The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-09 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Speaker took the Chair at four o'clock.
A considerable number of Members, not previously sworn, took
the oaths and their seats. •

Mr. HIRST moved for a new writ for the borough
of Horsham, in the room of the Honourable Mr. Fox, who, since
his election, has accepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hun-
dreds.—Ordered.

A new writ was also ordered for the Borough of Cockermouth,
in the room of Carus Wilson, Esq., who, since his election, has
accepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.
EXCHEQUER.

An account of the Number of Causes entered in the Court of
Exchequer, with those tried during the kat seren years, was'
brought up, and ordered to be printed.
COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS.

The SPEAKER said, before entering upon private
business, he felt it necessary to inform the House, that he had
ordered fresh lists to he made out of the Members to be called
upon to serve on Committees on Private Bills, the former mode
of appointing those Committees having been very irregular. The
principle upon which be had endeavoured to equalise the Members
for the different counties brought the numbers down to 120 fur
each. The mode in which the lists were made out was this ;
by the Members of the County from which the Private Bill came
and to their number were added as many from the adjacent Conn
ties as made up 60 ; to that 60 were added from the more distant
Counties, in order to make each Committee as general as possible.
He had delivered the lists so made up to the Clerk of the House,
and from those lists the Committees on the different Private Bills
would be appointed.
BOROUGH OF DENBIGH.
Mr. SPENCE presented a petition from John
Heaton, Esq., and other Electors of the Borough of Penbigh, who
had petitioned against the return of the Honourable F. R. West for
that borough. The petitioner Heaton stated, that he had, through
the omission of his agent, omitted to comply with the forms of the
Act of the 53d George 111., in consequence of, which the time al-
lowedfoor catering
iinto the
etling to necessary
securities, had ex-
pireread the petition at
d. byT law,heff
Hon. Member
length, when he was interrupted 'by cries of " Older, order_
Chair, their."
The SPEAKER informed the lion. Member,
at hr
iaste i
at
awtmo ewro
hn rt ah re yr toa
pt
eh
tei
tfm forms
n described
the H otuos etlfloer
Rano
uynMeebnei
should
dr
bto
e
yuetsbtieonmight
Lad lq,
rree
eaedi
vaedp, e tai
ntido,n
iuft
read length
at upon
tpresentingb
ei t
Clerk—
(Hear, hear).
Mr. SPENCE went on to observe, that the peti-
tioner had petitioned the House in the usual form, and that upon
attending at the Speaker's
office, to comply with the forms of the
28th Geo. 111., as be understood he was bound to do, he was there
informed that that was not sufficient, but that he must also com-
ply with the 53d Geo. 111., which requires the petitioner to enter
into his own recognieances for 1,0001., and give two auntie, of
5001. each ; that the time allowed by law for such purpose being
nearly expired, and his place of residence being snore than 200
miles distant, he petitioned the House for further, time within
which to comply with the necessary forms, the prayer of =which
petition the House had not thought proper to grant. Petitioner
re-stated the circumstances which had caused the delay, and prayed,
that as they were merely forme inadvertently passed over_by
Iris
agent, and from the omission to comply with which no injury had
been done or prejudice created, further time might be allowed to
him, as otherwise the merits of the case which he bound himself
to establish could never be entered into.
The petition having been read,
The. SPEAKER asked what the Honourable Member_ further
meant_ to propose ? _ _

Mr. SI'ENCE proposed that the prayer of the Petition be
granted.

The SPEAKER said, that the only course in
such a case was to have the truth of the statements contained in
the petition verified upon oath, and then the House would deal
with it as they should think proper.
Mr.
situation
before stipulation
he had
b hadet n
exa-
mined,beenlr.
put S
into P E
hisN handsC E saasihdocttliat
time the
before Pheet
entereditioii bt
the
H 00 nu
sl
ey
been,
or else he should have taken care to have the truth of its contents
properly authenticated. He should therefore move, that the
Agent should be called to the bar and examined.
Mr. DAWSON did not think the prayer of the
Petitioncould
precisely be
omitted, and that, too, by a person professing to understand and
e
y i n granted.
th sameA An
sua important
conduct the business of Election Petitions. Besides, the Agent
omitted,
been preand the House had decided against the prayer of the
c
Petition. He, therefore, called upon the House to reject the
Petition. •

The SPEAKER said, that if the petition were
withdrawn, the original Order would ha withdrawn, as a matter
of course.
The petition was withdrawn, and the former Order was
discharged.

