The Sun.
London, England, 1830-12-03 00:00:00

TIIEGONir ELECTION.

The SPEAKER informed the House that Mr. C. har-
per, who, ou the 16th of Nove►nl►er, had petitioned against
the return for the borough of Tregony, had not entered
into the necessary recognizance's.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from Mr.
C. Harper, stating, as his reason for not having entered
into the securities, that he had temi,red one of 500/. and
two of 2501. rich, instead of two of NU and four of
'2601. each.

The petition having been brought up, a short discussion
arose on the propriety of caning in the petitioner, in
which the following Members took part E. B.
Sugden, Mr. O'Connel, Mr. Littleton, Mr. C. Roes,
Mr. Ilume, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. S. Rice, Mr. Twins, and
Mr. Tennyson.
The question was then put, and it was decided that the
petitioner should be called in.
Mr. C. Harper appeared at the bar accordingly.
The petition having been read at the table,
Mr. 1). W. HARVEY moved that its prayer should be
granted, and that accordingly the time for the petitioner's
Cotnpleting his reiognizance should be extended to Thurs.
day next.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that if the House
thought proper to extend the time, as required by. the pe—
titioner, they certainly had the power to do so. 110 any
attention been paid to the words of the Act of Parliament
the mistake respecting those recogniztnces could not have
been committed. Yet, if the party petitioning the
House should appear to have acted with good faith, he
(the Attorney-General) thought that, notwithstanding the
negligence of the petitioner, his prayer might he granted.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought, that as the House bed
made a rule, which was pet frilly intelligible, they ought
not to depart from it. The Act of PerliaMent distinctly
says that the recognizance for 1,000!. should be given
either by two persona for 5001. each, or four persona for
250!. each. Now if the House listened to such allege-
tions as those contained in the petition then htfore them,
they would give a positive advantage to the negligent man
over all, persons who attend to the law and comply faith-
fully with the, rules of the House.
Mr. O'CONNELL insisted that the petitioner had
complied with the law. The Act contained no limitation
respecting the number of the 'statues which should be sub-
milled to the examiners; and be considered that peti-
tioners used a prudent prec tution in using one or two
names more than the required number, lest they should
disapproved of. Besides the petitioner, in the present
case, had placed his petition in the }lends of an Hon.
Member sufficiently early to be presented to the House
within the time specified by the Act, if the House-had
been sitting. It was the adjournment that caused the pe
tition to be presented too late. The spirit of the law hav-
ing been strictly complied with, the petition ought not to
be set aside by epeeist pleading.
Sir It. PEEL said, that if .ever special pleading had
been resorted to, for the purpose of getting rid of the pro.

visions of an Act of Parliament, it had been resorted to by

the Hon. Member for Waterford. The Act of Parliament
directly prescribed the form in which the recognitanees
should be entered, and excluded any number of names but
two or four.
Mr. OtOPINP,LL replied, that the Act empowered
the ekaminers w alter the names first submitted to than,
and, if kenessiry, Jo sittuttitOe (Ahem."
li!r. NORTH *as of opiniiiln that the intention of the
Ant in specifyieo two ith4 four names, was to provide for
c)tti•emit Cases, and not to preclude the insertion of three
names. He supported the petition.
Sir E. SUGDEN opposed the petition. The express
injunctions of the law had been neglected. If the
House once departed from their rules, they would nee, r
know where to stop. In the present case there was
nothing to ustify inch , a devatiolv. Tht petitioner had
iiot acted With I good faith: le kid itiserfati in lira re-
'eogniiatiees as surety for st3of. the name of a man who
had,tidtharised Mtn Only to make him surety for 230/.
tAMPI3ELL slid that the Act allowed peti-
.

tioners only the alternative of two or four names. If
the House could in any case see fit to deviate from
that law, it ought not to do so in a case which, like the
present, was marked by bad faith and negligence.
The SPEAKER explained the circumstances of the case.
Lord PALMERSTON thought it import tot that the
rules laid down to regulate the proceedings of persons
ktving business before the House, should be in alt cases
observed.--41leer.)—Parties ought not to he encouraged
to expect that those rules would be diliensed with, and
that the House might be occupied with the discussion of
every case in.which petitioners neglect their own business.
As to the petition then under discussion, the House would
have an opportunity of going into the subject to which it
relates, upon the consideration of another petition com-
plaining of the same election.
Mr. HARVEY denied that the petitioner had acted
with bad faith. However, as the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) informed him that the sut►ject of the Treg•►ny elee-

tion, would come before the House on another occasion,
he would withdraw the petition.
Lord J. RUSSEU explained, that the petition al-
lutle,l to by the Noble Lord near him (Lord Pahnereton)
complained of the election o■ very different grounds from
those on which the present petitioner founded his com-
plaint. The other petition set forth that the Return was
illegal, because' the election had been held by a Mayor
who had not been legally installed.
Mr. HARVEY said, that being the case he would
press the petition.
Strangers were then, ordered to withdraw, and the House
div Wed.—The numbers announced were,
In favour of the petition
Against it
On our re-admission to the Gallery, we found
- - -

The SPEAKER explaining to the House, that the
orders respecting petitions complaining of undue Returns
from Bristol, Reading, Seaforth, Queenborough, and Ber-
wick-upon Tweed, should he discharged, the several pe-
titioners having failed to make good their recognizances.
CIVIL LIST.—SUPPLY.

In reply to a question from Mr. G. 11. DAWSON as
to what day the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to
move for a Committee of Supply for the Navy Estimates
of the year, which were not provided for in the last Ses-
sion.—also on what day it was intended to bring the Civil
List before the House,
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Committee of
Supply should be moved for on Monday. It was indis.
pensable that vangements affecting the Consolidated
Fund should be Frinplete4 before the 9th of this month, as
great public inconvenience would be occasioned by any de-
lay beyond that time.