The Sun.
London, England, 1802-12-14 00:00:00

,x•
at
/IC

tii

Elegy"
I'S Nrol1(1 then' trelertis,witliont a .remedy.
Th', F-.letere would be discontented, - and , would
slY,' that ,i'Crillerti4is-haci beettcreclarettil‘be`their
'eresentatiVe, heca'use Miley were. not allowed', to'
be
as heard,' 'lt svas'ustial in all cases for theEleaors,
a .ivell -ai -
-the''PetitiOnef, to - present ' ii:'-Petition
pirist the-Sitting Memberi-toluord4gainit acci.-
"Lents'of that hind, 'and why should-net theEleao'es
:ndtheinterest of the -Sitting Member have the same
a ,!ant;Cge ? This Petition could never be-brought to
heard Ire '"'i-ng's •-uti!es'S. the case of the Petitioners- was
s and- it did not appear to him veiy probable
that
the EleftorS:would prefer a Petition merely for
ehF sake of creating inconvenience, particularly'
bil'ith the risk of paying-costs.: , The Legislature,
f." the Aft which they passed upon this subjea, did
tors inconvenience that might result-to the Elec.
(31'S if the Sitting - Member who was petitioned
artist was Made' a Peer, • if he died,- if he took a
Place that ,incapacitated him from sitting in Partia-
l. "t, or if he changed his mind, and would not de-
end his own Seat. In any of these cases it was
Ijbvided, that a notice should be given to the Elec.
tws; and they Were to-be allowed 30 days notice;
,c)6l"hle them. tó defend their own interests.' But
tuiPPosing that a collusiOn was to take place between
wie-itling Member and the Petitioner, the Eleaors
th°l4d'he left' without rediess if such a-Petition as
e. e Present could not be received. . These were the
:rounds upon which he thought the present Petition
gteuttit to be received. , Great inconvenience would
•seult if such ;Petition were not received, and
°Pestion was • whether it would not be bet-
ter-to '
the-- p-k: rid of the inconvenience by receiving
ne, •Aetition, instead of having recourse to -a
r,• .41,0 or Parliament upon the subjea. With
ee&4" to the Aa of Parliament, which would
' .i." eau iced upon in the present instance, 'he thought
t 4ght to. be -construed rather by its spirit than
a.!eording to its stria letter. The Glenville Aa.
1:14 no more than embody into one: ACt the law aoci
V,ages which before existed upOn the subjea of
*-•'"dions. Before 'the Grenville Aa, he was of .
°Pinion, that such a petition would have beetle re-
`
~,eivecl, and would have been teferred to what was
l'ten called the Elation Committee, who' were eln-
•.. 'Powered 'Co inquire into all matters touching the
4'-3eClion..of ' Members. Now there 'could be no
tinitht- that the present 'Petition was touching the
'l',.t-kis3,rn I•elMembers of Parliament, ' But it would
i)e-rha,Rebh contended, that Mr. Grenville's Aft-uot
"111)' altered the ' mode. of trying the validity of
4"----leftions, but also altered the law upon the subjea;
but he should very much like to hear the arguments
that could be urged in support of such a proposition.
There was a case on the Journals, long before the •
'renville -Act, in which the Eleaors petitioned
against the'pretensionspf the Petitioner,' which was
'received without the smallest objettion, and at that •
' lime Mr,' OtisnOw was Speaker of the House of
Commons. `He then-referred to the case of We3r-
minster in 1713, and'. also -to the case of Bedford-
shire, Which lie contended were in some degree in
.point upon the present occasion.—The case to which
he alluded was that of Lyme, in 5727, Feb. 7th.
' . •17Pe• MASTER of the ROLLS said, it was unne-
