PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—NEW WRITS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 15 June 1880)

§ LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR
moved— That where any Election has been declared void, under the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and the Judges have reported that any person has been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous Notice being given in the Votes, such Notice to be appointed for consideration before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, the subject to which the Motion related was one of considerable interest. He recollected that it was his duty in 1866 to sit as a Member of a Committee of that House on an Inquiry which involved the conduct of the constituency of Galway, when 78 it was unanimously reported that corrupt practices had prevailed at the previous election for that borough. He waited a few days in expectation that a Motion would be made to the effect that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the existence of such practices, and he had then been informed by the Chairman of the Committee, and by Sir George Grey, who was at the time Secretary of State for the Home Department, that they did not intend to take any step of that kind. In spite of the Report of the Committee, no Member thought it his duty to take action; the Report was a nullity, and the constituency went on its way rejoicing to distinguish itself afterwards more than once in a similar manner. Since that time the law against candidates had been made more stringent. The risks to which a candidate was exposed were enough to make him shrink from seeking election. He found an agent chosen for him, and all the machinery of corruption fortified by ancient custom, against which it was impossible for him to contend. If the law was to be stringently enforced against anyone, it ought not to be against the unfortunate candidate, but rather against those who maintained these customs If a candidate was guilty of personal bribery, he was liable to be indieted for misdemeanour and to be punished by imprisonment; he was disqualified for voting at any Parliamentary or municipal election; he was debarred from holding any municipal or judicial office; and he was to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. In the case of Launces-ton, a Member had just been unseated for having, in a moment of impatience at the complaints made to him about the ravages of rabbits, practically said—"Oh, bother the rabbits. Do what you like with them. "The Judges held that the law held a candidate responsible for illegal acts which he had directly forbidden.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member was travelling far beyond the question.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said. he was endeavouring to show the hardship with which the law pressed upon the candidate as compared with the constituency. Liberal Members were now falling, and the House would soon have before it the question of the issue of Writs; and it was 79 better that they should determine beforehand the principles by which they were to be guided.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member was travelling beyond the scope of the Resolution, which was strictly limited to the time which should elapse before the House ordered the issue of a New Writ.

§ MR. J. E. YORKE
said, he should not pursue the subject, but would conclude with a Motion that instead of the words "two days" they should insert the words "one fortnight."

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Motion was not that the Writ should issue after two days' Notice, but that it should not issue until after two days' Notice. The object was simply to allow of sufficient time for Members to consider whether any case was one in which further delay ought to be asked for. The Resolution did not apply to cases in which it had been reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, as these cases were distinctly provided for by the Act. If in other cases there was no reason for further delay, it would be unjust to the constituencies that such delay should occur, and two days were enough to enable Members to consider whether it was necessary to inflict a penalty on the whole constituency. It appeared from Sir Erskine May's work on The Law and Practice of Parliament, that at one period, in 1853 and 1854, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without seven days' previous Notice in the Votes. The House appeared to have thought, however, that this was rather hard on a constituency unless a more positive presumption of mischief prevailed; for in succeeding Sessions until 1860, and again in 1866, 1874, and 1875, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without two days' previous Notice being given. He did not think it mattered much whether it was a question of two or three days; but he believed he was supported by the 80 experience of the House when he said that 14 days was too long a time, considering that, in the great majority of cases, there would be no ground whatever for preventing the issue of the Writ. Therefore, he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.