The Sun. — London, England, 1802-12-14 00:00:00

Ht If ol bl t , ,z, ,x• at /IC tii Elegy" I'S Nrol1(1 then' trelertis,witliont a .remedy. Th ', F- .l etere would be discontented, - and , would s l Y ,' that , i'Crillerti4is - haci beettcreclarettil‘be`their 'eresentatiVe, heca'use Miley were . not allowed', to' be as heard,' 'lt svas'ustial in all cases for theEleaors, a . ivell - a i - - the''P et iti O n ef , to - present ' ii:'-Petition pirist the-Sitting Memberi-toluord4gainit acci.- "L e nts'of that hind, 'and why should-net theEleao'es :ndtheinterest of the - Sitting Member have the same a ,!ant;Cge ? This Petition could never be - brought to h eard Ire '"'i - ng's •-uti!es'S . the case of the Petitioners- was s and- it did not appear to him veiy probable that the EleftorS:would prefer a Petition merely for e hF sake of creating inconvenience, particularly' b i l'ith the risk of paying-costs.: , The Legislature, f ." the Aft whi c h t h ey passe d upon t hi s su bjea, did tors inconv en i ence t h at m i g h t result-to the Elec. (31 'S if the Sitting - Member who was petitioned a rtist w as M ade ' a Peer, • if he died,- if he took a P l ace that ,incapacitated hi m from sitting in Partia l. "t, or if h e c h ange d hi s m i n d, an d w ould n ot de end his own Seat. In any of these cases it was Ijbvided, that a notice should be given to the Elec. t w s; and they Were to-be allowed 30 days notice; , c)6l "hle them. tó defend their own interests.' But t u i PPosing that a collusiOn was to take place between w ie - it ling Member and the Petitioner, the Eleaors t h °l4 d'he left' without rediess if such a-Petition as e . e Present could not be received. . These were the :rounds upon which he thought the present Petition g te ut t it to be received. , Great inconvenience would •s e ult if such ;Petition were not received, and °Pesti on was • whether it would not be bet ter - to ' th e -- p -k: rid of the inconvenience by receiving n e , • A et ition, instead of having recourse to -a r ,• . 41 , 0 or Parliament upon the subjea. With e e &4 " to the Aa of Parliament, which would ' .i . " e au i ced upon in the present instance, 'he thought t 4 ght to. be - construed rather by its spirit than a .!eordin g to its stria letter. The Glenville Aa. 1 : 14 no more than embody into one: ACt the law aoci V,ages which before existed upOn the subjea of *- •'"dions. Before 'the Grenville Aa, he was of . ° P i nion, that such a petition would have beetle re- ` ~, eivecl, a n d would have been teferred to what was l 'ten called the Elation Committee, who' were eln •.. 'Powe re d 'Co i n quire into all matters touching the 4 '- 3 eClion..of ' Members. Now there 'could be no tinitht- that the present 'Petition was touching the ' l ' , .t-kis3 , rn I•elMembers of Parli a me n t, ' But it would i)e-rha, Re bh contended, that Mr. Grenville's Aft-uot " 111 )' altered the ' mode. of tryi ng t h e v alidity of 4"----leftions, but also altered the law upon the subjea; but he should very much like to hear the arguments that could be urged in support of such a proposition. Ther e was a case on the Journals, long before the • 'renville - Act, in which the Eleaors petitioned against the'pretensionspf the Petitioner,' which was 'received without the smallest objettion, and at that • ' lime Mr,' OtisnOw was Speaker of the House of Commons. `He then-referred to the case of We3r minster in 1713, and' . also - to the case of Bedford shire, Which lie contended were in some degree in .point upon the present occasion.—The case to which he alluded was that of Lyme, in 5727, Feb. 7th. ' . • 17Pe • MASTER of the ROLLS said, it was unne •cessary for the Hon. Member to have set out with guarding himself against the •misapprehension of his motives there tuuiupon this - queStion, because he was sure ' - le no wish hi the HOuse but that of ''.."44, Principles, id igthe q uest i on upon legal arid constitutional In his view of this question, he did 1 . 16 t think it was possible that'any case could exist, r which i t would be c(inivetent to' the House to near anti decide upon the merits of this' Petition. 