§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to No. 72 of the Rules and Orders, declaring that every Member is bound to attend the service of the House, and to the Resolution of this House of the 7th February, whereby Mr. Bradlaugh is prevented from fulfilling all the duties imposed upon Members, a vacancy has not occurred in the representation of the borough of Northampton?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that before the hon. and learned Attorney General answered the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, he (Mr. Newdegate) wished, with the permission of the House, to say that out of the Question of the hon. Member there appeared to him to arise another Question—namely, Whether, after the decisions of the Court and the decisions of the House on his case, Mr. Bradlaugh was not disqualified?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)Sir, in answering the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I purposely wish to avoid entering into matters which may hereafter arise, if any Resolution is submitted to the House. Therefore, I confine myself to stating that I know of no ground upon which it can now be alleged that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the borough of Northampton. As to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate), I think the reply I have already given affords an answer to it. Certainly, as matters stand, the seat has not become vacant.