§ The Members selected by the General Committee on Elections to try the merits of the petition against the late return of a Member to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Bridport, were called to the Table and sworn.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, feeling the awkwardness of offering any remarks upon such an occasion, yet hoped that the House would kindly grant him its indulgence whilst he trespassed for a moment on its time. The Committee just appointed and sworn to try the merits of his return, would have to assemble to-morrow; and although he could have no hope that the House would deviate from the course usually followed in such cases, yet not for the sake of his own interest merely, but for the sake of the interests of other hon. Members who might thereafter be placed in a similarly unpleasant situation, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the extreme difficulty in which he was placed, owing to the loose wording of the Act which provided the giving of notice of the objection to be made. By a clause in a recent Act, which he believed had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the time of giving notice had been specified. The clause ran thus:—
And be it enacted, that in all cases of controverted elections, or returns of Members to serve in Parliament, the parties complaining of or defending such elections or returns shall, by themselves or their agents, deliver in to the clerk of the General Committee a list of the voters intended to be objected to, giving, in the said list the several heads of objection, and distinguishing the same against the names of the voters objected to, before an hour not later than six o'clock in the afternoon of the day next before the day appointed for choosing the Committee.Now, the manifest intention of that clause was to insure to parties a full and timely notice of the objections about to be made. But in his case they had kept the word of promise to the ear, whilst they had broken it to the hope. For how stood the fact? 978 240 electors of Bridport had voted for him, and the petitioners had placed upon the list of objections no less than 96. Now, he asked, was that justice? Was it in accordance with the fair meaning of the clause that such a list of objections should be handed in at the very last moment, when it would be almost impossible to ascertain upon what grounds the charges had been made or were founded? Was it, he asked, such a measure of justice as should be given to any man accused of bribery, to enable him to meet the case brought against him? Was it such a course as would be pursued by any court of justice? On the night before the day on which the Committee was about to sit, for the purpose of trying the validity of his return, he was as completely in the dark as any Member of that House as regarded the charges to which he was to be called on to reply. Surely the meaning of the clause must have been, that the objector to the return should state what was the nature of the charges about to be made, in order that those charges might be fairly met: and surely it was not a fair mode of complying with that requisition thus to object to one half of those who had recorded their votes for him. How could he know what witnesses to call? His only intention in rising was to direct the attention of the House to the case, in order to show the manner in which the parties supporting the petition were acting towards him. He had been left most unusually in the dark; and although he did not expect to be relieved by the House, he thought that some means should be taken to ensure a better measure of justice for other hon. Members who might be subsequently placed in a similar position.
§ LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSET, as far as he understood the objection of the hon. Member, believed it to be to the wording of the law as it at present stood. He did not know anything of the nature of the hon. Member's case; but the objection being to the Act of Parliament, he should say that he did not think that was the proper time to raise such a discussion.
§ MR. J. COLLETTthought the hon. Member for Bridport had little cause to complain, comparatively with him (Mr. Collett); for of 4,000 electors who voted for him at his election, every man had been objected to in the petition which was presented against his return.
§ SIR R. H. INGLIS, as he understood the hon. Member for Bridport, believed his 979 objection to be merely as to the excessive number of voters he was accused of having bribed. He understood the hon. Member to complain that notice of objection to 96 out of 240 voters had been given. Now, if the hon. Member had had the misfortune to have bribed so many as 96, he could not see why he should object to the petitioner giving notice of his intention to prove the fact.
§ MR. B. COCHRANEbegged most distinctly to deny that he had ever said anything like what the hon. Baronet attributed to him. What he had objected to was, that sufficient notice had not been given him; that the meaning of the Act was to insure to Members an opportunity of being made perfectly acquainted with the nature of the charges about to be brought against them, in order that they might be enabled to meet them; and that such an opportunity had not been afforded him. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding, when
§ MR. SPEAKERcalled him to order.
§ The Committee to meet at Eleven o'clock to-morrow.