Sawle, C. B. G.

Spooner, R.
Stafford, A.

Stafford, Marq. of
Stanley, hon. W. O.
Stuart, Lord D.
Talbot, C. R. M.

Thompson, G.

Tollemache, J.

Turner, C.

Tyler, Sir G.

O'Brien, C.

O'Brien, Sir T. O'Connell, M.

O'Flaherty, A.

Coffee, and Chicory.

Palmerston, Viset,

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Walcott, Adm.

TELLERS.

Chambers, T.
Berkeley, C. F.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.
Beaumont, W. B.
Bellew, Capt.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Bethell, R.

Bland, L. II.

Brady, J.

Heard, J. I.

Kennedy, T.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E. Molesworth,rt.hn. SirW. Glyn, G. C.

Goderich, Visct.

Goodman, Sir G.

Grace, 0. D. J.

Monck, Visct.

Monsell, W.

Moore, G. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Graham, rt. hon, Sir J. Murrough, J. P.

TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the transfer of land in Ireland, and stated that as he understood it was not intended by the Government to oppose the introduction of the measure, he trusted the House would permit him to reserve any statement he might have to make until he should move the second reading, which he should fix for the first open day, namely, Wednesday, the 29th of June. Before that period hon. Members would have ample time to consider the provisions of the Bill, which were of a very simple character.

EXCISE PROSECUTIONS-TEA, COFFEE, AND CHICORY.

MR. GREGSON said, he begged to move for a return, up to the present time, of the number of seizures or prosecutions made or authorised by the Commissioners of Excise, for the adulteration of tea, tobacco, pepper, and coffee; distinguishing the seizures or prosecutions for adulteration of coffee under the Treasury order of the 3rd day of August, 1852; and, any seizures or prosecutions under the Treasury order of the 25th day of February, 1853, for sales of mixtures of chicory and coffee without the required labels, in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No.647, of Session 1851; and to call the attention of the House to the subject of the last-mentioned

MR. HUME said, he would not oppose the Motion, as all returns of this kind could only tend to perfect freedom in all commercial transactions. He regretted, however, to see that the hon. Gentleman, who was himself a merchant of the City of London, should come forward and endeavour to put any shackles upon commerce. He thought the Order in Council, of the 25th of February last, was a wise order. If a tradesman committed a fraud, the law of the land was able to punish him; and, if people wanted to use pure coffee, they could buy a mill and grind it themselves. Every attempt of that kind was in contravention of the great principles which should govern the proceedings of this country.

MR. J. WILSON said, he did not rise to oppose, but would suggest a modification of, the terms of the Motion, in order to render it more effectual for its purpose. When the question was under the consideration of the Government, it bestowed every care for the interests of trade; and had arrived at the conclusion that it felt it necessary to carry out the regulations it had laid down, and insist upon the law being no longer a dead letter, as had been the case. It was suspected that the Government did not intend to prosecute, but he had a paper which would show the contrary. It was now two months since the Treasury order came into operation, and in that time there had been 1,864 inspections of dealers' stocks, and no fewer than ninety-four convictions, besides 135 punishments of a minor character; and, only yesterday, no less than thirty-three convictions were obtained against dealers for mixing up the words chicory and coffee with other matter upon the covers of their packages. He thought he had said enough to show that the Government were in earnest; and

MR. GREGSON, in reply, said, that all he asked was, that coffee might be sold as coffee, and chicory as chicory, and he hoped to induce the Government to adopt the very proper arrangement of the late Government upon this matter.

Return ordered.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION. MR. W. O. STANLEY said, he rose to move an Address to Her Majesty for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into corrupt practices which took place at the late election for the Borough of Barnstaple. It had been proved before the Committee that there were eight cases of bribery at the last election, and that the Gentlemen who were returned were directly implicated in those corrupt practices. One of the unseated Members was for a long series of years a solicitor in the borough, was a noted electioneering agent, and, together with his partner, had been mainly instrumental in returning representatives to Parliament. It had also been proved that a long course of treating took place at the last election, beginning as early as February, and that many of the electors were corrupted by such treating. The evidence likewise showed that a considerable number of the freemen banded together at the time of the election, and would not allow themselves to be brought to the poll until they had received satisfaction for their votes. According to the system proved at Barnstaple, "satisfaction" meant either remuneration for what was called loss of time, or pecuniary contributions for charitable considerations. By referring to the evidence taken in 1819, with regard to the borough of Barnstaple, it would be seen that the very same system of corruption was practised at that period; and he hoped, therefore, that no opposition would be offered to his Motion.

the issuing of the writ; and, in the second place, to induce the withdrawal of the pc

Resolved

The Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto."

Ordered

"That a Conference be desired with The Lords upon the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15th and 16th of Her Majesty, c. 57; and that Mr. Owen Stanley do go to The Lords, and desire the said Conference."

