POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION PETITIONS. (Hansard, 24 November 1837)

§ Lord John Russell
had already stated to the House his intention of that day proposing the Adjournment of Election Petitions till after the holidays. He made this proposal on grounds of public convenience, which of themselves were so obvious as to render it unnecessary for him to explain them at any length. The day on which the first election petition was fixed was the 12th of December, but that day approached very near to the Christmas recess, a period at which it would be very difficult indeed to get Members of the House to attend election ballots. There would not at that time be many questions of interest before the House, and hon. Gentlemen might very probably be not over anxious to get themselves placed on Election Committees, which would oblige them, by law, to remain here during the Christmas holidays. It appeared, therefore, that Parliament having assembled so short a time before the Christmas recess, it would not be expedient to take any election petitions till after the holidays. It was his intention when the House adjourned for that recess to move that it adjourn to the 1st February in the ensuing year; and he should have at once proposed that the first election petition should be adjourned till that day, which he believed to be a Thursday, had he not conceived, that in point of form it would not be proper to anticipate that the House would make an adjournment for so long a period without the sense of the House being taken on the subject. He, therefore, thought himself bound, in point of form, to fix the first election petition for an earlier day than the 1st of February, in order to meet the possible case that any unforeseen contingency should induce the House to make a shorter adjournment, say for only a fortnight. In either case, he considered that the election petitions should come on immediately after the re-assembling of the House. He did not, however, look upon the latter event as probable; and in case the House did adjourn till the 1st of February, he should 205 propose the adjournment of election petitions to the same date. At present, however, he felt himself bound to move that the first election petition, which he believed was the "the Roxburgh," be taken into consideration on the 16th of January next.

§ Sir Robert Peel
had no objection, in point of fairness, to the proposition of the noble Lord, but he thought he could suggest a course more in conformity with what had taken place on all former occasions. The noble Lord had proposed to fix a day for the consideration of the first election petition, when it was perfectly notorious that election petitions could not be taken on that day. He knew of no precedent for such a course being taken; he had never heard of an instance of the House naming two different days for the consideration of election petitions, when it was notorious that, on neither of those days could petitions be taken. The law required, that the Speaker should give notice to the parties respectively concerned in election petitions as to when the day for each petition was fixed, yet it was now proposed to adopt a course which, while it was understood only by the House, could only have the tendency of confusing the parties. According to the arrangement at present understood, it was the Speaker's duty to notify to the parties concerned in election petitions, that the day fixed for taking petitions was the 12th of December. Now it was proposed to make the l6th of January the day for taking petitions, although the House was given clearly to understand that on that day petitions would not be taken, and yet it would be the Speaker's duty to give notice to all parties that on that day they would be heard. This would be not only an entire departure from the course which had hitherto uniformly prevailed, but it would be making the whole affair little better than a mere mockery. Would it not answer all the purposes of substantial justice if the noble Lord were to postpone naming the definitive day on which the first petition would be taken until the duration of the recess had been determined on? The noble Lord might take any day before the 12th of December for making this announcement, and such a course would at once obviate the manifest inconvenience and absurdity of giving to parties a public notification that their 206 petitions would be considered on a particular day, while it was necessary to give them a private notification that on the particular day mentioned their petitions would not be considered. He would beg to suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord, to postpone making any announcement on the subject till, say the 10th or 11th of December, by which time be could fully have made up his mind as to the course to be taken with reference to the duration of the holidays.

Lord Stanley
, having put a question to the noble Lord in the course of the evening in connection with this subject, rose to say, that he had heard with some satisfaction, one portion of the announcement made by the noble Lord, namely, that it was his intention to proceed to the consideration of the election petitions immediately after the re-assembling of the House. Let the House recollect that they had a distinct promise on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that unless he could bring forward some strong grounds for deviating from the usual course, it was his intention to move an adjournment till an early day in February, and that the petitions should be proceeded with on the first Tuesday or Thursday after the meeting of Parliament. He did not object, if the noble Lord thought fit to adopt that course, to the naming of the precise day being deferred, now that he had received that intimation from the noble Lord which assured him that he would secure the great object he had in view last night. But when the noble Lord told them that he could not anticipate the House would sanction so long an adjournment as to the month of February, he surely overlooked the precedents which occurred in 1812. Parliament met on the 24th of November in that year, and on the 1st of December this motion was made and carried—"Resolved, that this House will not enter on the trial of any election petitions previous to the Christmas recess." This was so far precisely the course of the noble Lord; but did the House feel any difficulty at that time in fixing the day? No such thing; for the four petitions were fixed, two for the 9th of February, and two for the 11th of February. That, he begged it to be understood, was the earliest time after the Christmas recess that could be fixed, Parliament not meeting till Febru- 207 ary. Here, then, was a precedent for the noble Lord as against the delicacy he felt in asking the House to adjourn for so long a period, as that very period to which he told them they should adjourn. The noble Lord said, that he had no reason to suppose Parliament would not accede to his motion of adjournment; neither had he; and, that being the case, he did not see any difficulty in naming the day. But the noble Lord said, he did not mean to name a day. Then let him not fix a nominal day; let him rather postpone any arrangement, say till the 6th of December, and name a day then. He was satisfied that the petitions should be proceeded with in the usual manner immediately after the holidays.

§ Lord John Russell
said, his object, in the first place, was to take care that the parties had the due and requisite notice; and in the second place, he wished to avoid doing that which he thought he was not justified in doing, viz., fixing the period of the adjournment of the House. But as, in his opinion, there was no objection whatever to the course which the right hon. Baronet proposed, he would be ready on some future day, say the 6th of December, to move the day on which the trial of the petitions should actually be proceeded with. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he did not think that there were any of his observations of to-night that were contrary to what he had stated last night in answer to the noble Lord. He could not say whether extraordinary circumstances would not induce him to deviate from the usual plan; that was what he wished to communicate to the House, and the noble Lord was mistaken if he supposed that what he had said to-night was in any way inconsistent with what he had stated yesterday.

§ Mr. Williams Wynn
said, as the general disposition appeared to be that they should not proceed with the trial of the election petitions till after Christmas, he would not urge on the House the necessity for taking them earlier; but at the same time he must enter his protest against the delay.

§ Sir R. Peel
said, the debate he understood to be postponed then till the 6th of December. The object of his rising at present was to give notice that if, on the 7th of December, any doubt arose as to a day being fixed in February for the hear- 208 ing of the petitions, he should bring forward a distinct motion, naming a day in February for that purpose.