HC Deb 25 August 1881 vol 265 cc877-9
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering that two of Her Majesty's Judges have reported that they have reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the late election at Wigan, and, considering that this House last Saturday refused to issue a Commission to inquire into the existence of the said alleged practices, he is aware of any precedent to guide the House as to what course should be pursued in relation to the issue of a new Writ for the said borough; and, whether the Government are prepared to make any suggestion on the subject?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Sir, as far as I am aware, there is no precedent to guide the House as to the course that should be pursued in relation to the issue of a new Writ for the borough of Wigan. The facts are that the learned Judges have reported that they have reason to believe that extensive corrupt practices prevailed at the last election for the borough of Wigan, and Mr. Justice Grove in his Judgment stated— I see men, as we have seen here, who really not only do not think that they are doing a culpable thing in taking money for their Totes, selling their duties as citizens, of which we hear so much, for a small sum of money or for a pot of beer, but they literally seem to think that it is their duty to get money for their votes. They seem to think that they are deserting their comrades, and that they are spoiling the market if they do not get paid for their votes. That ought to be put a stop to by some legislative means or other; some mode should be devised by which that apparently widespread corruption, which has been shown to demonstration in the present case, and of which I have seen large symptoms in other cases, should be struck at and extirpated. Under such circumstances, an inquiry by means of a Royal Commission has always followed such a Report. It is true that in one case, that of Stroud, where on the face of the Report it appeared that the Judges found that bribery did not exist, but only corrupt treating, the Writ was allowed to issue, because the Statute of 1852 clearly contemplates that the Commissioners should only report upon the particulars of bribery, and not of treating. But in all cases where corrupt practices generally have been reported, this House has joined in an Address to the Crown that a Royal Commission should issue. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that if the vote of Saturday last could be supported, either on precedent or on principle, a Writ for a new election for the borough of Wigan ought both logically and constitutionally to issue forthwith, for, in the absence of any necessity for further inquiry, and no Resolution for the suspension of the Writ having been passed by this House, it seems to me almost unconstitutional that a constituency should be deprived of its representation through the mere silence of those on whom, by practice, the responsibility falls of moving this Writ; but, of course, in the face of this Report and Judgment, the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, who would, according to the usage of this House, move for the Writ, makes no sign, thus showing that the rejection of the Motion of Saturday last cannot be followed by its legitimate consequences. I am unaware that the Government have come to any conclusion as to the course which should, under the circumstances, be pursued. The responsibility of the vote arrived at does not rest with them; but I wish to say for myself that, whenever this Writ is moved for, I shall call attention to the Evidence and Judgment on which the Report of the learned Judges is founded, and thus do all I can to counteract the effect of a vote which I say, with all due respect to this House, seems to be founded on no precedent, guided by no principle, and likely, if fully acted upon, to lead to most injurious consequences in the future.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked why the Writ was to be moved for by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

It is the practice to leave the Motion for a new Writ in the hands of the hon. Member who has the political management of the Party to which the retiring Member belonged.