§ Mr. Broughamstated the case to the House or which he intended to move, that the consideration of the petition against the election for Nottingham should be postponed. Two petitions had been presented against the return for that town: one on the 25th of January, and the other on the 3rd of February. The petitions were in the same words, but signed by different voters. The first petition which had been presented was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March; and the second, which was presented before the first was abandoned, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the same day. After this, the first petition was abandoned. If the second petition had been presented after the first had been abandoned, it could not have been taken into consideration till between the 23rd and 30th of February, but by keeping the first petition alive till the second was presented, the petitioners had been forced into a priority over petitions which had been presented earlier. This was shortly, the ground on which he had to apply to the candour and justice of the House, to put the sitting member in the same situation as if the first petition had not been presented. The hardship on the member petitioned against, was, that as the last day on which the petitioners might put in their recognizances was the 17th of February, and as the petition was to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March, the member had only six clear days to prepare his lists. He therefore moved, that the order for taking the petition into consideration on the 2nd of March be discharged.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, he was at a loss to know on what grounds the proposal could be made. It had been admitted that both the petitions were in the same words; it could not be said, therefore, that the sitting member was taken by surprise. The circumstances connected with the petitions were these:—the agent of the petitioners had not been aware of the notice required on putting in sureties; when he had come to town, therefore, he had found that the time had elapsed for giving notice. He had therefore sent in another petition, signed by different electors, in 431 the game words as the former. He therefore could not see that this was a disadvantage to the sitting member, because, if a mistake had not occurred, he would have had to meet the first petition at the time that he would now have to meet the second. It was to be observed also, that the days between the 23rd and 30th of March were full, so that if the petition was not taken into consideration on the day now appointed, it must be put to the end of the list. It deserved consideration, too, whether, it was adviseable to keep such a town as Nottingham in a state of ferment longer than was necessary.
§ Mr. Brougham, in explanation, said, that his noble friend the member for Nottingham (lord Rancliffe), had been put to this material inconvenience, that whereas if the first petition had been proceeded with, he would have had from the 7th to the 24th of February to prepare his lists; he had now only from the 17th to the 24th. He had, notwithstanding this, been put to expense and inconvenience from the presentation of the first petition. If his motion was rejected, it might, and undoubtedly would happen, that a first petition would be presented without any intention of prosecuting it. After which a second petition would be put forth, the recognizances on which might be entered into only a short time before the ballot. If the House could not fix any day between the 23rd and 30th of March, because there was no vacancy, it was to be recollected, that it was by the negligence of the petitioners that they had incurred this inconvenience. The fair course for them to have pursued, would have been to have acted as the petitioners in the Camelford election had done—to have abandoned the first petition before the second was presented. If the House should object to a long delay, there was the 9th of March which stood open, as the petition from Oxford would not be prosecuted as an election petition.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that if the hon. and learned gentleman only wished for a delay of a week, he should not, though it would be inconvenient to the petitioning party, oppose it.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, his application was, that the petition should be taken into consideration on some day between the 23rd and 30th of March.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he conceived a member was bound to prepare his defence from the first moment of the presentation of a 432 petition against him. Yet, at the same time, the petitioners, who had neglected to take the proper steps in the first petition, could not complain if they were put in the same situation as if that petition had not been presented.
Lord Castlereaghthought it fair to grant any accommodation to the sitting member that was not inconsistent with the just claims of the petitioners, who were but too likely to be inconvenienced by the extent of the delay which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed. With a view to decide fairly towards both parties, he thought it better to discharge the order, and fix the ballot for the 9th of March.
§ Mr. Broughamacquiesced in the arrangement proposed by the noble lord, and the ballot was accordingly fixed for the 9th of March.