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

ber for Tarnworth, whose abilities he highly revered, and
whose guidance on other questions he was bound to follow ;
'4114."" he considered also that he was opposed to the Right
-utt• Member for Montgomeryshire, he felt ready to give way
;
reverential silence. But it was a:-.:solut,ly necessary that
Tole °Teat and effective remedial treasure should be intro-
uneed',and believing- th it public opinion pointed to the remedy
n'ich shed to press upon the attention of the Mem-
bers of the Houic, he felt not only encouraged to persevere
but cr
inclinel to hope that the measure would receive the
sanction oof the House. In bringing it forward, he would
e,n,desvour to avoid wh,,tevee might lead to party discussion.
," hatever opinions he entertained, and they were strong
vvith'respect to the decisions of particular Committees,
n should on the present occasion, refrain from discussing
them, end lie thought he should best discharge the
duty
he bad undertaken, by urging his motion upon
general principles only. The Right Honourable Ba-
ronet
(the Member for Tarn n:orth) had last year
6tl ted that tile privilege of trying controverted
weetions was wrested from the Crown by the House
of Commons in the reign of Elizabeth, and had ever since
'eontinud in their p.ossessi
e on ; and the Right
" _on. Baiea-
/let considered the autiquity of the privilege as a great
reason for continuing it. As to the historical statement,
be (Lord Mahon) was at issue will the Right Hon. Ba-
r"et• It was true that a diacu,sien did take place in the
reign of Elizabeth, but it was a mistake to suppose that it
;vas then this privilege was obtained. Upon this point he
would venture to oppose to the statement of the Right
Edon. Baronet the opinion of an eminent statesman, one
Rho had himself filled the office of Prime Minister, and who
had founded the law under whkii controverted elections were
119‘v decided.—lie need scarcely say, that he meant Mr.
Grenville, who, upon thin question, said in 1707—,, The
Present mode of trial k not warranted by the ancient usage
°f Parliament fur even at ..o recent a period as the Revolu-
tion, tribunals wore paracularly appointed to determine
111)" the merits of petitioning, and these tribunals gene-
,
rally consisted of the most illustrious personages in the Up-
per House of Parliament, but to give their decision the
more, solemnity and authority, the whole House attended
the trials, and were usualt7 guided in their opinions by the
!an' Lords." He (Lord. Mahon) was not arguing that
to refer these trials to 'Pic House of Lords, was other-
w,ise than unconstitu Clonal, but be did say that
this showed that the w tichful jealousy which his Right
Honourable Friend asc tilted to their predecessors upon
this question did not re ally exist, and that they were ready
to Place jurisdiction as 'co these trials in the hands of per-
-B°llB against whom the greatest objections existed. The
s)Pinion of Lord Grensrille on this poiat was confirmed by
several entries in the Journals of the House of Lords.
As for instance, on tht Bth of May. 1661, " divers officers
Were appointed under the name of Receivers of Trials,"
and in the following- year, on the 11th of January, •;or-
iPed that the .41.1ges be desired to appoint amon
, g
neMselves one of: their number to attend the Lords'
Committee of petitions." This certainly did not go to
tne whole argon). tot—( Hear, hear, from Sir Robert Peel)
abut it did thniow considerable light upon the opinion of
'IL • Grenville ont this subject. Soon after the Revolution
this House excl. cised the right of trying Controverted Elec.
t
large
At that period the petitions. were tried by the House at
without the solemnity of an oath, and muck in the
:Lame nay aF: arty other party questions, and many as were
-
the abuses ofalte present system, they were not to be corn-
Pared with titaise which attached to that system under
:11Iitilt• in the time of Sir Robert Walpole, controverted
d-..ction petitic ns were regularly brought forward for party
Leus&eri, winen there was no quc•,tion made as to the
merits of the case, nor as to the nature of the facts, but the
slneition was, whether the return made was for or against
certain part y ; and indeed the fall of Sir Robert Walpole
:I!! not brought about by any of those great cpestiona
ich inliater times have decided the fate of
entst,,rs._...the administration of twenty years
by the decision On an election petition,
th—'" oPPoqition carried by a majority of 1 ; such was
statei, a: the case when Mr. Grenville brought in
s Dill, said no doubt could be entertained as to
the purity of his motives, and at the time the Bill
gave almost. universal satisfaction. 'What, then, was the
cause
of that dissatisfaction which now prevailed, so that
(Lord Maihon) did not expect a single vo'ce would be
riaised this evening in favour of that Bill ?—( Hear, hear.)
rie believed it arose from the altered composition of the
°I-1,3° since the Reform Bill.— (Hear, hear.) Previous
totoe .Reform Bill the Members returned by the small and
now' disfranchised boroughs, to the number of 150 or 200,
belongedl
not to either party, and were considered impar-
tial men, voting either with or against Ministers as
their
opinions dictated. —( A laugh from the Ministerial
Be 1,
-neues.) When the ballots for Election Committees were
°ul
of the 33 the parties struck off the most decided
partisansk
on either side, so that the Committee was com-
Posed principally of moderate men ; so that undoubtedly the
effect vvas--however Hon. Members might differ as to the
o,Peration. in other respects of the now disfranchised small
i
Mr. Grenville the effect then was to produce the result which
me,r. Grenville contemplated when he brought in his Bill.
