The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-03 00:00:00

ALGIERS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Ma-
jesty's Government had received satisfactory information
from the French Government relative to the equipment of
the expedition for the attack of Algiers?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that his Majesty's Mi-
nisters did not expect that the delay would have been so
long, but he was in hopes those affairs would now very
shortly be brought to a termination.

Lord HOLLAND wished to know whether the delay
arose in consequence of any protracted negociations, or
merely from a point of form ?

The Earl of ABERDEEN observed that his Majesty's
Government had had continued correspondence with his
most Christian Majesty, and in all their conferences there
had been the readiest desire on the part of the French Go-
vernment to make every communication.
EAST RETFORD WITNESSES' BILL.

The Marquis of SALISBURY rose to move the third
reading of the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill.
He moved that witnesses in this case of East Retford
should be examined at the bar of their Lordships' House,
and he considered it absolutely necessary to follow up that
motion with the bringing in of this Bill to indemnify the
witnesses, who could hardly be called upon to answer
questions tending to criminate themselves without an in-
demnity of this description. In so doing, he had only
followed the usual practice of their Lordships' House,
in similar cases. This had been done in the Shoreham
case, in 1'771, and afterwards in 1782, and in the late
cases. But he had thought it his duty to look farther
back, and he found filet the principle and practice were
referred to in an Address of this House relative to
the famous case of Ashby and White. It was there
stated that the elective franchise was incident to the free-
hold or founded on custom, and constituted a civil right,
which this House could not take away without an exami-
nation of witnesses at the bar, that the parties who might
think themselves aggrieved might have an opportunity of
defending themselves and their property. This, then, was
evidently the practice of this House for a long time, and
was founded on the principle that the House ought to be
peculiarly tender in meddling with private property; and
that, therefore, every possible opportunity ought to be
afforded to the persons to be affected by a Bill like this East
Retford Bill, to express their dissent, and to defend them-
selves and their rights. So peculiarly delicate was the
House in meddling with matters of private property, that
they had no less than sixteen Standing Orders 'elating to
that particular subject. The Noble Lord (Holland) he
understood, meant to contend that there was no reason
for examining witnesses at all ; but if they did not exa-
mine witnesses they had no other alternatives than to throw
out the Bill, or condemn the parties unheard, and with-
out allowing them an opportunity to defend themselves
and their property. If they did examine witnesses, then,
in order to be able to do so with effect, they must pass
this Bill of Indemnity. As to the expediency of the thing,
he thought that the experience of former precedents was
in favour of the Bill in that view, and it was certainly not
very fitting that they should by a side wind destroy a prac-
tice which had prevailed in this House for such a long
series of years.
Lord HOLLAND did not mean to accuse the Noble
Marquis of attempting to smuggle the Bill through the
House, but he regretted that the attention of the House
had not been more prominently directed to it in an earlier
stage, although he freely acquitted the Noble Marquis
of an attempt to take the House by surprise. The
Noble Marquis had supposed many grounds for his
opposition to the Bill, and had endeavoured to upset
them apparently much to his own satisfaction. The
Noble Marquis had started many hares, but he had
not started the real game, which he would find too
strong to deal with. This objection was not so much
to the principle of the Bill, nor to its provision, as to the
time, the manner, and the circumstances. The Bill, with
reference to which this Bill was brought in, was called a
Bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption at the Election of
Members of Parliament for the Burough of East Retford,
and he maintained that the examination of witnesses at
their Lordships' Bar would not be only useless, but be at-
tended with injury to the public. The matter had been
examined in an Election Committee of the other—the
proper tribunal appointed by law for the purpose, and
there was no petition either for or against the Bill. There
were three species of Bills usually brought before Parlia-
ment—one sort of Bills dealing with private property,
another sort called Bills of Pains and Penalties, and a
third sort having for their object some advantage to the
community, and called Public Bills. In the cases of the two
first of these kind of Bills, it might be necessary to call
witnesses to prove the allegations in the preambles of the
Bill ; but this was a Bill of the third description, or a
Public Bill, in which there was no necessity for calling
witnesses to prove the preamble; for notwithstanding
what had been said by the Noble Marquis, he maintained
that this was not a Bill in the nature of a Bill of Pains
and Penalties. Neither in the frame or nature of the Bill
did it partake of the nature of a Bill of Pains and Penal-
ties-4f it did, the House, in its merciful consideration,
would have recourse to those wise and safe forms from
which, in no case affecting rights of property, does it ever
depart. A most material objection to the Bill then before
them was, that it pre-supposed the insufficiency of the
evidence upon the Disfranchisement Bill ; and in his appre-
hension it was scarcely an expedient proceeding to declare
that evidence insufficient which had enabled the House of
Commons to come to a decision that evidence was brought
regularly before a competent tribunal (a Select Committee
of the House of Commons), and he conceived that the evi-
dence then produced would suffice at their Lordships' bar.
The Dill respecting Shoreham incapacitated individuals,
and was so far different from the East Retford Bill; but
lie attached no great importance to the precedent, and
would not trouble their Lordships with any notice of it ;
but there could be no doubt that it did inflict punishment
upon some individuals, and, therefore, was in part a Bill
of Pains and Penalties—it was a Bill for putting an end
to the fraud, hypocrisy, and corruption of a set of men
desiring to assume a plausible appellation—calling them-
selves a Christian Society—whose object was to get pos-
session of the borough and bring it to the best market.—
The Bill in that case was to throw the franchise into the
neighbouring hundred. The Bill, in the emphatic lan-
guage of Lord Chatham, was a Bill having two objects—
one of which was to transfer the elective franchise from
the hanks of the Ganges to the English county of Sussex.
If the measure to which the present Bill had reference
were a Bill of Pains and Penalties, there could be DO doubt

