The Sun. — London, England, 1839-02-15 00:00:00

ticoa" , ligib l° singk at ro d — on , tic .5 01 (C/10 s aid sat a ; ' d , 11 P 51,, be boug cL ee• itutc tfi y a l , " . ", o t t' re d meg" he i ...•••••••''''i at* 0 ber for Tarnworth, whose abilities he highly revered, and w hose guid a n ce on ot h er quest i ons h e wa s bound t o foll ow ; ' 41 14 . "" he considered also that he was opposed to the Right -ut t• Member f o r Montgomeryshire, he felt ready to give way ; reverential silence. But it was a: - .:solut,ly necessary that Tole °Teat and effective remedial treasure should be intro uneed',and believing- th it public opinion pointed to the remedy n'ich shed to press upon the attention of the Mem bers of the Houic, he felt not only encouraged to persevere but cr inclinel to hope that the measure would receive the sanction oof the House. In bringing it forward, he would e ,n,desvour to avoid wh,,tevee might lead to party discussion. ," hatever opinions he entertained, and they were strong vvith'respect to the decisions of particular Committees, n should on the present o cca s ion, r e frain from discussing the m, end lie thought he should best discharge the d uty he bad undertaken, by urging his motion upon general principles only. The Right Honourable Ba ronet (the M em b er for Tarn n:orth) had last year 6tl ted that tile privilege of trying controverted weetions was wrested from the Crown by the House of Commons in the reign of Elizabeth, and had ever since 'eontinud in their p.ossessi e on ; and the Right " _on. Baiea /let considered the autiquity of the privilege as a great reaso n for continuing it. As to the historical statement, be (Lord Mahon) was at issue will the Right Hon. Ba r"et• It was true that a diacu , sien did take place in the re ign of Elizabeth, but it was a mistake to suppose that it ;vas then this privilege was obtained. Upon this point he wo uld venture t o o pp ose t o t h e statement of the Right Edon. Baronet the opinion of an eminent statesman, one R ho had himself filled the office of Prime Minister, and who had founded the law under whkii controverted elections were 1 19‘v decided . —lie need scarcely say, that he meant Mr. Grenville, who, upon thin question, said in 1707— ,, The Present mode of trial k not warranted by the ancient usage °f Parliament fur even at ..o recent a period as the Revolu tion, tribunals wore paracularly appointed to determine 111) " the merits of petitioning, and these tribunals gene , r ally consisted of the most illustrious personages in the Up per House of Parliament, but to give their decision the more, sol emn i ty and authority, the whole House attended the trial s , and were usualt 7 guided in their opinions by the !an' Lords." He (Lord. Mahon) was not arguing that to refer these trials to 'Pic House of Lords, was other w,ise than uncons tit u Clonal, but be did say that this sho we d t h at the w tichful jealousy which his Right H onourable Friend asc tilted to their predecessors upon this question did not re ally exist, and that they were ready to Place jurisdiction as 'co these trials in the hands of per -B°llB against whom the greatest objections existed. The s) Pinion of L or d Grensrille on this poiat was confirmed by several entries in the Journals of the House of Lords. As for instance, on tht Bth of May. 1661, " divers officers Were appointed under the name of Receivers of Trials," and in the f o ll ow i ng - year, on the 11th of January, •;or iPed that the .41.1ges be desired to appoint amon , g neMsel ves one of: their number to attend the Lords' C o mmittee of petitions." This certainly did not go to tne whole argon). tot—( Hear, hear, from Sir Robert Peel) abut it did thniow considerable light upon the opinion of 'I L • Grenville ont this subject. Soon after the Revolution this House excl . cised the right of trying Controverted Elec. t lar ge At th a t p er i o d t h e pet i t i ons . were tried by the House at without the solemnity of an oath, and muck in the : L a me nay a F : arty other party questions, and many as were - the abuses ofalte present system, they were not to be corn- Pared with titaise which attached to that system under :1 1Iitil t• in the time of Sir Robert Walpole, controverted d -. . c tion petitic ns were regularly brought forward for party Leu s&eri, winen there was no quc•,tion made as to the merits of the case, nor as to the nature of the facts, but the s lneition was, whether the return made was for or against certain part y ; and indeed the fall of Sir Robert Walpole : I !! not brought about by any of those great cpestiona ich inliater times have decided the fate of entst,,rs._...the administration of twenty years by the decision On an election petition, t h — '" oPPoqition carried by a majority of 1 ; such was state i, a: the case when Mr. Grenville brought in s Dill, said no doubt could be entertained as to the purity of his motives, and at the time the Bill g av e almost. universal satisfaction. 'What, then, was the cause of that dissatisfaction which now prevailed, so that (Lord Maihon) did not expect a single vo'ce would be r i aised this evening in favour of that Bill ?—( Hear , hear.) r i e beli eve d it arose from the altered composition of the °I-1 , 3 ° since the Reform Bill.— (Hear, hear.) Previous to toe .Reform Bill the Members returned by the small and now' disfranchised boroughs, to the number of 150 or 200, belon ge d l not to either p a rty, and were considered impar tial men, voting either with or against Ministers as their opinions dictated. —( A laugh from the Ministerial Be 1, -n eues.) When the ballots for Election Committees were °ul of the 33 the parties struck off the most decided partisan s k on either side, so that the Committee was com- Posed principally of moderate men ; so that undoubtedly the effect vvas--however Hon. Members might differ as to the o,Peration. in other respects of the now disfranchised small i Mr. Grenville the effect then was to produce the result which me,r. Gr env ill e contemp l ate d w h en h e b roug ht i n hi s Bill. "e presumed it would be no want of courtesy to say that t here was hardly a Member in that House who was not a Partisan of sonic sort or another. - He did not believe that Leese were five Members who had not some bias. He now came to the practical part of the question, and that was with reference to the evils now existing under the present system. The resolution of which he had given notice, stated that the ends of the Committee would be to obtain, first, iestice; next, uniformity ; and lastly dispatch ; all of which, he would unhesitatingly assert, were totally lost sight of and abandoned under the present system. First, with respect to justice, he would not argue the question com pletely, because in the outset he had stated that he would void, a s muc h as possible, political discussion; but he Ho use on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Ho use would not allow his motion to fall, because he avoided' as much as possible, political allusion, and did not F iv e a great number of instances in which the present sys ere had proved tota lly deficient. He would, however, li_re the m t h e words of Mr. Grenville, leaving it to the 'use to consider whether the evils which be had eLlu inerated were continued, and whether they did not ealli nndly for the i n terference of the House. Isle. Grenville stated that he blushed to see justice refused. by the Legis lature England—that he thought that Members, instead ntf trusting to their constituents, should be independeet of The second object he had in view was uniformity. i °' 4 ' this, if ossible, be the present system was more lost kingthat places in C.ommittees, he did not hesitate to say t .'" consistency in injustice would be preferable to the con tinued changing that was taking place, from dieing one one decision and another day another. Now, as an ►nst ti _arice of th at , l ie wou ld re fer to the two Committees that sst f or t h e city of Du bli n— i n t h e fi rs t it wa s decided ?at certain rates and local taxes conferred a right of Ig n g' and the result was that the Hon. and Learned 'r tit her was declared not duly elected. A general elect ion _ i?oes e t ni te i ra tt a e n e w 6 u d, and precisely the same circumstances occured ; a :AS chosen, and they came to precisely the op p° s ite result, for they determined that the Hon. and Learned n had been duly elected, and must therefore keep , 1 1 8 43 seat. H e was not say i ng w h o was r i g ht or who b et h wro ng ; but he supposed it would be admitted that b e co uld not be right. What he said was, that it would ti better to decide wrong than first to decide ono way and "th'another. The third object was dispatch, comprising re she it economy. Now, no person could say that dispatch *Q lilted from the present system—it was repugnant to the d e at Y Plan upon which such Committees were formed. The Y of a Member in Committee was subsidiary to his du icies in his legislative capacity, and the result was, that 41t0n1rnittees met at 10 o'clock, and were obliged to adjourn 4 :. i n order t o ena bl e M e mbers to be in the House. An pstill more frequent cause of delay arose from the inex heat:ll\c° of many Hon. Members in the law . — ( He ar, • in the cases that he had seen reported there were tio ' n nY instanc es w h ere i t a pp e ared to him that a great por n °f the ti me o f t h e C omm ittee was taken up by Hon. Tbers asking for information from counsel, so that they e s t ! u t be considered as learning law first and dispensing it e -rwar ds•—( Laughter.) Any stranger going into a merritnittee-room. would suppose that it was a school were nther s of Parliament were taking lessons from t er gentlemen gentlemen in . wigs and . gowns.—( Laugh aevJ If these sort of things continued the House would tiler r be eaabled to prevent the right of striking t was a : fundamental deal of science in striking, but one of b l tal rules was, that if a Member was afflicted ' e a ny infirmity, he was by all means to be considered to S a competent man to be left as one of the Committee. ach was the case also with respect to young Members, es pecially those who had not made law their especial study. ( Laughter.) Now he would put it to the House , hether it was ever known before in civilised society that ignorance was to be considered as a proper qualification for a member of a Committee of the House of Commons? Hear, hear.) Nov, what were the rcmedies? In co nsidering,. them b e came to t h e Bill proposed by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. He con sidered that the greatest thanks were due to him for turn i his attention to the subj ec t, an d h e mus t sa y also that the re were some parts o f th at Bill w i t h w hi c h h e cor di a lly T in curred, especially that part with respect to election ileg3 11 nizances if the House allowed him to bring in he should be inclined to take out verbatim D _ l , , terati m many of the clauses of the Bill of his ,%vvl7ll.t Honour a bl e Friend, and insert them in his co. ' The re were one or two o th er p o i n ts i n which he winticierred with the Bill of his Right Hon. Friend, but respect to the main principle of the Bill he could not byes because he thought that there were inany respectsnsuper en,°_biections to it. How did it act with to those practised who were of the profession of the law, and who tased in the Courts at Westminster Hall? Why, if they their Were to be called on the Committees continually to t le egal advice, the Courts of law would be ut herayr unable to proceed with their business.