'He apprehended that all that was Contended for on .the :oth er s id e - was, that this Pe titiore sh ou ld •'"'e, taken into consideration at the sanie time with f or other Petition complaining of an undue Eleftion - "or Middlesex, and that it should be referred -to' the 'select Committee appointed to 'try the legality of t hat Election. If the House had no authority what_ tves toirefer such a Petition as the present to such ' a Committee, he apprehended that whether it was Ordered to lie on the -Table or not, no' proceeding c ould be had upon it. •The Jurisdiaion .now vested j: 1 Committees was by no means the same sort;of Jutisdiaion that the House possessed before the Pa'sing of the Grenville Aa. } Before that 'Aa the 'hole power was vested -in the House - ; it could illakesuch rotes and orders as appeared necessary to ohtain'the justice of the case,' but the' power of the C ommittees was created and strialy limited by the Provisions of an Aa -of Parliament. When any Jurtsdiaion was created, the Statute by which it was created, described and limited its powers : no negative worth were necessary to prevent it from extending its power, because every thing-was ex eluded that was not included. Every , thing was W ithheld th at was not g i ven . What then was t he power given to these Committees, under the ft ; ft in question ? To hear and determine , upon „, r etitions described i n that Aft, a n d no others. 'ill° then- was•authorized 'to say that the Committee Ought T t o h ave th e P et i t i o n re f erre d to it 1 . The 410 se' had been applied to to interpoSe its autho. r, but th e H o u se h a d no more right t o e xte n d ti tan it h a d to • rest r a i n ' t h e prov i s i ons o f an Aa o f P arliament; Nothing but an 'Aa of Parliament could alter the provi s ion s. of an A& o f P ar li a me n t. , 1 : 11 e House of Commons had neitherpower nor dis cretion upon the su bj e a. 'Th e -V er y object for which t . n ese.Commit tees were in st i tute d Was, to take away t hat discretionary power, from the' House. What tee''e the nature of the Petititins which were assign -7 to the Seidl committees ? They were first only .. 1 ", v() ; undue Elections, and undue Returns. Then that Case of Westminster occurred, which chewed anti there was a defea in the law upon the subjea, , I gave an opportunity of examining into it. In th at - case there was in fart no Return but a special '''‘ : ltiftn- ; one of the Candidates presented a Peti t 1 1 ; 0 i ) ,, , saying that he ought to be returned. It cer u, ''Y was not desirable that the House should take fell i n itself to determine who ought to be returned, f elt t herefore a great degree of ' inconvenience was the ; 1, but the,letter of the law was so precise that ,s elet '"use could rot refer it to the consideration of a 1 • Committee, and it was resolved that the Pe itino did - th e s e _ not come within meaning `of any ,or Lottutes. re . y this inconvenience, and that Aa now eon -I:ti•nued a Legislative recognition . ' of the sense which t a a r t i i ainetit stated ' that put upon the Grenville Aa; for' it i - t he Douse bad no authority to refer such a Pptitiotv to SAatatitiiittie. Tt might be said, that this was a _literal coristatOion of the cercainly, was, but he ,thought that the House did right 'to adhere to the' letter of an MI / when • its .own po'wer was conceined: . If they did not, the : House -would, tinder the plea of doing justice : in every case, i get on from construc tion 'to construction, until the whole of ihe AEt of Parliament was Construed away; - and 2they'liid.:.re sumed..all their - fortner.authority upon these subjeas. In the case of Bedford,. in the. same year, there.was a Petition from the Elefiors, stating the defence of the Sitting MeMber ; hut that Petition' ivas with drawn. Thus ihe.a.rgutnent.would ;have stood pre- vious to the year 178 g ;., ,ir t , ; tliat . ,yearigarliament took, into. its consideration the yery a lef i e§tpf which the Hon. Gentleman now - Cornitit,94 ? ,.-"iia. that a Sitting Member might be'so circumstanced, .that he would not defend his Own rights ;.they.considered. in what cases it. was right to admit theEledors, to in terfere, and to be.heard as partieS' against the Pe titioner. The Legislature rsedueed thesg Ciaes . to form / deaih - of a Sitting ;Member,. his:pro motion to the Peerage, a deter,u4inaLion of .the Liot}se against his eligibility, or his dedininr 4 ; to defend own rights, and ib these cases, the Eleacit:iwere allowed to come for Ward if they pleased. If: there was apy doubt upon the subjed before, there,tcould be none after this Ad. It had been contended,. t1 . 