The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-31 00:00:00

The House then adjourned till two o'clock to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 30.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at ten minutes past Five.
A Messenger from the House of Lords summoned tho
SPEAKER and the Commons to hear the Royal Assent given by
Commission to several Bills, for which see Lords' Report.
The SPEAKER and several Members left the House, and re-
Aimed in about ten minutes.
MONAGHAN ELECTION.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR brought up the report
of the Monaghan Election Committee, which stated that Mr.
Westenra was not duly returned ; that the petition was not
frivolous and vexatious ; and that the opposition to the peti-
tion was not frivolous or vexatious.
The Clerk of the Crown was then ordered to amend his
return.

Lord LINCOLN presented several petitions in support of
he Established Church.
SUDBURY ELECTION.

Lord MORPETH, in rising to present the petition of
which he had given notice yesterday, said that he ought
to premise that he did it on the supposition, (whether
correctly or not, it would be for themselves to decide)
that the petition did not come under the description of election
petitions, for which the Legislature had already provided a
competent tribunal. Before stating the facts of the case, he
(Lord M.) did not know whether it was necessary for him to
state that he had not the slightest acquaintance, interest, or
connexion with either of the candidates, or any of the inhabi-
tants of the borough of Sudbury, and that he merely presented
the petition out of courtesy to the petitioners. The petition
was signed by 274 electors of the borough, and in stating the
circums flees upon which they ground their complaint,—
The WEAKER here interrupted the Noble Lord, and •
suggested that as it was for the House to decide whether the
petition came under the description of an election petition or
not, it would be the most proper course to state what the na-
ture of the complaint was, before entering into details.
Lord MORPETH said the petitioners complained of the
conduct of the returning officer, and prayed the attention of
the House to it.

The SPEAKER said the Noble Lord would see why
he had called his attention to this point. The Noble
Lord was aware that the Legislature had provided a
special jurisdiction for the trial of all matters connected
with elections ; and not only as regarded the validity
of returns, but also as to all circumstances connected with
the elections. The petition should therefore come before this
tribunal, and this was why he had called the attention of the
House and the Noble Lord to these two circumstances,--
first, whether it should be deemed within the class of
election petitions, and secondly if not within that class, whe-
ther it was not so immediately connected with it as to run the
risk of prejudging the circumstances of the case, the 14 days
within which a petition might be presented not having expired.
Lord MORPETH said he rose to present this petition on
the supposition of its not being an election petition. It was
necessary that he should read the prayer of the petition in order
that it might be understood. The petitioners expressed a hope
that upon the statement of that case the House would deem it

necessary to cause an investikation ba made into the
unfair, partial, and improver conJuct of the Mayor, ire malang
a return at the last election, thus favouring the views of the
candidate for whom he voted, and depriving the petitioners
of their right to choose a representative, which would not bo
the case if he had made a double return. The petitioners
further stated, that they were fully prepared to prove the alle-
gations of the petition.
The SPEAKER said he hoped the Noble Lord would
pardon him for interrupting him, but it appeared to him that
the prayer of the petition was, that the House would take into
consideration the conduct of a returning officer at an election
which had recently taken place, that is, within fifteen days.
Lord MORPETH said he was anxious to do justice
to the petitioners ; they (lid not question the return, they
only complained of the conduct of the returning officer.
There was a somewhat parallel case relating to the elec-
tion of Truro, which was brought forward by Mr. Wood,
late Member for Preston, who, upon its being sug-
gested that it was an election petition, desired and obtained
leave to mention the circumstances of it. The present
petition was long ; but he would confine himself strictly to what
wis material. The petitioners stated that having proceeded
to the election of a burgess for Sudbury, the candidates were
J3shua Bagshaw and Sir E. Barnes— _ _

Sir R. PEEL rose to order. It was not only possible but
probable that this would turn out an election petition, and it
would, in that ease, be extremely improper to excite any pre-
judice by a preliminary discussion in that House. He hoped
the House would prevent such a preliminary discussion from
b •ing entered into.
Lord MORPETH should conceive that the result of the
s'atements he had to make from the petition would be to induce
tll6. House to call the Mayor to the bar of the House.
Sir R. PEEL said that if the House chose now for the first

time to establish a precedent to the great prejudice of all
election petitions, it might by possibility so act, but not other-

wise,

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that as he collected the state-
ments of the petition so far as they had been disclosed, they
were that the Mayor had made a false return, and,
therefore, that the present petition would come under
the title of an election petition ; at the same time (as we un-
derstood the Noble Lord) he would not advise his Noble
Friend to pregs the petition.
Sir R. PEEL observed that all he wished was, that the
Noble Lord would postpone the presentation of the petition
until the time when it could regularly, according to the
forms of the House be presented. He was quite aware
that this subject must be discussed, and he desired that it
might be discussed at a time when it would be possible to
come to a grave decision by the House.
Mr. V. SMITH said he recollected in his own case.
that about two years ago, when the conduct of a ballot-
master at his election was complained of, the House ordered
the petition to lie on the table, and he was quite sure that the
present case (being one against the returning officer himself)
was a much stronger case.
Mr. O'CONNELL considered the right course would be
to hear the allegations of the petitioners, that the House might
be able to judge whether the petition came within the de-
scription of an election petition or not.
Mr. GOULBURN said the precedent attempted to be es-
tablished by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would be quite
a new course to adopt.
Colonel DAVIES thought it was clear so far as the House
had heard the allegations, that this was not an election petition
—it was merely a petition complaining of the returning officer.
Lord ALTHORP was inclined to think that this was not
an election petition, according to the usual application of the
term ; but he thought, at the slime time, the House was
competent to discuss the conduct of the Mayor, without
entering into the general merits of the election. However,
under all the circumstances, he would advise his Noble Friend
not to press the presentation of the petition until it should
be decided whether there was to be an election petition or not.
He recommended his Noble Friend to wait until the usual time.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT deprecated any discussion
upon the conduct of any person concerned in the elec-
tion, until the matter had been referred in the ordinary
way to the proper tribunal. He protested against the
House entertaining or discussing any rumours, and deviat-
ing from the usual course of disposing of such matters.
Lord MORPETH, in reply, said he did not consider this to
be strictly speaking an election petition. It did not complain
of the return of any member, but of the misconduct
of the returning officer, which it begged the House to
notice. The alleged misconduct consisted in making
a return which he was not authorised to make. He was the
1 ist person to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily,
and after what had fallen from the Speaker and several
Hon. Members, he would withdraw the petition until the
usual time had elapsed.
CURRANT DUTIES.
On the motion for reading the order of the day for the
House resolving itself into a Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill,
Lord S A NDON wished to put a question to the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite ( Mr. P. Thompson) relative to the
duties that had been proposed to be taken off, especially on
Hheearre.p)resilenetehda,d
ahesatradtetmhaetntmothrnat-
iilgfrom
time articles
thetown
of cur
hranwtsrch(
articlewh en tho er
eduties t
swtehree
wt oh bo
lee t atkr
aedne
great inconvenience arose from the uncertainty of the period
bl offwas aWith
era y decreased. r
confusion,espe tantd the
trade in that was considerably
the
Mr. P. THOMSON stated that he would bring the subject
on to-morrow, after the conclusion of the Irish Tithe Bill.
REGENT'S PARK.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE, in answer to a question from MaSer