Arminianism, and other heterodoxes, for which his books had been censured in the former Parliament. But Dr. Rives, who then officiated for Brent, the vicar-general, disappointed this chal-ment for the measure, for he thought the lenge."

ding to the request of a large body of Irish proprietors, who wished it to be passed as soon as possible; they considered that delay would be very injurious. During the last year, many roads in different parts of Ireland were rendered useless by being left in an unfinished state. All that was done by the Bill was to give an opportunity to the proprietors and ratepayers, with their own money, not that of the public, to complete works that were now absolutely useless.

The EARL of ENNISKILLEN very briefly opposed the Bill.

The Standing Orders Nos. 26 and 155 were then dispensed with. After a short discussion, Bill read 3a.

On Motion that the Bill do pass, The EARL of ENNISKILLEN intimated that he should divide against it.

Some conversation took place on the

LORD MONTEAGLE said, he had not intended to divide the House against the measure. but merely to state his objections to it.

House divided on the question that the
Bill do pass :-Content 5; Not-Content 4:
Majority 1.
Bill passed.
House adjourned.

incautiously undertaken-that there was
a great waste of public money, and a great
malversation of funds. For himself, he
wondered under all the circumstances not
that abuses had existed, but that they
had not existed to a much greater extent
than they had done. Under that Bill
enormous sums of money had been voted,
and enormous works undertaken, and as a
natural consequence of stopping the sup-
plies, enormous works had been left un-
finished, and some of the best communica-
tions in the country had been completely
destroyed. Such being the case, no doubt
it was necessary to complete certain of
those works. But how did they propose
to do it? By introducing a Bill contain-
ing all the objectionable portions, with
none of the safeguards of the former Bill.
He objected altogether to the system of
special sessions. Let him give a specimen
now of a special sessions-take for exam-point, during which
ple that presided over by his noble Friend
near him (the Earl of Devon). Why, his
noble Friend, universally esteemed as he
was, and those who assisted him, had no
more power of controlling the acts of those
sessions, than they would have of arrest-
ing the tide under London-bridge. The
power was wrested entirely out of their
hands by the mob; and his noble Friend,
in his own town of Lucan, was obliged to
have the military called out, in order to
keep the semblance of regularity. The
consequence was, that there could be no
deliberation; force carried the day, the
mob ruled, and his noble Friend, who was
responsible for the law, had not a shadow
of authority. They were now again going
to bring into action that old broken me-
chanism at a time when the people were
more exasperated even than last year; and
they none of them knew what powers they
were going to give those sessions. He
could assure their Lordships, that under
that Bill, in one county alone, no less a sum
than 120,000l. could be presented by those
irresponsible sessions. He objected also
to the mode of raising the money, to the
rate of interest charged, and to the whole
of the powers, such as the diversions of
roads, &c., invested in the special sessions.
He should be unwilling, however, to ask
their Lordships to reject the Bill upon the
present occasion; but he trusted that at a
future period it might be reconsidered, and
with these remarks he left the responsi-
bility in the hands of the Government.

The EARL of DEVON said, the Bill had been introduced in the other House accor

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, December 17, 1847.

MINUTES.] NEW WRIT.-For Rye, v. Herbert Barrett
Curteis, deceased.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Arundel and Sur-

rey, from David Boswell Reid, M.D., for Production of
Correspondence relating to the Ventilation of the New
Houses of Parliament.-By Lord John Russell, from
Alexander Campbell, of Hampton Wick (Middlesex), for
Inquiry respecting the Stockport Election.-From John
Simonds, a Prisoner in the County Gaol of Aylesbury,
for the Abolition of Church Rates.-By several hon. Mem-
bers, from an immense number of places, for and against
the Removal of Jewish Disabilities.-By Mr. G. Hamil-
ton, from the Parish of Ballinderry, and the County of
Antrim, and Mr. Henley, from Shotover, Wheatley,
Forest Hill, Horsepath, and Holton, in the County of
Oxford, for Inquiry into the Conduct of the Roman Ca-
tholic Clergy (Ireland).-By the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey, from Roman Catholic Clergymen of York, and
from Nicholas Wiseman, D.D., Bishop of Melipotamus,
and others, Roman Catholic Clergymen and Laymen,
against the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill-By
Mr. Scott, from Inhabitants of several Towns in New
South Wales, against the Renewal of Transportation to
that Colony.-By Mr. Wakley, from Shefford, for Rating
Owners in Lieu of Occupiers of Tenements; and from
Clerkenwell, respecting the Improvement of that Parish.
-By Mr. W. J. Fox, from Oldham, and Mr. Stafford,
from Tipperary, against the Crime and Outrage (Ireland)
Bill, and for Measures of Amelioration.-By Mr. P. Gren-
fell, from the Preston Guardian Society for the Protec-
tion of Trade, for Alteration of Law of Debtor and Cre-
ditor.-By Mr. Alcock, from Kingston-upon-Thames, for
Sanitary Regulations.-By Lord Ashley, from the Parish

