House Of Commons
Wednesday June 22, 1859.
MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS:—1°. Tolls on Steam Carriages; Appeal in Criminal Cases.
On Motion that the House at its rising adjourn until Thursday, 30th June,
Breach Of Privilege
said, that as the House was now about to adjourn for a week, he wished to call the attention of the House to a statement which appeared in a newspaper published that morning (The Times) gravely affecting the character of the House. It appeared under the head of "Election Intelligence," and set forth that a vacancy was about to be created in the representation of Northampton. It seemed that at a meeting of the electors a Mr. Dennis, who was represented to be a law agent, told them that on a recent occasion he had had an interview with one of their Members (Mr. Gilpin), and then followed these particular words, to which he (Mr. Stanley) wished to direct the attention of the House,—
The attempt referred to must have taken place a fortnight ago, and yet no notice had been taken of so flagrant an act. He knew nothing of the matter except what appeared in the newspapers; but the statement required explanation, and if the hon. Member for Northampton were not now in his place he would give notice that on the reassembling of the House he would ask him whether the statement were correct, and if the answer were in the affirmative, what steps he meant to take with regard to it."As an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, Mr. Gilpin showed him two letters which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, and in which a direct attempt was made to corrupt Mr. Gilpin in the discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament, and to influence him in giving his vote upon the last division, by offering to him a pecuniary consideration of the grossest and most direct character."
thought, as the hon. Gentleman had brought this matter before the House, it would have been as well if he had called attention to the first part of the paragraph. It began thus:—
" That statement also required some explanation."Mr. Dennis, the legal adviser of Mr. Vernon Smith, stated that he had had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman, at which he was informed that, as a mark of Her Majesty's personal appreciation of Mr. Vernon Smith's services during his administration of the affairs of India, and in consideration of the gross scurrility, foul abuse, and most unwarrantable attacks that had been made upon him during his tenure of office, Her Majesty thought it right that some distinguished mark of her approbation of those services should be conferred upon him, and therefore Lord Palmerston informed him that his elevation to the House of Lords was a matter for his acceptance or rejection.
thought that notice ought to have been given to the parties affected before the subject was brought forward.
pointed out that the two statements brought under the notice of the House were essentially different. That mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. O. Stanley) if it were correct, involved a distinct breach of the privileges of the House, and might bring upon the parties concerned the strongest condemnation of the House. The other statement referred to by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) related to a matter with which the House had nothing whatever to do.
said, he thought the discussion ought not to be proceeded with until the parties concerned were present.
said it did not appear to him that the hon. Member for Northampton was the person to be applied to. The proper person was the person who published the statement; and he thought his hon. Friend would do well to ask the Speaker to issue his summons to the person who had published that statement to attend at the bar of the House and to ask them on what authority they had published it. If they asked the hon. Member whether he had been offered a pecuniary bribe for the vote which he was to give on a recent occasion, he had no doubt they would be told that it was all a mistake. He would therefore move that the editor be summoned to the bar, and asked on what authority he dared to make such a statement. That would bring the matter to a proper test. As to what the hon. Member for Stirlingshire had stated, they were two distinct subjects. It seemed to be a squib against the proceedings of the late Government, but had nothing to do with the privileges of this House, while the other statement was a direct breach of them.