24t, before that Statute, it was competent fott all Erec tors to petition ; but that Law suppokd that th'ere was no such in existence, for •it did .not,pretend - to restrict, but to enlarge-the power of the EleCtors. The House then must do one of two things, - it must either say that the cases, specifiCally pointed out by ,the Ad of Parliament, were notthe only cases in which these .Petitions might be presented, or they must adhere to the, provisions of a positive and distina law. It had been said, ;that there was no Trovision in favour of the Eledors after the Petition: was referred to a Committee, hut therethe answer was obvious, .because the :whole ,case was left to the Committee to decide upon. "He eonfeSsed, that if he was upon a •CoMmitiee he should feel no diffi culty in such a case. Tithe Sitting-Member would not oppose the Petitioner,. lie would not return the latter, but he would report that the EleCtiOn was void as to the Sitting Me►nrier'who. did not defend his own seat ; and this .doctrine was e laid,down , and acted upon in the.case.of the colc,l i i i everbiaedion, It was,not necessary to- comidcr :wleit'was,,the prac tice of the House under its ancient :jt'iriAiCtion, be cause it had no connedion :with what -Ought to he •done now; :when the: powers of the•-.Hoose and of committees were limited by. a positive_lAw. _ But when that authority was resorted to, it - Was a strong argument that even in those times no such Petitit;n had ever been received. The Hon. Gentleman had.refer red-to the .case of Lyme, which was extremely differ. ent from the present, because there .the I .4 etition was. presented after the Sitting Member had been declared not capable of sitting but even. if That case were in point, it could not govern the present one, because of the ad to which he had so fre quently alluded. He was, upon these grounds, of opinion, that this Petition could not be received, and he felt less difficulty in saying so, because the receiving the .present Petition e would not answer any of the ends of justice. The Question was put, and carried in the Affir. inalive, • " - That the said *Petition -. Lines not come within the descriptidn of any Petition, the proceed. ings on.which are regulated by the said Ad." The Petition Was therefOre withdrawn. The SPEAKER observed to the House, there were two other Petitions presented on the same 4 4 y, under . the seine circumstances : he suggested -to the House the propriety of disposing of them in like manner s Mr. TIERNEY made some further observations on this subject, and alluded_ to some .hardships to Which thiS'might expoSe the Petitioning Candidate . , Mr. MAINWARING ; for in . ()tie event it 'might happen, that after the whole of the case on the question of right to sit; in - the , present. Sitting Memher, had been disposed of, Mr. IVI4tNWARING Mighrhave the Whole case to go through again on his own account. - In the cases put by the MASTER Of .the RoLes, there was,. no- Petition frometheope posing Party. The MASTER . of the ROLLS explained - what h e had said' in psis former Speech: He oliseived in- the case .of Colchester, that. the 'Sitting Member: come plained it was hard foi him tso be at the trouble and expence which that course was attended with, when there.was no tine to contest :with' him : it was hard forhiin to be compelled its that case to go through the whole of it. .But that was _the ; course which was taken by the House, because it was the course which was pointed out by the Legislature. Mr. ST. jOHN-prafessed,thimself to have been much in doubt upon the Question, ,uritil he heard the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, whd had certainly, by his very able Speech, removed all doubt whatever as to the mantieein Which Petition's of this sort should he disposed ofe He - Was, now convinced that they did, nut come within the de.- scriptioo of a Petition, the proceedings on which were regulated by tlid Ads of Parliament which governed these Cases, and :thAt therefore: such Peti tions ought to be withdrawn ; but still he could not help saying, that there were many hardships felt in the proceedings upon Petitions . on Contested Eleftions, as a proof of which he Went over the cir cumstances of his uwn case on the subjeq of the Bed ford Petition, whereas by a contrary course, all, pr the greater part of which, might have been saved, and that.was a very 'material objed.' Lord GLENBE IE, observed, there was not any necessity for saying much on-,the subject now before-the House, after what had been already said by his Right ,Hon. Friend ; indeed the matter had been pretty well exhausted by him' ,there were, however,.someof the observations 4the Hon. Ge ntleman over against him (Mr. 