The House remained face to face with | Act where a Commission was refused this-it did not please Her Majesty's analogous to the case before the House. Government to issue a Writ. Why not? He would have to go back to a time In the existing state of the House a before the Corrupt Practices Act, when matter of this kind was of no great im- there was no power to inquire into the portance; but they must consider the condition or conduct of a constituency to rights of the constituencies. There were find a case where the House had refused great matters daily and almost hourly to issue a Writ. When the Corrupt coming before the House, and the con- Practices Act was passed, the right of a stituency of Wigan had as clear a right constituency was not placed at the to representation, whether the Repre- caprice of a Party. It was taken out sentative belonged to the majority or of the hands of the House, and remitted the minority, as any other constituency in the first instance to an authorized trirepresented in the House. What would bunal. He would ask the hon. and be the effect if this were to be carried learned Attorney General where was on? It would be in the power of the his precedent since the Corrupt Practices Government to suspend the rights of Act was passed, after a Commission had many a constituency. Let them see how been refused for a detention of a Writ the matter stood. Last Session the sub- for over 12 months, as in this case? He ject came before the House, and the asked him, further, how was it possible Resolution which was proposed by the for him to escape from the precedent he Attorney General was rejected, not by a himself set in the Stroud case, where Party majority. He would read what the House refused to suspend the Writ was said by the hon. Member for Bolton for three or four days even for the evi(Mr. J. K. Cross). That hon. Member dence to be placed on the Table? The saidAttorney General then said it was perfectly useless, and that no further step should be taken; and, therefore, they ought not to do any indirect injustice to the constituency, and he would be no party to it. The Attorney General by his own act, and the House by its own act, had renounced the intention of issuing a Commission, and they had now only the will of the Government and the will of the Attorney General, who thought, probably, that Wigan had not been punished enough. No doubt that was his opinion; probably many others might think it was 80. This case was a miserable case. Learned Judges could make mistakes, and they did so in the case of Knaresborough. The Judges in that case made a grievous mistake, for there was not the smallest ground for the slur on the constituency contained in their Report; and, therefore, it was allowed to go scot - free. He would appeal to independent Members opposite, and ask them if they were going to vote against this Writ because it might produce an increase in the Party minority of one? He did not know how the result might be; but this he would say, that there existed the gravest reason why Members of the House should not vote in a Party sense in a matter like this. He thought Election Petitions were given up in order to extract altogether from the domain of

"I must say that in the sense of Southern corruption, the borough of Wigan is perfectly pure. I live within seven miles of the place, and I know it perfectly well. The people are rough and ready, and a great many of them are colliers, who are certainly a dog-running,pigeonflying, cock-fighting, Church-and-King lot, who always vote Tory."-[3 Hansard, cclxv. 508] Well, no doubt, in the mind of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that was the chief fault-that they were a dogfighting, pigeon - flying, Church-andKing-loving lot. What he asked the House to consider was what grounds were presented for depriving the constituency of Wigan of the right to be represented by two Members in the House. He supposed they would draw from the Attorney General whether he had made up his mind on the subject of an Address to the Crown for a Commission. Most likely he had not changed his mind, and the House had not changed its mind. That being so, the House had no proper function to discharge in connection with the suspension of the Writ. He quite admitted that before the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, when it became competent to the Crown to issue a Commission, it was customary for the House to exercise a kind of peremptory action on the constituency by suspending the Writ; but he challenged the hon. and learned Attorney General to find a single case since the Corrupt Practices

The

opinion the action of the House in elec- | Party reasons, and he regretted that he tion matters; but now he supposed they should have suggested that the Govern were going to be appealed to by the ment were opposed to the issuing of the Attorney General to punish this borough. Writ because it might give one vote If that was the appeal he made, that 12 against them in the House. He would, months' privation was not sufficient, he however, suggest to the House this consi(Mr. Lewis) would ask the House to deration-that he believed that the House consider what was the nature of the made a mistake last Session in refusing case provided. He challenged the At- a Commission; and all they could do torney General to show that there was now was to remedy as far as possible anything more than a few pounds proved the mistake that had been made. to have been received. When the House would allow him to remind them House was asked to issue a Commission, of the position in which they stood. there was a majority against it. If it When the Act of 1868 gave power to was said that the House exceeded its the Judges to determine Election Petiright last year, he was unable to under- tions, it also gave them power to say stand how it was the Act of Parliament whether corrupt practices extensively did not call upon the Attorney General prevailed; and it would be at once seen to do, as an Executive Officer, a par- by the House that it would be imposticular thing outside the Office, but re-sible for the House to go beyond the dequired that he should appeal to the deliberate action of the House as to whether it should or should not appoint a Commission. He contended that the action of the House was more Judicial than Ministerial. There must be something meant in the deliberate action of the House of Lords and House of Commons being called into operation under the Statute. If that was not so, the hon. and learned Attorney General was placed in this difficulty, that the House of Commons had refused to do that which by law it ought to have done. If that were so, surely the power of the Attorney General was sufficient to point out to the House what it should do now. Whatever the case might be in reference to that, the hon. and learned Attorney General was wholly unable to point out to the House any precedent or usage for refusing to issue a Writ for Wigan, and the House had no legitimate right whatever for interfering with the right of the constituency. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Wigan, in the room of Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose election has been declared to be void."-(Mr. Lewis.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he was sure the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would not have taken up the time of the House as he had done for any

