The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-19 00:00:00

?tatters, but the less they came before the House the better. •
" his was an attempt unfairly to try the case of the sitting
Members. From the statement of the Right Hon. and
Learned Recorder, it was clear that the engagement referred
to by the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was
entered into conditionally on the one part, and unconditionally
on the other. Let the -House look at the probabilities of the
case, and decide which was most likely. The Hon. and
Learned Recorder had stated that the objection to the secu-
rities was totally unexpected. At the time of entering into the
engagement, that had not been in the contemplation of either
party. When the parties came before the examiners, the
zitting Member had objected to the securities, and the
examiners, with perfect justice, had made a discretional
report, which would enable the House to deal with the
case by allowing further time to investigate the matter.
He thought a case had been made out, which would make it
appear the grossest of all injustice to call upon the sitting
3lembers to enter upon their defence.—( Loud cries of
" bear, hear.") It was in his (Mr. S. Rice's) opinion
the duty of that House to inquire narrowly into this case, be-
cause if a fraud had been attempted, whatever the result of
the election might be, it would show to the gentlemen connect-
ad with the agency of petitions and private Bills, that Parliament
would not allow itself to be trifled with, and in his opinion it
would he most unfair to call upon them to enter upon their
case at a time when they were unprepared from the manner in
which the petitioners had acted. The Right Hon. Gentleman
concluded by expressing his acquiescence in the propriety of
the course suggested as being most likely to prevent thi.i House
from being imposed upon by improper representatives.
Mr. W YNN fully agreed with the Honourable Member
(Mr. Rice.) The House should not allow a sitting Member
to be put off his guard by false statements. But as the House
could not examine witnesses on oath it was difficult to see what
course they should pursue. The ballot could not without a
violation of the Act be pcstponed ; the only course, then, was
to appont the Committee, and let them ask leave to adjourn
till the Hon. Member was prepared with his defence.
Mr. O'CONNELL would implore of the House to allow
Lim to go into evidenke of the facts he stated as the grounds
.of his application. He was to be credited or he was not. If
he was worthy of credit let him have an opportunity of prov-
ing his statement at the Bar. There were four witnesses
ready to be sworn at the Bar.—(Cries of " They cannot.")
No, they could not ; but they were ready to be sworn in sup-
port of his statement. As to the plan proposed by the Hon.
Member (Mr. Wynn) the whole of his case would depend on
the preliminary decision whether they could adjourn for the
purpose of allowing preparations for the defence to he entered
into. His (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion was that the Committee
should proceed to business on the first day. Let the House
see what a jeopardy be was placed in. (The Hon. Member's
pronunciation of the word jeopardy, which he uttered twice as
if spelledjopporday, excited vollies of laughter.) The agent
volunteered the declaration to him, he would repeat, in the
presence of four creditable witnesses. He hoped the House
would do him justice, and not throw him over to the chance of
It ballot, and to the arbitrary construction of an Act of Parlia-
ment, about which even lawyers might differ, and, a priori,
laymen. If six Gentlereen or the Committee read the Act as
he read it, while five read it as the Hon. Member ( Mr. Wynn)
read it, he could have no chance of entering into his defence.

Sir R. PEEL said a few words which were inaudible to us.
The tendency of them was, as we understood, to show that
though it was for the House to decide whether evidence of the
acts of fraud should be allowed at the Bar, yet the case de-
manded an extension of indulgence to the Hon. and Learned
Member.

Mr. RUTLIYEN made some observations confirmatory o
Mr. O'Connell's statement.

Sir J. CAMPBELL proposed that the petition :)e postponed
till that day se'nnight.

Sir J. 6RAHAM raid there was one point which it was
necessary for the dignity of the House to maintain, that was the
established rule that the word of a Member was equivalent in
the House to his oath. The lion. Member declared that the
assertion of the agent was unconditional. The agent denied
that. The House would have then no oppnrtunity of rebutting
the Hon. Member's dec!aration on oath at the Bar, as they
could not administer an oath ; but he thought, however, for the
dignity of the House that an inquiry should be instituted as
to the conduct of the agent.
Mr. WYNN made some remarks, which were inaudible.
Mr. F. SHAW said, as the character of the agent (Mr.
Baker), a most respectable andltrustworthy man, was im-
pug-ncd, he should be glad of an inquiry ; and as to the delay
asked for, he would be better pleased if it were granted.
Mr. LE FRO Y, in a few words, which the cries of " Di-
wide" and " Question" prevented us from hearing, energeti-
cally- eulogised the cha:acter of Mr. Baker, as a man of tried
probity, diligence, taleut, and honour.
Mr. O'CONNE I, 1, e,-ithdrew his motion, in favour of, that
of Sir John Campbell, which was then agreed to.