CASHEL ELECTION.—PETITION. (Hansard, 12 March 1858)

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he rose to move that the petition of John I Joseph Scully presented to that House on the 18th day of August last, complaining that general and extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Cashel, together with the recognizances entered into in respect of the same petition, and the report of the examiner of recognizances in respect of that recognizance, be referred to the General Committee of Elections. He brought the question forward unconnected with any party. The case was one of a petition presented just before the prorogation of Parliament, in which the proceedings were suspended by the prorogation. By 5 & 6 160 Vict., c. 102, petitions alleging general bribery were to be referred to the General Committee of Elections, and by the 5th section if Parliament was prorogued before any Election Committee was appointed, then the General Committee in the following Session, and within two days after the meeting of Parliament, were to appoint a Committee to try the petition. In this case the petition was presented on the 18th of August, and the recognizances were entered into on the 25th. On the 28th of August Parliament was prorogued. On the 10th of December the recognizances were reported to be unobjectionable, but the petition had not been referred to the General Committee. The General Committee was unaware of the existence of this petition, and it now became a question whether it could be referred to the General Committee, in order that they should appoint a Committee to try it. The lapse had not arisen from any fault of the petitioners, but from the laches of the House itself. Though the Act required the General Committee within two days after the meeting of Parliament to appoint a Committee, yet it provided no time within which the House should refer such a petition to the General Committee of Elections, so that it was reduced to the question whether there was a power in the House of remedying its own laches. He mentioned the matter to the late Attorney General, who stated it as his opinion that the House did possess such a power. He knew nothing of the merits of the case.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, there was a strong objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The petitioner had not complied with the 10th Section of 5 & 6 Vict., c. 102. By that section it was provided that on the recognizances being completed certain notices should be given to the parties, but these notices had been omitted to be given in the present case. Besides, there was no fair ground on which the petition could be proceeded with, and no injustice would be done to the petitioner. Under all the circumstances of the case he did not think it advisable 161 that the House should take on itself a power never exercised before, and make a new law for a particular case.

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
contended that under the 4th section of the Act, the petition when presented to the House should have been referred to the General Committee of Elections; it was now too late to do so. Another objection was, that the parties had been deprived of the opportunity of objecting to the recognizances.

§ MR. WALPOLE
suggested, that as the House had been taken by surprise, and then made acquainted for the first time with the facts of the case, the matter had better be referred to the General Committee of Elections to inquire and report on the facts.

§ MR. P. O'BRIEN
said, that on behalf of his relative, the Member for Cashel (Sir T. O'Brien) he had no objection to that course. He was prepared to give a complete answer to the allegation of the petitioner.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
consented to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. WALPOLE
then moved, "that it be referred to the General Committee of Elections to inquire into the facts connected with the petition of J. J. Scully, presented on the 18th of August last, and report thereon to the House."