The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-07 00:00:00

CARNAR VON ELECTION.

Mr. C. BULLER rose to move the motion of which
he had given notice. He did not put it on any strong
grounds of law, but on such grounds as would induce
Hon. Gentlemen to take it into consideration. The
point of law was one which was raised for the firs: time.
The objection taken was that the recognizances were
entered into before a Magistrate, who was not in the
Commission of the Peace in the County in which the
act was dune—that is, Lord G. Paget, acting under the
advice of an eminent Parliamentary agent, had the re-
cognizances entered into in Middlesex before
a Magistrate for the county of Cardigan. It
had been decided that that was not according
to the strict letter of the law ; and he was not in
any manner complaining of the decision of the
Examiner—the law was distinct upon the point—but
he brought forward the case as one in which the peti-
tioner was in error by no lathes of his own—one in
which there was no dispute whatever as to the sol-
vency of the recognizances—everything had been done
in time, and therefore he thought it was a case in
which the House ought to grant (Hear.)
He was not pressing the question as against the deci•
sion of the Examiner. He did not mean to say that the
Examiner was wrong in the decision he ltad come to ;
all he said was, that it was a dubious point of law, in
which different opinions might be come to. In
the present case, where the petitioner was guilty
of no offence, and where he had acted upon legal advice,
he hoped the election petition would not be defeated by
a mistake upon a point of law. He left it to the fair-
ness and good feeling of the House, whether the peti-
tioner should not have the privilege he claimed, namely,
to be allowed to present a fresh petition, and to be allowed.
to enter into proper recognizances. The Learned Gent.
concluded by moving that Lord George Paget be allowed
to present a fresh petition, complaining of the return for
the borough of Carnarvon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it was very
difficult to misunderstand the purport of the Act to
which his Hon. and Learned Friend had referred.
He thought the House should pause before they con-
sented to take such a step. The point had been decided
by the competent authority, and he believed according
to the true construction of the Act. If the Hon. Mem-
ber were to succeed he did not see where.the House was
to stop. By one of those orders it was provided that a
petition should not be received after fourteen days.
He threw out this suggestion for the serious considera-
tionof the Hun. Member,

Mr. J. JERVIS said the House was not called upon
to discuss the question of law. The petitioner apraied
for further time to be allowed for the presentation of the
petition. He admitted that the decision of the Examiner
was against the petitioner, but he contended that the
party had It bona fide case for applying to the
House. He (Str. J. Jervis) had a right to start
with the assumption that the sitting Member •
no; entitled to his seat. Now, with WAS
to the case of the petitioner it was bona respect
cause he had acted upon the advi-
first, be-
tleman of authority ; and; A^ —e of a legal gen-
extremely doubtful whet' -condlY, because it was
jurisdiction at all , ..ier the Examiner had any
according to " en the matter. It was doubtful,
ther the - ,ae construction of the section, Nvlle-
spp,... wetter entered into the jurisdiction of the in-
-tor or not. Honourable Members were aware that
the petition could not be received until the sufficiency
of the recognizances had been examined into. In
the present instance, the Mayor of Carnarvon had
endorsed on the affidavit that the recognizances had been
properly taken. If the Examiner had pointed out the
error immediately on receiving the affidavit, there would
have been. plenty of time to have presented a fresh peti-
tion, but the sitting Member waited until the fourteen days
had elapsed, and then turned round upon the petitioner with
a technical objection. The petitioner had been lulled
into security by the act of the Examiner and then advan-
tage had been taken of him. Was not that a case for indul-
gence? It had been asked, if they granted the indulgence in
such a case, where were they to stop ? He would reply
where the bona fides ended. Here was a bona fide case.
The House in 1837 had granted relief in the cases
of Pomfret, of Ludlow, and of Limerick, which were
nearly similar to the present. Courts of Law
in similar cases constantly granted the indulgence
prayed, and lie muted the House would grant the re 7
laxation prayed for.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL hoped the House
would not adopt the motion. The present law had
been enacted purposely to prevent such applications as
the present, and it had laid down a rule of proceed-
ing, to which all persons should adhere at their peril.
That the petitioner or his attorney should take counsel's
opinion as to whether lie ought to enter into recog-
nizances was indeed a most extraordinary proceeding.