—( Hear, the ), en let him ask how the Bill would affect e se i ne c iient? Th Suppose he had a case in which two theynt Counsel of this House were engaged , a nd te e , w ere suddenly withdrawn, how was he to find The_cthers sufficiently acquainted with the business ? w i th n ; again, would not the greatest difficulty be found be th egard+o the balance ? It was proposed there should thei t , e on each side, but how would they decide about the the first Hear.) It was said, If you will allow me on .y ears r a Committee the man I propose, you may name on the second. That might produce something like e q ua lity, e _ • but it would not be an object such as his Right ;4 eFriend wished. It would not give impartial justice trril:iatttees4fot) sid e to would be alternating from a bias on one for Members on the other, and suspicion might be excited particular Members were put on particular Com- party ur P poses, and continual cavils and jea oabniseYtwioonuld,be the result. These were some amongst the Pre s , his s o wnleh would exist, and lie felt it his duty to ex _ 0 _ pini el, knowing that his Right Hon. Friend would Friend r° onl y tbe displeased with it. He felt bound not who : 0 0 state that opinion, but must say that many warm admirers and adher t fh' Right H en s o !s on. . concurred in thinking _that his Bill, well drawn s it seas whi ch ex . , Would n o t b e a dequate t o reme d y t h e ev il s this ft, isted. As far as he had the means of knowing on n e l Opposition) side of the House, he believed that Bill 5 d'd exist. He asked, then, why it was that the Ri h Hen. Friend should failed in • • gee er , i g t any Want ? or at . least univ ersa l, satisfaction? W as it f rom of tim e or toil in him ? Was it from any want abilit Y N 0 he would tell the House why his Right Hon. Friend had not succeeded.—( Hear, hear.) It was because he had attempted to do that which was im posseble—to adopt the rules of the old House to the altered composition of the new—to make a clean thing out of an unclean.—( Loud laughter.) He" had endea voured to find the elements of a Court of Justice in an assembly of decided partisans.—( Hear.) What was the practical result now, as admitted by all parties ? Was it not this_that they felt they were party men, and thereby disabled from giving an impartial judgment. They felt strongly—they had a right to feel strongly—on political questions, and that prevented them from being impartial judges. That was a grievance which was generally ad mitted ; and bow was it possible to remove that grievance by soy measure, leaving the jurisdiction in this House? His Right Hon. Friend admitted that this party spirit existed. Would the diminishing the number from eleven to seven allay it? Did not his Right Hon. Friend see that the objectica was not to the number or machinery of the Committee, but to their materials?—( Hear, hear.) This graven image which they had set up to worship under the name of privilege, and moulded at will, they might alter it in its form, but its metal would still be the same, and they would never make it gold—( Hear, hear) —unless they could plunge into the recesses 'of the human heart and pluck out its cherished partiality, he was persuaded that any measure founded on the principle of retaining the jurisdiction in this House would only be seeed from being mis. chierous by remaining ineffective. But then they were led to remember that this invaluable privilege as it was called had been wrested from the Crown, and had been possessed to t 1 .e present time. On that point he ventured respect fully to differ from his Right Hon. Friend, but he would go further it appeared at the time when Mr. Grenville proposed his Act, the Opposition declared their old privi leges entirely superseded. The House was going to dele gate its most important rights. Mr. Ellice in his speech, in opposition to Mr. Grenville on the 30th Mach, 1770, called it an essential alteration of the constitution of Par liament. The abrogation of one of the most important rights and jurisdictions of the House of Commons, and he therefore moved that the Bill be read that day six months, for which there were 123 Members, against 129, so that it could only date from 17-70. But suppose his Right Han. Friend was right when he thought this privilege bed descended to the House, were there no cir cumstances that might make the privilege of the greatest value then, and utterly worthless now?--( Cheers.) Had there been no change, was there more than a faint resem blance between the House in Queen Elizabeth's time and in the present day. A seat in the House of Commons was now an object of eager rivalry, whilst under Elizabeth the email burghs sent petitions considering it a heavy bur den, and praying to be disfranchised. The quee:ion was this—danger then threatened the House from the Court— did danger threaten it now ?—( Hear, hear.) Was there any chance, however distant, of the re currence of that time when the Monarch could enter this House to seize the persons of five of its Mem bers, and see the Speaker kneeling on the floor before him? Had not such a state of things passed away? Let him wk (and this was a point which he put most respect fully so his Right Hon. Friend the. Member for Montgo mery), whet reason could be given for clinging so closely to the bulwark, when the danger for, which the bulwark was constructed had so utterly passed away ? What was the position of his Right Honourable Friend the 'Member for Montgomery, and those who had adopted his suggestions ?—( Hear.) They turned their faces to the cast and worshipped the sun of liberty, and now that it had attained its meridian altitude, they were still looking eastward, and saying the sun must be there still.--( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He (Lord Mahon) would yield to no man in his respect for anet en i iastilutions. When his public conduct had been en:eaigned, it had usually been on the ground that he - e ras too much attached to ancient institutions—when it had won popular respect there was no man in. the House more re luctant to take it. He believed there were few advantaecs in legislative privileges which might not be sin - timed up in these two words—time immemorial. Much as he respected ancient privileges—much as he wished. ancient institutions to he upheld, yet if he found these psivibsges stood between equal justice being admi nistered to man and man, lie would say, rather than justice should b violated, he would have there privileges entirely abolished. He rejoiced that many. reflecting men out of doors inclined to this view of the subject— they cherished the privileges of the House as they would their own, but they felt that in many cases those privileges might be turned into instruments for working injustice sad silencing complaints..—( Hear, hear.) On this point he would be judged by the House. Let the House survey its proceed. ings for Cue last Bor 10 days in any case of privilege. Lot Hon. M embers observe how cautious they had been before they exerted their prerogative. They feared that if they did draw their sword it might only cut their own fingers, and therefore they had allowed it to slumber in its scabbard. Mr. Justice Blackstone said that their privileges were neither defined nor ascertained ; and he would ask whether that could be a wise law ? The claim to privileges was urged by most popular assemblies. Ia the United States of America the votes were taken by ballot, and the suffrage was very extensive; the result was, that it was almost im possible to produce any order or system, or for the defeated candidate to petition with an 3 prospect of success, be cause, if legal votes were given, it could not be proved from which side they ought to be deducted. It could not be shown that this privilege of the House carried with it any security tie the House or any practical good. Be lieving, as he did, that from the fault of the system, much much more than from the fault of the individuals, it had given, great disatissfaction, and could not fail to give more dissatisfaction, he called upon the House to relinquish this privilege of deciding controverted elections. He called upon the House, in the name of Justice to do so. He did not mean to say that justice was always frustrated under the present system—he was far from saying that under the present system common justice might not some times be done ; hut what he asked of the House was to adopt some system that would secure constant and certain justice, instead of occasional and chance-medley justice. Henr, hear.) He intreated the House to remember that the administration of impartial justice between man and man was the great object of society, and the main boast of civilization. He entreated the House not to neglect any means by which not only justice - would be ad ministered, but which would give a semblance of it to the people. If he wished to describe in one sentence the main difference which he conceived to exist between a half civilized age anti a more polished state of society he should say in the one the Government was always stronger than the law, and in the latter the law was always stronger than the Government.—( Hear, hear.) The better state of society was that enjoyed in England. Look to our Courts of Justice, compare them with what they were two or three centuries ago. Look how admirably the legal profession discharged its various duties, and with what unsuspected impartiality decisions were given in our Courts of Law, and he would boldly ask why should there be this exception—this dark point—this plague spot of privileg e, to deform the whole surround ing expanse of judicial purity? Could it be thought that these Parliamentary Committees upon Election Petitions, which he did not hesitate to call the worst courts of justice in the world—could it be thought that they could long steed before the advance of enlighterenent and knowledge ? They could not long survive. He might be triumphed over that night, but they might depend upon it the time was not far distant when they themselves would be com pelled, by popular opinion, to relinquish the privilege they now claimed; when their iteproper jurisdiction would be wrested from their reluctant gripe ; and when ; what would now be a graceful concession, would become an overpower ing tad au irresistible necessity. Those were the grounds on which he objected to the present privileges, and he would now state to the House what he proposed. He would observe that the motion he intended to make in volved no pledge to his particular plan, His motion was to declare the present jurisdiction illusory and abortive. A support might be given to his resolution whatever opi. nion might exist as to details. The plan he had to pro • pose might be divided into two parts—first, the constitution of a tribunal for the purpose of trying Controverted Elec tions, and secondly, the power in whom should reside the power of appointing such tribunal. With re gard to the tribunal itself he proposed that it should consist of three Assessors, who should hold their office for life; that they should be of a certain number of years' standing at the bar as a necessary qualification for their holding the office, and that they should be paid a yearly salary. He proposed that the Court of Assessors should constitute a Court of Revision and Appeal from the Courts of the Revising Barristers—he need not draw the attention of the House to the necessity of having some tribunal of appeal from the numerous and conflicting decisions of the Revising- Barristers.