The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-02-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY.

Mr. CREsswELL_presented two petitions from the mayor
and corporation of Liverpool, one praying for leave to bring
in a bill to amend the law relative to courts of request, and
the other praying for leave to bring in a bill to amend the
church building act of that town.
Mr. AGLIONBY brought up a report from the committee
on private bills, finding that the standing orders had been
complied with the case of the London and Birmingham rail-
way bill, and the Rugby and Warwick road bill. Leave was
given to bring in the bills.
A great number of petitions for private bills were presented,
and referred to the committee on private bills. Petitions for
and against the repgal of the corn-laws, and on other subjects,
were also presented.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the Preston and
Wyre railway company, praying for leave to bring in a bill to
extend their line.

THE CASE OF MR. D. W. HARVEY.

Mr. WYNNE brought up the report of the select committee
appointed on Mr. Harvey's case, which was to the following
effect :—Resolved, that the committee consider that under the
provisions of the 6th of Anne, chap. 7, 41 George 111., chap.
52, and 1 and 2 Victoria, chap. 79, the office of registrar of
hackney carriages is a new office of profit under the crown,
within the intent and meaning of the said acts: that Mr. D.
W. Harvey has accepted the said office, and has thereby va-
cated his seat.

Mr. WYNNE said t'he decision of the committee was unani-
mous, and they were assisted by the law officers of the crown ;
under these circumstances, unless any hon. gentleman wished
for time in order to induce the house to come to a different
conclusion, he thought it due to the electors of the borough
of Southwark not to keep them without a representative for
that borough any longer, and he therefore moved that a new
writ be now issued.

On the question being put-that the motion be agreed to,
Mr. HUME said he had no hesitation in expressing his con-
currence in the opinion of the committee, and the question
appeared to him as plain a one as could possibly be submit-
ted.• (Hear.) He rose only to state that there had been
many instances of members of that house receiving the pub-
lic money, and being appointed to public offices, without va-
cating their seats, and without any notice being taken of it,
and it would appear that the objection in the present case
was directed against Mr. Harvey. (Cries of " Hear, hear,"
from the ministerial benches, and " No, no," from the oppo-
sition.) He hoped that the rule which had now been enforced
would in future be rigidly observed, and that there would be
no ground henceforth given for any imputation as to the par-
tiality of the house, for there was nothing so important as
that strict impartiality should be observed in their procedings,
and no person ought to be injured by that house on account
of his political opinions. There was no doubt this was a very
hard case as to Mr. Harvey, who, however, had frankly
avowed that whatever might be the decision of that house,
he would avoid putting them to any embarrassment or un-
certainty.
Mr. WARD, as one of the committee, felt bound to say the
case was so clear, and the facts so settled, that there was not
the slightest shadow of a shade of doubt upon the subject,
and the committee deemed that they were only discharging a
public duty in putting an end to the uncertainty with regard
to the borough of Southwark, by the report which they had
presented.
Mr. AGLIONBY would not have said a word but for the
assertion of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that
there was not a shadow of a shade of doubt among the com-
mittee—(a laugh)—which was not strictly correct, for he
(Mr. Aglionby) had suggested a doubt, which doubt he still
felt, although on the committee he had submitted to a supe-
rior legal authority, whether there was not a distinction be-
tween the acceptance of an office to which a salary was at the
time of its acceptance attached, and the acceptance of an
office to which there was only a contingent and uncertain
salary. In this latter case he did not think that, as the
Court of Queen's Bench could not grant a mandamus, nei-
ther did the rule of vacating the seat in that house apply.
Sir R. PEEL wished the hon. member would name the in-
dividuals to whom he alluded.
Mr. HUMS said that the member for Kilmarnock, the
member for Dundee, and about a dozen other gentlemen
might be named.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he felt it to be
his duty to say a few words on the subject. He might, per-
haps, not express himself so clearly on the subject as if he
had been present the other night—but he believed there could
be no doubt of the fact, that before the election the hon.
gentleman had applied on the subject of the appointment,
when he, was informed that the re-appointment would take
place as a matter of course under the woods and forests, or
under the authority of the Treasury. With regard to gentle-
men accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, which was constantly
occurring, gentlemen were in the habit of applying for the
stewardship to the Chiltern Hundreds, and between making
of the appointment and the acceptance of the office a delay of
two or three days frequently took place, and yet there is no
instance of a new writ being moved for by that house during
this interval on the ground of appointment to the office. In
fact it was the acceptance of the office, and not the making
out of the appointment, that brought the law into operation.
If irregularity had occurred, he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) was responsible for it, and it arose out of an uncer-
tainty as to what department it should be referred to.
Mr. JERVIS certainly would not have mentioned the case
at all if the right hon. gentleman had not wished to know if
there had been any case at all analagous to it. (Much laugh-
ter, and cries of "hear, hear.") Whether he might be right
or wrong he really had no motion. He contended that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had no authority to give the
office ; he merely recommended the appointment to the
crown, by whom the office was granted, and he subsequently
signified his approval in the usual manner. Although the
appointment was made in March, the office was not legally
given until the patent was actually made out. It seemed to
him, therefore, that if they were to act with strict impar-
tiality, and seek to subject the hon. member to penalties for
every vote he had given, that some further inquiry was neces-
sary.
The motion was then agreed to.

CRIME IN IRELAND.
Mr. SHAW gaire notice that on 7th March he should move
for papers relating to the state of Ireland, particularly copies
of any reports and' communications respecting crime and out-
rage in that country.

GRAND JURIES.
Mr. PRYME gave notice that he should, on the 7th March,
move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish grand juries in
England and Wales. (Laughter.)

PROTECTION OF SHIPS FROM LIGHTNING.
An hon member gave notice that, on the 26th instant, he
should move for a select committee to inquire into the state-
ments of Captain Harris, on the subject of the protection of
ships from lightning.

LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.

Mr. HUME gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he should
move a resolution that no more lord lieutenants should be
appointed for Ireland.

IRISH MEDICAL CHARITIES.

In answer to a question from Colonel CONOLLY,
Lord MORPETH said it was not in the contemplation of
her majesty's government to introduce any proposition re-
specting the Irish medical chanties. The bill passed in the
course of last session, to connect the administration of the
medical charities with the poor laws, it was not intended to
modify or repeal.
ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
Mr. GOULBOURN wished to ask the noble lord, the secre-
tary for the home department, what course he intended to
pursue on Monday next, with respect to the bills which stood
for that day, particularly the ecclesiastical duties and reve-
nues' bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he intended to move the
second reading on that day, then make a statement as to the
objects of the bill.
Mr. GOULBOURN said that the day proposed for the second
reading had not allowed sufficient time for the consideration
of the bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that three or four years had
elapsed since the report of the commission was made. He
certainly did not think Monday next too short a notice, be-
cause it was, in fact, a notice of four years.
Mr: WYNNE thought sufficient time would not be allowed
to
.set up petitions on the subject..
- JOHN RUSSELL, 1.0 answer to a question said, there
Ime alteration in the ecclesiastical duties bill of
b._-1p
.1

7 ' --:',e/r4;; • A.7i-V)
-.No -••••-• ..;:''ic, .v :
( la
i" \-,-. -

POSTAGE.
led whether Chancellor of the Exi

chequer intended to bring forward any measure for the reduc-
tion of postage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he should
not introduce any measure until he had seen the report of
the select committee on the subject.