'TIERNEY) which ought to be noticed, particularly that :which -went to shew thatcases may occur which are-not providc'd for by the existing Laws,. -and therefore it would be proper for the House to consider, whether it would not be necessary to make another Law. That might. either be well or ill-founded, but it was Unnecessary to-discuss it, because there was nothing of that sort in the Petition before the -House. The House would recoiled, that although-the decision of a Seled Com mittee, 'on a particular ease, was conclusive on the question, which.of.the 'two patties Was.elirly deaed, or that it might be a toid.Eleaion ; yet that could not bind a subsequent Committee; the decision was conclusive oily upon the parties litigating ; but a subsequent Committee, Although they would of course pay a respeff to the decishin, Were Aot bound to follow- it. For his part, it -did appear to him that when a case like this came before a Committee, they were bouud to try the Merits of the whole 'case ; that Was 'to say, the Merits of the whole whieh was not only a question , whether the sitting MeMber was duly tleaed, but alsO whe. therThe Petitioning Candidate' was duly elected:-- This they were. sworn to.do, as he. understood. the Oath taken by a Comm'tttie at the Table. of that * -House. If that be'iliVlf it followed as ofcourst, that not only shoullWtoinmittee on the Middle sex Eleaion'try 'whether Sir F. BURnETT was duly eleaed i ; bill- also, whether Mr. MAINWAR IN.G was " 014 d d ea: 'so_that, according to his views.oT the Matter, the Committee - w“1 . ..1,1- be . called upon to exercise 'that very pOwer which they' were called upon to exercise brthis Petition, and therefore in that sense, supposing no other-ohjeaion to be appli 'cable to it, which there . certainly *was, the coo struaion he put ,on the AA of-Parliament was, that the.ommittee should decide upon the claims of both the Sitting Member and the:Petitioning Candidate. lie could not see how the Committee could say,,that the Sitting Member was,, not duly elected, and that the . Petitioning Candidate was duly de:led, without examining the case of the Petitioning Candidate, as weji. as that of the Si tting,Member ; for it _did- not follow that,; because . the .Sitiing Member had no right to sit, that the person petitioning against him had a right.. The Comatittee . cOuld not, therefore, • do its duty .without examining both points, namely, whether the:Sitting. Met - 14)cl' be duly eleaed ; and• ilnoti then whether thc, Petitioning Candidate was duly, eleaed • He thought the coned way was, to make the Petitioner go through his casein his, at tack on the Sitting Megtinr,, and, then, if it should appear. that the Sitting Metpbes _had, no right, to call-. on the, Petitioner to prove, his. right ; but .if the Committee should exonerate themselves, by taking ,only one part. of this case, it. was. not right, nor' would that satisfy the AEI, the mate. vial words of which_ were, with regard .to the Oath of the cominittee„Oollows :---" To try the mat, ters of the Pet iti0,4,0 ! , .3 inquire whether the Peri ,tioner, was duly. €1,410, and that it shall be a Selea Committee to,try _and detcrimine the merits and the • return of the said Election." By, this, he said, the Committee was hound by oath to try, as well .whe ther the Petitioner was' duly elected, as whether the Sitting, Member was duly ,eleCted. ,He would ,in deed ask how a Committee.could say that an Eke tion.was avoid Eteaion, without examining ,whe t ther the Petitioner ought to have been returned or not, ? , Mr. TIERNEY Observed, that Committees had always.powers to send for persons, papers, and re_ cord:, but they did not always exally know what papers they ought to send fbr. The Question On these Petitions was then put, and disposed in like manner.as the former Petition, after a few wurds froin.Mr. POLE CAR. EW• NAVY 'REGULATIONS.• Cap tain"MAPRIIAAI roSe, in pursuance of his.. notice, to call the attention of thellouse,to• the sub jeet of an Inquiry into the Abuses of the Navy, • Which the House, he observed,' would readily agree with hini in coriidering an _important one. • He could.have wished this business to .have fallen into more able hands to bring itiforwatd, but he • crusted he should have the indalgence Of the House, while at no:greatlength he laid the Outline of this,Matter before it. He begged the House to be assured, that nothing was mire remote :from his views, and 1. the views of those with whom lie had the honour of acing, than that of conveying,:in - the most distant degree, any thing like 'blame 'on the late Admini stration, for not having done that which was now