HC Deb 11 July 1887 vol 317 cc359-72
SIR WILFEID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

I wish to call attention to a matter in which I think the rights and Privileges of this House have been interfered with, and to move a Resolution thereupon. Last week I asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether a certain Peer had not interfered with a certain election of a Member of Parliament, in having promised to provide a candidate in South Wilts? The right hon. Gentleman told me that the Sessional Order prohibits any interference by Peers in an election, and he added that he was not aware that any election in South Wilts was now in progress. That was all right, no doubt; but on Friday last there was an election in progress in North Paddington, and it is in connection with that election that I think a breach of the Privileges of this House has taken place. I have only to state my evidence, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will admit that it is indisputable and undeniable, as it is the evidence of The Times newspaper. The Times stated on Saturday— There seems to be a plentiful supply of carriages on either side, though the Conservatives had the preponderance, and among them it was stated were several lent to Mr. Aird, by Lord Salisbury, Lord Randolph Churchill, Lord Rothschild, and other noblemen and gentlemen connected with the Conservative and Unionist Party. That is my evidence, and I find also the same statement in The Daily News and The Globe newspapers. And now let me read the Resolution of this House. The Sessional Order declares it to be an infringement of the liberty, and a breach of the Privileges of this House, if any Lord of Parliament or other Peer should concern himself in the election of a Member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament. Now, I think it is quite clear that lending carriages to take voters to the poll must be concerning themselves in an election, if it is possible to concern themselves in it in any way at all. Now, to make this quite clear I will remind the House that at the beginning of this Parliament the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had moved that that Sessional Order be repealed, and I myself had the honour to second the hon. Member. We were opposed by a majority of the House. We contended that the whole thing was a sham—that it was an Order that was never enforced—and we said we thought that it was not the best way to maintain the honour and dignity of the House to have a sham Resolution upon the Books of the House, and that, therefore, it would be more for the honour of the House if it were got rid of. That, however, was not the opinion of the majority of this House, but it was decided by a majority of 294 to 126 to keep the Sessional Order. That shows that in the opinion of the House it is of some importance, as I do not suppose that they wished to pass a Resolution which would be a dead letter. I, therefore, call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to take steps now to put this Resolution in force which he and Friends decided to keep on the Books of the House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to do so, because I know how anxious the right hon. Gentleman is for law and order. On this occasion I am sure he will put the law in force against any Peer of the Realm who may have broken it. I am glad that I have not been called upon to move the Resolution I am about to move until after the new Member for North Paddington (Mr. Aird) has been able to take his seat, because I think we may have a few words from him upon the question, and a statement as to what really took place. Without further preface I beg to move that— In the opinion of this House the employment of the carriages of Peers of the Realm for conveying voters to the poll at the North Paddington Election, on July 8th, was an infringement of the Sessional Order of this House.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I rise to Order. I wish, Sir, to submit a point of Order which occurred to me on hearing the paragraph read by the hon. Baronet from The Times newspaper. That point of Order is whether the House can entertain any Motion for breach of the Privileges of this House founded upon facts the sole evidence of which is contained in a newspaper statement? [Laughter from the Irish Members.] When hon. Members opposite have sufficiently gratified themselves and have ceased their laughter I will support my point of Order by proving to the House that the newspaper evidence on which the hon. Baronet has brought forward his Motion is on the face of it of a very tainted and suspicious character. [Cries of "The Times."] What I want to point out is that the newspaper paragraph which professes to give an account of this interference by Peers in the election of Members of this House—|Cries of "Order!"]

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I understood—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! We must decide one point of Order first.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

In order to support my point of Order as to the impossibility of the House proceeding merely on the evidence laid before it by the hon. Baronet, I will mention that the statement that I sent my carriage to assist the hon. Member for North Paddington in his election is absolutely untrue.

MR. SPEAKER

I understood the hon. Baronet to state that Lord Rothschild sent his carriage.