that the course proposed would be the proper and
mate course. For the duty of the House would be to see
that the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill
were proved ; as the House acted in same sort in the ca-
pacity of a public prosecutor, the onus probandi lay upon
them, and they were bound to prove the preamble before
they inflicted punishment. In a question of property,
likewise, the same course was to be pursued, and for si-
milar reasons. As the persons by whom the privilege was
enjoyed held it not as a property, but as a trust, there
could be little question that they stood quite in a different
relation from those who came before their Lordships as
liable to injury from a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Then,
if it should appear—as no doubt it did, from the evidence
before the Committee of the 'louse of Commons—that the
electors of that borough had been guilty of polluting at its
source the other branch of the Legislature—had done all that
they could to lower its character and impair its authority—
theParliament, that is, the King, Lords, and Commons, were
entitled to pass a Bill, not for disfranchising those electors so
much as for preventing the abuse of the trust reposed in
them ; and they were entitled to pass that Bill without its
being subjected to the incidents of a private Bill, or fettered
with the forms of a judicial proceeding. At the period
of the Scotch and Irish Unions many individuals were de-
prived of their franchises, and yet no judicial proceed-
ings were instituted—no witnesses were examined ; had
they begun to examine witnesses, they never would have
got through the Union question. Nay, further, in Ireland
Peers were deprived of their right of sitting and voting in
Parliament, and many boroughs received compensation for
the loss they sustained, but no one dreamt of proposing to
prove the preamble of the Bill. When that most weighty
Act was under consideration, no witnesses were examined
—but on this trifling matter, the most scrupulous formality
was to be observed. The, present differed altogether from
the common law rights possessed by freeholders—it was
much more to be considered in the light of a trust con-
ferred by a charter. Besides, the practice against which
he was contending opposed itself to all moderate and gra-
dual reform—for a few of those who might oppose them-
selves to such reforms might, by interposing objections
and insisting upon strict formalities, create such delays as
would defeat any plan of reform. He could not held re-
peating an often-repeated maxim of Lord Bacon's, that
" Time was the greatest of all innovators." The duty of
Parliament should be to afford every useful and safe facility
to the innovations of time, by adapting its proceedings to
the growth and progress of society and the altered situa-
tion of the country : and if anything could add to their
motives for such adaptation, it was the necessity which
there existed that that particular House should prevent
any impediments to that wise and salutary reform which
it was their duty to advance, and which, if they impeded,
would lose much of its beneficial effects, but, ultimately
none of its force. He concluded by moving that the third
reading of the Bill be postponed to the 27th of April. The
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill was to be read on
the 26th.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to state shortly
his objections to the amendment of his Noble Friend. He
would not enter into the general topics connected with
reform, which had just been handled, but he must be al-
lowed to say, that when the Noble Lord referred to that
well-known maxim of Lord Bacon, it was much to be re-
gretted that be did not add the concluding words—That
all those who wished to reform beneficially mankind,
should, like Time, endeavour to do so imperceptibly,
quietly, and safely.—(Hear, hear, from Lord H011and.).....
The case of Cricklade bad been argued both by Lord
Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, in that House, upon prin-
ciples altogether different from those which the Noble
Lord took up. The ground on which he (the Lord
Chancellor) would contend for the examination of wi

