Among the Parliamentary Papers delivered this morning, is the Report

of the Select Committee on Election Proceedings. It sustains the calm and dispassionate tone promised by Mr. Roebuck ; developing the several cases, not as criminating individuals, but as illustrating a system to be altered. The compromises of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn and Falmouth, and Reading, are explained, in a manner of which the subjoined extract—the case of Nottingham—is the most curious specimen ; at the same time that it is a key to some recent eloquence of the press with a view to that particular election. " Your Committee also found that, in the case of Nottingham, at the last general election, the Right Honourable Sir John Cam Hobliouse and Sir George Larpent were returned as duly-elected Members for that town, Mr. John Walter and Mr. Charlton being the opposing candidates.

"That in consequence of the retirement of Mr. Walter and Mr. Charlton early on the day of the poll, a few only of the electors gave their votes. The state of the poll was as follows—

Su. John Cam Hobhouse 527 Sir George Larpent 529 Mr. Walter 144 Mr. Charlton 142 "That two petitions were presented against the return of Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Sir George Larpent, by electors, on behalf of Mr. Walter. These two petitions, among other things, charged, in various forms, that bribery, corruption, treating, abduction of voters, riot, &c., had been practised

at the election by the sitting Members and their agents. A third petition of electors was also presented; but this petition seems to have been presented by persons in the interest of the sitting Members ; and apparently the object in view was to give, if .possible, to the sitting Members an opportunity of making a counter-case against the petitioners. The two first-mentioned petitions prayed only that the election should be declared void: It was apprehended that on the trial of such petitions no defence by way of retaliation would have been allowed ; the third petition, therefore, seems to have been presented in order to let in such evidence.

" That after the appointment of a Committee to try the case of the said elec- tion, but before the trial thereof, a compromise was entered into between the agents of Sir John Cam Hobhouse and Sir George Larpent on the one part, and an agent, who signed as agent of the petitioners against the return, and of Mr. Walter, the defeated candidate, on the other. The terms of this arrange- ment are set forth in a written agreement, as follows- .. (Memorandum.—London, 9th May 1842.)

" NOTTINGHAM ELECTION PETITIONS.

" It is expedient to settle the petitions now pending; and it is agreed that, 1. All the petitions shall be abandoned.

" 2. Within four days from this day one seat shall be vacated.

•• 3. The sum of 1,0001. to he paid to Messrs. Clarke, Fyumore, and Fladgiste„ within seven days from this date, in consideration of the expenses incurred in the petition. '' 4. 11 is understood that Mr. Walter is to be returned at Me election resulting from Me abovementioned vacancy; for security whereof, it is agreed that Lord Rancliffe, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. John Heard, Mr. Enfield. Mr. Biddle, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Birkiu, Mr. Wells, Mr. Hart, Mr. Alfred Fellowes, Mr. Henry Leaver, Mr. Bean, Mr. Jonathan Burton, Mr. George Bacon, and Mr. Ardtou, shall not directly or indirectly oppose Mr. Walter at such election, and that in addition, Mr. Wakefield shall discourage all oppo- sition on the part of the persons named in the list copied on the other side of this paper. " 5. That a promissory-note for 4,0001.. signed by Sir John Cam Hobhouse or Sir George G. De H. Larpent. at one month from this date, shall be this day deposited with Messrs. Cocks, Biddulph, and Co., bankers, London ; and that James Bacon, Esq., and Sutton Sharpe, Esq., shall decide whether the above conditions have been honourably fulfilled; and if such referees (or, in case of their disagreement, an umpire appointed by them) shall decide that such conditions have not been honourably ful- filled, then the promissory-note in question shall be handed to Mr. Walter, or returned to Sir John Cam Hobhouse or Sir George G. De H. Larpeut if such conditions have

been honourably fulfilled. " Dirsox, HALL, and PARKES, Agents to Sir J. C. Hobhouse and Sir George G. Be H. Larpeut. " W. M. FLauoarx, for the petitioners and Mr. Walter."