PRESTON ELECTION PETITION.
The SPEAKER reported, that Wm. Cobbctt,
Eaq., who had presented a petition complaining of an undue elec-
tion for the Borough of Preston, 'had not entered into the neces-
slrY rocognizances to prosecute the same aceording to
into
direc-
tions of the Act. The Order for taking the petition consi-
deration on a future day, was of course disclaarged.
WATERFORD ELECTION.
The SPEAKER reported, that James Paul Gee,

Esq. had not entered into recognizances to prosecute his petition,
complaining of an undne return for the county of Waterford.
Mr. CROKER said, that he had been entrusted
with a petition from Mr. Gee, praying for further time to com-
plete the recognizances, on the ground that some formality had
been accidentally omitted. He should move that the debate on
the petition be deferred to a future day.
The Petition was then read. It stated, that the name of one
of the sureties bad been inserted in an affidavit upon an erasure.,
which was considered by the proper officer an informality.

Mr. CROKER moved, " That the prayer of the
petition be pro forma' complied with."
The SPEAKER remarked, that if the object were
to take the discussion on a future day, it would not be necessary
that the House should even pro formd consent to the prayer of
the petition.
Mr. WYNN agreed in this view of the subject.

Mr. -S. RICE wished to know whether, according
to the terms of the Act, any witness was in attendance to swear to
the truth of the contents of the petition ?
Mr. CROKER thought it probable, but did not know the fact.

Mr. WYNN enforced the necessity of uniformity
in the practice of the House in cases of this kind. For this
reason, previous decisions upon the same question ought to be
examined. The general rule certainly was that the House would
not allow further time in eases of inattention or inadvertence.

Mr. ABERCROMBY said, that the uniform prac-
tice had been, that on the presentation of a petition of this kind,
the acts should be substantiated upon oath. No undue advantage
ought to be given to the petitioner over the sitting Member ; and
before the discussion on the petition was, even postponed, it ought
to be ascertained whether the party presenting it was ready to
verify it upon oath.
Mr: CROKER had been informed that the peti-
tioner and his Agent were both in attendance for that purpose.
Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that there could be
no doubt as to the construction of the Act of Parliament : the order
for taking the petition into consideration was ,to be discharged,
" unless, on matters specially stated to the satisfaction of the
House, and verified on oath, the House shall see cause to enlarge
the time for entering into such recognizances."

Mr. WYNN thought that the House had the
power to fix the convenient time for examining the party upon oath.

Mr. BROUGHA3I and Mr. SCARI,ETT each said a few words to
the same point ; after which,
Mr. J. P. Gee was called in, and being sworn at the Bar, de-
posed to the truth of the contents of his petition.
Mr. CROKER then moved, that the time for entering into
recognizances be enlarged to the let March.
Mr. ABERCROMBY thought that the opposite party ought
to have an opportunity, if they liked to avail themselves of it, of
examining Mr. Gee again.
Mr. CROKER added, that he meant to adjourn further pro-
ceedings on the petition to Tuesday next.
It was then ordered that the petition be printed ; and, on the
motion of Mr. S. RICE, that the petitioner attend again on Tuesday.
The order for taking into consideration the petition of Mr.
Ogilvie, complaining of an undue return for Sudbury, was dis-
charged for want of recognizances.
The same Order was made for the same reason with regard to
the petition of John Darcy, Esq., which complained of an undue
return for the County of Galway.
The Order on the petition of C. P. Leslie, Esq., respecting the
Monaghan Election, and the return of Mr. Westenra, was also
discharged on a similar ground.
William Treweller, not having entered into his recognizances,
the Order on his petition, complaining of an undue return for
the Borough of St. Ives, was discharged.
The petition of Anthony Marmion, Esq., complaining of an
undue return for Dundalk, not having been supported by recog-
nizances, the Order made upon it was discharged.