—( Hear, hear.) The office of Re vising Barristers was, from the nature of the appointment, necessarily filled by Barristers of not long standing, nor of extensive experience. There was therefore a necessity for the existence of some Court of Appeal, in order to produce an uniformity of decision. He proposed to erect the Court of Assessors into this Court of Appeal, and the House would observe, that neither the plan of his Right Hon. Friend, nor any other plan which had been proposed to the House on this subject, presented any such feature. He conceived also, that the Court of Assessors might be considered as the legal assistants and advisers of the House ; they might, in fact, constitute a sort of Court for the examination of private Bills. It was a well-known fact, that in Private Bills many objectionable enactments were frequently introduced, because there was no one whose particular business it was to watch the progress of Private Bills ; this duty might devolve upon the Assessors; he mentioned this merely as a collateral advantage atten dant upon his plan, should the House hereafter be inclined to adopt it. This Court of three Assessors would constitute a jurisdiction for trying all controverted elections—their decision, as to the seat should be final, and if the existence of general corruption in any particular borough should be made to appear, this corruption might be made the subject matter of a special report to the House on the subject, in the same manner as takes place under the existing system. The duties of this Court must unavoidably be immensely increased immediately after a general election ; it might be made as an objection to his plan, that, however equal to the performance of its duties at other times, it would be impossible for it to be equal to the discharge of them immediately after a general election. He proposed to ob viate this objection in the following manner : if the Court of Assessors find the press of business consequent upon a general election they might report the same to the House, and ask for assistance, in that case he would propose that the same nominating power which appointed the accessors them selves, and which he would hereafter explain to the House, should appoint two special assessors, each of which should join one of the permanent ones, and thus they should constitute three courts, which could go on con jointly referring all points of law to the permanent tribu nal, so as to produce uniformity of decision. In this manner the tribunal thus appointed would be fully equal to all the ordinary business, and the extraordinary business would be met by this special provision. He now came to the question as to who should have the power of nominating the assessors. He confessed he could see no ob. jection, as far as be was himself concerned, to their being nominated by the Judges. In his opinion the objections which had been urged against the Judeee trying these cases did not apply ; but there was such an objection entertained by many Hon..Nlembers to the Judges being mixed up at all with election proceedings that this formed no part of his plan, although he himself did not see the strengte' of the obj ec ti ons urge d aga i ns t giving the Judges this pee ye!". In this portion of his plan he would, with certain lirn:tations, have recourse to the idea of his Right Hon. Friend of forming a Committee of six ; and he hoped that if his Right Honourable Friend should accuse him of being a plagiarist, he would yet admit that he \vas ea very candid one, who at once confessed the extent - to which he had copied. He proposed that at the outset of the Session the Speaker should name a CoLarnittee of s',„x, to be chosen fairly and impartially from tech side eel the House. He proposed that this Commit tee shov:rd be divided into classes, class A and class B, oonsistieag of three Members. His object was that class A sheould necessarily contain one Minister of the Crown, and two leading Members of that side of the House, and that class B should be composed of three leading Members of the Opposition side ; thus, in the Committee, each side eaf the House would be fairly re presented ; parties in this. Committee would be evenly ba lanced, and to them he proposed to confide the nomi nation of assessors. It would naturally occur to the House that if party feelings could be supposed to influence the Members of this Committee no decision could be come to by them. He would propose a plan to obviate this objection, and which would have the further advantage of making every assessor equally bound in gratitude to each side of the House ; the mode by which he proposed to attain this object was as follows :—On the first occasion which oc curred the Minister of the Crown, who was a member of class A, should nominate a persoer as Assessor. If this nomination should be agreed to by five out of six, then it should take place; if not, he should then propose three other names to the m embt,rs of class II ; and from the names thus present,ed to them they should nomi nate one for the office of the Assessor. On the second occurrence of this eiort the Speaker should nominate one member of class B, who should propose the name of some one to be appointed to the office of Assessor. If the name was agreed to by five out of six, then the appointment should take place ; if no t, then, th e membe.: of class B si ould propose three names co the mem.' - ee r o f c l ass A and from the names thus eireeented to them they should nominate an Assessor. Vle wished the House to consider whether by this plerethe interests of parties would and the Assessors could no t not be equalized and adjuseeit consider their appointmee.t as a f avour f rom one part i cu l ar party more than :mother, and thus the a ssessors wou ld enter on their duties with an equal amount Of obligation to either party. He proposed that the Speaker should act, in nominating 1 be Committee, under the sanction of an oath. He was not aware whether he expressed himself sufficiently cleaely and explicitly to be understood by the House ; but if the complication of his plan should be urged as an object iein to it, he begged the House to consider that a constitution like ours must necessarily be made up of checks and, balances, which, however complicated they might appear at first sight, would, when examined accurately, be found to work smoothly and beneficially. All the plans which had hitherto been proposed on this subject were defective on this one point--that however effectual e' ecy might be for the administration of justice, were nearly balanced i n th a t H ouse , t o an" party which ° happened to be in a l arge m i nor ity wiv:er parties tection at all ; but in the scheme Lev afforded no pro was an equal protecti on f or *which be proposed there f large one or a srr,all or ',re minority, whether it were justice and houe ur sztf :e. He had the utmost faith in the the legal profession, and he thought that the Asse'esors would be found more scrupulous than any tribunal Could be found constituted within the walls oh that Hou- ,at he had sta'ed his motion to that House in such ' .erms as to make it perfectly independent of his plan. object was to give those an opportunity of voting who were deliberately of opinion that the present jurisdiction was not a competent one, and that a jurisdiction out of that House would be better than one in it ; and he earnestly appealed to those Members who thought that his argu ments were founded in justice, not to be led away by the authority of the names of leaders which might be quoted against 'him, and if they thought his arguments well founded, he trusted that they would not be swayed in their opinion by the eloquence of any appeals which might be made against him. Were they to do this it would be a fitting retri bution that at the next general election, they should be exposed to be the victims of a Committee consti tuted as it is at present.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) They no doubt would feel strongly upon the subject, and they would feel when estates and properties were wasted, but what consolation would it be to them, that while Mem bers of this House lived in enjoyment of the blessings of life, that they had been admirers of antiquities, but that they had adhered too long to a specimen of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was now six years since he himself was fated to appear before a tribunal where every one of the Jury was a decided political opponent. He would en deavour to avert from others the probability of their en countering the same disadvantage, and be, if possible, the harbinger of a better system.--( After a further remark or two his Lordship sat down amidst cheers and cries of " Hear, hear I") dente of the country, simply because the Judges in thattribunal a c n o d m just so wit T h h r e ega g r o d est t i o oo th w e as sys h te o m tv of to getElec- rid were without any weight or autho f that evil, with out a l tering the tr ib una l . H e ( M r. rt Pemberton) believed that to be impossible. Two modes had been suggested : one was the scheme o f hi s L earned Friend, the Member f or Li s k ear d, to ap p o i n t A ssessors whose opinion should guide the Committees upon points of law ; and . the other w as t h e p l an suggeste d by hi s Ri g h t Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, to select lawyers from the House. But the question was whether, when you had appointed th e A ssessors, or se l ecte d t h e l awyers, the object was achieved. For what assurance could there be obtained that the lawyers' opinion would guide the Committee, and would it be possible to find half a dozen lawyers in the House whose knowledge, experience, and impartiality, combined,would, satisfy the House, the parties, or the public ? He (Mr. Pemberton) was persuaded that it would be impossible ; for himself he would say, and for the lawyers, with whom he had usually associated--that the questions which generally came before Election Com mittees, such as rating, and other points of qualifications of voters, were questions with which the Chancery lawyers were quite unacquainted. He did not believe, that even if qualified lawyers could be obtained, their opinions would guide the Com m itt ees . — ( H ear, hear, h ear. ) H o did not wish to make unpleasant allusions, but he would refer to one Committee, at the head of which Yeas tt e Lord Advocate of Scotland (the Roxburgh Com mittee)th n whi c h no C omm i ttee h a d excies vtt more dissatisfactesn ; th en w i t h re Commit tees, in which partiality to 'a sr-- • with justice be urg e d. existed, the same objection with justice be urged. ' ' extent avowedly the present system might Election Comm'- - and both with regard to private and aatees, he believed it would be much more p a e t r i i sfac ..to the par t i es , an d to t h e coun t r y, if ato pro qualified t ri b una l could be obtained out o f t h at H ouse. s :; Now, it had been suggested that an impartial tribunal it would be as difficult to find out of the House as in it— for that lawyers would be as liable to party feeling in the one case as in the oth er . He (Mr. Pemberton) feared that House lived in such an atmos ph ere o f party, that they believed every one else be as much influenced by the same prejudices--( Hear, hear)—but he was inclined to think that lawyers might be found in London who would not be influenced by the consideration of what parties held the reins of Government, and in fact he would fairly st a t e t h at, taken out of the H ouse an d ap pointed to administer justice in a a public Court, he would just as much feel satisfied with the adjudication of any Hen, and Learned Member opposite as with any of his own friends.