HC Deb 26 May 1835 vol 28 cc161-4
Mr. Handley

rose to present a Petition from Thomas White, of Hull, praying the House to declare the election for that borough, of David Carruthers, Esq., to be null and void. The hon. Member said, he presented the petition in pursuance of part of the Resolution of that House, of the date of the 24th of February, by which it was required that all persons complaining of returns to Parliament on the ground of bribery and corruption, should present the petition within twenty-eight days after bribery or corruption was alleged to have taken place, and within fourteen days after the first sitting of Parliament.

Lord John Russell

said, that as the petition was presented in consequence of one of the Resolutions he had the honour of moving, and as there might arise some doubt as to the construction of that Resolution, he thought it would be best to receive the petition pro formâ now, to order it to be printed, and to consider on the next day of sitting of the House whether it ought to be received.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that if there was any doubt as to the time the petition ought to be received, or as to the construction of the Resolution, the propriety of receiving the petition was in his mind very questionable.

Lord John Russell

The Order of the House referred to, related to the extending of time. Did the right hon. Baronet think the Question ought to be decided now?

Sir Robert Peel

thought, that the purport of the Resolution was, that the petition should be presented within a certain time after the day corruption or bribery was alleged to take place. If the petition were not presented to the House within the time specified, it ought not to be received as an election petition.

Lord John Russell

said, that it was competent in the House to discharge the petition if any irregularity should be found in it.

The Speaker

said, there were two facts to be considered by the House as to the reception of the petition. The first was, the time of the payment of money for corrupt purposes, and the second was, whether since the time of payment more or less than twenty-eight days had elapsed before the petition was presented. The House could decide as to the time of payment of the money.

Mr. Handley

The petition alleged that the last payment of money was on the 13th of April; but from the 12th of April to the 12th of May the House had not been sitting.

Lord John Russell

referred to the resolutions of the House, by which it appeared that the petition might be presented any time within twenty-eight days after the corrupt payment had been made; and if the House were not sitting in that interval the Petition was to be presented within fourteen days after the House first met. The question was, then, whether the House was sitting at the expiration of the twenty-eight days; and, secondly, whether it had been now sitting longer than fourteen days?

Mr. Goulburn

thought that the petition in this case ought to be presented on the first day of the House sitting after the adjournment. Any other interpretation would be different from that of the original resolution.

The Solicitor General

thought the construction of the resolution was "fourteen days after the return had been certified to the House."

Mr. O'Connell

Yes, that is it. When that day Mr. O'Loughlen was called on the ballot the officer looked to the date of the return. The money, in this case, was alleged to be paid on the 13th of April; on the 12th of May the House resumed its sittings, so that twenty-eight days had elapsed. But this day was the fourteenth day from the time the House resumed ["No!"] at any rate it was the fourteenth day from the 12th of May. He considered, therefore, that the Petitioner was in time to have his petition received.

Mr. Handley

considered the Petitioner had a right to be allowed fourteen days after the House first recommenced sitting.

Lord John Russell

said, that he considered the petition ought to have been presented on the first day the House resumed its sittings. It appeared to him now, from the arguments he had just heard that the petition ought not to be received.

Mr. Handley

said, that the petition was placed in his hands but ten minutes before he entered the House. In that time he had examined it as attentively as he could, and he thought it ought to be received. However, he would not for one moment oppose his opinion to that of the majority of the House.

The petition withdrawn.