There was a number of Magistrates .n London
and Westminster before whom the petitioner might
have entered into recognizances without having
had recourse to a magistrate in Carnarvon. The pre-
sent was not a case in which he thought the House was
called on to imerfere. The Act of Parliament referring
to this subject was plain and clear ; it constituted a tri-
bunal whose decision was final in all cases. The deci-
sion of the Examiner was to be final and conclusive
to all parties. If they allowed the present application,
there was no case which might come before the Exa-
miner of Recognizances in which the llouse alight not be
I called on to admit a similar application, and thus
the Act of Parliament in such cases provided would
become a dead letter, and precisely the same inconvo-
niences which existed before the passing of the Act
would be again felt. He therefore trusted the House
would negative the motion.
Mr. J. JERVIS in explanation observed, as we under-
stood, that the petitioner's agent had taken counsel's
opinion on the subject, as being applicable to another case.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was some ground to
suppose the Learned Counsel had not looked to the
form of the reeognizances; if he had, he thought the
words in it ought to have excited some suspicion
in his mind that no Justice could take the recog-
nizances . except one acting in his own jurisdiction.
The words were "or one of her Majesty's Justices
of the Peace for the county." He (Sir Robert Peel)
had not the least hesitation in saying that if the House
admitted the prayer of the petition they would establish a
principle that would do away with the benefit expected
from the law. The House had been sensible of the evils that
would accrue from allowing party feelinga to operate
in the decision of election cases, for it had ap-
pointed two tribunals, one for the trial of the
election petition—namely, the Election Com-
mitte ; the other, the Examiner of Recog,ni-
zanies, to decide on the validity of the recogniz-
ances. Observe the words the Act makes use of in
decreeing that the decision of the Election Committee
should be final:—" The Committee shall decide, and re-
port their decision to the House, which determination
shall be final between the parties to all intents and pur-
poses." And in the other case, " The decision of the Exa-
miner of Recognizances shall be final and conclusive against
all parties." If the House consented to interfere with
the decision of the Examiner of Recognizances, why
not with the decision of the Committee ?—(Hear, hear.)
The terms applied to the one were not stronger than
those applied to the other, and there was no reason,
if they set aside the decision of the Examiner of Recog-
nizances, why they should not come forward. and say the
decision of the Committee was wrong,. and set aside
that also. It was better that they should submit-to some
cases of hardship than attempt to do justice in individual
cases, and interfere with the' decision of the
Courts.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped that the
House of Commons would not accede, to the ap-
plication made, and moreover, in his opinion,
the Examiner of Recognizances had good ground for
the decision he had come to.—(Hear, hear.) If they
should say that it was a good round, that the petition
should be received, that bad advice had been given by
counsel, notwithstanding evidence that, a large fee was
paid, with all his respect for the legal profession lie
feared the cases of appeal would be very numerous.
Mr. HAWES recommended his Hon. and Learned
Friend to withdraw the motion.—(Hear.) For his
own part he was prepared to abide by the words of the
Act; for he thought it a dangerous precedent
to give this House the power of deciding whether a peti-

PRICE 5d

tion against the return of a Memher was bona
.fide or
not.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER felt obliged to follow the advice of his
Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, and was willing
to withdraw the motion.---(Hear, and a laugh.) Ile
hoped, howevtr, that what -had occurred would cause
petitioners to attend more carefully to the words of the
Act.—(Hear, hear.)
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to say a few words be-
fore the motion was withdrawn. He believed that
in the most corrupt times, in the most cor-
rupt state of the representation, there never
was more bribery, corruption, or intimidation, than
at the last election.—(Hear.) Ho believed that most of
the Members of the present House owed their seats to such
morns.--(Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) He
did nut mean to blame one side of the House more than
another ; for he believed the hands upon that (the Op-
position) side were not a whit cleaner than those on
the other side.—(Laughter, and cheers from the Minis-
' teria) benches.) He wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) whether it was hia intention to
propose a remedy in the course of the next Session ?
Sir R. PEEL had not so much experience in the mat-
ter as the Hon. Member for Finsbury—(A laugh)—for
' the constituency which he had the honour to repre-
! sent was one cif the very purest.—(Hear and a laugh.)
