"That your petitioner considers the law, as it now stands, is injurious to the fair and equal administration of justice, and is at variance with the interests of the State, inasmuch as it allows persons guilty of atrocious crimes to escape with impunity, and deprives your petitioner and others of justice. "That your petitioner will consider an oath sworn on the Works of Nature as binding on his conscience, as one sworn by the Christian on the New Testament, the Jew on the Bible, or the Mahomedan on the Alcoran. "Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays, that your Honourable House will be pleased to decree, that persons professing Deistical principles be sworn in courts of justice, as all persons professing Christianity, Judaism, and Mahomedanism; and that the degree of credit due to such shall, in all cases, be left to the consideration of the judge, jury, magistrate, or whatever tribunal by which such case shall be tried. And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray." Mr. Hume observed, that the petition itself was a complete answer to the learned serjeant. With respect to the argument of the hon. gentleman under the gallery, against allowing a Deist to take an oath, he would ask that hon. gentleman what was a Jew, but a Deist? According to the hon. gentleman's principle, a Jew ought not to be allowed to be sworn. The argument of the hon. gentleman, therefore, was directed against the existing statutes. As to the hon. baronet, it really appeared to be very strange, that a gentleman who had for such a length of time, in Ceylon, been administering oaths to men who did not believe in the Christian revelation, should now say, that he would not believe a Deist on his oath. With respect to the introduction of any future measure on this subject, he did not intend to bring in any, but he confessed it was his opinion that some such measure ought to be introduced. He desired to see religious scruples respected by the House, and the law of the land put on a liberal footing, in that respect. At one period England set an example of liberality to the world, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when she would again resume the lead, and not be as she was unhappily at present, rather following than guiding the spirit of the age. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Hume then moved, that the petition be printed, in order that gentlemen should be acquainted with its objects. Mr. Robinson opposed it; and on the cry of "No, no," becoming general, Mr. Hume withdrew the motion. TREGONY BOROUGH ELECTION.] On the motion of Mr. Abercromby, the order of the day was read for resuming the adjourned debate, on the motion made on the 24th instant, "That the Indenture by which James Adam Gordon and James Mackillop, esquires, were returned to serve for the borough of Tregony be taken off the file," Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that he held the present question to be of such serious consequence, that he could not allow it to pass without offering a few words to the consideration of the House. The present occasion brought to his memory the words of a once distinguished member of that House, Mr. Grenville, who had declared, that he looked upon every case of contested election, brought before the House of Commons, as a case of the utmost importance, in which the property and birth right of every subject of the realm were at stake, and in which it, therefore, behoved the House to act with the greatest caution. If he entertained this feeling upon all cases of election, he entertained it more strongly than ever in this particular instance, where the House was going to pass a judgment which would form a precedent in one of the most important parts of its jurisdiction. He was, therefore, much obliged to the hon. and learned gentleman who had brought the subject before the notice of the House, for the manner in which he had done so. At the time when the hon. and learned gentleman first brought it forward, he thought his argument particularly clear and convincing. In the interval which had elapsed between that time and the present, he had taken great pains to inform his mind upon the subject; and, though he still hoped that the House would assent to the proposition which the hon. and learned member had made to it, he did not think that there was so clear a case as to make it necessary to take proceedings against any other parties. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to review the points in which he considered the last return to be informal, and cited a great many cases on the subject, which were so imperfectly heard in the gallery, that we cannot pretend to give a correct report of them. bound to decide, that only one return had been made to the writ, and that the other indenture was invalid and of no effect. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he could not In the present case, the under-sheriff had offer his opinion upon this important sub- not directed his writ to the mayor of ject without first expressing the great Tregony. A doubt existed as to the pleasure which he felt in finding that a validity of the claims of two different subject so dry and tedious had attracted parties to that office. The under-sheriff the attention of the hon. gentleman who selected one of them as returning officer: had just sat down. The talent and in- from that person he received the precept dustry, of which the hon. gentleman had back again, with an indenture attached to just given the House so striking a speci- it, and he returned that indenture, attachmen, would, he had no doubt, be pro- ed to the writ, to the Crown-office. The ductive of great advantage to their dis- under-sheriff considered the return so cussions whenever the hon. gentleman made to be the proper return, and he (Mr. should apply himself to a subject which Peel) contended that the House ought to admitted at once of research and display. do the same. He attached no importance He did not regret the time which the to the certificate which was received on a House had taken to come to a decision subsequent day. Indeed, he would not on this question; because it was one of enter into that part of the question, but great importance, and therefore, required would treat the return as a single return, mature deliberation. When it was first and would not examine whether the sheriff presented to their notice, he thought that acted properly or not. If there was a the latter return could not be considered dispute between two officers, as to which a valid return; and the consideration was the proper returning officer, it must which he had since given to it, had satis- be decided by the sheriff; and there might fied him of the correctness of that opinion, be cases in which it would be wiser for and of the propriety of ordering that the him to make a double than a single reindenture containing it should be taken turn. It was unnecessary to enter into off the file. He contended, that to follow an investigation of the precedents which any other course would be to furnish a had been quoted: for, in his opinion, precedent fraught with danger. The none of them were at all applicable to House was aware that in all election the present case. The question was to returns, a great responsibility was imposed be decided by common sense, and that on the sheriffs of counties. They were due regard to the interests of justice which required to use their best discretion; the was felt by every man in that House. House being ready to give them every The safest plan upon which the House indulgence in cases where they used it could act, was to admit no other return honestly but erroneously, and to punish than a single return or a double return, them whenever they used it partially and and not to allow a sheriff to steer an inimproperly. Now, the sure way for a termediate course between the two. sheriff to escape from a responsibility that account, he for one should support to which he ought to be liable was, to the motion, which considered the second send up, besides the regular return annex- indenture as invalid, and should leave the ed to the writ, another paper, not annexed parties mentioned in it to their remedy. to it, received from some other person He doubted whether the prudent course than the regular returning officer, and would not be to call in the Clerk of the then to leave the House to decide which Crown, to receive from him the originals, of the returns was the proper return. He of which the entries in the books were maintained, that the sheriff was bound, copies, and to form their opinions upon in all cases, to make either a single return inspection of the documents. If no obor a double return to the writ, and no jection should be made to this proposition, other. He was not prepared to say he would beg leave to substitute for the whether the sheriff might not make two motion then before the House a motion to returns annexed to the writ. It was, for- that effect; and then, if the entries aptunately unnecessary to decide that ques-peared to be correct, as he had no doubt tion in this particular case, as the sheriff had declined to do so: and such being the case, he thought that the House was On they would, he would move, that the return attached to the writ should be considered as a single return. Mr. Abercromby said, that if he were permitted to make one or two observations at this stage of the debate, they would, in all probability, save the time of the House from being unnecessarily wasted. The right hon. Secretary had rested the case on its proper grounds. The sheriff had a The sheriff had a right to receive, or to reject, both returns made to him; but then he must annex them both to the writ, and must not venture upon any middle course. He had no difficulty in agreeing to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman; but he must say this on his own behalf, that the peculiar advantage of the course which he had suggested was, that it did not strike at the Grenville act, but was content with the evidence upon the table, which was in its very nature conclusive. If it should be the pleasure of the House to call in the clerk of the Crown to produce the original returns, and if that measure, on their being found to agree with the entries in the book, should be followed up by another motion, acceding substantially to that which he had himself brought forward, he could have no objection to urge against such a mode of proceeding. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that if the original documents and the entries agreed, he should certainly follow up his present motion by another for taking off the file the second indenture. Mr. Wynn said, he was anxious to explain how far he went along with the hon. and learned gentleman, and how far he differed from him on this important question. He put out of the way all observations on the manner of executing the return-on its being executed by the deputy mayor, and on its being executed by a different person from that to whom the precept was directed, because, if there was any validity in those observations, they ought to be received in the shape of a petition. The hon. gentleman who had done himself so much credit that evening by the research which he had displayed on the present abstract question, had adverted to a resolution of the House in which it was stated, that the House would look to the substance, and not to the form, of a return. Now, he would say at once, that, in the present instance, he did not think it necessary that the return should be annexed to the writ. It was true that the statute required that the returns for counties should be attached to the writ, but it said nothing of a similar nature with regard to the returns for boroughs. In deed, the constant practice in boroughs was quite different. If it were not so, there never could be a double return in them: for, supposing a dispute to exist as to who was the proper returning officer, one of the claimants to the situation would receive the precept, and the other would not. The one who received it would annex a return to the precept, and the sheriff on receiving it would annex that return to his writ. The sheriff, however, when he had a doubt as to who was the proper returning officer, had a right to receive a return from the different claimants for the situation, and to attach both returns to his writ. In the year 1640, when this subject underwent considerable dis cussion, there was a distinct proposal made to the House that returns coming through the hands of the sheriff should have the preference over those coming through the hands of individuals, and that the members returned by the sheriff should sit as members, until the House came to a decision on their right to continue to do so. That proposition, however, did not meet with the approval of the House. He could state other reasons to prove that it was not necessary that the returns should be annexed to the writ. In the present case, he thought it material to learn whether it was the intention of the sheriff to make a double return, or merely to place the second return in deposit, in case the parties named in it should think right to call for it. On that account he thought it necessary to read the certificate with which the sheriff had presented it to the clerk of the Crown. If it appeared that the sheriff had received on one day an indenture which he had attached to his writ, and then that he had received another indenture which he had not attached to it, he should think that the sheriff had given the preference to the first indenture. He should, therefore, consider the return as a single return, and should presume that the intention of the sheriff in sending up the other return, was merely to have it forthcoming in case the parties should call for it. In acting thus, he thought that the sheriff had acted indiscreetly; for he ought either to have made a single return, or to have annexed both returns to the writ. He did not see the danger which some gentlemen anticipated from having a number of similar returns. Undoubtedly it was in the power of every sheriff to neglect his duty and to make such returns; but then the House possessed the power of punishing him for such misconduct, when it appeared to arise from improper motives. He was of opinion that the clerk of the Crown might have rejected the latter return, or might have made a special return to the House upon it, stating the circumstances under which he had received it, and asking for instructions how he was to act with it. Without intending to cast out any imputations upon that officer, he must say that his present entry in the book was indiscreet. În conclusion, he deemed it necessary that the House should be in possession of the original returns, and of the certificate of the sheriff; and he should therefore have great pleasure in supporting the proposition of his right hon. friend. Mr. Peel observed, that his intention in calling in the clerk of the Crown, was to demand from him the original returns, and not to ask him any question. The conduct of that officer had not been impugned, and therefore did not require any explanation. He should merely ask him if the returns he produced were the original returns, and he would then leave the House to exercise its own discretion. Mr. Abercromby perfectly agreed with the right hon. Secretary as to the course to be pursued when the clerk of the Crown was called in. He was happy, for the sake of individuals sitting in that House, as well as for the sheriff and the clerk of the Crown, that the House had come to a clear and decided expression of opinion on this question. He had no reason to complain of the conduct of Mr. Wilbraham, the deputy clerk of the Crown, and, under all the circumstances, as he saw no necessity for proceeding further, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion. The clerk of the Crown, being then called in, produced the writ, directed to the sheriff of the county of Cornwall, for holding the late elections in the said county, with an indenture, whereby Stephen Lushington, LL. D., and James Brougham, esq. were returned as burgesses to serve for the borough of Tregony -annexed thereunto. He also produced another indenture, certified by the said sheriff to have been received at the office of his under sheriff, but which last mentioned indenture, whereby it appeared