The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-20 00:00:00

fiat person was board, but if a sailing vessel arrived, after
a three MOrAbs) voyage,
when all danger must have passed,
she was. subjected to a most tedious course of quarantine.
He hoped he had now said enough to induce the House to
grant copies of the correspondence he had moved for on ti.e
subject of the quarantine system, and he begged to thank the
House for the patient hearing he had received. He trusted
that what he had said would induce the G,,vernment to abate
the present exclusive system, and that it might induce them to
take advantage of the feeling at the present moment, and lead
to the removal altogether of the nuisance of the quarantine
laws. _ _

Mr. HUME would say but a very few words, for be thought
that the time was now ari ived when this question should, be
hken up by the Government, not only because his Hoe-
Friend had three or four times brought forward this subject
before the House, during which he had shown that the system
itself was a had one, but also because he was aware that the
impressions of people generally were declining upon
this subject.—( Hear, hear.) They now felt less. alarm
respecting the communication of plague. Again, he was
anxious that this matter should be taken up by the Government,
because he believed it would greatly promote the cause of free-
trade.—( A laugh.) If lion. Members knew how much com-
merce was impeded between diff: rent countries, and how dila-
tory and expensive the unloading of cargoes of vessels from
infected countries was, they would agree with him that this was
a legitimate reason for the removal of the quarantine laws.
There was a third ground for their removal arising out of the
large expenses which were occasioned. He believed that it
cost the country 120,0001. per year to carry out these restric-
tive measures, and he trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet,
Sir R. Peel, would find leisure to provide some means for ob-
viating both the expense and the inconvenience, and fully set
the subject at rest.
Sir G. CLERK was quite ready to produce the papers for
which the Hon. Member had moved, and he thought a great
advantage would arise from their publication, not only to this
country, but also to the continental Governments of Eurepe.
lie was aware that the alarm existing on a communication
of plague was much declining in this country, and it was deAr-
able that other nations should also enjoy the benefit of the
information which this correspondence contained. Not only
did it comprise the reports of the Medical Board at Paris, and
the communications from Egypt, but also the report of the
Commissioners sent into Egypt by the Russian Government,
'w;:th a view to make experiments to ascertain the contagious
qualities of plague. It would appear indeed that the Egyptian
authorities wished to have gone much further in these experi-
ments than they had done. The experiment which they had
made was this, that the garmenis of the persons who had died
from plague were subjected to a process of fumigation, and
some of the persons who had been employed by the Russian
commission fell -victims to the disease, and the clothes when
taken from them were exposed for forty-eight hours only to a
heat not quite 120 Fahr. Now, the persons who wore these
clothes after such experiments, were not affected with the
plague, and under these circumstances, he did trust that such
an experiment would have the effect of doing away with those
prejudices which existed against these laws.
Mr. MACKINNON said that the evidence which he had
the means of collecting regarding this disease, was when the
thermometer rose as high as eighty the plague was extin-
guished, and the black fever set in. He believed most con-
scientiously the Government sjiarantine laws were not only
very expensive, but were also injurious to human life. He
should second the motion of his lion. Friend with great
pleasure.
Captain FITZMAURICE was of opinion that the commer-
cial interests suffered very much from the operation of the
quarantine-laws in foreign ports. He thought, if foreign
countries would in general assimulate their quarantine-laws, it
would be better for vessels going to and from different places.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS would ask his Hon. Friend who had
seconded the motion whether he could rely upon the climate of
so variable a nature as was the climate of England to regulate
the operation of the quarantine-laws. He was quite willing to
admit that the most commercial nation of Europe had no
quarantine-laws. He still believed in the doctrine that certain
diseases were contagious, and he was strongly of opinion that
regulations were necessary to prevent their spreading.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. CHRISTIE withdrew his motion with respect to sup-
plying clothes to new-born children in workhouses.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE (BRIDPORT ELECTION).
