nature of the question, but said that he had succeeded
in drawing up a bill to exempt publications similar to
the Household Narrative from the tax, without including
other publications of a different kind; and he had been
prevented from bringing in that bill by the demand of
Mr. Gibson that it should include other publications.
With regard to Mr. Hume's mode of simplifying the
matter, he thought it would not meet the approbation
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. COBDEN urged an immediate
settlement of the question.

On Tuesday, March 15, Sir J. PAKINGTON put a
question to the first lord of the Admiralty with regard
to the Circumstances under which the Australian
Steampacket had returned to Plymouth. Within the last few
months three steam-packets belonging to the Australian
Royal Mail Steam Packet Company sailed from this
country—the "Melbourne" in October, the "Adelaide"
in December, and lately the "Australian." The "Melbourne"
was dismasted and driven into Lisbon, and the
passengers were compelled to return, at a great loss.
The "Adelaide" having put to sea, was disabled within
a few hours; her rudder would not work, and she was
driven back to Plymouth under circumstances that
detained her for nearly a month. The other day the
"Australian," the third boat in succession of the same
company, left England, but came back under circumstances
which made it providential that the ship was not
lost, with all hands on board. He therefore wished to
ask the right hon. baronet what degree of control or
authority the government had over the Australian
Steam Packet Company by virtue of their contract to
convey the Australian mails, and whether it is the
intention of the government to take any step in
consequence of the extraordinary circumstances that have
occurred?—Sir J. GRAHAM said he was not at all
surprised that Sir J. Pakington should have drawn the
attention of the government to the circumstances he
had just mentioned; and he was sorry to say that the
service performed under the Australian Company's
contract was most unsatisfactory. The government had
power, under the contract, to exact a penalty for its
non-performance, and both the present and late board
of Admiralty had not hesitated where the equity of the
case justified the exaction, to do so. With regard to the
break-down of the "Australian," a committee, with the
Postmaster-General at the head, was sitting on the
subject.

The Reports of the Huddersfield and Cirencester
Election Committees were presented. The former
declared that Mr. Stansfield was not duly elected, on the
ground of bribery and treating by his agents; the latter
declared that the Hon. A. G. J. Ponsonby was duly
elected.

Mr. K. SEYMER, in moving an address for a
commission to inquire into the State of the Borough of
Canterbury, observed, that it had been the opinion of
every member of the election committee that further
inquiry was necessary. He described the perfect system of
tactics proved before the committee to have been adopted
at the last election, by means of colourmen's tickets,
which were employed as inducements for voting, and by
which a very large number of electors were bribed, and
he urged that measures should be taken to deprive
persons who had thus employed their franchise of a
privilege they had abused.—Mr. MALINS said it had
been proved before the committee that the issuing of
colourmen's tickets, though confined at the last election
to the red party, had been practised by both reds and
blues for the last fifty years, and that the recipients were
freemen of the lowest class; and he believed the only
remedy was the withholding the franchise from such
persons.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that a better
remedy would be an enlargement of the constituency.
His only hope was in a new reform bill, and he called
upon Sir J. Graham to prevail upon his noble colleague
to give a good one.—A discussion ensued as to the terms
of the resolution, with the view of adapting it to the
requirements of the act of last session, and the motion
was ultimately agreed to.

Mr. W. PATTEN moved the issue of a Writ for the
Borough of Blackburn. He had waited, he said, seven
days, to afford an opportunity to any member to bring
forward a case against the borough, and he made this
motion in accordance with the wishes of persons of both
parties in Blackburn.—Sir J. SHELLEY opposed the
motion, observing, that in every case where an election
committee had unseated a member for bribery, it was
next to a farce to issue a writ without further inquiry.
He moved by way of amendment that a select committee
be appointed to inquire into the bribery and treating
which took place at the last election.—Mr. DEEDES,
chairman of the Blackburn election committee, objected
that the appointment of a select committee would put in
juxtaposition evidence taken upon oath and not upon
oath. If election committees were not adequate to deal
with these investigations let the law be altered.—Lord J.
RUSSELL considered that it was an entirely new doctrine
to say that, because an election committee had made a
report, the house was precluded from further inquiry.
The question was what course the house should take in
these cases, where the bribery might be confined to a
few, or might be extensive. He was ready to submit to
the decision of the house, but he thought the course
proposed by the amendment was, upon the whole, the
best.—Mr. BOUVERIE was in favour of issuing the writ,
and suggested difficulties might arise from making it a
rule to suspend the writ and appoint select committees
of inquiry in all cases of this kind.—Mr. BURROW urged
constitutional reasons against the suspension of writs.—
Mr. S. WORTLEY observed, that the inquiry was a
different question from the suspension of the writ, which
ought not to be withheld but on the strongest grounds.
Sir J. Shelley had laid no special ground for the appointment
of a select committee.—After some remarks by
Mr. BASS upon the borough of Derby and upon boroughs
generally, Sir J. Shelley withdrew his amendment, and
the original motion was agreed to.

Colonel FORESTER moved the issue of a Writ for the
Borough of Bridgnorth.—Sir J. SHELLEY moved by way
of amendment, for a select committee to consider the
allegations contained in the petition of certain electors
of Bridgnorth complaining of corrupt practices at the
last and former elections. He remarked that this case
was in a very different position from the last; that a
regular system of coercion, treating, and intimidation
had existed in this borough, and that a petition had
been presented, into the allegations of which it was the
duty of the house to inquire.—Mr. BOUVERIE, chairman
of the Bridgnorth committee, said, after the decision in
the Blackburn case, the only question was whether
there were any special circumstances in this case. He
considered that no substantial ground had been laid for
the amendment, and he should support the original
motion.—The original motion was likewise supported
by Mr. FRENCH.—Mr. COBDEN mentioned facts from
which he inferred that the borough was subjected to
impure influence, and he supported the amendment.—
Sir J. GRAHAM said, if Sir J. Shelley had persevered
in his amendment in the last case, he should have voted,
along with Lord J. Russell, for a select committee; but,
as that motion had been withdrawn, and believing that
it was of the utmost importance that the house should
act with the strictest impartiality, he should support the
issue of the writ in this case, as an act of justice to the
borough of Bridgnorth.—Mr. HUME supported the
amendment.—Mr. DISRAELI defended the character of
the borough, which he contended had been unjustifiably
assailed by Mr. Cobden. After some further discussion
the house divided, and the original motion was carried
by 184 against 50.

On Wednesday, March 16, the house went into
committee on the County Rates Expenditure Bill, after an
effort on the part of Sir J. Pakington to obtain a
postponement of the discussion.—Lord PALMERSTON
expressed his opinion that postponement was not necessary.
The consideration of the bill occupied the committee
until nearly the close of the sitting.

The Southamption Election Committee reported that
the Attorney-General and Mr. Willcox were duly
elected for that borough, and that certain witnesses had
committed perjury; the sitting members were, however,
saddled with the costs. The Attorney-General was
subsequently ordered to prosecute these parties.

On Thursday, March 17, the Report of the Norwich
Committee was Presented. It is stated that the complaint