TOTNESS ELECTION. (Hansard, 14 April 1840)

§ Sir T. Fremantle

presented a petition, which materially concerned the privileges of that House, and involved a charge of a serious character against the returning officer for Totness. The petition came from certain electors of that borough. The House would recollect, that on the termination of the investigation before the election committee on "Wednesday last, the chairman moved, that a new writ should issue for the borough. That writ was received by the under-sheriff at Exeter on Friday, and in the afternoon of the same day he endeavoured to serve the precept on the returning officer. His messenger accordingly proceeded to the house of the mayor, next to the house of the Gentleman appointed to officiate in the absence of the mayor, and then to the town-clerk, but was unable to find any of them in Totness. The messenger made application to their respective wives, who said they knew nothing about them, but he was told by the wife of the town-clerk, that he would come home by the day's mail. He, however, did not arrive at Totness, and on Saturday the messenger, leaving duplicate copies of the precept at the houses of the mayor and the town-clerk, returned with the original to the sheriff at Exeter; for the Act of Parliament required him not only to serve the precept on the officer entitled to hold the election, but also to obtain his endorsement to it. This was the statement of the petitioners, that the mayor, the deputy-mayor, and town-clerk were absent with the intention of avoiding the service of the precept. He was not prepared to prove this allegation, but he might pledge himself to prove, that they were in London at the time the election committee was sitting, and in the room when the decision of the committee was announced to the parties. There was no doubt, too, though at that moment he had no witnesses ready to prove the fact, that they were aware of the issue of the new writ. The importance of this case did not turn on the misconduct of the mayor, endeavouring to gain time improperly, but the circumstances which he had stated had a tendency to invalidate any election held under the writ which had been issued, because the sheriff was bound within three 1092 days to serve the precept on the mayor, and a question might arise whether any election held under the precept received by the mayor subsequent to the three days was good? Supposing the mayor to have had the intention to render invalid any election under the writ, he would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, and it would, no doubt, be the duty of the House to visit him with some mark of its severe displeasure. Since this petition had been put into his hand, he had been informed that the mayor of Totness arrived in that town on the last of the three days; but as no sheriff's officer was then present to serve the precept, it might be doubtful whether the copy of the precept left in the mayor's house was a good service. He was not prepared at the present moment to submit a motion to the House, but he thought he had stated enough to justify him in proposing, that the petition be printed. If it should turn out that the conduct of the mayor arose merely from inadvertence, he should certainly make no motion on the subject, but he should certainly call the attention of the House to it to-morrow, if it should appear that the mayor had acted purposely. He trusted, too, if the service of the precept under the circumstances he had stated was informal, the House, instead of putting the parties to the inconvenience of proceeding to an election which might be void, would at once supersede the writ, and issue a fresh one? He did not mean to pledge himself as to the course he should think right to take to-morrow.