The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-15 00:00:00

DARTMOUTH ELECTION
PETITION.

The Committee appointed to investigate the allegations con-
tained in the petition against the return of Mr. Somes for the
borough of Dartmouth, sat yesterday, and proceeded to hear
counsels' statement and evidence. The counsel for the peti-
tioner, Mr. Moffat, were Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, 111 r.
Sergeant Kinglake, and Mr. Burcham • those for Mr. Somes
were, Messrs. Talbot, Forsyth, and Colborne.
The necessary forms:having been gone through, and the
usual resolutions adopted,
Mr. Sergeant WRANOHAM opened the case for the
petitioner. He contended that Mr. Somea was ineligible to
hold a seat in the House of Commons, inasmuch as he was a
Government contractor, and that notices to that effect had been
served in the usual way. Mr. Somes had been returned by a
majority of 7—that was to say, 125 voted for, and 118 against
him ; but notices bad been served upon persons to the amount
of 40, so that there was no defect in that part of the proceedings.
The ground on which the petitioner contended he had a right
to be the sitting Member was clear and simple; it was
this : —that any person connected in any way with a contract
under the Government for the public service should be ineli-
gible to serve as a Member of Parliament ; and this was
founded upon an Act of the Legislature passed in the year
1782, the section of which, bearing upon this case, he would
now read. The Learned Counsel then read the sec-
tion, which stated, in substance, that in order the
better to secure the freedom of election and the
independence of Parliament, any person, directly or
indirectly, connected in any way with Government contracts,
either for the benefai of himself or others, should be ineligible
to hold the place of a Member of Parliament; and that,
if he should be elected, he would be liable to a fine
of five hundred pounds per day for every day that he should
sit in Parliament under these circumstances. The Learned
Counsel then went on to say, he had been instructed to state
that evidence would be produced to prove that Mr. Somes,
before, and at, not after, the time of his election, was the owner
of certain ships employed by the Admiralty for the conveyance
of troops, and transports, and stores ; and that no subsequent
transfer of the Hon. Member's property in those ships, or no
transfer of it at the time of the election or immediately
prior to it, could save him from the disqualification unless he
was in a position to show that such transfer was a bona fide
transaction. The Learned Counsel having spoken at great
length, concluded by calling
Mr. Richard Fall, the Register of the Custom-house, who
proved that Mr. Somes had transferred shares which he
held in certain ships, to wit, the General Palmer,
the Nautilus, the Pestonjee Bomanjee, the Princess
Royal, Sir George Seymour, Java, La Belle Alliance, and the
Cadette, on and up to the 17th of December, 1844 (a short
time prior to the election), to his nephew, and other persons ;
and that there were other ships, his shares in which he had dis-
posed of, now at sea.
Mr. John James, clerk in the Admiralty-office, proved the
execution of the charter-party of each ship, the departments
they were engaged in, and the sums paid for their services.
Some 'Additional corroborative evidence having been gone
into. the Committee, at Four o'clock, adjourned till this day
at Eleven.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
On Thursday a Court of Common Council was held for the
dispatch of pubic business.
THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
Mr. LOTT having complained of a breach of the privileges of
the Court, involved in the arrangements made by the Presi-
dent and Treasurer of Christ's Hospital, for the reception of
her Majesty at Christ's Hospital on Sunday evening last,
The LORD MAYOR read the whole of the correspondence
on the subject, from which it appeared that although the chief
magistrate asserted his station as head of the City hospitals,
and claimed to be joined with the President and Treasurer in
the ceremony of receiving the Queen, the application was in-
effectual.
Some of tl•.e members of the Court expressed much dissatis-
faction at the proceedings adopted by those who superin-
tended the arrangements, and evidently considered that the