of St. Luke's, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill (1847).—By Mr. J. K. Howard, from Inhabitants of -By Captain Pechell, from Matthew Phillips, respecting the State of our National Defences; and from Poor Law Officers, for a Superannuation Fund.-From Ipswich, for

Malmesbury, for Reform of the Malmesbury Corporation.

that the tribunal in question was a statutable tribunal, with a limited authority; the provisions of the Act must, therefore, be strictly complied with, and if any steps taken under it were void ab initio, they -By Colonel Lindsay, from Manchester, for a Union could not be made valid by any subsequent Settlement.-By Mr. G. Craig, from Dysart, and Colonel proceedings. Two cases had occurred unMure, from Polokshaws, for Inquiry respecting Turn-der the law on this subject, but both under

the Suppression of Trading in Promiscuous Intercourse.

pike Roads (Scotland).

CHELTENHAM ELECTION PETITION.

the late Act, and not under the present.
They were the cases of "Brewer and
Holtham," and "Ransom and Dundas."
(The hon. Gentleman read and commented
on these cases.) The first point to be de-
cided was, whether or no the House had
jurisdiction in the case. That point, how-
ever, happened to be settled in the Wigan
case. The difficulty was this: under the
9th George IV. it was provided that the
certificate of the Speaker should be con-
clusive only as to the amount of the recog-
nisance; by the present Act, Clauses 93
and 97, it was provided that the certificate
of the Speaker, with reference to the
courts constituted under it, should be evi-
dence not alone as to the title, but also as
to all matters anterior to it. The decision
of the point, therefore, would place the
Speaker in an embarrassing position, which
induced him (Mr. Walpole) to conclude
that the House alone ought to decide it.
It was contended that by the 10th section
of the Act, the question was taken out of
the jurisdiction of the House; but as there
must be some jurisdiction somewhere, and
as there seemed to be no jurisdiction else-
where, that jurisdiction, he argued, was
therefore in the House. There were three
modes of deciding the question, either by
appeal to the Speaker, or by reference to
a Select Committee, with directions to
report thereon; or by Motion in the House
that the order for reference to the general
Committee be rescinded.
ferred adopting that which he deemed the
most regular course in the case-namely,
the second of those alternatives, he should
move that a Select Committee be appoint-
ed to inquire into the allegations contained
in the petition of Sir Willoughby Jones,
Baronet, Member for Cheltenham, pre-
sented to the House on the 14th day of
December, and to report thereon to the
House.

MR. WALPOLE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the petition of Sir W. Jones, alleging that the recognisance entered by the petitioners against his return was not in the form prescribed by law, and praying that no further proceedings may be had thereon, said, the question was one of much nicety and difficulty, and the facts were as follows: On the 26th of November a petition was presented against the return of the hon. Member for Cheltenham by six different electors. As a condition precedent to the presentation of the petition, it was required by the Act 7 and 8 Vic., c. 103, that petitioners should enter into recognisances according to the form given in the schedule. By a subsequent section it was provided that no election petition should be received unless the certificate of the examiner of recognisances was endorsed upon it to the effect that such recognisances had been entered into. In this case a recognisance had been entered into; but the recognisance required by the Act had not been entered into, and the variation between the form required by the Act and that the petitioners had entered into, was very material in point of law. The form required by the Act was, that the petitioners should pay all the costs and expenses due and payable from them, and each of them, in the event of the petition being withdrawn. The recognisance entered into by the petitioners omitted the words and each of them," the legal consequence of which, he believed, was, that if any one petitioner died or withdrew from the petition, any costs which became due and payable by a less number than the six, could not be recovered. Having thus stated the facts, he would now call attention to the law of the case. The two points he would suggest to the House were these first, that the recognisance not The SOLICITOR GENERAL was having complied with the provisions of the much mistaken if a larger and a more imAct was wholly void; and, secondly, if portant inquiry than that proposed by his there were any doubt on that point, that, hon. and learned Friend was not involved at all events, the legal effect of the recog-in the petition before the House, namely, nisance was materially altered and materi- whether the House could entertain, or ally weakened. It must be remembered ought to entertain, after the passing of VOL. XCV. Third 2 X

