The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1836.

Mr. PR AED considered that from the nature of kh
Bill itself, it was most desirable the House should not tail
it into consideration before five o'clock. It was a Bet
which for the first time established legislative interference
with a pending judicial proceeding, and it was therefore
most desirable that those Learned Gentlemen who were
Members of the House should be present, especially the
Law Officers of the Crown.
Mr. P. THOMPSON said, that as several Committees
had been specially fixed for Monday, there would be great
difficulty in making a House, and if the Hon. Member
pressed his proposition to a division many Members would
vote against it in consequence of these Committees. He
suggested, therefore, to the Hon. Member, that if he wished
his proposition to have a fair trial he should postpone it to
some other day.
Mr. WALLACE agreed to postpone his proposition.

and the Sheriffs Courts' (Scotland) Bill were then ordered
to be read a second time that day six months.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the
House went into Committee on the Court of Session
(Scotland) Bill, Mr. R. Stewart in the Chair. .
After a few observations from Sir W. RAE, the LORD
ADVOCATE, and Mr. PRINGLE, clause 1 was agreed to.
Clauses 2,3, 4,5, 6, and 7, were also agreed to without
any amendment.
After a few words from Sir G. CLERK, clauses up to
12 were ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On clause 15th being put,
Mr. WALLACE hoped that the time was now come
When the Judges of the Court of Session would be con-
fined to their province of expounding the law. It was not
seemly that they should usurp the powers of that House,
and become law-makers, which they now claimed to be.
—(Hear.) He held in his hand an Act of Sederunt by
which the Lords of Session actually imposed a tax
upon the people of Scotland ; it said that no man could be
plaintiff in a cause there unless he had his papers signed by an
Advocate, which-at once imposed a fine of I/. Bs. 6d. upon
all litigants. As they complained of having too much to
do, he hoped they would not in future be allowed to take
such an onerous duty upon them.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CUTL AR FERGUSSON differed from the opi-
nion expressed by the Hon. Member for Greenock, relative
to the conduct of the Supreme Court of Scotland, nor did
he believe that such was the feeling of the people of Scot-
land generally.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 16.
I On clause 17th being put,

Sir. W. RAE moved an amendment, that the new ap-
pointment of an Extractor-General, with a salary of 5001.,
and an Assistant, with a salary of 3001., be expunged, and
that the Principal Clerks of Session be required to perform
that duty on their present salaries.
After a short discussion the Committee divided, when
the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority

53
.... 34
. -19

The clause was then agreed to ; as were also clauses 18
to 34, with the exception of clause 26, which was postponed.
Mr. GILLON proposed the insertion of a clause for
the purpose of preventing Judges of the Court of Session
from becoming members of the General Assembly, or from
taking part in .any banking or mercantile Company.
The LORD ADVOCATE objected to the clause. He
thought that if the objections were valid against Judges
sitting in the General Assembly in Scotland, it would be
equally so in England against Judges sitting in Parliament.
—(Hear.) With regard to their taking part in trading Com-
panies, he thought that public opinion was quite sufficient
to restrain that practice within due bounds. As it was, he
believed that at present there was only one Judge in such a
position, and that was solely in an honorary capacity as
Deputy Governor of the Bank.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON also opposed the clause.
After a few words from Mr. A. JOHNSTON, Mr.
GILLON withdrew his motion.

~.....__ _
The schedules of the Bill were then agreed to, and the
House resumed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The LORD ADVOCATE, as we understood, was
then rising to move the Order of the Day on another of
his Bills,-when
Mr. POULTER interposed to move the Order of the
Day for for going into Cominittee on the Poole Corporation
Bill. _ .

