The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY SUMMARY.

Inthe Loans, the Western Australia Bill, and also the
Isle of Man Corn Importation Bill, were read a first time.
Several petitions were presented. In reference to the Muni-
cipal Reform Bill, Lord BROUGHAM saw two objections, which
he hoped would be removed before the Bill reached their
Lordships' House. . The petitions on the subject of the Bill
he should not yet present. Lord MELBOURNE, in reply to
Lord FAaNnAm, said that he intended to bring forward a mea-
sure for the reform of Munie:pal Corporations in Ireland this
Session. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for copies of
some papers connected with the suspension of the Foreign En-
listment Bill. It was stated by Lord DUNCANNON, that the
New Houses of Parliament would not occupy more than two
years in building.
In the COMMONS, the Report of the Drogheda Election
Committee, declaring Mr. O'Dw vats unduly, and Mr. R.
PLUNKETT duly elected, was presented. A petition was pre-
sented from the Thames Watermen, complaining of the rapi-
dity of steam-packets. It was stated that within the last three
months the loss of sixteen lives had been occasioned by
these vessels. Mr. L. BULWRR jlostponed his motions
on the Newspaper Stamps and on the admission of Dis-
senters into the Universities. Lerd Johns RUSSELL, in reply
to Mr. WteKs, intimated his design to introduce, early
next Session, Bills for a General Registration, and also one
respecting Church Rates. A petition from Dublin, in favour
of Poor Laws for Ireland, was presented and supported by
Mr. O'CONNELL. The House was occupied for a consider-
able time with a discussion on a motion for the discharge of
Mr. O'Malley, one of the Ipswich culprits. Mr. WAsom,
Mr. P. STEWAET, and Lord J. RUSSELL severally opposed it.
His Lordship said that if a conspiracy to keep witnesses out
of the way was suffered to go unpunished, Election Com-
mittees would be a nullity, and the proof of bribery impos-
sible. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON subsequently produced a cer-
tified declaration of Mr. O'Malley's infirm health, &c., and
eventually it was ordered that he be brought up to-morrow to
the bar of the House, be reprimanded, and discharged. Mr.
WAsoN moved to the effect that Mr. Booth and Mr. Bignold,
the Magistrates implicated in the same Ipswich conspiracy, be
taken into custody. A long discussion, which terminated in
the defeat of the mover and his party, arose on a motion
made by Mr. PRAED for copies of the Correspondence with the
Board of Directors on the subject of the revocation of
the appointment of Lord HRYTESBURY as Governor-General
of India. We refer our readers to the argumentative and nn-
ar,swerable speech of Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE, who resisted the
production of the confidential correspondence moved for. Mr.
Hoee- spoke in favour of the motion. Mr. C. FEttot'ssom ar-
gued that the appointment in question was a political appoint-
ment, and that the person appointed should have the entire
confidence of the Government, and with whose views the
Governor-General of India ought fully to co-operate. Mr.
BUCKINGHAM took a similar view, observing that a great
change was about taking place in the Government of India,
according to the Bill passed about two years ago ; and that
a person favourable to that change should be sent out to
India to promote its progress. Mr. PELHAM and Sir
ROBERT PEEL supported the motion. Mr. J. SMITH drew a
just distinction between the revocation of an appoint-
ment and the reed). of a person in the exercise of his func-
tions. He regarded Mr. PRAED'S motion as made for party
purposes only : it was an attempt to get rid of the reform of
Corporations by a side-wind. Lord JOHN RUSSELL referred-
to numerous precedents for adopting the course respecting the
appointment now pursued by Government, and concluded by
contending that a person appointed to the Governorship of
India should enjoy the confidence of the Government at home.
If the Government entrusted the executive functions to men
in whom they had no confidence, they would be acting weakly,
and betraying themselves and the country. The House then
divided, Ayes, 179; Noes, 254. Majority for Ministers, 75.
The House then went into Committee on the Corporations
Reform- Bill. The 13th clause was agreed to without any
amendment. The discussion on the 14th clause was post-
poned, in order to give time for the consideration of the
amendments proposed. The adjourned debate on Roman Ca-
tholics' Marriages Bill (Ireland) was then resumed: it was
ultimately read a third time. The House then, at two o'clock,
adjourned..

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE KING V. DE BEAUVOIR, BART.