—( Hear, hear.) The question really was whether there were any considerations affecting the dignity of that House which required it to retain this so-called pri vilege? In the first place, he would observe that the House now exercised that privilege by delegation, and against that privilege of delegation were directed all the objections which could be urged against the proposal of the Noble Lord (Mahon) ; for the objections as originally urged against Mr. Grenville's Bill were all founded on the principle that taking the jurisdiction from the House at large, was, in fact, inconsistent with its privileges. If that objection existed at all it existed then, and with what force could the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough have come down to the House with his motion? If the objection existed at all it should have been raised against the course pursued by the House. What was proposed by his Noble Friend was nothing more than changing the authority which they delegated, but the House still retained this authority. The object of the notion was simply that the House should refer it to other persons to inquire on their behalf into the merits of the question, ivhich the I-louse was competent to decide for itself, and that only question was, whether the House would, or not, delegate its authority to a competent or in competent tribunal ?—( Hear.) He must confess, when he recollected the scenes to which the exercise of this privi lege had given rise—when he remembered the painful scenes of last year, not only with respect to Members of that House, but the individuals called to the bar—when he looked back to those scenes to which the privilege had given rise, it did appear to him that if the House consulted its own character, its own respectability, and its own comfort, it would not cling to this privilege, but would place it in the hands of a competent tribunal.—( Hear.) The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had said that if they parted with the jurisdiction they would never regain it. In his (Mr. P.'s) opinion, if there was one thing more than another about which they ought not to be jealous, it was this privilege.—( Hear.) \Vas it possible to look abroad and not to see that whatever dangers there might be to the liberties of the country, and to the power of that House, those dangers did not arise from the monarchial aristo cratic form of Government. Was it not apparent that the whole tide of political force had set in in favour of the popular or democratic party, and the question was, whether that tide running so strongly should be so modified as not to sweep away all together the institutions of the country. He could not upon the score of any danger to be apprehended, either in or out of that House, refuse to give his support to the mo tion which his Noble Friend had, with so much ability, brought forward. Believing that the House never could constitute an impartial tribunal out of a partial one—be lieving that advantages might be secured by the alterations now proposed—believing that no questions concerning the privileges or authorities of the house were invaded, he thought the House would best consult its own interest, and that of the public, by assuring them that they had no desire to set up their privileges against the into • rests of the public. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by supporting the motion of his Noble Friend. Sir ROBERT PE EL then rose and said—Sir, in the first place, I wish to state distinctly the character in which I appear to take part in this discussion. Ido not appear, Sir, for the purpose of vindicating the Bill which was in troduced last year—that is no necessary part of this ques tion. My Bill may be a bad one altogether. If it is, then I say reject it; if it is capable of amendment, amend it ; but that is not the question for consideration to-night. The question is, whether we shall, by a resolution, pro claim ourselves unfit to exercise a right which, since the reigns of James and Elizabeth, the House of Commons has asserted for itself ? My Noble Friend has stated that it is no argument against his resolution, if it was a bad one.—( Hear, hear.) I think my Noble Friend should have extended the same forbearance to my Bill. It may be admitted that the present system is defective, and that ire ought to try to amend it, but the great part of the speech of my Noble Friend was throughout against one particular measure of amendment; but when he comes forwerd with his own Bill, so satisfied was he with respect to- it, that he would not extend to it the same rule which he extended to my Bill, but he said, " Recollect if my plan is defective it is no argument against my resolution."— -- (Laughter.) Now, Sir, I contend that the House ought `to require from my:Noble Friend that he should reverse the order of his proceedings, that he should first bringin his Bill for transferring the jurisdiction from the Hous e of Commons ; and if after the second reading of the Bill, or its details had been considered in Committee, the House was prepossessed with regard to it, it would not be necessary for it to pass any resolution disdaining the exercise of the power. But this I entreat of you do nut condemn that jurisdiction you have exercised for so long a period without being perfectly satisfied that you can fairly meet the peculiar difficulties with which we have to contend—but don't leave us in the situation of being unable to solve the peculiar difficulty with which we are surrounded. I admit the defects of the present system, but I must say that I think it is a serious question for the House to consider whether it will part with this privilege of determining on the right of its members to sit and vote. My Noble Friend questions my historical accuracy, and he says that there was some period when the House of Lords exercised the privilege of deciding on elections. Lord NIA HON.—Petidons on Elections, as stated by Mr Grenville: Mr. WRIG HTSON must oppose the motion of the Noble Lord, and would take the opportunity of express ing his opinion early in the debate. The Noble Lord's argument, in his opinion, bore strongly in favour of making some reform, but he was far from admitting his authority altogether. A strong party bias might still exist amongst the Members of this House, particularly since they had been deprived of the hundred and fifty or sixty nominees, whom it was stated the Lords so much regretted. It appeared to him that one of the errors of the Grenville Act was, that it had not been preceded by a tresolution, and from the time of the passing of that act this House had lost the power of regulating elections. How were they to recover that power? It could not be done without the concurrence of the other branches of the Legislature, and of the concurrence of one branch, it would appear, after their recent conduct, that little was to be expected. The motion of the Noble Lord was premature. It ought to be shown by a long course of experience that means were necessary. He had a better opinion of this House than to believe the course proposed by the Noble Lord was necessary. If the Grenville Act produced such a change from the vicious course that was alleged to prevail at that time, could not they devise some means now. Surely they might devise some mode of securing the moral efficiency of those tribunals. Was it to be supposed that the Members of that House, from party bias, were utterly incapable of themselves to administer justice? 'Were they to declare themselves utterly incapable ?—.( Hear, beer.) sincerely trusted the House would do no such thing. He hoped the Noble Lord himself would see that it was ne cessary. It was quite unnecessary, after the exposition.last Session, of the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who then pointed out the errors of the system of striking, by which the ablest Members of that. were excluded, and erroneous decisions rendered almost", matters cf course. It was the infirmity .of human tiature to come to such decisions, and one evil roved the precedent to another. It was incumbent"mi, rCnouse to grapple with such evils manfully, but surely :; ; •_ntegrity enough to get rid of them, and that was to, one, in his opinion, by selecting the members of the: . • 'O., snittees deliberately and calmly. He feared that ui system proposed by the Noble Lord, evil preeedenta Would arise. For that reason he could not but. *evert to the proposal of the Honourable Member for Liskeard, last year, as to the appointment of Assessers. If men of legal experience and high character presided over these Committees due attention would be paid to the proceed ings, and they would be prevented from falling into these bye paths which frequently lead to error. They would ex pound the law, and its application, so that real or assumed ignorance would not be able to come to false conclusions. he would throw out a suggestion whether it would not be wise to extend their power, to give them the power of re serving certain points under certain circumstances. These reserved points might be afterwards argued before them, and the Assessors would severally and distinctly pronounce their decisions. He suggested that these decisions should be recorded, and sent back to the Committee, entered on the mi nutes of the proceedings, and leaving it entirely open to the Committee to decide whether they should adopt them or not. By giving that extent of power it would go far to obtain the uniformity which the Noble Lord so wisely de sired in their decisions, and would protect them from the mischief which arose from erroneous decisions being formed into precedents. These grounds appeared to him to afford a hope that the House might by joining sincerely hand and heart, work out a remedy for the growing evil. But he put it to the Noble Lord, and to every Hon. Member present, whether it would not be better for that House to work out the remedy itself than to go elsewhere, whether it would not be wiser to do so than to hold themselves up to the world as men so factious, biassed, and so perverted to all sense of right and wrong and justice, as to be unable to decide upon,questions aff,scting themselves.—( Hear.) Such a course would be dealing a blow at the respectability of the House, which the Noble Lord himself would deeply regret. On these grounds he should most decided oppose the motion. Mr. PEMBERTON fully concurred in the principles laid down by the Noble Lord. All parties were agreed as to the incompetency of the present tribunals to do justice between the litigant parties. The question was, whether that incompetency arose from the form in which the tri bunal was at presented constituted, or whether it was inhe rent in the very nature of the Judges.