The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-22 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

Petitions against any alteration in the Corn-laws were
presented by Mr. lleathcote, from a place in Lincoln-
shire, and by Mr. Christopher, from several places.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition from
Rumford, in Chester, against. any further endowment
to the National Church ; also a petition from the li-
censed victuallers of the same place, against the Beer
Bill.
THE CASE OF MR. D. W. HARVEY.
Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Select
Committee appointed on Mr. Harvey's case. The Re-
port was read by the Clerk at the table. The Select
Committee appointed to consider the papers relative to
the appointment of Mr. D. W. Harvey, the Member for
Southwark, to the office of Registrar of Hackney Car-
riages, and directed to report whether Mr. Harvey having
accepted the said office has vacated his seat, hare agreed
to the following Report :--Resolved, that the Commit-
tee consider the. under the provisions of the 6th of

Anne, chap. 7, 41 Gto. 111. chap. 52, and 1 and 2
Vict., chap. 79, the Committece are of opinion
that the office of Registrar of Hackney Carriages
is a new office of profit under the Crown, within the
intent and weaning of the said Acts : that Mr. D. W.
Harvey has accepted the said office, and has thereby
vacated his seat.

Mr. NV YNN said, in accordance with the decision
of the Committee, which he would observe was unani-
mously agreed to, and in which they were assisted by the
law officers of the Crown—under these circumstances,
unless any Hon. Gentleman wished for time in order
to induce the House to come to a different conclu-
sion, he thought it due to the electors of the borough of
Southwark not to keep them without a Representa-
tive for that, borough any longer, and he therefore
moved that a new writ be now issued.

On the question being put that the motion be agreed to,
Mr. HUME said he had no hesitation in expressing
his concurrence in the opinion of the Committee, and
the question appeared to him as plain a one as
could possibly be submitted.—( Hear, hear.) lie rose
only to state that there had been many instances
of Members of that House receiving the public money,
and appointed to public offices, without vacating their
seats, and without any notice being taken of it, and it
would appear that the objection in the present case was
directed against Mr. Harvey.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial Benches, and " No, no,"
from the Opposition.) He hoped that the rule which
had now been enforced would in future be rigidly ob-
served, and that there would be no ground henceforth
given for any imputation as to the partiality of the
House, for there was nothing so important as that
strict impartiality should be observed in their
proceedings, and no person ought to be injured by
that House on account.of his political opinions. There
was no doubt this was a very hard case as to Mr.
Harvey, who, however, had frankly avowed that what-
ever the decision of the House, he would avoid putting
them to any embarrassment or uncertainty.
Mr. WARD, as one of the Committee, felt bound
to say the case was so clear and the facts so settled that
there was not the slightest shadow of a shade of doubt
upon the subject, and the Committee deemed that they
were only discharging a public duty in putting an end
to the uncertainty with regard to the borough of South-
wark, by the report which they had presented.
Mr. AG LIO NBY would not have said a word, but
for the assertion of the Hon. Member who had just sat
down, that there was not the shadow of a shade of
doubt among the Committee—( A laugh)—which was
not strictly correct, for he (Mr. Aglionby) had suggested
a doubt ; which doubt he still feu, a:though he bad on
the Committee submitted to a superior legal authority,
whether there was not a distinction between the ac-
ceptance of an offi-.:e, to which a salary was at the time
of its acceptance attached, and the acceptance of an
office to which there was only a contingent and un-
certain salary. In this latter case he did not think
that, as the Court of Queen's Bench could not grant
a mandamus, neither did the rule of vacating the scat
in that House apply.
Sir ROI3ERT PEEL trusted that the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny would allow him to suggest
that if he was aware of any other instances that fell
within the same principle, that he would have the
goodness to mention them, and move for new
writs.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Member made such
a motion, he should be disposed to second it for the
sake of impartiality.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME had no hesitation, in explanation of
what he bad said, to state to the Right Honour-
able Baronet that the first question he had put
to some of the Members of the Committee
was whether they had inquired into the pre-
cedents of that House. He had asked whether
they had inquired into the case of the Hon. Member
for Marylebone, who had been sent abroad.—(Hear,
hear.) Whether they had inquired into the case of the
Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who had been allowed a
sum of money for a Special Commission—( Hear)—
and also, whether they had inquired into that of the
Honourable Member for Dundee.—( Hear, hear.) This
was the first blot that had been discovered. Ile (Mr.
Hume) did not disapprove of that discovery, but he
would take care that in all future appointments, inqui-
ries should be made, and also into those that were now
existing.—( Bear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBOURN said, with respect to the
case of the Honourable Member for Kilmarnock,
to which the Hon. Member for Kilkenny had al-
' luded, he (Mr. Goulbourn) had called the attention of
the House to the subject hiMself, and no person was
more vigorous in casting imputations upon him for do-
ing so than the Hon. Member for Kilkenny.--(Hear.)
Mr. HUME begged to explain. He denied
the statement of the Right Honourable Gentle-
man. That Right Honourable Gentleman had
made some imputation which he (Mr. Hume) con-
sidered improper with reference to the estimates on
that subject, and what he had stated was to depre-
cate the course he pursued.
Mr. W. W. WYNNE, on behalf of the Committee,
wished to state that they were appointed to consider whe-
ther Mr. Harvey abrocated his seat or not, and it was no
part of their duty to inqnire into the circumstances
of the cases of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, or
the Hon. Member for Dundee. If the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny was aware of any other case, it would
be his duty to bring it under the consideration of the
House. He could not but observe that the present law
upon the subject was deficient, inasmuch as there was
no provision calling upon parties, to inform that House
of the appointment of Members to, official situations.
There were other cases, but they were.passed over sub
silentio ; if, however, these were brought before the
House from any quarter, the House would then inquire
into them.

