HC Deb 18 December 1837 vol 39 cc1218-20

Mr. Pryme moved that, in accordance with a petition from Mr. William Meryweather Turner, further time be granted to complete the recognizances in the matter of the Dudley Election Petition.

Mr. Wm. Meryweather Turner

, of Over-bury-court, was examined at the bar, and stated in substance, that he is a barrister-at-law, and the petitioning candidate against the late return for Dudley. He gave in the name of his brother, Mr. Montague John Meryweather, as one of his securities in the recognizance. His brother had, some years ago, obtained the King's licence to assume the name of Turner in addition to that of Meryweather, under the directions of a will under which he took a beneficial interest, but he had never known him to use the name of Turner, except in some proceedings in Chancery, to which he was a party. He was generally known as Captain Meryweather, and witness said, that if he gave the name of Turner, his brother would not be known to the officers of the House. He, therefore, gave the name by which his brother was generally known, but that name was refused by the examiner, because the application was signed Montague Meryweather Turner.

Witness having withdrawn,

Mr. Pryme moved, that the time for completing the recognizances be extended to the 26th of December.

Sir T. Fremantle

did not see how the extension of the time could cure the error for which the examiners had refused to complete the recognizance.

Mr. Pryme

said, that the hon. Member took a very different view of this from that which his Friends at that (the Opposition) side of the House took the other evening, when a case somewhat similar came before them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought, the object sought for would be obtained by the enlargement of the time, as then the petitioner would have time to put in the real name, which was all that was asked, and which, assuming the security to be good, he thought ought not to be refused.

Sir R. Peel

would oppose the motion, as the legal name had not been given, which, in his opinion, was in direct opposition to the law on the subject. He thought the House would establish a bud precedent by acceding to the motion, and hon. Members could not be sufficiently guarded in deciding on matters of this nature, and it would be highly indiscreet to supersede that provision of law which had been acted upon for a series of years, by establishing a precedent likely to tend to the encouragement of fraud. It would, in his opinion, be highly satisfactory to the House to have the opinion of the chair on the subject.

The Speaker

said, it was his opinion, although he was aware many hon. Gentlemen would differ from him, that in cases similar to the present, the rules of the House should be strictly adhered to. The rigid observance of those rules would, he thought, tend materially to insure justice.

Lord J. Russell

said, that on Friday night there was a long debate on a case similar to the present. A person named Procter was rejected by the examiners, and he thought on good grounds, as that person had described himself as residing at South-bank, Regent's-park, and did not state that he was a tradesman in Exeter-street, Strand. On that occasion, the House granted time for the parties to amend the description. He did not think the present case one by which the House was called on to act rigidly. Several parties whose names had been altered on account of wills had continued the old signatures by which they were better known. If the intention were honest, the House ought not to be too strict. What would be thought of the conduct of the House by the public, if after having granted an equitable relaxation on the Friday night, the strict rule should be enforced on the Monday?

Sir H. Hardinge

perfectly coincided in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He thought the House should take upon itself an equitable jurisdiction, hut adhere to the strict rule; and, although he had voted for the indulgence on Friday night, owing to the remarks of the noble Lord, the Member for Devon, on the validity of the securities, yet, under existing circumstances, he should be prepared to vote for the rescinding of the decision the House had come to on that occasion.

Viscount Howick

said, that if the House did not exercise its discretion, in many instances great injustice would result. It was of considerable importance that election petitions should not be invalidated by mere technical errors. Care should be taken that the law should be adhered to, and that the sureties were valid; but where an accidental error presented itself, in his opinion, the House ought to grant indulgence.

The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 68: Majority 55.

Back to