Sir G. CLERK objected to going into the consideration
of that Bill at the present moment, as he had understood
that it was agreed that the Bills relating to Scotland should
that evening have a precedence.
Mr. POULTER said that the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Home Department had told him, that as soon
as the Bills which stood in the paper before that which he
intended to bring on (the Poole Corporation Bill) were
disposed of, his Bill should then be taken into considera-
tion. He could not help thinking that it was somewhat
inconsistent with the extreme anxiety expressed by the
Hon. Members opposite to have the Scotch Bills proceeded
with that they should have endeavoured to put an end to
all the business before the House by moving that the House
be counted.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. KNATCIIBULL observed, that it might be
quite true that a Member at that side of the House made
a motion for adjournment, but lie considered it unfair that
the act of a Member, whom he for one did not know,
should be made the ground of a general imputation against
those at that side of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. J. STANLEY understood the arrangement to be,
that after the two Scotch Bills which stood before his Ho-
nourable Friend's (Mr. Poulter's) motion had been gone
through, they should proceed with the Poole Corporation
Bill. That was the way in' which he thought the arrange-
ment was understood by the.House.—(Hear, and cries of
" No" from the Opposition.)
The LORD ADVOCATE expressed his willingness to
abide by the decision of the House.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON was under the impression that
the Scotch Bills were that night to be disposed of.
Mr. C. WYNN was of opinion that it was competent to
the Government to allow an Hon. Member to proceed with
any measure which they were disposed to favour ; but what
lie complained of in this case was, that an imititation should
be given to the House that one measure was to be brought
on whilst, upon a private arrangement, it was now sought to
give another measure precedence.
After a few words from Mr. J. JERVIS and Mr.
GOULBURN,
Mr. WAK LEY said, that he could bear testimony to the
fact, that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home
Department stated that when the two first Scotch Bills had
been disposed of, his Hon. Friend's (Mr. Poulter's) Bill
should be brought on.
Mr. GILLON thought the Lord Advocate was bound
to persevere in bringing the Scotch Bills under the conside-
ration of the House.
Sir W. RAE moved, as an amendment, the further con-
sideration of the report on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill.
The House then divided—
, For the original motion
For the amendment 32

Majority in favour of the original motion —ll
A discussion with closed doors then took place, and the
House again divided on another motion to the same effect,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment • 57
Against it
_ 33
.

• w Majority in favour of the amendment -24
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On our return to the gallery, we found the House in a
Committee on the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill.
The several clauses of the Bill having been agreed to,
it was ordered to be reported on Monday next.
• The second reading of the Court of Session Audits'
(Scotland) Bill was put off for six months.
POOLE CORPORATION BILL.

The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. FORBES was opposed to the principle, as well as
the details of this Bill. The latter, he conceived, would
operate in a most unjust and arbitrary manner. If such
provisions were necessary to correct any general defect in
municipal institutions, they ought to have been introduced
into the Municipal Act Amendment Bill. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded by moving that the first clause be
expunged.
Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion. He conceived
it to be most unjust that the House should attempt to deal
with the matter, in the way proposed in this Bill whilst the
question was undergoing discussion before a different tri-
bunal.

Mr. BLACKBURN supported the clause, and defended
the Bill. If it had been shown that the grievance could
have been removed by a court of law heshould have thought
the Bill unnecessary, but this was not all the case.
Mr. WYNN objected both to the Bill itself, and to the
manner in which the Committee had conducted itself. The
proceedings of the Committee had been most arbitrary and
violent, and contrary to all the rules of the House, as to the
receipt of evidence. The Bill could not possibly be carried
through this session, for if it reached the House of Lords
that assembly could not refuse to hear evidence against the
Bill, and this would be quite sufficient in itself to prevent
the Bill being passed this session. This was a Bill of pains
and penalties, and most unjust towards towards the parties,
who had a full and manifest right to have the case tried in a
court of law. It was a Bill which, for an alleged informality
as-to the election of two individual members of a town-council,
set aside the election of the whole, all their elections, and all
their acts. The election of the present Speaker was carried
by ten votes ; if it had been shown that five out of these
ten voters sat by an informal election, was it to be said
that thereby the whole proceedings of the House in that
respect as well as in others was to be set aside.—(Hear,
hear.) The report of the Committee stated that the par-
ties had had recourse to every step by which they could
obtain redress. He (Mr. Wynn) could not find one syl-
lable of evidence in the report to prove that the petitioners
had done so. The case would be tried in the course of a
fortnight, and it would be very inconvenient to have two
jurisdictions concurrently exercised upon it. The Hon.
Member then alluded to the Yarmouth and Ipswich cases
as proofs that the recommendations of Committees of the
House were not always in these cases to be implicitly re•
lied upon, for in both these cases juries had refused to
sanction the prosecutions recommended by the Committees.
The Hon. Member observed that, although the Committee
had, contrary to all rule, taken the affidavits of the peti-
tioners as evidence, they had carefully abstained from an-
nexing them to the report, knowing that with such ap-
pendages the House could not have received the report.
The Hon. Member concluded by calling upon the House,
as the Bill could not pass this session, not to discuss the

