at the bar, reported from the committee appointed to determine the merits of the petitions complaining of an un due election and return for the city of Waterford, that, pursuant to the permission of the house, that committee had adjourned from Wednesday to this day. That they had met consequently at three o'clock, when, finding that Francis William Grant, Esq. did not at tend, they had set for an hour, and then ad journed to half past four, directing the chair man to report the same to the house—The report was ordered to be brought up.—Mr. C. Dundas, as chairman of the committee, then moved, that the said F. W. Grant, Esq. be discharged from further attendance on that committee. In laying the grounds for this motion, he hoped the house would excuse him for stating briefly the circumstances of the case. It would be in the recollection of the house, that previous to the recess, a commission had been sent to Ireland for the purpose of taking evidence, which commission had been returned with the minutes of the evidence taken before the commissioners; upon a due consideration of which the committee was to decide the merits of the petitions. It would also be in the recollection of the house, that towards the close of last session, an application had been made to the house, by the consent, and for the convenience of all parties, for permission to adjourn all further proceedings till the second day of the present session; which permission the house hid thought fit to grant, and the committee had adjourned accordingly. This was a point upon which any member of the committee could not be ignorant, as it must have been equally known to all. On the second day of this session the committee had met, with the exception of the honourable member, who was the object of the motion, when, on reporting his non-attendance to the house, they had obtained permission to adjourn further to this day, in the hope that the hon. member would attend in his place, and that they should hare the benefit of his advice in their proceedings. He, however, had neglected to attend, and in consequence the chairman thought it his duty, for the furtherance of justice, and in order that the committee might be enabled to proceed, to submit the motion he had made to the house, particularly as the provisions of the election laws authorised a committee, on an Irish petition, to proceed, though it should be reduced to nine members.

hoped the house would not accede to the motion, unless very cogent reasons should be assigned for the absence of the hon. member. To discharge a member from his attendance on a committee, was an indulgence which the house never granted but upon very substantial grounds, and unless some conclusive reasons should be assigned in the present instance, he should feel himself under the necessity of dissenting from the motion.

begged to be indulged, while he stated in justification of the hon. member what he knew of the cause of his absence. The hon. member was at present on duty with his regiment, which having been lately raised, required all his care and attention. He had not been aware of the order of the house which authorised election committees to continue, notwithstanding a prorogation of parliament, and had neglected to attend under an impression that such committees were necessarily dissolved at the end of a session. This was a fact which he could confidently state, as he had himself received a letter some weeks since from the hon. member desiring to be informed on the subject, which information he was not at that time competent to give.

observed that there were two distinct questions for the house to consider: first, whether it should be its pleasure, for the furtherance of justice, to enable the committee to proceed, by discharging Mr. Grant from further attendance; secondly, what conduct it would be its pleasure to adopt, wish respect to the hon. member who had absented himself from his duty. These questions were wholly distinct, and it would be for the house to determine in what manner it should think proper to dispose of them. There was a case in point on the journals. It was the case of Mr. Booth Grey, who, removing from town on urgent business pending the sitting of a committee, of which he was a member, wrote a letter to die chairman, stating the circumstance, and requesting him to communicate the same to the house. On the letter being produced, he was discharged from further attendance ort the committee, but ordered to attend in his place on a certain day, and account for his absence.

concurred with the sentiments that had fallen from the chair. He had no objection to discharge the hon. member from further attendance, in order to enable the committee to proceed, provided it could not operate to limit the discretion of the house, as to the conduct it may think proper to adopt with respect to the defaulter. He, however, submitted, whether the object of the motion might not be attained as well by wording it differently, that is, "to enable the committee to proceed, notwithstanding the absence of this member."

concurred in the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and observed that the object of the hon. chairman would be fully effected by so wording his motion, which had been drawn up in the other form with an unintentional inaccuracy.

did not think the case of Mr. Grey applicable in the present instance. In that case Mr. Grey had appeared by letter before the house, in the present there was no appearance whatever: and he trusted that for the regularity of the proceedings of the House, they would not suffer such a resolution to be placed on their journals, without being accompanied by a good and sufficient reason for the ground on which they had adopted it.

agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) that such a proceeding should not appear on their journals without some document to shew why it had been adopted. He submitted to the hon. member (Mr. Charles Grant), whether he might not put what he had already stated in that form to the house, whereby it would be justified in agreeing to the consequent preceedings.—Mr. C. Grant's statement was then entered on the journals, as the ground on which the house assented to the following motions: 1st. That F. W. Grant, Esq. be discharged from farther attendance on the committee. 2d. That the committee be enabled to proceed notwithstanding his absence; and, 3d That F. W. Grant, Esq. be ordered to at tend in his place on Wednesday tha seventh day of December next.

rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the desertion and escape of petty officers, seamen, and others, from his Majesty's service, by means or under colour of any civil or criminal process. He should detain the house, but a very short time, in stating the grounds and principles of the measure he proposed to bring forward. There were too many convincing proofs, that the processes of law had been frequently perverted, for the purpose of enabling individuals to escape from the, naval service, in which they had been employed. It would not be necessary for him to trespass on the attention of the house, by enumerating the various instances of fraudulent arrests for civil actions, or the many pretended criminal charges, under colour of which, seamen had been removed from the authority of their naval officer, and then set at large, to the manifest injury of his Majesty's service. The measure, he proposed, would correct this abuse altogether and he felt great satisfaction in assuring the house, that it would not interfere with the rights, nor infringe the privileges of any description of men. It would leave the seaman, who might be improperly impressed, in the same situation as to his habeas corpus, m which he now stands; and it would not weaken the claim of creditors, nor trench upon their just and legal rights. It would leave the arrested seaman, in the same situation precisely, as to service, in which lie stood before the arrest, as its principal object would be to secure his return to the service to which he may have belonged, as soon as the action should be satisfied. The principal object of the measure he meant to introduce, was to make sheriffs responsible for the return of such seamen as should be arrested under their authority, to the service, instead of being left at large on their release from the arrest. It was to be obligatory on the sheriff, in such a case, to convey the seaman, within a reasonable time, and for an adequate compensation, to the nearest port, and give him up to the port-admiral, or regulating captain, commanding there. The consequence of this regulation would be an essential benefit to the seaman, who would be conveyed back, to his ship free of any expense. With regard also to seamen fraudulently arrested, the bill would have a most salutary effect, as it would effectually prevent my future perversion of the process of the law, to cover the desertion of persons Serving in his majesty's navy. These were the leading features of his measure, and, he trusted, the house would concur with him in its expediency. He therefore should move for leave to bring in the bill. Leave was given.—Mr. Jarvis then brought up the bill, which was read a first time, ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday next, and to be printed.