Sitting of 4 December 1826

ATHLONE ELECTION.
The Speakersaid, he hoped the House would permit him to draw its attention to the petition which had been received last week from the borough of Athlone. On Saturday last, he had told the House that such a petition had been presented, and had requested its assistance in deciding whether it came within the restrictions which were requisite to constitute it an election petition. The restrictions, as the House well knew, rendered it necessary that the petitioners should be persons who claimed to be either candidates or voters. Now, this petition did not describe the petitioners, directly or indirectly, as persons who claimed to be either candidates or voters. A question might be raised upon it; namely, had the petitioners a right to vote? which question they wished to raise by their petition. If the House should be of opinion, that their petition was an election petition, they had nothing to do but to leave it to the usual course of such petitions; but if they should be of a contrary opinion, the House ought to have the petition entered as read, and then some member could move to discharge the order made upon it, and treat it as a mere ordinary petition.
The petition of certain inhabitants of the borough of Athlone was then delivered in and read, setting forth,
"That, notwithstanding that by the constitution of the charters of Athlone, by law and by the express rules of justice, by law and by the sound principles of the constitution, there should have been present at the election of a member of parliament for the borough of Athlone, the whole and every of the burgesses, unless proof made in open borough court of indisposition, or
222
other necessary cause of absence, yet the same has not only been studiously avoided at the late borough court for electing a member to represent the petitioners and fellow townsmen in parliament, but the commonalty have been excluded, and the necessary notices not posted, nor the rules or regulations required by law complied with, but on the contrary, the election was held by subterfuge, and under the most peculiar and unconstitutional degree of injustice: that, therefore, petitioners humbly submit to the House, for the reasons aforesaid and herein stated, that Richard Handcock, esq., has been unduly and unfairly returned, in direct violation of the constitution and of the established law of the realm, and, in particular, of the laws, rules, and regulations for regulating borough elections in Ireland, inasmuch as four days' notice should have been given, in the most public manner, signed by the returning officer upon the receipt of two precepts from the sheriffs of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, to each of which counties the precincts of the borough extends; whereas the election was held upon one precept, and without any returning officer legally appointed, and without the necessary number of burgesses required by law having been present at such elections; and, above all, petitioners humbly submit to the House, that as the corporation of Athlone has been long in part defunct, and the corporate body having died a natural death, and ought to be dissolved, as will appear by the corporation books when laid before a committee of the House, with other substantial incontrovertible proofs, and also by the returns signed and filed in the Hanaper-office, Dublin, of Mr. Kerr's return the election before last, and of Mr. Handcock's return at the late assumed election; that the House will not permit a member returned not only unconstitutionally but unfairly, and in direct violation of the laws, to sit in the House as representative for Athlone, and whose vote might perhaps be calculated to form a majority on an important question upon which the salvation of Great Britain might depend; wherefore petitioners humbly implore the House to try and inquire, by the production of the corporation books, of copies of the returns in the Hanaper-office, Dublin, and by the examination of witnesses, whether the said Richard Handcock is constitutionally, fairly, or legally, returned or not; and if it

