The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

standing orders be ? They would be a perfect
nullity, and if 'Acne statements were to he
allowed to pass unnoticed and uninvestigated,
the House itself would become a party to these abomin-
able scenes,, they would encourage them from one cod
of the kingdom to the other, and it would be tantatnouut
be an invitation to wealthy men to come forward and
interfere with the rights of the electors, who were in-
vited to return Members to discharge the duties of that
Rouse. He aaid therefore that the allegations of these pe-
titionerswere entitles' to:their calmandserious deliberation ;
and as the Noble Peer had no objection to an inquiry, he
begged leave to move that the petition be referred to a
Committee of Inquiry. Some Hon. Members might
ask, " Suppose your find the Noble Peer guilty, what
will you do with him ? What punishment can you
inflict upon him when you have no power
to inflict any ?" lie did not know what
punishment the House had power to inflict,
but this he did know, that public opinion, in these cases,
was seldom appealed to in vain, and if they had no
power to inflict a punishment, the Noble Peer might
be left to be dealt with by public feeling and public
-opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after a short pause,
rose and said, he had been anxious to ascertain what was
the opinion of the House upon this subject before he
related the result of his inquiry into the matter; but as no
lion. Member !teemed disposed to address the House on the
subject he was anxious to point out the difficulties they
.would get into if they adopted this motion. Now,
if ho understood the motion, it was founded
upon what was alleged to be a breach of the
isenitiliges of the Ilouse, which privileges
were established by the standing orders passed at lithe
commencement of each Parliament. Now the first
,case he found on the books of this nature occurred so far
back as 1780, when a petition was presented complaining
of the interference of the Duke of Chandos with the elec-
tion of a Member of the county of Northumberland. That
petition was very properly referred to the Committee of
Privileges, who subsequently reported their opinions to
the House on the subject, when a motion was made and
carried, to the effect that the consideration of the report
be adjourned sine die.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY—That was before the Reform Pars
liament.—(Hear, and laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued—The next
case took place in the same year, and was reported in
page 530. It was a similar application against the
uke of Bolton for interfering in the election for the
county of Southampton. The question was re-
ferred to the Committee of Privileges, but
the House, warned by the former ease, took no further
steps in the matter. On the same page he found a
motion instructing that Committee to report upon the
matter ; but it was subsequently withdrawn.
'There was a farther motion respecting the
interference of a Bishop in the same election, but the same
course was taken. In 1841, an application of a similar na-
ture was made in consequence of the interference of Lord
Cawdor in the Carmarthen election, through the agency of
his steward. The then Member for Bridport (Mr. War-
burton), a great supporter of the privileges of the
Rouse, was a member of the Committee, and ho and
the Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) and the Noble Lord (John Russell)
took a part in the discussion, but it resulted, in
aio motion being made. Since that time several cases
had occurred. On the 4th of April, 1845, an applica-
tion was made against the Duke of Marlborough, on
the strength of a petition from Woodstock ; no mo-
tion was made. In September, 1845, a petition was
presented, complaining of the conduct of the Marquis of
Salisbury; the petition was printed, but it led to no
result. In 1833 and iu 1838 similar petitions were pre-
/tented against the Duke of Marlborough, praying for
inquiry, with the same result; and such was the case with
respect to a petition against the Marquis of Hertford in
1820. The House felt that it had no remedy in its
hands, and nothing was done in either case.
Mr. WAKLEY—You may dismiss Earl Fitzhardinge
from the lord-lieutenancy.—(Hear. hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was coming to that
part. If the facts alleged were true, the Earl could be
proceeded with in a court of justice—(Hoar)--and look-
ing at the precedents he had quoted, it appeared to him
that an inquiry by a Committee would be prejudicial to
the ends of justice. It was not stated that he was
guilty of the conduct complained of in his capacity of
-Lord-Lieutenant of the county.—(" Oh, oh 1") If he had
persuaded his tenants to withdraw their support from
his brother, the captain of the militia, as their land-
lord, and not as the Lord-Lieutenant, it could not
be said that he had departed from the duties of his
office, but if he had done so it would be a ground for
proposing a recommendation to the Queen to dismiss
Ihim. He wished simply to set the House right on
the law.

