The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-14 00:00:00

DENBIGH ELECTION.

Mr. SHADWELL rose to present a Petition from
Mr. West, one of the Members returned for Denbigh. This was
the case of a doable return, and the other Member had given due
notice to the Speaker that he did not mean to defend his seat,
and the Petitioner complained that the consideration of the ques-
tion had been postponed to the 22d of March, whereas he ought
to have been immediately declared to be the sitting Member, be-
cause it was contrary to the Act of Parliament to allow new
persons to come in and prosecute the Petition against him.
Mr. WYNN said, that there was not the slightest
ground for the prayer of the Petitio.i. It was necessary that the
time fixed by the House should be allowed. The other Member,
Mr. Ablett, was not the only party interested in the return.—
Some of his constituents might choose to defend his seat, and if
that was the case, he bad no right to abdicate it.
Mr.
hardship.DinAiiiWeiedScOnNmic.ownessitd,etroedcotnhtinatueittoweo.udlucidbeeh
mg
fr
re. amt
his seat when his competitor had resigned his pretensions.
The Petition having been ordered to he on the table,
Mr. DAWSON rose again to move that Counsel
should be heard at the Bar of the House to-morrow, in support of
the petitioner's claims ; but on a suggestion from the Chair, the
Hon. Gentleman substituted as his motion, that the petition should
be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Mr. WYNN objected decidedly to the motion.—
With so clear a case as that before the House, nothing could be so
ohjectionable as the course proposed by this motion, according to
which the House were to hear Counsel as to the mode in which
thsy should exercise their own peculiar functions. Such a prece-
dent had never been established, and he trusted never would be.
Sir J. NEWPORT regarded the motion as a direct
abrogation of the Grenville Act, by which the House had very
properly divested itself of the power to do what this motion would
call upon it to perform.
Mr. SHADWELL said, that under these circum-
stances he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. BROUGHAM reminded his Hon. and
Learned Friend that he could not do so, as the motion was not
his.—(A laugh.)
Mr. DAWSON then declared, that though he
still considered the case a very great hardship to Mr. West, he
felt it his duty, in obedience to the voice of the House, to con-
sent to withdraw the petition.
Mr. Secretary PEEL remarked, that so many ques-
tions had arisen this Session on the construction of the Election
Laws, that he felt any man would perform a great public service
who would consolidate the existing Acts. By having all the pro-
visions of those Statutes comprised in one law, the inconsis-
tencies from which so much inconvenience resulted would be
, prevented.
Mr. CROKER contended that Mr. West would
suffer very undeservedly, if he was not allowed at once to take
his seat. He would be in a much worse situation than if Mr.

Ablett had persevered in his opposition. 'here would be now
thirty days during which his right might be contested, instead of
fourteen only, as in the other case.
Mr. WYNN repeated his objection to the prayer
of the petition. Because Sortie of the parties, who had a right to
question Mr. West's return, had ntlected to exercise their rights,
it did not follow that others should be denied Ile perfectly
concurred with his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) as to the I.'ery
great inconvenience that resulted from the present state of the elec-
tion laws. He trusted they would be amended before another ge-
neral election. So convinced was he of the importance of the mea-
sure, that he would Ilt4d introduced it himself last Session, but
that he felt, on consideration, that it raid be better to postpone
the subject to the new Parliament, as the cage 4 ihAi qvnuld arise
during the first Session; would enable him to deal Mote satiAfae-
torily with the difficultiee that would present themselves, and cor-
rect more eflectually the existing errors and defect 4. The Right
Hon. Gentleman co :eluded by giving notice enal, course of
next Session, he would bring in.a bill for that purpose..
Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, it was distressing
that so much time was consumed in discussions relative to points
of Election Laws. It would undoubtedly be advantageous if
they were eonsoliOated. and at the same' time rendered consistent
and intelligible. What could be mole perplexing than the doubts
that existed whether. the 53d of Geo. 111. extended to Ireland ?

Mr. PEEL, in otp dna ion, said, that in advising
the consolidation of the Election Laws, he of cbtittle meant the
substitution of a consistent and intelligible system, and not d mere
consolidation of contradictory statutes.
After a few words from Mr.. Croker and Mr. L. Foster, the
the motion was withdrawn.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr. MACQUEEN gave notice, that on Monday,
the sth of March, he would bring in a Bill to amend the Law of
Settlement.