The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-03 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF READING.

Mr. R. GRANT rose to present a petition from the
Electors of the Borough of Reading. The petitioners stated

that George Spence and Fyshe Palmer, Esqrs. were can-
didates at the last Election for that Borough ; and that the
former Gentleman was returned. The Committee, how-
ever, to whom the validity of that Election had been,re-
fared, had decided that Mr. Palmer was the Member duly
elected. The petitioners stated that they were competently
advised that the Committee had not, by the Act of Parlia-
ment, any power to determine whether the party were the
proper person to be returned. All they had any power to
do was, to decide whether Mr. Spence were or were not
duly elected ; aid in the event of their deciding this in the
negativC, ',here ought to have been a new Election. The
case of the petition rested upon 10 Geo. 111. c. 16, sec.
18. The power which this Act gave to Election Com-
mittees was not to decide whether the petitioner or the
Sitting Member were properly returned, but merely to
declare whether the return of the Sitting Member were
valid or invalid ; and, if invalid, to direct a new Election.
He wished the subject to go to a Select Committee.
Upon the question that the petition be brought up,

Mr. S. RICE said, if he rightly understood the petition
it complained of a sett being held by a Member of that
House, and no petition of that character could be received
without a violation of the Standing Order. The petition
complained against the decision of a Comrnittelei elvera.,
upon their oaths to do impartial justice between the par-
ties ; and if complaints were to be allowed, it would have
the effect of reintroducing that which the Grenville, Act
had provided against. He trusted, under these circum-
stances, that the petition might not be pressed.
Air. R. GRANT said the question was, whether the
petition should or should not be received?

Mr. MONCK said it had been objected that the petition
against the Return came, not from the late Candidate (Mr.
C. F. Palmer), but from certain of the Electors ; but it

appeared to him that an elector had as much right to peti-
tion against what he conceived to be an undue return as
any candidate whatever. The Committee had, in the due
exercise of the power entrusted to them, declared Mr.
Spence unduly elected, and further, that the election fell
on Mr. Palmer ; and if they were to allow such petitions
as this to be received, there would be no end to them, as
there would be nothing else but new elections, and the ap-
pointment of new Election Committees.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, the simple question to be
decided was, whether this petition be received, and in his
view there could be no possible objection to it. The Com-
mittee having, upon their oaths, decided the late Reading
Election to he in faveur of Mr. Palmer, it was altogether
impossible that the House could now turn round upon that
Committee, and say they had done that which was en-
tirely wrong. There was, however, a point beyond this,
upon which it would be right to present this petition. If

the Hon. Member thought that the law upon which this
decision was made was a bad or inconvenient one, and
ought to he amended, then he had an undoubted right to
commence, by taking this mode of complaining of it. But
so far as it affected the decision of the Committee, it was
altogether inadmissible.
Mr. C. W. WYNN agreed with his Hon. and Learned
Friend who had just sat down, in the construction which
he had put upon the Act of Geo. 111. It was the same
construction which had been put upon it ever since the House
had made the Act a part of the law of the land. The pre-
sent was by no means a new case. Indeed, the House had
always shown a great regard to the rights of electors, and
in cases where sitting Members had refused to defend their
seats, had compelled their committees to decide whether
their return was legal or not, to prevent their compromis-
ing the rights of the electors. He had no objection to
letting the petition be laid on the table ; but he thought
that nothing could be so dangerous as for the House to draw
back to itself the pow er of revising the decisions of election
committees en the allegation which was here made of some
special mistake in its proceedings.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT would not allow any interfer-
ence with the decisions of election committees.
Mr. S. RICE contended that the. present petition was an
election petition, and therefore could not be received in con-
formity with the rules of Parliament. Such petitions must
be presented within 14 days after the return ought to he
made. Now, though the return of Mr. Palmer had only
just been made, it ought to have been made at the time of
the election. The 14 days, therefore, were to be reckoned
from the first meeting of Parliament, and within that pe-
riod this petition had never made its appearance.
Mr. F. LEWIS thought, that the best thing which the
Hon. Member who had presented this petition could do
with it, would be to withdraw it. There were several
statements in it against which objection must be taken at
present ; but if the Hon. Member would get those state-
ments withdrawn, he might present another petition to the
House, offering to prove that Mr. Palmer had been guilty
of bribery at the last Election, which, irproved, would dis-
qualify him from taking his seat during the present Parlia-
ment.

