The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-26 00:00:00

JAVA.

In answer to a question from Mr. LABOUCHERE,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, persons resident. in Java,
not bearing the name or title of Consul, nor having
any official character as between the British and the
Dutch Government, had been authorised by her Ma-
jesty's Government to perform the duty of certifying
Java-grown sugar. The three gentlemen appointed for
the three ports were Messrs. Bonhill, M'Neil, and
Frazer. There would be no difficulty in the parties wbo
had received orders for shipments in discovering those
gentlemen.
Mr. LABOUCHERE inquired if those gentlemen
were merchants at those ports?
Mr. GLADSTONE said no duties of a consular cha-
racter attached to the office. With regard to the ques-
tion whether, they were merchants or not, it was impos-
sible for him to answer it. The impression on his mind
was, that Mr. Fraser was not in business, though he had
been, and that the other two gentlemen were.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

The House then went into Committee on the Contro-
verted Elections Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
Clauses from 1 to 16 were agreed to without discussion.
Clauses up to 46 were agreed to without discussion.
On clause 46 being proposed.
Mr. COLLETT (Athlone) said that the present ap-
peared to him to be the most suitable time for proposing
the clause of which he had given notice :—" That the
seat of no Member who has once appeared before and
been tried by any Election Committee on a bona fide pe-
tition against his return, shall be affected by any subse-
quent petition against the same seat for the same election."
Though this clause might seem to have a personal refer-
ence to himself, he proposed it for a general purpose. He
did not know why he should be subjected to a second pe-
tition, and he should like to hear from the Solicitor-Ge-
neral or from 'the Noble Lord the Chairman of Election
Petitions, under what clause of the Act of Parliament
a second petition was presented against his return.
After some short discussion the clause was withdrawn.
Mr. COLLETT then moved another amendment for
the purpose of defining the law ; but it was negatived
without either discussion or division.

Clauses from 47 to 54 were passed without discussion.
On clause 55 being put,
Sir R. PEEL proposed in page 16, line 1, to fill up
,he blank with the word "four," in order that the
Election Committee may be composed of five Members,
including the Chairman. He said, before he moved this
amendment, he might congratulate the House on the
great improvement that had taken place in the practice
of these Election Committees. Within the last two or
three years, since the present mode of choosing the
Committees had been adopted, there had been a very
great improvement ; and there were grounds for in-
creased confidence in their decisions. The evidence of
the four counsel who had been examined, stated that the
improvement was wonderful, and that the Committees
were now good tribunals for matters of fact, and the
charges of corrupt motives were unfounded ; where
they had decided improperly, it had rather arisen from
error and misconception of the law, than from corrupt
motives. He really believed that there was an improved
feeling on this subject on both sides of the House ; it
was felt that there were judicial functions entrusted to
Members of the Committee, in which there
was a solemn responsibility, if the Members
did not decide according to the evidence.
That was the way they would be able to retain this ju-
risdiction, which he thought the House ought to possess,
and if he thought that Members did not come to a deci-
sion from their conscientious convictions, he thought it
would be better if the jurisdiction were not in the hands
of the House. If they were of opinion that a reduction
should be made in the number of Members forming the
Committee, the next consideration was, to what extent
the reduction should be made. The motion of perhaps
the most experienced person in the House, on this point,
was negatived by a majority of 8 to 1 ; he meant Mr.
Wynn. With regard to the extent of reduction, the
Committee were equally divided. On a division, he be-
lieved there was a majority of 5 to 4in favour of a re-
duction, to three instead of five; but he believed his Noble
Friend the Chairman was in favour of five. He con-
fessed, though he was willing to bow to the decision of
the Committee, that he thought three was too small a
a number. He was willing to allow a good deal to the
argument of restricted responsibility; but, on the other
hand, there was a great deal in having the collective wis-
dom of five instead of three. If there were only three
persons on the Committee, there would be one Member
on each side, and .then the chairman would have the de-
cision. The opinion of counsel was equally divided as
that of the Committee. Mr. Talbot was in favour of five
instead of three, and of seven instead of five. Mr. Cock-
burn at first seemed to be of opinion in favour of three,
but he seemed afterwards to change his opinion, and to
think five was preferable. On the other hand, Mr. Aus-
tin and Mr. Wrangham were in favour of three ; but Mr.
Austin proposed that the three should be named by the
Speaker. He (Sir R. Peel) was decidedly opposed to
that. ,He thought that such a responsibility ought not
to be cast on the Speaker, and that it was enough that
he appointed the Committee of Selection. He concluded
by moving that " four" be inserted, instead of " three."
Mr. C. BULLER would not press his objection to the