The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-11 00:00:00

Itt) titian+

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

TATTERSALL'S

NO BETTING THIS EVENING.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-(THIS EVENING.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
Lord STRAFFORD, of Harmondsworth, (Viscount
Enfield) took the oaths and his seat.
The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from va-
rious places, praying for the inspection of nunneries.
.Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition, praying
forthe!passing of some measure for4the closing of beer
shops on Sundays.
THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

The Earl of MALMESBURY, after adverting to a
discussion which had taken place in the other house re-
lative to the diplomatic service, in the course of which
Lord Stanley bad stated that the late Government had
it in contemplation to institute a college for the instruc-
tion of candidates for the diplomatic service, and was
understood to say that that plan originated solely with
Lord Stanley, and had not been adopted by the late
Government.

The Bishop of EXETER moved for the copy of a
letter addressed to the Colonial Secretary by the Bishop
of Toronto on the subject of the Canada Clergy Reserves
Bill.

THE CANTERBURY ELECTION.
The Earl of ABERDEEN rose to move, according to
notice, that their lordships agree in the address sent up
by the other house, praying her Majesty to cause an en-
quiry to be instituted into the state of the borough of
Canterbury.

Lord LYNDHURST said that no man felt more
strongly than he did the necessity of putting an end to
corrupt practices at elections, but he wished to call the
attention of their lordships to an irregularity in the
address which in his opinion was fatal to it. The address
stated that a committee of the House of Commons had
reported that extensive bribery had prevailed at the last
election at Canterbury ; but he found that no such
report had ever been presented, and they were therefore
asked to tell her Majesty what was in terms a direct
falsehood. The act of Parliament required that before
an address of this kind should be presented, a committee
of the House of Commons should have reported that
but
"extensive" bribery had prevailed at an election
, n
the committee, in this instance, had only reported that
bribery was systematic and geneTal; but bribery might
be systematic and yet not extensive, and the word gene-
rally must be taken to mean that it had prevailed
generally and usually at former elections. (Hear.)
The committee was the only. tribunal which could
judge of the fact whether bribery had been exten-
sive. It had not been so reported, and he protested
against a precedent, which might afterwards be turned to
a
mischievous purpose, being laid down of either house
being allowed to conclude for itself that bribery had been
extensive, when it had not so been reported by the com-
mittee.

The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped that their lord-
ships would not be deterred from agreeing to this ad-
dress by the authority of the noble and learned lord.
Although the committee had not reported in the exact
words of the act that extensive bribery had prevailed,
yet their report did, in point of fact, amount to that.
Nay, he would go further, and say that the words gene-
ral and systematic were far more stringent and forcible
than the word " extensive," which, after all, did not
mean " to a great extent."

Lord ST. —LEONARDS said that this was 1 mere
question of law whether or not they were justified in
agreeing to this address. Under the act of Parliament
they were empowered to join in an address in cases
where a committee of the House of Commons had re-
ported that bribery was extensive, and without such re-
port they could not stir or move a step. No such re-
port had been made in this case, and he contended,
therefore, that they had no power to join in any such
address as this.