The Sun.
London, England, 1819-03-01 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 27.

DISQUALIFICATION R)11. A SEAT IN THE HMI:
OF CoNINIONN.

TFUOISIPSON (qui tam) V. PEARCE, ESQ.

This was an action brought upon the statute of
the 22d Gen. 111. 'to recover 5001. penalty, al-
edged to have been forfeited by the defendant, a
Member of Honse-of Commons, in cause..
quence of having entered, into a contract with iha
Colonel of the 65th regiinent of Foot, to supply mi-
litary clothing for the present-year. The question
was, whether nn army clothier was a contractor
with Govern-ment,' When he contracted with the
Colonel of a Regiment for soldiers' clothing'; and
whether the said contract disquaiifieti the defendant
front sitting in Parliament. Had those points been
decided against the defendant, he would have lost
his seat as a Member for DeViAes, and been sub-
jected to. 5901. - penalty.
Mr. Seijcant LAVES naw stated to the Jury,
that the defendant', who is 'ati army 'clothier, had
entered into a contract with General MchollS to
supply the 65'h te,itnent of foot. The coOtract
was made on the 6th of January last, and on the
21st he took his seat in the House of Common's.
No doubt could be 'entertained that he held the
said contract and the plaintiff had to contend
that Mr. Pearce Was incapacitated from being a
Member of Parliament. 'He could prove the con-
tract, the delivery of the goods:and the return of
the defendant to the House of Commons. Unless
the Learned Judge was of opinion that the case
did not come within the meaning of the Act of
ParliKinent, the plaintiff would be entitled to a
verdict. The Learned Counsel then proceeded tO
State the provisions of the Act, and contended
that, as it was,framed to secure the independence
of Parliament, and prevent Members from holding
contracts for the public service, it included the
case of an army contractor.
Mr, Setjeant LENS, on behalf of the defendant,
contended that the circumstance of an army clothier
contract tug, with the Colonel -ot la Regiment could
not be viewed in the light of a contract with GO-
eernment. This was not, therefore, a case Within
the contemplation of the law.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE (DALLAS) was of
Opinion that the law upon the 'subject was in fa-
your of the defendant.—Plaintiff nOnsuited.

[No trial cf importance occurred at the Olt!
Ba►ley ott Saturday.]

The Estimates of the Army Services for the
year 1819 have been printet!, by older 01 the
House of Commons. ' The fowl charge is stated
4t 6,582,802/ 129. 31. ,

Yesterday forenoon, during Divine Service, at
Quebec Chapel, Upper
.Seyt»our-street, a'serious
accident occurred. Just as the Rev. Dr. Bus.
FiBLD began his sermon, 'a
Gentleman, who bat
nearly underneath the pulpit, was seized with flu
apoplectic fii, ,hich al,iented the people sitting
uear hint so much, that they attempted a sadden
retreat. This movement caused great alarm to
the congregation, who did not know the cause... 7—
Snddenly some person gave the alarm of fire, and
the whole congregation began to rush, precipitately
towards the doors. Numbers of Ladies- and
Gentlemen were thrown down and trimpled over,
and some were seriously hurt. The life of ouo
lewdly, who suffered, is despaired of.