about to be commenced. On the contrary, • both himself and his "Colleagues had the' highest for every branch of the late Administration; he had a very partieular regard for the Noble Earl who lately presided at the Ilyartinent to which he had now the honour of lilbriging. The truth of.the matter was, that the lale Administration had not had it in its potyer io set this . matter on-foot, owing to the very great exigencies of the late War. It was necessary that he should now shortly advert to what pasSed in the 35th year of 'His present' Ma jesty's Reign. A Committee of Inquiry was then iastituted, under the authority of Parliament . , into the Fees, Perquisites, Etnoluments, &c. of Public Offices, and calling for a Report, &c. as well as on . the future management of 'Axil Offices, &c., This examination took place, ,and a number of va!uable Reports were made ; but this could not be follow ed- up at the time, because we were engaged in War. The measure which he should have the nour of proposing, was of The same .kind as that which"had been ilready recommendedit went en . tirely upon the same principle. Ir was solely to the NaVal.Department of Administration, and was intended to embrace all the existing Abuses in the Navy, as.far as they 'could be found out, front the top to the bottom of it. He then desired that a part of the 31st Report of the Committe appointed to inquire into the Fee's, Emoluments, Perquisites, B:c.' of Offices, be read ; which being done, he pro ceeded to observe, that the Report at once she i f :l;J the necessity of what,he was now proposing tkobe" done, and. the excuse of the late Aa r oinistration for •‘not having done it ; that was to say, it stated the necessity of instituting a further inquiry into this, subjed, but stated also that it coui t i nor be done until Peactishould be obtained. .Havinz waid this with re ,speCt to the iritention . of bringing this measure for ward ; he wished to bewcierstood as not recommend ing a novel proceeding; bar a thiq that was known, and, perfettly pra6iicable. The re: t wrally the.Mmi ralty'brought it fOrward in this shape was, that they could not go over the matter with sufficient particu larity and minuteness themselves. It was a matter that would require a great deal of care and labour, and a great deal Of zeal ; nor was the Admiralty Board at present poSsesSed of powers sufficient to make' the proper inquiry into this business, so as to form a . eomprehensive plan for the removal of the evils complained of, of the existence of many of Which'they had too ma' proofs before them. Ano- then reason Was;• why the tom' of MitirAlty not take the matter up themselves, and inquire into these abuses,- they had not -the means of rendering the inqui,y ,effrau4l," Tor they . had not, power to examine any body upon oath. Neither. could .they • cAll fur thenecessary papers to convey proper inior_ [nation on ni,my of these points. The evils he al— luded to had. been complained of in the year 1795 ; no .opportunity ,had .occurred till . now of ,p.utring them in a train of beini.remedied ; that was the. Objed he had now in view,, and therefore. he. moved, " That leave be given to bring in a Bill for _ap pointing Commissioners to examine into, the Frauds, Abuses,.atql Irregularities, which have becn, or may be, prafticci by Persons in the several aTartna , -ms of the,Navy, .and in the business of Prize-Agents, and to report the same, together with such observa tions as may occur to thetri, in order to' prevent such, Frauds„ Aliases,' and, Irregularities in future, fur the better condu6fing and management of such Departments of the Navy, and the business of N.rs.,v Agents, &c." The Question being put t , LordTEMP LE. ir:::rved, that these abases might. exist . ; at. the - sane time it was to be observed, that when any extraordinary power was to be given to, any &tidy of men, some ground should be laid as a reason for it. Much had been said ,on peculation and pliroder. did not say there was not a great deal of peculation and plunder, but the House !mist have an higher•authority than the assertion of an Hon. MemberArespedable as that might be), in or. der to ad. He apprehended that the' Navy . Board had the power whiCh the Hon. Gentleman wanted to be granted to a Committee. At all events; he wishedthe Hon. Gentleman to-state the causes why. such apOsiier as,this was Wanted. He : wished. to know -whether this was founded on the RepOrt of the year reB - e ? , LordiIAO'KES.OURY observed, that the Noble Lord had appeared to him to have misunderstood the nature of the opening of his Hon. Friend.