Captain BERKELEY sought the indulgence of the
House for a few moments. He could not do better to
show that the charge was trumped up than to read the
words of his noble relative. (The Gallant Gentleman
produced a letter.) He stated that the charge was the
vilest falsehood that ever disgraced any set of men ; as
be had never interfered in any way with his tenants, or
'With any other person, with respect to the election in
guestion. He (Capt. B.) firmly believed this statement,
He hoped the House would deal with his noble relative
as it thought fit. As for himself he should withdraw
from that discussion.—(The Hon. and Gallant Member
hurriedly walked out of the House.)
Mr. G. BERKELEY deeply regretted the painful po-
sition in which he was placed on the present occasion ;
but he was anxious to say ft few words as regarded the
petition, the respectability of the names attached to it,
and the allegations which it contained. With regard to
the assertion just made, and which touched him more
nearly: because he was the captain of the troop of yeo-
manry alluded to, he could assure the House that he
had in his possession (and if the House granted the
Committee he would produce them) the letters of the
tenantry who had served in his troop, telling him they
would not have left if they had not been coerced to do
so by their landlord. When he returned the muster-
roll of his troop, ho had reported in the printed column
for remarks the fact that litany of his best men had
airatiltancously deserted the troop ; and, lest it should
be thought that this had arisen from any errors on his
part, he had distinctly reported that they had so left in
Consequence of the coercion exercised by the Lord-
I.dieutenant. He had, however, not been permitted
to send the muster-roll to the War-office with these
Words in it, and, therefore, in obedience to his com-
manding officer, and after consulting with an Hon. and
Gallant Friend as to what ho should do, he had erased
the words, and made no remark in the muster-roll.
Ile should say no more, nor should he attempt to fore-
stall the decision of the House ; indeed, but for the re-
marks of his Hon. and Gallant relation, who bad quitted
the House, he should not have said a word upon the
subject.
Sir R. H. INGLIS proposed to direct the attention of
the House to the petition without reference to the party
against whom it was directed, and to ask the House to
•

consider whether it was necessary to adopt the course
the House had proposed. The Hon. and Learned At-
torney-General had found that there were means in the
courts of law by which redress could be sought if any
Wrong had been committed, and there were other tri-
bunals which ought to be exhausted before the House
was called upon to enter upon the discussion of the
question now before it. It might be a doubtful question
how far it was right, session after session, to face the
standing order which made the House subject, he would
>tiot say to mockery and insult, but, at any rate, to
but still it was matter for calm consideration whe-
ther a resolution of the House was sufficient to disfran-
chise any of their fellow-subjects whether a Peer :or
a commoner. Every Peer had a right to interfere, as a
freeholder of 40s. value, and there were many Peers
now living who had exercised the privilege of voting at
the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and the
Duke of Norfolk, within the last forty years, had voted
in at least half a dozen boroughs in which he had inte-
rest, and knowing all this, he thought the House would
exercise a wise discretion, in no longer having recourse
to that " brutum /Omen" which was hurled every year
in the shape of a standing order at the Peers of the
realm. On the whole, he thought that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury had laid no adequate grounds for the
motion, and, under such circumstances, if pressed to a
division, he should vote against it.
Mr. HUME said that several years ago he had en-
deavoured to persuade the House not to persist in the
Maintenance of the standing order in question. There,
however. it remained, and hence the awkward position
of the House on the present occasion. He dissented
from the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Oxford,
and thought that ample grounds had been laid for the
House to vindicate its own resolution. He thought the
House ought not to stultify itself by refusing the in-
quiry sought, and on these grounds ho should support
the motion.

Lord DUDLEY STUART thought that the motion
having been made, it was due to the electors of the
country at large to grant the inquiry. It was the duty
of the House to protect the electoral body from undue
influence being exercised by any individual, whatever
his rank and station. This measure would have a ten-
dency towards that end, as marking the reprobation of
the House for these improper practices. Supposing the
by
unable to reach the offender, he might be reached
,°Y public opinion; and how could public opinion be fixed
"t by a proper inquiry? The report of a Committee
Would enable this to be done. The inquiry ought to be
granted in justice. to the Noble Lord, the petitioners,
and the country. The House must be pained by hearing
of the differences in the Noble Lord's family, who, during
It long life had been a steady and zealous supporter of
'lberia principles. On that ground, he rejoiced that the
'notion had come from his side of the House; there could
be the less suspicion of any party motive. It behoved
the Rouse to show that they were not indifferent to these
'natters; and this could only bo done by the appointment
Of la Committee.
„Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not agree with the
''''Qn• Member for Montrose, that, because a certain re-
solution had been passed by that house against the in-
terference of Peers at eltctions, they were therefore
bound, on every occasion of complaint, immediately to
institute an inquiry, or else to rescind their resolution.
at. the contrary, he conceived it was completely in the
he
of the House, having passed such a resolution,
h. aPPIy it or not to the cases brought before it.—(llear,
') There might be a case in which the House
case`
unanimously agree to an inquiry; there might be
'tVea in which it would not think inquiry advisable; and
tee lion. Member for Montrose had not held out a very
tePting prospect when he said, that it a Committee was
fiappointed, and the charges were found to be proved,
le the prudence of the Howe might come in, and no
thr,her proceedings might be taken. He did not think
e_46 an advisable course to pursue. The discretion to be
pacereised depended very much on the allegations in the
i%lll°n• One allegation, to which an Hon. Member of
liouse (Mr. G. Berkeley) had lent the weight of his
,lt.hority, was, that Lord Fitzhardinge had induced cer-
;7lll:asinbers of a troop of yeomanry to withdraw from that
99, Nevus the Hon. Gentleman was the eapt4iu of ,