The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-29 00:00:00

system of Election Conimittees, and for one he had never
approved of the present system. If tho Hon. Member
for Rochester would bring in such a Bill as he had
described, he should have his (Lord Mahon's) hearty
support. . . _

Sir G. GREY said that though ho was quite indiffe-
rent as to what decision the House might come to, he
still must say a few words on the motion of the Right
Hon. and Learned Member for Bute, who had taken the
unprecedented course of adopting a waif, or stray Bill,
and after cancelling the whole of its enactive clauses, and
inserting entirely fresh ones, had brought it forward and
recommended it for the sanction of the House. If such
a course of legislatio❑ was to be permitted, he could not
foresee the results. The course recommended would, if
adopted, stultify their former proceedings. Why did
not the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman conform to
the rules of the House, and bring in a new Bill? He
begged to say that he should vote against the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS said that on a recent occasion the
House was called on to divide on the word " that," but
on the present occasion they were called on to ♦ote on a
sheet of blank paper, for, with the exception of the
preamble (which was not an enacting part of the Bill),
and the clause giving power to amend in future, the
whole clauses of the Bill which he moved the House to
read a second time were struck out. He objected,
therefore, to the second reading of a Bill of which all
but five or six lines had been struck out. He moved as
an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.

Sir F. THESIGER found a difficulty in dealing with
the question, seeing that his Right Honourable and
Learned Friend the Member for Bute had told the
House that his object in introducing the Bill was that
a totally different measure might be framed on it.
He (Sir Frederick Thesiger) was of opinion that some
legislation on the subject was absolutely necessary. On
a former occasion the House had decided that the best
mode of proceeding was to refer the matter to a Select
Committee. He believed that that was a proper course,
but that the House had erred in not giving the Com-
mittee greater powers. It appeared to him that there
were only three courses open to the House with refer-
ence to this subject.—(A laugh.) They might either do
nothing, or leave the House to act on each case, or they
might legislate finally on the subject. To do nothing
would, he feared, he highly dangerous, and ♦ery likely
to bring the House into collision with courts of law on
questions of privilege. The next course would be to
leave those questions to be decided by the House. But
the House had alreildy decided that it was itself a most
improper tribunal for their decision. It then became
obvious that legislation was the only and necessary
course. They had before them the Bill of the Hon.
Member for Midhurst. Its author had abandoned his
offspring, and the Right Hon. and Learned Member for
Bute asked them to give it a second reading, in order
that he might give it an entirely new dress. He (Sir
F. Thesiger) thought the House was placed in a diffi-
culty by the eourse which had been adopted by his Right
Hon. and Learned Friend; but he earnestly entreated
them to give the Bill a second reading, which would be
some step towards practical and immediate legislation
on the subject.

Mr. HAziCTER contended that the House had no right
to inquire into the validity of election recognisances
except in one or two cases. The Bill proposed to intro-
duce a third case, and to provide that when the recog-
nisances were defective the house might interfere to re-
medy that defect. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) had on a former occasion laid it down that all
questions relating to recognisances should be left to:the
examiner of recognisances, and the merits of the petition
to the Select Committee, and that the decision of these
two tribunals should be final. That principle the House
had affirmed, and he thought now to change that deci-
sion would lead to greater inconvenience and injustice
than was now complained of.
Mr. R. PALMER was in favour of legislation on the
subject. When the House interfered to protect sitting
Members, it was not to be endured that because of a
flaw in the recognisances the petition should fall to the
ground. He knew of nothing more destructive. The
parties ought to be placed by a short enactment in the
same position as they would have been in had the recog-
nisances been in tke form prescribed by the Act, accord-
ing to the original intention of the petitioners. That
would meet every case except the Walsall case, which
might be the subject of special enactment. The exami-
ner of recognisances had been led into the error by de-
pending too closely on the forms of the Act, and believ•
ing his decision was final, and also by being in a great
degree dependent on subordinates.

SIIEIL referred to high legal authorities in fa-
viour of the opinion that the certificate of the examiner
was final, and contended that a tribunal must be ap-
pointed to decide a point of law which had arisen, and
which at present there was no tribunal to decide upon.
Therefore it was that in his opinion legislation was ne-
cessary.
After a few words from Mr. HATTER and Mr.
NAPIER,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with his Right
Hon.Yriend the Member for Oxford, that it would be al-
together contrary to the usage of Parliament to read a
Bill a second time, in order to alter it from beginning to
end ; and amongst those who are in favour of the Bill no
less than four distinct courses were recommended. The
Bill as it :stood would do nothing. The anticipated
conflicts with 'the courts of law could not arise, for the
certificate of the Speaker, if costs were given, would be
final. With regard to the certificate of the examiner,
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, and
Mr. Cowling, no mean authority, had decided that it
was final. Ile considered that the amendments proposed
would only create delay and impose upon the petitioners
the expense of keeping witnesses in town while the
matter was pending. He must, therefore, oppose the

Mr. BANKES did not agree with tho Hon. and
Learned Gentleman that because there was great diffi-
culty in the case, and because_ four remedies had been
proposed, none ought to be granted.—(Hear, hear.) He
had voted against the proposition of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurat because he had felt it to
be insufficient, but would now vote for the Bill as
amended, because ha believed it would afford a remedy.
Sir J. GRAHAM felt disposed to follow the attrac-
tive advice of the Judge-Advocate and the Attorney-
General, and do nothing.—(A laugh.) Lie was for
staying where they were, fearless altogether of the
threat which had been held out, that, by proceeding in
that legislation, novelty, in the way of a prohibition,
might come upon them from the courts of law. He
should deeply regret a collision between that House and
the courts of law, but he did not hesitate to say, if such
a prohibition were to be issued, the Speaker would dis-
regard it.—(l.lear, hear.) He must therefore vote for
the amendment of the Secretary of State.
Mr. ANSTEY would vote for the second reading of
the Bill, reserving to himself the right of opposing the
amendments in Committee.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said a few words in reply, and
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —32
The 13111 was then read a second time
The House adjourned at Twenty minutes to Twelve
o'clock.