The Sun. — London, England, 1839-04-27 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. _ . Sir G. SINCLAIR brought up a Report (which yens read by the Clerk) from the Committee on the Manchester and Lefeds Railway Bill, statine. the Com mittee had been re g ul a rly a p po i nte d i n accordance' with the Standing Orders of the House, that they had as sembled at twelve o'clock, and waited one hour, at which time two Members only were present, and as three were requirA for the election of a Chairman they bad no power to proceed to business, but had deter mined to select a tettporary Chairman to report this circumstance to the House. He moved that the Report be laid on the table. Lord G. SOMERSET wished to know, from the Hon. Member for Oxford, whether the Members re ferred to had or not given their assent to sit. Mr. ESTCOURT said that the gentlemen absent were silected in the usual way to sit on the Committee, acid it.Arthe order of the Committee of Selection, that the7tOotalt a Member was elected the clerk should write and inform him of it, statin g on which Committee he was selected, Ind' tie hour at which it would sit. That course had been adopted in the present case, and no objection had been raised by the Members selected, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Warwickshire, who stated that it would . bo s impossible for him to attend the Committee on Tuesday uext ; but he did not state that he would not be lichls . .to attend that day. If the Hon; Member had cFtilis' down to lay, the Committee might have been constituted with per fect regularity. At the present moment ho had no alteration to propose to the plan at present in exist ence, but he was sure, if any Hon. MeMber hAd any alteration to suggest, the Committee of Seleetjit - were not such bigots as to disregard such suggeltioiX"V. Mr. WILSON PATTEN thought when Members were selected, the Clerk should ask them whether they would serve or not, and if they refused to do so, then that other Members should be selected. The greatest Possibl e i nconven i ence had occurre d i n consequence o f the Committ ee not s i tt i ng to- d ay b ot h to counse l an d Witnesses, of the former of whom no less than 12 were in attendance, and of the latter between 50 and 60, all of whom had come from a great distance, and were anxious I ar.eturn as soon a s ( 'Totting possible. He saw no means of out of the. diffiy an answer could be ; ot from Members whether:they would attend or not e Mr. ESTCOURT observed that th e C omm ittee of Selection had received very few letters from Hon. Members who had been selected, stating their unwilling ness to attend. Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE was sorry the inconveni ence had taken place which had been alluded to, but he could not see how it was to be remedied unless the plan proposed by the Hon. Member for Lancashire was adopted. After a few words from Mr. LASCELLES, Sir G. STRICKLAND said he could not help thinking that a great deal too much importance was at tached to the question. Eighteen Members were pre sent, two of whom were selected Members, and it was absurd to think that they could in any way influence the decision of the Committee. It appeared to him that the regulation relative to the selection of Members must be altered. Of the five Members only who were noticed, three were obliged to attend. They only received a notice from a clerk, which in most cases was very little attended to ; and as the Agents for a Bill did not know who the selected Members were, they could not exercise any influence over them in requesting their attendance. If some alteration was not made, it would create much difficulty, and entail enormous expense upon the parties. Mr. GREENE differed altogether from the Hon. Bart. opposite if he thought there ought to be no se lected Members. It was a perfect delusion if the House decided that there should be selected Members, and that they did not attend. One of the reasons that had been alleged for appointing these selected Members was that if the Members locally interested went always one way,and theselected Nlembers,whohad no such inducements, another, it would make out a prima facie case that. they had not been guided altogether by strict impartiality. One of the greatest advantages of the Present system was that the Members selcted were not known to the Agents for the Bill, as a system of can vas of a grossly improper nature was frequently carried on to ensure the attendance of Members. On these grounds he should most certainly vote in favour of the present s} stem. Mr. C. WOOD had taken some part in the proceed ings of the Committee, and he must say that he fully concurred in the observations of the Hon. Member who had last spoken, while he differed from the lion. Baro net (Sir G. Strickland). Unless the attendance of these selected Members was enforced, he feared the system would not be found to work well. One of the objects of the Committee in bringing the question forward, was to make Honourable Members aware of the im portance of the subject—(Hear, hear) —and to show that they ought not to absent themselves on any light grounds. If an answer was sent stating the grounds on which they could not attend, the Corn mittee might be enabled to select other hlembers in their stead. There was another question before the House, and that was, what was to become of the Com mittee on the Bill—whether it would sit again as a mat ter of course, or require an order of that House to re vive it? That was a question which ought to be decided before the subject was dropped. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET thought the Committee could not meet again without being revived, and would move that it be revived as soon as the pre sent question was disposed of. He thought it would be necessary to have a little more notice given to the Members selected. Mr.M. PHILLIPS begged leave to state one instance to the House of the necessity for some clear and defi nite resolution of the House upon the subject. In one Committee to which he belonged, within these four days a meeting was called, but it appeared on the Votes they were to meet for the purpose of adjourning, and in conse quence of that notice four gentlemen neglected to attend. They offered themselves when the Committee next met, but inasmuch as the Committee had proceeded to the election of a chairman and they were not present, they were excluded. In the instance before the House, he thought that, inasmuch as the Committee had not been formed, it stood in the same situation as that House when no House was made. It was absolutely necessary that some definite rule should be laid down to prevent these unpleasant circumstances, and the great expense they led to. The Report was laid on the table. Lord G. SOMERSET then moved that the Cora. mittee on the Manchester and Leeds Railway have leave to meet and proceed with their business on Monday, Sir G. SINCLAIR said the Noble Lord had anti cipated him in the motion he would have felt it his duty to make, as Chairman of the Committee. Agreed to. On the motion of Lord SEYMOUR the Railway Communication Committee obtained leave to report from time to time. And on the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM it was ordered to be printed. Mr. W. ATT WOOD presented two petitions from individuals in Greenwich against the Greenwich Rail way Bill. Sir R. BATESON presented several petitions from Presbyterian congregations in the north of Ireland, complaining that the Presbyterian soldiers were quite destitute of religious instruction for themselves and chil dren. They stated that the Roman Catholics and the Church of England soldiers were marched to church after parade, and they prayed that, as a great proportion of the army belonged to the Scotch or Presbyterian Church, they might be put on an equality at least with Catholics. Also a petition against the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from Bishop Wearmouth, for the protection and en couragement of the Established Church in Canada. Also, a petition from the Governors of Bethlehem Hos pital against the Bill for the better ordering of prisons. Mr. LA «' presented petitions against the Eccle siastical Duties and Revenues Bill, signed by 21 Cler gymen of the Deanery of Houlton, 26 Clergymen of the Rural Deanery of Surrey, and the Dean and Chapter of Ely. Col. CONOLLY presented a petition from the Grand Jury of the Queen's County, praying that there may be r,o alteration in the Corn-laws. Col. RUS H BROOKE presented a petition in favour of National Religious Education. Mr. LOCKHART presented a petition from Argyle in favour of Church Extension. PENNY POSTAGE. Sir J. WALSH presented a petition from Sudbury in favour of a Penny Postage. Lord SEYMOUR presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a similar petition from the Chamber of Commerce, Bristol. Mr. LASCELLES presented a petition from Wakefield, in favour of the penny postage. Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, presented petitions from various places in the county of Kerry, in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill ; and also petitions in favour of a uniform system of penny postage. Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition against the Beer Bill ; also a petition in favour of the New Poor-law Amendment Act. ROYAL MARINES. Capt. BOLDERO gave notice that he should on Monday next, move for a return of the amount of pensions to which Non-Commissioned Officers in the Royal Ma rines were entitled, after 23 years' service ; and a similar return relating to the pension of the Non-commissioned officers in the line after a simil-tr period of service; he hoped no delay would take place in laying those returns before the House, as he intended making them the foun dation of a motion, having for its object to do away with the two years additional service imposed on the Marines. Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed the second reading of the Beer Bill to Monday next. TURKEY AND EGYPT. Mr. lIUME had wished to ask a question of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given that Noble Lord notice : he had waited three or four days, but that Noble Lord had not yet appeared in his place; he would be in his place on Monday. He was desirous of asking whether the news which had arrived of the commencement of hos tilities between Mehemet Ali and the Porte was cor rect, and if so, how far our Government had interfered between the parties? LORD JOHN RUSSELL said that no intelli gence had been received of the commencement of hos tilities between the Porte and Mehemet Ali, that the policy of this Government was to maintain both parties in the position in which they were placed by the last Treaty. Mr. HUME was glad to hear this intelligence, as be had been afraid of the occurrence of another un toward event. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. Mr. BAINES wished to ask his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General, whether he was aware that notwithstanding the passing of the Act of the last Session abolishing imprisonment for debt, that there were at present in the different gaols of the kingdom hundreds, he might say thousands, of poor debtors kept in confinement, owing to the necessity which existed, from the construction put upon this Act, for their sure ti,s appearing personally to justify their bail in open Court in London ? And whether he had any objection to introduce into his Bill now before the House for amending the Act referred to, a clause empowering the Insolvent Debtors' Court to appoint proper persons in the country as Commmissioners to take the recog nizances of the sureties under such circumstances as would Aire personal appearance of the bail in LoLongssary. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had re cceived from all quarters the most gratifying intelli gence respecting the operation of the Act for the Abo lition of Imprisonment for Debt. It was working most beneficially, and without any detriment to creditors ; and and those who at first opposed it were now the most favourable to it. Ile was aware of the defect to which his Hon. Friend had alluded, and had consulted the Learned Judges upon it. Lord Denman was good enough to say he would take the opinion of his Learned Brothers upon it, and communicate the result to him (the Attorney-General). The moment that communication was made he would be glad to meet the difficulty by amending the late Bill or introducing a substantive measure. IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. ROUSE OF LORDS, ArAIL 26. Tile LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at the usual hour. The Dui of DURHAM was present, and presented several petitions against any additional endowtneat of the Scotch Church. Lord H ATHERTON presented a petition from Dfrmingliam in favour of a penny postage. CORN-LAWS. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a great many petitions against aey alteration in the Corn-laws from various places in Banff, Elgin, and other counties of Scotland ; from places in Sussex, and other districts in The NOBLE DcKE also presented petitions from Portsmouth, Farnham, Cupar, St. Andrew's, Chichester, E in, and other places, in favour of penny postage. -kis° various petitions in favour of Church Extension (Scotland). The Earl of CAMPERDOWN presented a petition in favour of penny postage. COPYRIGHT DESIGNS BILL. Lord DU NCANNON moved the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill. Lord BROUGHAM hoped the Noble Lord would po s tpone this Bill. He allowed that some such mea sure was required, but the subject required great con sideration--(Hear, bear, from Lord Lyndhurst)—and it't feared that this Bill would be found to go too far io one direction, and perhaps not far enough in another. Lord DUNCANNON agreed to put off the Bill till Monday.. NEWFOUNDLAND. The Earl of ABERDEEN rose to present a petition from Newfoundland, which he said was of very great im portance, as Newfoundland had long been considered the nursery of our seamen. The petition prayed for the abolition of the Colonial Legislature of that coun try. This he admitted to be rather a startling propo sition, and one which ho was not prepared at once to sup pert; but he thought that ground enough had been stated in the petition for Parliamentary inquiry. The petition was founded on the conduct of the House of Assembly, complaining of its tyrannical and corrupt measures. The qualification for voters to elect the Members of the Assembly was but the occupation for one year of any te nement ; for Members of the Assembly the qua• lification was only such occupation for two years. Newfoundland had been called a great ship, moored in the ocean, the population being chiefly merchants and fishermen ; the soil not calculated for agriculture. The Assembly was formed of persons by no means well qualified for legislative functions. One of them was a hired servant at 101. a year, receiving for his attendance in the House of Assembly a guinea per day.—(Hear, hear.) Was not that a burlesque on the representation of the people \Vas it common justice that such individuals should be permitted to fill their pockets from the public funds of the erflony ? Yet this was alleged to be the case, and many similar facts could be proved before Parliament. To afford an example : a Member having quarrelled in the streets with a respectable gentleman, who was sent to prison, and liberated on !habeas corpus, the Assembly seat officers who seized the judge upon the bench and committed him along with the high sheriff to gaol.— (Hear, hear.) This state of things was attributed to the influence of the Roman Catholic priests. The Marquis of NORMANBY said he did not think it would be possible to justify all the Acts of the House of Assembly.—(A laugh.) At the same time, he knew there were two tales, and the allegations of the petition were in great part denied by the Assembly. He would, however, make inquiries into these conflict ing statements, and be prepared thereupon to state his views to their Lordships. He could not at present say that he considered a Parliamentary inquiry necessary. The Earl of DURHAM said he had been entrusted with a petition directly impugning the statements of the Noble Earl opposite. He had received the petition Lom the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and it was signed by upwards of 2,000. It represented that there was no truth in the statements which affirmed the colony was disorganized or disturbed, and prayed for a Parliamentary inquiry. The Noble Earl went on state that there were two parties in the Colony. The agricultural, desiring to promote the cultivation :of land —and the mercantile, anxious for the predominance of the merchants' interests. The Earl of RIPON said that when it became ne cessary for the colony to be taxed, he had advised the Crown to grant it a Charter for a House of Assembly and a Council, Is hich he thought was in conformity with constitutional principles.—(Hear.) He presented a petition from the inhabitants of Liver pool, to the same effect as that presented by his Noble Friend (Earl of Aberdeen). Lord BROUGHAM thought the Government should immediately apply itself to the subject, though he doubted whether a Parliamentary inquiry would not be necessary. The Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe that the conduct of the House of Assembly in respect to the Judge had some palliation, perhaps, as there were precedents of similar cases in the Imperial Parliament. Why in 1759, a man was committed merely for presuming to enter upon some disputed right el' fishery alleged to belong to a Member of that House 1 (of Lords). He by no means, however, meant to say that the House of Assembly had acted right ; but the statements on both sides being so contradictory, he cer taialy considered a full inquiry tleessary.—(flear.) The Earl of ABERDEEN briefly replied, stating rbiit those who had been most anxious for the House of Assembly were now most desirous for its abolition, being heartily sickened of it. DEANERY OF EXETER BILL. Lord MELBOURNE wished to postpone this Bill in consequence of a request of the Chapter of Exeter, that the Bill should not pass till after a meeting of the Chapter, which was to be held next week. TRIAL OF PRISONERS AT THE ASSIZES. The Duke of RICHMOND brought forward the subject of some prisoners who had been ordered by Lord Abinger, at the last Assizes, to be discharged from a House of Correction in Sussex, their names not being in the calendar. The Noble Duke complaining that the Learned Judges had no right to deliver the Houses of Correction, but the " gaols." ~Lord ABINGER said what he had done he shou•.d undoubtedly do again, till the law was altered. He considered it the duty of the Magistrates to commit pri soners for trial at the speediest possible opportunity, and ought not to retain them in prison over an Assizes to tile next Quarter Sessions, when the Assizes occurred before the Sessions. The LORD CHANCELLOR said there required be to some change in the law, to make the practice uniform. Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ArAIL 26. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Sir M ATTIIE W WOOD moved the second read ing of the London Bridge Approaches Bill. Mr. lIAWES objected to the Bill, on the ground tlist it went to perpetuate the tax on coals, a tax over v,iiich the Corporation of the City of London had the tale control, and over which all the metropolitan be toughs, being equally interested in the subject, ought to have an equal power. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. NORTHERN AND EASTERN RAILWAY. • Mr. HAYTER presented a petition from certain parties against the Northern and Eastern Railway Bill. —Referred to the Comalittee. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY, Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from certain parties in Manchester against the Manchester And Leeds Railway Bill. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1839 JAMAICA. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that in moving the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, he wished to make some observations respecting the course which the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Jamaica Bill. He had understood (for he was not in the house at the time) that the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem ber for r famworth bad given notice he would on Monday next oppose the Speaker's leaving the Chair, with the view of rejecting the Bill which had been introduced. Now, although that cause was the most hostile that could possibly be token, yet, at the sometime, he was of opinion, that if the Government, on consideration, should find with respect to a measure of this na ture, suspending a Legislature, the grounds on which they were proceeding were quite erroneous, that then it would have been their bounden duty to adopt some other course, and perhaps that course had been suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet. But having again considered all the reasons on which the Bill was originally founded, the Members of the Go vernment were the more confirmed in their opinion that it was necessary they should press on the House the adoption of that Bill, and that they should have the opportunity of stating fully all the reasons on which the Bill was founded. He should likewise state that the Government did not consider (although there might probably be other courses not so advisable as that which they proposed to effect their object) the course proposed by the Hon. Baronet would have any chance of procuring efficient legisla tion in the Island of Jamaica. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Government to press upon the House the necessity of the Bill going into Committee. There was no doubt, with the exception of one material point, in the' minds of her Majesty's Government with respect to the different provisions of the Bill. That part was as to the term of years the Bill should continue in existence. If it could be shown that a continuance for a lesser term of the ex traordinary powers of the Bill would secure efficient legislation for Jamaica, upon that point her Majesty's Government thought there might be some change. Having stated thus much, it was due to the House that he should say, the Right lion. Baronet op posite having given notice of so decided a course before the proposition of the Goverment was fully adopted, that as he did not think that the Members of that House had had their attention sufficiently called, either to the papers, or the measures founded upon the proceedings taken in the West India Islands, he did not propose to bring that Bill on on Monday, but would postpone it to Friday next ; and on Monday se'nnight he proposed to introduce a Bill with respect to Canada. Sir R. PEEL considered that the Noble Lord had pursued a rather unusual course in postponing the pre sent Bill, because he had actually made a speech upon it, explaining his reasons for introducing the Bill. He was placed in an embarrassing position, and he trusted therefore that the House would allow him to explain his reasons for the course be had given notice he should pursue. He was particularly anxious to explain his rea sons, because he understood that misconstructions had gone abroad with respect to the position that he had laid down. Some gentlemen had understood him to propose that the Imperial Parliament should repeal the Prisons Bill. Now he had distinctly stated that he thought the Imperial Parliament had a perfect right and was bound to maintain the Prisons Bill. He cer tainly did state that, seeing the immense embarrassment that might arise from imposing taxes in the way pro posed by the Bill in Jamaica, and suspending a popular Constitution, which had existed there for 200 years, for five years, an opportunity ought to be given to the As sembly of Jamaica to reconsider the course they had pur sued. At the same time he was perfectly ready to give her Majesty's Government power to meet any contingency that might arise. If any practical difficulty arose in consequence of the refusal of the House of Assembly to resume its legislative functions, it was to grant powers to meet that, limiting the remedy to the necessity as it arose He had also said that an answer could not be received after the Bill was sent out to Jamaica, during the present Session ; and that it might be necessary to provide for any contingency, such as to continue any Bills which might expire, from the House of Assembly not renewing them. Such was the declaration he had made.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said he had taken the most hostile course, but that certainly could not be so termed. He found it impossible to move an amendment in the Committee, and rather than move one on some unimportant point, he thought the fairer course was to move it on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair.—(Hear, hear.) He would observe further that if he should succeed, he was perfectly ready to give the Government full powers to meet any neces sity that might arise. Lord J. RUSSELL said the proposition of the Right Hon. Bart. would not enable the Government to meet any contingency. Mr. HUME said he had before supplicated for for bearance when it was refused, and the consequences had been most lamentable. Consequences equally lament able must follow the present plan. He begged the Go vernment to allow time, at least until the Colony could know what was going on. He would do all in his power to oppose the suspension of the Assembly of Jamaica, and he was perfectly certain that such a proposition would never pass that House. In answer to Mr. LUCAS, Lord MORPETH said he would not be enabled to bring on the Report on Irish Railways. Lord J. RUSSELL said Ise intended to bring on the two Prisons Bills and the Scotch Prison Bill on Monday. In answer to a question put by Mr. M. PHILLIPS, Sir J. HOBHOUSE said the Indian Government —.. ... were going on in that course prescribed to them by the House of Commons with respect to steam navigation. At the same time he would inform him that an offer had been made by a Company t• carry the mail by steam, and the authorities were now in correspondence on the question. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Mr. CHARLES BULLER wished to know what course the Government intended to pursue on the Re- gistration of Voters Bill, and he wished particularly to point out the inconvenience of so important a Bill being put on the paper for a Wednesday, when the Go vernment did not attend. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he should bring it forward on the first opportunity that was open to him, and he begged to assure the Hon. Mrmber that he was most sincere in his desire to carry it through. Mr. C. BULLER suggested to the Attorney-Gene ral that he had given no answer to his question. His complaint was, that the Bill had been fixed for Wed nesdays, on which day the Government did not attend. Could it not be brought forward on Monday next. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it would not be convenient to bring the measure forward on Monday. If Wednesday was an inconvenient day, he had no ob jection to fix some other day. ELECTION PETITION TRIALS BILL. The Order of the Day having been read for going into Committee on this Bill, Colonel DAVIES rose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The Gallant Colonel, in consequence of the noise in the House, and his own very indistinct articulation, was throughout his speech inaudible in the gallery. Sir GEORGE STRICKL AND, although he thought the new mode preferable to the one adopted at present, thought the House would be disappointed in the result. He believed the origin of this Bill to be owing to the accusations of per jury and corruption brought against Members of that House serving an Election Committees. He knew that he should be accused of entering on a quixotic expedition in endeavouring to defend the House from these accusations, but he really and decid edly was of opinion, that there was little ground for these accusations. He thought the evil had arisen from the nearly equal division of parties in that House, consequently a disputed scat occasioned excitement throughout the whole country.