nesses was this—there was vested in these persons (the
electors of East Retford) a certain right, which they had
abused, and he had )et to learn how their delinquency
could be shown otherwise than by an examination of wit-
nesses. The House of Commons had appointed a Select
Committee from out of their own body, but was that House
satisfied with the Report of their own body ? So far from
being so, they examined witnesses themselves ; and upon
what grounds, then, could their Lordships avoid doing that
which the Commons thought necessary ? The next con-
sideration related to the present Bill. It was perfectly
true that, according to the strict rule of law, no witness
was bound to return any answer which might criminate
himself; but there were answers which might afford a
clew to information fixing guilt upon a witness, and yet
they might be such as he could not refuse to answer. The
case of Scotland and of Ireland, at the time of the Unions,
afforded no precedent, for there no case of delinquency
was sought to be set up. Upon these short, plain, and
direct grounds he should move the third reading of the Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE objected to the Bill, on the
ground that the preamble pledged their Lordships to an in-
quiry. To that he for one was extremely unwilling to be-
come pledged. God knew that he was no reformer, and
it was with great pain that he saw even Disfranchisement
Bills brought in, because he really believed that any addi-
tion to the democratic power of the House of Commons
would interfere with the due discharge of the functions of
Government. If he had not this dread of increase of de-
mocratic influence, he should be inclined to approve of a
change in the anomalous condition of the representation of
Scotch counties; that would be a case proceeding on noto-
riety, and this case ought to be governed by the same rule.
The House had sufficient prima facie and without further
evidence to proceed on its own authority. As he could
not consent to pledge the House upon all occasions of this
description to examine witnesses at the bar, he should sup-
port the amendment.
Lord WYNFORD, with reference to what had fallen

from a Noble Baron (Holland), denied that it was the duty
of the House, when a witness was before it, to wait until

that witness took an objection to a question, the answer
to which might criminate himself. The House, like a
this
is! misled.beenbe,iat asked
might
necessary,
g hl o oArt w
tt
he nna-
a s t
othat the
to
witnesses
Judge, was bound to interpose, in order to put the wit-
ness on his guard, and to protect him from the conse-
f
quences
be knownwould
°being
euim
thatbe examinedl hadd a
way
that
criminate themselves ? Although it was irregular to ad-
vert to what passed in debate in the other House, yet the
evidence taken before the Committee of the Commons was
upon the table, and from that their Lordships might judge
of the course and nature of the inquiry. It was certain
that persons would be examined who could not safely be
questioned without the protection which this Bill afforded.
A great deal had been said whether the measure upon the
table was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, or whether it was
only a Bill taking away a right-for a public purpose. He
agreed that it was not necessary to settle that point for the
purpose of discussion, because either way a case ought to
be made out. He agreed with Lord Mansfield and Lord
Thurlow, that whatever diminished a right was so far a
Bill of Pains and Penalties : and be had looked through
the Journals upon this subject, and in Hatsel's Pre-
cedents he found a case under the head of " Pains
and Penalties," of a separation (not a divorce) between
man and wife. At all events, the cases established this
principle—that whatever was done by the Legislature
which placed an individual in a worse situation than
before the passing of the Bill was, according to the plain
dictates of common sense, a Bill of Pains and Penalties.
The Noble Baron had argued that as the Bill deprived
parties only of a public interest, it was not necessary to
adduce evidence; and in support of this point he had re-
ferred to the Act transferring the Crown of this country
from the Stuarts to the family now upon the Throne, and
to the recent Statute disfranchising the forty-shilling free-
holders of Ireland. These, however, were cases where
Parliament had proceeded upon general notoriety, and
witnesses were never examined upon matters known to
the whole world. Was such the fact in the instance now
before the House ? Were the grounds of disfranchisement
known to the House ? He, for one, begged to state that
he knew nothing of the circumstance, and that be re-
quired to be informed by evidence before he ventured to
decide. The Noble Baron (Holland) had objected to the
disfranchisement of East Retford, because he thought it
would retard Parliamentary Reform. He (Lord Wynford)
bad his own opinions upon Parliamentary Reform ; but he
could not see in what way it could postpone that measure,
supposing it desirable. On the contrary, it seemed to him
that it was calculated to purify and to keep pure the As-
sembly of the Representatives of the People ; certain it
was, that it never would be accomplished by an adherence
to what was called the corrupt borough system. Dis-
franchisement Bills, when the necessity for them was
proved, tended to counteract the injuries and inroads of
time, and to renew the vigour of the Constitution.
Lord HOLLAND explained. He thanked the Noble
Baron (Wynford) for the lecture be had been pleased to
read him on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and for
the statement of the perfect acquaintance he had with his
(Lord Holland's) views and wishes. He was not aware,
however, that he bad ever promulgated those views and
wishes to the Noble Baron, either publicly or privately;
but sure he was, that rendering this House the bar to all
improvement of the kind, was the true mode of producing
that convulsive and violent reform which every man must
dread. lie expressed his obligation also to the Noble
and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for finishing his (Lord
Holland's) quotation from Bacon, by a passage much more
to his purpose than that which be bad himself cited.