[thought that if the House took notice of all the statements made in newspapers, it would waste a great deal of its time. He himself spoke feelingly on the subject, because there had appeared in The Times newspaper on one or two occasions lately a gross accusation against himself, which was entirely destitute of foundation. It accused him of having gained his election under a false pretence, by stating that he had voted against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when, in fact, he had voted for it. He certainly had told his constituents on the hustings that he had voted against that Bill, and as certainly he had never voted in favour of it. He never had denied that he had voted for its introduction, and also on various clauses; but he had voted on these clauses as had many others, and in a manner which at least could not be displeasing to Roman Catholics, or inconsistent with opposition to the Bill: and, though it had been asserted, and his name certainly appeared in the division list on the Motion that the Bill do now pass—he did not believe that he had voted in that division. There was a mistake somewhere— how he could not tell; but he did not believe that he had voted as he was represented to have done. But he had actually voted against the Bill on Mr. Urquhart's Motion, which was the only one which was near destroying the Bill, and which attacked the motives of the Government in bringing forward the Bill as well as it principle. Was he likely afterwards to have voted "that it do pass?" It never was asserted that he had voted for the first, the second, or the third reading, but that after having voted against it, that he voted on the very unusual Motion that the Bill do pass. There had been much confusion in the House that night, and mistakes were likely to occur when the division was taken. Such mistakes occasionally occurred, and, if not corrected by a Member himself, his vote must remain. Neither were the exceptions made in the Amendments brought forward by Mr. M'Cullagh nor Mr. S. Crawford, as he thought, judicious, for by making exceptions they evaded the question of toleration which should be uniform in every part of the kingdom, and in voting against these Amendments he gave no approbation to the Bill. He was the more confirmed in this persuasion, because imme- diately after the division, eight years since, he went to his constituents, who, on the ground of his opposition to that Bill, held a meeting to make arrangements to reject him and to choose another representative. But he was not alone in this conviction, for he had lately received from the electors of Portarlington two addresses. One from the Protestants, who had felt angry at his opposition to the Bill, stating their then intentions of seeking another candidate, and the remonstrance they had conveyed to him for it, and adding, that he had never denied that he had opposed that Bill as he might have done, but defended the vote he had given against it. The other address was from the Roman Catholics of the borough, who stated that they had approved of his opposition to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, of which they were convinced at the time. He therefore had asserted only what he felt convinced was the truth—and still felt convinced was the truth. He was quite sure that no one who knew him would believe that he was capable of the baseness of going upon the hustings and telling a deliberate untruth. He opposed the Bill at the time, because he held that it was not founded upon the principles of religious toleration which he had ever supported; and, therefore, he would not vote for it, though he was threatened, as he had stated, with opposition in consequence of his vote, and then, eight years since, never defended himself by saying he had voted for it. But at the late election there was no opposition against him worth the name; there was no candidate that was to be feared, and therefore he had not even an object in telling the untruth with which he had been charged. He begged pardon of the House for having occupied their time with such a question, but as The Times had lately reiterated the calumny, he thought he ought to put himself right with the House and the country.
thought it was impossible to proceed any further in this matter without a formal notice of a breach of privilege, and producing the name of the paper and of the editor. There was no accusation against the hon. Member for Northampton, and he thought the matter had better be allowed to drop.
said, that if there was nothing that affected the character of the hon. Member for Northampton, there was something that seriously affected the character of the House, and it should not be allowed to drop. He suggested that the hon. Member for Finsbury should move that the writer of the charge be summoned to the bar on the next day that the House meet.
said, he himself was not prepared with the names of the paper and the editor, but he still maintained that that was the proper course to pursue. It was totally impossible that the matter could remain where it was, and the editor of the paper which had dared to publish this statement ought to be required to furnish his authority.
The question now immediately before the House is, that the House at its rising do adjourn until the 30th instant, and it would not be proper to introduce such a subject as this on a question of adjournment. If the House should be of opinion that any breach of privilege has been committed, or if any hon. Member should make any formal complaint of a breach of privilege, the proper course to pursue is to lay the newspaper on the table with the name of the editor, and on that the House may give such orders as it thinks fit. These are in-indispensable preliminaries to any further proceedings.
intimated that he should be ready to take that course at the proper moment, and
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn to Thursday, 30th June.
[Afterwards.]
said, that as the hon. Member for Northampton was now in his place, perhaps he would at once answer the question, of his intention to put which at the next sitting of the House, he (Mr. Stanley) had given notice. The question was, whether there was any truth in the following statement, which, according to The Times, was made by a Mr. Dennis, the legal adviser of Mr. Vernon Smith, at a meeting of the Liberal electors of Northampton, held at that place on Monday evening last—namely,
"While in London he had also had an interview with Mr. Charles Gilpin, their other representative, who had accepted the office of Secretary to the Poor Law Board. As an illustration of the agencies that had been at work during the late struggle, Mr. Gilpin showed him two letters which he had received from the agents of the Tory party, and in which a direct attempt was made to corrupt Mr. Gilpin in the discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament, and to influence him in giving his vote upon the last division, by offering to him a pecuniary consideration of the grossest and most direct character."