223
appears that he is not, the petitioners humbly expect that the House will order new writs to issue to the sheriffs of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, and that petitioners may be entitled to their valuable privileges, the right of freedom of election."
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he had before stated the rule of the House, and the law of the country on all cases, like the present. Such petitions by law could only be received from those who were candidates at the election, or from those who claimed a right to vote for them. That was the rule of parliament, and indeed the law of the land, until the time of the Grenville act. The right of petitioning was thrown open by that act to all persons. Considerable inconvenience, however, being found to arise from the practice, the former rule was revived. In all points relating to the reception of petitions, it was the duty of the House to lean to the side of the petitioners; but, in cases like the present, the words of the act were imperative, and the House was bound to abide by them. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House; and that was, that any decision to which they might that night come was not final, and that the election committee to which it might be referred would have the power of deciding whether it came under the head of an election petition or not. He needed only to refer to the decision in the Nottingham case; where, in the middle of the trial, it was discovered that the petitioners who had described themselves as freeholders of the town and county of Nottingham were not such, and therefore were not entitled to vote for the election of members for the said borough. If the House were to send to an election committee the present petition, not being such as an election committee could take cognizance of, it would be making a heavy infliction on both parties, owing to the expenses which they would have to incur in bringing their witnesses to England. He mentioned that circumstance, in order to show that the course which it ought to follow was chalked out by the act of parliament, and that there was nothing in the particular features of the case to induce it to transgress that course. Now, from the petition itself, it did not appear that the petitioners were electors. They did not say that they themselves bad a right to vote—all that
224
they said was, "that at the election of a member of parliament for the borough of Athlone, the whole and every of the burgesses should be present." They did not even claim to vote at the late election, unless such an inference could be drawn, which he thought could not, from the concluding sentence of the petition: —" The petitioners humbly expect that the House will order new writs, to issue to the sheriffs of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, and that petitioners may be entitled to their valuable privileges, the right of freedom of election." He submitted to the House, that this petition could not be considered as an election petition. If the House thought that, under particular circumstances of the case, some indulgence ought to be extended to the petitioners, it could extend the time for receiving their petition beyond the usual term of fourteen days; and could give them, but them only, the right of presenting another petition against the return, within a certain limited time.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that it was evident, from a former petition presented by the individuals whose names were subscribed to this petition, that they did not claim a right to vote at the last election. He therefore thought that the order made on the petition ought to be discharged.
Mr. Humethought it only fair that time should be allowed to the petitioners to amend their petition.
The order was then discharged; and Mr. Wynn gave notice, that he would tomorrow move for an extension of time, in order that the petitioners might have an opportunity to amend their petition, by stating in what capacity they came before the House.

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEES.
Mr. Littletonrose to move the resolution, directing that any individual who appealed from the decision of a committee on a private bill, should, in the first instance, deposit the sum of 500 l., to meet such costs and expenses as might ultimately be awarded by the select committee, which he had felt it his duty on a former evening to withdraw, in consequence of the request of several honourable members. He now meant to move this resolution in substance; but, with such an alteration, as would, he trusted, remove the objections that were urged against it. He here thought it right to state, that a precedent

225
for the principle on which this resolution was founded existed in the uniform practice of that House, which made it imperative on every parliamentary agent to deposit a certain sum with the proper officer for the payment of fees; the amount of which fees was, after the case was disposed of, settled by the House. In his view of the subject, the whole system which he wished to introduce would be completely useless, unless such a security as that which the resolution set forth were given. It was his firm conviction, that it would effectually prevent frivolous and vexatious appeals against the decision of committees on private bills.—The hon. gentleman concluded by moving,
"That the party or parties complaining, or their agents, shall, previously to the balloting for such select committee, deposit with the clerk of the fees the sum of 500 l., for the payment of such costs as may be awarded against him or them; and shall, at the same time, sign a note in writing, declaring that the whole or any part of that sum, shall be paid in such manner as the select committee shall adjudge."
Mr. G. Bankesobserved, that a great part of the argument against the resolutions of the noble member for Northamptonshire (lord Althorp), with respect to bribery at elections, on a former evening, turned on the right of the House to award costs; and he could not easily divide the two cases. In his opinion, the final decision with respect to costs should not be left with the committee; and therefore he thought it would be right, supposing the House to be favourable to the resolution, that these words, "unless the House should otherwise direct," or words to that purport, should be added. By this alteration an opportunity would be given to the House to remedy any wrong, or to rectify any error, in the adjudication of costs, which might be committed by the select committee. He was aware that this ultimate appeal to the House might occasionally take up a considerable portion of their time; but it appeared to him, that the interests of justice required such a course.
Sir T. Aclandsaid, he would not, as some gentlemen had done, condemn in toto committees on private bills. He believed, generally speaking, that substantial justice was administered by those committees. They frequently forwarded, matters which
226
tended greatly to the public good, and decided with the least disadvantage to adverse parties, whose interests were affected by particular measures. Cases, however, had occurred, in which misconduct was apparent; and therefore he was friendly to a court of appeal, before which persons complaining of being aggrieved might be heard. At the same time, he thought it was absolutely necessary that some security should be given, to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints from being preferred.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that, on the whole, he thought great benefit would result, if the House laid down some specific rule, in accordance with which an appeal might be made against the decision of a committee, instead of leaving the matter in so indefinite a shape as the present resolution did. The resolutions, generally, went to purify the constitution of committees; and therefore appeals were likely to be less numerous than they otherwise would be. But he hoped, if it appeared that injustice had been done to an individual, that he would not be debarred from redress because he could not put down 500 l. A poor man ought to have liberty to say, "It is true, I have not 500 l. to advance; but I will state my case to the House, and call on them to do me justice." The House ought to reserve to itself the right of doing justice to an individual, in any stage of a private bill.
Mr. Calcraftfelt the proposition for a deposit of 500 l. to be most objectionable. It would be adding materially to the difficulties which poor people had to encounter, in procuring justice from a committee. Be the case of oppression what it might, it was quite clear, that unless the appellants possessed considerable resources, they could not obtain justice at the hands of a committee. After having been defeated before one committee and incurred great expense, persons feeling themselves aggrieved could not come before this new tribunal without depositing 500 l. He had but little expectation that benefit would be derived from the resolutions; and he thought that, in receiving them, the House had suffered the conduct of private-bill committees to be greatly overcharged. From his own experience of those committees, he was convinced that justice had generally been done by them. It seemed to be supposed, that there was at present no appeal from the decision of a commit-

