Star.
London, England, 1807-02-10 00:00:00

IRISH ELECTION!•

Sir JOHN NEWPORT moved the Order of the Day for going
into a Committee on the Adt for amending the silth of the King,
(called the Grenville Ad), for regulating the Trial of Cootefted
Eleetions for Ireland.
A fter tome obfervatlons from Mr. BAaev and Mr.WAYyNxe,
the Houfe went into the Committee, and the Bill was ordered to
be reported to morrow.

THI ILECTION LAWS.

Mr. SIMEON rote, purfuant to notice, to move
for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the
Aft of the 28th of the King, for the Regulation of
the Trials of Controverted Eleaions, commonly
called the Grenville A& As to the At in general,
he was as fenfible as any man of the good effeas of
it, 2nl of the merit that was due to the author. He
hoped, therefore, no Gentleman in the Houle would
for a moment fuppofe that he bad prefumption or
confidence enough to endeavour to (hake the founda-
tion of that falutary Aft, or even to alter it in any
of its molt important provifions. He did not mean
to tibjea at all to the foundation or the general prin-
ciples of that Bill, but to fubmit to the confedera-
tion of Parliament, whether it could not, in one
refpeft, be altered for the better. The judicature
which that Aft had pointed out to try and determine
the merits of Elation Petitions, confilted of either
fifteen, fourteen, or thirteen Members. In the cafes
of the numbers being fifteen or thirteen, it was evi-
dent that the votes could not be equal, and therefore
there was no pollibility of that thing happening
which he thought thould be preyented, namely, the
Chairman of the Committee giving a double vote.—
The Grenville At appointed, that when the num-
bers were equal, the Chairman thould have the cat
ling vote, which gave him in tome cafes two voices.
He voted firft as a Member of the Committee, and
then, in cafe of an equality of votes, he afterwards
gave his calling voice. This, however, only could
happen in the cafe of the Committee confifling of
fourteen, and dividing equally. Such a cafe had
lately occurred in the Committee for trying the
Ma/den Petition, and it 'was by the calling voice of
the Chairman of the Committee fo given, that the
merits of the Elation were decided. It (truck him
forcibly, that 'this was an advantage which ought
not to be given to the Chairman of the Committee.
There was no analogy in favour of veiling this right
of voting twice in the Chairman. In the Houfe of
Commons, the Speaker has no vote, unlefs to deftroy
an equality. In the other judicatures of the country,
When the Judges were equally divided, nothing was
done, and there was no example in any of the judi-
crures of the country of one pais haying a double
voice. He thought it would be the better way, that
the Chairman of the Committee &wild not he per-
mitted to vote, except in cafes of eqtiality. He was
generally the perfon whom the Committee fele/led
on account of his experience, his talents, and thole
qualifications which raife a man to refpea among his
equals. His voting might produce an unfair bias or
influence on the minds of the reit of the Committee.
He thought it was not light to ltultify the other mem-
bers of the Committee, by giving fuch extraordinary
privileges to the Chairman, and it therefore appeared
to him, that it would be right to' follow the analogy
of the other judicatures, and not allow the Chairman
a calling voice, or elle not to allow him to vote at all
unlefs the numbers lhould be equal. As thefe ob-
fetvations had been Itrungly impiefled on his mind
from the recent occurrence in the Malden Cominit-
tee, he thought it was his duty to bring the fubjefl
before the confederation of the Houle, and with that
view, he moved for leave to bring in a Bill to that
ale& ' ' • • •. •

Mr. BANKES thought that it would be greatly

•

better to let the law liana as it is at prefcnt. In tit,
cafe of there being fouttetu Members in the Corn
snittee, by the law as it now Rands, a determination
can he atained; but, by the alteration propnled by
the Hun. Member, either there mutt he no decifirm
for want of a calling voice, or elfe the Chairman was
to be deprived of the right of voting. The general
object of the law was to put a flop to litigation: that
obje& would be defeated, if the fiat remedy irroprfed
was agreed to, as then there would be no de.cition ;
and as to the mode of preventing an equality, by not
allowing the Chairman to vote, it would appear unjult
to deprive that man, feleeted by the Committee for
his fuperior knowledge, of the privilege' enjoyed by
' all the other Members. Thinking that the law was
better as it now flood, he could not agree even to
granting leave to bring in a Bill of the nature men-
, timed by the Honourable Gentleman.

