The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-06 00:00:00

houid reply when the application was made to them,
No, your petition is unfounded, and we challenge you
o bring it to trial. If you do not, we wilble notconfosuenndtetai
pair off our petition, which we know to well
against yours, which we know to have no foundation at
all." It was thus in the power of every person who was
conscious that his own petition was well founded to re-
sist any attempt to induce its withdrawal in this way.
It as necessary that petitions complaining of undue
returns should be presented within 14 days after the
meeting of Parliament. The parties might then con-
eider that they had perfectly good grounds to proceed
upon ; but in the intervening time between that and
the appointment of the committee those grounds
might have failed—a witness might have died —a wit-
ness have gone away, or been tampered with by the
other side ; or they might have discovered that the
evidence they relied upon would not be sufficient to
substantiate the charge of corruption and improper
practices. They would consequently be injuriously li-
miting the means of bringing into light practices it was
their object to prevent, if they were too strictly to limit
the right of parties to petition. But he admitted that
the matter was well worth their consideration, and if any
plan could be suggested which, while it gave full power
to bring under the consideration of the house improper
practices with which the house ought to deal, would, on
the other hand, prevent those abuses to which the hon.
gentleman' bad called attention, he repeated that this
would be a fitting subject for the consideration of the
house ; but as the power of petitioning and all other
proceedings connected with the trial of controverted
elections were regulated by act of Parliament, to carry
out such an object an alteration of the law would be
necessary. (Hear.) The hon. member for Mayo com-
plained of certain comments and opinions expressed in
the newspapers and elsewhere in reference to a petition
which had been presented against his return. All he
(Lord Palmerston) could say upon that was there was
scarcely any case tha-. came before the public tribunals
in the shape of atrial upon which opinions were not freely
pronounced before the trig', took place ; but he was quite
satisfied that those hon. members who might be ap-
pointed as the committee to try the merits of the peti-
tion would attend only to the evidence which might be
laid before them, and not allow their minds to be preju-
diced by any thing they might have read in the newspa-
pers—by anything they might have heard at the clubs,
or by anything that might have come to their ears from
any quarter. (Hear.)
Mr. HILD YARDsaggested that the party petitioned
against should, if the petition were withdrawn, be en-
titled on sufficient cause shown, to have a copy of the
petition and to proceed against the party bringing the
charge in the same way as in the case of indictments.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to put a question to
his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies ;
but before doing so he could hardly refrain from
noticing the observations of the hon. member for
Finsbury in reference to the Corrupt Practices Act. The
hon. gentleman said that he (Lord J. Russeil) bad main-
tained, when he introduced that bill, that it would cure
all corruption, and prevent a'l bribery at elections. Ile
must beg to deny that allegation. He introduced that
bill in the hope that it might render bribery less fre-
quent, and corruption less flagrant. But as to any such
sanguine anticipations as the hon. gentlemen mentioned,
ho (Lord John) had never indulged in them. The bill
was sent to a select committee, of which the late Attor-
ney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas, the hon. and learned member for Suffolk,
and others, who might be regarded as authorities on the
subject, were members. Many clauses were introduced,
at the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for
Suffolk and others ; and it was hoped that the measure,
as amended by the committee, would have the effect of
rendering bribery of less frequent occurrence. And he
was inclined, notwithstanding the statement of the hon.
member for Finsbury, to believe that the committee
were right in that opinion. The question, however,
would soon be tested, for they were about to have a num-
ber of election committees sitting, and by the result of
their investigation the house would be enabled to judge
whether the bill had operated usefully, or what further
alterations in the law were necessary. But when the
hon. member forFinsbury complained of the insufficiency
of that measure, and told them that he had a proposition
ready of his own to meet the evil of which he complained,
he would ask why he did not, like other members of Par-
liament, submit it to the consideration of the house, in-
stead of contenting himself with complaining without at-
tempting to submit that remedy which he seemed to con.
eider so effectual and so easy of application. With regard
to the suggestion of the hon. gent' eman opposite he (Lord
J. Russell) was very much of the same opinion as his noble
friend (Lord Palmerston), that though it might be pos.
eilde that some remedy might be devised for the inconveni-
ence to e hich the hon. gentleman Cad drawn attention,
they ought to be extremely cautious how they placed any
unnecessary lirn't on the right of complaining of bribery
and other corns pt practices at elections. There might be
cases where the complaint was well founded, but in re-
spect to which circumstances might afterward arise to
prevent its being brought forward for trial, and it would
be bard if they were to ley it down that the party peti-
tioning should in no case be entitled to withdraw the
petition. But the question which he rose to ask the
C ,lonial Secretary related to a different matter. It
would be remembered that a gentleman, a Mr. Stoner,
was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle to a judicial
office in one of the Australian colonies, but in conse-
quence of a report that was made in the course of an in-
quiry before an election committee, which affected his
character, the appointment was cancelled. Without en-
tering into particulars, he thought he might say that
there was some mistake as to the nature of the impute-
Lion, and that, in fact, there was nothing against Mr.
Stonor which should prevent his being recommended to
the crown for its favourable consideration in the event of
any vacancy occurring in the public service for which be
might be thought qualified. He wished, therefore, to
ask his right hon. friend whether ho was aware of any
circumstances affecting Mr. Stonor'e character that
would prohibit his recommending him for any public
office to which his talents might be suited
Mr. LABOUCHERE stated the reply he made on a
former occasion to Mr. Stonor, viz , that tho impression
after reading the documents relative to this case was,
that he saw no permanentdisqualification for his entering
the public service at home, aed his desire to recommend
him for employment. He thought that for the bene-
fit of Mr. Stonor, and the public service, that as Mr.
Stonor had been recalled from a colonial appointment
be should not receive a colonial appointment, but a
home one, and he had informed that gentleman of it,
and also that he should he happy to make that statement
in the house, if the question was brought forward.
Mr. HORSM.AN and Mr. MALINS addressed the
house, expressing their belief that Mr. Stonor had been
hardly used, and his error, which had reference to elec-
tioneering zeal, ought not to stand in the way of his
preferment.
The motion for adjournment till Monday was then
agreed to.