The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 20.

. `o\
c•-•

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter before Four
o'Clock, when Daniel O'Connell, Esq., took the oaths and
his scat for Kilkenny. He was introduced amidst loud cheers
by Messrs. Gillon, D. Roche. and Power.
The Usher of the Black Rod (Sir Augustus Clifford) ap-
peared, and summoned the House to the House of Peers, to
hear the Royal Assent given to certain Bills, for which see
Lords' report.
PERLETHORPE CHAPEL BILL.
Mr. E. DENISON moved the third reading of the
Perlethorpe Chapel Bill.
Mr. A. TREVOR could not allow the Ball to pass without
taking the sense of the House upon it, as ha believed it was
against all principle.
Mr. DENISON defended the Bill.
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN hoped that the House would
not pass this Bill, as it went to establish a very bad precedent,
as every one who had a similar case would ask for the same
privilege. He hoped the Hon. Member would net trouble
the House to divide.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES hoped that the sense cf the
House would favour the Bill, and ho trusted that greater faci-
lities would be afforded generaily for increased Church ac-
commodation, such as this Bill would afford. lie hoped that
the House would not only pass this Bill, but that it would
form a precedent that would be frequently foilotved.
Mr. JERVIS hvislh d to know if provision were made by
thi3 Bill for the repairs of the chapel ?
Mr. E. DENISON said that the church ha I been built
by Burl Manvers—it bad heen always maintained by him, and
lee would continue to rednir arol ui;hold it.
The Bill was the re.ei a thlrd time aed passed.
MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. DE N 0 N br,:eght uo the ?..port on this Bill.
BLACiiWALL CO`dMERCIAL AND NORTHERN

RAILWAY.
Mr. J. ALSTON brought u? the Report on this Bill.
111%M.,1 th::n moved that the Coninii!tee on the
)znay...reial Not hero Railway Bill be allowed
ate to make their Report.

l ilr' iI 7D

BLIc
fall!

,vail

uwil thu

of.'

-Vier srinic was carried on in a con4er3,l-

t,me,
Mr. P. THOMPSON su.2-gosted that the time should be
to the 6:h of jam!, in v.h.c!l case he weed ui:k no

uhji.etion to tile

r.t: extendeti.

tlhe motion was the .i,reed to.
MIDLAN!) RAILWAY BILL.
Si; R. FE RC; U S SON presented a petition from the coal
owners of Nottingham and Derby, agaLst the Midland Coun-
ties' Railway Bill.
TRINITY HARBOUR BILL.
On the motion of Sir A. LEITH HAY, the Trinity Har-
bour 8.1 l was read a thirst time and passed.
GRAVESEND PIER BILL.
Mr. TOOKE presented apetition from Gravesend-in favour
of this Bill. The lion. Member said that in the absence of
his Hon. Friend, the Member for West Kent. he bad been
requested to move the second reading of this Bill.
Sir E. CODRINGTON had a petition to present against
the Bill, and would oppose it, on the ground that it created an
'undue monooly.
Mr. H. HUG HES moved that the Bill be read a second
time this day six. months. la doing this lie would sim-
ply advert to two considerations, the Report of the
Steam Navigation Committee in the year 1831, which stated
that " considerable inconvenience would arise from the prac-
tice of many steam-vessels starting from one point at the
same time, and keeping together." And the other con-
sideration was the resolution of the Steam NavigatiOn
and Port of Loudon Committee, of the 17th of March, 1836, in
these words, " That it was the opinion of the Committee that
the clause of the present Gravesend Pier Act, which prevented
more than one vessel from disembarking passengers at the same
time was a considerable protection to the public and to the in-
terests of navigation, and that any alteration in the clause
would be injurious." Now this Bill was for the express pur-
pose of altering that clause, and inflicting the very injuries
which the Resolution of the Committee sought to prevent.
The Bill would allow two steam-boats to lie -along-side of
the wharf, and run against each other in the river, and thus
increase the evils mentioned in the report to which he referred.
Sir E. CODRINGTON opposed the motion for more
reasons than were put forward by the Hon. Member
for Oxford.—(Hear.) The projection of the pier would
he a serious injury to the navigation of the river ; and if it
passed, the interests of the watermen along the river would be
altogether destroyed. Those persons had subscribed 1,000/.
for the protection. cf their interests at the Admiralty,
and the measure before the House would shut them
out from all the advantages which they before gained. Those
who called themselves the conservators of the river really
were the cause of all the mischief done to it. The
measure before the House would be an act of gross injustice,
and he hoped, therefore, it would not be allowed to pass into a
law.

