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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mir 30.
Petitions praying for the better observance of the Sabbath
were presented by the Earl of Bandon, Lord Hatherton, Lord
Harewood, and Lord Dundas.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the
Archdeaconry of Durham, against the alteration of the Church
Property Bill.
Lord \VHARNCLIFFE presented petitions against the
North Midland Railway Bill from York.
Lord LONDOND ERR Y presented apetition from Sunder-
land, in favour of the Great Northern Railway Bill. Although
he presented the present petition, he thought it would be ad-
visable to postpone the Bill till the next Session, as he doubted
very much whether the proposed line would, upon
reflection, be considered the best.—( Hear, hear.) He
had a great interest in oppoaing the Bill, as the line now
proposed, would pass through one of the most beautiful estates
he possessed ; but still he would not put private interest in
competition with public good.
Mr. BERNAL, and other Members of the House of Com-
mons brought up the Imperial Continental Gas and several
other Bills.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from Clithero
n favour of the removal of Jewish Disabilities.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a similar
petition from Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that on
moving the second reading' of the Staffordshire Indemnity Bill
on Tuesday next, he should move that Counsel should be heard
at the Bar.
The NOBLE MARQUIS also gave notice, that on Thursday,
the 9th of June, he should move the second reading of the
Catholic Marriages Bill.
SCOTCH ENTAIL BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, the Order
of the Day for going into Committee on the Scotch Entail
Bill was discharged, and the Bill was referred to a Select
Committee.
The Orkney Seaman's Fund Bill went through a Com-
mittee, and the other Bills on the table were alvanecd a stage,
after which the House adjourned.

_HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mir 30.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
Mr. SAMPSON brought up the Report of the Trustees for
Building Churches.
Mr. CRAFER presented papers from the Treasury.
KILKENNY ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received
a petition from the Clerk of the Hanaper, complaining of an
undue return for the city of Kilkenny.
The petition was ordered to be taken into consideration on
the Ist of June.
GLOUCESTER WATER-WORKS.
On the motion of Mr. HOPE, this Bill was read a second
time.
MANCHESTER AND SALFORD CANAL.
Mr. M. PHILLIPPS brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on this Bill., On the motion of the same Hon. Mem-
ber, the Imperial Continental Gas Bill was read a third time
and passed.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition from the ship-
owners of the port of Liverpool, praying that they might be
excused from paying the dock dues, and that their vessels
might be allowed to lie below the docks.
Mr. R. sTEUART presented a petition from the pilots of
Folkestone (we believe), relative to the Dover Harbour Bill,
which was referred to the Committee.
IRISH CHURCH.
Lord STANLEY wished to know from the Noble Lord
(the Secretary for Ireland), in the absence of the Secretary
for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of the
Government on Wednesday to move the second reading of the
Irish Tithe Bill ?

Lord MORPETH was understood to reply in the affir-

mative.

