ing officer not only solicited the preparation of the new lists, but-and I join issue with what the Solicitor General said-I do not think we have satisfactory proof before us that the allegation contained in this motion, that the elections were really held on the old lists to which objection had been taken, is not well-founded. I find in the record of the evidence in the case referred to by the Solicitor General, that this question was put to the returning officer-Question 456 :
Q. So that you did not have any lists even at the time Mr. McCool was nominated, on the 28th of November?-A. No, I had not.
At the time of the nomination he had not those lists, and there might have been men there who were not in a position to place a candidate in nomination. There are other allegations in the motion which to my mind call for investigation by the committee. Now, I do not think the Solicitor General is right in saying that this question of vthe return of the writ and the issue of a new one lias been decided by the court. I think what the judges decided was that they could not go behind that writ-that it was a matter for investigation by the House of Commons.