DURHAM ELECTION-PETITIONS.

petition was presented. For this petition Mr. Davidson was the sole security, and Mr. Coppock the sole agent. On the 20th of Durham, was presented to the House, of April a petition, signed by five electors complaining of the withdrawal of the petition of the 25th of November, and praying that it might be remitted to a Select Committee. Such were the circumstances which had induced him to bring forward this Motion. He therefore submitted that a breach of privilege had been committed in the matter of the petition of the 25th of November, and that an attempt had been made to infringe upon the rights of the electors of Durham.

-At the last general election, in July, 1852, Mr. Grainger, Mr. Atherton, and Lord Adolphus Vane, were candidates for the representation of Durham. The numbers at the close of the poll were:Grainger, 576; Atherton, 510; Vane, 506. The two former were accordingly declared duly elected. Mr. Grainger died on the 5th of August subsequent to the election. On the 23rd of November two of the electors in the interest of Lord Adolphus Vane presented a petition complaining of the return of Mr. Atherton. At a late hour of the 25th of the same month, the last day for presenting election petitions, a petition, signed by two electors of Durham residing in London, and who voted for Messrs. Grainger and Atherton, was presented to the House complaining of the return of Mr. Grainger, who had died in the present August, and craving the seat for Lord Adolphus Vane. For this petition Mr. Davidson, who also voted for Messrs. Grainger and Atherton, was the sole security, and Mr. Coppock the sole agent. On the following day, the 26th, Mr. Coppock withdrew this petition, and the writ for a new election in the room of Mr. Grainger was issued. It might fairly be assumed that the petition was brought forward by Mr. Coppock, as the agent of

Motion made, and Question proposed

"That a Select Committee be appointed to in

and that the Petition of certain Electors of the City of Durham, presented to this House on the 20th day of April, be referred to the said Committee."

The

MR. M. CHAMBERS said, he must oppose the Motion, on the ground that it would be a greater breach of privilege than that which it professed to correct. hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), while stating that the petition against the return of Mr. Grainger was withdrawn on the 26th of November, forgot to add that the petition against the return of Mr. Atherton was withdrawn on the same day by Mr. Brown, the agent for the other party. Nothing was done between the 26th of November and the election on the 2nd of December, when Lord Adolphus Vane was returned; but immediately thereafter a petition was presented against the return of the sitting Member, and it was not until that petition had gone so far as to be on the eve of having a Select Committee appointed to try it that anything was heard of the present Motion. He believed that the Motion had been brought forward for the purpose of inducing the parties to compromise the petition that had been presented against the return of the sitting Member. It could have no other object, for they could not now go back upon the

a petition had been presented against the return of Mr. Atherton on the 23rd of November, and a petition against Lord Adolphus Vane on the 26th, for the purpose of pairing them off. If any complaint was made, it ought to be against the withdrawal of the petitions. There was, however, something a little suspicious in the time of bringing forward this Motion, because if it was bona fide, as the matters to which it related happened in December, it ought to have been brought forward before this; and be thought it might be considered that the election petition which was now pending had operated to cause its being brought forward now. One or other of two courses ought to be pursued-either the question should be postponed until after that election petition was disposed of, or this case should be allowed to fall into the general inquiry into the question of the withdrawal of election petitions, a notice of Motion for inquiry into which now stood on the books, in the name of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) for the last day of this month. There was nothing in this petition to take it out of the whole inquiry, and he hoped the House would adopt that course. The House ought to go into the whole question of the abuse of the right to petition against the return of Members, which had, during the present Session, been shown to have led to gross and disereditable jobbing.

MR. WALPOLE said, that the last observation of the right hon. Baronet was well worthy of consideration, for there could be but one opinion on both sides of the House with regard to the abuse which existed of the right to petition, and its having been made the means of discreditable compromises. He regretted that the hon. Member for East Surrey had not persevered in his Motion for inquiring into all the petitions and counter-petitions which had been presented. [An Hon. Member: It stands.] He was aware of that, but it stood on the paper night after night. He was not sure that that was advisable, for the presentation of petitions might go on until the end of the Session.

the paper that evening for returns which would form the groundwork of his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry; but it would be useless to bring forward the Motion for the appointment of that Committee, until after the withdrawal of all the petitions.

MR. WALPOLE said, he had quite understood the right hon. Baronet. He did not object to the withdrawal of the present Motion until after the Election Committee had tried the petition against the return for Durham; but he meant to say that the hon. Member for East Surrey ought to have brought forward his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry on an earlier day. It was clear from what had occurred tonight that there would be no opposition to such a Committee of Inquriy, and he would suggest to the hon. Member for East Surrey to move at once for the Committee, so that they might inquire without delay into the withdrawal of all petitions, and the compromises which had been made. He would press on his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that the whole matter should be inquired into.

MR. LOCKE KING said, that the reason he had not brought forward his Motion was, that he was told that there were so many Committees sitting, that it would be impossible to do so with effect, and that it would be opposed; but if the House was prepared to agree to it, he would move it now if he could do so.

MR. SPEAKER said, that as notice of the Motion was given for a particulat day, it could not be made before that day.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE said, that the appointment of the whole of the Election Committees would be finished by the last day of this month, for, unless any other petitions were presented, at this moment there were only eight to be provided for.