said, that he should have been glad to have had notice of this question before being called upon to answer it; but as the question had been put, he could have no hesitation in replying to it. In the publication of this statement he had no part, directly or indirectly. He had had no opportunity of reading the Report in The Times, but, as far as he understood the gist of it, it was that he had shown letters to Mr. Dennis—who was a man of standing in Northampton, and quite able to answer for himself—conveying the impression that he (Mr. Gilpin) had received offers from the agents of the Conservative party intended to bias his vote in that House. Now, it was perfectly true that he had received letters, the tendency of which, if attended to, would have been to bias his vote in that House. Those letters he showed to certain of his friends, and he never thought of recurring to the matter. At the same time he was bound to say, in the most unequivocal manner, that he had no proof whatever—he never said that he had any proof whatever —and he was not prepared to say that he had any belief that these offers came from recognized agents of the Conservative party. They were made in the shape of suggestions, and in such a way that he should not have alluded to them in public. He hoped that the House would consider this as satisfactory an answer as he could give under the circumstances. Had he received notice of the question he might have entered into a fuller explanation.
thought that the hon. Gentleman ought to state what were the propositions which were made to him.
said, that he would defer putting his second question until the next sitting. That question was, whether the hon. Gentleman intended to take any further steps with regard to this matter.
said, that the House was the best judge, but he did not think that this was a subject which need occupy any more of its attention. As far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to take any further steps in the matter. On receiving the letters he showed them to those hon. Gentlemen with whom he was accus- tomed to act, and asked whether, considering the peculiar circumstances under which they had come into his hands, he ought to take any notice of them. He received their advice that he should not take any notice of them. He had acted on that advice, and he intended to abide by it.
then gave notice, that he should take time to consider what further measures ought to be adopted for the vindication of the characters of Members of that House.
Foreign-Office Returns
Question
asked the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs why certain Returns which he had moved for
Ministerial Appointments—New Writs
On the Motion of Mr. BRAND new writs were issued
| For Tiverton, v. Right hon. Visct. Palmerston, First Commissioner of the Treasury. |
| For Oxford University, v. Right hon. W. E wart Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer. |
| For London, v. Right hon. Lord John Russell, Secretary of State. |
| For New Radnor, v. Right hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Secretary of State. |
| For Wilts (Southern Division), v. Right hon. Sidney Herbert, Secretary of State. |
| For Halifax, v. Right hon. Sir Charles Wood, baronet, Secretary of State. |
| For Morpeth, v. Right hon. Sir G. Grey, bart., Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. |
| For Ashton under Lyne, v. Right hon. T. Milner Gibson, Commissioner of Poor Laws. |
| For Oxford City, v. Right hon. Edward Cardwell, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. |
| For Lewes, v. Right hon. Henry FitzRoy, First Commissioner of Works. |
| For Calne, v. Right hon. Robert Lowe, Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. |
| For Devonport, v. Right hon. James Wilson, Vice President of the Board of Trade. |
| For Newcastle upon Tyne, v. Right hon. Thomas Emerson Headlam, Judge Advocate. |
| For Wolverhampton, v. Sir Richard Bethell, Attorney General. |
| For Reading, v. Sir Henry Keating, Solicitor General. |
| For Edinburgh City, v. Right hon. James Moncreiff, Lord Advocate. |
| For Ennis, v. Right hon. John David FitzGerald, Attorney General for Ireland. |
| For Cork County, v. Rickard Deasy, esquire, Solicitor General for Ireland. |
| For Kerry, v. Right hon. Viscount Castlerosse, Treasurer of the Household. |
| For Wigtown District of Burghs, v. Sir William Dunbar, baronet, Commissioner of the Treasury. |
| For Clonmel, v. John Bagwell, esquire, Commissioner of the Treasury. |
| For Bedford Borough, v. Samuel Whitbread, esquire, Commissioner of the Admiralty. |
| For Cork City, v. William Trant Fagan, esquire, deceased. |
| For Norwich, v. Right hon. Viscount Bury, Comptroller of the Household. |
| For Monmouth County, v. Colonel Edward Arthur Somerset, Chiltern Hundreds. |
Sandwich Writ
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Baron to serve in this present
on the 9th instant had not yet been presented? The Returns related to the instructions given to the British officers accompanying the French, Sardinian, and Austrian armies in Italy; they were very brief, and he could not understand why they had not been laid upon the table.
