Mr. SUiNER. It does not appear whether it was at a subsequent session, but it simply appears that it was after the division. The Senator understands that the division in the British Parliament corresponds with what we call the ycas&nays. They do not take the yeas&nays. They “divide, ” as it is called. The yeas, foriustance, sta in the Chamber, and the nays go out into the lo by, and they are counted as they go out. The American authority is in harmony with the English which I have already quoted. I read now from Cashing, page 712, section 1836, as folfows: “The disallowance of votes usually takes place when, after the declaration of the numbers by the Speaker, it is discovered that certain memberswho voted were not presentwhen the question was put or wereso interestedin the question " Mark those words, if you please, sir "th“aItt theyought to have withdrawn from the house. has already been seen that when it is ascertained that membershave improperly voted, on a division, who were not in the House when the question was put, if this takes place before the numbers are declared by the Speaker, such votes were disallowed by him at.once, and not included in the numbers doclared. If the fact is not ascertaineduntil after the numbo are declared, it is then necessarythat there should O amotion and vote of the House for their disallowanco: and this maytake place, for anything that appearsto the contra, at any time during the session, and has. in fact, ta on place after the lapse of several days from the time the voteswere given. Thus much for the remedy by disallowance; and that brings me now to the proposition which I have made, which I call the 2nd mode of remedy, by amending the Journal. That remedy, permit me to say, from the nature of the case is applicable to an error which appears on the face of the Journal. I ask Senators to note the distinction. It is applicable to an error that appears on the face of the Journal. If the interest of a Senator appeared only by evidence aliimde, by evidence outside, as for instance, that he had some private interest in the results of a pending measure by which he was necessarily disqualified, his vote could be disallowed only on motion; but if the incapacity of the Senator to vote on a particular occasion appears on the Journal itself, I submit that the Journal must be amended by striking out his vote. The case is patent. Wb have already seen, by the opinions o eminent judges, great masters of law in different ages and countries, that what is contrary to the principles of natural law must be voidand English judges tell us that even an act of Parliament must be treated as void if it undertakes to make a man ajudge imhis own case. Now, sir, apply that principle to your Journal. It has recognized a man as ajudge in his own case. I insistthat the recognition was void. Is not the true rem edy to be found by amending the Journal so as to strike out his name from the proceedings? Of course the Journal discloses the 2 essential facts: 1st. that as a Senator he was a party to the preccedings; 2ndly, that as aSenator he was a judge in the proceedings; and since those 2 facts appear on the face ofyourJour no], it seems to me that the only substantial remedy is by amending our Journal to the end that a precedent of sue a character shall not find a place hereaflier in the records of the Senate. Sir, thisquestion is not unimportant; it is grave. It clongs to the privileges of this ody. I might almost say it is closely asso ciated with the character of this body. Can Senators sit here, and by their sanction allow one of their number, on an important occasion, to come forward and lay those 2 great parts, party and judge, at tosame time? and vet those 2 great parts have been played in this Chamber, and y0 Journal makes a record of the performance. I ask that the Journal should be rectified in harmony with the principles of parliamenta law, and in harmony With the principles of universal law. In making this motion I have no other motive than to protect the rights of the body of which I am a member, an to establish those pnnmples of justice which will be a benefit to our country for all time. You cannot lightly sec agreat principle sacrificed. You abandon your duty i You allow an elementary principle of justice to be set at naught in this Chamber. Be it, sir, your duty to u hold those truths and to stand by those princip cs. I know no other way in which you can do it so complately and effectually as by amending our ournal and eliminating from the recor the mistake that was made. The vote of Mr. Stockton was null and void. It should be treated as if it had not been given. I have no doubt that the motion that I now make to correct this Journal would be in order even at a late da. I believe that at any day any Senator might rise in his place and move to expun e from the Journal a record which in itself is erogatory to this body. I have in my hands a reference to the case of John Wilkes, who, you will remember, just before our Revolution, was excluded from Parliament while his competitor, Luttrell, was declared duly elected. The decision of Parliament, so the history records, convulsed the whole kingdom for 12 years, but after that long period it was expunged from the Journals I now quote the emphatic words “as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of that kingdom.” But, sir, the record mode in your Journal, I submit, is subversive of the great principle of jurisprudence on which the rights of every citizen of this country depend.