The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TIJESDAY..,EVENING, MAY 10, ► 853. .

iiittit.,kl,4heirable to postpone it on account of no notion j
•.n} been giien, and because he was *tout to move that
tow evidence should be printed.
Sir J. TYRELL was surprised that the hon. and learned
gentleman was not prepared to lay down the law lame
clearly, as he was one of thew gentlemen who came there
without any obvious motive. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY was ilndentood to say that the statute
alluded to by Mr. Hegelian did not include bribery.
Lord IL RUSSELL thought that the cam was one to
which the rule of the house did not apply ; but as bribery
and corrupt practices had been alleged it was desirable that
the evidence should be laid before the house before the
writ was issued.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said much difficulty was created in
these cases through the non-compliance of the committers
with the provisions of the Controverted Election Act, which
required them to declare whether or not the report ought
to be issued. With regard to this old offender, Harwich—
(lmighter)—be was ve much disposed never to allow it to
ry
have another writ. (Laughter.) They had always had
Harwich before them—(mar, hear)—and if the writ were
issued without previous inquiry there would be nothing to
prevent Mr. Thomas Attwood from playing his old pranks
over again, and selling the borough. At present, one, if
not both, of the seats was entirely in the hands of Mr.
Attwood.
Mr. AGLIONBY begged to inform the hon. member for
Finsbury that he was altogether mistaken in his view of
the law. His impression was that there was no clause in
the act referred to, no obligation on the committee, to
report whether the writ should issue or not, or upon the
house to adopt their recommendation as final. With re-
gard to the motion before the house he was disposed to
agree with the hon. and learned member for Suffolk that
the report of the committee in the Harwich ease did not fell
within the rule of the house requiring seven days' notice
previous to the motion for the new writ. The offence
which the committee had reported was not certainly in-
cluded in the rule of the house, but appeared to be a cams
magus. It was not bribery or treating, but it was as bad,
if not worse, and he thought the house ought to have the
evidence upon which the committee reported before they
consented to issue a new writ. If the hon. member would
not consent to withdraw his motion and give seven days'
notice of moving the writ, he (Mr. Arlionby) would submit
an amendment to adjourn the debate for a fortnight.
Mr. DISRAELI suggested that, in order to avoid em-
barresament in these cases, it was advisable they should
adhere to what was the understood rule of the house. He
theugbt it better to adjourn the debate.
Mr. °MILBURN w Is in favour of adjourning the debate,
until the evidence was before them.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE called the attention of the hon.
and learned member for Ceckernaouth to the 66th clause of
the act, which directed the committee to decide whether the
sitting member was elected, whether the election was void,
and whether or not a new writ should issue, and their de-
termination in this respect was to be binding on all the
parties.
air J. PAKINOTON considered this was one of those
Mese in which there was nothing in the report to justify the
Waal of the writ.
, Sir G. GREY remarked that the committee had reported
that a compact had existed, by which 60 or 70 votes were
transferred to one of the parties making that compact. This
was a corrupt practice of the worst kind--(hear, bear)—
and so far there was as strong a prima facie case in the re-
port for the seven days' notice of the intention to move for
the issue of the writ as he had ever known. (Hear.)
Sir J. TYRELL did not believe that any vote would
be influenced one way or other by the perusal of the evi-
dence, and therefore saw no reason for postponing the
motion in order that that evidence might be in the hands of
wembers. _

The house then divided—
For the motion ll6
Against it

On the aiotion that the debate be adjourned for a tort-

night
Sir J. TYRELL moved that it be adjourned for seven
days.
Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr. DISRAELI both urged
that that would be against the understanding with which
the division had just beep taken—and
Sir J. TYRELL withdrew the amendment, and the
debate was ordered to stand adjourned to that day fort-
night.
Sir DE L. EVANS gave notice that he should bring
forward his motion for inquiring into these cases as a sub-
stantive one.