tained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of
former elections, that such of the duke's tenants as should vote against
his grace's nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many
of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they
had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the
same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of
the crown, or the private property of his grace." The petition further
stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been
given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by
stating that he had a right "to do what he would with his own." In
moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr.
Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made
of crown property affected the constitutional character of the
representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job,
which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of
Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land
surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of
only L36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its
expiration, at a rent of L2,060; but it was still too low, as the
estimated value was L3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy
of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes
to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave
a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his
power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had
been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to
interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural
influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house
whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather
resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of
a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the
objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was
a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might
guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They
could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed;
and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the
petition be referred to a select committe