Mr. BANKES called the attention of the House to what he
considered was a breach of the privileges of the House. It
Was a question regarding the vote of an elector, and in that
was inv alved the right of voting of every individual member
of the constituency. If he was right in his position, there
was an Hon. Gentleman in that House who, he believed, had
no right to a seat in that House; and that Hon. Gentle-
man voted on the third reading of the important measure
which had recently been passed ; and added one to the majo-
rity on that occasion. He was inclined to think that, Mr.
Cochrane, the Member for Bridport, might have retained his
seat ; but he acted on broad and honourable principles, and was
unwilling to avail himself of any unfair advantage. If he recol-
lected aright, the oath that the Members of the Bridport
committee took when they met was, well and truly to try the mat-
ters contained in the petition. Had they done so ? When he
heard the decision of the Committee, that the election
merely turned on the misplacing of one vote, he felt that the
subject had not been mentioned in the petition. It was an im-
portant matter that the subjects to be decided on by the
Committee should be specially mentioned ;in the petition.
The Hon. Gentleman then alluded to two cases of Members,
where the petitions against their return were dismissed, be-
cause they did not specify precisely the chargea against the
return. If the Committee were sworn to deal only with the
matter of the petition, and they did not do so, where was the
use of having a petition at all ? The elector, whose vote
controlled the return of the Member, had no notice of the
sitting of the Committee, and the first time that he became
aware of the fact of a Committee having sat was when he
saw the report of the meeting in the newspapers.—( Hear,
hear.) He (Mr, Bankes) bad received a letter, dated the
17th instant, from William Rockett, the voter alluded to,
praying him
allowed to snake to present a petition from him, praying to be
ake his statements, with respect to his vote at
lastthe e:teetion, at the bar of the House. He (Mr. Bankes)
then wt'ate to the Mayor of Bridport in reference to this ques-
tion, received from him a reply, to the effect that Rockett
a.aci, voted for Mr. Cochrane distinctly, and he never men-
tioned Mr. Romilly's name. if there was a wrong the House
was ohliged to provide a remedy, which it did not devolve upon
him to point out. He would persist in the motion of which
he bad given notice.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion having been put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had anticipated
that the Hon. Member who had just sat down would, in making
his motion, have restricted himself to the question, whether or
not an injury had been done to Wm. Rockett, but the Hon.
Member had taken ,the opportunity of going into a discussion
with regard to the conduct of the Committee who sat to in-
quire into the allegations of the petition presented against the
return of Mr. Cochrane, and had made very serious charges
against them. Now, in his opinion, the Hon. Member ought
to have been more careful in addressing the House in support
of his motion. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the lion.
Member, he (the Attorney-General) was certainly of opinion
that with regard to the question of scrutiny, as the law at.pre-
sent stood, there was no necessity whatever that the petition
should contain any allegation as to any vote having been im-
properly given or recorded for a candidate ; and, moreover,
that if it had been introduced in the petition, it would not have
had the slightest effect. As the petition prayed for the seat
on behalf of Mr. Roma's', and there being no necessity for
the allegation alluded to, it was quite sufficient to give the
Committeejurisdiction over the matter—it was a petition they
were sworn to inquire into, and on which they were bound to
decide. With regard to the improper closing of the poll,
that complaint was not made in the petition, and the Commit-
tee ha 'd therefore no right to enter upon that question. The
power of the Committee was defined and ascertained, and was
gi:een by the Legislature, who declared that their decision
should be final. He did, therefore, wonder how the Hon. Member
for Dorsetshire could bring forward his motion. He believed
that the Hon. Gentleman that at present occupied a seat in
that House for the borough of Bridport, held that seat as fairly
as any Hon. Member in the House. He had, however, no
objection to the object of the motion, but he had to the form
of it. They could not refuse an inquiry of the sort asked for.
--(Hear, hear.) Hut he suggested that it would be much
more convenient to have that inquiry conducted before a Select
Committee, rather than that Rockett should be examined at
the bar of the house. The Hon. Member for Weymouth
(Mr. Christie) had an amendment on the papers to that effect,
and he hop,er's that the House would agree to it in preference to
the motirin of the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire.—(Hear.)
