INSTRUCTION. (Hansard, 22 July 1859)

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, he rose to move "That it be an Instruction to the General Committee of Elections to suspend their proceedings in the matter of the Petition of Electors of the City and County of the City of Norwich which was presented upon the 17th day of June last, against the Return of Henry William Schneider, Esq., and Viscount Bury, until the Examiner of Recognizances has reported on three other Petitions, subsequently presented to this House, against the Return of Viscount Bury, and which subsequent Petitions relate to the same Election as the Petition presented against the Return of Henry William Schneider, Esquire, and Viscount Bury on the 17th day of June last." These petitions were against the return of the noble Viscount in the election of April last; but there was a subsequent election in the month of June; there was no allegation of bribery or treating in the June election, all the allegations referred to the election that took place in April; it was alleged that the bribery at this election was notorious. 345 If the election should be declared void on this account the noble Viscount would be unable to take his seat on the election in June. The question, therefore, was whether all the petitions should not be tried by the same Committee; if not, all the facts might have to be gone over twice. The point depended entirely on the construction of the 48th section of the Act of Parliament. It would be better that all the petitions should he tried by the same Committee.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, that as a Member of the Committee he wished to state that a similar application had been made to the General Committee on Elections and that they had come to the conclusion, first, that they were not satisfied that they did not possess the power by law to carry out the instruction moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and next, that if they had such a discretionary power, they were unanimous in refusing the application. He would remind the House that the main principle of the law on disputed elections was, that they should not be brought for decision before the House of Commons, but another tribunal—the Committee of Elections. He would suggest that the wiser course was not to override the decision of the Committee. The question had been considered by the Committee of which the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge were Members, and they were assisted by counsel. The decision was unanimous, and it was supported by a precedent in former times. As to the inconvenience, there might be quite as much inconvenience if the decision of the Committee had been the other way. It was quite true that the second petition referred to the supposed misconduct of Viscount Bury at the former election, but supposing Viscount Bury had been elected on the second occasion for Marylebone, and was petitioned against in respect of Marylebone, could it be said that the petitions for Norwich and Marylebone ought to be referred to the same Committee? The General Committee of Elections thought that these petitions referred to two different elections, and had treated them accordingly. The Motion now was too late, and he did not see how the House could interfere.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he was of opinion that the House had no jurisdiction in a matter which had been settled by Act of Parliament. If they sought to make 346 that House a court of appeal, the Act would be completely null and void. Under these circumstances, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion, but would be satisfied with having brought the subject under their notice.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that as far as the first petition was concerned, it had been brought to a conclusion by the noble Member having vacated his seat, and he imagined that the only petition which could be prosecuted was the second, with regard to the election which gave him a title to a seat in the House.

§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, he thought it would be most inexpedient for that House to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Committees. He was much surprised at the construction given to the Act of Parliament by a man so experienced in election business as the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.

MR. SERJEANT DEASY
said, the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend amounted to an attempt to repeal the Act of Parliament by which the General Committee of Elections were constituted the sole tribunal to pronounce a decision upon questions such as that under discussion. In his opinion the proper course was for the House not to interfere in the matter.