Lords Sitting of 13 December 1813

Preamble
In the case of the King v. Hawkins, Mr. Abbot and Mr. Buller ware heard for the plaintiff in error (Hawkins); and Mr. Serjeant Pell and Mr. Adam, jun for the defendant in error. Further hearing on Wednesday.
This was an information against Hawkins, in the nature of a quo warranto, to shew cause by what right he claimed to exercise the office of an alderman of the borough of Saltash. Mr. Hawkins and a
278
Mr. Spicer were candidates. When two votes had been given for each, Mr. Hawkins was questioned whether he had qualified, by taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England? and answered that he had not. The election, however, went on; and 16 voted for Mr. Spicer, and about 20 for Mr. Hawkins. The object of the proceedings was, to have the election of Mr. Spicer declared valid; the voters who polled for Mr. Hawkins (except the two as above mentioned) having voted for him after notice of his disqualification. Their votes, therefore, it was to be contended, ought to be considered as a nullity; and so it was decided by the Court of King's Bench, from whose judgment this writ of error was brought.

MISTAKE IN THE MADDER DUTIES ACT.
A Bill to rectify a mistake in the Madder Duties Act, which received the royal assent on Friday (namely, the omission of the word 'Madder' throughout the Act), was brought up from the Commons by Mr. Courtenay, and other member.
Lord Walsinghammoved the first reading; and then, that the standing orders (which had been ordered to be taken into consideration this day) should be suspended, for the purpose of passing the Bill through its other stages that night. He stated, that in the Madder Duty Act, the words 'on madder' were left out; so that it appeared as if the Act had been a repeal of all duties on importation. The object of the present Bill was to declare; that only the duties on the importation of madder were repealed; and as this was merely a Bill to correct a mistake, he hoped there would be no objection to his motion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the mere statement that there had been a mistake, would have been no good reason with him for suspending the standing order; but this was a mistake of vast consequence, and one of which the mischievous consequences would be increasing during every moment of delay in its rectification. It was on that ground that he agreed to the motion; but he hoped care would in future be taken to prevent: the occurrence of such mistakes, either in this or the other House.
The Bill was then forwarded through its several stages, and passed.