An hon. MEMBER

And Lord Salisbury.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

My point is a different one.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Baronet said that Lord Rothschild and other noble Lords sent their carriages. Of course, that is a question of evidence which it is for the House to decide. The House will decide whether the evidence is sufficient to found a conclusion that a breach of Privilege has been committed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

My point only is this—that as the evidence is thoroughly false in one particular, it is probably false in another. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

In seconding the Motion of the hon. Baronet, I only desire to call attention to the fact that, at the beginning of this Session, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire whether or not this Sessional Order should be abrogated, or whether any amendment should be made in it. I myself proposed to the Committee—a Report of whose proceedings has been laid on the Table of the House—that it was not wise or in accordance with the dignity of the House to keep on its Books from year to year a Sessional Order which has never been enforced, and which the evidence taken before the Committee showed to have never been enforced since the Reign of Queen Anne. I therefore proposed a Resolution hostile to the continuance of that Order on the books of the House, but I was supported only by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). The noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) and other Members of the Committee, voted against the proposal, and decided that the Order ought to be retained and enforced. In the course of the discussion I pointed to the use of the carriages of Peers at elections as a matter constantly occurring, and as constituting a clear interference with the conduct of elections. If my information is complete—and I do not think it is very defective—it is not alone on the Conservative side that such interference has taken place. I have reason to believe that a Peer of considerable eminence on the Liberal side of the House has also broken the Sessional Order, and I believe there are others in the same dilemma. I do not desire that this should be treated as a Party question; but I do desire that this House should not have upon its Books an Order which has become a complete farce whenever a desire is expressed to test it, and which we are afraid to enforce. The great Party opposite which decided that the Sessional Order was one which ought to be kept on the Books of this House, now that a question has been raised about its infringement, ought certainly to take steps to enforce it. I cannot appreciate the subtle mind of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, which, induces him to regard this as a question of Order; but I quite agree with him that the evidence, as at present stated, is of the very loosest description—really that kind of evidence which is only good enough to be used against hon. Members who sit around me, but not good enough nor the sort of evidence wherewith to proceed against a Member of the House of Lords. The matter, however, is one that is susceptible of very easy proof. I do not think there is any doubt whatever as to the facts; and I ask the House, in the vote it gives, should the Motion be pressed to a Division, to say whether it means that the Sessional Order should be strictly adhered to, even to the actual letter, or to make a clear and unmistakable admission that it was never intended to enforce it, notwithstanding the fact that a Committee of the House decided on retaining it on the Books of the House. If it is meant to be a sham, like too many things we do, let us say so; hut if it is intended to treat the interference of Peers at Parliamentary elections as a breach of the Privileges of this House, then let us enforce the Sessional Order.

MR. SPEAKER

Will the hon. Baronet bring up the term of his Resolution.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

having done so.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the employment of the carriages of Peers of the Realm for conveying voters to the poll at the North Paddington Election, on July 8th, was an infringement of the Sessional Order of this House."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)

THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help regretting that the hon. Baronet has thought it necessary to make this Motion. I cannot complain of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), because, in seconding it, he told the House frankly that in this way he desires to revive a question which has already been entertained and decided by the House. [Cries of "No!"] I am not putting a strained interpretation upon the remarks of the hon. Member, when I say that he revives by this Motion, a question already decided by the House. [Cries of "No !"]

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to misinterpret what I said. Although it is perfectly true that in point of form I revive the question, yet I only revive it by asking the House to give effect to what it has twice decided already.

MR. W. H. SMITH

All lean say is, that my objection to the Motion is that it proceeds upon evidence which is perfectly insufficient—[Cries of "The Times !"]—to justify the House declaring formally that certain events have occurred of which our only information is obtained from the newspapers. I do not think the House ought at any time to have regard to mere hearsay information in coming to a formal resolution, and, then, Sir, I am not prepared to lay down a Rule suddenly and without Notice, that under no circumstances is the carriage of a Peer to be made use of for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll. To lay down such a rule in this House, absolutely and without Notice, would, I think, be rather a strong course to take. It is true that we have preserved the Sessional Order which declares that in the judgment of the House it is an infringement of its privileges that a Peer should concern himself with the election of a Member of Parliament. That has been deliberately maintained, but concurrently with that it has been known, as the hon. Member for Northampton has stated, that we on both sides have allowed carriages to be used for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll. It has not been done in any underhand way; it has not been suggested that the course taken has influenced voters in the slightest degree; it has only afforded facilities to voters, and under all the circumstances, whether it is desirable that the House should consider the question or not, I protest against the House being suddenly called to lay down a rule upon evidence which is, at all events, insufficient for the House to act upon. If it is the view of hon. Gentlemen that the Rule should be laid down, it appears to me that notice should be given in order that hon. Members may have time to consider the question. Under these circumstances, I beg to move as an Amendment that this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

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

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

May I ask, as a matter of Order, whether, in accordance with the Rules of the House, the House would be justified in taking any action, seeing that there is no evidence, such as is usually submitted to this House, that Peers' carriages were employed in the North Paddington Election?