Mr. WYNNE agreed perfealy with the arguments
of the lift fpeaker. For the left thirty years, there
was no complaint or fulpicion of any Committee hav-
ing aced through partiality, or of any Chairman
having given his calling voice through any improper
motives. If the Honourable Gentleman was to take
his analogy from that Houfe, he (hould alfo carry
it fo far as to fay the Chairman fhould not give any
opinion, for fear of inP.ueacing the Committee, al-
though it was for the benefit to be derived from his
talents and experience that he was feteded as Chair-
man. The advice and opinion of the Chairman al-
ways had confiderable weight, and he could fee no
reafon why he fhould :rat have a vote as a Member,
or who was more fit to give a calling vote, in cafe
of equality.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought, that no
inconvenience could arife from the law as it nlw
Rands, but that a ferinus inconvenience would refult
from depriving the Chairman of the calling vote,
in cafe of equality. Suppofing the Committee con-
fated of fourteen Members, and were divided feven
againft feven, he could fee no manner of reafon why
the feven who were oppofite to the opinion of the
Chairman, fhould determine it in preference to the
feven which included the Chairman, efpecially as it
was allowed that the Chairman was generally a man
feleßed from the opinion of his fuperior talents or
judgment. This would be the cafe if the meafure
propofed by the Hon. Gentleman were to be adopted.
as when the Chairman was prevented from voting,
the numbers would be feven to fix. He therefore
thought that it would be much better, in fuch a cafe,
that the feven, among whom the Chairman was in-
cluded, fhould have the determination in fuch a cafe.
As the only objed of the Bill moved for was to alter
the law in this refpet, and as he thought it better as
it now Rood, he mull oppofe the motion.
Mr. SIMEON, teeing the fenfe of the Houfe
againll him, obtained leave to withdraw his motion.
Lord FOLKSTONE then moved for leave to bring
in a bill to amend the Paid Ad in another point. He
hoped that the Houfe would not be prejudiced againft
his motion, on account of the decifion of the lift.
The part of the Glenville Ad which he wifhed to
amend, was that which related to the notices to be
given to the parties petitioned againft, of the recog.
zances entered into on the part of the petitioners. By
the refolutions of the Houle, notice muff be given to
the party in the courfe of thirty days after the peti-
tion, but in a very remarkable cafe which lately oc-
curred, (the Dublin Petition) the petitioners were
not able to find Mr. Grattan to ferve him with fuch
notice until the period was near expired. A number
of petitions were frufirated, for want of petitioners
being acquainted with the forms prefcribed by the
orders of that Houfe : he therefore thought it was
neceffary to give thofe forms more publicity, by hav-
ing them prefcribed by a pofitive Ad of Parliament.
For this purpofe, he moved for leave to bring in a bill.
Mr. WYNNE oppofed the motion. He did not fee
that any pradical good was propofed from it, as the
Noble Lord prof-died nothing more than to fubßitute
an At of Parliament in the place of the orders and
refolutioas of that Houfe. It did not appear that
any man, or body of men, that came to that Houfe
as petitioners, had a right to alledge that they were
entirely ignorant of the orders and refolutions of the
Houfe upon thofe fubjeds. It was their duty to have
made themfelves acquainted with them. The refolu-
tions of the Houfe of Commons, in this refpel, were
already recognized by the Grenville Ad, and he had
heard no arguments that coula at all convince him
that that Ad was not fuffiCient.
The motion of Lord FOLKSTONE was then ne-
gatived.