Star.
London, England, 1819-02-13 00:00:00

DROGHEDA ELUTION PETITI)N.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a Petition from
Edward Alderson, Agent for the Petitioner, against
the Election for Drogheda, praying either that Geolge
Collier, a rejected surety, should be accepted, or the
time enlarged ler procuring sureties.
The SPEAKER said, that the question here ap-
peared to him to be, not whether the House was dis-
posed to grant the prayer of the Petition, but whether
they were not precluded by the Act from interfering
a: all ?—(11;:‘.,-, hear.) The case was not one in
which the recog,nizanc es had been entered into before
the 14 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 be-
fore the expiration of the 14 days; but it was a case
ir wl:ich the recognizances had,not been entered into
before the 14 days had elapsed after the Petition had
been prccented. The House had already enlarged
the time for giving information to that Huse, but that
enlargement had no reference to the case now before
them. The Act said, that good and sufficient sects-
lity must be got within 14 days, and h. allowed that
period to be enlarged only once, and that for 30 days.
list the question really was, whether it was not im-
perative on the House to have granted that enlarge-
ment before the 14 days elapsed ?—(llear, hear.)
In the present case, it would not be an enlargement,
bit a-revival of the time—( Hear, hear). The ques-
Con then was, whether the House, having prolonged
the period once, for receiving information as to re-
cognizances having been entered into, could now re-
vive the period for entering into those recognizances?
He did Ant know whether he had made himself suffi-1
eetttly understood—( Hear, hear). If he had made,
anyirosstatements, the Honourable Baronet would.
correct him.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the statement was'
perfbetly correct.
Mr. C. W. WYNN asked fin. what period thotime
had.been ettarged ? .
The-SPEAKER said, it had been enlarged for the
perpo:e of giving intimation to the House, and 14
days- had been allowed for ;ending over notice p but
the ttUdition tiOw u a:, WlietlOr iutisuatkon having been

received that recognignces had nett been entered into?
the House could now give any enlargement.
Mr. B. BATHURST said, that the House had of
themselvcceniarged the period for receiving intima-
tion, and that the Petitioners might have known no-
thing of it; therefore, the Petitioners could not be
misled by it.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE asked what enlarge-
ment would be required?
. Sir JAMES URAIIAM answered, to the 3d of
March.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that this was the first new
Parliament since the Act had passed, and conse-
quently the Petitioners might not have been aware of
its operation. A new or Special Act might, or. till:,
ground, be thought necessary and pro r. There
were instances of such Acts, where the Petitioner had•
been absent on public service. Whether the circum-
stances of this case were such as to justify a Spc:ial
Act, he would not say ; but he agreed with the
Speaker, that the house had not the power of ex-
tending relief—(/lour, tear).
Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved, that the Petitioner
be ordered to verify his Petition at the Bar.
The SPEAKER ordered the Serjeant to summon
•
Mr. Alderson to the Bar.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that since the sense
of the Speaker and of.the House was against the
prayer of the Petition, he begged leave to withdraw
it. It was accordingly withdrawn.