e. This motion was supported
by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their
indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject.
He remarked:--"Suppose the king's government should send to his grace
the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired
he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such
an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and
understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took
place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon
some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be
denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of
the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and
maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a
case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance:
there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace's
candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides,
and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the
part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government
depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving
a vote against them?" It was stated on the other hand, that many of
the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The
crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of
the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a
considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had
only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the
neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging
to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere
election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded
misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his
patron's character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the
inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation
of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble
duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct.
Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the
mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no
valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a
man as a