with reference to the state of crime, vious disadvantages. He was therefore and the operation of punishment with adverse to any premature complaint or regard to the several classes of criminals, partial inquiries, and anxious that the in order to ascertain how far the existing whole case should be gone into at once, system of punishment served to control that case comprehending the system of the commission, or promote the diminu- the gaols, of transportation and the hulks, tion of crime. It would, indeed, be a as well as the character of the criminal melancholy task to look alone at the state law. Such inquiry ought, indeed, for vaof our gaols, without considering how far rious reasons, to precede any decision their conduct or construction served to upon the penal code, upon which it beeffect a reduction of crime, instead of hoved parliament not to cast an imputaseeking to ascertain merely whether those tion, until a remedy were devised for any gaols should be multiplied or enlarged. existing evil. To do otherwise would be It was impossible, in his judgment, for a prematurely to pronounce a general sencommittee of that House to look at the tence of degradation on the laws of the country people out of doors would hastily conclude, that the whole system was unnecessarily harsh, and a false expectation would be raised of impracticable lenity. With regard to the argument of the hon. gentleman on the second bench (Mr. Bennet), for whose capacity and diligence, in considering subjects of this nature, he entertained the highest possible respect, he could indeed assure that hon. gentleman, that he would be quite ready to bow to his opinion upon any point connected with a question of this nature, if that opinion were not opposed to his own conscientious conviction. When, therefore, that hon. gentleman proposed to make secondary punishments the subject of distinct consideration, he should not have opposed the proposition, if he were not thoroughly convinced of the inexpediency of such a course of proceeding, for the reasons which he had already stated. ing the salutary diminution of punishments. Through such a committee information was not at all likely to be laid before the House in a dispersed or unintelligible shape. Every thing that related to secondary punishments would be collected by such a committee, and parliament would be guarded against disturbing the public mind by the publication of partial and discordant views. What he was most anxious about was, that a broad and comprehensive report should be drawn up, upon which the House could act with propriety and safety. He did not seek for the appointment of any interminable committee, as some gentlemen profess to apprehend, but of such a one as should come to a satisfactory decision within a reasonable time, while it would guard against the danger of any denunciation, against the useful character or moral influence of our criminal law, without a full and radical inquiry how far that law might be modified and improved. The information which the hon. and learned gentleman had it in his power to communicate to such a com mittee, would no doubt be most desirable. But he (lord C.) would caution gentlemen, and especially those who might belong to this committee, to guard their minds against the influence of passion, for when that passion was abated by inquiry, the judgment and energy essential to form a correct decision and to devise an adequate remedy, were but too likely to lose their proper force. Those who exagge rated to themselves the nature of the ill, would probably find that they had been deceived; and the result might be, that they would sink into a state of torpid apathy and indifference; a condition of mind much more fatal to reform than even an under calculation of its necessity. Gentlemen would then do well, if in due time they took care to exclude every exaggerated representation from their minds, and to hold themselves in a proper temper finally to determine upon this very im portant question. He trusted that he had rendered his views intelligible to the House; and that he had justified the difference of his opinion upon this question from that of the hon. and learned gentleman, as well as from that of the hon. gentleman on the second bench, his opinion being, that parliament should not pronounce any verdict against the penal code, until it were ascertained whether any, and what remedy could be applied. Then, as to the division of labour proposed by the hon. gentleman on the second bench, and supported by others, he could not see the utility of such a division upon an inquiry of this nature; for he could not admit the expediency of appointing different committees, to collect different materials, which, after all, in order to decide correctly and comprehensively, must be brought to one centre of deliberation. That centre of deliberation, it was his object at once to constitute by the appointment of one committee. Such committee, although in the first instance he should propose that it be composed of 21 members, might consist of as many gen Now, as to the state of crime in the tlemen as were thought desirable; and country, he admitted, that it appeared by were he a member of that committee, he the returns, that within the last three or should be most happy to receive all the four years, crime had increased to an lights which the hon. and learned gentle- alarming extent, almost in the proportion man, as well as the hon. gentleman on the of two to one; and comparing the comsecond bench, were so eminently capable mitments of the last year with those ten of throwing upon the subject. With such years ago, in some classes of crime they aids, the committee would no doubt be en- were in the ratio of nearly three to one. abled to devise the means of improving the Such a view was in some respects appalmerciful character of our laws, and promot-ling; at all events, it would be most |