Mr. JERVIS rose, he said, to give an opportunity
to the Right lion. Gentleman, the Member for Mont-
gomery, to contradict a rumour which was very preva-
lent in Wales, that since the last election he had re-
ceived a place of profit under the Government, the Lord-
ship of Denbigh, for which he received something for doing
certain duties. Now it was within his own (Mr.
Jervis's knowledge, that the patent was made out since
the last election. It was true it is dated before, but it
is dated on an erasion, and he was informed it was not in
fact made out till after the election in the month of March.
He was told that the Right Hon. Gentleman had ap-
plied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the
election, but he apprehended that the appointment
not having taken place until after the election made
no difference. The date being upon an erasure,
cad having been dated subsequent to the election called
for explanation. The Right Hon. Gentlemnn was
originally appointed to the office in the year 1796—it
was an office held during the pleasure of the Crown, and
of course was vacated by the demise of the Crown. The
Right Hon. Gcnticmm had held the office during the
reigns of George 111. and William IV., he believed
without any renewal of the patent. The election took
place, and the Right Hon. Gent. applied for the re-
ceipt ()Ibis salary. It was then inquired of him whether
he had any patent, which, being produced, was found
to be dated upon an erasure. He (Mr. J.) made inquiries
at the office, and he was informed by the officer
there that though the appointment was made on the
sth March, 1837, it bore the date of the 18th July.
He thought he had stated sufficient grounds to entitle
him to call upon his Right Honourable Friend, if
he would allow him to call him so, for an explanation.
(Laughter.) He could assure him that it had excited
a feeling in the minds of many Welchtnen that he had
vacated his seat by the acceptance of the office in ques-
tion.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WYNN thought that he had a good right
to complain of the unfairness of bringing a question of
that nature without his having been favoured with any
notice, or without, so far as the Hon. Gentleman was
concerned, the slightest intimation of his intention.—
(Hear, hear.) As it happened, however, he had had
notice of this case, because his Right Honourable
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
informed him that the Honourable Member had
been making inquiries into the subject. He would
meet the case by stating the real circumstances attend•
ing his appointment. It was true that he received the
appointment originally in the reign of George 111.,
in the year 1796—it was perfectly true that
he had held the appointment throughout the
reign of Geerge IV., without any new patent, un-
der the provisions of an Act of Parliament which
rendered such appointments legal unless there was an
actual tender of them. Upon the death of William
the Fourth, and prior to the election, he was still hold-
ing the office, which he might legally do for
six months. Before the expiration of that time he
wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
know whether it was intended to continue the
appointments, and in reply before the election he
received from the Right lion. Gentleman a letter stating
that the appointment would be continued, and that the
patent would be prepared forthwith. Though he had
received time patent after the election, still heapprehended
that it would not vacate his seat, because before he was
re-elected, he had in fact in that letter received his re-
appointment to that office. Under these circumstances
he considered that the lion. Gentleman had, what was
vulgarly called, found a mare's nest.—(Laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that he felt it to be his duty to say a few
words on the subject ; he might, perhaps, not ex,
press himself so clearly on the subject a; if he had
been present the other night—but he believed
there could be no doubt of the fact, that before the
election the lion. Gentleman had applied on the sub-
ject of the appointment, when he was informed that. the
re-appoin
tment would take place as a matter of course,
and the only reason for the delay which had occurred,
was, that a doubt had arisen as to whether the ap-
pointment was to take place tinder the Woods and
Forests, or under the authority of the Treasury.
With regard to Gentlemen accepting the Chiltern Hun-
dreds, what was constantly occurring, Gentlemen were
in the habit of applying for the ixppointmentt of Steward
to the Chiltern Hundreds, and between the making out
the appointment and the acceptance of the office a
delay of two or three days frequently took place, and yet
there is no instance of a new writ being moved for in
.1 that House during this interval on the ground of the

• .

-
appointment to the office. In fabt, it was the accept,
ance of the office, and not the 4ta of, the .ap:-
kingnut
pointment that brought the law into operation. ',lf any
irregularity had occurred, he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) was responsible fcr it, ankit-iroiet.Out-of•an
uncertainty as to what department itlhobild tie vtfec.eq
Mr. JERVIS certa;nly would not have mentibne'd
the case at all if the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
wished to know if there had been any case at all anala-
gous to it—(Much laughter, and cries of Hear, hear.)
Whether he might be right or wrong he really had no
notion ; he contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no authority to give the office ; he merely recom-
mended the appointment to the Crown, by whom the
office was granted, and he subsequently signified his
approval in the usual manner. Although the appointment
was made on sth of March, the office was not legally given
away until the patent was actually made out. It seemed to
him therefore that if they were to act with strict impar-
tiality and seek to subject the Hon. Member to penalties
for every vote he had given, that some further inquiry
was necessary.—The motion was then agreed to.
CRIME IN IRELAND.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that on 7th March he should
mot e for papers relating to the state of Ireland, parti-
cularly copies of any reports or communications re-
specting crime and outrage in that country.
CORN-LAWS.

Mr. WARD said it was perfectly useless in him to
hope that the House would rescind its decision with regard
to not hearing evidence in the case of the Sheffield petition.
He should therefore postpone the consideration of the
Sheffield Petition until after the motion of which the
lion. Member for Wolverhampton had given notice
for an early day for a Committee of the whole House
had been disposed of. After that motion was decided
he would bring the Sheffield Petition under the consi-
deration of the House.