Sitting of 12 February 1819

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.
This bill, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer; was read a second time.
Mr. Denmanobserved, that as the proposal to abolish the appeal of murder had called forth some remarks in another place, it might be advisable that the committee should stand over for some time, to see whether any petitions were presented against that measure. The law, too, proposed to abolish the Wager of Battle, not only in writs of right hereafter to be brought, but in any which might be now depending. Though he did not know that there were any such writs now depending, he thought it would be a bad precedent in legislation, to introduce a clause having an effect upon suits depending.
The bill was ordered to be committed on Monday.

CUTLERY TRADE BILL.
This bill was read a third time. On the motion, that it do pass,
Mr. Denmansaid, he had observed a clause in the bill which he considered highly objectionable: it offered a reward to offenders, on their giving information against those who had employed them. This provision appeared to him to encourage the offence against which it professed to guard, and to ensure frequent falsehoods in informations. If the bill could not be carried into effect without this provision, he would rather lose it altogether. What was its object, but merely to mark with a hammer, wrought-iron, so as to distinguish it from cast-iron?
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, the objection had occurred to others in preparing the bill; but upon consideration, all agreed that without this provision the bill would be ineffectual.
Mr. Denmanwas glad that the objection had struck others as well as himself.
The bill was then passed.

DROGHEDA ELECTION PETITION.
Sir J. Grahampresented a Petition from

429
Edward Alderson, the agent of the petitioners against the Drogheda election, praying that the petitioners, who had not put in proper recognizances within the fourteen days allowed by law, might have further time allowed to do so.
The Speakersaid, that the question here appeared to him to be, not whether the House was disposed to grant the prayer of the petition, but whether they were not precluded by the act from interfering at all. The case was not one in which the recognizances had been entered into before the fourteen days had elapsed, and the report had not been made in time to the House; neither was it a case in which the enlargement of the time was prayed for before the expiration of the fourteen days; but it was a case in which the recognizances had not been entered into before the fourteen days had elapsed after the petition had been presented. The House had already enlarged the time for giving information to that House, but that enlargement had no reference to the case now before them. The act said, that good and sufficient security must be got within fourteen days, and it allowed that period to be enlarged only once, and that for thirty days. But the question really was, whether it was not imperative on the House to have granted that enlargement before the fourteen days elapsed. In the present case, it would not be an enlargement, but a revival of the time. The question then was, whether the House, having prolonged the period once, for receiving information as to recognizances having been entered into, could now revive the period for entering into those recognizances?
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the petitioners deserved the favourable consideration of the House, because this being the first general election since the last act was passed, it was doubtful whether they were acquainted with the nature of it. But it seemed from the statement of the case, that it was not in the power of the House, bound down as it was by an act of parliament, to grant the relief which had been prayed. It might be a question whether this was not a case for a special act of legislation, and whether, as in former cases in which petitioners had been prevented from entering into their recognizances, being absent on public service, a special bill might not be brought in to enable the House to grant relief.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he thought it ad-
[430
viseable—as the House could not act in the matter, to withdraw the petition for the present.—The petition was then withdrawn.

NOTTINGHAM ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. Broughamstated the case to the House or which he intended to move, that the consideration of the petition against the election for Nottingham should be postponed. Two petitions had been presented against the return for that town: one on the 25th of January, and the other on the 3rd of February. The petitions were in the same words, but signed by different voters. The first petition which had been presented was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March; and the second, which was presented before the first was abandoned, was ordered to be taken into consideration on the same day. After this, the first petition was abandoned. If the second petition had been presented after the first had been abandoned, it could not have been taken into consideration till between the 23rd and 30th of February, but by keeping the first petition alive till the second was presented, the petitioners had been forced into a priority over petitions which had been presented earlier. This was shortly, the ground on which he had to apply to the candour and justice of the House, to put the sitting member in the same situation as if the first petition had not been presented. The hardship on the member petitioned against, was, that as the last day on which the petitioners might put in their recognizances was the 17th of February, and as the petition was to be taken into consideration on the 2nd of March, the member had only six clear days to prepare his lists. He therefore moved, that the order for taking the petition into consideration on the 2nd of March be discharged.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, he was at a loss to know on what grounds the proposal could be made. It had been admitted that both the petitions were in the same words; it could not be said, therefore, that the sitting member was taken by surprise. The circumstances connected with the petitions were these:—the agent of the petitioners had not been aware of the notice required on putting in sureties; when he had come to town, therefore, he had found that the time had elapsed for giving notice. He had therefore sent in another petition, signed by different electors, in

431
the game words as the former. He therefore could not see that this was a disadvantage to the sitting member, because, if a mistake had not occurred, he would have had to meet the first petition at the time that he would now have to meet the second. It was to be observed also, that the days between the 23rd and 30th of March were full, so that if the petition was not taken into consideration on the day now appointed, it must be put to the end of the list. It deserved consideration, too, whether, it was adviseable to keep such a town as Nottingham in a state of ferment longer than was necessary.
Mr. Brougham, in explanation, said, that his noble friend the member for Nottingham (lord Rancliffe), had been put to this material inconvenience, that whereas if the first petition had been proceeded with, he would have had from the 7th to the 24th of February to prepare his lists; he had now only from the 17th to the 24th. He had, notwithstanding this, been put to expense and inconvenience from the presentation of the first petition. If his motion was rejected, it might, and undoubtedly would happen, that a first petition would be presented without any intention of prosecuting it. After which a second petition would be put forth, the recognizances on which might be entered into only a short time before the ballot. If the House could not fix any day between the 23rd and 30th of March, because there was no vacancy, it was to be recollected, that it was by the negligence of the petitioners that they had incurred this inconvenience. The fair course for them to have pursued, would have been to have acted as the petitioners in the Camelford election had done—to have abandoned the first petition before the second was presented. If the House should object to a long delay, there was the 9th of March which stood open, as the petition from Oxford would not be prosecuted as an election petition.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that if the hon. and learned gentleman only wished for a delay of a week, he should not, though it would be inconvenient to the petitioning party, oppose it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, his application was, that the petition should be taken into consideration on some day between the 23rd and 30th of March.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he conceived a member was bound to prepare his defence from the first moment of the presentation of a
[432
petition against him. Yet, at the same time, the petitioners, who had neglected to take the proper steps in the first petition, could not complain if they were put in the same situation as if that petition had not been presented.
Lord Castlereaghthought it fair to grant any accommodation to the sitting member that was not inconsistent with the just claims of the petitioners, who were but too likely to be inconvenienced by the extent of the delay which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed. With a view to decide fairly towards both parties, he thought it better to discharge the order, and fix the ballot for the 9th of March.
Mr. Broughamacquiesced in the arrangement proposed by the noble lord, and the ballot was accordingly fixed for the 9th of March.