MR. HUMEpresented a petition from Mr. Grantley Berkeley, setting forth the violations of the law which had taken place at the last election for West Gloucestershire. The petitioner prayed the House to institute a full inquiry in the matter complained of. He (Mr. Hume) presumed that the House would not refuse to entertain the petition, as it did not contain any allusion whatever to the sitting Members, and could not, therefore, be said to come within the limits of an election petition.
§ MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYmoved that the petition be read by the Clerk at the table.
§ The Clerk having read the petition,
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the present petition was open to the same objection as the one which had been previously offered and withdrawn—that was, that it was a petition complaining of an undue return, in consequence of bribery and corruption having been employed to influence the return of an hon. Member of that House. That being the case, and the petition not having been presented within the time prescribed for the presentation of election petitions, it could not be received.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know if it was to be understood that the door was henceforth to be closed against all inquiry in such cases, when the complaining parties were not in a position to bear the expense of prosecuting an election petition. The object of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. 1153 Russell) it was generally supposed, was to meet cases of this kind. The petition was worded, as far as possible, so that it should not be regarded as an election petition, nor was there any thing in it, as far as he saw, that could affect the seat of the sitting Member. There could be a Commission issued to inquire into the facts, and place them before the country, exposing the violence and contravention of the law which had taken place.
§ MR. HILDYARDbegged to remind the House of a petition presented in the last Parliament of a similar nature, in which precisely the same question was raised. That petition, which had reference to the then recent election for the Falkirk burghs, alleged that treating had been carried on to an alarming extent, and prayed for inquiry; but the then Attorney! General (Sir A. Cockburn) held that the allegations of the petitioner were such as, if proved, would amount to those of an I election petition; and that as no election petition had been presented within the prescribed time, it was not competent for the House to deal with the question; and: according to that view the House decided. Now, with this decision before them, it was impossible, he thought, for the House to entertain the present petition.
MR. HUMEwould ask if he was to understand that complaints of infractions of the election law, were not in future to be inquired into by that House, except when brought before them by means of the costly process of an election Committee? If any mode was pointed out by which an inquiry could be obtained, he was ready to adopt it.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the; question before them was, whether this petition referred to matters that could be inquired into in the ordinary way before an election Committee, or under the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act? It appeared to him that the complaint was against certain individuals who had spent their money at the election in favour of a particular candidate, and not generally against a constituency. If the petition charged the constituency in general with corruption, then no doubt, under the Act he had referred to, it would have been open for his hon. Friend to move an Address to the Crown to institute an inquiry; but, as far as he understood it, it did not.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was only anxious that some investigation should take place, 1154 and was willing to be guided by the authority of the Chair.
§ MR. SPEAKERThen my opinion is that the petition should be withdrawn.