•cessary for the Hon. Member to have set out with
guarding
himself against the •misapprehension of his
motives
there
tuuiupon this- queStion, because he was sure
' -le no wish hi the HOuse but that of
''.."44,
Principles, id igthe question upon legal arid constitutional
In his view of this question, he did
1.16 t think it was possible that'any case could exist,
r which it would be c(inivetent to' the House to
near anti decide upon the merits of this' Petition.
'He apprehended that all that was Contended for on
.the :other side- was, that this Pe titiore should
•'"'e, taken into consideration at the sanie time with
for
other Petition complaining of an undue Eleftion
-"or Middlesex, and that it should be referred -to' the
'select Committee appointed to 'try the legality of
that Election. If the House had no authority what_
tves toirefer such a Petition as the present to such
' a Committee, he apprehended that whether it was
Ordered to lie on the -Table or not, no' proceeding
could be had upon it. •The Jurisdiaion .now vested
j:1 Committees was by no means the same sort;of
Jutisdiaion that the House possessed before the
Pa'sing of the Grenville Aa. } Before that 'Aa the
'hole power was vested -in the House-; it could
illakesuch rotes and orders as appeared necessary to
ohtain'the justice of the case,' but the' power of the
Committees was created and strialy limited by the
Provisions of an Aa -of Parliament. When any
Jurtsdiaion was created, the Statute by which it
was created, described and limited its powers : no
negative worth were necessary to prevent it from
extending its power, because every thing-was ex-
eluded that was not included. Every , thing was
Withheld that was not given. What then was
the power given to these Committees, under the
ft; ft in question ? To hear and determine , upon
„,retitions described in that Aft, and no others.
'ill° then- was•authorized 'to say that the Committee
OughtT to have the Petition referred to it 1. The
410se' had been applied to to interpoSe its autho.
r, but the House had no more right to extend
titan it had to • restrain 'the provisions of an Aa of
Parliament; Nothing but an 'Aa of Parliament
could alter the provisions. of an A& of Parliament.
,
1:11e House of Commons had neitherpower nor dis-
cretion upon the subjea. 'The-Very object for which
t.nese.Committees were instituted Was, to take away
that discretionary power, from the' House. What
tee''e the nature of the Petititins which were assign-
-7 to the Seidl committees ? They were first only
..1",v(); undue Elections, and undue Returns. Then
that
Case of Westminster occurred, which chewed
anti
there was a defea in the law upon the subjea,
, I gave an opportunity of examining into it. In
that- case there was in fart no Return but a special
'''‘:ltiftn-; one of the Candidates presented a Peti-
t 11;0i),,, saying that he ought to be returned. It cer-
u, ''Y was not desirable that the House should take
fell
in itself to determine who ought to be returned,
felt therefore a great degree of ' inconvenience was
the ;1, but the,letter of the law was so precise that
,selet'"use could rot refer it to the consideration of a
1 • Committee, and it was resolved that the Pe-
itino did -
the se_ not come within meaning `of any ,or
Lottutes.
re
. y this inconvenience, and that Aa now eon-
-I:ti•nued a Legislative recognition.' of the sense which
taarti i ainetit
stated' that put upon the Grenville
Aa; for' it
i - the Douse bad no authority to refer