The Earl of CARNARVON commenced by stating
that the preamble of the East Retford Disfranchisement

Bill asserted the existence of bribery and corruption, and
Porliarnent would neglect itv duty if it did not require the

•

~,

establishment of the fact by evidence • wolf Aare 01
no parties resisting, the Constitution- ought- Ao. be CO
sidered a party requiring the proof, Although, no Rath'
Reformer, he advocated these partial renovations, and peril
haps had gone further than many in support of them.
the Bill under consideration could for a moment
construed to involve a pledge that the House would pr°;
ceed without further inquiry, he begged to be cor,sidelo
no party to the pledge. He could only consent to the sd'
mission of the evidence taken by the Commons, if it vied
the best evidence that their Lordships could obtain ;
it could not be disputed that it was not. To pass the 13'
without inquiring into the facts he thought would!)
throwing impediments in the way of rational refortv
which he had endeavoured, by advocating measures of tb
kind on more occasions than one, to promote. On the
grounds he should vote for the Bill.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said, his Noble Fried
opposite had recommended that to which he was and
strongly opposed. That recommendation was, that tb4
should adopt the proceedings on evidence with which tY,
Members of the House of Commons themselves had rt
been satisfied—that was the Report of the Select Commit
tee. if they were not satisfied with that Report, mall
their Lordships ought not to be less exact.
The Bill was then read a third time without a divisioo

Lord JOHN RUSSELL and others from the Commode,
brought up the Bill for the improvement of the manse
ment of the affairs of the parishes of St. Giles and SF
George, Bloomsbury.

The Bill was read a first time.
Lord WYNFORD gave notice on behalf of a Nob/
Friend of his, that on Monday next he should move tle
26th and 27th Standing Orders with respect to this Bill
and he now moved that their Lordships be summoned.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT). -
HAYMARKET BILL.
Lord LOWTHER moved that the report on the 7311/
for the removal of the Haymarket be re-committed, for tlO
purpose of making certain alterations.
Mr. BYNG opposed the Bill, as it was calculated to 1)1
injurious to his constituents residing in the Haymarket.'
The Noble Lord might try the effect of establishing another,
market, but that which was found to be most convenieol
would be the most satisfactory.
Lord LOWTHER said the obstruction bad long bee'
complained of as a nuisance, and he believed that the ooli
opposition was from the licensed victuallers.
The Bill was ordered to be re-committed on'llfondsy.

HUNGERFORD MARKET.
On the motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE the Hungerfor
Market Bill was read a. second time without opposition.
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from serer
individuals residmt in and near the market, praying the
if the Bill passed into a law they might be allowed compeo'
sation.

ST. GEORGE'S, BLOOMSBURY, AND ST. GILES'S
SELECT VESTRY BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading oil
the above Bill. •
Mr. HOBHOUSE presented two petitions against it.
Mr. HUME moved as an amendment that the Bill he
read a third time on the 27th of April.
A long desultory conversation ensued, after which ra •
Hume's amendment was negatived by a majority of 34.
For the amendment ... 36
Against it
Majority
On our return to the gallery we found Mr,. MID
proposing, as an amendment, that every person,rated at
the sum of 251. should be entitled to a vote, precisely is
the same manner as in the parishes of Marylebone and St'
Paul's, Covent-garden.
[From the manner in whisk the amendment was worded,
we understood the effect to be, that no person could poe
secs more than one vote.]
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the friends of the Bill
had reduced the qualification for a vote from 301. to 2511
on the understanding, as they thought, that *he 10
would not then be opposed in the other parts; .and as the
Hon. Member pressed this amendment, he must voto
against it.
Mr. HUME declared he had not heard of any such
agreement as that alluded to by the Noble Lord. •:•
The House then divided on the amendment :.
Against it 4B
For it 26

Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed. •
ELLENBOROUGFI DIVORCE BILL.
The Report of the Committee. on the Ellenborough
vorce Bill being brought up and agreed to,
Sir G. CLERK moved that it •be read a third time of'
Monday next.
Mr. TENNYSON objected to the appointment of Moo'
day for the third reading, when the evidence ordered to be
printed had not yet been delivered.
Sir G. CLERK believed the evidence would be ready rot
delivery to-morrow.
Mr. TENNYSON said it was not to be supposed thal
Members were to occupy their Sunday in its perusal, ad
suggested the propriety of postponing the third reading until
Members bad an opportunity to examine it with ittentioe,
Mr. A. ELLIS also complained of the impropriety 0
ordering the evidence on a Bill to ,be printed, and then hut'
rying on the second reading with breathless haste; and he.
fore the Members of the House could have an opportuniti
to avail themselves of the Order of the House.
Mr. S. RICE was not prepared to read the Bill a third'
time en Monday, but be saw no reason why it could not be
fixed for Wednesday or Thursday.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said if it would be a conveni.
ence to the House, he had no objection to ix the thi.J
reading for Tuesday next.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time
Tuesday next.