NEW WRITS—MOTION. (Hansard, 6 July 1857)

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said that, in the absence of Viscount PALMERSTON, he rose to move the following Resolution:— 970 That in all cases when the seat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee, on the ground of Bribery or Treating, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous notice being given in the Votes. He felt the full force of the observations which had been made by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) on Friday last, and he thought, under the circumstances, that two days' notice, as now proposed, would be preferable to seven days' notice, as originally intended. Two days' notice would prevent surprise in moving for a new writ, while it would not have the effect referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, of practically disfranchising a constituency during the whole of a Session or recess.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that it appeared to him that the Resolution, as now worded, was a just and expedient arrangement.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should cheerfully accede to the Motion proposed by the Government. On Friday he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had felt it his duty to propose the revival of a Resolution which was tantamount to a Standing Order of the last Parliament, it having been passed at the commencement of that Parliament at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, He was sorry not to see the noble Lord now in his place, and indeed he thought the House ought not to dispose of this Resolution in the noble Lord's absence. It might be postponed for a week without any inconvenience. He protested against the course adopted by the Government, and thought it would be much better to adopt the Resolution in its original form, which required seven days' notice to be given of the Motion for the issue of a writ where a Member was unseated for bribery or corruption, and thus gave greater weight and solemnity to the proceeding. He had handed over his Resolution to the Government with the view of its being again proposed, certainly not with any expectation or belief that the Government was about to mutilate, and cripple, and fritter away that valuable Resolution in the way now proposed. The modification was proposed in consequence of something that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that six weeks might elapse from the Report of a Committee to the issuing of the writ, in consequence of the evidence not being printed on which the House had to form an opinion. The seven 971 days' notice was originally agreed on in order that the House might have the opportunity of judging whether the writ ought to be suspended at all. It should be remembered that now the evidence taken before Committees was always printed from day to day; and he had ascertained that in a case of this kind, after a Committee had sat six or seven days, or even a fortnight, the evidence of each day being ready in type, and merely requiring to be put together, three days longer would be quite sufficient for it to be printed for the use of the House generally. Therefore the objection that a month or six weeks might elapse, did not at all apply. The object of the Resolution of the last Parliament, passed in 1852, was to enable the House to ascertain whether it was necessary that a Commission should be issued on a joint address of both Houses to the Crown, under Lord John Russell's Act, to inquire on the spot into acts of bribery and corruption. In the previous Parliament, commencing in 1848, it was only necessary to give notice of a Motion for the issue of a writ, no time being specified. The greatest inconvenience arose from this. The question of issuing a writ was a question of privilege. An hon. Member had nothing to do but give notice that he would move the issue of a certain writ, if it had only been suspended for a day. It was not at all settled at what hour such a Motion should come on. The mover might bring it on at any hour of the night; he might take advantage of the absence of those who were expected to oppose it, or might bring it on the next night. It was in consequence of that, that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, in the following Parliament, amended the Resolution by requiring seven days' notice; and the House agreed to it. That Resolution had worked well all through that Parliament. The writs for five places were suspended in consequence, and Commissions of Inquiry were issued upon the evidence laid before the House. He hoped the House would not consent to fritter away that valuable Resolution in the absence of the noble Lord. [Cries of "Order!"] He thought he was not out of order. He should move, as an Amendment, the original terms of the Order of last Parliament, namely, that seven days' notice should be given, instead of two, as was now proposed. He would only say that if this proposal was a specimen of the noble Lord's promised Reform Bill, it was a very 972 bad omen for the future. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that seven days' notice should be given of any Motion for the issue of a writ.

MR. MILES
said, it was not the case on Election Committees that the evidence was printed from day to day, though this was done on other Committees. Consequently there would be great difficulty in having the whole of the evidence struck off in a short time. But the real fact was, that any delay in the issue of a writ was only necessary to give sufficient time to enable the hon. Members who had sat on the Committee to be in the House, as on the statement of their opinions, and more particularly that of the Chairman, who always took voluminous notes, the House would be in a condition to settle whether, after the expiration of two days, the writ should issue. It would be in the option of the House, after that delay had taken place, either to delay the writ further, or to order it to issue. Of course, if it should appear to the House from the statement of the Chairman of a Committee that considerable bribery had taken place in any constituency, the House would exercise a sound discretion in delaying the issue of the writ until the whole of the evidence was before them. This it could do in two days, as well as if it were delayed for seven. He was decidedly in favour of the shorter time.

§ MR. DIVETT
said, that as far as his experience had gone, he was decidedly in favour of the Amendment. He did not think that two days was by any means sufficient. He could not at all understand how this compromise had taken place between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A feature had arisen at the last election which called for the very serious attention of the House; he meant the number of cases where extensive bribery was proved to have been committed, but without compromising hon. Members or their agents. It was incumbent upon the House, if it meant to put down bribery, to order a prosecution in every case of that sort. It would be a perfect disgrace if these Reports were allowed to pass without steps being taken by the House to secure a prosecution in every case where bribery was proved to have taken place, but without the cognizance of the Member or his agents, though 973 of course hon. Members should not be held responsible for acts of which they were innocent. Unless this were done, it was a perfect farce to talk of putting down bribery or treating.

§ MR. HENLEY
observed, that he thought the Government had come to a very fair decision, A very well-grounded jealousy had been expressed against the undue delay of a writ. As to prosecuting parties against whom bribery had been proved, the issuing of the writ had nothing to do with that. Of course no one would think of taking the step of moving that a prosecution for bribery should be instituted until they had the opportunity of reading the evidence. He thought two days would be quite long enough for the purpose proposed. It was no hardship to a constituency to have their writ delayed two days; but he thought a delay of seven days was unreasonable.

MR. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT
said, the seven days' notice had been a Standing Order of the House for the last five years; it had fully and completely carried out its object, and it would be very unwise in the House to depart from the precedent without sufficient reason. In 1848 a Resolution was come to that no writ should be moved for without notice, no time being specified. In 1852, when many cases of bribery were reported, it was thought desirable to fix the notice at seven days. A Resolution to that effect was drawn up by Lord John Russell, and he had the honour of proposing it. He believed that it had never operated in any way disadvantageously, either to the House or the parties interested. For his own part, he could not understand why the Government should propose a notice of two days rather than three or any other number, and he thought the House would do wisely in adhering to that course which had been sanctioned by experience.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, it was a mistake to suppose that there had ever been a Standing Order on the subject; the Resolution in both cases was merely passed as a Sessional Order. The reason why two days was fixed on was that the writ might issue at the earliest possible period, provided, in the opinion of the House, there was no reason for delaying it further. As the House met at twelve o'clock on Wednesdays, it was necessary to require two days' notice, otherwise a writ might be moved on Wednesday morn- 974 ing, upon notice given late on the preceding night.