The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

WORKS ON THE SHANNON.

Colonel DUNNE begged to ask the Chief Secretary for
Ireland what were the intentions of Government with
respect to a petition presented by the inhabitants of
Banagher to the Lord-Lieutenant of that kingdom some
months since, which petition complained of the failure of
the works on the Shannon, executed at a cost of 600,0001..
as well as of the injury they suffer from floods caused by
the bad construction of these works, which also impugned
the statements made in the reports of the Shannon com-
missioners, and prayed that these works should be in-
spected by a competent engineer unconnected with the
Board of Works ? And further, if he had any objection
to lay a copy of the petition and any correspondence re-
lating to it on the table of the house?

Six: J. YOUNG said he did not think there was any
ground for complaint in this case. Before the Shannon was

improved the lands in question were annually flooded for
six or nine months in the year, but last year they had been
flooded for only a short time. The navigation works had
been perfectly successful.
PETERBOROUGH ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from certain inha-
bitants of the borough of Peterborough, praying that the
select committee agreed to by the house the othr day, to
consider the petition complaining of the undue interference
of the Earl of Fitzwilliam in the elections for the borough
should be nominated forthwith, and that the house would
not accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Malden
to postpone the inquiry. In moving the instruction of
which he had given notice, he had again to remind the
house that there was no connection between the peti-
tion he had presented and that against Mr. Whalley.
He begged, therefore, to move—" That it be an instruction
to the general committee of elections to select a chairman
and six other members to be the select committee on the
petitions from the city of Poterborourgh, and that the
members so selected do constitute the said committee, and
have power to send for persons, papers, and records ; and
that five be the quorum of the said committee."
Lord H. VANE entertained grave objections to the
course proposed by the hon. member for Manchester. A
petition was at present pending relating to election matters
for that borough, and it was not advisable at present to
appoint another committee. He had been a member of the
committee on the Derby petition, and he believed that
most of the members felt that there was great difficulty in
considering the question before them without taking into
consideration other matters, which were subsequent ;y sub-
mitted to the second committee. The present petition had
stood over for a very lengthened period, and he thought no
injury would be done by postponement. He could under-
stand the friends of the noble earl being anxious for in-
quiry, but it was for the house to decide whether they
would follow in the present instance the precedent of the
Derby case, which had been adopted under peculiar circum-
stances, and because it involved a charge against a Minister
of the Crown. He opposed the motion.
Mr. HUME said that the petition had months ago been
entrusted to him, but the presentation of it had been with-
held in accordance with the feelings of Mr. Whalley, and
in obedience to the opinion of the Speaker. He supported
the prayer of the petition and the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. S. WORTLEY objected to appointing the commit-
tee at present. The hon. member admitted that it could
not meet till the sth. There would be a better opportunity
for deliberate inquiry next session. He had thought it to
be his duty to protest in the Derby case against the ap-
pointment of the committee while a committee was pend-
ing with reference to the election. It was a mischievous
precedent to follow, and he thought it would be better if
the house adhered to the ordinary rule in such cases.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS and Mr. BRIGHT,
Mr. WALPOLE said he thought the house ought to be
very cautious in giving its assent to the inquiry which was
sought for by the hon. member for Manchester. The first
principle they should all agree in was this, that where two
petitions were presented, both relating to the same subject
matter, the one ought not to be allowed to proceed, at all
events, until the other had been disposed of. Now, there
were, in the case before the house, two petitions relating
to the same subject. The petition which had been pre-
sented by the lion. member for Manchester was a petition
complaining that there had been a breach of the privileges
of that house committed by the undue interference, at an
election for the borough of Peterborough, in thoyear 1852,
of a peer of the realm. There was a second petition,
also complaining of the return of the present member for
Peterborough ; and that was a petition which had no
relation whatever, except in one sense, to events that
occurred in the year 1852. The only sense in which it re-
lated to the election of 1852 was, that the present sitting
member had been declared by a committee of that house
to have been guilty of bribery and treating at that elec-
tion, and that his seat had accordingly been pronounced
void. A new writ had, in consequence of the decisioa of
the committee, been issued for the borough of Peter-
borough ; and upon the issue of that writ notice had been
given to the electors that since the election of the hon.
member bad been declared void upon the ground of bribery
and treating, he was thereby disqualified to take his seat
again for that borough during the present Parliament. If
an inquiry were not granted immediately, it must neces-
sarily be postponed to a distant period. Under these cir-
cumstances— although being of opinion that there was
considerable difficulty in the matter—he should vote in
favour of the motion of the hon. member for Manchester.
Mr. E. DENISON thought that after the steps which
the house had already taken, and seeing that the session
was so far advanced, it wns desirable that the committee
should be immediately appointed.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that the house was
perfectly right in having agreed to the appointment of a
committee upon the subject then under their consideration.
When a body of the inhabitants of any borough united in
complaining of acts of bribery, intimidation, and treating.
as having been resorted to to prevent the freedom of elec-
tion, he maintained that the doors of the house ought
always in such cases to be open to inquiry. He was sorry,
however, to be obliged to state that in the present instance
the house had been placed in the difficulty in which they
found themselves by the course which the petitioners had
thought proper to pursue. It was perfectly true that
while 'the former election petition, with reference to the
borough of Peterborough, had been before the house, it
would have scarcely been proper to have presented that
which they were now considering. But the committee
had come to a decision in the case of that first petition, and
had unseated the sitting member. It was then perfectly
competent for those parties who had the present petition
many weeks in their possession to lay that petition be-
fore the house. Instead of taking that course, however,
they had allowed a considerable time to elapse, and the
petition of the electors of Peterborough and the present
election petition had been presented almost at the same
time. That was a course which had occasioned no small
degree of inconvenience, and he felt assured that the house
would agree with him in thinking that the petition should
have been laid before them at an earlier period. The house,
however, having decided, and, in his opinion, very pro-
perly decided, that there should be an inquiry instituted
into the subject they were discussing, the only question
which remained for consideration was whether there would
be any greater inconvenience in appointing a committee
now, which might sit at the same time with the election
committee, than in postponing inquiry to the next session
of Parliament. He had mentioned a few evenings before
that he believed the election committee would have only
to consider whether the sitting member had been dis-
qualified from taking his seat in that house by the decision
of a former committee, so that they were not likely to I
have in any case two separate inquiries into the matters
of fact connected with the same subject matter. He should
now say a few words upon the question to investigate
which the present inquiry was asked for. Though they
had upon their journals a resolution such as that to which
the right hon. gentleman opposite had called their atten-
tion, he had always said that, in his opinion, the inter-
ference of a peer in election matters was not to be re-
garded as very different from the interference of a com-
moner. He felt, however, that any gross and palpable inter-
ference in:such!matters upon their part was a fair subject for
inquiry and for censure. Now, under the circumstances
of the case under their notice, he was of opinion that, if
inquiry into the truth of these allegations set forth by the
petitioners were postponed, such delay must be regarded
as a great public inconvenience. He, therefore, agreed
with the right hon. gentleman opposite that upon the whole
the best course which the house could pursue was to direct
that an immediate inquiry should take place.
Mr. PALMER said, that finding the main point as issue
with reference to the election petition was the qualification
of the present hon. member, it did not appear to him that
any inconvenience would arise from the immediate institu-
tion of the proposed inquiry.
Mr. V. SMITH continued to be of opinion that the ap-
pointment of a select committee to sit while the election
committee was proceeding with its investigation was a cir-
cumstance which would lead to considerable inconvenience
and embarrassment. They i had,
n opinion committed
an error in assenting to takethat course ; but having given
their sanction to the appointment of the committee, he
felt that the noble earl, whose name had been introduced
in connection with the question, was entitled to ask them
to enter at once upon the inquiry.
After a few observations from Mr. BRIGHT and Mr.
WHALLEY,