Dr. I3OWRING concurred with the Hon. and Gallant
Member, that it would be a gross injustice to pass this Bill.
Captain PECHELL was requested by the watermen of the
river Thames to oppose this Bill, and he never opposed any
Bill with greater pleasure. This was the third County of Kent
Bill he had felt it his duty to oppose; and, in his opinion, the
present Bill, if passed, would be an act of downright robbery.
He trusted the House would allow the Bill to go into Com-
mittee as the only means of enabling the party to pay the debts
they had incurred.
After a few words from Mr. BERNARD,
Mr. 0. F. YOUNG wished to state that a petition had
been forwarded to the House that very evening, signed by
three-fourths of the bondholders of the debt, declaring them-
selves perfectly satisfied with the present security.
Mr. TOOKE explained—The debt was 30,0001., and the
amount due to bondholders was only 19,0001.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were
For the Bill l4
Against it
Majority against the Bill
Captain ALSAGER brought up the report of the Com-
mittee on the London and Croydon Railway.
Mr. E WART presented a petition from Liverpool against
certain parts of the Liverpool Dock Bill.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the Committee on this
Railway obtained a further extension of time to make their
report, viz. till July 6. Some mistake had occurcd, and time
was requisite to correct it
HUNGERFORD MARKET BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAILWAY.
Mr. A. TREVOR moved the third reading of this Bill.
_Mr. G. F. YOUNG would not suffer this Bill to be
read a third time
without expressing the strong objections
he and his constituents had to it, if he could hope that
his opposition would be attended with any good effects.
As, however, his opposition to this Bill in a former
stage had been attended with a different result, he thought it
useless to trouble the House further on the present occasion.
The Bill was read a third time, and passed.
DURHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. A. 'RE VOR brought up the report of the Committee
on this Bill, stating that the Standing Orders had been com-
plied with, Iltit (as we understood) that the preamble of the
Bill had not been proved.
Mr. HUME, as the report did not state the reasons of
the Committee, in compliance with the relrulations laid down
by the Horse, moved that the Bill be re-tort.mittecl, in order
that the Committee might make a special report, according to
the rules of the House.
Mr. A. TREVOR thought the course pursued by the Hon.
Member for Middlesex rather unusual, and in support of which
no ground had been stated. He was sorry the Chairman of
the Committee was not in his place, that he might explain what
had occurred ; but be thought the House ought to be cautious
before they acceded to the proposition made by the Member
)'or Middlesex, who it seenis had taken the whole county of
Durham under his especial protection, as if the Members
from tirot county were incapable of attending to the interests
of their ionstauenti .s. He supposed that Hon. Gentleman had
enough nn his hands the county with which he was more
c. annected, and that he had no occasion to travel so far as
Durham, in search of subjects on which to expend his care.
It appear( al the interests of the people in that county were
of poscd hy a cabal, at the head of which, at least
as forming a principal part, was the lion. Alembe,- opposite.
In the Committee every attention was paid to the i aterests of

~~

the parties, every subject connected with it minutely investi-
gated ; and if the House sanctioned the motion at the other
side it would be establishing a dangerous precedent, of which
every disappointed speculator would hereafter take advantage
in impugning the decision of Committees.
Mr. HUME believed there was no other Member in
the House but the Gentleman who had just sat down ignorant
of the motion made by him (Mr. Hume.) It was one simply to
ascertain if the Standing Orders were complied with, and
therefore the Hon. Gentleman's indignation was altogether
thrown away.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON entirely concurred with
his Honourable Friend, the Member for Middlesex,
that this Bill ought to be recommitted. The Railway
Committee had been appointed for the purpose of
procuring and communicating to the House information on the
subject of railways. In this instance the Committee had not
stated in their report the reasons which induced them to throw
out this Bill. By the regulations of the House they were cer-
tainly bound to do so, and he therefore thought the Bill ought
to be recommitted for the purpose of procuring the necessary
information.

Sir J. GRAHAM contended, that under the circumstances
stated by the Committee, they did not feel bound to make any
special report to the House; and, in adopting that course, they
had acted upon the advice f the officers of the House.
Mr. LAMBTON, as a Member of the Committee, de-
fended the course pursued by them.
Mr. WA S 0 N was sure that it was the wish of every one of
the Members of the Committee to do justice to all parties.
Mr. H. HUGHES hoped the House would not be satisfied
without seeing the reasons why the Bill was rejected in Com-
mittee, in order that the House might see whether they had
exercised a sound discretion or not. He believed that on
those reasons being seen there would be ample cause for the
recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. PRAED thought if the Bill was to be re-committed
it should be done upon some special resolution of the House.
Mr. E. DENISON said that the resolutions of the
House were intended to controul the proceedings of Commit-
ters, and therefore the House required to know as well why a
Bill was rejected al why it was alopted.
Mr. ROBINSON would vote for the re-commitment of the

