The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-11 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, AT .:_ARCH 10.
Mr. GASKILL brought up copies of all Orders in Couneil
which have been issued relative to the Export and Import Trade
with Sweden.

The Duke of MONTROSE brought down his Majesty's
Answer to the Address 'of their Loidships to hasie a copy of
the Eieventh Report of the CommiSsioners far inquiring into
Charities in England; which his Majesty had. Ordered to be laid
beforetheir Lordships.
Mr. BnoGnil( and other's from the Commons brought up
the Weights and Measures Bill.—Read a first time.
The Glebe Lands Bill was read a third time, and sent back
to the Commons with amendments.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented a' petition from the
Church wardens, Overseers, and Parishioners of St. Peter's,
Cornhill, against the Assessed Taxes.
Baring's and Green's Divorce Bills were read a third time.
On the naotionof the LORD CHANCELLOR, their Lord-
ships resolved themselves into a "Committee on the Scotch Ju-
dicature Bill.

After some crinsiersation, in which the Earl of Rose berry, the
Lard Chancellor,' Lord 11lelyille and the Earl of-Lauderdale
participated, the Biir was reported to the House, with amend-
ments, and ordered to be re-printed. •
Lord. MELVILLE postponed the Conimittee on the Scotch
Juries' Bill till this day week.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF' COMMONS.
LIVERPOOL RAILWAY.
Mr. IVIILBRA HAM presented two petitions froth the Earls
of Wilton and Derby against the Liverpool Railway. The Hon.
3leniber presented a similar petition from certain inhabitants of
the district through which the'Railway was to pass.
The petitions were ordered to be refetfed to the Committee 07
the .Bill. .

