The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-22 00:00:00

FLECTION PETITIONS.

The Court of Common Pleas resumed the hearing of thi
arguments on the rules granted in connection with election
petitions yesterday, the judges present being Lord Chief
Justice Bovilt and Justices Byles, Keating, and Montagu

Mr. Henry James—who with Mr. Mellish, Q.C.,
appeared in support of the rule granted on the
petition presented against the return of Messrs. Clay
and Norwood for the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull,
(the decision upon which will govern numerous other
cases)—resumed the address which he had only just com-
menced when the court rose on the previous day. The
learned counsel was about to argue that it was not by
consent that Mr. Justice Willes, at chambers, made the
order by which the recognisance entered into for the costs
of the petition was amended, when the Lord Chief
Justice intimated that the court was satisfied that
There was nothing done at chambers which precluded
the matter being brought before their lordships by either
side. Mr. James, in the course of a long and elaborate
argument, insisted that under the old practice there was
no power, except in the case of death, to amend the
recognisances, which had to be certified by the examiner;
and passing on to examine the provisions of the new Act,
urged upon the court that the surety of a person who
was himself a party to a petition, was in reality
no additional security for the costs of the petition.
It was clear that the master under the present
Act had less power than had the examiner under
the old Act, and the amendment of sureties was
one for the consideration of the court alone. In the
present case Mr. James contended that as the peti-
tioners were security for themselves there had been no
id recognisance, or, in other words, that the terms of
the Act, "sufficiency of security," had not been complied
with. As to the question whether £l,OOO constituted a
sufficient security, it was argued that it was
reasonable in every way that when there were two members
objected to in a joint petition there should be separate
recognisances.

At the conclusion of the learned counsel's address, the
court having consulted for a few moments, the Lord
Chief Justice said they would be glad to hear
any remarks which learned counsel who had to argue
cases similar to that of Hull might wish to urge without
going to the particular facts of their cases. His lordship
was adding an observation as to the difficulties which the
court felt upon the subject at issue, when he was stopped
by a gesture from Mr. Montague Smith, and merely re-
marked that the court had experienced great assistance
from the arguments of the counsel engaged.
It was then arranged by the bar that Mr. Manisty,
Q.C., who was retained in the Penryn, the Bridgwater,
and the Beverley petitions when the question raised was
the recognisance siinvliciter, should address the court in
support of the point that the deposit of 21,000 as a test of
the bona fides was sufficient, no matter how many respon-
dents there might be.

S'r Patrick Colquhoun, .Q.C., instructed in the matter
of the Southampton p tition, added a few observations on
the same point, as did Mr. Serjeant O'Brien, who appeared
in the Oldham case.
Mr. Price, Q.C., who had obtained the rule to set aside
the order of Mr. Justice 'Willes in the Bewdley case, briefly
controverted the observations of Mr. Manisty as to the
sufficiency of £l,OOO where there were two respondents.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., instructed in the Preston case, also
replied to Mr. Manisty's observations.
Mr. Iluddleston, Q.C., instructed in the Cambridge case,
supported the view that £l,OOO constituted a sufficient
security.

An inquiry from the Lord Chief Justice whether any

other learned gentleman desired to be heard, caused half
a dozen gentlemen behind the bar to spring to their feet
and struggle for possession of the car of the courE. These
were eventually heard, though it was felt that the subject
under consideration was really exhausted.
In delivering judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said the
question at issue was one of considerable difficulty, and he
was by no means certain that he had been able to fathom
the meaning of the Legislature in the Act of Parliament
referring to election petitions. In considering the question
whether a deposit of more than £l,oooshould be made where
there were two respondents united in one petition, it was
necessary to examine the practice which had prevailed
ander the old Act. This his lordship did,
and then passed on to notice that if it
had been intended to make so important a change
as was suggested in the amount to be deposited
as security in petitions under the new Act, some express
statement of that alteration would, it might be
supposed, be found in the provisions of the
Act itself. Such, however, was not the case.
The clause of the Act of Parliament which said that a
petition against two members might, for the purposes of
the Act, be taken as a petition against each of them, was
very obscure and difficult of interpretation. The point,
however, which the court was at that time
called upon to decide was, whether the Legislature
ji that a joint petition was to be considered as a
separate petition against each respondent in the sense that
a double security was required. In his (the Lord Chief Jus-
tice's) opinion, this was not the intention of the Legislature.
If in this view the court was wrong, and the Legislature
thought further provision for costs should be made, Par-
liament could interfere. On this the court need not
express opinion, but looking at old practice and the
construction of the Act, he (the Lord Chief
Justice) was of opinion that one deposit of
£l,OOO only was required in a petition, no
matter how many respondents there were. The order of
Mr. Justice Willes, in the case of the Hull and the
other petitions occupying the same position, was therefore
right.
The other judges concurred in this judgment, although
two of them expressed their doubts.