MR. SPEAKER

That is a matter entirely without my knowledge, and is for the consideration of the House. The hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has brought forward a question of Privilege, and it is not for me to interfere. It is a matter entirely for the judgment of the House.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

In reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill) I may say that I have evidence in regard to one of the Peers. At all events, I have founded myself upon The Times in regard to Lord Salisbury, and I understand that evidence to be accepted. [Cries of "No !"] I should be sorry to infringe the accuracy of The Times. But I may state that with regard to Lord Rothschild, I have had a note from the agent of one of the candidates in the election to say that he was certain that Lord Rothschild's waggonette was conveying voters to the poll on Friday last for Mr. Aird. That, I think, is pretty good evidence.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

I would venture to state to the House that when a charge of this kind has been brought, when it has been alleged, on the responsibility of more than one hon. Member, that the Standing Order has been violated, it would not be proper for the House to disregard the matter. The statement has been made formally. The noble Lord has said that there must be an inaccuracy in The Times report, because he did not lend his carriage. That, no doubt, is true; the noble Lord would not say so unless it was literally true; but the contradiction does not touch the question of the two Peers, and, as far as we are aware, the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has distinctly given evidence with reference to the case of Lord Rothschild which is of an unanswerable character. [Cries of "No !"] I beg pardon for using the word "unanswerable;" but, at all events, it is evidence of a solid character. The First Lord of the Treasury, in the first part of his speech, in which I agree with him, although I differed from the latter part of it, stated that the House ought not to proceed upon hearsay evidence of that kind; but he did not say that the House ought not to satisfy itself whether the facts have been correctly stated; and the common course which is taken in these matters, and which I think the House ought to follow in this case, is to inquire whether the statements are correct or not, and whether the authority for them is sufficient. Undoubtedly the statements constitute primâ facie evidence, and that being so, unless the House is indifferent to its own Rules and Privileges, the matter should be inquired into. I would, therefore, suggest that a Committee should be appointed to inquire whether carriages of Peers wore lent by those Peers at the election at North Paddington on Friday last; and whether that act is a breach of the Rules and Regulations of this House? That would open both questions. The Committee should be of that character which will investigate the subject judicially, and with as little party feeling as possible, and on the Report of that Committee the House would be in a position to decide finally, first, the question of fact; and, secondly, whether there has been a breach of the Privileges of the House. It is net in my power to move an Amendment, because one Amendment has already been moved. But it will be for the consideration of the House, when the Amendment now before it is disposed of, whether the course I suggest ought not to be taken. I ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he will agree to that proposal?

MR. BRADLAUGH

On a question of Order, I wish to ask whether on a matter of Privilege, any Notice is ever given beforehand, according to the forms of the House, and whether by giving Notice the question of Privilege would not be waived?

MR. SPEAKER

A Committee could not be moved for without Notice.

MR. BRADLAUGH

The question raised is that this is a Motion without Notice.