—(Hear.) The Members of Committees were quite at sea with regard to the law on the subject, and Counsel pro duced as precedents, the contradictory proceedings of former Committees. In whatever way an Election Com mittee was constituted there would be accusations brought against them, and those accusations proceeded from party feeling, and not from the constitution of the Committee. The accusation brought against Committees proceeded from party violence, and were founded on mere ima gination rather than the misconduct of the Members composing the Committee. If the House wanted to do any good on this subject it must clear up the law, because it was from the utterly defective state of the law, by which Committees were left quite unable pro. perly to discharge their duties, that unsatisfactory pro ceedings took place. Sir H. HARDINGE entirely concurred in the pro priety of the Bill brought in by his Right Hon. Friend, because he conceived that by it a great improvement would take place in the constitution of Committees, and yet there could be no doubt, and in this he so far agreed with the Hon. Bart. opposite, that a great part of the good working of the Committees would depend upon the way in which the law should be hereafter laid down by that House. The Hon. Baronet opposite had stated that he had been exposed to a deal of obloquy in the public press, in consequence, as he said, of having been seen speaking to one of the agents during the time that he was Chairman of the Hull Committee. The obloquy to which the Hon. Baronet had been exposed did not arise from that circumstance, but from the very extraordinary and strange decisions which that Committee came to. He (Sir H. Hardinge) was not there to impugn the conduct of any, nor to defend, but he would say that the Hon. Baronet opposite gave double votes on that occa sion, such as were calculated to throw very great doubt upon the propriety of those decisions. The Hon. Baronet gave ten double votes upon that Committee, nine of those being against the petitioners, and the Com mittee being formed of seven Members of the same po litics as the Hon. Bart., and of three Members of op posite politics ; and so strange were those votes that were so given by the Chairman, that they elicited very great wonder, not only from a large portion of Members of that House, but from the press of the country at large. If the Riet, ilen. Baronet's Bill, when it came to be the Jae, hould give him (Sir H. H.) the power, , or if he found that he had the po:,.,er in any other way— if ever the Hon. Baronet eppcsite shoula be again pro posed to serve on an Election Ce:.7nittee—if ever be should be mentioned as fit for a judge or a - , r upon an Election Committee, he certainly should feel it to be his duty to protest against such au appointment. He should state that the Hon. Bart. had disqualified himself from ever serving on an Election Committee again ; and he considered that disqualification to arise from the Hon. Baronet's incompetency—from his ignorance and from his want of common sense in coming to a proper decision.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should not have arisen to say a word on the present occasion, had the Hon. Bart. not attempted to vindicate his conduct, which conduct he (Sir H. H.) thought had done more to bring Committees of the House of Commons into disgrace than anything that had yet taken place. Sir G. STRICKLAND rose to explain. if it was consistent with the forms of the House that the Hon. Gentleman opposite should be allowed to accuse another of the want of commoti sense, then be had only to bow to those forms. TherSf(tas but one point of the speech which had just been delivered that he would offer any explanation upon. The Hon. and Gallant Member opposite—not gallant in the attack he had just made, certainly—had said that he (Sir G. Strickland) had given ten double votes. Probably he had given that number of double votes. He did not know if any of the Members of that Committee were in the House at that moment, but if they were he would appeal to them whether he had not often expressed the very painful situation in which he felt himself sonic times placed, by what he considered to be the very unwise law that compelled him to give those double votes.—(Cheers.) That circumstance probably arose sometimes from one of the Members of the Committee having been taken ill ; but he was compelled as Chair man by Act of Parliament to give double votes when the votes were equal, and did the Hon. Member oppo site mean to prove his own common sense, by saying that he (Sir G. Strickland) having first given a vote one way, was to stultify himself by afterwards giving a vote the other way, when he felt himself compelled to vote again ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. VERNON SMITH hoped this discussion would not generate upon party topics into party feel ing.—( Hear, hear.) He was not going to refer to any particular case, and therefore he hoped his rising would be an interruption to any other gentleman getting up who might feel in the least disposed to continue the dis - - cussion in the character he had assumed.—(Hear, hear.) He did not intend to vote for tliz.‘ reference of this Bill to a Select Committee. In general when Bills were referred to a Select Committee, it was for the purpose of making some great alteration, or overcoming some difficulty which was almost imsuperable for the House, but which did not exist in this case. He should not propose to reject the Bill, but reserve to himself the right to offer such objection to parts of it as might seem to him to be fit. His great ob jection to the principle of the Bill was that it appeared to him to proceed upon quite an erroneous supposition. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think that what was a good and salutary course to be adopted in a private case, would be a good and salutary course to be adopted also upon the trial of Election Commit tees in which he could not agree with the Right Hon. Bart. There was one grand distinction between the capacity of Members adjudicating on Private Bills, and on controverted elections. With regard to Private Bills they might hope to select Gentlemen havieg no indivi dual interest, but it was almost impossible to suppose that any Member of Parliament could go to an elec tion tribunal with any thing like impartiality.— (Hear.) He thought the more manly course would be for the House to allow that it was unfair without sufficient cause to place men of honour in such a position as to make their motives suspected, and this objection applied as strongly to the Bill now under consideration as to the plan at present pursued. The first difficulty of the present plan was the mini ' nation of Members by the Speaker. He had no fear of any partial decision from the Chair, but he would ask how the Speaker was to proceed in this selection ? If it was considered a high honour to be selected, what would be the feelings of those who were excluded, and who would consequently be considered neither so fit nor so honest as those who would be officially selected ? If on the other :hand it were considered a nuisance, he would beg the house to consider the canvassing that would take place to avoid being selected. How could the Speaker proceed in the selection of the six except by choosing three from one side of the House and three from the other ? and from the moment the Committee was thus appointed it would assume the shape of party, and to it, right or wrong, party decisions would be attri buted. There was another difficulty : suppose men de clined to serve, the Speaker was to select another six, who might not meet with the confidence of the House, and give rise to dissensions, of the inconvenience of which they had had an example that evening, and he did not think that any Member who might be so se lected would like that a political opponent, under feel ings of irritation, should get up and charge him with ignorance and want of common sense. The six thus appointed were to make choice of a seventh, but sup pose they were equally divided, there was no method proposed of making them come to a choice, but even if they did make a choice, the same difficulties would arise in Committee, as did at present. He felt extremely obliged to the Right Hon. Gentleman for having turned his attention to this subject, but he thought that. it was impossible to attain the end proposed by any tribunal consisting of Members of that House. With regard to the objec tions which had been made against placing that power in the hands of persons out of the House, on the ground of such proceeding being unconstitutional, he regarded them as utterly chimerical, as in fact, under the present system, although the Members of Election Committees were Members of that House, they did not act in their