The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

Lord PALMERSTON rose to make the motion of
which he had given notice, That in all cases when the seat
of any member has been declared void by an election
committee, on the grounds of bribery or treating, no
motion for the issuing of a writ shall be made without
seven days' previous notice being given in the votes.
This was a resolution which the house agreed to on a
former occasion, and the object of it was that if, arising
out of the circumstances of any election, there should
appear to be grounds for any measure affecting the
borough itself, time might be given for any member to
make any motion which he might think fit to make on
such a matter, and that the new writ might not be
issucd by surprise, so as to preclude the house from
taking into its consideration any circumstances which
might be disclosed before the committee as affecting or
likely to affect the borough itself.
Mr. DISRA.ELI begged the house to consider what
might be the consequences if they adopted a resolution
of so stringent a character as that proposed by the
noble lord. The noble lord said there were pre-
cedents for the resolution, but he believed there were
not more than two which were applicable to the
present case, and they were agreed to under circum-
stances of considerable party excitement, and with
regard to a particular election. They were now consider-
ing the case with a complete exemption from such excieb-
meat, and it was highly desirable that they should take
care not to agree to a resolution the consequences of
which might be different from those which the noble lord
sought to effect by his proposition. If they passed this
resolution a city or borough might be disfranchised for a
whole recess. A report was made to the house, and the
writ was not to be moved for a week after. An hon.
member might then say—Here is a charge made against
a constituency, and we must wait till the evidence is in
our hands before we can deoide on the merits of the case.
That would lead to a delay of a month or six weeks.
Another week must elapse before the motion for issuing
the writ was brought forward. Gentlemen might then
say that they had not time to consider the question, dif-
ferent yiews might be taken, and a whole session and
recess might pass without the city or borough in quest.
tion having a representative. All resolutions of this
kind were of an unconstitutional character. He was not
arguing, however, against the general principle of the
resolution, but he thought they should take security that
so violent and unconstitutional a proceeding should not
be had recourse to unless when there was a bona fide
case to justify it. If, therefore, the noble lord would not
allow a feeling of suspicion to weigh with him in accept-
ing a suggestion made from his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of
the house, he would recommend an improvement in the
terms of the resolution, to the effect that they should
not have recourse to this method unless the committee
who unseated the member did at the same time report
their opinion that the'time for issuing the writ should be
extended to the period proposed by the noble lord. Such
an amendment would attain all the advantages the noble
lord proposed, and would be a great safeguard against
the abuses and inconveniences to which he had alluded.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered that the amendment
of the right hon. gentleman would defeat all the objects
of the resolution, which had worked very well in the last
Parliament. It was no doubt a stretch to suspend the
issue of the writ when once the committee had declared
a seat vacant, but it was the duty of the house, when
the committee declared that a member had been guilty
of bribery, to take care that the vacancy should not be
filled up unless they were satisfied that the constituency
had not abused its privileges. The resolution was agreed
to in 1852, after the passing of the bill which empowered
the Crown, on an address from both Houses of Parlia-
ment, to issue a commission to inquire into the extent
of the corrupt practices in the constituency. But if they
were to rely on the report of the committee, how could
they ascertain whether it was a case to justify an address ,
to the Crown or not The right bon, gentleman must be
aware that even if 200 or 300 cases of bribery could be
proved, the counsel before the committee confined them-
selves to one or two eases sufficient to unseat the mem-
ber, but kept the others back to save the constituency.
Would a committee be justified in recommending the
house to suspend the writ when only one or two cases
had been proved, and they had no power to institute any,
further investigation? In the last Parliament five commis-
sions were issued on the recommendation of the commit-
tees, in the case of Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Mal-
don, and Barnstaple, and in each case the result was the
discovery of a far greater amount of corruption than had
been proved to the committees, and the five constituen-
cies were reported to have been guilty of corrupt prac-
tices, quits as strong, if not stronger, than any to be
found in the report on which they had disfranchised Sud-
bury and St. Albans, and the five writs were suspended
until.after the passing of the Corrupt Practices Preven-
tion Act. He thought there was ample ground for re-
solving that the issuing of the writ should not depend
on the report of the committee.

Sir G. GREY said that the object of the resolution
was to prevent a writ from being issued without previ-
ous notice to the house, in order to enable them to be-
come acquainted with the facts of the ease. Under the
existing law, there was a power given to the committee
to make a special report as to the existence of corrupt
practices, and that further inquiry was necessary, in that
event the issuing of the writ was suspended, and there-
fore the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman was quite
unnecessary in such a case. The object of the resolution
was to take care that the writ should not be issued as a
matter of course when the seat was declared vacant, but
be felt there was very considerable force in the objection
of the right hon. gentleman to hying down a general
rule of suspension ; it might happen that a single case of
bribery would unseat a member, and they could not de-
sire that a constituency should on that account remain
unrepresented for several months. If the report was
made at the close of the session, the borough or county
would be exposed to the inconvenience of a very length-
ened canvass. He did not know whether it was intended
to alter the resolution then ; but he would suggest that
it should be withdrawn for further consideration. He
would propose to leave out the 7 days, and insert 10days
or perhaps the words " without previous notice," would
be sufficient to meet the difficulty.
Mr. DISRAELI had no wish to press his amendment.
He should prefer that the further consideration of the
resolution should bepostponed until Monday at half-past
4, when they woald have a full house. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON had no objection to postpone
the matter till Monday, more especially as ho believed
no report had yet been made which would be affected by
it.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the house wont
into committee.