Bill.
Mr. PEASE said that the Committee had not adjourned.
They were, in point of fact, still sitting, as the motion of ad-
journment was put and negatived. If the House, therefore,
wished them to state their reasons for making this report, they
were ready to do so. All they wished to know was, whether
the House would require them to make such a report.
Mr. WA RB URT 0 N supported the motion.
Sir T. FREMANTLE thought the precedent esta-
blished by acceding to the resolution a very inconvenient one.
If a motion were made for reviving the Committee with
instructions to report, it should meet with his concurrence.
Mr. HUME said that was his object, and he would consent
to shape'the terms of his motion so as to meet the views of the
Hon. Baronet.
Mr. LA MBTON wished to know if the House would sanc-
tion the principle of allowing members to vote in Committees
who bad not heard a word of the evidence ?
The SPEAKER said that it was of the utmost impor-
tance. that the rules of the House should be strictly ad-
hered to, arid that the House should be in possession of
the grounds upon which a Bill was rejected. In his
opinion the orders of the I-louse had not, in the present in-
stance, been complied with, inasmuch as the rules required
that Committees should state the grounds upon which Bills
were rejected.
Mr. PR AED contended that when the preamble of the
Bill was not proved, ;he Coinmittee had no right to report '
specially.
After a few words from Mr. PHILLIP HOWARD,
Sir G. CLERK said the question for the House was whether
when the preamble was not proved the Committee were bound
to turd; e a special report, stating their reasons for the decision
they had cone to. He thought the Bills should be re-com-
mitted, for the purpose of enabling the Committee to make
their report of the minutes of the proceedings to the House.
He thought the resolution could not be looked upon by the
House as any thing else than the Report of the Committee.
The Bill was re-committed.
SMALL DEBT COURTS.
Mr. T. DUN COM 13E moved the second reading of the
Westuzii:ster D:bt Court 3' Bill.
Mr. C. B I, LE It opposed the Bill. In these Courts there
was no one the authority of a Judge, nor was there any
one capable of being so by their education. These Courts
were in bad odour throughout the country. The Bill had not
been put into the hands of Members, and they could not yet
judge of its provi,ions. He would move that the Bill be read
a second time that day sin months.
Mr. HA WES hoped his Hon. Friend would not press
hi s motion. The parties had now agreed that in Committee
the Bill should be made analogous to those which had lately
passed for the regulation of similar courts'in Macclesfield and
Leicester. The lidl ought to he allowed to go into Committee
where these amendments might ho introduced, and then it
might be opposed upon principle.
Mr. H. HUGHES thought if the Hon. Member (Mr.
Buller we believe) understood this Bill rightly, he would give
it his most ardent support.
Mr. HUME begged
.to remind the House that this was
not a new Bill ; it seas a Bill to amend the 23d and 24th of
George 11., and to reduce the expenses attic present system.
When the Bill was in Committee, he would be happy to have the
attention of hi.?. Hon. Fa lend, or any other Member who could
propose any amelioration, and to remove imprisonment for
debt. It was very desirable to get rid of imprisonment for
debt as early as possible.
Sir E. CODRINGTON thought that the present System
was very severe, and would therefore support the Bill.
Mr. BULLER would not withdraw his amendment, and he
must protest against the manner in which the Bill had been
.smuggled into the House.— ( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it would be better if there was
a general Bill upon the subject, as Leicester, Macclesfield, and
several other towns html obtained similar measures.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE denied that the Bill had been
smuggled into the House. It had been printed, and in the hands
of Hon. Members for some time.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, and the Bill was read a second time.
DUBLIN'STEAM PACKET COMPANY.