But as he pre

would point attention to the 14th Clause, | Act in question was under discussion, was which said nothing whatever to the effect reported to have said that the object of the that the certificate of the examiner should Act was to make the decision of the exbe final. How, then, was this question to aminer of recognisances final and conclube decided, and at what stage? Because sive, except as to the two cases provided they had allowed defective recognisances for in the Act. to pass, contrary to the Act of Parliament, were they therefore to be completely precluded from going into further inquiry, though everybody was satisfied that those recognisances were not good in law? It was the duty of the examiner, when he found that the recognisances were not according to the Act, to refuse to certify, as had been done in the Galway case. He called upon the House to be cautious how they proceeded, because whatever their determination might be, it might hereafter be questioned in a court of law; and in what position would the House stand if such an unfortunate state of things should arise? Suppose a witness before an Election Committee should commit wilful and corrupt perjury, he might be indicted; but if the proceedings were invalid from the first, he would appeal to any man, whether, if an objection were taken to such a verdict, that objection would not be fatal. Surely the House were not to be told that because they were wrong in the outset they were not to retrace their steps. Why should they perpetuate vicious proceedings?

SIR G. GREY thought that the House should first decide whether they were competent to consider the question at all, before they proceeded to determine in what way they would treat it. The best course, in his opinion, would be to refer it to a Committee, who should report all the facts of the case to the House. The report of the examiner of recognisances was not understood to be final and conclusive in every case; but his decision with respect to the sufficiency of them was considered in that light; and the only cases in which a Committee once appointed could be released were, where the petition was withdrawn, or where the sitting Member did not wish to defend his seat. He thought it a most dangerous doctrine to introduce in reference to a discharged order of the House; for the majority could at any time abrogate the statute by voting for the discharge of an order, whereas it was clearly intended that they should part with their jurisdiction altogether, except in the cases to which he referred.

MR. BAINES said, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when the

SIR ROBERT PEEL begged the House would remember that they had to perform judicial functions of the highest importance, and that their decision would affect in a very high degree the rights of the House, as well as of a Gentleman still more deeply interested in it-the sitting Member. Very nice questions of law had been brought forward by two hon. Gentlemen of high legal authority on one side of the House, which were opposed by two hon. and learned Members equally eminent on the other. As for himself, he was inclined to think the House could not feel itself in a position to decide this question judicially; and, looking to the whole case, it appeared the less of two evils to appoint a Committee to report as to the facts of the case. No doubt the intention of the House had been to make the decisions of the examiners of recognisances conclusive, where the proper forms were observed. But here a mistake was made by the officers of the House; and that mistake affected not only the petitioners but the sitting Member, who was deprived of his security against frivolous petitions, inasmuch as the omission of the words from the recognisance would clearly exempt the sureties in case one of them died before the case came on. The error was not merely literal, it was a substantial omission, which would render the recognisance for the payment of the expenses of the petition void, and the officer of the House had certified that to be correct which was not correct. A double injury would be inflicted by the House allowing this case to stand without inquiryfirst, the petitioner would be permitted to have the benefit of his own wrong; and next, the sitting Member was deprived by the act of their officer of the protection which the House intended he should receive. All his own impressions were certainly in favour of the finality of the decision of the examiner; but if they insisted on it here, they would act in opposition to the plain dictates of equity, and place themselves in a position wherein they might find themselves met by the decision of a court of justice. He recommended the House to appoint a Committee to make a simple report of the facts of the case.