—( Cries of " Hear.") If he could agree with the Hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that all that was required for the constitution of those tribunals in order to make them com petent to do justice was honour and integrity on the part of the individual, he would entirely concur with him in the view he had taken that the House would disgrace itself if for one moment it recorded a verdict against its own com petency and integrityi He knew that charges of that de scription had been brought forward most unjustlyagainst those tribunals, but it was not on the ground of corrupt partiality —it was not from any imputation of dishonesty or any charge of peijury,he apprehended, that incompetency arose. If the House considered the questions that came before the consideration of Election Committees,:and then considered of what individuals it was composed he would say that if they were angels instead of men, it was impossible for them to decide fairly. —( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") They were not intentionally biassed— biassed they must be—( Hear, hear)—but the questions that came before Election Committees involved various questions in every branch of law, and he knew one Hon. Member who lost his seat at the last election upon a ques tion regarding a nice point of conveyancing, upon which all the legal members were agreed that the Com mittee were mistaken.---( Hear, hear.) Was it possible that a tribunal of persons who had never made the law their study, who had never acquired any personal knowledge on the subject, should come to a just decision ? They might do so, but it could be only by accident. Every Member of these Committees must be a partisan to a cer tain extent. It was the very condition on which he entered that House, and took his scat there.---( Hear, hear.) It was an attempt to discharge the duties of judges instead of legislators, which they were not coin petent to. Another question was the enormous expense attending these Committees, exaggerated, as it was, in an enormous degree by the length of time to which the pro. ceedinga were protracted. It was well known that the Counsel took objections to points in these Committees which no lawyer dared to use before a man acquainted with the laws.—( Cheers and laughter.) And it was also well known that questions which in a Court of Law would be decided in a day or two, were protracted for several weeks. The manner in which Commissions of Lunacy were conducted was a disgrace to the jurispru- Sir ROBERT EL— I wish my Noble Friend had read the whole of Mr. Grenville's speech, because I ant very much mistaken indeed if he does not ex pressly state, after the paragraph which relates to the appointment of triers in the House of Lords, that from some remote period—l think from the reign of James—the House of Commons had determined to exer cise the right. Up to the present period very eminent writers have considered that we should have the right to determine who should or who should not be Members of Parliament. They have stated that it was a very great pri vilege, and all popular assemblies have so far confirmed, by their expressions and acts, the importance of it, that I be lieve all, without exception, have determined that in each popular assembly, in some form or other, the right of ju risdiction upon controverted elections should be in the assembly itself; and Mr. Hume, when he spoke of the at tempts of James and Elizabeth to res ist the successful efforts of the Commons to deprive th e Crown of that power, said that a power like this is essential to liberty, and that any attempt to interfere with it, must be deemed an encroachment upon inherent privileges, which former Parliaments had thrown upon them. That was the opinion of Mr. Hume with respect to the importance of it. I cannot think my Noble Friend correct, that the House of Lords, or any Committee of the House of Lords, had a right to decide, in modern times, on • the claims of the Members of this House.—( Hear, hear.) In the year 1624, a resolution was passed by the House of Commons to this effect—That the House declared it to be the natural and undoubted privilege of the House of Commons to examine the validity of elections and returns. Then we come to the period of the Revo:ution, and by the Act 7 and 8 William the last determination of the House of Commons with respect to electio ns was laid down. My Noble Friend see med to think he had fou nd a p r ecedent in a c n ou d ntry. He said vo l p 6 u 6 la l r , : o r n ia t h h t e s should d ou b t th a t. g twh r e o er i ve i nlndv not tre i when nt hve t e h r e tyr iHe highros u s o e ff a o pv o f e ut C irt i o wo n ni t ts m h. o t t h i l I s e It is very easy to say that privileges in these times may be relinquished without danger—that there is more cause of apprehension from the democracy than from the monarchy. In that way the whole of our privileges may be argued away—(Cheers)—and the House of Commons may be rightly reproached. My Hon. and Learned Friend whom 1 follow appeared to consider that he had demonstrated there would be no difficulty whatever in the constitution of a new tribunal, and this is the point on which I lay the most stress. I . advise th e H ouse not to come to any abstract re solution, till it is p repared with a practi cal measure. —(C heers.) Let us s ee your Bill, let us let us hear from him the answer to som e of the objections. W e are to have three lawyers appointe d who are to hold their situations for life , to be perfectly ind e p endent of us who are to decide upon e l a r t u u s n e i s t y o fo that h arguing u Bill, g with and my Hon. and Learned .- have Friend,the opportunity e the right to scats in Parliament, and who are to have some right of controuling legislation on Private Bills. lam not certain that these three Gentlemen will become most important authorities in the State.-.( Hear, hear, and cheers.) When they get their offices irremoveable, with some power of a legislation in Private Bills, and the says, e ay narly app ro aching it, s e right to determine on our ri g ht to sit in this House , I tie Commisiione rs ."—( Ch eers , an d am not satisfied they .will not be m ost i mportant autho rities. And what sat isfaction does my Hon. and Learned " This is the worst atlFranri laughter. g e u t n hnh d taae trg: l v i )ve is, e o‘il Who have,htoh L bauatunrt head?ea there is He one they ? Why, they are lawyers, I and they are the next worse tribunal to the Election Com mittees. But why are the lawyers so bad a tribunal? Why, because they are not men of very high station in I the country, or of great eminence in the profession ; and THE SUN', LONDON, FREDA Y,-EVENING EDITION,-FEBRUARY 15, 1839 the Counsel who appear before them are m en su p er i or i n tt p oh r e o b f e e t s hs s ur i o ffie e n c a i l elna e : m ,yt i oe n r e sd n o c w e htoh t to are t b h e u m si n s t e oe l s y s e h s oa , ltd an th d thee t i h mr e o r o e nin f l o e r cn e ets their decisions do not give satisfaction. A n d observe— life—who are to have salaries allott e d t o t h em — are not cisely when it is of the utmost importance; viz. ; after the general election. These thre e l awyers, who may be sitting six weeks or two months on one case of a con troverted election ; if they are to devote their attention exclusively to that case, all the rest of the election peti tions will, of course, be in arrear. But my Noble Friend has a suggestion to meet that difficulty. Each of the independent Judges is to choose a couple of journeymen._( Loud laugh ter.) They are to be employed occasionally, and the infe rior Judges are to sit with one of the superior Judges in the tribunal. I ask my Hon. and Learned Friend what security have we to get more eminent men than the Lunatic Com missioners at present for the temporary duty.e._( H eim ) apprehend that what takes place in the Lunatic Commission will take place before this Court. That the Council will re main superior to twe-thirds of the Judges, that is to say the the two Judges employed only for the occasion that the authority of the Judge *ill become inferior to the autho rity of the CounsCl, and that precisely the same conse quence will follow that their adjudications will not give sa tisfectloe—pDSSiblY they may be contradictory—and that )011 will find the same complaint made against them as against the Committee of the House of Commons, but above all because the authority of the occasional Judges is inferior to that of the Counsel, the decision of tho Court will not give satis faction.—( Hear.) But with respect to the three Judges who are to hold their offices for life. The time will come when they will get infirm—you will have three Judges fastened upon you—it will be said that it will be rather hard to remove this Judge—he must still be the presiding Judge in one Court. Now ,who is to determine the pe riod when he is to retire ? sitto be determined by the majority of the House of Commons ? Surely you will not allow the Crown to dism'ss your Judge.—(Hear, hear.) Then what is the authority to determine when a Judge has become incapable to perform his functions. If it is to be by a majority of the House of Commons, you open the whole question of political interference—(Cheers) —and it may remove a Judge who has offended you. He shall have integrity of character, independence, learning, and compe tency, but the time will come when his powers will begin to decay, and the most painful question arise as to who shall undertake the painful task of suggesting it to him. These are no conducive reasons against making the attempts, but I ask you to salve these difficulties. Let us see them in the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) I was surprised my Noble Friend had no better thing to resort to than to my six Members to be named by the Speaker—these six are to be made Judges in the first instance. I cannot help thinking that if my Noble Friend is obliged to resort to a combination of party in the House of Commons for the nomination of these Judges, who are to have the alternate selection of them, we ought materially to consider whether the House may not comprise materials for a perfectly safe tribunal. My Noble friend referred to experience for the constitution of Committees before the Grenville Act. I might refer to it for forty years after—to the universal testimony borne—to the satisfaction which that tribunal gave, and I should thus be enabled to show that these same materials which, under a new Consti tution, had worked nothing but injuries, had, under another Constitution, met all those difficulties of which my Hon. and Learned Friend spoke, and had given general satis faction. I believe the reason our tribunal is unsatisfactory is mainly on account of the mode of election ' • that to in fuse party feeling into them—that our sending Members to the Ballot, excluding lawyers, excluding the good sense of the House, have all a tendency to make a tribunal utterly un satisfactory—that the impeachment is not to the evident in tegrity of the House. But to the unsatisfactory Court in which tribunals are chosen. My NobleFriendeays, would you commit the enormity of letting a lawyer serve on these Committees ?