representative capacity. Sir R. PEEL thought it would he better to confine the discussion to the question immediately before the House, the reference to a Select Committee, than to enter into the wide field of discussion which had been opened before them. To that question he should confine himself, as he felt convinced that unless that plan was adopted they should make no progress what ever. He would suggest that it would be better to permit the Bill to go through the Committee in order to render it as perfect as possible, and discuss it on the third reading. He decidedly objected to refer it to a Select Committee, as there was no question so proper for the decision of the House, and he was satisfied that however long a Select Committee might sit upon the subject, the House would discuss the subject without being guided by the Report of a Select Committee. The speech of the Hon. Gentleman went to show that the House should reject the Bill at once, but not refer it to a Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.) There was no Committee could elicit evidence on this subject which the House was not already in possession of, and he trusted that if they did not approve of this Bill they would reject it at once, and not condemn it to the slow and lingering death of a Committee up stairs. It had been said that this Bill was a mere abstract of the Bill of last year. The Bill of the Hon. Member for Liskeard of last year had been founded upon the Report of a Committee, so that all the advantage that could be ob tained by a Select Committee on this subject had been already obtained. He thought it was too much the custom when the night came on for a discussion in Committee to refer the matter to a Select Committee, in order to avoid the trouble of the discussion ; but however they might seek to avoid the discussion of this question, it would force itself upon the consideration of the House, and therefore he must refuse to refer it to a Select Committee. He was happy to see that Hon. Gentlemen were satisfied, and he had no party ad vantage to seek in bringing forward this question, and he should leave the Bill entirely in the hands of the House, and be perfectly satisfied with their decision whatever it might be.—(Cheers.) Lord HO WICK entirely concurred with the Right Hon. Baronet as to the impropriety of referring the question to a Select Committee, and here would advise his Hon. Friend to postpone the discussion upon this Bill until it had been through Committee. With re gard to the tribunal for the trial of controverted elec tions, a majority of nearly 3 to I had decided on the prop r i e ty of their retaining that power in their own hand s . H e hoped the House would proceed with this Bill, of many parts of which he approved, but which he thought would be improved by the amendment of the Hon. Member for Liskeard. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN thought they stion had better the remain as th e y w ere than adopt the sugge of Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. O'CONNELL said the motion now was for a Select Committee, which he was against. They had better decide that question first. The motion of Colonel Davies was then negatived without a division. Mr. C. BULLER now moved for instruction to pro vide for the appointment of permanent Assessors to Election Committees, and for the establishment of a Court of Appeal from the Revising Barristers, com posed of those Assessors. He was willing at once to abandon his plan to the Right Hon. Baronet, but that plan, however meritorious it was, could never suc ceed in ameliorating the present disgraceful system, unless his (Mr. Buller's) motion were also agreed to. Sir J. GRAHAM thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ought to confine himself to the appointment of Assessors without the tribunal of appeal. He begged to ask Mr. Speaker whether it were competent for the House to move the latter instruction of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ? Lord HO WICK. thought it would be unreasonable in the House to agree to the appointment of three Gentlemen, with large salaries, to act as assessors to Election Committees, unless they were also to be a tribunal of appeal for the decision of questions that should come from the Registration Courts. Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard. The SPEAKER, in reply to the question of the Right Hon. B er t., said there was no rule for the House, which it was clearly of more importance to adhere to on many considerations, than that which enacted that what might be done in Committee, should not be done in way of instruction. This was a Bill to amend the jurisdiction of Committees in the trial of election petitions and it was moved that it be an instruction to appoint assessors, who should be also a tribunal of appeal ; and was also a series of clauses respecting choice of a Chairman. All this had a distinct reference to the jurisdiction of cases of controverted elections, and all and each cf them might be introduced ; but another question was, if the assessois were to he appointed, whether that instruction were essential in the present state of the business ? The House seemed iG admit on all hands there could be no objection on tic first part of the motion of the Hon. Member for Liskeaed. Suppose then that the Committee did appoint asses sors, then he thought he should bring the question whether they should be appointed a Court of Appeal from the Revising Barristers by way of motion before the House. He would advise the House to adhere strictly to the principle of not allowing any thing to be done by way of instruction. Mr. C. W YNN said there was a difference between instruction and a direction to the Committee, whether it were a Committee of the whole House, or a Com mittee up stairs. This had been proved by his own proceeding in respect to the division of the Estimates. He thought it would be better to take the direction on the principle into the Committee. _ Mr. (YCON NELL thought it would be better to ake the sense of the House upon the whole question in :he first instance, than to move a part of the instruc- tion first in Committee, and then move that the House resume, and then move another part in Committee a second time. The SPEAKER said that between the movings in the House, and Committees as spoken of, they would involve themselves in great perplexity.—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the plan of moving instructions was an old Parlia mentary practice, which had been much increased of late years ; he thought it would be better to move that the Committee be empowered to discuss this question, and then that they should go into Committee and go through the Bill. Mr. BURRELL thought his Hon. and Learned Friend could have adopted no other course ; he had common sense upon his side, and he thought it would be better to consider the motion as a common sense suggestion, and to disembarrass it of the mysterious traces of demarcation and sanscrit erudition of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite.—(Laughter.) Sir GEORGE CLERK thought the Hon. Member 'or Rochester had put the present question upon a wrong footing. He (Sir G. C.) thought that the House should go into Committee, and then that the Hon. Member could bring forward his proposition. After a few observations from Mr. Buller, Sir IL Peel, Mr. Kelly, and the Attorney-General, Mr. BULLER proceeded with his motion. It was his clear opinion that it was no use to make any altera tion with respect to the trial of election petitions as long as the House allowed parties to come before them upon votes that had already been given—the question being whether they had been properly polled or not. The questions coming before Election Committees were questions connected with the votes of certain persons unknown to the Members of the Committee, and as far therefore, as perfect. indifference on behalf of Members of the Committee was concerned, fairness was to be expected ; but the fact was that the shape in which the matter came before the Committee made its decisions not whether a party had a right to vote or not, but whether a certain Member had a right to a seat or not. Election Committees had actually the power of deciding who should be the majority or the minority in that House. Nay, more, they had the power of deciding who should be Ministers. In such a state of things, he would ask whether temptations were not placed before Members sitting on Election Committees which they found it impossible to resist. The House might depend upon it that they never would have an equitable decision come to upon a vote already given at the poll, and the only chance was to have the decision upon the right of voting given by the Revising Barrister before the party voted. Now he proposed, in order to remedy that, to adopt the course pursued in the Queen's Bench on appeals from the de cision of the Quarter Sessions and the Poor-law Com missioners. He proposed that there should be asses sors at Election Committees, and that those assessors should form the tribunal of opinion. It was not his wish to offer any opposition to the Bill of the Right Hon. Bart., but he thought the addition he now pro posed might be ingrafted on that Bill. When first he brought the question of the nature of Election Com mittees and their decisions before the House, he was in great fear that the House would not tolerate the cha racter he then gave it for injustice in its proceedings, and that therefore he should have no chance of obtain ing the alteration he proposed—but what was the re snit, why he was afraid that the House now had actually too bad an opinion of itself.