said, that the Motion, when agreed to, had not attracted the attention of the Department, and, as there was some difficulty in making the Returns, it had been thought better by the retiring Government to leave the matter to their successors to arrange. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would recur to the subject when the noble Lord the Member for London again took his seat.
Parliament for the Town and Port of Sandwich, in the room of Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, esquire, who, since his election for the said Town and Port, hath accepted the Office of one of the Commissioners for executing the Offices of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland."
MR. STEUART moved that the Clerk should read any petition that might have been presented against the Return.
Petition of John Ralph and Henry Langley [presented 21st June], complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Town and Port of Sandwich, read.
Question again proposed.
said, that he had intended to move as an Amendment the suspension of the writ, supposing that the petition claimed the seat for the unsuccessful candidates; under which circumstance, it was not in conformity with the practice of the House that a new writ should be issued. As that was not the case, however, he was not prepared with any precise precedent in point; but he thought that the House ought to be informed what would be the consequence if the gentleman whose return was now petitioned against should be re-elected, and the Committee upon this petition should decide that he had been guilty of bribery. Having directed the attention of the House to the subject—which seemed to him to be one of some difficulty and importance—he left the matter in the hands of more experienced Members; hut he hoped that Mr. Speaker would favour them with his opinion as to what would be the effect of election of the same or any other Gentleman pending the prosecution of a petition.
said, that the circumstance of the seat being claimed or not claimed made, in his opinion, all the difference in the world, because he believed that there was no authority for suspending a writ under circumstances of this description, when the seat was not claimed. A precedent, however, occurred the other way in December, 1852, in reference to the Southampton election, when the seat not being claimed it was decided that the writ should issue.
asked what would be the effect, supposing the decision of the Committee to be that the gentleman now petitioned against had been guilty of bribery, and in the meantime he should he re-elected?
said, that the case appeared to be precisely similar to that which occurred in 1852, in the Southampton case, when, upon the question of the issue of the writ, the matter was fully discussed in that House. The course pursued in that case, therefore, would be a good precedent and rule for the House to follow, unless sub- sequent events had occurred which should induce a contrary decision. In that case there was a petition against Sir Alexander Cockburn—it was, indeed, rather a stronger case than the present, because the petition was, he believed, in a more advanced stage; and when the writ was moved the point entirely turned upon the question of whether or no the seat was claimed by the petition. As upon that occasion the seat was not claimed, the House directed that the writ should issue. In that case the petition was proceeded with; the Committee sat and gave its verdict, and there would be no difficulty, he should presume, in pursuing the same course in the present instance. The hon. and learned Member who had asked him a question on a point of law would be fully competent himself to answer what the result would be of the decision of an election Committee. He did not know that it was necessary for him, therefore, to give any opinion on the subject. The Committee would be appointed and would give its decision, and if the Member petitioned against should be declared to have been guilty of bribery, he would be subjected certainly to the consequences of such conduct.
suggested, as the case was one of considerable difficulty, that the issue of the writ should be suspended until an inquiry could take place. If the hon. Member should be re-elected, and the Committee upon the pending petition should afterwards decide that he had been guilty of corrupt practices, this extraordinary state of things would arise—that he would actually have taken his seat for a place for which he was ineligible to be a candidate.