—most certainly I would—( Cheers)—and I would say to a lawyer, " if you choose to come into the House of Commons, the first demand upon you is to per form the duties of the House of Commons—l won't bind on you more than another man—l don't wish to lessen your professional gain—but if you voluntarily present yourself as a candidate, and are chosen as a Member, you ought not to allege the loss of your professional emoluments as a reason for not serving on Committees."-1 Cheers.) But it is said clients will suffer. Why, if they know a lawyer is subject to take a fair turn with other Members— that he who is more competent than other Members shall not be excused—if they choose to employ him they do it at their own risk.--(Hear, hear.) The rule is clear, that if the lawyer does so prefer party attachments in public life to the climax of professional la bour that he chooses to enter the House of Commons, you have exactly the same claim on him to contribute his pro fessional labour, experience, and knowledge to the per formance of public duty that you have on any other Mem ber of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) I do not consider it necessary to enter at any length into the, onsideration of this case. I will not trouble myself with the details for I do not consider this is the time to do so. I have no parti cular affection for my own Bill, nor do I wish that any Bill my Noble Friend may introduce should be made subservi ent to my purpose—most willingly would I relinquish it to him, for we have but one object in view. No party feel ing can influence us— the motion of my Noble Friend proves that. My views upon the House of Com mons may have been, not very long ago, something like those of my Noble Friend, but this I must say, what ever my opinion may have been on the original constitu tion of the House, that I will not permit those opinions to influence me in a question of this kind, viz. whether or no it shall (as I fear it will if I agree to the motion) lower itself in the estimation of the public, without the necessity of doing so, should be satisfactorily proved, and that it is unfit for the performance of its functions. I will enter into a further discussion of the Bill of my Noble Friend, and I have only made use of that Bill for this purpose— for the purpose of inculcating on the House the absolute necessity of desiring to see that Bill, or any other Bill, with its amendments, and with its various modes of solving :practical difficulties before by abstract resolution it deprives itself of the power it has so long enjoyed. If you do part with this privilege so long enjoyed, depend upon it you must place on record your motives. You must ask the House of Lords to leave on record the reasons why you, the present House of Commons, have thought fit to relinquish the jurisdiction held by your predecessors. If you feel absolutely con vinced the interests of justice require it, to that alterna tive you must come.— ( Hear.) But let us not come to that decision hastily. Let us not come to it lightly, be cause, depend upon it the preamble of the Bill which you send up to the House of Lords ought to state the grounds on which you, the House of Commons, solicit their inter ference.—( Cries of " Hear.") You are to leave the House of Lords in the full possession of their privileges, but you, the House of Commons, are to go to the House of Lords, and are to ask the House of Lords to assist you in depriving yourselves of the power which you have proved yourselves unfit to exercise.—( Hear.) In the course of my Noble Friend's speech, and for the pur pose of manifesting my desire to co-operate with him, I sketched what I thought ought to be the preamble of the Bill we should have to send up, and that preamble appears to me to incorporate into it many of the views of the mover of this proposition. The preamble I should propose to my Noble Friend's Bill would be this :—" Whereas this House bath in former times considered the power of deciding on all matters relating to the election of its Mem bers as a privilege essential to the maintenance of its own dignity, and has uniformly resisted all attempts at en croachment on this right of jurisdiction ; but whereas it bath become notorious that the House of Commons bath, particularly since the passing of the Reform Act— ( Hear, and laughter)—so grossly abused this privilege, that they are no longer worthy of its being entrusted to them"—( Renewed laughter)—Why, can you shrink from that ?—( Hear, :hear. ) " And whereas the House cloth hereby penitently acknowledge its incapability—(Great laughter)—and wishes, from a due sense of its unworthi ness, to relinquish this ancient privilege, and to place it in some tribunal more honourable, more impartial, and more worthy of the public confidence—Be it therefore enacted" --(Roars of laughter)—Can you deny this must be the preamble ? Go with that confession to the House of Lords, if you will, after mature deliberation, be persuaded that no new modification of this tribunal will answer the purposes of justice, which ought to be the para mount consideration ; but this again I say, before you put on record that resolution, which is to lead to those consequences, first require if the Bill shall be introduced, which is to constitute the new tribunal, and compare it with other measures which shall propose to reserve in the House of Commons this jurisdic tion under an amended system.—( Hear, hear.) That pure power over the country does not depend on privileges I agree ; that it depends on public opinion I admit ; and it is therefore that I implore you to consider the means of amending a system which I admit is defective as it stands, and calculated to weaken the confidence of the country. But I cannot but think it is a matter for serious considera tion whether or no the House of Commons shall inflict on itself and upon its own honour a fatal blow, if it shall be compelled to proclaim to the world that while the House of Lords shall remain in possession of the right of dete. mining on the right of its Members to sit in the House, yet so hopeless and useless were all attempts at improvement, that as men of honour, as men of common sense, and as men of intelligence, we cannot be intrusted in this Parliament to do that duty which all other Par liaments have performed ; but that we must, in the po sition of suppliants, apply to the united wisdom of Par liament to relieve ourselves from duties, for the perform ance of which we admit our unfitness—to relinquish the jurisdiction to which our ancestors attached so much importance, and to place it, in consequence of our un worthiness and imperfections, in other and purer hands.— ( Hear, hear.) Whatever my views may be on the sub ject of Reform, while I am a member of the House, I think I shill best adhere to the true principles of the Con servative policy which I profess, by standing on the ancient privileges of the Constitution, and by giving the respec tive powers of the State all that force which they deserve. Mr. BERN AL had little to say, but having had a seat in that House for some years, he thought it was his duty to state openly to the House the sentiments he entertained, and he thought the Noble Lord who had started the pro position that evening, deserved great credit for the manly way in which he had declared his sentiments. He did not think the ridicule which had good bumouredly flowed from the Right Honourable Baronet, was at all an argument against his Noble Friend's speech. However, they might wish to vary the component parts of this jurisdiction, they could not vary the elements, and he would repeat one short argument , which he had addressed to the House on a former occasion, and which he bad never yet heard answered : Was an oath a sacred obligation, or was it not ?—( Hear, hear.) Did they propose to retain that oath, or to do away with it? If in the minds of 650 odd Gentletaen—( Roars of laughter)—if in the minds of 650 Gentleman an oath could not be regarded as an obligation of the most important nature, he would ask, if they re duced the number from which the tribunal was to be con stituted, would that oath possess greater obligations?— (Hear, hear.) He had been on all occasions told that they ought not to do away with an oath, and he would, there fore ask why an oath was to be of milder importance now than it would be when the tribunal was reformed in the manner pointed out by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. It had been said that it was only since the Reform Bill had come into operation that all these difficulties had arisen. Now, he would take leave to contradict that— (Cheers)—because he was old enough to remember (for he had been twenty years in that House) that long before the Reform Bill bad been introduced the same complaints existed, and the same doubts were thrown out as to the integrity of Members on political questions. He re ' membered that Mr. Tierney got up in that House, and made a motion on the proceedings of the very first Com mittee lie had witnessed. It was a ease in which costs were voted for vexation and friVoliyi and, the decision of the Committee was thought so extraoreliraty diat Mr. Tierney departed from his usual cautkn, and btotlght it 1;,3 fore the House. So long as Members who were partiatis constituted those Committees, so long they would have cause of complaint. He was not called upon to argue in favour of the proposition of the Noble Lord, or to oppose or support the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet ; but he was called upon to pronounce his opinion that the present system did not work well—( No, no)—and secondly, that it would not work well so long as the selection was confined to Nlern bees of that House. He feared they were beginning at the wrong end.—( Hear, hear.) They should first reform the statute-book.—( Cheers.) There were in it so many loop holes to creep out of, that there could be no uniformity in their decisions.—( Hear, hear.) He would say that the statutes relating to bribery were so undefined, that they were mere traps to catch the un wary—the guilty party too frequently found the means of escaping, while they were in many instances so formed es to entrap and implicate the innocent.—( Hear, hear.) Their decisions were not entitled to respect so long as these statutes remained unreformed. He would ask any lawyer to define what " treating" meant—and whether the allowance to electors could be legally given or withheld for coming a certain distance. When he con sidered all this he would say that eleven of the best lawyers in the House could not prevent their comitg to vaccillating decisions and contradictory judgments. He would there fore repeat that they were beginning at the wrong end.— ( Hear, hear.) lie would be contented to evade the pro position of his Noble Friend if he saw any thing like a dis position on the part of the House to remove this stain upon its character. Ile knew, however, that what was every body's business was nobody's business—(Laughter)— and no one was ready to leap into such a gulph of legis lation. The prospect, however, was not utterly hope less, and a Committee of legal men might be appointed, who, after an attentive review of the Statute Book, might recommend a digest of the laws relating to elections, including one definitive law as to treating, instead of the 500 interpretations at present existing—some report might emanate from a Committee thus properly chosen and con stituted to cure those manifold evils. When that was effected, they would probably have wiped away a great many of the blots and stains upon their present decisions. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet agreed with him in this suggestion. Sir R. PE EL—I proposed that last year. Mr. BE RNA L hoped as he had done so last year, that he would again take it into consideration this year. Sir ROBERT PEEL.—It is a question for the Go vernment. _ . Mr. BE RNA Is—The Right Hon. Baronet said it was a question for the Government, but so many questions were pressing on them that he did not wonder at their blinking it. The House ought to interfere seriously in the matter, and if it set its nits and hands to work, he had no doubt the evil would be effects's:lly cured.—( Hear.) So long as this halo of indignation was spread around the present system, it was his firm opinion that whether the Committees consisted of six or eleven Members the same objections would exist. The Right Hon. Baronet asked would they pronounce sentence upon their integrity and honour, but they had done so already, and the country had pronounced it. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet did he not remember how, in the Session previously to the last dissolution, the columns of the Daily and Evening Press teemed, ad nauseant, with perpetual comments, im pugning their decisions, and assailing individual Mem bers, and generally the Committees, either on the Tory or Government side of the house?—(Hear, hear.) He would say that the taint of corruption was already spread around them, and if they went to the House of Lords with such a preamble to their Bill he for one would not be ashamed of it.—( Laughter and cheers.) By their own acts they showed that they were not sensible of the moral or religious obligations of an oath : then let them confess it. He would ask the Right Hon. Bart. what was an oath ? And because they were not Chancery, or Election, or Queen's Bench lawyers, must they therefore receive a dispensation, and suffer no penalties in the eyes of God or man for any violation of it? He asked the Right Hon. Baronet to show how an oath could be bind ing on the consciences of six which was not binding on the consciences of eleven? Ile would ask him whether he meant to continue the oath, or to do away with it altogether? He was not aware of any Divine or moral obligation of an oath which was not binding on eleven, which could sway the minds, the hearts or consciences of six, either by striking names off or out, or in any way he pleased. Was not the House aware that Committees fre quently had the benefit of lawyers sitting with them ; and if professional gentlemen had seats, was not the House entitled to their services? He (Mr. Bernal) was not pre pared to chalk out any plan with respect to lunatic asses sors, nor did he know whether it would be necessary to look out for briefless barrist , :rs to clothe them with the robe of a little judicial authority. He believed, however, that two or more judicial officers presiding over these Commit tees would entitle their decisions to the respect of the com munity. Without saying anything against the honour of any Member of that House, he did maintain that in the Session immediately following the dissolution, there was not that respect paid to them in the public capacity which attached to them individually in private life. No Hon. Member, on the right or left hand side of the House, could contradict him in that statement. He saw no way out of the dilemma, except by the constitution of a new law, correcting the errors of the Statute Book ; and after having defined whet constituted treating and bribery, and what constituted the right of the franchise, they might have some hopes of arriving at a definite and satisfactory conclusion, and till that was done, the matter could never be satisfactorily adjustecl.—(Cheers.) Mr. WYNNE entirely concurred with the Honourable Gentleman who had last spoken, that they were beginning at the wrong end. The first duty of the House would be to improve the manner of deciding contested elections, to lock to the state of the law, and to remove the disputed points.—( Hear, hear. ) His Noble Friend, the Member for Devonshire, had last Session given notice of a motion for that purpose, stating at the same time that lie was satis fied it would receive the sanction of both sides of the House. During the period of the Reform Bill, he (Mr. Wynne) had proposed to Lord Althorp to divide the Bill into two separate portions, one relating to the elective part of the question, the other to the legislative, which in the then agitated state of public feeling, might better have been referred to a Committee up stairs. Ile regretted that this course had not been pursued. He had also suggested a declaratory Bill to settle those points of detail, which were the subject of so much dispute. Ile had likewise urged the propriety of appointing a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Revising Barrister!, in order to secure, if possible, some degree of uniformity. llis opinion was the first step should now he to appoint a Committee, to consider the disputed points of election law—( Hear, hear) —though he did not encourage those sanguine expectations of the great advantages of such a measure, which the lion. Member ( Mr. Bernal) appeared to entertain, of all courses, that of adopting an abstract resolution, of resolving that the jurisdiction should be transfered, without deciding to whom—or in what manner—was the most injudicious.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) If that popositicn which the Noble Lord (Mahon) was recommending, were embodied in a Bill, he ( Mr. Wynn) would be prepared to give to it his best consideration. But against expressing an opinion in an abstract form, he must protest.—( Hear, hear.) In the reigns of Elizabeth and James, the House had repeatedly resolved that it was the proper judge of controverted elec tions of its Members. In 1624, it came to the resolution, " that it is the natural privilege of this House to examine into the validity of election returns and decide thereupon." Now, as to some of the authorities which had been quoted—the extracts of Parliamentary speeches du ring the last century—it should be recollected that in the petiod between the middle of the reign of George 11. and 1774 particularly, Parliamentary speeches were most in correctly, if at all, reported ; and as, except in rare instan ces, Members did not amend the reports of their speeches, the most jejune compositions were published and on the Parliamentary reports, as they were called, of that time small reliance could be placed. The Noble Lord (Mahon) had referred to extracts from the Journals of the House of Lords , from which it appeared that certain officers *were appointed to be " triers," or "criers," of petitions. But that did not refer to elec tion petitions ; for the same officers were appointed at present every year, and they were but vestiges of the an cient jurisdiction of the Crown, which anciently took cog nizance of all petitions from the subject. The Hon. Gentleman opposite says, with reference to the proposal of my Right Hon. Friend, that if an oath will not bind a Committee of eleven, he cannot imagine that it would bind a Committee of six ; but he (Mr. Wynn) would go further, and ask, if an oath was without effect upon the Members of this House, what reason was there to imagine that it would produce any effect upon a Jury, or upon any other tribunal ? Those around him could not be supposed more capable of disregarding the sanctity of an oath than any other men. They would not be objected to as persons wanting either in honour or honesty, to serve on Special Juries ; nay, the probability is, that they would be chosen out of the panel for the purpose of discharging the func tions of this office. The fact is, that party differences pro duce an unconscious bias on the minds of all; and there is to be found as great a bias among members of the legal professions, on political questions, as among any other body , of men. The questions which time members of that pro fession were in the habit of deciding were not political ones ; and consequently, when political questions oc casionally come before them, they decide impartially on them front habit. But let them once be erected into political Judges, according to the motion of my Noble Friend, and they will bring with them to the judgment-seat the strongest pOss?l?ales political bias; and long after the existence of suc shall have become manifest, and they shall consequisiiibtlye have lost all credit for impart i a lit y , it will be to lay the finger on any particu lar case, so astothe-io pinion in l!irg the charge home to them. He believed, contrary to of his Noble Friend, much - seater that when a party in that House con stituted only a very small minority, there was l a g tendency to impartiality to in the decisions of Committees, than when parties were more nearly balanced.—( Hear. ) He recollected many years ago that it was a very frequent case that a Committee would be struck, the majority of the members of w hich, although belonging to one side of the House, would yet frequently decide in favour of the other. He admitted that it was required that satisfaction should be given upon the subject, but the plan proposed was far from meeting with his sanction ; its principle was one of uncertainty. Yet, whatever tribunal might be formed, the party against whom a decision passed would not be content with that decision, nor was such a thing to be expected. Would every case give satisfaction, even if juries were allowed to be judges both of law and fact ? He was glad his Noble Friend (Lord Mahon) would move for the re ception of his plan ; but he wished others would also bring forward plans, and from them all some eligible proposition might be selected for trying contested elections- From a variety of measures that might be submitted to their consie deration, a better plan might be selected than from adopt ing any one. [The latter part of the Hon. Member's ad dress was very imperfectly heard in the gallery.] Sir ROBERT INGLIS entirely concurred in the principle laid down by his Noble Friend, but could not concur in his plan, the principle of which he thought was bad. His Right Hon. Friend, who could wield the weapons both of ridicule and argument, had decided the House against the Bill, but might not that Bill have had the effect of making the House of Commons believe that the system had worked ill ? It was not necessary for the Noble Lord to state that they were naturally corrupt, but i: Wes necessary he should proveohey bad acted corrupt l y, at fL'a:.4.. 4 , in a majority of cases. They must either have the Bill of liis Hight Hon. Friend, or that of the Noble Lord. He was not afraid of the decisions of the Judges; we trusted to them our liver and our honour, and if we could trust them so far, why not trust them with the decision of those cases which effected our poli tical power ? He had had heard it stated that ahe parties in these tribunals ha d no knowledge of the law, but he would ask any man, with gravity in his face, whe ther the present tribunals were tribunals at all? T ho Judges had that knowledge which qualified them to decide j, on all questions arising from contested elections ; he would therefore suggest, or rather point it out to their considera- tion, whether the Judges might not make circuits for ex- ! amining into such cases, and thus greatly diminish the ex pense of contested elections. One of the great ev il : , of the present system, was the increasing the number of Courts of Justice, instead of strengthening the higher ones.