The Sun.
London, England, 1819-02-19 00:00:00

shonld have been entered into by R. Be LL.D.,
on h:s petition presented on the 3d of February
last, complaining of an undue Election for the
Borough of Great Griinsby.

INVERKEITHING ELECTION.
The following Members were chosen by ballot as the Com-
mittee to try the merits of the InVerkeithing Election :•-•
Sir H. W. Clinton, Mr. G. Mundy, Mr. J. Ramsbottom,
Mr. E. I. Littleton, Sir W. De Crespigny. Mr. J. S. Morritt,
Mr.J. Fleming, Lord Glerawley, Mr. J. Hunter Blair, Mr.
B. L. Lister, Mr. H. Fynes, Mr. George Gipps, Earl Tem-
ple, Mr. J. H. Smith, and Sir George Clerk.
Mr. CHUTE presented a petition, signed by 500 most re-
spectable owners and occupiers of land, in the County of
Hants, praying for a revision of the Corn Lairs, arid a fur-
ther duty on the importation of foreign corn.—Read, and or-
dered to lie on the table.
ARMY ESTIMATES.
Lord PALMERSTON presented art abstract of the Army
Estimates for this year.—Ordered to lie on the table, and to
be printed.

I IRISH ELECTION PETITIONS.
The Clerk of the Crown presented a Return of the State
of the Recognizances to be entered into on the various pe-
titions complaining of undue Elections in Ireland.
Sir .iOHN NEWPORT ruse to present a petition from the
Agent acting in London on behalf of the Freeholders of the
Counft• of Cork, whose petition had been presented on the
2-id of January last, complaining of an undue return in the
Elections for that County. The present petition prayed that
time for entering the recognizances on the former petition
might he enlarged. The ground on which the prayer of the
petition was supported, was, that an opinion had prevailed,
almost universally throughout Ireland, that the Act of .5Jd
Geo. 111. which prescribed the time within which rrcog-
nizances should be entered on Election Petitions, did not ex-
tend to Ireland. The petition stated that several opinions
from high legal authorities confirmed this construction of the
Act.
The petition was then read. On the motion that it should
lie on the table,
Mr. WYNNE said, that according to the general rule laid
down by the House, the prayer of this Petition could not he
attended to. To state that the Petitioner or the party con-
cerned had acted on a misconception of that rule was not a
sufficient reason to induce the House to depart from the rule.
In the present Case the misconception Was most extraordinary,
and yet it was one which seemed to have pervaded the whole
of Ireland. The only ground on which he could conceive it
to have been founded was, that the operation of the first
clause of the Act seas expressly confined to England and Scot-
land. But then the other parts of the Act most explicitly
Comprehended Ireland. Yet throughout the latter country
the opinion prevailed that the operation of the Act did not
extend to it ; nor teas this mistahe confined to a few persons,
for even persons of a high reputations in the Law had fallen
into it. Amongst the rest, Mr. Gabbett, a lawyer, whose
character stood deservedly very high, and who was the Au-
thor of " A Digest of the Comparative State of the Laws of
England and Ireland," had made the very same mistake. In
so extraordinary a case he did think that it might be allow-
able for Parliament to grant the prayer of this Petition. At
the same time he could not but remark that it was not in the
power of the House to extend this indulgence generally
Perhaps a remedy for this particular class of cases might be
provided by passing a short Act, which should recite the
prevalence of the mistake in Ireland, and enact that there-
fore a further time should be allowed for entering the
recognizances on Petitions already presented frost► that
country.
Mr. BATHURST thought the question deserved t7ie serious
consideration of the House. As to introducing any Bill to
settle the question, it was to be considered that its ,)peratiou
would be retrospective, and as such he could not think it de-
sirable.

Mt. lIANKES thought it desirable for the House to come
to some decision on the general question. Under the circum-
stances of the mistake having been so general and extensive,
he rather agreed with the view taken of the subject by his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynne). It would, therefore, perhaps, he
proper for the House to resume the consideration of the sub-
ject on sonic future day.
Thy Petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT gave notice, that he would to-
morrow submit to the House a motion upon the subject of it.
The SPEAKER said, that after what had passed on this
subject, it would perhaps be proper for him to apprise the
House that two other applications had already been made to
them on the same subject, but that no definitive order had been
yet entered upon the Journals respecting them, nor had the
applications yet been absolutely discharged. The Order With
respect to them stood on the Order Book. The observations
which might be offered to the House, now or on a future oc-
casion, would therefore include the ease of the Drogheda
and Galway Petitions, as well as that just now laid upon
the table.

Mr. WYNNE thought that, under the present circumstan-
ces, there were several considerations which demanded the
attention of the House. The words of the Act expressly pro-
vided that the time fur entering the recognizances could only
be enlarged once. But, on looking into the precedents on
this subject, he found that on several occasions the House
had thought itself competent to revive as well as to enlarge
the time. The Shaftesbury case he thought a sufficient au-
thority on this point.
The SPEAKER begged to remind the House that in two
out of the three cases in which the application kad now been
made fur enlarging the time, that application had been re-
fused by the House ; tberufure, if on the Petition now pre-
sented an order was made fur enlarging the time, there would
appear on the Journals contradictory ordurs on precisely the
same question.