FALKIRK ELECTION—PETITION. (Hansard, 16 July 1857)

§ MR. COBBETT
said, he rose to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances stated in the petition of James Merry, esq., as they concerned the privileges of the House, and at the same time he would express a hope that the House would accede to the Motion that the General Committee of Elections appoint a Select Committee of five Members to inquire into this petition, and to have power to send for papers, persons, and reports. To this subject he had yesterday adverted, when he presented the petition, but he must now enter upon it at some further length. A petition had been exhibited to Mr. Rickards, the examiner, with recognizances on the 19th of May, but between that time and the 21st either a totally different petition had been substituted, or the original petition had been so far altered by erasures and interlineations, as to be wholly different from that filed in the first instance. He had inquired closely into the facts, and he would state the nature of the evidence to be given before the Committee for the appointment of which he asked. It was thought at first this 1556 petition concerned some informality as to recognizances, which informality was cured; but the defect was not a mere informality, and a question arose whether or not there was a petition at all subsisting, regarding the Falkirk district of Burghs. There could be no doubt the recognizance was entered into in this case on the 19th of May last, before Mr. Rickards. Mr. Rickards would prove this. Mr. Rose, agent for the petitioner, would prove that after the petition had been shown to Mr. Rickards, as it appeared to have been in some respects objectionable, it was sent back to Falkirk, and another petition sent back and presented to the House on the 21st of May—but there was this extraordinary fact that the signature of Mr. Rickards was alleged to be to both petitions. He did not impute any fraud, but only mistake. It was proper, however, in order to prevent the recurrence of such inconveniences in future, that investigation should be made. It ought to be ascertained whether or not the petition now existing was not wholly invalid, inasmuch as no recognizances had been entered into in the subsequent or second petition. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the General Committee of Elections, that they do appoint a Select Committee, consisting of fire Members, to consider the case of the Petition of James Merry, esquire, relative to the Falkirk Burghs, presented on the 15th instant, and to whom the said Petition shall be referred.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
observed that, assuming all the facts in the petition to be as stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, the objection arose that there were no recognizances at all. If, then, such were the case, the Act prescribed a clear and distinct course—namely, that within ten days after the presentation of the petition, the parties ought to have had their complaints before the examiner of recognizances, who was bound, within five days, to inquire and examine witnesses on oath; and the decision of the examiner of recognizances, as to their validity, was, under the Act, final and conclusive. No reason had been assigned why the parties had not taken this course; the events referred to had taken place two months ago; and yet no complaint had been made till the very day when the Committee was to be sworn. It was quite clear the petitioners should have followed the course pointed out by the Act of Parliament, and the House could not now entertain the matter. Such was his deliberate opinion, 1557 as the provision of the Act making the decision of the examiner final and binding had been passed purposely to keep inquiries of this kind out of the House.

§ MR. WALPOLE
asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oldham not to press his Motion to a division. The parties who petitioned or complained had not complied with the requirements of the statute, and the House would not be justified in acceding to the Motion. The remedy was clearly before the examiner. The case had been decided four or five years ago. The Act specially provided that if the parties did not take their objection in time, the decision of the examiner should be binding to all intents and purposes, and that costs might be recovered under such recognizance. He hoped the House would set its face most strenuously against this sort of objection being taken—by giving them no encouragement.

§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE
said, he concurred entirely with his right hon. Friends (Mr. Walpole and Sir G. Grey), and denied there was any valid ground for the Motion. The question was as to the recognizances, and this objection was disposed of by mere lapse of time under the words of the statute.

§ MR. COBBETT
said, the parties had not ascertained what the facts were until the very day before the petition was presented. This was a question not of recognizances, but of petition or no petition—a genuine or a spurious petition. His reason in bringing forward the matter was that the sitting Member could not within the ten days have objected to the recognizances, because he was unaware of the actual facts. He would not, however, persevere with his Motion.