particular question respecting the two individuals, as the
discussion might have an influence upon the jury, who
would he called upon to decide upon it in livcouise of a
fortnight. Before he sat down the Right Hon. Gehtleman
referred to an opinion on the subject which had been given
by the Solicitor-General, and which deprecated the inter-
ference of the Legislature with the judicial functions of the
Court.

Mr. POULTER said a greater quantity of misconcep-
tion, of unfair and inaccurate reasoning, was never before
presented to the consideration of the House than was
brought before it by the Right Hon. Gentleman. There
had been such a mass of unreasonable arguments, that he
really was in a dilemma as to what he should begin with.—
(Opposition cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") In the first
place he would refer to the allusion which had been made
to the speech of the Solicitor-General, and here he must
say that he did not know where the Right Hon. Gentle-
man bad got the speech, but it was certainly an inaccurate
version that he gave the House. The Solicitor-General
admitted that it was a perfect case for legislation. The
fact was undeniable that gross fraud had been practised
at the election of the councillors, who had been referred to.
The reason why they had not called' the eighty-eight wit-
nesses was because the Committee wished to avoid ex-
pense, but no limit was set as to the time when they might
be called. Then, as regarded the affidavits not appearing
in the appendix, that omission was an error of the
printer. The great recommendation of this Bill was, that
it provided what the law of the country could not give.
If this Bill did not pass, the people would be left for
six years in the hands of those in whose election they had
no concern whatever. The Committee had so many gross
cases of fraud proved to them, that they felt themselves
called on to declare the whole election void. And on the
subject of the Report, he begged to remind the House
that it was unanimous. The utmost that was said by one
or two of the Committee was, that they did not like to le-
gislate on this subject. The House should consider that,
by a gross falsification, a Corporation had been established
that never had been elected by the people. He contended
that this Bill was unobjectionable on any Constitutional
ground.
Mr. WYNN would ask if any one act of illegality ap-
peared on the face of the Report ?
Mr. POULTER referred to the case of G. Morris,
Who, having voted on one paper, a second was received by
the Mayor. Then there was another person whose name
was not on the list of voters, but who was allowed to vote
because he had the impudence to say that he was the per-
son. James Parker was brought to personate his father.
In the case of another there was perjury.
An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
asked the Hon. Member if he could say, from the evi-
dence, that it was clear what the decision of the Jury
would be?

Mr. POHL TER said it was impossible there could be
any verdict but against the defendant:—(Opposition cries
of " Hear," re•echoed by the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said every body who had
heard the statement of the Hon.,Gentleman must feel as-
sured as to the impartiality with which he had acted in the
chair of the Committee. Of course the Hon. Gentleman
had not exhibited anything of the advocate in the inquiry
which had taken place. He found it stated that the re-
port had been framed on certain affidavits. Now he
thought it unfair for any such proceedings to be founded
on affidavits—( Hear)—when there was strong political ex-
citement or feeling, parties were often tempted to put that
on paper which they would not say if they apprehended
cross-examination.—Jlear.) He remembered that Lord
Lyndhurst when at the bar said, " Who shall transfer the
blush of bribery to paper ?" He observed that there was
a reference to the affidavits in the appendix, but on exa-
mining it, he found no affidavits there. This the Hon.
Gentleman said was the omision of the printer, but be the
fault whose it might, he would ask the House, would they
vote away the rights of the people without evidence ? He
regretted the absence of the Learned Solicitor-General, be-
cause he wished to know whether the Hon. and Learned

Gentleman maintained his opinion. This appeared to him
to be a Bill founded on injustice. He called on the House
to reflect on what their position would be if the judgment
of the Court, at the assizes, would be in direct opposition
to the opinion of this House.

