ELECTION COMMITTEES. (Hansard, 7 March 1833)

§ Mr. Grote
presented a Petition from individuals at Norwich, stating, that the return of Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett for that place, had been effected by means of bribery and corruption, and praying that a Parliamentary Commission might be sent down, fully and fairly to inquire into and expose the system. It would be impossible to establish those facts before the Election Committee, in consequence of the expense that it would occasion; and, as the practice of sending Commissions for similar purposes had been adopted, he saw no reason why it should not be followed also in England.

§ The Solicitor General
objected to the reception of petitions relative to a question which was already brought under the consideration of the House by an election petition. Had the hon. Gentleman considered the nature of this petition for a moment, he must have been convinced of its irregularity, and that that for which it prayed was nothing more nor less than asking the House of Commons to prejudge a question, which one of its own Committees would have to decide on oath. He must deprecate such attempts to pervert the public mind, and frustrate the ends of justice. A Committee was about to sit in judgment upon the Norwich election petition, and, pending that proceeding, such a statement as that contained in this petition ought not to have been made.

Mr. O'Connell
fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, and it should have 342 his warmest support. He thought no hardship could be greater on hon. Members, who were ultimately declared duly elected, than that of bringing witnesses, at an immense expense, from the extreme end, perhaps, of the kingdom; It was particularly the case, as far as it related to petitions from Ireland; and few hon. Members, except those of that country, who suffered from the operation of the law, as it stood at present, could appreciate its enormity. It would be better, in his opinion, that a single Commissioner, from a Committee of that House, should proceed to the place where the petition emanated, and then examine witnesses as to the validity and effect their testimony would have before that Committee. As to the present system, it was replete with absurdities and anomalies. Commissions would be of very little use, if every Commission were like the last which had been sent to Ireland; and which did not complete its business before it was put an end to by the dissolution of the Parliament. With respect to the city of Norwich, he was well informed of the great expense which a trial of the petition under the ordinary law would entail upon the petitioners; and he therefore heartily concurred in its prayer. He thought that Committees of that House trying election petitions, ought, in their decision against unsupported petitions, to be a little more firm than they were accustomed to be.

Mr. Wynn
concurred with the hon. member for Dublin, in his view of the present system. The Act which authorized the issue of Commissions for examining witnesses in Ireland was certainly a clumsy, inconvenient, and expensive contrivance. He was afraid that Election Committees of that House were too prone to omit the sentence "frivolous and vexatious." He thought it their duty to pronounce it oftener than they did. Perhaps the words frivolous and vexatious were sometimes too harsh; but then the Committee should make the petitioners pay the expenses of the unsuccessful candidate, unless there were sufficient grounds to the contrary.

§ Mr. Warburton
called the attention of the House to the case of the hon. member for Dorsetshire. Although he sided with the petitioners against the election of that hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member declared that he ought to retain his seat; 343 but that the expense would be so enormous in proving his eligibility to sit in that House, that he was obliged to relinquish the inquiry. Some of the electors, however, took the matter up. The merits of that election were afterwards referred to a Committee, who declared that the hon. Member was duly elected. Here was a case where, in consequence of the enormous expense attending the bringing forward witnesses from distant parts, to prove the legality of the election, in which the country might have been deprived of the services of a Gentleman who was declared to have been properly returned.

§ Mr. Wason
concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. The case of Liverpool was an illustration of the inconvenience and expense attendant on the present mode of trying election petitions. Elections that were notoriously carried by bribery, were, under the present system, defended, because the longest purse could gain the cause.

Mr. Wynn
suggested, that when it should appear that the sitting Member had no good defence to set up against a petition, the expense attendant upon contesting it should fall wholly upon him. His defence should be reported frivolous and vexatious.

§ Mr. Grote
was glad, notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the learned Solicitor General, that he had presented this petition, and he trusted that it would appear here, as in civil cases, that there was no wrong without a remedy. He was sure no injustice would be done by the petition, for the members of the Committee would decide on nothing but the evidence.