SERVICE OF NOTICES. (Hansard, 28 February 1840)

§ Sir George Clerk
had called the attention of the House on the previous day to some irregularities in the service of notices, signed by the chairman and the general committee. In order to inquire into those irregularities, he should now move, "That Mr. Rose, the clerk who attended the committee, be called to the bar."

§ Mr. Rose
called in and examined: He stated that he was clerk to the general election committee, and he had received the notices from the chairman of the committees for the parties in the Ludlow election petition; these were notices for the petitioners who defended the return, as well as for the petitioners against the return. He stated, from memory only, that he had received two notices, signed by the chairman, more than twenty-one days previous to the 12th of March. He delivered these notices to the messenger of the House, and directed him to deliver them to the parties in the same manner in which they had been delivered in the last session, as well as the previous session. The messenger had not informed him that he had served the notices upon the several parties. He conceived it to be the duty of the messenger, if he had served those 775 notices, to inform him of the circumstance. He had since received an intimation that the notices had not been served upon the petitioners, or their agents. He received that information from one of the agents of the petitioners. He received that notice on Monday last. He then inquired what had become of the notices that he had given the messenger. He then found that by some accident they had not been given to the petitioners against the return; but had been taken as notices to the persons who prayed to defend the return. The names of those to whom the notices were addressed were at the bottom of the notice. He was told, that they had not been duly served on the proper parties. These notices had since been seen in the possession of Mr. Coppock. Mr. Coppock was not the agent of the sitting Member, as at that moment there was no sitting Member. Mr. Coppock did not give him any reason for his coming into possession of the notices. He presumed that the notices were still in the possession of Mr. Coppock: he had seen them in Mr. Coppock's possession on Tuesday last. He did not know if they had been given to Mr. Coppock by the messenger to whom he intrusted them. Mr. Steyne was the messenger to whom he had intrusted them. The reason he gave the notices to Mr. Steyne was, that Steyne had been accustomed to serve notices on former parties. He did not direct the messenger to go to Mr. Coppock's office. He adopted the same course with the other notices that had been pursued with respect to the petition for Ludlow. The notices were directed to Mr. Alcock, and to the parties defending the petition. He was not clerk of the recognizances. By a reference to that office the agents might be discovered.

Mr. Steyne,
messenger, called in and examined. He said that he had received notices from Mr. Rose to deliver to the parties in the Ludlow election, and was told to serve them on the different parties. He had not served them. He gave them to Poingdestre, and told him to inquire of Mr. Parkes or Mr. Coppock who were the agents of the parties. Poingdestre told him that he had delivered them to the wrong person. He heard that Poingdestre had given them to Mr. Coppock; but he knew nothing except what he had heard. The whole of the proceedings upon the present occasion were the same 776 as in the former session of Parliament. In former sessions he had served those notices himself; but he was not now so employed, as he was on duty in another part of the House.

Mr. Poingdestre
examined. He had received notices to deliver in the Ludlow election. He had to inquire as to who were the agents in the Ludlow election petition, and he was directed to apply for that information to Mr. Parkes and Mr. Coppock. He met Mr. Coppock in the lobby of the House and asked him for information. Mr. Coppock said, if he gave him the notices all would be right, as he was concerned in the petition. He delivered all the notices that he had in his possession excepting one, which was for Sir Thomas Cochrane, he being a Member of the House. The notices were addressed to the petitioners and to the sitting Members. He had himself been for three years a messenger of the House. He delivered all the notices to Mr. Coppock on the 18th instant. He asked Mr. Coppock for information with regard to the agents in the election petition for Ludlow on both sides. Mr. Coppock requested him to deliver them to him, as he was concerned in them. Mr. Coppock stated to him that the trial would not come on. The practice was to deliver the notices to the agents. Mr. Rose did not inform him who were the agents. He had told Mr. Rose, but he did not know how many days ago, that he had delivered the notices to Mr. Coppock. He considered that he had discharged his duty in the matter. He had served notices on the Totness and Cambridge electors, on Mr. Parkes, and another on a Member of the House, who was known to him.

§ Sir G. Clerk
said, that it must now be apparent the very extraordinary and very negligent manner in which notices were served, it being in the power of any party to take those notices from the messengers, and thus defeat the intentions of the House. It appeared that the proceeding with the Ludlow election, which had been appointed for the 12th, must be defeated, independent of other circumstances which had transpired. The House he was sure must feel that the matter could not rest here, and that Mr. Coppock should be ordered to attend to explain why it was that he asked for and obtained from the messengers the notices, and retained them 777 from the 18th instant until the present time.

Mr. Coppock
at the bar, and examined. He was agent for the petitioners in defending the return for the Ludlow election. The messenger Poingdestre had delivered to him two notices—one for the sitting Member, and the other for the petitioners. He was agent for the petitioners—for the petitioners who defended the return.
To what parties was the notice addressed?—It was addressed to the parties petitioning against the return, for whom I am not agent. The notice was addressed to the petitioners opposing the return. He had a conversation with Poingdestre, who met him as he was coming up the lobby, and asked him if he knew the agents in the election petitions, as he had some notices to give them. Poingdestre then went up stairs, and brought them down to him. He took those which he conceived related to himself, and gave the messenger back the others. The others related to the Totness and Cambridge election petitions. He did not examine them closely; one was an address to the sitting Member, complaining of an undue return; and upon the other the name was written small, and petitioners in large letters, and he conceived it was for the parties for whom he was interested. He did not discover his mistake until Monday last, when he gave to Mr. Alcock his notice, and then it was that, for the first time, he discovered that he had the notice addressed to the other parties. When he discovered that the notice was not for him, he supposed that the agent on the other side had got that which was intended for him. He thought the notice was good, as it was a mere change of papers. He had the notice at home. He had received a notice which ought not to have been delivered to him, but he had not received a notice which ought to have been delivered to him. Both these would be of a precisely similar description, merely fixing the day of trial. Immediately that he discovered the error he consulted his counsel as to the course he ought to adopt as to waving any objection, and the reply of the counsel was, that he could not wave the objection, as his clients had not received due notice.