The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1848.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the House would
not part with its jurisdiction at all, because the commis-
sioners to be appointed would have no power to dis-
franchise the boroughs. The object of the Bill was to
give a convenient mode for ascertaining evidence on
which the House was to act. There was an appearance
of inconsistency in the Chief Justice appointing the
commissioners in the first instance, and afterwards the
Speaker ; but that arose from a disinclination to name
the commissioners in the Bill itself, lest it might be said
that they were selected for their political opinions, and
the Speaker did not wish to make the appointment in the
first instance.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY thought the Bill vicious and ill-con-
trived. He should like to know from the Solicitor-
General on what authority it was stated that the Lord
Chief Justice would take upon himself the appointment
of the commissioners. It was reported also that cer-
tain persons had been already selected for the office.
But the clause provided that if the commissioners did
not do the work as they ought, they, the majority,
might appoint other commissioners to override them.
He should likewise wish to know whether the 'commis-
sioners to be appointed would cease when the boroughs
named in the schedule were disposed of, because it was
provided by the last clause that in case of any fresh
report the Speaker was to appoint commissioners.
Sir G. GREY said that no nomination of commis-
sioners had taken place, and if the clause were adopted
the Lord Chief Justice would be at liberty to choose
from the entire bar any persons whom he thought pro-
per. With regard to the last question, the Hon. Gen-
tleman would see by the 17th clause that in future cases
only the appointment of csimmissioners was to be made
by the Speaker.
Mr. HENLEY said that the 17th clause merely gave
power to the Speaker to appoint an additional commis
stoner, but it was by no means clear from that that the
commission died.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said what was in-
tended was that the commissioners to be appointed by
the Chief Justice should inquire into the boroughs men-
tioned in the schedule, and that when they made their
final report they should be fun& officio. But with re-
gard to any future boroughs which it might be neces-
sary to inquire into, the inquiry was to take place under
the 17th section.
Colonel SIBTHORP said the Bill was the most
clumsy he ever read, and he would oppose it in every

stage.
Mr. ANSTEY (amid cries of " Divide ") observed
that the 7th clause was so worded that the commis-
sioners would have to go into questions of usage and
custom, and might protract their inquiries indefinitely.
Mr. GODSON asked if the commissioners' decision
was to be final, and
Mr. HENLEY said he should like to know precisely
what their powers were to be.
Mr. NE WDEGATE expressed his belief that the
Government had not decided at all with respect to these
commissioners until five minutes before they came down
to the House.
Mr. BANKES said these commissioners were required
to report the names of parties whom they might 6' find
guilty', of bribery. Was it not an abuse to give such an
authority power to brand people in such a way? He
moved that the Chairman report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL supposed there would be no ob-
jection to divide on the clause itself, provided progress
were then reported.
Mr. BANKES assented.
The House divided on the clause, when there ap-

peared 108
For the clause
Against it 39
Majority 69
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again.
WRIT FOR DERBY, &c.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that in consequence of the
appeal which had been made to him in the early part
of the evening not to bring on a question of privilege
on Tuesday, he should bring forward his motion for
the issuing of these writs at the sitting of the Hon
Monday, or, if that should be very inconveniousent,e on
Thursday next.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.