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

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leges entirely superseded.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 aneteni
iastilutions. When his public conduct had been en:eaigned,
it had usually been on the ground that he -eras 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 privilege, 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 objections urged against
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 not, then, the membe.: of
class B si ould propose three names co the mem.'-eer of class
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 not
not be equalized and adjuseeit
consider their appointmee.t as a favour from one particular
party more than :mother, and thus the assessors would
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 in that House, to an" party which
°
happened to be in a large minority wiv:er parties
tection at all ; but in the scheme Lev afforded no pro-
was an equal protection for *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
acnodm just so witThhreegagrodesttiooothwe
assyshteomtv of
to getElec-
rid were without any weight or autho-
f that evil, without altering the tribunal. He ( Mr.
rtPemberton) believed that to be impossible. Two modes
had been suggested : one was the scheme of his Learned
Friend, the Member for Liskeard, to appoint Assessors
whose opinion should guide the Committees upon points of
law ; and. the other was the plan suggested by his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, to select lawyers
from the House. But the question was whether, when
you had appointed the Assessors, or selected the lawyers,
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 Committees.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Ho 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 which no Committee had excies-
vtt more
dissatisfactesn ; then with re
Commit-
tees, in which partiality to 'a
sr-- •
with justice be urged.
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
paetriisfac
..to the parties, and to the country, if ato
pro-
qualified tribunal could be obtained out of that House.
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 other. He (Mr. Pemberton) feared
that House lived in such an atmosphere of 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 state that, taken out of the House and 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 House 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 resist the successful
efforts of the Commons to deprive the 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 elections was laid down. My Noble Friend
seemed to think he had found a precedent in
acnoudntry. He said
volp6u6lalr,:orniathhtes
should doubt that.
gtwhreoerivei nlndv
not
tre iwhennt
hvetehr etyr
iHe
highros u soeff a opv
ofe
ut Cirt
iowonnittsmh. ot thil
Ise
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 the House not to come
to any abstract resolution, till it is prepared with a practi-
cal measure. —(Cheers.) Let us see your Bill, let us
let us hear from him
the answer to some of the objections. We are to have three
lawyers appointed who are to hold their situations for life,
to be perfectly independent of us who are to decide upon
el
ar tuusne ist yo
fo
that
h arguing u
Bill, g withand 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,
eaynarly approaching it,
se
right to determine on our right to sit in this House, I
tie Commisiioners."—( Cheers, and
am not satisfied they .will not be most important autho-
rities. And what satisfaction does my Hon. and Learned
" This is the worst
atlFranri
laughter.
geu
tnhnhdtaae
trg: l
vi
)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 men superior in
ttpohreobfeetshssuri offie
encailelnae:m,ytioenresdnocwehtoht to
aret
bh eumsi
nst eoelsysehsoa,
ltdanthdtheetihmreoroeninfloercneets their
decisions do not give satisfaction. And observe—
life—who are to have salaries allotted to them—are not
cisely when it is of the utmost importance; viz.;
after the general election. These three lawyers, 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._( Heim )
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
satisfectloe—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