thought that there could be no pretence for postponing this writ, and that the Southampton case afforded a clear precedent. Upon that occasion Mr. Hayter moved that a new writ should issue for the election of a member in the room of Sir Alexander Cockburn; whereupon Colonel Forester asked the opinion of the then Mr. Speaker as to whether a new writ could issue pending a petition against the former return. Upon which Mr. Speaker said, "that in the case of an election petition complaining of an undue return, or of the return of a Member in consequence of bribery, but not claiming the seat for another person, it was competent for the House to order a new writ to issue," adding, that in the case where the petition claimed the seat for another person, "it is not competent for the House to order a new writ to issue, inasmuch as the House in that case cannot know which of the two persons claiming the seat had been duly elected." No difficulty or inconvenience would result from issuing the writ in the present instance, because if the hon. Member should be opposed and returned, and in the meantime found guilty of bribery upon the pending petition, he would be disqualified from sitting in the present Parliament, and therefore from being a candidate at the second election, and the gentleman next on the poll would be entitled to he returned.
said, that there was a great constitutional principle involved in this question. The petition in this case was of the most sweeping description; the whole borough was charged with corruption—electors and elected alike. It was not, therefore, a question merely as between the House and the Members, but as between the House and the borough of Sandwich. He would refer to his own case of Hertford in 1832, as a precedent directly in opposition to that of Southampton. Upon that occasion he, being the unsuccessful candidate, petitioned against the two noble Lords who were returned. He did not claim the seat, but he alleged that great corruption had been practised by the sitting Members, and that the borough had been guilty of great corruption. The Committee sat, and in duo time reported that great corruption did prevail in the borough of Hertford; and the House thereupon suspended the issue of the writ for the remainder of that Parliament, which lasted between two or three years. Supposing that a similar case of corruption should be established against Sandwich, and that the great majority of electors who had returned the hon. Member to Parliament had been bribed, he wanted to know what redress the House would have over the corrupt borough if they at once issued a writ for the election of a new member? In the case of Harwich also, which was a most notorious borough, the same thing had occurred, and no writ was issued for some time.
said, it appeared to him that the issuing of the writ would be open to another objection. If Mr. Hugessen should again stand for Sandwich, and should obtain his re-election by a majority of one hundred to one, but should subsequently be declared incapable of sitting in consequence of a decision of the Election Committee, the opposing candidate would become the actual representative of a constituency in which he had only obtained the support of a very inconsiderable minority of the constituent body. That would be a result which it would evidently be desirable, if possible, to avoid, and he thought that in a case of that kind they ought to proceed with great caution, and to disregard the precedent of 1852. Under those circumstances it appeared to him to he desirable that they should postpone their decision upon the question, and he should therefore move that the debate be adjourned for a month.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
could not admit that the Hertford case was at all in point, because there an inquiry had taken place before an Election Committee, who reported that corrupt practices had prevailed to a considerable extent; and the writ therefore was, very properly, suspended. But in this case there had been no proof of corrupt practices, and it would be an extraordinary thing to suspend a writ upon a mere assumption. Moreover, in the event of corrupt practices being proved to have taken place at the last election for Sandwich, it would be competent for the House to deal with the borough for those practices, whether the writ proceeded now or not. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but would at once direct the issue of the writ.
supported the Amendment. In the Barnstaple case, he observed, there had been a very similar petition to the present; but when the Committee came to inquire they found that a great many electors had been actually bribed. A Commission was then appointed to inquire into the electoral state of the borough, and the result was that very many persons were struck off the list. If a similar result should follow in the present instance, it might appear that a Member had been returned by the votes of those whose unworthy exercise of the franchise required that their names should no longer remain upon the register.
was of opinion that the rule which the Speaker had laid down, founded upon the precedent of 1852, was sufficient for the guidance of the House upon the present occasion. But there was another point involved in the matter which might require further consideration, and that was the effect which would be produced under the Corrupt Practices Act. His view was that the issuing of the writ would not at all interfere with the litigation of the allegations—and at present they were only allegations—contained in the petition, for nothing had yet been proved against the sitting Members of the borough. On this account the case was quite distinct from that either of Hertford or Barnstaple. If corruption should be proved before the Committee the disqualification would take effect against both elections; and he did not see, therefore, that justice would be impeded by the issue of the writ. Under these circumstances he saw no objection to the Motion.
said, that the proceedings in this case had, no doubt, not yet arrived at the point they reached in the Hertford case; but he had put the event of wholesale corruption being proved, and then had asked what remedy the House would have against the borough if, in the meantime, the writ were issued?