Lord STANLEY gave notice that, in that case, he would
move, as an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a Bill
to convert tithe composition into a rent charge, for its redemp-
tion, and far the better distribution of the church revenues of
Ireland.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.) •
DUBLIN ELECTION.
Mr. O'CONNELL, in moving the Order of the Day for
resuming the debate on the subject of the petition which he
had presented, which was in substance, though not in form,
an election petition, wished to call the attention of the House
to the state of the facts. At the last Dublin Election, two
gentlemen were returned as duly elected. A petition was
presented from certain electors against that return, praying for
a scrutiny, and the substitution of the defeated candidates.
To that petition the defeated candidates were no parties—it
was merely the petition of electors. On that petition being
presented it was referred to a Committee, who determined that
the evidence should be taken in Dublin. When the Committee
came to this determination the evidence must be taken before
a Commission appointed under the Act enabling Committees
to send Commissions to Ireland. The Commissioners ap-
pointed by the Committee were bound to limit and confine
the point on which evidence was to be given. The Committee
among the limitations made on that occasion, made the 16th
rule in the words which he would read to the House.
It was as follows : " That no recriminatory evidence
be admitted against the defeated candidates, except
as far as regards the disqualification of voters, they not
being petitioners, nor any parties before the Committee."
He had called the attention of the House to the fact
that the petitioners had disclaimed the candidates as
parties ; that they called on the Committee to decide
they were not parties, and to draw the inevitable
inference that no evidence could be given affecting them
personally ; and the Committee had accordingly unanimously
so decided. Now, upon these facts there was not the least doubt
that the petition prayed a substitution and a scrutiny; that it
charged bribery and intimidation on the part of the sitting Mem-
bers; that the statements:on the other hand retorted those char-
ges, and the petitioners came forward before the Committee,
and insisted that the Committee should determine that
the unsuccessful candidates were not parties before them,
and that consequently the evidence should be so limited.- The
unsuccessful candidate remained scaithless completely, and no
evidence could be adduced against them. There was no
exaggeration of that fact, because a Member of the House had
stated that that distinction had been distinctly come to and
acted upon by the Committee. He had only one more fact to
state, and that was, that there were eight persons struck off the
poll, for having been promised money before they voted, for
their votes, and having been subsequently paid for their
votes after they had voted. The fact, therefore, of bribery
having existed was so clear that it could not be disputed.
The facts which would bring that bribery home personally to
the now sitting Members were equally clear; so that if the
House was compelled to decide, this evidence was not to be
gone into, it might suppose the case of sitting Members
having given these bribes themselves, _having actually made
the promise, and performed the promise, and yet that was a
case in which there was no kind of remedy whatever.
Some of those persons who opposed the motion on this ground,
might perhaps one day fill the highest judicial offices, and
would it not be considered monstrous if such doctrine was to
to be held by them in their official capacity ? He would only
refer the House to the statutes under which this decision had
been read. The case turned upon two acts. The 9th Geo.
IV. cap. 32, and the 42d Geo. 111. cap. 106. This was the
Statute which gave legal power to appoint Commissions
the words of which he would just read to the House. The
Hon. Member then read the clause. By this clause the
Committee were empowered to appoint limitations with respect
to the facts which the Commissioners were to try. The Com-
mittee accordingly, acting under the powers of this clause,
limited the inquiry as to the fact by excluding evidence
upon the point to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.)
He would then come to the 9th Geo. IV., which was said to
be the perfection of legislation.—( Hear, hear.) It was al-
leged that this statute made the decision of the Committee
final, and that therefore no more evidence could be let in
against the parties. Could any proposition be more monstrous ?
The clauses enacted that the Committee were to decide whe-
ther the petitioners or the sitting Members were duly elected,
and that such a decision should be final between the parties.
The House was now called upon to declare that the decision
of the Committee was to be final between persons
who were no parties before the Committee. The
Committee bad decided that the present sitting Members were
no parties before them, and refused, upon that ground to hear
evidence against them. He hoped, therefore, that party spirit
would never induce that House to depart so far from what was
the clear intention of the Legislature. The Legislature stopped
there, and now it was attempted to carry the principle much
further by construction. This Act was called the per-
fection of legislation. Now, what did the Act say ?
provided that 11 Members should be chosen as a Commit-

