The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-26 00:00:00

IPSWICH ELECTION.

The Members of 013 Ipswich Committee were then sworn
at the table. As far as we could learn, it consisted of the
following gentlemen—viz., J. Campbell, John Fort, H. Bur-
ton, Hughes Hughes, John Gully, John Ryle, W. S. Black-
ston, M. L. Chapman, P. M. Stewart, C. Fitzsimon, J. P.
Plumtree.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD preuntcd a petition from Birming.
ham in favour of the Birmingham Water Works.
CANTERBURY ELECTION.

The CHAIRMAN of the Canterbury Election Committee
moved that F. Villiers, Esq. be at liberty to question the
election for the City of Canterbury, within 14 days.
Mr. C. BULLER rose to the attention of the House
to this subject, but the noise in the House was so great that it
was impossible for the Hon. Member to be heard. There was
a general cry of " Bar," and " Order."
The SPEAKER rose, and callediseveral tines on Ho-
nourable Members to take their places, but the noise
at the bar still continued, and at length the Speaker
called on the Sergeant-at-Arms to do his duty. The Ser-
geant accordingly went to the Members, who crowded the
bar. They immediately dispersed, and order was restored.
Mr. C. 'BULLER again rose and wished to call the atten-
tion of the House to his motion, and the consequences it
must necessarily lead to. The circumstances of the
case were these, and if he was wrong, he hopzcl the Hon.
Member the Chairman would inform him of it. He under-
stood that before entering into the case, Mr. Harrison, the
counsel for the petitioner, proposed that they should enter only
into one point,—viz., whether the returning officer had not
partially and improperly exercised his discretion as Returning
Officer, in rejecting certain votes. The Committee were
called on to decide this point—first, because whatever other
objections there might be, it was the duty of the Com-
mittee if the Returning Officer contravened the directions of the
Reform Act, that the petitioner should not suffer by it, and ought
to have a majority, and to be placed in the situation in which
he would be placed if the Returning Officer had done his
duty, and the sitting member would be obliged to bear
the burden of the petition. The Committee acquiesced
in this view of the case ; and after an inquiry
they decided that Mr. Lushington ought to ha% e a majority,
and he was accordingly declared duly elected, and ought to
have been returned, and that Mr. Villiers should be in the
situation in which he would have been, if the Return-
ing Officer had acted properly. This was a case of
considerable hardship. The witnesses for the sitting Members
were in town, and he would be obliged, after having prepared
everything for his defence, to send his witnesses back, which
would be attended with great expense and delay.
Mr. Secretary G OULBURN rose to order, be really was
not aware what motion the Hon. Member could possibly con-
clude with.

Mr. C. BULLER said that he was not hound to conclude
with a motion, as there was a question before the House.—
( Cheers.)
An Hon. Nlitatsnit said that Counsel were not aware of the
course followed by the House.
Mr. C. BULLER felt confident that Counsel were not
aware of the course adopted by the Committee. Those gen-
tlemen bad been appointed to take upon them the burthen of
the Commitee, and they had been shifting the burthen off
their own shoulders, upon those of a future Committee. There
were two cases in which Committes, in consequence of a
defeat on the poll had adopted the course that had been pur-
sued in the present instance. The Middlesex case was one.
Mr. WYNN was sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member,
but he thought it was a question that the House could not
entertain.

BULLER rose to order.
The SPEAKER (as we understood) thought that the
Hon. Member ought to be allowed to proceed.
Mr. C. BULLER was speaking strictly to the question.
The Hon. Member then went on to describe the facts of the
Middlesex case, and.stated that he did not consider that it bore
out the conduct of the Committee in the present case, in
bringing forward an incomplete decision before the House.
The Canterbury case was one of misnomer. He did not pre-
tend that the House had the power to reverse the decision of
Committee ; and still less did he mean to oppose the motion.
He only intended to call the attention of the House to the ex-
traordinary nature of this case. He would, however, move to-
morrow that the resolution should be rescinded.
DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

- - The following are the names of Members chosen to form
the Committee to try the validity of the Dublin Petition :
J. T. Rundell, Lord J. Stewart, Sir R. Donkin, J. Vesey,
G. F. Young, J.lMaxwell, J. Neeld, E. Holland, T. Balfour,
Lord A. Conynk,inm, and J. 1-1, Vyvian.