HC Deb 08 July 1839 vol 49 cc69-72

On the motion of Sir Robert Peel, the Controverted Elections' Trial Bill was read a third time. He said, that in the instance of the Ludlow election a petition had been presented against the return, and he had been informed that the sitting Member was inclined to defend his seat. As the Committee might, under the present law, not be appointed for thirty days, it was very probable that no Committee might be appointed to try the petition during the present session. He had, therefore, pro- vided for this case by a clause in which it was enacted that the recognizances should be held to be valid, but that the committee for trying the petition should be appointed under the new law.

Clause brought up, and added to the bill by way of rider.

On the question that the Bill do pass,

Viscount Mahon

said, that he did not rise to raise any discussion upon this subject. He had already fully stated his opinions upon it, and while he admitted that the bill was a great practical improvement, and felt bound to express what he was sure was the general sense of the House, that the country was greatly indebted to his right hon. Friend for the pains and attention which he had bestowed upon the bill, still he was obliged to say, that any measure which did not remove the trial of election petitions from the jurisdiction of that House would not, in his opinion, be successful. He owned, he hoped, that if his anticipations were well founded, those gentlemen who had taken fan interest in this measure would exert themselves hereafter to secure what ought to be their prominent object—an impartial and just decision. His object, however, in rising, was to call the attention of the House to a part of the subject which had not been noticed in the discussions which had taken place, and upon which the opinion of the House should, he thought, be expressed. The question to which he referred was, whether the evidence taken before an election committee ought or ought not to be printed. Now he thought, that if the House would consider what was the present practice with regard to this point, they would find it was very far from satisfactory. The general rule was, that the evidence should not be printed, but whenever one party thought that a decision of a committee was unfair, a motion was made that the evidence should be printed. As a matter of course, no opposition was offered, and, therefore, sometimes the evidence was printed, and sometimes not. He thought, therefore, that it was very desirable the practice should not be kept in this anomalous state, and he was sure, that if the Speaker would throw out any suggestion to the House, it would be received with all the respect which was due to his high character and eminent station. He declined offering any suggestion himself, but he should be glad to hear and to consider any that might be thrown out.

Sir R. Peel

thought that the best course would be, to leave this question to be settled by the circumstances of each particular case. There appeared to him to be no reason for printing, as a general rule, the voluminous evidence taken before election committees, but at the same time, if any body suggested that the evidence might afford important precedents, or if there was any suspicion of abuse, a motion might be made for printing the evidence. He recollected that he had proposed last year to print the evidence in all cases, but he was deterred from that course by the consideration of the enormous expense which it would entail without any proportionate advantage. He did not take the same view of this measure as his noble Friend. Nothing could have been more fair than his noble Friend's opposition to the measure, or more able than the manner in which he had conducted that opposition. At the same time, he had a strong impression that the bill would be successful. When Members were placed in a judicial position, he had good reasons for believing, à priori, that they would act with impartiality, and he was strongly confirmed in that opinion by the conduct of the selected Members on private committees. But there were other considerations which weighed with him. He thought that if that House had pronounced its own condemnation, and had devolved upon a legal tribunal those functions which he wished to preserve for election committees in the same year in which the Court of Queen's Bench had denied the House the privilege of printing their own papers, it was impossible to say what an effect might not be produced upon the opinions of the people with respect to that House. He was as much opposed as he had ever been to encroachment, by a popular assembly, upon the privileges of the other branches of the Legislature; but he would contend with the same zeal and earnestness for the privileges which had hitherto belonged to the House of Commons, and he should deprecate any course of conduct which would be equivalent to parting with those privileges, and devolving them upon an extrinsic authority.

Bill passed.

Forward to