The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-14 00:00:00

l le; (the Chen:''tor of t
to txbe;:ier's) ilonourable
mode the
Friend (hareinquiry sh,tilb'erecnoenhriuc't%,ead4, -':4lteetirer by an examina.ion at the
bar of the lionse, or by a Select Corn. rni:ttee It had been fre-
quently denin rmed that, in all cages in wilihit a better mode
of inquiry could be adopted than by examination atthetb?dar.
of the /louse, that better mode should be ado p..
He thought that in this case a Committee of five or seven
Members would bring before the !louse the facts upon which
the allegations in the petition erre founded in a more satisfac-
t or '.manner than could be arrived at by examination at the bar.
exi.ieht be said, that in the case cf an ordinary petition, where
he tewas proof of the forgery of an individual name, provided
I eothers were valid, this cught not to prevent the House re-
eiving the Petition as the petition of those whose signatures
were valid. But a petition under the Grenville Act must
be viewed in another and fully as important a light, es F,Oll-
- with the question of recognizances. I!, upon the petition
of A, B, and C, it turns out to be the petition only of B and C,
and the signature of A is proved to he forged, it was a question,
for the lawyers in that House to- decide whether the
sitting Member was not deprived of his power to recover
his costs from the other parties. Again, he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) would ask, whether it would
net by best to appoint a Committee to consider of this
case, instead of reviving that evil, to remove which the
Grenville Act was passed—the evil arising from deciding upon
such cases as this upon the evidence of witnesses at the bar.
Mr. F. FRENCH remarked that there was another wit-
nese who would swear that Tyler hid told him be had not
signed the petition.—(oh, oh, from the Oeposition.) He
vos not aware that he had said anything to cause those excla-
neetioase The Hon. Bart. (Sir R. Inglis) had forgotten that
in thj- Carrickfergus case some of the signatures to
the petitien Were admitted to be authentic; and this was
the case in the Athlone petition. He contended that if
one of the signatures eiaa not genuine, that the whole petition
fell to the ground.
Mr. B L W' ITT believed that it Ras the invariable pm-
"- -*the Grenville Act,
ties pf this House, under the provieons e. •
...teen of the
before the Committee entered into the consiuen._ .slidd
merits of the petition, to inquire first if the petition itset.
been properly got up and signed.
Mr. GOULBURN said that the Hon. Member had
very correctly described the practice of Committees under the
Grenville Act—(Hear)—and he had only omitted to
state further, that if the petition appeared not to
be formal in all respects, the Committee had only to report
the fact to the House, in order to have it discharged;
the consequence of which would be that the parties
would be saddled nith the costs. Ile for one begged it
to be distinctly understood as not wishing to interfere
with the inquiry in this case ; but on the other hand
he was decidedly against allowing statements of this sort to
interfere wit!) the trial of petitions—( Hear, hear, from the
Opposition .
bencht4.l—hecause if they were to proceed lightly
on an allegation that a e'fq.s6l3 Ireland had told another a
particular fact, and this ,ht a. period so near the trial
of the merits of the petition its.,7l(' they would admit a
practice which would be found product:7' °fe the greatest
inconvenience, and which would have the etZt of defel'
e
ing the provisions of the Grenville Act.—( Hear, "ear' ;
He warned the House against adopting the suggestion...
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, to appoint a Select Committee in this case.
Unless it were in the first place distinctly understood that
the Committee was to proceed to their decision, even
if the person on whose assertion the main fact in this
petition rested was not produced ; because he had not
the slightest doubt, if they did not take this precaution,
some Hon. Member would state to the House that the wit-
ness had not as yet come over, and would move that the trial
of the petition be postponed until his evidence could bo obtained.
If it were true that there was a gentleman present prepared to
prove that he saw the signatures attached by the parties—
( Hear, hear,)—he thought the only obvious way of considering
the question, was for the party to come forward to substantiate
it. Whether the House would refer it to the Electicise
Committee itself, to decide whether the petition was properly
signed or not, or would call witnesses to the bar, to state the
facts, was for the House to decide. He was anxious that the
fact should not escape inquiry. In one case or the other, the
inquiry would be satisfactory, and he should be very much
guided by the feeling of the House as to adopting one course
or the other.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with the Hon.
Member opposite, that these petitions ought not to be made
use of for the purpose of influencing the Election Committee.
The petitioners ought to make out a case before the day ap-
pointed for the Ballot.—( Hear.) But according to precedent,
and on principle, it seemed to hire that the better course would
be to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, which
might hear the evidence on both sides, and report, if the pe-
tition should not be genuine, that the order for taking
it into consideration should be discharged—if genuine,
that the Committee should be duly appointed.—( Hear.)
Now, although he was of opinion that the petitioners should
be called upon to substantiate his case, he did not think that
an examination at the bar of the House would answer the
purpose. The next question was, would the House refer
it to the Election Committee ? According to all pre.
cedent, since the passing of the Grenville Act, a
preliminary inquiry had taken place, and he thought five'
or seven Members should be named for that purpose, ,chq
would meet to-morrow, and report without delay to the House;
Sir R. PEE L thought, in a case of so peculiar a nature, the
House should not devolve such a duty on a Select Committee.
The facts of the case were these :—The election petition was
to be considered on Thursday next, and the present petition
was presented en Tuesday, two days previous to the ballot.
The Hon. Member by whom the petition was presented had
stated that he was prepared now to prove that one of the
signatures was not authentic, and that he had reason to
believe that the two others also were not genuine.
Li his opinion the present inquiry ought to he brought to a
close in the course of to-morrow, because Thursday was the
day named for taking the Election Petition into consideration.
The House should be aware how it established a precedent for
having a preliminary inquiry, which might make it impossible to
proceed with the inquiry in the Election Committee. In his
opinion it would be much better for the House not to call
in the evidence to-day, but to fix the consideration of the
subject for to-morrow ; the House itself instituting the
inquiry. Thus placing all parties upon an equality--enabling
the Honourable Member for Roscommon to prove the
assertion he had made, that one of the signatures was
not genuine, and enabling his Gallant Friend, on the con-
trary, to prove that it was. If the Election Petition stood
for Thursday week instead of Thursday next, there could be
no objection whatever to appointing a Select Committee • ' but
as the time was so short, it would be better for the House to
institute the inquiry itself.--( Hear, hear.) The House
ought, in his opinion, to guard against the establish-
ment of an inconvenient precedent ; but, at the same time,
if he should hear from the Chair that the Election Committee
would be competent to take the subject into consideration, and
give the sitting Member redress, that would be satisfactory to
him. But if there should be any doubt on the subject of the
institution of a preliminary inquiry, his present opinion was
that the House ought to institute the inquiry itself, and take
the subject into consideration to-morrow.
Mr. O'CONNE LI, said it was but fair to state, that if the
matter was referred to a Select Committee, the petitioners
would be deprived of the benefit of Mr. Moffett's testi-
mony as a witness. Mr. Moffatt was one of the sureties
for the petition, and therefore could not be examined before
the Election Committee. Thera was no application at present
for postponing the Committee, and lie thought it would be
better to adopt the course suggested by the Right lion.
Baronet, and inquire into it to-morrow. In the mean time lie did
not know which of the petitions was the one in dispute. lie had
soen three, but he did not know which was the disputed one.
He thought it would not be doubted that a Select Committee
would be more likely to arrive at the truth, than that it n ould
be by an examination at the bar.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that Mr. Moffatt was not the best
person to examine at the bar. lie was the agent for the par-
ties against whom the petition complained ; and if the allega-
tions of the petition were proved, he (Mr. Moffatt) would
conic under the censure of the House.
Mr. Sergeant WOUL FE (who was nearly inaudible) did
not acquiesce in the propriety of considering the case to
morrow.