[On the other side of the paper]

" Mr. Carver, Mr. J. Rogers. Dr. Pigot. Mr. Oldknow, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. G. Gill, Mr. Roberts senior, Mr. Roberts junior. Mr. R. Sands. Mr. H. 1Frearsou.

DYsON, HALL, and PARKES. W. M. FLADO1.72."

[And the promissory-note as follows]

"4.0001. •' London. 4th May 1842.

" One month after date I promise to pay to my own order the sum of 4.0001., for value received. " Joan C. H. At Messrs. Jones. Lloyd. and Co., bankers. London.

"Messrs. Cocks, Biddulph, and Co., bankers, London."

"The annexed promissory-note for 4.0001., given by the Right Honourable Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Baronet, is to be delivered up to James Bacon, Esq., and Sutton Sharpe, Esq., on demand made by them to you.

4th May 1842. •• Dyson, HALL, and P." "43 Craven Street, Strand, 7th May 1842. •• Dear Sirs—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your check for 1,0001. for share of costs as arranged.

" Yours very faithfully, "W. M. Firocktvx, for partner and pelf. "Messrs. Dyson, Hall, and Parkes."

"The circumstances which induced the agents of the sitting Members to enter into this agreement are stated to have been—l. The fear that both sitting Members would be unseated for bribery and treating, committed by their agents. 2. And also the dread of the enormous expense that must ne- cessarify have been incurred, with small hopes of success. "That the number of electors was about 5,400.

"That the sum expended in the election on the part of Sir John Cain Hob- house and Sir George Larpent was 12,000/. Of this sum a very large part was expended in an illegal manner; some in direct bribery, some in treating, and other unlawful proceedings, without the personal cognisance of the candidates. See the whole evidence of Mr. Charles Parkes, Mr. Thomas Wakefield, as well as that of Mr. Fladgate. The expenditure on the part of the opposing candi- dates appears to have been about 4,00W. or 5,000/. The expense was thus comparatively small, because the poll was not taken; and it is stated that the bribery of the voters and other illegal practices in this interest were thus ren- dered unnecessary. It is clear that the system on the one side and the other was the same; - which system arose in some of the preceding elections, and was particularly developed at that of April 1841."

The evidence in the case of Bridport is not printed, as the witnesses

i

could not be prevented from giving t a strongly personal turn. The report on it affirms the main facts as the public already understand them ; the points in dispute between the several parties having related to the personal conduct of the disputants.

The general remarks which introduce the Report contain a passage pointing out some curious effects of the existing law ; the very last im- provements, strangely enough, having given an impulse to the newly discussed offence "corrupt compromise '—

" It appears, by the concurrent testimony of witnesses most experienced in election proceeechngs, that the two last Acts relating to the trial of election petitions—the one introduced by Sir Robert Peel, constituting an improved tribunal, the 4th and 5th of Victoria, c. 58, the other by Lord John Russell, 4th and 5th Victoria, c. 57, enabling Committees to inquire into the general charge of bribery without the preliminary proof of agency, together with the greater stringency of the decisions of these Committees in charges of bribery— directly led in many instances to compromises between parties prosecuting or defending their individual rights, by which charges of gross bribery and cor- ruption were entirely withdrawn from further investigation. These coin- promises becoming matter of general notoriety, were brought under the notice of the House by the Chairman of your Committee. "Your Committee desire to call the attention of the House to a part of the law of elections which appears unsettled, if not defective. Two parties at an election, both being equally guilty of bribery, but one successful on the poll and the other defeated, may experience a very different fate in consequence of the present state of the law. If the defeated candidate present a petition against the return of his successful opponent, and simply pray that the election may be adjudged to be a void election on the ground of bribery and corruption, but do not ask for the seat, he may unseat his opponent, and render him in- capable of being again returned ; but as he himself does not pray for the seat, it has in some instances been determined that a case of retaliation cannot be entered into as respects the petitioner by the sitting member. Thus the peti- tioner, though equally guilty, may again propoae himself, and be returned in consequence of the very bribery ,practised at the preceding election, and into which no inquiry was permitted."