The motion Was agreed to.
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
The house resumed the consideration of this bill in corn-
tit tee.

Clause 23 was agreed to.
Clause 24, which provides that the Governor General's
assent shall be requisite to the validity of laws, having
been put,
Sir IL MADDOCK moved that after the words
" always," in page 10, line 37, there should be inserted the
following word :—" That-in making laws and regulations
regard shall be had to the religion and manners and opi-
nions of the different races of people inhabiting the said
territories, and." It had been stated in evidence be-
fore the select committee that of late years the officers
of the company, both civil and military, had not shown
the same respect which had been manifested by their
predecessors for the feeling of the people of
India, and that the attachment of that people to our
rule had by that means become considerably diminished.
Ho believed that if such a course of conduct were con-
tinned we should soon be made to feel its fatal conse-
quences. He should be sorry to find that we held India
solely by the tenure of the sword, and ho felt convinced
that such a tenure could not possibly be of long duration.
For his part, he appreciated more highly than the general-
ity of Englishmen the virtues and the good qualities of the
natives 'of that country. Ile believed that there were many
men among them as well qualified as Englishmen to serve
in the Legislative Council ; and he regretted to feel com-
pelled to think that in that bill their feelings and their in-
terests had hardly been sufficiently consulted. It was fir
the purpose of supplying what lie believed to be the defi-
ciency of the measure in that respect that he had proposed
that amendment.
Mr. HUME supported the amendment. Ho thought
that the just claims of the natives of India to some share
in the government of their own country, had already been
too much disregarded in the bill ; and he was then pre-
pared to advocate a proposal which would in some degree
mitigate that evil.
Mr. LOWE said he believed that the amendment would
either be mere surplusage, or that if it should have any
operation at all it would tend to throw doubts on the ex-
tent of the powers entrusted to the Legislative Council,
and would thus be productive of very biti.4oll4 Mae.