Yet he .was willing to admit that the practice of bribery
and intimidation had very much increased of late
years.=(Hear; hear.) Ile regretted the prevalence
of those practices, as well as of the praetice of treating.
Ent he did not very well see how any more stringent
enactments against " treating" than existed. at pre-
sent, without infringing on the liberty of the sub-
ject could be passed.—(Hear.) But lie could have no
hesitation in saying that he would give his most cordial
support to any measure which might be brought forward
with a probability of limiting .the-pracCite of treat-
ing. and .entirely abolishing bribery and corruption.
The subject was certainly one of great importance ; but
he hoped the Hon. Member would not then require from
him (Sir R. Peel) any positive pledge that he would
bring in, a Bill on the clatter, although he would give
it every consideration ; and he would join with
the Hon.. Gentleman in his desire that an end should be
put to such practices.
Mr. EIVART would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether he would be ready to meet the evil, by the
adoption of the only effectual remedy—namely, an exten-
sion of the constituencies? (Ministerial laughter.)
He could assure the House that in his belief so long as
they had small constituencies, they never could eradicate
the evil.

Sir R. PEEL could assure the Honourable Gentleman
that his confidence in the remedy he had suggested
had been much abated by recent experience.
An Hon. Gentleman had that night stated that at the late
13elfastelection, bribery had prevailed to an extent ~.",;yer
known in former years. And he (Sir R. Pee.' had fre-
quently heard similar complaints since tl.-elleuse of Com-
mons had been
reformed. (Ho.- •
Jr-hear.) It would
however be admitted that tl':e.' Reform Bill had greatly
increased the number of *constituents.. He should have
hoped, according to the opinion of the Hon. Gentleman,
that one of the benefits which would have followed the
passing of the Bill, would have . been a diminu-
tion of bribery and corrupt practices ; but when
he heard it avowed that it was since the exten-
sion of the franchise that the evil had been
most complained of, he was compelled to doubt whether
a mere increase of the constituent body would afford
a sufficient remedy against the recurrence of such prac-
tices.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WART said that his observations applied only
to those places in which corruption habitually took place.
• Sir R. PEEL said that some of the worst cases of the
kind he had heard of had taken place in large towns.—
(Loud cries of " Ikar, hear.") It would be invidious
on his part to name particular places, but he believed that
if certain election petitions should be persevered in, as he
hoped would be the case, it would be shown that some of
the worst cases of bribery bad taken place in large towns,
and even in the capitals of counties. And nothing
could give him greater satisfaction than to see the cases
of those large towns taken up by the House,
with a view to make signal examples of their constituen-
eies—(Hear)—by disfranchising those places without any
regard to the extent of their population.—(Hear, hear.)
Dr. 110 WRING begged to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet if he did not think that the introduction of the
Vote by Ballot would do away with the system of bribery.
Sir R..PEEL said that he had the greatest objection
to secret voting, as it would facilitate the system of
bribery.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. YORKE said, that the Right Ho*
had been pleased to say that bribery WaP,
and more so, since the Reform Bill . Baronet
a 3 extensive,
he woul suggest to the than before ; but
in-
ference that a reform of the. ...don. Baronet the
fidel that a new sy t P•.eform Bill was necessary,
of 4, s-em wriuld be better calculated to win
the respect Lae
allowed to be pre intry than he present, which was
sir It pF SO mutch corruption.
could not agree with the Hon. Gentle
oxinl3ol -
1,1119.., the mode he suggested would be the proper
.o meet the evil.
The motion was then withdrawn.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Mr. WAKLEY said he did not rise for the purpose
of submitting any motion to the House, but if
he was out of order in addressing it without
making a motion he would do so. The question con-
nected the custody of insane persons was one of
great importance, and the general impression of the law
on the subject was, that it required improvement,
not only with regard to the manner of sending
persons to the asylum, but also with regard
to the manner in which they were treated when there.
He would not detain the House long, but he requested
its attention to the case which he was going to submit
to them. In April, 1840, a gentleman,seated in his break-
fast room, was visited by the keeper of an asylum in Gins-
gow,for the purpose of taking him to his asylum. The gen-
tleman asked at whose instance the warrant was signed.