On the motion of Lord SANDON, this Bill was read a
second time and referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL, on being nominated as one of the
Committee declined to act.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. P. THOM-
SON, who both agreed in the necessity of framing some com-
prehensive measure on the subject of liability in partnership
that would apply to the entire kingdom,
DUBLIN ELECTION.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from certain eke-
tors of the city of Dublin, against the sitting Members of that
city. The Hon. and Learned Member conceived the peti-
tion to come within the Statute ; but if any doubt arose upon
the subject, he should be content that it should be printed, and
that the opinion of the House should be taken upon it on the
first day of sitting after the recess.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought that the House ought
not to be called upon to discuss a question of so much impor-
tance without previous notice. The case, however, arising
out of the present petition did not appear to him to be a new
one. . In 1834,. the House determined upon a case in every
respect strictly analogous with the present. In that case, on
the very day on which the petition was presented, the House
came to the decision that it could not be received—he alluded
to the Monaghan case. In that case the original election pe-
tition was presented on the sth of June. On the 2d of July,
the Committee was struck, and on the 30th of July, the Com-
mittee reported that Colonel Westenra was not duly elected,
and that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to
have been returned. This was strictly analogous with the
report of the Dublin Election Committee. Under the Gren-
ville Act there had been five or six cases in which time had
been asked consequent upon the Report of the Committee ;
but in all those cases, without any exception, the Report of
the Committee bad simply been that the return was undue.
The only case which he found upon the Journals of the House
of a petition ever being presented after the Report of an
Election Committee constituted under the Grenville Act, in
which it was declared not only that the one party was not duly
elected, but that the other party was duly elected, and ought
to have been returned, was the case of Mcnoghan, to which he
had already referred.
Mr. O'CONNELL—WiII the Right Honourable Baronet
allow me to interrupt him for one moment ? A little explana-
tion may, perhaps, prevent further discussion at this time.
I could not present this petition sooner than to-day. It
was not prepared till within the last few days, and till to-day
I have not been competent to present it. It was only on
Monday last that the Report of the Committee was made. I
do not apply for time ; Ido not want it. I would have given
notice of my intention to present the petition if the House had
sat to-morrow, or even on Monday. But as this is the last
day on which the House sits for nearly a fortnight, and as the
day on which it next sits will be the last on which such a peti-
tion as the present could be received, I thought it better to
lay it upon the table this evening, in order that it might be
printed prior to its being discussed when we re-assemble after
the recess. Ido not wish it to be prematurely discussed now.
i
Having intimated to the House that such a petition is n
existence, I should even be content to withdraw it for the pre-
sent.--( Hear.) But whenever it is discussed, I shall be per-
fectly prepared to show that it comes within the statute, that
none of the cases alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir
J. Graham) apply to it, and that gross injustice will be done
if it be not received and its prayer attended to.—( Hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when the Hon. and Learned
Member interrupted him, he was endeavouring to state to the
House the grounds of the decision which was made in the
case of the Monaghan petition. The present petition could
be regarded in no other light than as virtually asking for the
appointment of another Committee under the Grenville Act,
to re-try the merits of the last Dublin election.—( Hear. )
But under the Grenville Act, when an election Committee duly
appointed had come to a decision as to the return of the
Member, no peovision whatever was made for any appeal.
He had stated that since the passing of that Act, five or
six instances had occurred of petitions being presented,
after the reports of election Committees had been made,
asking for the fourteen days within which, by the rule of
the House, petitions complaining of the return of any sit-
ting Member must be laid upon the table. But in each of
those five or six cases, the report of the Committee had not
affirmed the right of the party petitioning to be returned, but
had only adjudicated upon the simple point of the pro-
priety or impropriety of the return. The case of Monaghan
anw ioasEtiheectonnly one in which a petition had been presented after
Committee had declared that one Member was
not duly elected, and that another was duly elected, and ought
to have been returned. And how was that petition received ?
On referring to the Journals of the House, he found or, the
13th of August, 1834, an entry to this effect ;—" The peti-

TAR SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 21, 1836.