tee. The II were to retire and choose a Chairman, and then
it provided that, in case those eleven should vote equal—( A
laugh)—there was a statute for them.—(Much laugh-
ter.) He contended that the 40th section did not
include the present case—it expressly excluded it, and
there was no ground why the petition of his (Mr. O'C.'s)
hate constituents, or those who voted for him—they
certainly did not vote for the present Members—should not
be received—why a Committee should not be appointed, and
an investigation had, as to who committed the bribery. There
had been an allegation of bribery against him, and the witness
who had been produced to sustain it was now under sentence for
perjury : that was a tolerable refutation ofthe charge. All the pe-
titioners dcsiredwas invcstigation,and it was the duty of the House
to inquire whether the bribery happened by accident, or whether
there had been hands to set it in motion. That investigation
might not be very convenient for—he did not allude to the
sitting Members—but a gentleman of the Irish bar, whose
hand-writing made a portion of the evidence by which
some of the voters had been struck off.—( Hear, hear.) It
might also be inconvenient for some persons on that side
of the water, for thousands do not fly over without some
persons to send them across. He had confined himself to the
very point before the House, and the only question was whe-
ther the statute carried it so far. It had been as-
serted that the Canterbury case was a decision against him.
What was decided in that case? That the petitioner ought to •
have been returned, and that the sitting Member was not
duly elected. Now he would ask, ought any man to have
been returned who was not duly elected ?—( Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) If he (Mr. O'Connell) were in a Court of Jus-
tice, he would laugh to scorn the pitiful chicanery that
made such a distinction, and would consider such a
decision final and conclusive between the parties.—( Hear.)
He admitted that this was not a final decision, because it did
not include all the particulars. But it did not follow that this
decision was a decision under the Act. The Canterbury case
met this. There was a class of cases that did not come
within the finality of the statute, and this was one of them.
He had laid the case of these electors before the House,
and he trusted that there could be no reasonable doubt that the
House would take care that what ought to be investigated
should be investigated. He did not of course suspect that either
of the gentlemen the defeated candidates had themselves
bribed, but there was no doubt that bribery existed, whatever
doubt there might be as to the quarters from whence the
money came. That money had been found by some party was
perfectly clear, and the only question was, whether under the
circumstances, the House would send back the petition to the
Committee to review their decision ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that this peti-
_ _ _

tion could not be received. He had felt it his duty most at-
tentively to consider the case, and he felt no difficulty in ac-
knowledging that it was with very great reluctance that he
had arrived at this conclusion.
Mr. O'CO NNE LL rose amidst tremendous cries of
" Chair " and " Order," from the Opposition benches). He
wished to say but one word.—( Cries of " Spoke." It would
save the time of the House.—( Great uproar.) He wished to
withdraw the pctition.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He
wished to withdraw the petition as, whatever his own opinion
might be, the principle law officer of the Crown having
pledged his legal reputation to a contrary opinion, he did
not think that he (Mr. O'Connell) ought to interfere.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his opinion
went for nothing, and he was, therefore, anxious that it should
be contradicted or corroborated by that of the chair.—( Hear. )
The SPEAKER said this was a qsestion of great importance,
and he felt difficulty in stating his opinion upon it. It divided
itself into two points. When an election took place it
was competent for the electors or the unsuccessful
candidates to present a petition ; but in any case it
was to be considered that the electors were the
substantial parties, whether the petition presented claimed the
seat or not—whether it was the petition of electors or
unsuccessful candidates, it was quitd competent in either
case for the Committee to come to a conclusion, that the
unsuccessful candidates had a right to be returned as
duly elected.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If this was true
it followed that on a question affecting the right of
either party to his seat, the whole of the facts ought to be
brought under the consideration of the Committee. How
could the Committee conscientiously make their report, if they
shut out any part of the evidence—they could not give a
proper decision unless every part of the evidence affecting
the right of either party was duly considered and
discussed. The-Right lion. Gentleman referred at some
length to the petition 'presented in 1833, complaining of the
return made for Southampton respecting the question how far
the decision was to be considered a final decision ; he
was of opinion that it must be taken as final. The determina-
tion of the Committee, embodied in the 16th Resolution, ap-
peared to him to be unfortunate and erroneous, but the Report
stated that there was no evidence of bribery to affect the sitting
Members. Then arose the important question, what was it fit
for the House to do, supposing it to concur in the opinion
that the Committee had been in error as he had pointed out ?
He was only discharging the duty which he owed to the
House, when he stated that he was of opinion that prin-
ciple ought to prevail against particular circumstances.
While he stated this opinion, he must at the same time say,
that the House ought to take measures to guard against a re-
currence of a similar act.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that after the very clear
explanation of the law which had fallen from the Speaker,