such a Pptitiotv to SAatatitiiittie. Tt might
be said, that this was a
_literal coristatOion of the

cercainly, was, but he ,thought that the
House did right 'to adhere to the' letter of an
MI /when • its .own po'wer was conceined:
.If
they did not, the:House -would, tinder the plea of
doing justice: in every case,
iget on from construc-
tion 'to construction, until the whole of ihe AEt of

Parliament was Construed away;- and 2they'liid.:.re-
sumed..all their- fortner.authority upon these subjeas.
In the case of Bedford,. in the. same year, there.was
a Petition from the Elefiors, stating the defence of
the Sitting MeMber ; hut that Petition' ivas with-
drawn.

Thus ihe.a.rgutnent.would ;have stood pre-

vious to the year 178 g ;.,
,irt, ;tliat.,yearigarliament
took, into. its consideration the yeryalefie§tpf which
the Hon. Gentleman now -Cornitit,94?,.-"iia. that a
Sitting Member might be'so circumstanced, .that he
would not defend his Own rights ;.they.considered. in
what cases it. was right to admit theEledors, to in-
terfere, and to be.heard as partieS' against the Pe-
titioner. The Legislature rsedueed thesg Ciaes. to

form/ deaih- of a Sitting ;Member,. his:pro-
motion to the Peerage, a deter,u4inaLion of .the Liot}se
against his eligibility, or his dedininr4; to defend
own rights, and ib these cases, the Eleacit:iwere
allowed to come for Ward if they pleased. If: there
was apy doubt upon the subjed before, there,tcould
be none after this Ad. It had been contended,. t1.24t,
before that Statute, it was competent fott all Erec-
tors to petition ; but that Law suppokd that th'ere

was no such in existence, for •it did .not,pretend-to
restrict, but to enlarge-the power of the EleCtors.
The House then must do one of two things, -it must
either say that the cases, specifiCally pointed out by
,the Ad of Parliament, were notthe only cases in
which these .Petitions might be presented, or they
must adhere to the, provisions of a positive and
distina law. It had been said, ;that there was no
Trovision in favour of the Eledors after the Petition:
was referred to a Committee, hut therethe answer
was obvious, .because the :whole
,case was left to
the Committee to decide upon. "He eonfeSsed, that
if he was upon a •CoMmitiee he should feel no diffi-
culty in such a case. Tithe Sitting-Member would
not oppose the Petitioner,. lie would not return the
latter, but he would report that the EleCtiOn was
void as to the Sitting Me►nrier'who. did not defend
his own seat ; and this .doctrine waselaid,down, and
acted upon in the.case.of the colc,liiieverbiaedion, It
was,not necessary to- comidcr :wleit'was,,the prac-
tice of the House under its ancient :jt'iriAiCtion, be-
cause it had no connedion :with what -Ought to he
•done now; :when the: powers of the•-.Hoose and of
committees were limited by. a positive_lAw. _ But
when that authority was resorted to, it-Was a strong
argument that even in those times no such Petitit;n had
ever been received. The Hon. Gentleman had.refer-
red-to the .case of Lyme, which was extremely differ.
ent from the present, because there
.the I.4etition
was. presented after the Sitting Member had been
declared not capable of sitting but even. if That
case were in point, it could not govern the present
one, because of the ad to which he had so fre-
quently alluded. He was, upon these grounds, of
opinion, that this Petition could not be received,
and he felt less difficulty in saying so, because the
receiving the
.present Petitionewould not answer
any of the ends of justice.
The Question was put, and carried in the Affir.
inalive, • "-That the said *Petition -.Lines not come
within the descriptidn of any Petition, the proceed.
ings on.which are regulated by the said Ad."
The Petition Was therefOre withdrawn.
The SPEAKER observed to the House, there
were two other Petitions presented on the same
44y, under . the seine circumstances : he suggested
-to the House the propriety of disposing of them in
like manners
Mr. TIERNEY made some further observations
on this subject, and alluded_ to some .hardships to
Which thiS'might expoSe the Petitioning Candidate.,
Mr. MAINWARING ; for in. ()tie event it 'might
happen, that after the whole of the case on the
question of right to sit; in-the, present. Sitting
Memher, had been disposed of, Mr. IVI4tNWARING
Mighrhave the Whole case to go through again on
his own account. - In the cases put by the MASTER
Of .the RoLes, there was,. no- Petition frometheope
posing Party.
The MASTER. of the ROLLS explained-what he
had said' in psis former Speech: He oliseived in- the
case .of Colchester, that. the 'Sitting Member: come
plained it was hard foi him tso be at the trouble and
expence which that course was attended with, when
there.was no tine to contest :with' him : it was hard
forhiin to be compelled its that case to go through
the whole of it. .But that was
_the; course which
was taken by the House, because it was the course
which was pointed out by the Legislature.
Mr. ST. jOHN-prafessed,thimself to have been
much in doubt upon the Question, ,uritil he heard
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, whd had
certainly, by his very able Speech, removed all
doubt whatever as to the mantieein Which Petition's
of this sort should he disposed ofe He- Was, now
convinced that they did, nut come within the de.-
scriptioo of a Petition, the proceedings on which
were regulated by tlid Ads of Parliament which
governed these Cases, and :thAt therefore: such Peti-
tions ought to be withdrawn ; but still he could
not help saying, that there were many hardships
felt in the proceedings upon Petitions. on Contested
Eleftions, as a proof of which he Went over the cir-
cumstances of his uwn case on the subjeq of the Bed-
ford Petition, whereas by a contrary course, all, pr
the greater part of which, might have been saved,
and that.was a very 'material objed.'
Lord GLENBE IE, observed, there was not
any necessity for saying much on-,the subject now
before-the House, after what had been already said
by his Right ,Hon. Friend ; indeed the matter had
been pretty well exhausted by him' ,there were,
however,.someof the observations 4the Hon. Ge-
ntleman over against him (Mr. 'TIERNEY) which
ought to be noticed, particularly that :which -went
to shew thatcases may occur which are-not providc'd
for by the existing Laws,. -and therefore it would be
proper for the House to consider, whether it would
not be necessary to make another Law. That might.
either be well or ill-founded, but it was Unnecessary
to-discuss it, because there was nothing of that sort
in the Petition before the -House. The House would
recoiled, that although-the decision of a Seled Com-
mittee, 'on a particular ease, was conclusive on the

