The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-31 00:00:00

- - - the
the House could not do otherwise than come to ,
decision which he (the eaker) had recommenued•
lie entirely agreed with the ChairS in thinking it a most ua.-
foFtunate decision. He could not allow that occasion. to p
without expressing an opinion which was in conformit .ss
y. wnh
what had fallen from the Chair, that the Committee in the
decision they had made, (and he was sure they were influences
by the most pure and upright motives), had committed the
.
greatest injury and the grossest injustice against the electorh
of the City of Dublin. The Report which the Com-
mittee had presented to that House, stated that the pre e
-
sent Members were duly elected, and that they ought to hav
been returned. Now in coming to this decision, it must be
inferred that all the facts and circumstances of the case had
been minutely investigated ; but was it not clear to every ene
that such was not the case? All the facts and circumstances
had not been inquired into, and yet the present Members were
declared duly elected. This decision, he must say, would
operate most injuriously ; and while he entirely concurred in
the decision of the Chair, he at the same time was also of
opinion that steps should be taken to correct the evil. He
was sure that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would also
agree with him in the view he had taken.
Mr. W YNN defended the conduct of the Committee.
They had very properly restricted the parties from giving re-
criminatory evidence against parties who were not before them.
A Committee had power to say they would go on upon one
allegation, and not upon another, which seemed to have been
done here.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to call the attention of the
Right lion. Gentleman to the 26th section of the Act
—_t
section prevented the Committee from receiving any further

evidence.
Mr. RIGBY WASON contended that there was a great
difference between the Southampton and Monaghan cases
and the present. In both the former cases the peti-
tioners never attempted to prove a case of bribery against the
sitting Members—nor had they even asked the Committee to
receive evidence on such a point, and it would be contrary
to every principle of justice if the parties could keep in their
pockets the best part of their case, and take the opinion of the
Committee upon the least important part of it. The present
case, therefore, differed entirely from those alluded to by the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Montgomeryshire.
What he should propose was, that the House should resolve
to give to the electors of Dublin 14 days to present a petition,
which in his opinion was the course pointed out by the 42c1
section of the Reform Bill.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG could assure the House he deeply
regretted that the illness of his Hon. Friend the Chairman
of the late Dublin Committee had devolved upon him the duty
of representing the Committee on the present occasion.
After the opinion which had been expressed by the
and the concurrence expressed from so many quarters,it would
ill become him in defending the course pursued by the Cone-
mittee.—(llear, hear.) Nor was it necessary for him to
waste any portion of their time in defending the motives of the
Hon. Members who had come to that decision.—( Hear, hear.)
He might, however, be permitted to offer a few words in e%-
planation. From the period that this decision had been made
up to this moment, it was never stated as an objection that
the forms of the House would preclude the petitioner from en-
quiry
,into the allegations respecting bribery. The conse-
quences of the resolution to which the Committee had come
ought to have been pointed out at the time, when there woula
have been an opportunity of reconsidering it. Mr. Austin,
the counsel, said that he had not yet touched upon the most
important part of his case, namely, the charge of bribery.
The committee upon that point reserved to themselves the
reconsideration of whether or not they would send the matter_
back to the Commissioners to inquire into the bribery part of
the case on any subsequent application being made to them
by counsel to that effect ; but the application was never Made'
The motives of the Committee had not been impugned ; but
the legality of their decision had, as being opposed to the scut
tute law. He was free to admit that he was, and he believe,'
most of the Committee were, unacquainted with the statute
law on the subject, but he knew they came to the decision
at which they had arrived as honest and conscientious men.
Their decision in this instance was certainly unfortunate in
respect to its illegality, hut it was impossible to impueen the
motives by which it was influenced.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not rise to impugn the motives of
the Committee ; but he was sorry to see the Hon. Member
who had spoken last endeavour, by a sort of circumlocution,
to fritter away the opinion and statement which he had Olen
to the House on a former night with reference to this subject'
The Hon. Member said now that when the Committee cattle
to the resolution restricting the Commissioners as
.to the re-
ception of evidence Counsel ought to have told them at the
time the consequences of that decision ; but the Hon. Gene
tleman forgot altogether to tell the House that the Comm
itte
refused to hear Counsel ; so that it was impossible they could
be told the consequences.—( Cheers.) The Committee had
locked out the Counsel, and now the Hon. Member asked
why Counsel did not inform the Committee of their errors?
Mr. Austin, the Counsel, was interrupted by the chairman,
acting and speaking through the mouth of the Hon. Membe.ra
He was ready to prove this at the bar of the House. lie 'lt
not mean to impugn the motives of the Hon. Member, but he
certainly doubted his capacity.—( Cries of " Order I")
Mr. YOUNG rese, with some warmth, to comp!ain of the
manner in which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
We
luded to him in the first person, instead of speaking of
Committee generally. What he (Mr. Young) had done
°
were the acts of the Committee, and the Hon. and Learnsn
Gentleman had no right to refer to him personally more Oa°
to any other member of the Committee. Why did not the
Hon. and Learned Member explain to the House how it`
that although there were many members of the Committee h°,
agreed politically with the Hon. and Learned Member the.'
were all unanimous in every point, as far as it concerned hie'.