"e presumed it would be no want of courtesy to say that
there was hardly a Member in that House who was not a
Partisan of sonic sort or another. - He did not believe that

Leese were five Members who had not some bias. He now
came to the practical part of the question, and that was
with reference to the evils now existing under the present
system. The resolution of which he had given notice, stated
that the ends of the Committee would be to obtain, first,
iestice; next, uniformity ; and lastly dispatch ; all of
which, he would unhesitatingly assert, were totally lost
sight of and abandoned under the present system. First,
with respect to justice, he would not argue the question com-
pletely, because in the outset he had stated that he would
void, as much as possible, political discussion; but he
House on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the
Ho use would not allow his motion to fall, because he
avoided' as much as possible, political allusion, and did not
Five a great number of instances in which the present sys-
ere had proved totally deficient. He would, however,
li_re them the words of Mr. Grenville, leaving it to the
'use to consider whether the evils which be had
eLluinerated were continued, and whether they did not
eallinndly for the interference of the House. Isle. Grenville
stated that he blushed to see justice refused. by the Legis-
lature
England—that he thought that Members, instead
ntf trusting to their constituents, should be independeet of
The second object he had in view was uniformity.
i°'4' this, if ossible, be the present system was more lost
kingthat
places in C.ommittees, he did not hesitate to say
t.'" consistency in injustice would be preferable to the con-
tinued changing that was taking place, from dieing one
one decision and another day another. Now, as an
►nstti_arice of that, lie would refer to the two Committees
that
sst for the city of Dublin—in the first it was decided
?at certain rates and local taxes conferred a right of
Igng' and the result was that the Hon. and Learned
'r
tither was declared not duly elected. A general election
_i?oesetniteiratt aene w
6ud, and precisely the same circumstances occured ; a
:AS chosen, and they came to precisely the op-
p° site result, for they determined that the Hon. and Learned
n
had been duly elected, and must therefore keep
,11843 seat. He was not saying who was right or who
bethwrong ; but he supposed it would be admitted that
be could not be right. What he said was, that it would
tibetter to decide wrong than first to decide ono way and
"th'another. The third object was dispatch, comprising
resheiteconomy. Now, no person could say that dispatch
*Q lilted from the present system—it was repugnant to the
deatY Plan upon which such Committees were formed. The
Y of a Member in Committee was subsidiary to his du-
icies in his legislative capacity, and the result was, that
41t0n1rnittees met at 10 o'clock, and were obliged to adjourn
4:. in order to enable Members to be in the House. An-
pstill more frequent cause of delay arose from the inex-
heat:ll\c° of many Hon. Members in the law.—( Hear,
• in the cases that he had seen reported there were
tio'nnY instances where it appeared to him that a great por-
n °f the time of the Committee was taken up by Hon.
Tbers asking for information from counsel, so that they
est!ut be considered as learning law first and dispensing it
e-rwards•—( Laughter.) Any stranger going into a
merritnittee-room. would suppose that it was a school were
nthers of Parliament were taking lessons from
ter gentlemen gentlemen in. wigs and. gowns.—( Laugh-
aevJ If these sort of things continued the House would
tiler r be eaabled to prevent the right of striking
t was a :
fundamental
deal of science in striking, but one of
bltal rules was, that if a Member was afflicted
'e any infirmity, he was by all means to be considered to
Sa competent man to be left as one of the Committee.
ach was the case also with respect to young Members,
especially those who had not made law their especial study.
(Laughter.) Now he would put it to the House
, hether it was ever known before in civilised society that
ignorance was to be considered as a proper qualification
for a member of a Committee of the House of Commons?
Hear, hear.) Nov, what were the rcmedies? In
considering,. them be came to the Bill proposed by his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. He con-
sidered that the greatest thanks were due to him for turn-
i his attention to the subject, and he must say also that
there were some parts of that Bill with which he cordially
Tincurred, especially that part with respect to election
ileg3 11 nizances if the House allowed him to bring in
he should be inclined to take out verbatim
D_l,,teratim many of the clauses of the Bill of his
,%vvl7ll.t Honourable Friend, and insert them in his
co.' There were one or two other points in which he
winticierred with the Bill of his Right Hon. Friend, but
respect to the main principle of the Bill he could not
byes because he thought that there were inany
respectsnsuper-
en,°_biections to it. How did it act with to those
practised
who were of the profession of the law, and who
tased in the Courts at Westminster Hall? Why, if
they
their Were to be called on the Committees continually to
t le
egal advice, the Courts of law would be ut-
herayr unable to proceed with their business.—( Hear,
the ), en let him ask how the Bill would affect
eseineciient?Th Suppose he had a case in which two
theynt Counsel of this House were engaged, and
tee, were suddenly withdrawn, how was he to find
The_cthers sufficiently acquainted with the business ?
withn; again, would not the greatest difficulty be found
be th egard+o the balance ? It was proposed there should
theit,e on each side, but how would they decide about the
the first Hear.) It was said, If you will allow me on
.yearsra Committee the man I propose, you may name
on the second. That might produce something like
equality,e_•but it would not be an object such as his Right
;4
eFriend wished. It would not give impartial justice
trril:iatttees4fot)
side to would be alternating from a bias on one
for Members
on the other, and suspicion might be excited
particular Members were put on particular Com-
party ur
P poses, and continual cavils and jea-
oabniseYtwioonuld,be the result. These were some amongst the
Pres, hissownleh would exist, and lie felt it his duty to ex-
_ 0_ pini el, knowing that his Right Hon. Friend
would
Friend r°
only tbe displeased with it. He felt bound not
who :00 state that opinion, but must say that many
warm admirers and adher t fh' Right H
en s o !s on.
. concurred in thinking
_that his Bill, well drawn
s it seas
which
ex., Would not be adequate to remedy the evils
this
ft, isted. As far as he had the means of knowing on
ne
lOpposition) side of the House, he believed that
Bill 5 d'd exist. He asked, then, why it was that the
Ri h Hen. Friend should failed in • • geeer,i g t
any Want?
or at. least universal, satisfaction? Was it from
of time or toil in him ? Was it from any want abilitY N 0 he would tell the House why his Right