Colonel PERCEVAL would withdraw his amendment,
on the understanding that to morrow the ca,,e might be
discussed, and the Hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French)
would then have an opportunity or calling his evidence.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR cf tho Ex-
encouaa. Sir R. Pm., and Mr. Fay.xcn,
Sir F. TRENCH said he understood the Hon. Members
on both sides were prepared with their witnesses now.—( Oh. )
Col. PERCEVAL would withdraw his amendment, and
moved that the petition be beard at the Bar of the House
to-morrow.—Agreed to.
Colonel PERCEVAL hoped the Hon. Member for Rog-
common would name his wit :eases no:r.
Mr. FRENCH hid no objection, but they could not be
called hii witnevei.
OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS.

Sir S. WHALLE Y rose to bring forward the motion of
which he bad given notice, for a copy of the correspondence
between England and France, relative to the occupation of
Algiers by the latter. The Honourable Baronet said that
as some explanation was necessary, he hoped the House
would join him in calling on her Nljest)'s Ministers
for this information. Whatever Might be the object
of the occupation of Algiers by the French, he hoped that
at would not be found to b 3 with a view to aggrandiv-
m, ne He was the more particularly induced to call
the attention of the House to this subject, in consequence
of soms expressions that had very lately fallen from
some of the Members of the Chamber of Deputies in France.
ele was far from entertaining any petty jealousy to France,
on t..e contrary, be was rather p'.easei that they had ex,ir-
pated nest of pirates which formerly infested'it ; but at the
serae tile* he could not help remembering that France hard
stated that the object of tle- expditiou thither was to avenge
outraged humanity alone. He regretted, however, that
France had not taken counsel of the other great Powers of
Europe before abe get about colonising Algiers. In a time of
peace it might be well for England that France occupied
Algiers. At all events., for the protection of our trade, it
was better she should be mistress of it than the pirates. But
he could not help thinking that in a time of war it would not
he altegether such an advanta,ge to this country. The Go-
vernment of England were bound to have a distinct and spe-
cific assurance from the French Government that they did not
wags a war of aggrandisement in Africa. It was said in the
time of Lord Exmouth's expedition by some that Algiers wee
'almost impregnable ; while others, on the contrary, asserted
that it could be easily taken it was so weak ; but he ( Sir Samuel
Whalley) had it from good authority that so much was it the
former, that, were it not that tte expedition had been
materially assisted by the elements the city would never have
submitted. Under these circumstances he thought those who