BOSTON ELECTION. (Hansard, 26 May 1820)

Sir R. Heron
said, that the question before the House was one of the greatest importance, and one with which the House ought not to interfere upon grounds so slender as those advanced by the hon. gentleman who made the motion. The hon. gentleman principally relied on two grounds; first, the absence of Mr. Ellis; and, secondly, that the House could not anticipate a case which would come before a committee. If the last ground were tenable, the House had in fact no case before them at present. It was argued last night, and he believed it was the opinion of most members present, that if the qualification of the absent candidate were called for and not produced at the election, he could not be legally returned; but at the Boston election, the qualification of Mr. Ellis had been demanded, and the returning officer, after consulting with 602 some persons, not lawyers, decided that it was not necessary for the friends of Mr. Ellis to produce a qualification. As the House had determined to reject the numerous petitions of the people of England for a more equal representation, it ought surely to vindicate, in the fullest extent, the right of the people to that representation which it had thought fit to give them. If the committee was postponed to the time proposed, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Ellis, the session of parliament might pass away. He did not rely on the declaration, that Mr. Ellis was on his passage from the Cape of Good Hope. If Old Sarum elected the dey of Algiers, would the House allow him to take his seat? Certainly not. The dey of Algiers was not more incapable of holding a seat in that House than Mr. Ellis. The hon. member read an extract from an act, which provided, that any person holding a new office under the Crown, or one created by the Crown after the 25th of October 1795, should be incapable of holding a seat in parliament. From the returns of the civil department of the Cape, it appeared that Mr. Ellis held the office of deputy colonial secretary, an office appointed by the Crown.

Mr. Wynn
was sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he thought he was pursuing a very extraordinary course in calling upon the House to discuss the merits of the case in the present stage. That should be the business of a committee.

Sir R. Heron
was obliged to the hon. member for setting him right; but he conceived he was driven into the observations which he had made by the application of the hon. gentleman opposite. He thought it right to refer all to the committee. He was able to prove, by viva voce evidence, that Mr. Ellis acted officially at the Cape. He thought no case was made out sufficient to induce the House to interfere and take the question from the committee.

§ Mr. Tierney
said, that many members did not know upon what grounds the hon. member moved.

Mr. Courtenay
said, that this was a petion which had been fixed for consideration on the 6th of June, and that he, in consequence of the absence of Mr. Ellis, wished to have the time enlarged to the 18th of July.

Mr. Bernal
said, that Mr. Ellis had no authorised agent in this country.

§ Mr. Tierney
said, that his reason for offering a word on this occasion was, that 603 the hon. member opposite had said that he had no doubt that Mr. Ellis was disqualified from holding his seat in parliament. About that he thought there could be no doubt, and the only point on which the question turned was, did he accept the office. His hon. friend (sir R. Heron) said he would adduce proof of that fact. Under such circumstances, was anything so monstrous as to say that the House must, because the electors of Boston had elected Mr. Ellis, presume that he ought to sit? Would any man in the House get up and say he thought Mr. Ellis eligible? Would the hon. gentleman say, he had any doubt on the subject, that Mr. Ellis had no idea when he went to the Cape that he would be elected for Boston? He would wish to know, whether any member would not be at liberty to move for a new writ for a member in the room of Mr. Ellis? If the House made use of the Grenville act, he hoped they would not use it for the purpose of mischief. The effect of the present motion would be, that Boston would be unrepresented for this year and probably for the next. No one doubted that the electors had a right to elect Mr. Ellis; but the hon. member who made the motion had declared that the impression on his mind was, that the office of Mr. Ellis was a disqualification, and the only question now was, did he accept it? He thought the present motion was not a fair way of dealing with parliament; he thought it competent for any member to move that a new writ be issued for Boston.

§ The Speaker
said, he thought the petition on the table must be disposed of before any member would be at liberty to move for a new writ. The next question was, how the petition could be withdrawn after recognizances had been entered into. By a clause in the 28th of Geo. 3rd, the House could not issue a writ unless the seat were vacated by death or some other cause, which must arise subsequently to the election; and by the 53rd of Geo. 3rd, it was lawful for the House to permit a petition to be withdrawn upon matter which might subsequently arise verified upon oath.

Mr. Bathurst
begged the House to consider that the object of the present motion was only to remove the consideration of the petition from the 6th of June to the 18th of July, a day on which another petition of a similar nature was to be taken into consideration; and it might happen, that the person complained of in that peti- 604 tion would be proved in the committee to be as incapable of holding a seat as Mr. Ellis. An hon. member had said that it was late in the session, and the consequence would be, that it would go over for another year. In that respect the petition was not used differently from others of a similar description. The sum and substance of the observations were, that it could be proved that Mr. Ellis was incapable of accepting a seat; but such proof could not, he conceived, be now submitted to the House. The House had been informed by the' Chair, that they had not the power to reject the ordinary mode of proceeding adopted by parliament, and that proof could only be offered in the usual way adopted by the House.

Sir R. Heron
said, he did not undertake to prove that Mr. Ellis was now in possession of the office, but that he did accept it.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, the House ought to hear all before they made up their minds on the present case. He would suppose this motion was never made; and if he had the same impression on his mind as the hon. gentleman opposite, he should hesitate before he would make such a motion, as the hon. gentleman seemed to be certain that the utmost delay would only tend to show that Mr. Ellis was ineligible. For his part, he thought a greater difficulty existed in point of fact than in point of law. He thought the person who proposed this measure was not a friend to Mr. Ellis. If the committee were ballotted for, and in the act of sitting, he would defy the petitioner to make out his case; and why? His hon. friend said it was an office created since 1795; yes, but it must be proved that Mr. Ellis was in possession of it on the day upon which he was elected. If any member moved for a new writ for a person to serve in the room of Mr. Ellis, it might turn out that some other person was entitled to take the seat. It appeared to him that it should be proved that Mr. Ellis actually held the office on the day of his return for Boston. He thought that could not be ascertained, except by the appearance of Mr. Ellis, or by sending out to the Cape. He did not see the possibility of proving the contents of the petition. The gentleman alluded to had left the Cape a month previous to the election; and he therefore could not say that Mr. Ellis held the office at the time of his return for Boston. It might happen, if a new writ were issued, that 605 Mr. Ellis would come in a day after and say, "I resigned a day or two previous to my return." What then would the House do in order to extricate itself from such a situation? The only way, in his opinion, by which the difficulty could be got rid of was, by a new act of parliament.

Lord Castlereagh
said, he apprehended that official intelligence from the Cape would be sufficient to warrant the committee in coining to a decision on the question, but at the present moment it was quite impossible to have any intelligence of that kind. Me did not think it possible to move for a new writ, now that the case was sub judice. The Grenville act deprived the House of that jurisdiction. From the words in the petition it appeared, that the petitioner did not only intend to contest the right of Mr. Ellis, but to urge his own; and if the House would now take the question into consideration, the parties would be deprived of that protection intended to be afforded by the Grenville act. On general grounds, he thought the House ought not to act hastily in depriving a man of what was of the highest respectability in the country—namely, a seat in the House of Commons. If the question were permitted to stand over until next session it would be a hard case; but in postponing it to the 18th of July, he did not think any great injury would be done.

Mr. Courtenay
admitted, that considering the office Mr. Ellis held as a notoriously new one, he was inclined to suppose him ineligible; but he had stated that there were many possible ways in which he might have become eligible.
The question "that the order for considering the petition of W. Augustus Johnson, on the 6th of June next, be discharged, and that the petition be taken into consideration on the 18th of July next," was then put and agreed to.