Sir Wm. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. CURWSN) stated
the case. It was an indictment for perjury, founded upon a
statute so far back as the reign of Queen Anne, which required
the Members elected to serve in Parliament should possess a
certain qualification in point of property. The circumstances
arose out of the late election for the borough of Windsor, at
which the defendant, Sir John Edmund De Beauvoir, Knight,
John Ramsbottom, Esq., and Sir John Elley, were the candi-
dates ; and a doubt having arisen as to the qualification of the
defendant, two of the electors signed a requisition, call-
ing upon him to swear bcfcre two Magistrates that he
had a property of three hundred pounds per annum ;
the defendant took the oath to that effect, as required by the
provisions of the 9th Anne, chap. 5. He ( Sir Wm. Follett)
was instructed that the defendant had no such qualification at
the time, and further, that he was well aware he did not pos-
sess such qualification, and, therefore, was knowingly swearing
a false oath. The Learned Counsel here referred to the
Act, which required that all Members for Counties should
possess a qualification of 6001. a-year, and all Members for
Boroughs a qualification of 300/. a-year. The only excep-
tions were the eldest son of a Baronet possessing a property of
6001. a-year, and the eldest son of a Peer. The defendant,
he understood, relied upon the former of these exceptions, but if
that was the case, it was not necessary for him to take the
oath as to qualification in point of property. The qualification
which the defendant swore to, was a rent-charge upon certain
tenements in St. John-street, parish of St. Sepulchre, county
of Middlesex, granted by John George Fitzgerald, Esq., of
Park-place, for a consideration of 2,9001. He ( Sir William
Follett) was instructed that no such rent-charge had ever been
granted by Mr. Fitzgerald. He should also show that these
premises were not worth more than 1951. per annum, and that
Mr. Fitzgerald had no right to give a rent-charge on this
property, it being the property of his wife. He should call
witnesses to prove these facts, and leave the matter for the
decision of the Jury.
Charles Brown, Sub-Editor of the St. James's Chronicle,
deposed that a person representing himself to be Sir John de
Beauvoir, called to contradict a paragraph copied from the
Berkshire Chronicle, which stated that an indictment had been
preferred against him at the Central Criminal Court for a mis-
demeanour. The paragraph was copied into the Standard,
which is published at the same place, and is one property with
the St James's Chronicle.
John George Fitzgerald, a Magistrate of Middlesex, de-
posed that for four or five days before the defendant took
his seat, witness executed a deed granting to hire a rent-
charge upon the premises in St. John's-street. He executed
another deed of the same premises, after the defendant
had taken his seat. The first was for 350/. per annum,
and the second was for SOO/. Witness did not receive any
consideration for either of them. He offered the defendant
the qualification, and believed at the time that he could give
it. Knew the family of defendant—his father was a Baronet,
and was a High Sheriff and a Candidate for an Irish county.
The name of defendant's father was Browne, and defendant
changed it, having received a property on his marriage. Sir
John De Beauvoir had no reason to doubt that witness could
give him the qualification. The premises do not now bring
3001. per annum, but if they were let as they ought they
would fetch 3001. per annum. Witness would not sell the
property for 8,0001. When he gave the qualification he was
satisfied that he had a legal right to do so.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK addressed the Jury for the de-
f,:nd.l,,t. Sir. John De Beauvoir, was the son of an Irish Ba-
Nutt, foimerly a candidate for an Irish county, and therefore

according to the provisions of the Act upon which the prose-
cution was founded, qualified to sit in Parliament even with-
out the qualification in point of property. He did not state
the rank and property of the defendant for the purpose of
exciting the sympathy of the Jury, but to shew that in point
of law, he was qualified to sit in Parliament. This was not the
case of a person taking a false oath for the purpose
of elevating himself to a position he was not ot.he,
entitled to fill, and he could not help thinking that after a
Committee of the House of Commons had decided that.' Sir
John de Beauvoir had not the majority of good votes, this
prosecution might well have been spared. 1e regretted, in
the strongest terms, and with the deepest feelings he could,
that political feuds and party feeling should have found their
way into that Court ; and that the present attempt had been
made to bring disgrace upon a gentleman who had nome for-
ward to represent the popular interest at Windsor. Mr.
Fitzgerald, an old friend of the family, had offered, unsolicited
by Sir John De Beauvoir, to furnish him with the nenessary
qualification. There was no reason to daunt that Mr. Fitzgerald
could give the qualification, as he had sworn it in the wiitness
box before them, and therefore all ground for supposing- that
the defendant had sworn falsely was removed. It was e ssen-
tial to the indictment not only that the oath was false, but
also that the defendant well knew it to be false. Could they
have any doubt, that after the execution of the deed the de-
fendant believed he was possessed of the necessary qualifica-
tion ? If so, there was an end at once to this most ungra-
cious prosecution. He looked forward with confidence to the
verdict of the Jury, and he was satisfied that the defendant
would leave the Court with untarnished reputation and un-
stained honour.
Lord DENMAN summed up at great length, and the Jury,
after deliberating for about ten minutes, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
The Foreman added that the Jury believed the premises
were not worth 3001. per annum ; but they were also of opi-
nion that the defendant, at the time of making the oath, Was
not aware that they were not worth :300/. per annum.