BEWDLEY. —At Bewdley several witnesses were exa-
mined in support of the pe'itioner's case, their evidence
relating principally to treating at public-houses. Two
ladies stated that they remonstrated with drunken women
at the Wileatsheaf, a Conservative house, and one of the
witness's, a sister-in-law of one of Sir if. Glass's committee,
said she complained of the drinking to the son of Sir
Richard's agent, Mr. Pardoe. The inquiry was again
adjourned.

LIMERICK.—The hearing of witnesses in the Limerick
petition case has been continued. Some excitement was
occasioned by Mr. Heron calling the attention of Baron
Fitzgerald to the assaults which had been made on the
witnesses by the mob. His lordship appealed to the mayor
to make proper arrangements to keep a passage clear for
the witnesses. It was afterwards found necessary to
remove one witness to a place of safety, as he appeared
particularly obnoxious to the mob.

The cost of the Parliamentary contest at Sheffield
was more than £10,280, the expenses uf Mr. Price, the Con-
servative candidate, being greatly in exctss of those of the
two gentlemen returned. Mr. Mundella, one Gf the success-
ful candidates, has the least bill, £1,603 ; that of Messrs.
Hadfield and Roebuck being £1,283, and that of Mr. Price
£4,397.

Mr. Ernest Jones, at a public meeting held in Man-
chester yesterdayodverting to the coming contest said if Mr.
Milner Gibson succeeded in the ballot, and agreed after such
success to stand for Manchester though he saw be had been
invited to stand for Norwich, one of the first votes recorded for
him, if it came to a poll, should be recorded by himself, and he
trusted that his friends would do him the honour in that re-
spect of following his example. He frankly and candidly
said that he trusted it would be in his favour, and when the
decision was once given they should stand by it or fall, and
support the victor, whoever he might be.

A case of foigii:g the relief tickets of the United
Operative Bricklayers' Society has been partly investigated,
at Wakefield. Thy prisonerswerc John Dempsey, bricklayer
and Thos. Maddon, labourer. The society iss, t ramp certifi-
cates, which entitle the holder to ls.4d. in each t nvn he may
visit. Dempsey was formerly a member of , society, Lut
by some means he Lad got possession of a certificate bearing
the name of Wm. Thompson. The prisoner Madden, on pre-
senting it at the Wakefield house of call, was given into cue-
twly, the forgery having been instantly detected, and Dempsey
was apprehended immediately afterwards. Madden said
Dempsey gave him the certificate, and Dempsey said ho had
got it at Birkenhead. lie also sail that it was no uncom-
mon thing for a man who bad obtained work to give his
certificate to any "mate" whom he might meet on the road.
The prisoner was remanded.

DISCOVERY OF ANOTIIER DIAMOND AT TUE
CAFE.— We are happy in being able to announce that
another diamond has reached Cape Town from the neot-
bourhood of the Orange River. It is described as by far
the most beautiful of the gems which have yet been found.
Although a small one, weighing only four carats, it
has been valued :a; a high figure. Several con-
flicting reports are in circulation as to the place
at which it was found. Our own correspondent
at Colesberg, in communicating the fact, says :—" Mr.
O'Reilly says he had it from a Kafir, who. said that he
picked it up on the banks of the Hart River. If this is
true, it is important, as pointing towards the spot from
which the diamonds that have been found' have probably
descended." It is to be regretted that hitherto no syste•
matic inspection of the country by a competent authority
has been undertaken, although the fact of so!many valuable
stones being found is indisputable. Most of the diamonds
which have been discovered up to the present time have
been purchased by his Excellency the Governor, and Mr.
Wollaston, who goes to England by the present mail
steamer, has received his Excellency's permission to
exhibit
.them to nterer4ed persons.-7-Care, 42y/us.

FOREIGN NOTES.

IRE ALABAMA CLAIMS.

With regard to England's recognition of the South as a
belligerent, the Star believes that a definite arrangement
has been made. The question is not to be made one of the
points of reference, but there will be nothing to prevent
its being advanced as an element of the United
States' case in proving our liability to the Alabama
claims. "As the whole of the correspondence is
referred, the point is sure to be taken and discussed."
The Star doubts whether the declaration of the Paris Con-
ference respecting the fitting out of hostile ships in
neutral ports does not involve the Alabama claims, and
whether it would not be better to admit this at once.
Certainly not. The Paris Conference applied the prin-
ciples of international law only to the deeds of Greece.
It is notorious that the Greek Government did openly
support the fitting out of blockade-runners. Nobody,
except a few gentlemen of the Butler type, ever com-
plained that the English Government had clone this ; the
charge against us is simply that the negligence of the
Ministry in dealing with the .Alabama and other cruisers
renders us liable for their depredations.