—(Cheers.) It seemed the universal opinion of Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that not only were Election Committees bad, but that their badness arose from a disregard of truth in the Members themselves.—(Laughter.) Now, in that opinion, he could not agree, for he believed that the Members of that House were about, taking them one by one, as honest persons as usually walked the streets.—(Great laughter.) It appeared that if they could not obtain a fair and honest decisio■ from the first gentlemen in the country, they could not expect it from any body. The fault was not with those who composed the tribunal, but in the constitution of the tribunal itself. It was difficult to form a tribunal that would not be subject to a similar abuse ; but if it had been desired to constitute a tribunal on which odium would be cast, the present system would have been selected. No doubt the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet would remedy the abuses be had just mentioned. There might be objections to it, but it was far superior to the existing plan, and he (Mr. Buller) was ready to sup port it. There was one fault however in the plan, of the Hon. Baronet, and that was the omission of any precaution for uniformity of decisions. The reason of there being such a heterogeneous mass of contradictory decisions by Revisin g Barristers was that there was no Court of Appeal ; and before an Election Committee a Council could generally quote four or five opposite de cisions upon one point, so that a country gentleman who sat upon the Committee would naturally be in clined to follow the decision of a party who entertained opinions similar to his own. The Committees ought to have a permanent Chairman, and the proposal be should make would be, that the Committees should be appointed as proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet, but that there should be a permanent assessor to each Committee. Well, then, the difficulty was as to what were to be the powers of those assessors, and by whom they were to be appointed. That was discussed in the Committee of which he was a Member in 1836, and it was provided for in the Bill that he proposed in accordance with the recommenda tions of the Committee. The first difficulty was from what class of persons those permanent Members of a Committee should be taken. The recommendation of the Committee and the provisions of his Bill were that they should be barristers appointed by a power in that House to act with all the authority of chairmen is Committees, but without votes. He believed the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Wynn) and himself were the only persons on the Committee who thought the permanent Chairmen should he Members of that House. He thought so not only on constitutional grounds, but for this plain reason, that a greater amount of ability might be got from the House than from the bar, be cause, although the services of a very eminent barrister would be useful on a Committee, yet they would not be able to get eminent barristers for such a sum as was proposed, about 1,500/. or 2,000/. a year. They might be able to get for that sum able lawyers, and men competent to the task, but not men possess ing that weight in the profession that would render then superior to the Counsel who would come before them ; however, the opinion of the ; Committee, and he must say, from what he had heard, that he believed the general opinion of Hon. Members, was that they should be barristers. Ile believed the opinion of the assessors would have a proper weight with the Com mittee. The next point related to the appointment and tenure of office. The recommendation of the Committee was, that the tenure of office should be from Session to Session. That was not a subject of very great importance, but what he should propose would be, that it should be from Parliament to Parliament. Then as to the appointment. Great fears were entertained as to the exercise of the power by a majority of the House. There were great objections to placing that power in the bands of any one out of the House. It would be objectionable that the mere vote of the majority should decide upon the appointment, because in times of great excitement the majority would probably think it was their privilege to appoint the three, and the minority seeing tho assessors elected by persons of opposite opi nion, would have no confidence in their decisions. There might be an occasion when the House would not be divided into two parties, but into three, and it might be necessary: that each of the three partite should appoint an assessor. The plan re commended by the Committee would have got over that, because it recommended that the Speaker should have the power of nominating, and that the House should either reject or confirm. But he was relieved from great difficulties on this subject by the Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet, which placed great powers in the Committee of Selection. Why should not the perma nent assessor be appointed by the Committee of Selec tion, and the House could confirm the appointments, unless it should appear they were partial or unfair ? The clauses he proposed to introduce into the Bill were, with very little exception, similar to those he had proposed in former Sessions. The Right Hon. Baronet's Bill would be useful as far as it went, but without sonic provision for the permanence of tho tribunals—above all, without some provision for a tribunal of appeal from the Revising Barristers, the Bill would effect very little useful alteration. The Right Hon. Bart appeared to wish to get over the deficiency of legal knowledge in the Committee, and would put an eminent lawyer from the House on each Committee, in order that the Corn- I mittee might have some safe legal guide. There were un doubtedlv:some eminent lawyers in the House, but he ( Mr B.) doubted whether there were 30 or 40, which might be the number of Election Committees sitting at one time. Besides that would not be a fair proceeding towards gen tlemen of the legal profession, and the only effect would be to drive them from the House.—(A laugh.) He quite agreed that if a lawyer came into the House he must take his chance of the share of the duties that devolved on Members ; but then the Right Hon. Baronet was going to pick him out on account of his eminence. The Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet provided for no per manency, and the eminent lawyer who was upon one Committee would have nothing to say on the next, and then there would be as great a diversity of decision as there was at present.—(Hear, hear.) In conclusion he would propose that it be an instruction to the Committee to provide for the appointment of permanent assessors to Election Committees, and for the establishment of a Court of Appeal for the Revisires Bar risters, composed of those assessors.—(Hear.) Mr. GREENE agreed with the Hon. Member for Liskeard that something of the kind proposed by him was necessary, and he was convinced that every Mem ber who sat on Committees must have felt great diffi culty' and pain in deciding ces points of law which they could not thoroughly understand.—(Hear, hear.) He most cordially seconded the proposition of the Hon. Member. Mr. CHILDERS conceived that the present Bill had two great objects in view —first, to keep the juris diction entirely in the House, and the second to have proper judges. The point was whether they could ob tain permanent Chairmen, who could be satisfactory to the House and the country, and the difficulty was how to appoint those Chairmen. He therefore should sug gest, " that, at the beginning of the first session of each Parliament, the Chairman of Ways and Means shall obtain in writing, from each Member, the names of six Members, who shall be, in the opinion of such Mem ber, most fit to act as Chairmen of Committees for the trial of Election Petitions during that Parliament. The Chairman of Ways and Means shall, within fourteen days, present to the Speaker a list containing the names of twelve Members who have the most votes. The Speaker shall then appoint six Members out of the twelve to be Chairmen of Committees for that Parlia ment. The Speaker shall, however, have the power to return the lists, and order new ones to be prepared in a similar manner, and may even proceed to form a list from the original lists as sent in by the Members, but such list must be approved by the House, and no Member must appear in that list who has not. at least, fifty votes, When a Committee has been appointed, the Speaker shall draw out of a glass a name out of the list of Chairmen, and so on each Committee being appointed, until all the Chairmen have been drawn ; after which they shall be Chairmen of the Election Committees in rotation. That the six Chairmen, with the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, shall be a Com mittee for the regulation of the trial of