Was this indicative of incapacity ? As to the observatio
orn
to his (Mr. Young's) incapacity, it was altogether unwthl,
of an answer, and he received it with the contempt it deserve°
—( Immense cheering from the Opposition.) rte
The SPEAKER said that, in point of order, there was
question before the House with reference to the proceediugse
the Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose amidst universal cries of " Speltee'
spoke," from the Opposition side, and continued for Gen
tune on his legs, but from the loud cries of interruption nfe
a word could be heard of what fell from him, except that:,e
asked, pointing to, we believe, Lord Stanley, was it delic
in the Noble Lord to assail him thus ? He then sat downer
parently much excited. the
Mr. G. F. YOUNG also attempted again to address ,de
House ; but similar interruptions from the Ministerial s'
also rendered him inaudible.
Another MEMBER of the Committee rose to vindicate the
. s
conduct of the Committee, and declared that their deeision°a
influenced only by the most pure and honest motives.
The petition was then withdrawn.
REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. ~_cri„
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know from the Hon•
ion
tleman opposite (Mr. G. Price) whether it was his intet, of
to bring forward that evening his motion to have the notieerve
the lion. and Learned Member for Kilkenny, with refere!x,
to a change in the constitution of the House of Lords!
_Uifig
penged from the books ; or whether he would wait, and u`c of
it forward on some future day on going into a Committe
Supply ?
Mr. O'CONNELL intended to move that the Ha.
_it...,
bees (Mr. G. Price's) notice be expunged from the boo
( Hear, and laughter.) • esten'
Mr. G. PRICE said that it certainly had been his
ef it,
tion to bring forward his motion when he gave notie: jos°
with a view to prevent a discussion respecting the oth 13
thins'
of Parliament, from which it was his conviction that he sed
but evil consequences could arise. Although he
not the slightest doubt of the overwhelming majorityani';
which the House would repudiate the notice whic attackunee
object to have expunged from the books, and the
the privileges and constitution of the other House of ra_bo•
ut
ment which it designed, yet he was unwilling to bring
a deliberate debate upon such a subject. Since he 11 !,hose
his notice he had been informed by some gentlemen, t tee
judgment and opinions he was at all times ready to
,Pe•c'tien;
greatest deference, that there were some technical noie_ouist
in the way of his [notion ; and, that being the case, he rititele
not risk the loss of a question of such tremendous °Tie nre.,
upon a mere point of form. While he thus waved fie; rhatl
sent bringing forward his motion, for the reason be did
entertal
stated, he begged it to be distinctly understood thatranortot
not abandon it on anrincile connected with the i Eeasee,
subject which it embraced; and that at a proper to
in tempers et loco, he should brnig it forward, in ei_esei•
on
place upon the journals of the House the strongest exP' din
of the feelings which he entertained upon the subjedeto ceee
He knew the dexterity of those with whom he
ha
turn bit!'
tend, and how adroitly they would endeayour tn thirt
round upon a point of form ; and as he looked
that upon bad
question to be the most important and momentou:_ac_ 164 ;
been brought under the consideration of the House
.1 would bt
he should take the necessary time to consider t
tion °°.
most judicious for him to pursue respecting
at the same time he begged to repeat his deterrnina
bat
lose sight of the object he had in view.—(Cheers.),,i_oe t
Mr. 0 CONNELL begged also to assure the
_11.°,. had in
he should not lose sight either of the object whicala 0,17 e 1-4011',
view, He knew of no technical objection topro': ti. ce•
Member from bringing forward his motion, and he (x_Lettiee:
was ready to meet it, whatever opinions might be en' ee
or "e 7 tbs
upon the subject either at the camp of Don Car oes.cided a
Morning Post. The question would ultimately. b
the
the people of England willed that it should be.
tion was es
it whh;raeafter ; tbeto
Mr. G. PRICE said that the technical objeer
_moo
difficulty of introducing his motion under the m_e(usiippll.4
that might attend it on going into a Committee
Aulember 171,
Lord J. RUSSELL was glad that the Hone, by abstati it
received some good advice, and had listened to brongbase
ing from bringing forward his motion, for had duty to, !,,PPOO4
on he (Lord J. Russell) must have felt it his f the ••n lit
it, as be intended to oppose also the motion undoubted 11%0
Learned Member for Kilkenny. It was the
4., sticeesosl,o
of that House to entertain motions for settline:74 their
to the Crown, and for reforming the Constituti a 7„teforati Dove
House ; and also for what was called by sen
urnestitution, °cora
which he would call an alteration in the s
glad, therthers,
other branch of the Legislature. He f: advice of • the
that the Hon. Member he'd listened to t.t' chareh.!.loosc, it
perhaps of the Right Rev. Prelates r t
ends the " ose'd
t 'fled end i limeor
would be recollected, not long ago enter
avery had c°mPtion
removal of whom from the House of
motion. Now he thought it would bee:
e_ined a I
lotion
to those Right Rev. Prelates to Intvee
to
entertain it was pre,:
removing them altogethereand
irtef
h uthe lay Lords. had a...„,e
that in any manner interfered w Rev :on
bably upon this ground that the lii
togpersist in h.
both sPel'a
(Laughter.) As he ( Lord.
.1R
of the 14c)r w°
iv' cgcs • a `'that
to maintain the rights and pr
vised the Hon. Gentleman n
jot
an -motto
he should oppose y
tual and temporal, f
trench upon either. his notice 0
Mr, G. PRICE then withdrew
Russell) was c-ty