tion of certain electors of the county of Monaghan, complain-
ing of the election and return of Edward Lucas, Esq., being
presented, the entry on the Journals of the 30th of July last
of the Report of the Monaghan Election Committee was read,
to this effect :—That the Hon. Henry R. Westenra was not
duly elected a Knight to serve in Parliament for the county of
Monaghan ; that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected a
knight, and ought to have been returned for the said county."
A debate ensued, which ended by the House directing the pe-
tition to be withdrawn. This was the last decision which the
House had come to upon a matter of this kind, and, believing
the decision to be most correct, he thought that a similar
course ought to be adopted on the present occasion. With
that view he should now move that the Report of the Dublin
Election Committee entered upon the Journals of the House
on Monday last, be now read.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if
there were any difficulty upon the subject, he thought it
arose out of the circumstance of the petition being pre-
sented on the last day of the House sitting prior to
the recess.—( Hear, hear.) If, instead of adjourning
for ten days, the House were only about to adjourn till Mon-
day next, there would, he apprehended, be no doubt as to the
course that ought to be pursued, namely, to print the petition
and take the discussion upon it on Monday. He agreed with
his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir James Graham) that there was no
subject on which it behoved the House to act with more jea-
lous caution than on questions of this description. As some
difficulty seem to have arisen on the present occasion, what
lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to do was to
suggest that which appeared to him to be the fair and just
mode of dealing with the subject, namely, to allow the petition
to lie upon the table, and to adjourn the discussion upon it
until the first day of the House sitting after the recess. Mean-
while Hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of consult-
ing all the precedents upon the subject. He should move as
an amendment that the debate be adjourned till the first day
•after the recess.—( Hear.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK did not know what they could
gain by postponing the discussion. They could not be called
upon to judge from the allegations of the petition, whether it
were deserving of attention or not, because the question had
already been tried before a competent tribunal, by which a de-
cision that ought to be final had been pronounced. There
was no difference between the present case and that of the case
of Monaghan. It was proper, therefore, that the same course
should be pursued.
Mr. O'CONNELL said his object in rising was to reply to
some of the observations that had fallen from the Right Hon.
Baronet ( Sir James Graham) opposite. He was prepared to
meet the Right Hon. Baronet foot to foot. Here was a case
where it was impossible to present a petition sooner. Here,
too, was a case which, in other respects, differed essentially
fi'3lll those to which the Right Hon. Baronet had referred.
In this instance the candidates—the Gentlemen who now sat
for the city of Dublin—were not parties to the original elec-
tion petition ; and the words of the statute were special, that
the decision of a Committee appointed under the Grenville
Act should not be thud unless it were a decision between
the parties. He prayed the House to see what a mon-
strous thing it was to resist • the course he proposed to
take. The report of the Dublin Election . Committee, pre-
sented on Monday last, contained the following resolution :
" The Committee feel it to be their duty especially to report
to the House that eight persons, viz-, Matthew Nadden,
George Osborn, Patrick Finucane, Oliver Richards, John
Forsyth, CharlN Dempsey, James Baldwin, and Andrew
Hutchinson, were struck off the poll as having voted under a
corrupt expectation, and having subsequently received money ;
but the Committee are unanimously of opinion that there is
no evidence that Messrs. West and Hamilton, for whom they
voted, were either directly or indirectly implicated in such
corrupt practices."—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He
eadmired that cheer; but would the Hon. Gentlemen who were
so vociferous; listen to the reason why there was no evidence to
implicate Messrs. West and Hamilton? Because the Com-
mittee, when it opened a Commission to go to Dublin for the
purpose of taking evidence, gave directions to that Commis-
sion, limiting them to particular points on which only they
were to take evidence. He held in his hand a cony of the
limitations imposed upon the Commission. It was a question
whether any recriminatory evidence was to be admitted against
the unsuccessful candidates. Upon that point the direction
given to the Commission was that no recriminatory evi-
dence should be admitted against the unsuccessful candi-
d ites, except so fir as regarded the dispalification of votes,
the unsuccessful candidates not being parties before the
Cumraittee. That being the ease, the unsuccessful candi-
dates not being parties, not being before the Committee
at all, the Committee might well say that there was no
evidolice against them.—( Hear, hear.) The question, then,
was, whether under such circumstances—whether, ac-
cording to a correct construction of the Grenville Act,
the decision of the Election Committee was one that ought
to be held as positively final. The words of the statute were
that the decision cf the Committee should be " final between
the parties to all intents and purposes." Now lie assured the
House that in this instance the parties seated by the decision
of the Committee were not parties to the petition, that they
were so far from being parties that the Committee expressly
excluded any evidence of a recriminatory character against
them.---( Hear, hear.) What did he claim for the present
petitioners? Nothing more than that their petition should be
printed, and that the contents of it should be deliberately con-
sidered on the first day of the re-assembling of the House
after the recess.—( Hear.) The question that arose out of
the present case was one that had never been determined. It
was out of the statute.—(Hear, hear.) The words of the
statute were precise. They stated distinctly and precisely
that the Report of the Committee should be final and conclu-
sive " between the parties." Messrs. West and Hamilton
were not parties—nothing was heard against them—yet the
Committee did not pronounce them guiltless, but returned
only the Scotch verdict of " non proven." He was prepared
to adopt the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer if the House thought fit to adopt it. All that he-required
was, that in this case, where it was demonstrated that bribery
existed—bribery which the former Committee did not try, be-
cause those on whose side it was committed were not parties to
the petition—there should be allowed an opportunity of trying
it now.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. F. YOUNG felt bound in candour to say
that the Committee, having precluded the Commissioners
from taking evidence upon a point upon which they conceived
it was not competent to themselves to enter, came to their
conclusion under the fullest impression that if there were any
ground for the allegation of bribery against the Members who
were seated in consequence of their report, it would be open
to the opposite party to try that question by presenting a peti-
tion to the House.—( Hear, hear.) He knew not whether he
had acted properly or not in making that declaration. He
had not had the opportunity of consulting more than one
of his colleagues upon the subject, but lie believed that
what lie had stated was in strict accordance with the feel-
ings and impressions of all /the members of the Committee.
--(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he (Mr. G.
F. Young) would not be a party to any attempt to exclude
any parties who came before ,the House with an allegation of
bribery against the candidates from giving such proof as it was
in their power to offer. —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. W. WYNN said that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Kilkenny (Mr. O'Connell) had referred to the course
taken in the case of the Canterbury election petition as if it
afforded a precedent for that which he now proposed. But if
the Hon. and Learned Member had taken the trouble to look
into that case he would see that it had no analogy whatever to
the present. The report of the Canterbury election commit-
tee was that the sitting Members were not duly returned, and
that the petitioner was duly returned ; and that was followed
by a motion on the opposite side, to be at liberty to question,
not the return, but the election, upon which the committee
had not reported. In so doing the committee had acted in
accordance with repeated precedents, in which, when it ap-
peared that clearly on the face of the poll the petitioner was
entitled to be returned, they reported that fact without going
into the merits of the election, leaving it open to the electors
to petition, if they thought fit, within fourteen days, on the
merit of the election. He (Mr. Wynn) happened perhaps to
be more sensible of the full weight of the precedent upon this
point, because it was connected with his own family. It was
to be found in the case of the Denbigh election in 1742.
The case was this : there appeared on the face of the poll to
be 1,370 votes in favour of an ancestor of his (Mr. Wynn's),
and between 800 and 900 in favour of Mr. Myddleton.
Mr. Myddleton's brother was sheriff, and returned him in the
face of the large majority on the poll. The House determined to
set this right, and after going into an inquiry upon the point,
it declared that the petitioner (his ancestor) ought to be re.
turned, but at the same time, gave fourteen days to the elec-
tors, of any other person, to question the merits of the elec-
tion. A similar case occurred in the election for the county
of Bedford in 1784, when a contest took place between Mr.
St. John and Lord Onslow. In that case the Committee de-
termined that the petitioner had a right to be returned, but al-
lowed the additional time to question the merits of the elec-
tion. But in the presentlinstance the report of the Commit-
tee was that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought
to have been returned. No petition, therefore, could be pre-
sented, or be taken into consideration but for the purpose of
reversing that decision. But, said the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, " these are not parties before the Committee ; the
electors had not the power of questioning the election of
Messrs. West and Hamilton ; the sitting Members had that
power, but the electors had not, because Messrs. West and
Hamilton were not parties." Till about.seven years ago, it
was perfectly true that this apparent hardship was one to
which the electors might be subject. Up to 1828, those who
had voted for the sitting Member might, either in conse-
quence of his death, or supposing him to act in collusion
with the petitioner, and not bona fide to defendihis seat—in
either of these cases the electors were precluded, and might,
without any fault or negligence of their own, be prevented
from being represented by the persons whom they had chosen.
But in 1828 he (Mr. Wynn) had himself the honour of intro-
ducing an Act upon this subject, with the view of remedying
that defect ; and to enable the electors, in the case of any
disputed return, to prevent the possibility of such a contin-
gency as that which he had pointed out. During a period of
sixty-six years since the Grenville Act was passed,° that House
had never, for one moment, given countenance to the oppor-
tunity of questioning the decision of a Select Committee. It
had held that it should be, as it was provided by the statute,
absolutely final. If it were not, they would be re-opening the
decision of every election case that might come before the
House.—( Hear.) They would have parties coming forward
and retrying every case which had been already determined
upon, in the direct face of the words of an Act of Parliament,
and in the direct face of sixty-six years practice. Therefore
he would conclude by saying that if he stood alone he would
divide the House against the petition being allowed to be upon
the table, or of being received by the House.
Dr. LUSHINGTON had heard quite enough to satisfy his
mind that it was a question of great importance, and ought net
to be disposed of by the house without mature consideration.
Whether this petition ought to be received or not, depended