—( Hear, hear, hear.) In the case of contested elections he, the Hon. Member, would propose to carry into the country the highest legal authority, and have all cases decided on the spot. Now, last Session, in one ease no less than 200 witnesses were brought up to London, and kept here for two months, at an enormous expense. All that inconvenience and cost would be prevented by the power being given to the Judges to decide, upon the spot, in all cases of contested elections.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had said that what was necessary W a 5-justice, uniformity, and despatch ; and by this plan justice, uniformity, and despatch would be attained._ ( Hear.) Aiter an election bad taken place, all the time that is now wasted during the recess might be employed in these examinations. Without pledging himself to anything, what he had stated appeared worthy their con sideration. He felt that the resolution was sustained by concurrent opinion ; the House had the power of deciding upon it, and it could then decide on the proposition of his Right Hen. Friend. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the course pro. posed by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Oxford, with respect to the Judges was rather a singular one, for it went to say that the House of Commons was to shrink from all confidence in the present tribunal, and that justice was not to be obtained from a tribunal constituted by the House of Commons. lie must say that until something better could be put in the place of the present sys tem of deciding elections in the House of Commons, that was not the course which the House ought to adopt. The Honourable Baronet proposed that the power of judging upon elections should be given to the Judges of the land, and that if the present number was not sufficient that 6or 8 should be added. He (Lord John Russell) had the highest respect for the Judges, but ho i thought if their slumber was considerably increased, and if they were to be called upon continually to express their opinions upon political cases—if, for instance, they were to try the ease of the Hon. Member for Dublin or the Hon, Member for Westminster, in which there would be a great deal of excitement, he (Lord John Russell) doubted much that general reverence and respect which was at the present moment paid to the Judges would survive the ex periment of the Right Hon. Baronet.—( Cheers.) He came now to consider the opposition that had beers raised to the motion of the Noble Lord, and he must say that he could not go along with him either in the history he had given of the tribunal or in the remedies , which he proposed. It was not necessary he should go far i with respect to the tribunal, because he thought it had been l established by the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and the Hon. Member for Montgomery it: contradistinction to the Noble Lord, that from the time of Elizabeth and James, when f i rs t that p ower was claimcdby I tie! House of Commons, that it had been the indisputable and inherent right of the House of Commons to decide upon its own election. He found in the great case of Ashby and White, where the most considerable persons of that day took a lead in the discussion, Lord Chancellor Cooper, Sir J. Jeyken, and other persons of distinction, he ( Lord John Russell) found that although there was considerable discussion with respect to the modification of electors there was nothing said with respect to the right of that house to decide its own elections, and upon that occasion those great personages came to the resolution that according to the then laws and usages of Parliament it was the known right of Parliament to examine and determine all matters relating to the election of their own Members, in his opinion that privilege which was claimed and held by the House without opposi tion for so long a period, it was not fit to take away , especially when parties were so equally divided in the House. When parties were less equally divided than they were at present, it might not be considered as a fair tri bunal, and Mr. Grenville, so considering it, proposed a scheme by which the tribunal was kept in the House of Commons, but by which an amended judgment was to be given by a select body of that House. For a con siderable time that plan worked well. The reasons given by the Noble Lord for altering the pre sent system were in his (Lord John Russell's) opinion, of a very fanciful nature ; he had said that the Committees generally consisted of party men, but that that was not the case previous to the Reform Bill. Now he (Lord John Russell) considered that if any men were party men, it was generally the Members for close boroughs, which might he considered to have been done away with by the Reform Bill. Parties were nearly divided in that House, and it was of g:etit importance that the privileges al ready exercised by that House should still be retained. Ile was of opinion with the Honourable Member for Montgomery, that the situation of the House was very different now to what it was in the time of Mr. Grenville. At that time there were perhaps 420 on one side, and only 120 or 130 on the other—but then it remained to be proved at the present moment whether the present state of the parties in that House was such an incurable disorder as that it was necessary that they should remove the deci sion from that House, and give it to another tribunal. They found that in former times Mr. Grenville at tempted to carry it without having it out of that House and he ( Lord J. Russell) was not prepared to say that the lion. Member for Tam worth might not propose a plan which at the end of some thirty or forty years might gain the re spect of that House. If such was the case—if such h o p e could be entertained—he trusted the Noble Lord woul d see nu necessity whatever for clinging to his resolution. ( Hear, bear.) If the Noble Lord thought the tribunal he proposed was the better tribunal, he ought at least to give the House the opportunity of examining the plan of the Right lion. Baronet the Member for 'Famworth, in order to see whether they could not again, without lower ing the house of Commons, endeavour to adopt a plan for an improved system of the judicature, with respect to the election of Members for the House of Commons. \Yids respect to the plan proposed by the Noble Lord, he (Lord J. Russell) must confess that he was not satisfied ; and i n that respect he agreed with the Hun. Member for Oxfurd. The plan began with the Speaker, who was to take an oath, in order that he might be the more competent to name the six members of the Committee. When he had taken th e oath, he was to name three members from class A. and class B. He ( Lord John Russell) thought whets the Speaker had taken the oath, he would have a difficulty that it would be almost out of his power to surmount. The three members of class A. were to name three, of whom the class B. was to take one, and then class B. was to name three, from whom class A. was to take one, and when that had been done, lie (Lord John Russell) doubted very much whether they would be the most competent and the most learned persons in the country to decide ; but the Noble Lord had not said how the third was to be chosen, and upon that depended the complexion of the whole tribunal. Perhaps if the Noble Lord obtained his Bill the matter would be more ex plained than it was at present, but he (Lord John Russell) must say when the tribunal was constituted, it would not be one of those tribunals which the country would look upon as free from political bias.—( Hear, hear.) What were the additional evils that would result front such a tribunal ? There might have been an Election Com mittee for a particular borough, complaints might be made that that Committee had decidedly unfairly, and although the decision might be blamed, the integrity of the individual Members forming that Committee would not be q uestioned. But with regard to this tribunal, they wou ld have it the constant mark for all objectors to aim at. If once it had the name of being partial and unfair, all its decisions would be vitiated, and every case would be said beforehand to be a case that would be unfairly and partially decided. These were his ( Lord John Russell's) reasons for not being sa tisfied with the plans of the Noble Lord or of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford ; and above all, for re fusing to agree with the resolution which he proposed of condemnation, before any plan to which five Members could consent, as a substitute for the present measure, made to was brought forward. He wouldh,.obhehfourdehelieensualtluddeodwn, mention one or two propositions w Committeese. would not Com mitteebbyy his the Hon.Rigi t F i r l i o o n u . d ye f ar the Hose, in csrder to consider - t - there osit c ' should On e be sv s : of legal Members o G lu e st ntleman th o a pp i the disputed points with .. a coi l to o f e , o f fr anc hi Iperrouplosi‘leioemnspheitrsapopeared to him (Lord 0 1 l considering ßoss ell) tha t t ha s t e would not, therefore, have—that the time e, not be able to attend —that it would be the decision of a . that even if they a ro a d veryth,o weightsmall it number—thatough tandto i t therefore be this s los H t ouse as to the solution of these p g ointS _ here was another proposition to which iracruinenouttti:likeilyhetor attain the assent of the other House' generally the i y i ss. were of having a Court of Appeal from the Revising the Rightar Hon. Gentleman alluded as far more objection_. able, that np i opinion nn either th at a t o n ' Banisters. He did not see why there should not be a Court of Appeal, constituted by the Act, from the Revising 1 Barristers, deciding upon three or four doubtful eases masons, ; c onstituencies of three or four thousand, that they would I be able without any great dispute or suspicion Hear settle the law or lay down rules of such authority that they would have very great weight with Election Committees of the house. He was still of improvement might be made in two . r espects—first, with respect to the decision of the Revising Barristers, which )—ai d 1 oe- I casioned so much vexation ; and secondly, as laying at present was so exceedingly various_( down decisions which might be afterwards referred to when questions of a similar nature were discussed before the tribunal which he wished to see in a Committee of this House. Therefore, if the House wished to entertain that proposition with favour, glad to he should be assist in bringing it regularly under the consideration of the House. Ho did not say that he was entirely ad verse to the propositio n of his Honoura ble Friend. • \Ve en the law more asked to assent to it, he certainly could not ~, he had any sanguine hopes of success. There were several propositions Righs Hon. propositions which might be made to make clear and simple. He thought the decision of the revising -- Barrister might be improved—he thought a great improve ment might be made by a Bill such as the Bart. proposed to introduce to improve the cons cation of Elec tion Committees. To all these subjects the Hibuse might that 3 the ;, that t jet° and, a 5, t he e, f 431. in Any jouse , io t° ~bl~b