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

.CANTERBULY ELECTION.

Hn HON. MEMBER said he was little acquainted with the
forms of the House, hut he could not conceive that any Mem-
ber had the power of calling in question the decision of the
House on an Election Committee. Such a course would be
extremely inconvenient, and take up the time of the House
uselessly. He could only say that every Member of that
Committee had been unanimous.—(Hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON thought that though it was not com-
petent for the House to reverse the decision of the Committee,
yet it might enquire into it, and he hoped that his Hon. Friend
would persevere in his motion, in order to know whether the
Committee had acted or not on precedent in coming to that
decision.

Sir E. K NAT C JIB UL L said, after what had fallen from the
Speaker, he should be sorry to offer any opinion upon this subject;
but it appeared to him that the course which had been pursued
by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, if not an imputation, cer-
tainly savoured of a disrespect towards the Committee; at the
same time he considered that the course adopted by the
Committee was rather an unusual and irregular one.
Colonel E VANS considered that the Committee, in refer.
ring the matter back to the House, had committed a grave and
seriousinjustice, and that they ought to have proceeded with
the inquiry for which they had been appointed.
Mr. HUME admitted that every: inquiry argued a doubt
to a certain extent, but it appeared to him to be a
matter of the greatest importance that such inquiries
should not only take place, but be conducted according to the
Act which provided thatlevery Select Committee should dispose
of the questions before it by a majority of votes, which it
appeared had not been done in this instance. He spoke
without having the authority of the Ministers of the
House before him, though he did not believe that those
minutes would alter his view of the case.

Mr. W YNN contended tba...\ the Committee were not res-
ponsible to this House for their proceedings, any more than
any other Court. They were bound by no resolution what-
ever to any particular opinion, and the only qu?stion
was, whether the report furnished by them were justified by
the nature of the evidence before them.—( Hear, hear. )
In the case of the Middlesex petition, to which the Ho-
nourable Member had alluded, the petitioner was rated
on the ground of the return, leaving it to the Member
to petition on the merits of the election.—( Hear, hear.)
This was as he conceived not a question on which
the House could interfere ; it was a question of law,
which was not for their decision, but for the decision
of other authorities. The only course which he thought
the Honourable Member was entitled to pursue, was to
move for leave to bring in a bill to limit the power of future
Committees. This was established by precedents in the case
of Middlesex and Caernarvon, and a power would then be
given to the petitioners to inquire into its merits, within
fourteen days of the date of notice.—( Hear, hear.)
He thought it would be highly improper to interfere with the
decision to which the Committee had come, and although
mistakes might be sometimes made, it would be a minor evil to
acquiesce in these decisions.
Mr. FRE SHFIELD objected to the doctrine laid down
by the Hon. Member for Middlesex as being by far to) exten-
sive in its principle. There were many cases in wide!) such a
proceeding would be most unjust and erroneous.--( Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONB Y would beg to call the attention of the
Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster to the regulations by which Committees of this nature
were guided.—( Hear.) The Honourable Member here read
an extract showing that the decision of the Committee should
be final between the parties, except in certain cases which
, were specified, and in which cases the Committee had

a clear and undoubted right to send a specific resolution
to that House. The present was one of those cases, and
it was not their business to discuss the merits of the
question. The exception was, that "if any such Select Com-
mittee shall come to any other resolution than those above
specified, they shall report the same to the House, and at same
time, the Chairman shall inform the House of such determina-
tion." It then proceeded to set forth, that " the House may
concur or disagree in such resolution, and make such
order thereon, as shall to it seem proper." It'Appeared to him
that the present case came clearly within that.rule.
After a few words from Mr. WYNN,
Mr. S C A R LE TT declared, that after an Election Committee
had made a report—that report must be final, or the Act of
Parliamedt upon the subject must be repealed.—( Hear.)
By the words of the Act, the finding of an election
Committee, who had only to try the question of whether the
Member or the petitioner was the duly elected Member; in this
case they had seated the petitioner, and by the words
of the act that finding wes final, and the House was pre-
eluded from again opening it.
The SPEAKER then put the question which was agreed to
without a division.

BOROUGH OF LIECESTER.

