HC Deb 17 June 1805 vol 5 cc435-6

Mr. Creevey rose to move the house to fix a day for the exchange of lists of disputed votes between the petitioning freeholders of Middlesex and Mr. Mainwaring. He argued that the petitioning freeholders stood precisely in the situation, and were entitled to all the rights of the candidate who had declined to prosecute the claims. This, he said, was the intention of the act, the object of which was to prevent collusion between the candidates, to the prejudice of the freeholders. He would propose to fix the exchange of the lists for Thursday or Friday, and the consideration of the petition for some day in the next week.

Mr. H. Thornton doubted whether the petitioners were entitled to all the rights that were claimed for them. If they were entitled to come into the place of the candidate, the equity of the case seemed to require that they should come in rather to the situation in which the candidate stood at the time of giving in his declaration of his intention of withdrawing, than to his situation at the time of the presentation of the petition. If collusion was spoken of, he saw more reason, in this instance, to apprehend collusion between the withdrawing candidate and these petitioners, than between the two candidates. Six of the principal petitioners were committee-men of sir Francis Burdett, and the agents were the same that had acted for sir Francis. Mr. Mainwaring had delivered his list to the agents of sir Francis, and sir Francis, on his part, had caused no list to be delivered. Under these circumstances it was evident the petitioners would have an advantage. He conceived, therefore, that a substitution to the extent of the pecuniary rights of the candidate, would only tend to the extension of that delay which had already kept Middlesex three years unrepresented. He could not, therefore, consent to any long delay now, lest it should prevent the decision from taking place within the present session.

Mr. Creevey allowed there were appearances of collusion in the circumstances adverted to by the hon. gent. He thought that some delay should be granted, from a regard to the general provisions of the act, and the general provisions of the act, and the general rights of petitioners under it; but he was ready to admit that delay should be very little in this case.

The Attorney-General agreed in the reasonableness of the arguments of the hon. gent. who spoke last, and the fairness of his admissions. He proposed the exchange of the lists to take place on Wednesday, and the ballot on Friday.—A long conversation ensued, in which Mr. Fox stated that he thought that too short a time. Mr. Mellish represented the advantage given in by Mr. Mainwaring in the notification of the oaths he meant to object to, without receiving any information from the opposite party in return. Mr. Fox considered that the petitioners, if treated bona fide as such, were not bound by any thing done by either of the other parties.—Mr. Sturges Bourne thought the petitioners not entitled to any indulgence of time, as they had held back their petition to the very last moment of the time allowed them by parliament to present it.—Mr. Fox could not admit, that when a certain time was allowed by parliament for any purpose, those to whom it was granted were liable to answer for having availed themselves of it to the full extent. Mr. Mainwaring, the elder, had delayed to the last day on which he could have presented his petition, and nobody arraigned him on that account.—Mr. Wilberforce offered a few observations. The ballot was fixed for Friday, and the exchange of lists for Thursday.—Adjourned.