upon the true 'construction of the Greville Act, as stated by
his Right Hon. Friend, upon reference also to that Act of
Parliament which he himself introduced, and upon reference
to the whole train of decided cases during the last 66 years.
Now, he must be a very bold Member of Parliament, and very
regardless of the importance of this decision, who would rashly
pronounce an opinion, either one way or the other, without ,an
opportunity of considering what was the force of those enact-
ments, and what the applicability of those decisions which
were said to be applicable to this case. He must be prepared
to bear in mind not merely the whole of the Grenville Act,
and the whole of the particulars of that important statute to
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred, but he must
be prepaied also, without any notice of this petition, without any
previous opportunity of informing his mind upon the subject,
or of comparing this case with the Monaghan or any other case,
to come to a conclusion upon a most important question in-
volving the validity of the seats of two Members of that
House. In Ms judgment, he who pronounced an opinion in
any way upon this case, without applying himself to the
points he had mentioned, and without any consideration what-
ever, beyond what the present debate afforded him to give to
the question, did injustice to the parties..—(Hear.) He (Dr.
Lushington) was decidedly of that opinion, because he would
venture to say—perhaps he might make an exception in favour
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for the
the county of Montgomery—that the great majority of the
Members of that House were not acquainted with the purport
of those statutes, nor of the decisions which bore upon the
question. He agreed that in strictness the proper motion
would be, not that the petition should lie on the table and be
printed (although that might be the more convenient mode),
but that this debate should be adjourned.—(llear, hear.) By
adopting that course they would violate no law of Parliament,
and would give an opportunity for due consideration, which
would enable the House to do justice to the parties. He agreed
further with his Right Hon. Friend, that if this was one of
those cases in which the decision of the Committee ought to
be final and decisive, not merely as between the parties who
attended upon the heating of the petition, but as against the
whole world, he himself would be one of the first, whatever
injustice might have been accidentally done by the Committee
to oppose the establishing a precedent that would lead to mis-
chief. But he could not shut his eyes, in the consideration of
this question, to the declaration made by, the Hon. Member
for Tynemouth (Mr: Young), who was a Member of the Com-
mittee. He could not forget that that Hon. Member had told
the House that the Committee, right or wrong, had excluded
from their conslideration one of the most important topics that
could enable them to pronounce the very decision to which
they h..d come ; that was, whether the now sitting Members
had themselves been guilty of bribery or not ?—( Hear, hear.)
It might turn out that the Committee lost their way and were
in error. Why not give lion. Members time for considera-
tion ? The greater the importance of the question the greater
the reason for delay.—( Hear, from Mr. Wynn.) Very well.
If you agree, I have done.
Mr. C. W. WYNN wished to explain. All that he ob-
jected to was that the House should take the slightest step
which might appear as if it admitted such a petition.—( Hear. )
Either
it was an election petition, or it was not. If it were
an election petition it ought to be received without any ques-
tion, and as a matter of right. On the other hand, if it were
not,as almost everybody seemed to think it could not be, then it
ought not to be received. Therefore, as the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman would be equally within the fourteen days if he
were to present the petition after the holidays, he ( Mr.
Wynn) would suggest that the debate should' be adjourned
till Monday the 30th inst.—( Hear. )
Mr. HUM E thought, although the debate were adjourned,
that the petition might be printed.—(No, no. )
Mr. O'CONNEL L would not oppose the adjournment of
the question till Monday, the 30th. But he begged it to be
understood that he offered the petition as a matter of right.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it' it were the opinioii-of the
House that the debate should be adjourned, he should not
object to it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the best course for tak-
ing the debate on the question, ‘viiich had been raised, by the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), would be to agree to
the adjournment. He agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-'
roan, that it this were not an election petition it should not be
received at all ; and, therefore, until that question was decided,
it would not be proper that the petition should be laid on the
table. _ _

