§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in rising to propose the Resolution of which he had given notice will respect to the issuing of new writs consequent upon the unseating of a Member for bribery or treating, said, that it was one which the House had agreed to on former occasions. Its 898 object was, that if arising out of the circumstances of an election there should appear to be grounds for taking any measure affecting the borough itself, time might be given for hon. Members to make any Motion they might think fit upon the matter; and that the new writ might not be issued by surprise so as to preclude the House from taking into consideration any circumstances disclosed by the proceedings of the Election Committee affecting the borough itself.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in all cases when the Scat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee, on the grounds of Bribery or Treating, no Motion for the issuing of a new Writ shall be made without seven days previous notice being given in the Votes.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had no doubt that the House would come to a unanimous decision upon this subject; but he would beg them to consider, before they assented to the Motion, what might be the consequences if the Resolution were framed in terms of so stringent a character as those proposed by the noble Lord. The precedents in favour of this Resolution were not very numerous. It was of modern introduction into the practice of the House, and he could not call to his recollection more than two instances which were similar to the present. In both those cases the House came to a Resolution like that now proposed under circumstances of considerable party excitement and personal feeling in regard to particular elections. They now could consider the question with a complete exemption from those influences, and it was therefore highly desirable that they should not agree to a Resolution the consequences of which might be very different from those which he believed the noble Lord proposed to effect. The Resolution appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli) to be of too stringent a character. It would be quite possible, if it passed, that a city or borough might be disfranchised, by means of it, for the greater part or the whole of a Session. Suppose, for example, that a Report was made to the House finding that a Member was not duly elected, and that the new Resolution was appealed to, a week must elapse before a new writ could be moved for. Hon. Gentlemen might then very naturally say, "Here is a grave charge against this constituency, but we have no proof of it; evidence has been taken before the Committee, and we must wait until that evidence is in the hands of every hon. Member." That 899 would lead to a, delay, probably, of a month or six weeks at least. Then there must be another week by this Resolution before the Motion for a new writ could be brought forward. Then hon. Gentlemen might say that they had not had time to consider "this important case;" although the case really might be very paltry; and, in fact, the whole Session might pass without the city or borough being represented in that House. Again, towards the end of a Session there might be a Report; there might not be time to bring the subject to an issue, and during the whole of the recess the place might be unrepresented; for he need scarcely remind hon. Members that it was not merely in debates in that House that constituencies were represented. There were important matters which concerned them during the vacation, when they wanted Members to represent their interests to the Minister, if they were menaced or were not sufficiently defended. All Resolutions of this kind were necessarily of an unconstitutional character. He was not, however, arguing against the general principle of the Resolution, but he thought the House should take care to adopt a Resolution which, while it effected the object in view, produced the least possible inconvenience. They should take security that so unusual and unconstitutional a proceeding should not be had recourse to unless there were a bonâ fide case which required it. He thought that there ought to be a special Report from the Committee, at least, to justify it, and if the noble Lord would not allow a feeling of suspicion to weigh with him in accepting a suggestion made from his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House, he would suggest that the House should not have recourse to the proposal of the noble Lord, unless the Committee which had unseated the Member at the same time reported their opinion that the writ should be suspended for the period named by the noble Lord. This arrangement would attain all the advantages proposed, and would at the same time be a great safeguard against the abuses and inconveniences to which he had referred. He proposed, therefore, that the Resolution should pass in this form:—
That in all cases when the seat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee on the grounds of bribery or treating, and such Committee has reported that in their opinion the writ for a new election should be suspended, no Motion for the issuing of a new writ shall be made without seven days previous notice being given in the Votes.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEobserved, that he considered that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would defeat all the objects of the Resolution, which had worked very well in the last Parliament. It was, no doubt, a stretch to suspend the issue of the writ when once the Committee had declared a seat vacant, but it was the duty of the House, when the Committee declared that a Member had been guilty of bribery, to take care that the vacancy should not be filled up unless they were satisfied that the constituency had not abused its privileges. The Resolution was agreed to in 1852, after the passing of the Bill which empowered the Crown, on an address from both Houses of Parliament, to issue a Commission to inquire into the extent of the corrupt practices in the constituency. But if they were to rely on the Report of the Committee, how could they ascertain whether it was a case to justify an Address to the Crown or not? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that even if two or three hundred cases of bribery could be proved, the counsel before the Committee confined themselves to one or two cases sufficient to unseat the Member, but kept the others back to save the constituency. Would a Committee be justified in recommending the House to suspend the writ when only one or two cases had been proved, and they had no power to institute any further investigation? In the last Parliament five Commissions were issued on the recommendation of the Committees, in the case of Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple, and in each ease the result was the discovery of a far greater amount of corruption than had been proved before the Committees, and the five constituencies were reported to have been guilty of corrupt practices, quite as strong, if not stronger, than any to be found in the Report on which they had disfranchised Sudbury and St. Albans, and the five writs were suspended until after the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. He thought there was ample ground for resolving that the issuing of the writ should not depend on the Report of the Committee, and the Amendment would only provide the means for evading a valuable Resolution, which had been found to work well in practice.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the object of the Resolution was to prevent a writ from being issued, without previous notice to the House, in order to enable them to become acquainted with the facts 901 of the case. Under the existing law, there was a power given to the Committee to make a special Report as to the existence of corrupt practices, and that further inquiry was necessary; in that event, the issuing of the writ was suspended, and therefore the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was quite unnecessary in such a case. The object of the Resolution was to take care that the writ should not be issued as a matter of course when the seat was declared vacant; but he felt there was very considerable force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman—to laying down a general rule of suspension; it might happen that a single case of bribery would unseat a Member at the end of a Session, and they could not desire that a constituency should on that account remain unrepresented for perhaps several months. If the Report was made at the close of the Session, the borough or county would be also exposed to the inconvenience of a very lengthened canvass. At the same time, precautions ought to be taken against surprise by the immediate issuing of the writ. He did not know whether it was intended to alter the Resolution then; but he would suggest that it should be withdrawn for further consideration. He would propose to leave out the seven days, and insert two days, or perhaps the words "without previous notice," would be sufficient to meet the difficulty, as that period would enable any hon. Member who conceived there was ground for the further suspension of the writ to bring the matter before the House.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he did not wish to press the suggestion which he had thrown out for the consideration of the Government; but he should be glad to have the further consideration of the question postponed until Monday, when the House would have an opportunity of listening to the opinions of some of their most intelligent and influential Members who were absent at that moment.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had no objection to that course, as the Resolution ought not to be adopted without full deliberation.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.