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

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
propriety of their retaining that power in their own
hands. He 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 they were 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. Bert., 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 Revising 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, on 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, whereas
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 more impartial 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 little timidity might be partial
against his own party for the purpose of appearing
partial.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'C.) contended
that a tribunal ought to be constituted out of
the House. They had already ascertained
this fact, and it was not his calumny, but their
own confession, that the Committees did not do
justice. That was proved by the exultation
of one party, when there was seven to five in the number
that came down to ballot—the present Bill proclaimed
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 tile/
were under a bias that drove them to the contrary;
and therefore the tribunal should be changed.—(Heer')
Sir WALTER JAMES, concurring generally in the
Bill introduced by the Right Hon. Bart., said it BP;
peared to him that there were two points which 0344
be made more effective. The first was as to the pre-
paratory proceedings. He thought the petitioner=
ought to define their grounds of attack. The other
point was the constitution of the Committee, in order

that contradictory decisions might be avoided.
Sir G. STRICKL AND said he thought he 111,
right to call upon the Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir be
Hardinge), for an explanation of the charge which A
meant to insinuate against him, as Chairman of the 11'
Committee.

Mr. PRYME rose to order.---(Great laughter.) d
Mr. Sergeant WILDE thought it would be asnaiii
improper desertion of the duties of the Legislature,.
subject the matters connected with the elective franebro
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, integrity, and industry within tinot
House as out of it, and it was a mistake to suppose t
)
party bias only operated in that House.—(Hear,bearii
To postpone the consideration of the Bill of the Rigs
Hon. Baronet till the election law was reformed Of it
be like an indefinite postponement, for when coule.th
be expected that that this law would be defined vil,lo
clearness and certainty ?—(Hear.) It was hardly p?sir
that in a branch of the law so extensive all
and uncertainties could be removed.—( Hear, hasia
But the Bill of the Right Honourable Baronet wall,.
go far to remedy this uncertainty, by tending to 17)
duce uniformity of decision.—(Hear, hear, hei in
Matters of detail would best be settled
Committee.—( Hear.) The appointment of permsneith
Chairmen of Committees was quite consistent ri s
that Bill, and such a measure would be as effective,"
vartatoal
the appointment of assessors.—( Hear.) Certtili
therefore, he (Sergeant Wylde) thought the Bill 11"°i-t
so far be approved of as to go into Committee 1113°5,;
Mr. LANGDALE thought that the Right ;P:tly.
Bart. opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) should distal" to
state if he meant to impute dishonourable motives
the Hon. Member for Yorkshire (Sir G. Strickland).o
Lord MAHON, said he considered that this 004
would never give public satisfaction on this sullie;
till it parted with its jurisdiction—(" Hear, hear" fly..
Mr. O'Connell, and others)—bat he should not opPe'
going into Committee--( Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER said he should go into C°ll/.:
mittee without changing his opinion in favour of tnici
plan of the Noble Member for Hertford-41'o/.
Mahon.)
Sir R. PEEL said he considered the sense of the
House was to try every experiment before parting
its jurisdiction—(Hear)—and with that view be "-
brought forward this Bill. To say that because rut
have not defined your law, therefore you nann°ol
amend your tribunal, was absurd ; for were no
the two questions quite distinct?—(Hear' bbe
Could there be any objection to giringitT old
Speaker the nomination of the Committees? ";°ing
not the Speaker have a strong interest in rnaintt„nd if
his character for impartiality ?—( Hear, hear.) , lo
the Speaker could not be expected to be impartial'
could the assesors ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then committed.
god*
Clauses up to 22 were agreed to after some -
cations.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, obtaieej
and
leave to sit again on Monday.
. tin
The CHANCELLOR ofSUPPLY the EXCaI•-•lltbs
moved that the Speaker leave the chair, and tin"
House go into a Committee of Supply.
„t tbst
Col. SIBTHORP would oppose any gra- be°,
the Right Hon. Gentleman might move for until be the
laid before the House, the returns respectinl
of
distinctive expenses of the mission of the Esrtbe
Durham to Canada, which he bad moved for en 00
21st of February, and which had been promised* heel.
believed the Government were afraid to present t
—(A laugh.)
voUO
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCH.—hie/
said these returns were already on the t$-
(Laughter.) tor°
Col. SIBTHORP complained that the re
were not printed.
The SPEAKER then left the Chair. v. 0110
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCI-Im-f
then moved that 60,0001. be voted on account
tingencies.—Agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS. Ein left
The House having resumed, the SpEAlcsa ag-catO
the Chair, and the CitaNceerma of the El•c}:als!
moved a vote of 13,000,0001. Exchequer P"
Agreed to. psi
The House then resumed, the Orders of the
were gone through, and the House adjourned $t
o'Clock