After a few words feom Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE,
the debate was adjourned till Monday, the 30th inst.
Mr. O'LOG HLEN presented a petition from a person of the
city of Dublin, complaining that the Committee to whom the
petition against the return of the late Members for the city of
Dublin was referred had, notwithstanding the death of Mr.
Rdthven, on the 31st of March last, without any notice to the
electors, prbceeded to hear and decide upon the matter of
that petition. It alleged that the proceedings of the Com-
milee after the death of Mr. Ruthven were void, and that the
e!octors were not parties in any way whatever thereto ; and
they prayed that the House would take the matter into its
consideration, and declare that the report and proceedings of
the said Committee after the death of Mr. Ruthven -were
null and void, or make such other order as the House should
think fit.

\lr. C. W. WYNN thought a petition to declare null and
void the decision of an election Committee under an Act of
Parliament was a most •unprecedented proceeding. He had,
however, no objection to the petition being received.
The ATTORNEY-CENTRAL said the more convenient
emcee, perhaps, would be for his Right Hon. Friend to move
that the petition be brought up, and that the question as to it
being laid on the table be adjourned till Monday, the 30th
instant. Although he was not unacquainted with these sub-
jects, yet he confessed he was quite unprepared to give an
opinion, one way or the other, on the matter now, and there-
fore wished to have time for consideration.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG had distinctly understood from the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention to give no-
tice this evening of the presentation of the petition after the
adjournment.
Mr. O'LOGHLEN said the Hon. Member certainly mis-
understood him ; for he (Mr. O'Loghlen) had distinctly stated
that he should present the petition this evening.
The petition was then brought up, • and the - further consi-
deration of it adjourned till Monday, the 30th instant.
REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. •

Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on the 21st day of
June next he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to reform
the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear.)
BARON DE BODE.

Mr. O'CONNELL also gave notice that he should bring
on the case of Baron de Bode; but we did not catch the day.
PORTUGAL.

Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he could give
him any information as to the state of the negotiations now
pending between this country and Portugal on the subject
matter of our commercial relations with that country. He
asked the question, because the treaty of Rio Janeiro had ex-
pired on the 20th of April last, and there were now no certain
and established duties to which those trading with Portugal
were liable.
Lord PALMERSTON could not give the Hon. Gentleman
any information as to what the exact state of the negotiation
between the two countries was. It was in progress. The
Hon. Gentleman must be aware that there had been two or
three changes of the Ministry in Portugal pending the nego-
tiation, which had been necessarily protracted by that circum-
stance. The Government who had recently come into power
had taken up the subject with the British Minister in Lisbon,
and be (Lord Palmerston) had no doubt, that in a short time,
the negotiation would be brought to a close.
Mr. ROBINSON had given a notice on the subject for the
9th of June; before which he hoped the Noble Lord would
be able to give some satisfactory information respecting it.
THE TIMBER DUTIES.

Mr. H AWE S begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
the President of the Beard of Trade whether it was the in-
tention of Government to alter the rate of duty on timber ?
He (Mr. Hawes) had heard that the rate was not to be
altered, but the mode of levying it was to be changed. As
many of his constituency were deeply interested in the question,
he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would give him some
information on the subject.
Mr. PO ULETT THOMPSON said that it was not the
intention of his Majesty's Government, during the present
Session, to introduce any measure for altering the rate of
duty. On the topic of the mode of admeasurement he could
only say, that as the matter was now under consideration, he
could not upon that subject give the Hon. Gentleman any po-
sitive answer.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that the question was one of
great importance, inasmuch as any change in the mode of
assessing the duty might have an effect of a similar cha-
racter and not inferior to an entire alteration of the rate of
duty charge.
Mr. WARBURTON rose to order. If what the Hon.
Gentleman stated was in the simple form of a question he
would not interfere ; but when he proceeded to make obser-
vations, and to draw inferences from those observations on a
subject upon which he (Mr. Warburton) entertained a dif-
ferent opinion from him, and to which he had no opportunity to
reply, he must object to such a course being taken.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG would confine himself to expressing
his hope that sufficient notice would be given to the parties in-
terested before any ehange was made.
!SPAIN.
Mr. MACLEAN, in consequence of what was now going
on in Spain, wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs whether any and what instructions
had been given to the commander of his Majesty's cruisers in
that part of the world with regard to the commercial inter-
course of other nations with the northern provinces of Spain ?
Whether, supposing any English, American, or Russian mer-
chants, or the merchants of any other nation, wished to carry
on a commercial intercourse with the adherents of Don Carlos,
any instructions had been given by his Majesty's Government
to the British cruisers under the command of Lord John Hay
to interfere with those parties?
Lord PALME RSTON could only say, in answer to the
Hon. Member, that the instructions given to his Majesty's
cruisers now on the coast of Spain were in strict compliance
with the terms of the treaty entered into by this country with
Spain under the quadruple alliance.—( Hear. )
Mr. MAC LE AN observed that that treaty stated that a
naval force should be sent to the coast of Spain. Now, his
question was, whether the naval force would interfere with
those commercial relations?
Lord PALMERSTON—If the Hon. Gentleman asked
what that naval force would do, he (Lord Palmerston) must
decline telling him what it would do. But if or, any occasion
that naval force, in the execution of its instructions, should do
that which the Hon. Gentleman should consider improper to
have been done, then it would be for the Hon. Gentleman to
bring that specific case forward, and it would be his (Lord
Palmerston's) duty to give him every explanation in his power.
Mr. C. W. WYNN observed that the merchants of Eng-
land were surely entitled to claim information from his Ma-

jesty's Government, whether they were or were not at liberty
to carry on commerce with the ports of Spain which were now
occupied by what were called the insurgents, or the party of
Don Carlos.
Lord PALMERSTON replied that it was perfectly well
known that a limitation bad been put by the Government of
Spain, upon the commercial intercourse between other coun-
tries and those ports. Those restrictions being well known,
it was unnecessary for him to give any information upon the
subject.
Mr. C. W. W YNN—The question was not what the Go-
vernment of Spain had done, but whether the English cruisers
would allow the merchants -of this country to carry on com-
merce with those parts or not. He did not ask what the
Queen of Spain had done, but what the King of England
had done. Whether the King of England had issued any
order to prevent his subjects from trading with those parts of
Spain ?
Mr. MAC LE AN would now give notice, that after the va-
cation he should move that the instructions given to Lord John
Hay be laid on the table of the House.

Colonel BOLDERO begged to ask the Noble Lord under
whose instructions Lord John Hay attacked the works of St.
Sebastian, he not having been then assailed? Whether he
acted under the orders of the Queen of Spain or under those
of General Evans?

...
Lord PALMERSTON--I beg to inform the Hon. and
Gallant Member, that Lord John Hay on that occasion acted
in conformity with, and in pursuance of the instructions which
he received from his Majesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.)