Election Peti tions, of which Committee the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be the standing Chairman." Sir R. PEEL said he would confine his arguments strictly to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Liskeard. He had great objection to the form of the proceeding, and doubted as to the substance of it. If the Hon. Gentleman obtained a preliminary assent to his proposition it would involve the House in the re sponsibility of providing the details. Any Hon. Mem ber who brought forward so important a proposition as that the House of Commons should appoint certain permanent assessors in the performance of its duty, that these gentlemen should hold their office during the whole of the Parliament, ought to show the way in which it could be carried into execution. That was his objection to the form of proceeding, and he could not think that the House of Commons would, without any explanation as to the number of assessors or the amount of salary which they were to receive, affirm the proposition that permanent assessors should be appointed. The Hon. Gentleman proposed that there should be three assessors. One of the great difficulties would be that immediately after a general election these assessors would be amply employed, but in the following Sessions there would be very little to engage them. During one Session there would not be less than twenty Committees to attend to, and during every other perhaps not more than four or five. But the Hon. Gentleman said he would find other duties for them to perform. Let there be a distinct enu meration of those duties, because unless other duties de volvedupon them, it would be an improvident arrangement. The Hon. Member had not given any indication of the mode by which he would provide for the excessof labour in the first session, and how he would find employment for them afterwards. The Hon. Member would admit that it was of importance to proceed as rapidly as possible, in the adjudication of Election Committees. Now, on the 17th March, 1838, there were eight Committees sitting, and on the average through that month there were seven sitting. In such a case as that, the Hon. Member proposed to appoint deputies, and it was pos sible that those deputies might have more important duties than the assessors themselves, and supposing these deputies to be men of no great authority, and the Attorney-General, sitting on the Committee, should give an opinion on the one side, and the Hon. Member for Exeter on the other, how would the Com mittee decide against such authorities?—(Hear, hear.) It was argued that uniformity of decision would be se cured by the assessors. There would, if an appeal was provided, but without an appeal, what security was there that the assessors might not come to directly opposite opinions ?—(Hear, hear.) The opinion of the asses sors would only be required on great and grave points of law, which would arise unexpectedly. On such points professional men of the highest eminence might differ. How, then, would assessors secure uni formity ?—(Hear, hear.) It was his (Sir R. Peel's) belief that all desirable ends would be secured by se lecting a certain number of gentlemen from the House, investing them distinctly with a judicial character.— (Hear, hear.) He did not negative entirely the Hon. Gentleman's proposition, but he did not think the House could at present agree to it without seeing it clearly set forth in a Bill, with all its details, attending to the securities which the forms of the House provi ded against improvident and hasty legislation.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. RICH suggested that three permanent assessors be eonstituted a Court of Reference from the Election Committees—the questions being proposed, and the answers returned, in writing, and the Committee to have power to alter and modify their opinion thereupon. Bet lie was convinced that all the labours for improving the election tribunals would be unavailing, if the elec tion law was not specified and cleared up.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would sanction the pro position of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, for the appointment of assessors, which was as desirable on Election Committees, as the office of Judge Advocate was useful on Court-martials, to keep the members within the bounds of legal principle. But he feared that the opinion of a single assessor would Lot be attended to by Committees, whereas three would exer cise a controlling authority over the most wrong-headed Committee, and thereby uniformity of decision would be attained. Mr. WARBURTON objected to the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, be cause he had made no provision for uniformity of de cision. As the case now stood, people speculated upon the uncertainty of the law—(Hear, hear)—and if uni formity of decisions were established, the number of Committees would be much reduced.—(Hear, hear.) Making the Court of Appeal and the assessors to con sist of the same persons, the great benefit of uniform decisions was considerably guaranteed.—(Hear, hear.) Unless they insured uniformity of decision they would not lessen the evils they had to correct, and the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet did not effect this. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that although he felt inclined to approve of the plan of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, yet he felt that it would be better that the Hon. Member should propose clauses developing his plan in Committee. He objected to the moving an in struction to the Committee, because the House would then be pledged unconditionally to the appointment of assessors, when, perhaps, on discussion, the difficulties in the way of the appointment of those officers might be insuperable. Ile therefore hoped his Hon. Friend would not call for the decision of the House on this point at present, although he repeated that lie (Lord J. Russell) was inclined to approve of the proposal.— (Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM congratulated the House on the discovery they bad made that an adherence to the established usages of the House conduced to the de spatch of business. Had those rules been strictly ob served the House would have been saved the fruitless discussion as to how the assessors were to be em ployed until it had been determined whether assessors should be appointed.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that this would operate as a salutary lesson.—(llear.) Mr. BULLER did not regret the discussion which had taken place on the general principles of his amend ment ; he would withdraw the former part of it, in con formity with the request of the Noble Lord. He thought the objections of the Right Hon. Baronet would be fully met by the clauses which he should pro pose in Committee, although he had not been previously aware of all the objections the ingenuity of the Right Hon. Bart. had enabled him to urge against the plan. He trusted he should be permitted to move the latter portion of his amendment. He therefore moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to provide the establishment of a Court of Appeal from the deci sions of the Revising Barristers. Mr. S. O'BRIEN objected altogether to the frame work and general principle of the Bill. He did not think the evils of the present plan could be remedied by substituting selection for the present system of appointing the Committee by chance. The main , ground of objection, o n his part, was that partiality was more likely to exist in the new tribunal than in the old one. Giving the Speaker credit for impartiality, and assuming that that Right Hon. Gentleman would be strictly neutral, he would select three from each side of the House as a general Committee. This Commit tee would then have to select Special Committees ; and supposing that they imitated the Speaker's example of choosing three from each side of the House, how were they to choose a seventh for a Chairman without giving that party from which the Chairman should be selec ted an occasion for triumph ? And this primary spirit would run through all, the details of the system, He thought the course proposed to be pursued by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, of having assessors, would have a good effect, as it would tend greatly to shorten inquiries on the subject of the validity of votes. He concurred in the plan of taking evidence by Com missions in the country, as its tendency would be to di minish expense, and thereby give the man of small means an opportunity of defending his return. In con clusion, he thought the propositions of the Hon. Member for Liskeard were worthy the attention of the House, and he would object to going into Committee unless the principles of that Hon. and Learned Member's Bill were embodied in that of the Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. O'CONNELL felt bound to object to the principle of the Bill of the Hon. Baronet, because he considered it premature and extremely out of place. It began at the wrong end ; it ought to have began by settling the law, w hereas its object appeared to be to make it more unsettled than it was at present. He had stated often, and he asserted it again, that the Members of - that House were not competent to decide questions upon election petitions. They must look out of doors for that.