question, which.of.the 'two patties Was.elirly deaed,
or that it might be a toid.Eleaion ; yet that could
not bind a subsequent Committee; the decision was
conclusive oily upon the parties litigating ; but a
subsequent Committee, Although they would of
course pay a respeff to the decishin, Were Aot bound
to follow- it. For his part, it -did appear to him
that when a case like this came before a Committee,
they were bouud to try the Merits of the whole
'case ; that Was 'to say, the Merits of the whole
whieh was not only a question , whether
the sitting MeMber was duly tleaed, but alsO whe.
therThe Petitioning Candidate' was duly elected:--
This they were. sworn to.do, as he. understood. the
Oath taken by a Comm'tttie at the Table. of that
*
-House. If that be'iliVlf it followed as ofcourst,
that not only shoullWtoinmittee on the Middle-
sex Eleaion'try 'whether Sir F. BURnETT was duly
eleaedi ;bill- also, whether Mr. MAINWAR IN.G was"
014 d d ea: 'so_that, according to his views.oT the
Matter, the Committee- w“1...1,1- be. called upon to
exercise 'that very pOwer which they' were called
upon to exercise brthis Petition, and therefore in
that sense, supposing no other-ohjeaion to be appli-
'cable to it, which there . certainly *was, the coo-
struaion he put
,on the AA of-Parliament was, that
the.ommittee should decide upon the claims of both
the Sitting Member and the:Petitioning Candidate.
lie could not see how the Committee could say,,that
the Sitting Member was,, not duly elected, and that
the. Petitioning Candidate was duly de:led, without
examining the case of the Petitioning Candidate, as
weji. as that of the Si tting,Member ; for it
_did- not
follow that,; because . the .Sitiing Member had no
right to sit, that the person petitioning against him
had a right.. The Comatittee.cOuld not, therefore,
• do its duty .without examining both points, namely,
whether the:Sitting. Met-14)cl' be duly eleaed ; and•
ilnoti then whether thc, Petitioning Candidate was
duly, eleaed • He thought the coned way was, to
make the Petitioner go through his casein his, at-
tack on the Sitting Megtinr,, and, then, if it should
appear. that the Sitting Metpbes _had, no right, to
call-. on the, Petitioner to prove, his. right ; but .if
the Committee should exonerate themselves, by
taking ,only one part. of this case, it. was. not
right, nor' would that satisfy the AEI, the mate.
vial words of which_ were, with regard .to the Oath
of the cominittee„Oollows :---" To try the mat,
ters of the Pet iti0,4,0 !,.3 inquire whether the Peri-
,tioner, was duly. €1,410, and that it shall be a Selea
Committee to,try
_and detcrimine the merits and the
• return of the said Election." By, this, he said, the
Committee was hound by oath to try, as well
.whe-
ther the Petitioner was' duly elected, as whether the
Sitting, Member was duly
,eleCted.
,He would
,in-
deed ask how a Committee.could say that an Eke-
tion.was avoid Eteaion, without examining ,whe-
t ther the Petitioner ought to have been returned or
not, ? ,

Mr. TIERNEY Observed, that Committees had
always.powers to send for persons, papers, and re_
cord:, but they did not always exally know what
papers they ought to send fbr.
The Question On these Petitions was then put,
and disposed in like manner.as the former Petition,
after a few wurds froin.Mr. POLE CAR. EW•