§ MR. LEWISrose to move—
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Gloucester, in the room of Thomas Robinson, esquire, whose Election has been declared to be void.
§ MR. LABOUCHERESir, I rise to Order. On a previous occasion I had it in my mind to move a new Writ for the borough of Northampton. When I communicated that intention to the authorities of the House, with the view of putting on the Paper a Motion to that effect, I was informed that if I did so my Motion would not have precedence 1575 of the Orders of the Day. I observe that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) has put on the Paper a Motion of which he gave Notice, that he intends to move for a new Writ for Gloucester. I would ask you, Sir, whether, in the circumstances, that Motion has precedence over the Orders of the Day?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) is in pursuance of a Resolution of the House, passed on the 10th of February last, declaring—
That in all cases where the Seat of a Member has been declared void on the ground of Bribery, no Motion for the issue of a new Writ shall be made without two days' previous Notice with the Votes, and that such Notice be considered before Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions."—[3 Hansard, cclxvi. 470.]
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he begged to thank the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for another effort to teach the House its business. The hon. Member had more to do with election proceedings in that House than any other hon. Member during the present Session; and he should have thought the hon. Member was aware that this Sessional Order had been passed in order that the House might not be taken by surprise in the issue of Writs for vacancies occasioned by corrupt practices. In introducing that Motion he should be able to convince the House, he thought, that it involved a great Constitutional question; and he apprehended that upon no light ground, and in no indirect manner, would the House allow the rights and privileges of electors to be interfered with largely or destroyed, but would take care to deal with them in a regular and legal manner. At the present time no fewer than eight constituencies and 14 Members were affected by the extraordinary conduct of Her Majesty's Government. The election for the borough of Gloucester took place more than two years ago. In the summer of 1880 an Election Petition was duly tried, and under it Mr. Robinson, one of the Members, was unseated. Before the expiry of the Session of 1880 the Attorney General, in pursuance of the Report of the Election Judge, moved for a Commission of Inquiry. That took place in the autumn and winter of 1880. The Report was presented as long ago as March, 1881. He apprehended that it 1576 was the duty of the House to take care that there was no undue delay in the matter. Instead of that, what course had been pursued? From March until August no step was taken. Late in the Session, in August, a Bill was introduced to prevent the issue of the Writ in any of these boroughs until eight days after the commencement of the present Session. After this Session commenced, two or three weeks were allowed to elapse before any notice was taken of the incriminated boroughs. It was not until several Questions had been put to Ministers that the Bill was produced. He then gave Notice with reference to the second reading of the Bill. The question, he thought, deserved the close attention of the two Ministers against whom charges had been made in connection with the Cities of Chester and Oxford affected by that Bill. It was reasonable to expect that every expedition would be used with respect to this Bill. One would have thought that the two Cabinet Ministers would have desired to take the earliest opportunity of showing how unmerited were the charges that were made against them. But that was not the course pursued by the Government. When he put a Question on this subject to the noble Marquess, the answer he gave was that he cared nothing for the suggestion made as to the conduct of his Colleagues; but he admitted that the question, affecting the constituencies, was a very serious one. That took place a week ago. What was the conduct of the Government next day? Instead of proceeding with the Disfranchisement Bill, they put down the Parliamentary Election Expenses Bill—a Bill of a kindred, but general character—and entirely overlooked and evaded the question at issue in the other Bill. He thought there must be some reason in the background for this course. Turning to the question raised by this Motion, what were the precedents with reference to matters of this kind? He would quote the cases of Beverley and Bridgwater. Three months after the Report of the Commission was presented a Bill for the disfranchisement of the boroughs was presented to the House, and on the 6th of May it was read a third time. This was very different from the course which the Government was now pursuing with regard to Gloucester. He maintained 1577 that anyone who had read the whole of the Commissioners' Reports could have come to no other conclusion than that a very grave case had been made out for two responsible Ministers of the Crown to answer. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] The Attorney General shook his head; but let him bring forward the Disfranchisement Bill, and then they would discover the truth of his allegations. What he wanted was an opportunity of showing what had been the conduct of the President of the Local Government Board.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member's language was relevant to the Motion that a new Writ be issued for Gloucester; whether, in fact, he could go into matters in no way connected with that City or its Representatives, and make charges against persons who had no connection with it?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member ought to confine himself to matters relating to the Gloucester Election.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he was not surprised that upon that occasion, as upon every other, the hon. and learned Gentleman should attempt to evade the issue which he had raised. [Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw!"
