NEW WRITS. (Hansard, 15 December 1868)

§ MR. AYRTON
In asking the House to proceed to order the issue of New Writs, in accordance with the gracious communication which this House has just received from the Crown, it may be convenient for me to state the course proposed to be pursued in consequence of the great change that has taken place through the passing of the law of last year regulating the proceedings at elections. Under the regulations which have now been superseded, petitions against the return of Members were presented to this House within such time as the House prescribed under power conferred upon it by statute, and in the exercise of that power the House used ordinarily to provide by a Sessional Order that all such petitions should be presented within fourteen days after the return of the election. But in consequence of the law which was passed last year election petitions will now be presented to a tribunal independent of this House—namely, to the Court of Common Pleas in England, and to a similar Court in Scotland and Ireland. Such petitions are to be presented within twenty-one days after the returns have been delivered to the officer appointed to receive them, and therefore this House cannot now proceed as it used to do in this matter. We must now consider what will be the most convenient course to pursue in consequence of the change that has taken place. If I were to ask what is the most convenient course, no doubt, if there are differences of opinion among hon. Members, I should give rise to considerable discussion; but I 17 think the House will agree that as we are here only for a particular purpose, and many hon. Members therefore are not in attendance, and as there are necessarily absent all the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and the Law Officers for England and Ireland, nothing would be more inconvenient than for us to enter upon any discussion as to the course which the House might pursue if we were in search of any novel mode of procedure. It is therefore proposed that we shall confine ourselves to-day strictly within the Limits of the practice which prevailed up to the close of the last Parliament, and that we shall to-day only move the issue of such Writs as cannot possibly lead to any discussion.—namely, the Writs in those cases in which the period of petitioning has expired. I therefore trust that hon. Members will not embark upon any discussion which is not called for by the course which is proposed by the Government. I may, however, mention that there are several cases in which the period for petitioning has not yet expired, and in order to avoid controversy it will, perhaps, be convenient that the House should adjourn until a day when there can be no question upon the point—the 29th of the present month. Those Writs, with regard to which the time for petitioning has not yet expired, will then be moved. I thought it right to make this explanation to the House, in order that hon. Members may know why all the Writs are not moved for to-day, and why an adjournment is necessary. There is only one other question that can arise, and that is with reference to petitions against a sitting Member which do not claim the seat for the petitioner. I may remind the House that, according to the established usage up to the present time, whenever a petition has been presented, not claiming the seat on behalf of the petitioner, but merely asking that the election may be declared void, it has been usual, where the person returned has accepted Office under the Crown, to direct the New Writ to issue. We shall to-day adhere to that course, and in any case where a petition has been presented, but without claiming the seat, we shall move the issue of a New Writ.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that under the old system the House had cognizance of the petitions, and the criterion in issuing a Writ, as determined by the Speaker in 1859 in accordance with a precedent of 1852, was whether the seat was claimed by the petitioners or not. If the seat was claimed, the House declined to issue a Writ, while if otherwise the writ was issued. Under the Act of last Session the only knowledge which the House and the public had of a seat being petitioned against was derived from the official list of the petitions, which the Act prescribed to be drawn up. Now upon that list appeared the name of Mr. Goschen as one of the Members whoso return was disputed, and the House had no official information as to whether the seat was claimed by the petitioner or not. He believed that, in point of fact, Mr. Gosehen's seat was not claimed, though the seats of other Members were claimed. He had intended to move for a Return and copies of all election petitions; but the Speaker had ruled that he could, only give notice of such a Motion, and the House must therefore consider whether, in the absence of any knowledge of the contents of the petition against Mr. Goschen, it would be right to issue the Writ. It was possible that some other person might be returned if the Writ was issued, and, supposing the seat claimed, the petitioner might be returned by order of the Judge, by which the House would be bound to abide, although a third party had since been elected. He did not know whether any evidence would be offered to satisfy the House the seat was not claimed, and he should be glad to hear an expression of opinion from the Chair as to the best course to be pursued under the circumstances.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
agreed with the hon. and learned Member that 19 in a case where the seat was claimed on petition it would now be as improper as it was formerly to issue a Writ, since the House could have no certain knowledge whether a vacancy existed; but he apprehended that the practice of the House had always been, and always would be, to receive information of facts known to its Members, which facts if disputed could, as in this instance, be verified in the most authentic manner. It might as well be said the House did not know Mr. Goschen had accepted Office, because no certificate or return of the fact was before them, as that they did not know there was no petition claiming the seat. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) must, before moving for the Writ, be taken to have satisfied himself that there existed no obstacle of the kind, and to have given an implied assurance of the fact of which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldney) was equally cognizant—namely, that Mr. Goschen's seat was not claimed. That fact being admitted and notorious, he thought no further information was necessary.

§ MR. COLLINS
concurred with the hon. and learned member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) in thinking that the House should issue the Writ. Indeed, he thought they should consider whether they ought not to issue a Writ no matter whether the seat was claimed or not, for otherwise it was open to any elector or candidate to petition and claim the seat of a Cabinet Minister, thus delaying his re-election for a considerable period. If they invariably issued a Writ, the person wrongly returned at the second election would be in nearly the same position as the person originally returned—in other words, he would lose his seat. Facilities should not be offered for vexatious petitions, which might run the risk of interfering with the choice of the Crown. He believed the question was first raised in the case of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's election for Southampton, and again in that of Lord Bury's return for Norwich. Lord Bury was re-elected, but no injustice was inflicted on his opponents, for they petitioned against the second return, on the ground that he was incapacitated by reason of bribery committed by his agents at the former election, and he was unseated. No wrong would be sustained by any parties by the issue of the Writ in all cases.

§ MR. AYRTON
would venture to deprecate a continuance of the discussion, since it could not lead to any immediate conclusion on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldney). When the House met for the despatch of business the subject would doubtless engage its attention, and any hon. Member would have an opportunity of expressing his views upon it. As to the petition against Mr. Goschen's return, he need hardly assure the House that he had informed himself properly upon the point. He held in his hand an office copy of that petition, and the petition did not claim the seat. The fact was admitted by his hon. and learned Friend, and, in making the Motion, he had acted under a full sense of responsibility and in accordance with the rule to which he had referred.