-The medical gentleman having testified to his insanity,
the Sheriff, without seeing the party, made out a warrant
for, sending. him to the asylum. The keeper of the asylum
accompanied the patient. Within one week after
he had been in the asylum he addressed the Sheriff on
the subject, entreating him to state at whose instance
he was confined, and beseeching him to pay him a visit.
To that letter, which was transmitted on the Ist of
May, 1840, he received no answer. On the 27th of
June one of the visiting physicians who attended the
Asylum admitted, in the presence of the Governor, that
he saw no symptom of insanity in the mind of the
patient. On the 4th, and on the 21st of July,
the same physician made a similar admission, but said
he thought the patient should undergo a longer proba-
tion. On the 30th of September, one of the She-
riff's Substitutes, and two additional physicians
attended the asylum, and the patient, .in their pre-
sence, entreated that his case might be examined,
declaring that he was ready to submit to any test,
and that he believed that he was confined in consequence
of some misunderstanding with his family. All these
entreaties were made without avail, On the Bth of
October the brother of the patient. attended. The pa-
tient asked him why he was confined, and the
reply of his brother was that he believed it was
owing to the interference of a parcel of doctors.
On the 16th of October the patient again requested that
there might be an investigation of his case, and the ap-
plication was again refused. On the 4th of September
he intreated the Governor of the Institution to place
him in a private room, and thus to remove him
from constant intercourse with insane people,
stating that it was his sincere belief that an attemptaion v was
being
was
being made to drive him mad. This application
also refused, although the patient declared that he was
prepared to pay all the expenses. In this case he (Mr.
W.) purposely abstained from mentioning names, because
it was too late in the Session for the parties to answer
the statement, but there were some names which he
would mention. On the 2Gth Sept. the visiting physi-
cian again attended, and, in the presence of a keeper,
John Walker, he declared that he believed that
the gentleman of whose case he was speaking,
was perfectly sane. The testimonial of John Walker
was as follows :—" June 24th, 1841. I certify that I
have seen Mr. daily, for more than ten months,
during which time he had always been of sound mind
and very quiet. I also heard the Doctor"—(the phy-
sician to whom he (Mr. W.) had referred--" declare that
he was quite well on the 26th of September last, and I made
that statement to Mr. Black, the keeper of the Asylum."
On the 2d of January the keeper of the asylum ad-
mitted to the patient that he believed he had
been placed in confinement in consequence of some
quarrels with his family. He requested the keeper of
the Asylum to interfere with his relatives, and to per-
mit him to be admitted to a public examination. The
Governor, however, refused to interfere. On Feb. 3, the
Visiting Physician admitted that he was well. On the
4th of June, Mr. Douglas, a surgeon, was called in
and gave a certificate, stating that he saw no-
thing insane about him. Oa the 21st of June the
same surgeon again attended, but the doctor in whose
custody he was lodged refused to receive the certificate
of the surgeon, and said he would receive no testimonial
or certificate except from the Sheriff or the physician of
the institution. On the 29th of June, after he had
been in prison fourteen months, the Sheriff
visited the asylum, when he examined the case
and the gentleman believed he had given the Sheriff
every satisfaction. He entreated him to grant a publicri_
investigation of the case, referring him to the affidavits
h She-
riff John Walker, and of the visiting physician. Th
riff said that he would take the cue into. his
vchoen_i-
sideration, but a week having elapsedhe'rliutir.mgon
the
subject, he,‘
lie had heard nothing from the Sd
back
the lock of
the door and made his escape, afterbeen in con-
finement not having Consider him-
selfbeing in time garden, force
for fourteen months. He d
11.
asylum
, accompanied
safe in Scotland ; he therefeorheaadtheeneeneeflne
eacferowsst he
border, and reached Carlisle.days
in that city when the keeper of the
hotel, and attempted
e dt
ethe seizeap a rhtimme
as
t
by a person of gigantic strength,
chambermaid
on
escaped
pt
the
from the room, and meeting.
fetch a sharp attorney for him.
a madman, and carry him b
stairs, desired her togo,,adiei
to any legal adviser, but he told
No application theo
him. They did interfere, and he was taken be-
the people of thealsiontit....l his case, and entreated them to
rescue
fore
• the Mayor of Carlisle •, and after an examina-
tion in open court, before the Mayor and two Magi-
strates, he was by them released from the custody of