--- (Hear, hear.) The decisions of Election Commit' tees of that House were looked upon out of doors as monstrous and unjustifiable, because they were reckoned upon according to the politics of the Members of which they were composed. But the Right Honourable Baronet proposed the same tribu nal, and he (Mr. O'C.) impugned the Bill for creating a new partiality. The Speaker was to select six gentle_ men. Was a Speaker mor e i m p ar ti a l than the rest of mankind ? It did not become him to say any thing to praise any more than it did in dispraise of the Right Hon. Gentleman who at present filled the Chair ; but l an impartial man with a littl e ti m idity m ight be partial against his own party for th e p ur p ose o f a ppearing partial.—(Hear, hear.) He (M r . O'C.) contend ed that a tribunal ought to b e cons tituted out of the House. They had a l rea dy ascertaine d this fact, and it was not hi s ca l umn y, but the ir own confession, that th e C omm itt ees did not d o justice. That was p rove d b y the exultatio n of one party, when there was seven to five in the number that came down to ball o t—th e p resent Bill proclaime d it. Let them meet the evil as it existed, and take from the interested the trial of these cases. They ought not to swear men to act impartially, when they knew til e / were under a bias that drove them to the contrary; and therefore the tribunal should be changed.—(H eer ' ) Sir WALTER JAMES, concurr i ng gene rally in t he Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Bart., said it BP; peared to him that there w ere t wo p o i n t s w hich 0 3 4 4 be made more effective. The first was as to the pre paratory proceedings. He thought the petitione r= ought to define their gro un d s o f a tt ac k. The oth er point was the constitution of the Committee, in order that contradictory decisions might be avoided. Sir G. STRICKL AND said he thought he 11 1 , right to call upon the H on . B aronet oppos it e (Sir be Hardinge), for an expla na ti on o f th e c h arge w hich A meant to insinuate again st hi m , as Ch a i rman o f the 1 1 ' Committee. Mr. PRYME rose to order.---(Great laughter.) d Mr. Sergeant WILDE thought it would be asn a i i i improper desertion of th e d u ti es o f t h e L eg i s lature,. subject the matters connect e d w ith t h e e l ec ti ve franebr o to all the strict rules of the common law before —(Hear, hear)—a plan which, indeed, he considered together impracticable ; and he believed that there that as much intelligence, int egr ity, an d i n d ustry w ithin t i n ot House as out of it, and it was a mistake to suppose t ) party bias only operated in th a t H ouse .—(H e ar,bea r ii To postpone the consideration of the Bill of the Rigs Hon. Baronet till the election law was reformed Of i t be like an indefinite postp onemen t, f or w h e n coule. th be expected that that this law would be defined vi l , l o clearness and certainty ?—(H ear .) It was h ar dly p?s i r that in a branch of the law so extensive all and uncertainties could be removed.—( Hear, h asi a But the Bill of the Right Honourable Baronet wa ll ,. go far to remedy this uncertainty, by tending to 17 ) duce uniformity of decision.—(Hear, hear, h ei i n Matters of detail would best be settled Committee.—( Hear.) The appointment of permsn e it h Chairmen of Committees was quite consistent ri s that Bill, and such a measure would be as effective," vartatoal the appointment of assessors.—( Hear.) Certt i li therefore, he (Sergeant Wylde) thought the Bill 11 " ° i - t so far be approved of as to go into Committee 11 1 3 °5,; Mr. LANGDALE thought that the Right ; P : t ly. Bart. opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) should dist al " t o state if he meant to impute dishonourable motives the Hon. Member for Yorkshire (Sir G. Strickland).o Lord MAHON, said he considered that this 0 0 4 would never give publi c sa ti s f ac ti on on this sullie; till it parted with its jurisdiction—(" Hear, hear" fly.. Mr. O'Connell, and others)—bat he should not o pP e ' going into Committee--( Hear.) Mr. R. PALMER said he should go into C °ll/ .: mittee without c h ang i ng hi s op i n i on i n f a vour of tnici plan of the Noble Member for Hertford - 4 1 ' o/. Mahon.) Sir R. PEEL s a id h e cons id ere d t h e sense of t h e House was to try every experiment before parting its jurisdiction—(H ear )— an d w i t h t h at v i ew be "- brought forward this Bill. To say that because r u t have not defined your law, therefore you n ann° o l amend your tribu na l, was a b sur d ; f or were no the two questions quite distinct?—(Hear' bbe Could there be any objection to giring itT o ld Speaker the no m i na ti on o f t h e C omm i ttees ? " ; ° in g not the Spe a k er h ave a strong i nterest in rnain t t„ n d if his character for impartiality ?—( Hear, hear.) , lo the Speaker could not be expected to be imparti a l' could the assesors ?—( Hear, hear.) The Bill was then committed. god* Clauses up to 22 were agree d t o a f ter s ome - cations. The CHAI RMAN then reported progress, obtaieej a nd leave to sit again on Monday. . t in The CHANCELLOR of SUPPLY the EXCaI• - • l ltbs moved that th e S pea k er l eave t h e cha i r, an d tin" House go into a Committee of Supply. „ t tbs t Col. SIBTHORP wou ld oppose any gra- be°, the Right H on . G en tl eman m i g h t move f or un til be t he laid before the H ouse , t h e returns respe ctin l o f distinctive expenses of the mission of the Esr tbe Durham to Canada, which he bad moved for en 00 21st of February, and which had been promise d * heel. believed the G overnment were a f ra id to pre sent t —(A laugh.) voU O The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH.— h i e / said these returns were already on the t$- (Laughter.) tor ° Col. SIBTHORP complained th a t the re were not printed. The SPEAKER then left the Chair. v. 0110 The CHANCELLOR o f t h e EXCI - Im- f then moved th a t 60,0001 . b e vote d on acco unt tingencies.—Agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. E in le ft The House h av i ng resume d , t h e SpEAlcsa ag - ca tO the Chair, and the CitaNceerma of the El•c } :als! moved a vote of 13,000,0001 . E xc h equ er P" Agreed to. psi The House then resumed, the Orders of the were gone through, a n d th e H ouse adjourned $t o'Clock EVENING EDITION'. ~- - T. COX SAVORY, G o ld sm i t h , Bze 47 ' Trio °r § g .; London (Seven D oors f rom G racechurch-stree t). Public that he has fitted up THREE SHOW R‘f — ,oPe" s r l pressly for the display of a large assortment s u r f , t hosa ip ..1 SILVER-EDGED PLATED GOODS. He " e— 0 1 '4, those low but fixed prices, which have been so sstiZ e LEP h i f drawing public attention to the WATCH, JEW'",,,, of A ". SILVER SPOON and FORK, and several brane i T at of trade. N.B. A pamphlet, containing a Detailed l OU Prices of Plate, Plated Goods, Watches, Clocks, fie' „ o r" had gratis, or will be f orwar d e d i n answ er to a r application. 1J S SUPERIOR SILVUR WAT CH n Cor r LONDON MADE. AT tit Re• A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Watchmakers, .0"; for se t o hill, London (opposite the Bank of England), su h „tiOS'a• tion a very large STOCK of SILVER WA 1 . 0 1 intro whole of which are made and finished under the care ol d 14 tion of experienced workm en o n th e i r own premis es, warranted for correct performance. Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, with double-backedo 4 engine-turned cases, warranted ..................... , Fine Vertical Watches, jew e lled, with seconds' ha nd ' ' and double-backed cases, warranted .............. .. Patent detached Lver Wche ca d j e welled t - 0 6 four holes, we with seco at nds' s hand e , and doub le. 6 backed cases, warranted .............................. otrs-f, Either of the above in silver hunting cases, 10 °' bleb Is. A large variety of second-hand Silver Watches, r_, been carefully examined, and can be warranted each. N.B. Second-hand Watches purchased in oxeheTige. BIRTHS. s t itber - On the 23d inst., at Croydon, the lady of J. 11`• Os° Esq., tr of a son. On the 24th inst., in Chester-square, the =An. Mo. ° f ton, of a daughter. t he DR On the 24th inst., at Park-street, Westminst er, 00 , the Rev. H. M. Wagner, Vicar of Brighton, of s f ) T 19°1 On the 21st Met, at Cilgwy n , th e lady of M a .r ° Hoiford, of a son. • Dick° At Eastnor House, Leami ng t on , the lady 0-f F • Esq., of a daughter. MARRIED. tloo , On the 24th inst., at the Chapel Royal, Togwairs. a t ti i i r i, James Rutherford Lumley, 9th Regiment 13en fantry, and son of Major-General James Rutherford L:bolst Adjutant-General, Bengal Army to his cousin, .B.4,iikn youngest daughter of the late Rev.. Thomas Chambe:Lineoin' son, M.A., Rector of All Saints, Stamford, county, DIED. t P" On the 20th inst., at Redcar Yorkshire, Lieutena"bay Ar- Scott Waring, of the Hon. East India Company's J3°l'a hI. finery,Walsh, age d 32. Ell" ' 4 f On the 21st inst., near Chatham, William , vs agbt ° pay 45th Regiment, eldest son of the late Major 1 1 _ 131essington, Wicklow. of YO a, Is Lc,ndon : Printed and Published by MURDO ritio i, i No. 112, Strand, at The Sum Office, No. 112,4 p. the county of Middlesex. —Saturday, AprilLI.:00000