Mr. (JURIST I E said that he considered that whether the
invest sgation had been pursued or not, Mr. Cochrane would
have, lost his seat, for he believed the state
e
f facts was this,
these the decision should be taken on Rockett 's vote, in order
t.o avoid the disclosure of bribery and corruption, which other-
wise would have been made. Now,. there had been three
having
hundred and seventy-two votes objlecteodh.eteoteodntoafcocrount of
disqualified. It was
bribery, and there were six ootuhseercisuaeustoly
bribed, and being therefore c
Governmentfthey wouiwould
also an undoubted fact, that an
offered a compromise to the
Cochrane should never sit for
a g
petitioners,entf thattli e
discontinue their opposition Mr.
Bridport again. The
compromises
Government had, in 1542, granted a
Committee to inquire into the subject of
that such were
would,
upon the allegation of the Member for Bath,
in the habit of taking place ; upon that precedent
• therefore, move the following amendment
:—That thehe petition
of William Rockett be referred to a Select Committee, which
should be appointed, to inquire into all the circumstances under
vhi•lh Joseph Welch gave !evidence before the Select Corn.

4ep,.. .... _
mittee on the Bridp2rt election petition that William Itocke)

voted for Mr. Roniill7, and whether any compromise or ar.
rangement was entered into by the parties to the petition,
their counsel, or 'agents, to prevent the disclosure of bribery
or treating ; and also, whether and to what extent bribery and
treating were practised at the last election for the borough of
Bridport.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK considered that a grave
charge was brought against the Members of the Committee.
They were sworn to try one charge, and they investigated an-
other. He therefore considered his Hon. Friend below him
had done; most wisely in bringing forward his motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the speech of the
Noble Lord was in perfect violation of the spirit upon which
these institutions were founded, for it contained nothing more
be less than an investigation of the grounds upon which the
Committee
had come to their decisions—decisions which the
Legislature
House, after granting
should be final and decisive. The
venienee of
reating a similar inquiry in 1842, saw the incon-
ber for the city of pursued, and the Noble Lord the Mem-
cases. The sth and etilidon introduced a Bill to meet such
and power was aceordio.l7.iet. C. 102, was accordingly passed,
to investigate such a
ccordingly given to the Election Committees
House. If the Committee petitions, and to report the result to the
mreight that a further inquiry was
necessary, the Speaker inig
t Bu; appoint another Committee
to examine the matter fully,
tifthe
Committee
reported
that no farther inquiry was necessary,
this did not deprive
parties having complaints from gettingtn. them investigated. On
three months after the
the presentation of a petition,
election, another body was
Bill, who had the power
to
take
by that
the whole circumstances. There was a distinct Act. of
cognisance of
Parliament to meet the case. The Legislator
efficient means to meet it, and there was that difference had provided
cam between
committees such as that asked for, and the tribunal appointed
by the House, that the latter had the power to examine without
being upon oath. He hoped he had stated sufficient to convince
his Hon. Friend the Member for Maynooth, that there was
tribunal at present existing well adapte:i to conduct the inquiry.a
His Hon. Friend said, however, that there was a list of voters
containing 37 names, who were alleged to have been bribed at
the Bridport election. Had his Hon. Friend as much experi-
ence its Election Committees as he (the Attorney- General ) had,
he would have known that nothing was more common than to
make such comprehensive charges of bribery at elections. The
Great Dublin Election Committee, which sat for 90 days,
would bear out the accuracy of this observation. His Hot,.
Friend saw, however, that there must bs something very sus-
picious, because the petitioner said that he was ready to go
into the inquiry and to prove the allegations. Had he brought
experience to his aid here also, he would have seen nothing un-
common in such allegation, for there was no Election Committee
at which they were not made. These were the grounds on
which his Hon. Friend asked for a Select Committee. He
denied that they were sufficient grounds. He said
that there was a tribunal for such investigation—a competent
tribunal, and the mode of meeting the case proposed by the
Hon. Member was not one which ceuld serve his purpose.
He himself (the Attorney-General) was for a full investigation
of the circumstances, but he could not see why that could not
be done by the tribunal which had been specially constituted
for such cases; and, on these grounds, he would resist the
motion.