— This Motion was :not .to giVe any. new power to the hoard of Admiralty, but to establish numi bet of CommiSsioners with power to inquire into Abuses in the Navy. The grounds for this were two—The first . , that the time of the Admiralty Board was taken up in the ordinary business of that DePartment, so that it was impossible dens to devote their time to services of this nature; nor coold- they look,at this business---Secondly, it Wey had time, they were defi,ciest in power, fon- thlt they could not administer an oath, so that if they set the inquiry on foot they could not render it el_ felual, and therefore it was that the proposal was made for the appointment of a Committee ;f loquiry, with full power to examine into the matter ; and to. deliver their opinion on every part of it. The House of commons was admired fur having a jealous eye on every Abuse in Office, and, indeed, that was a great advantage to the Public; 'btu he appre hended the House would not wish to follow the Noble Lord in the lesson he proposed to give to Ministers, namely, that • when they proposed a CoMmittee of _lnquiry_ into Abuses, the House should _tell them, they had laid no ground for such an Inquiry, and refuse to allow such an Inquiry to be instituted. This Motion had for ... its objea to create a Committee to inquire into Abuses, for whiels- there was at present no adequate pow,er in the Adiniralty.k Adoi;ral BERKELEY concurred most heartily in the present measure ; he had no doubt but one upon the' whole of the case, which was upon the power of the Admiralty to send for Papers, and to administer an oath ; he inclined to think the 'Admiralty had such- poWer already. Mr. DICKENSON, jun. said, that in conse quence of the rumours which had gone abroad re_ sneeting favour and partiality, he was happy to find, that the Board of Admiralty had recourse to this measure. He. praised the Economy adopted by the present Administration, .to which the Country could not forget its obligation for being relieved froth" a most vexatious and oppiessive Tax upon Incotne. - Captaiy YORK. E, (of, the Navy), declared his ap prehensions to be ? (hat this - Bill would not go far enrhigh. The AdMiralty had 66 power over Pi.rze, Agency Business, and in this respea, much was nd- Cessal y to be done ; nor was that. necessity dimi nished, by .thespodatOus and seditiOus, disturbances which lately took place in the Dock-yards. . The CIIANC'ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed; that the favourable eZpressiOns - which the Hon. Member who 'spoke last .but- one, used- in respea . ttr , ; he existing .Administration were much qualified by remarks of a very diffeteot kind.— This was the Lit time that he' ewer "heard Of a charge ,of •partiality -against the -elevated charac ter 'who presided A te the Board of Admiralty. Sup, posing it to allude to the appointment of Sir J. B. WARREN to a FOreign Station, for . which he pos seised peculiar qualifications, a more discerning mind, amore undaunted : intrepidity, more expert- Mental knowledge . , more - personal integrity, and is more ardent zeal for the public service, was not to be found in any man. , The Board of 'Admiralty hal only on such an occasion to , consider -of the qualities of the person to be employed, ,and in this instance there were but few who would quarrel with the exercise of their judgment: He admitted that the Noy Board, thOugh not' the Admiralty, had power to administer Oaths, .but they could not comirei_ e ct . the attendance of persons, papers, and recore:: e This deficiency remained 'to be supplied, and in so important and extensive a department- it would, in' his opinion, be better that matters of re gulation shouldte arranged by a ParliaMentary Com mission than by any Board whatever. In adverting to the want of subordination which manifested itself in some of the Dock Yards, it h.h beer repressed, he said, by the energy and spirit of ree 'Vtrst L'utd of the Admiralty, but certainly -would, require the most seriou. investigation. 8;r A. .11 g4: - .)ND declared himself -6 . be of tbe same ()Pinion, and pronounced a short eUlo: , eitnia oti the Navy Board, than which no other deve.ted half so much time to the Public Service. There could be no impeachment of its intelligence, fidelity, and zeal, in remedying all which came to its. knowledge, :hid were, within -its juriseiaion.. that was reqUired in this case, was a Comm6sion composed of liberal and enlightened men, and ttits he 11 I