cision of the Judges, and inquire into the correctness of their decision. In the year 1869 it was suggested by Mr. Gathorne Hardy that it would be for the general good that where the decision of the Judges showed that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, a Commission should issue in consequence of that Report. That rule was accepted by both sides of the House, and it had been followed ever since; and it was never deviated from until the unfortunate vote of last Session. He must say he felt some little blame attached to him in the matter; and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) pointed it out at the time. He did not go very fully into the facts of the case. He referred to the general rule; and he thought that wrong arguments were brought to bear on the House, in order to set aside the rule which had been so long acted on. One was that of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross), who argued that as the constituency was one of very peculiar habits it should be exempted from the ordinary practice. He presumed that the argument prevailed. At any rate, the House, by a narrow majority, refused the Motion for a Commission; and the question now was, what were they to do in consequence of that decision? The Report of the Judges was that corrupt practices extensively prevailed.

MR. LEWIS begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; that was not the Report.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, that a Report that

BARON DE FERRIERËS said, he thought it was not only undesirable, but unfair, that any Member of the House should go on moving for new Writs for different boroughs in which he had no particular interest. He did not think that a place like Wigan could complain if its case were hung up till the whole question of corrupt boroughs had been considered by the House, though that Bill ought not to be delayed any longer than was necessary. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That," to the

end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Writ be issued to fill up any vacancy occasioned by corrupt practices until this House has disposed of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill,"-(Baron de Ferrieres,) -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the

might be made for a new Writ. By | Mr. Disraeli said, "that the suspension taking that course the House would of those two Writs had been continushow that they had done something to ously arbitrary and unconstitutional." mark their disapproval of the conduct He further observed-"In 1861 the Goof the electors, without acting with seve- vernment refused to introduce a Bill for rity towards the constituency. the suspension of the Writ for three years, and that, neither the Government nor any Member making such a proposition, another year had passed, the arbitrary and unconstitutional suspension still remained." No language could more clearly show that it was not accurate to represent Mr. Disraeli as saying that, three years having elapsed, sufficient punishment had been inflicted, but that, on the contrary, from beginning to end, he spoke of the suspension of the Writ, unless it was with the intention of bringing in any measure for disfranchisement, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. There was also the authority of Sir George Grey, who, in the same debate, in consenting to the issue of the Writ, never said that Gloucester had been sufficiently punished, but put it upon Constitutional grounds. He stated that, while adhering to the opinion he had previously expressed, there were serious objections to the suspension of a Writ for a protracted period, without reference to any proceedings or any impending measure. He (Mr. E. Clarke) would ask the Government to act, not upon the suggestion of the Attorney General, but upon the principle laid down by Sir George Grey, that the suspension of a Writ was only to be justified when the Government was prepared to introduce, or the House was considering a Bill to disfranchise the borough. It would be a most serious innovation upon the Constitutional rights of constituencies, which had recently been so loudly and rightly proclaimed, that the majority for the movement should ask the House not to re-try a case, but to deprive constituencies of their representation, even when the Government was not prepared to legislate. Then, the Attorney General based his suggestion upon the fact that the House had refused to issue a Royal Commission. Through that refusal, he said, the matter was in the same form as it would have been before the Corrupt Practices Act had passed. That he entirely challenged. It was clear that upon receiving the Report of an Election Judge the House, if it chose, could vote for the issue of a Royal Commission, and, if that Commission reported

Question."

MR. EDWARD CLARKE said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the singular position in which it would be placed if it adopted the unconstitutional and arbitrary course suggested by the Attorney General. The precedent which the Attorney General had given for the course he proposed was that of the City of Gloucester. It was true that that unhappy City was found out in 1859, and the Government repeatedly resisted any proposal for a Writ. In 1861 Sir George Grey stated that the Government had resolved to ask the House to withhold the issue of a Writ for the City; but in 1862 the Government changed its mind, and a Writ was issued. It was alleged by the Attorney General that in the debate on the Writ Mr. Disraeli alluded to the suspension of the Writ for three years as a sufficient punishment. That was not a correct statement of his views. He did not say that the three years which had elapsed might be taken as a sufficient punishment upon Gloucester. On the contrary, alluding to the suspension of the Writs for Wakefield and Gloucester,