said, that in the case of Harwich he himself was the Member who had been unseated. He had been unseated, however, not on account of bribery, but because the poll had been closed three minutes before the proper time. The hon. Member for Finsbury had told them that Harwich was notoriously one of the most corrupt of our constituencies, but he could state that he had himself twice contested the borough, and that he had not upon either occasion spent more than £300.
would admit the applicability of the precedent of 1852 but for the subsequent passing of the Corrupt Practices Act. The object of that Act was not to benefit individual Members, but to protect the House and put down and punish bribery. It provided that if any candidate should be declared by an Election Committee guilty of bribery or undue influence such candidate should be incapable of being returned at any election which might thereupon take place. Yet while the eligibility or ineligibility of a gentleman to be elected depended upon the decision of a Committee, they proposed, pending the investigations of the Committee, to issue a new writ.
trusted that the House would treat the question in a judicial, and not in a party spirit. The circumstances were admitted to be precisely the same as in the Southampton case, with the exception that since that time the Corrupt Practices Act had been passed. But that Act had introduced no alteration whatever in the law in this respect; because a person declared by an Election Committee to have been guilty of bribery was just as ineligible to be a candidate at the next election before the passing of that Act as since. As, then, the law of Parliament was made up of precedents he saw no reason for disturbing that of 1852.
thought, that the difference of opinion which had been expressed by hon. Members showed the necessity for the further consideration of this question; and he therefore suggested that the issuing of the writ should be deferred at least till Thursday week.
was also of opinion that it would be well to postpone the issuing of this writ.
pointed out that in all previous cases in which the issuing of writs had been suspended that course had been adopted after proof of corruption before an Election Committee. In this case, there had as yet been no such proof, and the electors of Sandwich were therefore entitled to the writ which would enable them to be represented in that House. He hoped that all hon. Members who had a regard for the law of Parliament, for the regularity of its proceedings, and for the security of their own seats would resist the Motion for delay in this instance.
asked the Speaker to state whether if Mr. Hugessen were re-elected, and a Committee afterwards declared that he had been guilty of corrupt practices, his seat would be vacated without a fresh petition.
said, that in the case of 1852, the Election Committee proceeded to investigate the allegations of the petition precisely as though no second election had taken place. It would be perfectly competent to the Committee to take the same course in the present instance; and the proof that Mr. Hugessen had been guilty of bribery would incapacitate him from sitting in Parliament after his second return. He had been asked whether the Corrupt Practices Act altered the law affecting this case. As far as he could judge, after looking at the Act, it did not make any difference. The same disability attached to the Member under the old law as attached to him at present. If he was proved guilty of bribery he was then, as he was now, unable to sit in the existing Parliament. It was not for him (Mr. Speaker) to attempt to guide or influence the decision of the House upon this question. His duty was limited to explaining what had been the law and practice of Parliament up to the present time. That law and practice had been that in cases such as this the House did not hesitate to issue the writ.
said, that as far as he understood, the rule had been established that new writs could not be issued for fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament, solely for the purpose of affording the House time to consider what course they should pursue in consequence of the presentation of election petitions.
suggested, that if the House established a precedent by suspending this writ, petitions might, under circumstances similar to those which had attended the late election, be presented against all Members who were likely to accept office under the Crown, and that great inconvenience might arise from their absence from the House.
recommended the withdrawal of the Motion for the adjournment of this debate. Towards the close of the last Session he was a member of a Committee which considered this question, the opinion of which was that the suspension of writs previous to the decision of a Committee was a practice which that House was, in justice to the constituencies, bound to avoid.
said, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of York (Mr. Westhead) that great public inconvenience would be likely to arise if the House were to adopt the principle that writs should be suspended in cases of that character.
said, that in deference to what seemed to be the general feeling of the House, he would not persevere in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered,—
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Baron to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and Port of Sandwich, in the room of Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, Esquire, who, since his election for the said Town and Port, hath accepted the Office of one of the Commissioners for executing" the Offices of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.
House adjourned at Two o'clock, till Thursday 30th June