that James Adam Gordon, esq. and James Mackillop, esq. were returned as burgesses to serve for the said borough of Tregony --was not annexed to the writ. Mr. Secretary Peel then moved, "That the return for the borough of Tregony is not a double return;" which was agreed to. And it was ordered, "That the indenture whereby James Adam Gordon, and John Mackillop, esquires, are returned for the borough of Tregony, be taken off the file." HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, November 30. ARMY COMMISSIONS.] Mr. Hume rose, pursuant to notice, to bring before the attention of the House a subject of considerable importance, in moving for returns of all officers who have been permitted to sell their full-pay, half-pay, and brevet commissions, since the last return in March; also a return of the money received and paid for the same. It would be necessary for him to recall the attention of the House to the steps taken by a noble lord (Castlereagh), now no more, in the year 1817, exertions in which the House anxiously co-operated, to establish a distinction between the effective and noneffective military establishments, and to provide means for the support of noneffective establishments, in such a manner as might relieve the country from maintaining them as a heavy and permanent burthen. In 1817, as appeared from an abstract of the amount of half-pay, superannuated allowances, civil and military, the amount chargeable to the army was 2,800,000l.; and, so far from a decrease having taken place in these allowances since that period, there had been, on the contrary, a very considerable increase. He would not go so far back in his calculations as 1817; and would only remark upon the statement he had just made, that, unless some controlling check was exercised to keep down the expense of this and other departments connected with the non-effective force of the country by those who had the management and direction of them, it was impossible that the expenditure should be ever constrained within due and proper limits. The period which he would select for a comparison with the present, as to the amount of the charge of the dead-weight, was the year 1822, when Mr. Vansittart brought before parliament the notable expedient to pay | 651,9031.; in 1819 to 737,3721.; in 1820 to 783,3871.; in 1821 to 765,781.; and it went on increasing, in like manner, till 1825, when it amounted to 100,0001. more than it was in 1817. And this, although the report of the finance com reduction on that branch of the expenditure might be expected of five per cent.There was another novel practice to which the attention of the House ought to be called. He meant that of allowing officers on half-pay to sell their commissions. Whether the half-pay had been granted as a reward for past services, or as a retaining fee for renewed services, up to the year 1825, it had never been understood that the half-pay was a permanent charge on the country, or that those by whom it was enjoyed had any thing be for the dead-weight, whereby it was proposed, that by the decrease of life, which was likely to be the more rapid in a department connected with services in foreign countries, it would be gradually decreased, and finally annihilated. At the time of the bringing in of the dead-mittee stated, that by the year 1821 a weight bill by that right hon. gentleman in 1822, the half-pay and retired superannuated military allowances were 2,907,8351. Now, in 1817, the amount chargeable under the same head, was 2,800,000l., and at that (time, the House would bear in mind that lord Castlereagh had said, that after twenty years of war, we were necessarily encumbered with a large half-pay list, which, by the prolonged continuance of peace would naturally be diminished, and consequently the charge of maintaining them. Taking the years 1822 and 1825 to shew what a little ten-yond a life-interest in it. By general dency there was to a reduction of this charge upon the nation, it appeared that the charge of the half-pay and retired superannuated allowances, in 1822, was 2,907,8351.-in 1825, 2,906,940. The charge under this head, together with the charges under the head of Navy, Ordnance, civil, and miscellaneous departments, in these two years 1822 and 1825, shewed, that, instead of a decrease, there was a great and material increase. The account stood thus: dead-weight in 1822, 5,289,0871. dead-weight in 1825, 5,302,4991.-increase, 13,4127. Now, this showed a clear tendency to an increase of the dead-weight, although assurances at the time of the introduction of this notable expedient were held out, that there would be an annual diminution of the charge of at least 5 per cent. Calculations were also at the time laid before the House from the Tontine Tables. These calculations were prepared by Mr. Finlayson, a clerk in the Sinking Fund Office, and by these calculations the country were induced to believe, that in forty-four years the whole of the deadweight would be annihilated by the gradual decrement, by death, of the persons to whom the allowances out of it were payable. Lord Castlereagh held out a still further reduction, not only by the decrease consequent upon death, but by the transfer of officers from half to full pay, according as vacancies might fall, to afford opportunity for such transfer. But what was the fact? The half-pay, in 1817, was 647,9221. It increased in 1818 to Of those offi orders from the Horse Guards, of the 2nd The consequence |