Mr. GI SBOURNE rose, pursuant to notice, to move the
ocnsideration of the petition for leave to rectifya mistake in the
name of a proposed surety in the case of the Leicester boro'
election. The question was whether the House would permit
what he thought the law would allow it to do, namely, to en-
large the time for giving in the munes-Otthe proposed sureties.
He bad in his hand the: affidavit of Thomas Parkes, the peti-
tioner, who stated that Samuel S. Stokes was competent and
willing to be a security; that on the day after.the House granted
the enlarged time. he received a letter, stating that S:okes's
name was Thomas and not Samuel. The Act of Parliament states
that under the circumstances the House has poWer to change
the names of sureties. The provision be wished to call
the attention of the House to was, that not permitting
enlargement of !time more than once, or beyond thirty
days, and that no surety can be more than once changed
They merely requested the House to allow them to correct a
Clerical inadvertence into whica the agent had iallen,
in giving the name of Samuel instead of Thomas, and this,
he thought, did not fall within the cases in which the House
had, by Act of Parliament, forbidden them to interfere.
No injustice would be done by the House in granting the prayer.
of the petition. There having been plenty of time to inquire
into the sufficiency of Thos. Stokes. He trusted the House
would not deprive the petitioner of his rights for a clerical error ;
he would therefore move that Mr. Parkes should be called in
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MIMI!

Sir F. TRENCH expressed his concurrence in the second
suggestion which had been made, and hoped, that whatever
was done, the public service would be eonsidered paramount
to private interest.
Mr. TOOKE declared that he never wanted to see a public
enterprise diverted to any private purpose whatever.
The conversation then dropped.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL rising to propose his mo-
tion upon this subject,
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON instantly rose, and beg-
ged to say, that in consequence of what had passed yesterday,
certain explanaticnii had been given with which he was per-
fectly satisfied. He had hsd an opportunity of clearing up
what he did say, and he thought that what had' been done
would be a sufficient lesson to those persons who had rendered
the course he had taken necessary, and he hoped the Noble
Lord would let the matter drop.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, but from the very low tone in
which the Noble Lord spoke, and the noise occasioned by
the sudden entrance of Hon. Members, it was scarcely
possible to hear a word the Noble Lord said. We understood
him to say that he was quite convinced that the Hon. and
Gallant Admiral's character was beyond injury from any such
imputations as those that had been cast upon it.—( Hear, hear.)
It was therefore only .upon pablic grounds that it was necessary
to bring forward this question. If he brought it forward
at all, it was solely upon public grounds. He was certainly in
the hands of the. House, and would act as the House should think
fit. His lion. and Gallant Friend's character could not suffer
the least injury from an anonymous libel.---( Hear, hear.) It
was not therefore to clear the character of the Hon. and Gal-
lant Admiral that he intended to bring forward the subject, but
because there was a general opinion that the character and
dignity of the House had been insulted.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the Noble Lord would not bring
forward the subject.—(Hear.) Ho should be very sorry if a
precedent were established, which would render it neces-
sary for every public man to bring foiward subjects
of this nature, when imputations were cast upon them in the
newspapers. If the Noble Lord was anxious to become the
champion of the House, he could supply him with a great
variety of cases.--(A laugh.) The Hon. and Gallant Admi-
ral having es pressed his opinion, and having entreated the
Noble Lord not to bring forward the subject, he had not any
doubt, therefore, but that the feeling of the House was, that
they should not establish a precedent by which every Member
of Parliament who was attacked, and might have the grossest
imputations cast upon him, would feel bound to defend himself
in that House.
Sir H. HA RDINGE concurred in all that had been said
by his Right Honourable Friend (Sir Robert Peel). Had
he been inclined to follow the course which had been pur-
sued by the Noble Lord ( Russell), he might have come
down to that House, and complained of some very gross attacks
that had been made on him within the last forty-eight hours.
A laugh.) He thought it, however, much better to ab-
stain from doing so, as he thought that the attacks were too
contemptible for notice—( Hear, hear)—and he would not,
therefore, notice them.

Mr. SINCLAIR rose, but was received by a general cry
of " Oh," which completely drowned the observations of the
Hon. Member.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.

Mr. D NCOMBE wished to know when it would be con-
venient for the Right Hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill with
respect to Dissenters' Marriages. The present feeling of anxiety
out of doors had alone induced him to ask the question.
Sir R. PE E L said that when he moved for leave to bring in
the Bill it was entirely prepared, and it was only for the purpose
of introducing some valuable suggestions that the Bill had
been delayed. In stating this he begged it to be understood
that he did not want to invite further suggestions. No per-
son but a Chancellor of the Exchequer could answer for the
number of-useless suggestions that were made to him, such as
putting a tax on umbrellas and sueh things.—( A laugh.)
He was in hopes of being enabled, in the course of a few days
to lay the Bill on the table of the House.