The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-06 00:00:00

INVERNESS-SIIIRE E141;;CTION.

"---
The Committee in this
case____-...x? have come to a very extraordi-
bary decision ; but it may be as well to state, in the first place,
of what materials that Committee was composed ; and in doing
so it is impossible to abstain from an expression of our regret
and astonishment that the supporters of the Government should
have allowed themselves to have been so signally out-numbered
in the House on the day of the ballet. The Irish Liberal
Members, we must say, however, did their duty. We believe
that scarcely any one of them was absent when his !mine was
call'O• B'-it the muster of the Tories was greate.. than on
any similar occasion in our remembrance; and the conse-
quence was,
that, after striking the ballot, they had a decided
majority on the Committee, of which the Hon. Anthony
Man. Y Cooper, son of Lord Shaftesbury, was elected Chair-
The sitting Nlenther, Mr. Chisholm, of Chisholm, was re-
it wi
titrned by a majority of 28 votes at the late election. Now
ll by
be believed that no less than 29 of these votes
wiere derived from a district of country actually excluded by
tan Reform Bill from' the county of Inverness. This district
is called the Grantown District, and is the property of Colonel
'rant of Grant. It is situated in the consolidated counties
iof Moray, and Nairne. It is entirely detached on all sides
llrorn the county of Inverness. It is expressly excluded from
that county by the provisions of the Scotch Reform Act.
save
been suffered to register in the county of Inverness, with
which they have no manner of connection, and twenty nine of
these persons gave their ve"ces for the Chisholm at the late
election.
In order to understand the strange decision of the Corn-
tnittee on Saturd•-,,y, it is necessary to explain that in 1832,
after the passion of the Reform Act, ' the registering Sheriff,
the
refused to admit the Grantown claimants to re-
gistration. The matter was afterwards carried by appeal to
the Court. of Review which was composed of three Sheriffs.
vc.rsed upon
In this Court of Review the decision of Mr. Tytler was re-
grounds which have not only been repudiated by
%mile of the first lawyers in England, whose opinion has been
taken upon the question, but also by every person of com-
mon sense who has taken the trouble to examine the maps,
find to read the provisions of the Reform Act. The following
are
the words of the Scotch Reform Act :—" Providing always,
th all properties lying locally within the limits of
any county, although hitherto constituting part of some other
county, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be held to be part
of the county with which they are locally included." These
'words are so plain, their meaning is so obvious, and the
Proof of locality so overwhelming, that we are not surprised
to hear it rumoured that the counsel of the sitting Member
himself advised him, that on the merits of the question he and
his 29 Grantown voters had not a leg to stand upon. This
decision of the three reviewing sheriffs, in 1832, is expressly
deelaree by the Reform Act to be " final and conclusive to
all intents and purposes, and not liable to any process of re-
view," except before a Committee of the House of Commons,
whose powers are specially reserved. The liberal party in
Ir.verness-shire having been uniformly successful at all former
elections, no opportunity offered for taking the opinion of a
tiCommittee of the House of Commons on the Grantown ques-
t:lon, until the present petition was presented by Mr. Grant, of
erimorriston. It could scarcely have been supposel that any
discussion would arise about what is commonly called open-
for ttlille register. Mr. Sergeant Spankie, the leading counsel
i,„„,, e Chisholm, however, contended, that as the petitioners
.....„,, not
the
alto Comte of Rezistration in 1833 and 1834 (a proceeding
mittgeeeth"
in
incompetent under the Reform Act), the Corn-
Harrison ought not now to entertain the question at all. Mr.
so 'clear a dan able reply, placed the whole matter in a light
4,*ittee 11. n
be cleaoe unanswerable, that the Chairman of the Corn-
?power "Iself stated that no doubt could exist as to the
be
ow
a?jdction
the Committee. The room was then ordered to
mina—
::..!, and it was confidently expected that the preb-
advanced by Mr. Sergeant Spankie would
the counsel • After an interval of about an hour, however,
the Chaim:net' agents for both sides were called in, and.
tdeAnce upon thistated that the Committee wished to have evi-
zess since
-it' not been s Most important point, namely, whether there
this questioniB3Mnre than one election for the county of Inv.er-
-2 and consequently an opportunity of bringing
the /./ earlier under the review of a Committee of
comber had that House of
there Commons. A witness was called to prove
had been an election for Inverness-shire, in De-
the eieejB32, and in the month of January last, as well as
loss to.}..'n'on now under consideration. All parties were at a
Peary, h ow the object of this strange examination. It ap-
opitir,o pver, that the majority of the Committee were of
Grantowntelartsiaiseicidletrhat ta.at t atz each
, tne of these elections in 1832, and in January
ion of , question might have been brought under
a uommittee. It was in vain that Mr. Harrison
all former elections Mr. Grant had been the
Zecessfill'candidatei and consequently that there could have
Thtel na petition at his instance to the House of Commons.
so3.eConirnittee resolved that they would hear no more on the
t, and the
after parties were again ordered to withdraw, and
te •sorne further deliberation the Committee ultimately de-
at-4h med
that the Grantown case should not be proceeded
~on that the Chisholm was duly returned, but that the peti-
LI
Under was not frivolous or vexatious.
_ ,ex_ these circumstances, and in reference to the com-
oPol
the of the Committee, we must congratulate the petitioners
that
tif eiscape which they have made. It is more than probable
the c t ie.question which they were desiring to bring before
Committee had been entered into and discussed upon its
merits, the decision would have been adverse ; the Grantown
district would thereby have been irrevocably attached to the
county of Inverness, and its voters have continued to swamp
thhe real constituency of the county. • Whereas the decision
which has been come to, leaves the matter open for renewed
discussion at the ensuing Courts of Registration, and if ne-
cessary hereafter, it may be brought again before
different
Committee of the a i House of Commons.