Y
--
The SPEAKER then put the question as to whether the
re
petition should be brought up. The Ayes and Noes ap-
peared to be nearly equal on the subject. Strangers were
ordered to
;hut n'henup, andth orderedegallery
to was
be Nearlyad
w
cleared, the petitionithdr IVas brought
It purported to come from T. Dundas, Rear-Admiral

in the Navy, and complained that the majority by which
F. Palmer had been declared duly returned, by a Commit-
tee of the House of Commons, had been gained by illegal
means, and that the said Mr. F. Palmer was therefore
disqualified to sit in the present Parliament. It therefore
prayed the House either to issue a writ for a new eleetion
for a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of
Reading, or else to allow the petitioner sufficient time to
frame a petition against Itlr. Palmer's return, or else to
seemedgive h
to require.imtstch" other relief as the circumstances of his case
On -the question that the petition be laid upon the table,

Mr. C. W. WYNN contended, that if the sitting mem-
ber had been returned only by a colourable majority, he
had a right, tl,Jugh not a petitioner, to show' before the
Comm.:" .! that the other candidate had been guilty of
bribery, inasmuch as the question before the Committee
was, which of the two was " duly elected," words which
admitted either party to prove, if they could, undue prac-
tices against the other. For that reason he could not allow
the decision on the last Reading Election to be impugned
in any of the modes suggested by the petitioner on the pre-
sent occasion. It was quite clear that the House could not
issue a new writ, as that would be setting aside the decision
of the Election Committee, which declared Mr. Palmer
duly elected. It was equally clear that the House could
not grant him time to petition against Mr. Palmer's re-
turn, as that would be in direct violation to its owu rule,
refusing to receive any election petition after the expiration
of 14 days after the return ought to have been made to the
House. The last mode, which the petitioner suggested,
was as objectionable as either of the'other two, for reasons
which he would not trouble the House with detailing. He
suggested that the petition ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if suck petitions were
suffered to be laid upon the table of the House, petitions
against election returns would be forced upon their notice
day after day.
Mr. R. GRANT said that, in compliance with the wish
of the House, he would consent to withdraw the petition.
The petition was withdrawn accordingly.
dreSdir
s iC. U
nBRRE
Sussex,
anLdLmprr.usEend a
.tewoppEeitiiotuiosnE
afrompetittwiono hfruon-
m
a village in Norfolk, praying that protection might be
granted to the Agricultural Interests.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from certain inha-
bitants of Edinburgh, declaring their approval of the scale
of duties named in the corn resolutions, but praying that
those duties might be paid on the landing of the corn, and
that no bonding might be allowed.—Laid on the table.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a petition from the own-
. _ _

ers and occupiers of land in the county of Westmeath,
praying that the agricultural interest should be efficiently
supported,
Sir A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the ship-
owners of Glasgow, praying for the due protection of the
shipping interest.
Mr. CHAPLIN presented a petition from the land-
owners of Stamford, praying for farther protection to the
agricultural iuterast.
Mr. BROWNLOW presented a petition from the tan-
ners of Newry, for the repeal of the duty on leather.
Mr. ESTCOURT gave notice, that he would on Mon-
day next submit a motion to the House relative to the
licensing of public-houses.
Mr. D. GILBERT presented a petition from the owners
and occupiers of land in the parish of Brotherton, Sussex,
against any alteration in the corn laws.
Mr. C. MAXWELL presented a petition from the land-
owners and commissioners of supply of the county of Lanark,
against the corn-bonding system.
Mr. WESTERN presented a petition from the land-