227
tee. But there was an appeal to the House; and they had seen instances in which, when the committee up stairs was mistaken, the case had been set to rights by the House. That he conceived to be a far better tribunal than the new one devised by his hon. friend. Fie thought this deposit of 500 l. should be given up altogether, and that the parties who alleged that they had suffered wrong should appeal at once to the House. He would recommend his hon. friend to suffer the other resolutions to be carried into effect; and, when he saw how they worked, he might, if he thought proper, introduce a bill, enacting that appellants should enter into recognizances, which would be a much better mode, than that of calling on individuals to put down the sum of 500 l.
Mr. G. Lambsaid, his doubts as to the legality of calling on appellants to put down 500 l., out of which costs were to be awarded, were removed by the satisfactory precedent which had been adduced by his hon. friend. He should vote for the resolution; because the very existence of an appeal committee argued the necessity of its having the power to award costs.
Mr. Littletonwas of opinion, that a deposit ought to be required generally, leaving it to the House to depart from that practice in any particular case, if they thought fit. If, however, the House would consent to adjourn the debate to a future day, he would in the interim reconsider his resolution, and endeavour to make such alterations as would obviate the objections which were made to it in its present shape.
The debate was accordingly adjourned to the 15th of February.

CORN LAWS.
Lord Kingsaid, he had a petition to present to their lordships against a grievous and scandalous monopoly; namely, the Corn-laws. It had pleased some of the landed monopolists to deceive themselves (he did not think that they would deceive any body else), and to state, that their own wish was to have cheap corn. He had very little hopes that they would effect their object, nor did he think that they would carry their other point; namely, to make a permanent settlement, until they did that which was just and right. They might make a new law, and he had very little doubt that they would make a new law; but, until they repealed the existing monopoly, they never could effect a permanent settlement. The petition which he held in his hand came from Association No. 1, he did not know how many more there were, of a society of the manufacturers and inhabitants of Char-field, in the county of Gloucester, called the Anti-bread-tax Society. The petitioners stated, that they could see no reason why the landed interest should have the special privilege of exempting themselves from taxes; but the petitioners added, that if the landowners should exempt themselves from paying all taxes, it

221
would be far less injurious to the community than prohibiting the free importation of foreign grain. They likewise stated that the English manufacturer paid 3d. per day more than the continental manufacturer, which amounted with petitioners only, to a tax of 38 l. weekly, or 2,000 l. yearly on wages. This would show their lordships how highly oppressive the Corn-laws were to the labourer, and that, as far as regarded the manufacturer, those laws were bad in policy, and highly injurious to the trade of the country.