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

obsious that legislation was the only and necessary
course. They had before them the Bill of the lion. '
Member for Midhurst. Its author had abandoned his
offspring, and the Right Hon. and Learned Mt mbcr for
Bute asked theta to give it a second reading, in order
that he might give it an erlirely new dress. Ile (Sir
F. Thesigg,r) thought the House was placed in a chfli
eulty by ili source 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. HAYTER 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-
nisance; 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 he 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 +he
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. Ho 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-
nisanees been in the form prescribed by the Act, accord-
ing to the original intention of the petitiolliers. 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.
Mr. SHEIL 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. HAYTER and Mr.
NAPIER,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with his Right
Hon:Friend 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. He 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. Ile must, therefore, oppose the
Bill.
Mr. BANKES did not agree with the 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 greinted.—(Hear, hear.) He
had voted against the proposition of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Midhurst because he had felt it to
be insnfficient, hut would nosy vote for the Bill as
amended, because he believed it would afford a remedy.
Sir J. GRAHAM felt disposed .to tallow the attrac-
tive advice of the Judge-Advocate and the Attorney-
General, and do nothing.—(A laugh.) He was for
staying whtre they were, fearless altogether of the
threat which had le:en held out, that, by proceeding in
that legislation, novelty, in the way of a prohibition,
might COll3O upon them from the courts of law. lie
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 i!.—(llear, hear.) He must therefore vote for
the amendment of the Secretary of State.
Mr. ANSTEY would vote for the second reading of
the Bill, reservieg 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
liajoriiy —32
The Bill was then rend a second time
The House adjourned at Twenty minutes to Twelve
o'clock.