§ On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Wilbraham, the deputy clerk of the Crown, was called to the bar and examined.
§ He stated that he was deputy clerk of the Crown, and that it was his duty to make out the new writs for the election of Members of that House. The chief-clerk, in his office, received a warrant from the Speaker, on Friday last, for the election of a new Member to serve for the county of Perth. He understood that the warrant for the new writ was received at about ten minutes to seven o'clock. The new writ for the county of Perth was made out immediately on the receipt of the warrant. It was then sent to the Lord Chancellor's office for the purpose of being sealed, it was then finally dispatched to the Post-office. This was at about a quarter past seven. The writ was not made out in exact conformity with the warrant of the Speaker, as the chief clerk made it out in the usual form, that Viscount Stormont was called up to the House of Peers. Shortly afterwards he found that he had not issued it in exact conformity with the Speaker's warrant, and this erroneous writ had been despatched by Friday's evening mail. He immediately prepared another, which he got sealed, and took care to have it sent away by the mail on Saturday morning. He believed that the chief clerk discovered the mistake that he had made shortly afterwards, perhaps within an hour or less of its being sent away. He discovered it before he left the office. He prepared the writ in the usual way in which it was done in similar proceedings. The first writ had been returned to him by the sheriff. He understood, that immediately on the discovery of the case, the chief clerk in his office came to the House, and had an audience of the Speaker, and asked his advice as to the course that he should pursue. The Speaker, however, declined to give any advice. The chief clerk, therefore, took upon himself to make out and issue a fresh writ; and if he had been in the way, he should have given instructions for this purpose, and have taken care that a new writ was immediately issued. The first writ was returned to his office by the sheriff of Perthshire, in conformity with the instructions of the chief clerk. He was not aware of any precedent for ordering a writ to be returned to his office. He believed the chief clerk desired to have the writ re- 769 turned. He knew the sheriff did return it. He had no doubt that copies of the letters which passed were preserved at the office. In explanation of the mistake he had only further to say, that it was the long-established custom of the Crown-office to send off writs, if possible, by the mail, on the night on which the Speaker's warrant was issued. With this view, new writs were prepared on the day on which it was known they would be moved for in the House, and in this way there had been a difference between the writ and the Speaker's warrant.
§ Clerk of the Crown withdrew.
§ Sir George Clerksaid, that after the facts which had been stated by the clerk of the Crown, he thought it would be generally felt, that he was fully justified in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It appeared from the evidence given by the clerk of the Crown, that whatever had been done with regard to issuing the writ had not been done by the Clerk of the Crown in person, but by his chief clerk. It appeared to be the practice of the office, as far as he could gather from the answer which had been given, that on receiving information that a new writ would probably be moved for at the meeting of the House, the Clerk of the Crown at once prepared the writ. Perhaps that was attended with general convenience. It appeared on the present occasion that the Clerk of the Crown had exercised his discretion on the subject, and naturally conceived that the writ to be moved for on Friday would be made out in exact accordance with new writs in similar cases. In consequence of the discussion which had taken place in the House, the regular form had been departed from in the warrant, and so the mistake had arisen. It appeared from the evidence of the Clerk of the Crown, that though the writ was not sent to the Lord Chancellor to be sealed until the warrant was received, yet it was despatched without the warrant having been read. There was another point of some importance as being without precedent. It was without precedent that the Clerk of the Crown, and still more his subordinate officer, should take upon himself to write to a sheriff to order him to return a writ which had been issued from the office. The House had always exercised the greatest jealousy in reserving to itself the discretion of issuing, suspending, or 770 superseding new writs. He thought it was a question deserving of the consideration of the House, whether in cases of this kind a special report should not have been made to the House, in order that the error might be corrected, the first writ superseded, and the new writ issued by the authority of the House. No practical inconvenience had arisen in the present case, but there did not appear any sufficient justification for the clerk's negligence in despatching the writ the moment he received the warrant, without taking the ordinary precaution of reading the warrant, in order to make out the writ in conformity. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen would agree that this case, at all events, ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Under these circumstances he did not wish to pursue the question further, but he hoped that greater care would be taken in the issuing of writs in future.
§ Lord John Russellthought the hon. Gentleman quite right in calling the attention of the House to this subject. It did not appear that there was any error in the warrant of the Speaker, but that it occurred entirely in the office of the Clerk of the Crown. It was quite right that this case, and every other case of a similar nature, should be brought before the notice of the House; and he agreed with, the hon. Gentleman that, attention having been called to it, it was to be hoped that no similar error might arise.
§ Subject dropped.