ROYAL -EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL
Mr. ORENFELL obtained leave to bring in the Riy..l
change Assurance Bill:
ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. GOSSET presented a petition from Chippenham, pray-
ing for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes.
Mr. Alderman BRIDGES presented a similar petition from
the parish of St. Peter, Corabill.
The petitions were then ordered to be'printed.
BANK OF IRELAND.
Mr. SPRING RICE presented a petition from certain* No-
blemen and Gentlemen of Ireland, respecting the claims on the
Bank of Ireland, as we understood.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from Kingston-on-Hull, in
favour of the County Courts Bill.
Mr. MANNING presented a similar petition from Lyming-
ton.—The petitions were ordered to he printed.
Mr.,ABERCROMBY presented a petition from a Mr.
Dawson, against the County Courts Bill.—Referred to the
Committee on the Bill.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
Colonel PONSONBY presented a petition from Kilkenny,
in favour of the Catholic Claims. '
Mr. G. LAMB presented a similar petition from Kenmere,
in the count/ of Kerry.
Mr. 31. k ITZGERALD presented a .similar petition from
the Protestants of the county of Kerry.—The petitions were or-
dered to be printed.
COTTON TRADE OF IRELAND.
Mr. SPRING RICE moved for certain Returns connected
with die Cotton Trade of Freland.—Ordered.
LEITH DOCKS.
Mr. A BE RC ROM BY presented -a petition against .the Leith
Docks Bill.
After a few words from Mr. W. DUNDAS, the petition was
ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Bill. ,
STAMP ACTS.
A petition was presented from Dumfries against the present
Stamp Act.—Ordered to be printed.
IRISH PROVINCIAL BANKS.
Mr. DAWSON presented a petition from certain Noblemen
and Oentleinen of Ireland, in favour of the measure for esta-
blishing Provincial Banks.—Ordered to be printet:.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. CROKER,•the Marine Mutiny Bill
was read a second time, and tomorrow was fixed fur going into
a Committee on it.
PERSONAL INTEREST OF MEMBERS IN PRIVATE
BILLS.
Mr. HUME rose to bring forward his motion to prevent any
Member from voting for or against any question in which he
has a direct pecuniary interest; He wished that a duty of so
much importance had devolved into the hands of some Hon.
-Member of greater experience. The usage of Parliament. on
this subject had arisen out of successive Resolutions adopted
at various periods of its history, and he found, that at a very
early date, objection had been taken to the votes of Members
interested in favour of a particular measure. Cases of this
kind were not unfrequent, but the instances were more rare
where Members had not been allowed to vote because they
were 'pecuniarily interested a-ainst a Bill. Nevertheless, this
latter principle had been acted upon more than once. He was
well aware that the House would not too. hastily interfere to
alter usages of long standing, especially when private business
had been generally conducted with so much satisfaction to the
country. On the other hand, however, it' any existing law of
Parliament appeared obviously unjust, it became the dignity of
the House to reconsider it and to abrogate it, if it appeared
expedient. He thought that a power of challenge existing on
one side ought to be given to both. He was desirous only that
Members should stand before the country in a light to deserve
its respect, and the confidence of the community. As Patna..
ment was the highest Court in the kingdom, it became it to
take care that it did not reject regulations to which inferior
Courts were subjected, for the sake of doing more effectual
justice. In cases of trials by jury, it was undoubted that
either party enjoyed a right of challenge to any juror suspect-
ed of being interested, directly or indirectly, and he hoped
that the House would not countenance any thing which placed
Members above this useful regulation. His object was, that
the House should come to a deliberate decision, weighing, all
the •advantages, as well as disadvantages, of a change; for he
was bound to admit, that on looking into the subject, he had
found it encompassed with more difficulties than he had at first
expected. In various particulars it was impossible to compare
the proceedings of Parliament with the proceedings of any other
Court, and hence much of the difficulty in which the question
was involved.—(Hear, hear !)—Still there was an evident in-
justice that required a remedy in disallowing the vote of a
Member in favour of a Bill, and allowing it when lie was
equally interested against it. By care, however, some amelio-
ration might be effected, though lie was averse to throwing any
obstacle in the way of improvements which many private mea-
sures were designed to carry into effect. The very Bill, out of
which this motion had arisen, was to put an end to an injurious
monopoly. He would now proceed to lay before the House
what had been the practice and the law on the subject. He could
find no precedents previous to 1604 ; but in that year a Mr.
Seymour's vote was challenged on the ground of his having a
direct interest in the Bill with reference to which that vote was
given. It did not appear what his interest was, but the vote
was set aside. Whether the vote was for or against the mea-
sure, he (Mr. H.) could not discover : but the decision of the
House appeared to be, that Mr. Seymour's vote could not be
allowed, because he was a party. It was then stated that such
decision " was agreeable to former orders and precedents in
like cases," though lie could not find such precedents. The
next case of importance which followed, was one on the.4th of
February, 1664, where it appeared that a question arising as to
the vote of a Sir Thomas Parston, he withdrew. On that occa-
sio* the votes were 80 to 81, which materially shewed the im-
portance of admitting or rejecting that vote, anti the House
determined, that because Sir Thomas Parston was a party,
his vote could not be received. No other case, decidedly in
point, occurred until 1797. On that occasion a fall had taken
place in the price of Scrip for a loan ; and a Bill was brought
forward to afford relief to the original parties who had not
sold out. It was proposed by Mr. Pitt, that a bonus of five
per cent. should be given to them, and an objection was taken
to the votes of several Hon. Members who had subscribed
, anti were likely to be be-
evident they had an interest
tnoefitltiteedlobany.thiAs sprthopeyoswitieornes piat rwtiaess
in the Bill passing. Objections were taken to their votes by
several Members, and by Mr. Sheridan among the rest ; -and
on a reference of the question to the Chair, the Speaker de-
clared that " he bad always understood the rule and practice
of the House to be that no Member could regularly vote on any
subject which involved the immediate interest of such 31em-
ber ; and when any measure was sulrmitted, the substance of
which gave, a pecuniary advantage to, or diminished the loss