Mr. LEADER defended the conduct of the Committee,
and denied that the Chairman had put questions unfairly
to any of the witnesses. The Committee, was a very fair
one, and was attended daily by three or four gentlemen on
one side, and three or four on the other side.
Mr. HARDY was opposed to legislative interference be-
fore the verdict of the jury.
Mr. HORACE TWISS opposed the clause, and said
that if it had been the object of those who brought for-
ward the Bill to do justice between the parties, they would
have made it conditional that it should be in force if the
jury found the parties guilty. In that case he could have
seen common sense in it, but by declaring the election in-
valid before the trial, or an inquiry into the question, there
were neither sense nor justice in the measure. He would
not enter into speculation as to what the course of pro-
ceeding might be in another place, but he had no doubt
that in the other House of Parliament it would be found
expedient to examine witnesses at length before any con-
clusion was arrived at. Evidence upon affidavits, or docu-
mentary evidence, would not be deemed sufficient there.
Mr. PRAED understood that the Solicitor-General, on
, a former occasion, had declared it to be his opinion that al-
though this was a case requiring the interference of the
Legislature, yet the interference now proposed was perma-
ture. He agreed with the Solicitor-General in that opi-
nion : and why ? Because the matter was still pending in
a court of law. He regretted that the Solicitor-General
was not now in his place, because if he were, and were to
repeat the opinion he had before expressed, there was not,
he (Mr. Praed) verily believed, a single individual present
who would vote for further progress of this Bill now. If
such matters as this were delegated to a Committee of the
House of Commons, what was it they did? They referred
an investigation to a body of men who were not upon their
oaths, and whose Chairman was not learned in the law, in-
stead of referring it to a jury who were on their oaths, and
who would have the aid of one of the judges of the land to
assist them in their decision. What had occurred in the
Yarmouth case ? The jury there found a verdict directly
contrary to the decision of the Committee of the House
of Commons. If the House were to be called upon to set
aside this election, the consequence would be that the ordi-
nary tribunals of the country would be superseded, and
every municipal election would become the subject of a
Parliamentary investigation.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause 9B
Against it 64
Majority —34
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
A discussion ensued while strangers were absent from the
gallery, in the course of which Mr. WYNN was under-
stood to move that the Chairman should leave the chair, and
report progress.
On our return to the Gallery, we 'found Mr. E. J.
STANLEY objecting to any postponement, as the prin-
ciple of the Bill had been decided upon by a division on the
first clause.
Mr. WYNN said that a different principle was involved
in the second clause.
Mr. PRAED said that he should persist in dividing the
Committee on the motion that the Chairman should report
progress.
After some conversation the motion was agreed to, the
Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.
The,other Orders of Day having been read and dis-
posed of, the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 7.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack
at Five o'clock.
The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition from
the Presbytery of Dumblane against the Scottish Universi-
ties Bill, and one from Truro, praying their Lordships to
resist any attempt made to impair their independence.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions
in favour of Stephenson's line of the Brighton railway, from
places in Sussex.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition from
a portion of the Clergy of Ireland, praying that the Church
might have power to nominate Commissioners to collect
and appropriate the funds belonging to the Church.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH thought the petition,
though highly respectable, could not he considered by the
House ; for it was the law now that Tithes should be col-
lected, but it was well known that it was put as;de. The
petitioners did not suggest any measures by which they
could be collected.

A Message from the House of Commons, by Mr. M.
Philips and others, brought up several Naturalization Bills.
Lord WYNFORD presented a report of the evidence
taken before the Agricultural Committee.—Ordered to be
printed.
The NOBLE LORD also presented several petitions from
labourers of different counties, complaining of the working
of the Poor Law system.
SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
Synod and University of King's College, Aberdeen, against
this 8111.