HC Deb 26 August 1841 vol 59 cc261-3
Mr. Duncombe

had a petition to present, signed by, 6,008 electors and other inhabitants of Norwich, complaining of certain proceedings at the late election for that city. The petitioners stated that they had to complain of the made in which that election had been conducted by the returning officer; that a considerable body of the constituents not being satisfied with Mr. Benjamin Smith, one of the former representatives, had pre- sented a requisition to a gentleman of the name of Eagle, who had thereupon consented to come forward; that on the day of nomination certain of the elective body had presented themselves at the courthouse with a view to the proposal of that gentleman, but that on their arrival they had found that the principal door had been closed against them, and that the court was nearly filled by persons whom they designated as hired ruffians, friends of the other candidates; that eventually they had succeeded in effecting an entrance into the body of the court; that after the nomination of the Marquess of Douro and Mr. B. Smith, Mr. John Dover and Mr. John Whitehead, had come forward and proposed a third candidate in the person of Mr. Eagle; that a show of hands having been taken by the returning officer, that functionary had declared the majority to be in favour of the Marquess of Douro and Mr. Smith: that Mr. Dover had then demanded a poll on the part of Mr. Eagle; that the sheriff had immediately upon that demand being made required and received the sum of 200l. from the proposers of the respective candidates as security for the expenses, which was of course instantly given by the friends of the two first-named gentlemen, whilst those of Mr. Eagle, not being duly prepared, were compelled to quit the court for the purpose of obtaining the necessary amount; that on the return of the parties with the sum, they were informed that the proposer and seconder of Mr. Eagle had been bribed by Mr. Edwards the city treasurer, and Mr. Woolright, by the payment of 50l., to withdraw their nomination; that it appeared the said proposer and seconder had accepted the money, upon the terms stipulated, and that the Marquess of Douro and Mr. Smith, were thereupon declared by the returning officer to have been elected. The petitioners proceeded to say, that, having taken the advice of eminent counsel, they were informed that there was no power vested in the returning officer to withdraw a nomination after such nomination had been once formally made, and therefore that the return was not warranted or true in law. The petitioners said they were not in a condition to pay the expenses which, would be consequent on the presentation of a petition against the return in the ordinary way, and therefore prayed the House to institute such inquiries as might be ne- cessary into the malpractices of which they complained, with a view of giving that extent of redress which the House might deem the electors in question fully entitled to.

Petition to lie on the Table.

Back to