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not attending to my directions.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, his point was that the City of Gloucester was at the mercy of the Government, and that its rights were likely to be seriously jeopardized and infringed. His chief object, however, in bringing forward his Motion was to guard against the possibility of its being said later on that the delay of the Government in dealing with the constituency had not been made the subject of protest. He would only further point out that of the 5,381 electors of the City of Gloucester, only one-third were at all involved in the Report of the Election Commissioners. He begged to move that a new Writ be issued for the City of Gloucester.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Gloucester, in the room of Thomas Robinson, esquire, whose Election has been declared to be void."—(Mr.Lewis.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. Member did not appear to seriously propose the issue of the Writ; but there were many Members in the House who had a strong interest in the City of Gloucester, and he had no wish to anticipate the discussion which must arise. He would, therefore, only remind the House that the Commissioners had reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed; and it was, therefore, impossible to consent to the issue of the Writ. There must be a discussion of the matter, and it was most unfair if he made any statement which could not be discussed in detail. He did not think there were many hon. Members who would wish to see a new Writ for Gloucester immediately issued. The hon. Member for Londonderry, as he understood, wished to press the Motion as a Censure on the Government for not having hurried the Disfranchisement Bill forward. The Motion before the House was, however, a very indirect mode by which to accomplish that object. The Report of the Commissioners was not in the hands of the Government until the month of April last year. The Government had to consider carefully what should be their action in the matter; and it was not till a comparatively late period of last Session that they had so shaped their policy as to present it to the House. At that time, however, a communication from the Front Opposition Bench was made asking that the Bill should not be discussed at the end of the Session in an empty House. He did feel that every matter in the Bill should he very carefully discussed, and, in consequence, the Bill was not introduced. All he could say was that there would be full opportunity given for the discussion of the Bill; and he was sure the Prime Minister would take care that no attempt should be made to pass the Bill in the absence of Members who might wish to discuss it. Before sitting down, he desired to say a few words about the charges which the hon. Member had brought against the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board.
§ MR. LEWISI rise to Order, Sir. At the instance of the Attorney General, you prevented me proceeding one step in the direction in which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proceeding. I beg to ask if he is in Order?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)wished to refer only to a matter to which the hon. Member had been allowed to refer—namely, the reasons adduced by the hon. Member for the delay in the production of the Bill. According to the hon. Member, the delay was accounted for by a desire on the part of the Government to evade unpleasant charges. Nobody had brought any charges against his right hon. Friends except the hon. Member. There were no charges against them in the Report of the Royal Commission; and because the hon. Member chose to imagine certain charges, were they going to dislocate the Business of the House? He wished, however, that the hon. Member had made his charges in the presence of his right hon. Friends, instead of choosing a day when they were absent to state to the public that grave charges were brought against them in those Reports.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Member for Londonderry was, to a certain extent, justified in the course which he had taken, since the Government had unquestionably been guilty of undue delay in formulating in a Bill their proposals for the treatment of the boroughs against which charges were made. Now, however, that a Bill had been introduced, it would not be reasonable to ask the House to issue a new Writ for any one of the boroughs to which the measure would apply. At the proper time he hoped to be able to prove that the best way to deal with the case of Gloucester would be by examination before a Select Committee. He would only say with regard to what had fallen from the Attorney General that, as he himself admitted that Her Majesty's Government decided last year that it was not right to proceed with a Bill of this nature in the closing week of the Session, they would take care not to proceed with a similar Bill at a similar time of the Session this year. It was not the wish of anybody affected by this Bill, as far as Gloucester was concerned, that it should be defeated by delay. What they asked was that the Bill should be fairly discussed, and that a judicial decision should be arrived at with regard to it. He would be very glad if the Government would name a very early day for the second reading, and then assent to his Motion for a reference of the Bill to 1580 a Select Committee, not for delay, but purely for investigation, and a decision on the subject could be thus taken before the conclusion of the present Session.
§ MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he thought the Bill dealing with these seven boroughs dealt with them too leniently, rather than too severely. It would be well, in his opinion, that before discussing the Corrupt Practices Bill in Committee, the Government should propose the second reading of the Bill dealing with these seven boroughs. If they did not, they would be liable at any time to have Motions brought forward for the issue of Writs for these boroughs. He hoped that before long Gloucester would be wiped out as a constituency.
§ MR. MONKsaid, the Report of the Judges had been in the hands of the Government for upwards of a year; and, therefore, it was only reasonable that Members should ask the Government to take some steps with regard to the measure affecting these boroughs. He had not had any communication with the hon. Member for Londonderry with regard to the Motion he had brought forward. He felt certain that the Motion was merely a peg on which to hang a speech with regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. He had not complained of the course pursued hitherto by Her Majesty's Government; but if this Bill, which his constituents were anxious to have considered, were further delayed, he thought they would have a right to complain very much. All they asked was that Gloucester should be put in the same category as Oxford and Chester. He had a decided opinion that when the Bill was brought on he would be able to make out a good case for the constituency he represented. He hoped the Government, before the end of this week, would give an assurance that no further delay should take place in moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ BARON DE FERRIERESsaid, he could assure the House that it was generally felt in the country that Gloucester had been very unfairly treated in this matter; and he trusted that the question would be disposed of on its merits at the very earliest opportunity.
§ MR. LEWIS, in reply, said, the Attorney General, no doubt, thought that, in accordance with the practice of his master, he should throw contempt upon the 1581 suggestions he (Mr. Lewis) had made. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman complained that he selected a day for making an attack on his right hon. Colleagues when they would be absent. He gave Notice of this Motion a week ago. He had not the least notion that any Members of the Government would be absent; and, at the present moment, he was wholly unable to explain the absence of the Home Secretary, or of the President of the Local Government Board. He read his Notice in the hearing of the Government two or three weeks ago. After the words of the Attorney General, he had no option but that of taking an opportunity for vindicating himself on Thursday next, and showing ground for what he had done. He had, by this discussion, gained one of the objects of his Motion, and he begged leave to withdraw it. ["No, no!"]
§ Question put, and negatived.