§ LORD GARLIESasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will object to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which passed between the Sheriff's Office in Wigtonshire and that of the Lord Advocate in regard to the want of sufficient polling places for the Election of 1865; and further, the application made to the Sheriff of Wigtonshire to supply the same want immediately prior to the Election of 1868; and, whether he can state the reason for this application not having been granted?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, the office which he now had the honour to hold was, at the first period mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Wigtonshire (Lord Garlies), held by his right hon. Friend (Sir James Moncreiff), and at the later period it was held by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon). He was not aware, however, of any correspondence having taken place with either of those right hon. Gentlemen. There was no such correspondence in his office, nor was he aware of any evidence that would show that any such correspondence as that alluded to had passed. Further, he was not aware of any application having been made to the Sheriff of Wigtonshire to increase the number of polling places in that county. If he was to assume from the Question of the noble Lord that such application was made immediately prior to the Election of 1868, and that the request contained in that application was refused, then he had to inform the noble Lord that the refusal might have proceeded from the Lord Advocate of the day—that was to say, from his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow, who then held office under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), to whom he referred the noble Lord for the information he wished to obtain.
§ LORD GARLIESsaid, he never asked that question at all; what he wanted to know was, whether an application was made to the Sheriff's Office at Wigtonshire about polling in 1865, and if such correspondence would be produced?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, the noble Lord was at perfect liberty to apply to the Sheriff of Wigtonshire; he should not. There was no correspondence with the Lord Advocate respecting the subject referred to by the noble Lord in 1865 or 1868—at least, there was no evidence of such having taken place in the office over which he presided.