MR. SPEAKER

I do not understand that that question is raised. A question of Privilege is raised without Notice.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am quite willing to accept the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) has thrown out.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I have often been present when discussions on questions of Privileges have been raised, and no doubt they are of great interest. I think, however, on almost every occasion, I have ventured to ask the House not to deal too rapidly with a question of Privilege, and not to extend too widely the limits of Privilege which allow debates of this kind to be sprung on the House. I venture to make a confident appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, whether he thinks the course he has suggested is consistent with the dignity of the House. Hon. Members opposite have within their own discretion, and for reasons which seem good to themselves, charged the Party on this side of the House with degrading the House of Commons by their legislative action. But I ask whether you are not really proposing to make a ridiculous spectacle of the House of Commons altogether by bringing it into public disrepute, when you propose to employ this great weapon of Privilege in all its forms, and by means of a Committee taking evidence at a time when the House is overburdened with work, to find out whether or not the statements of The Times reporter are correct, or whether or not the hon. Baronet is correct in saying that Lord Rothschild sent a wagonette and Lord Salisbury sent a carriage. Is it really within the limits of common-sense, to say nothing of dignity, to take action of that kind? But there are two other considerations which I should like to bring before the House. I speak with immense diffidence because I feel that this is a Motion which ought not to be brought forward to-night in view of the extremely important and interesting discussion which is to follow. In the first place, the House could easily, if it had wished, have prohibited the use of carriages by Peers at elections. The whole question of carriages and their use at elections was most carefully considered by the House in 1884, when the Corrupt Practices Bill was under discussion. It is certain that if the House had then been of opinion that the use of Peers' carriages at elections was a Breach of the Privileges of the House, and was altogether an objectionable thing, it would have been easy for the House to insert a clause in the Corrupt Practices Bill absolutely prohibiting their use, and making an election at which they were used invalid. You cannot answer that this matter did not come before the House at that time. With regard to the rule which the hon. Member brings up, and which prohibits Peers concerning themselves in elections, I wish to ask what was the action of the Peers which the House protested against? It was not small, petty, and paltry matters which the hon. Members for Cockermouth and Northampton seem to think are worthy of the notice of the House of Commons. It was the action of Peers in forcing their nominees on the House of Commons, and before the days of the ballot, in using their territorial influence to force people dependent on them to vote for their nominees. That was the action of the Peers against which the House of Commons had always protested, and I feel confident that the hon. Members for Northampton and Cocker-mouth will not seriously argue for a moment that for all legitimate electoral purposes, such as taking an interest in Parliamentary elections, and in supporting, within reasonable bounds, one side or the other, Peers are or ought to be prohibited from showing such public interest. While saying this, I am prepared to say distinctly, that the Rule is valuable and I think ought to be kept; but it is not meant to apply to cases of this kind where a Peer may have sent a carriage to convey voters to the poll.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

I fail to see that the noble Lord has given any reason why the House should neglect its duty with regard to sustaining this Sessional Order. The noble Lord has given us an interesting essay on the Corrupt Practices Act. He has told us that this question of the interference of Peers in elections should have been, if necessary, dealt with amongst the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act. Now, I venture to think that that was a matter already dealt with by the Sessional Order which existed at the time when the Corrupt Practices words, we are invited to introduce the principle, that without giving the accused Act was passed, as it does now, and which prevents Peers taking any active part in the business of an election, and, as the noble Lord says, forcing their nominees upon the constituencies. It is true that the important object which the House had very properly in view was to prevent Peers forcing their nominees on the House. But I have no reason to suppose that in this case the noble Lords who lent their carriages were not also attempting to force their nominee on the House. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Aird), who has just taken his seat, is, as far as I know, just as much the nominee of Lord Salisbury as many other Members on the Ministerial side of the House. In this case, however, we find a Nobleman, of very recent creation, Lord Rothschild, and who used to enjoy the distinction of being one of the Liberal Members of this House, supporting, by the use of his carriage, a Tory candidate for North Paddington. I think it is a case in which the House should express its opinion on the Sessional Order, and should say that it is an Order which ought to be respected in the letter. I hope the House will adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), and grant an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. With some personal knowledge of the action of the Conservative Party at the election in North Paddington, I think such an inquiry would produce some interesting facts as to the employment of carriages by Lord Salisbury and Lord Rothschild.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

If the hon. Baronet who brought this question forward intended to treat the question seriously, he ought to have done so with a little fairness. The Times newspaper of this morning—[Sir WILFRID LAWSON: No, of Saturday.]—well, of Saturday, makes charges against Noblemen whom we all respect on this side of the House. The hon. Member has not taken the trouble to do that which ordinary propriety would dictate to any Gentleman who makes a charge against another person—ask him, in a couple of lines, whether there was any truth or not in the charge he intended to bring forward.

MR. P. STANHOPE

I should like to say that I personally saw the carriage of Lord Salisbury.

MR. ADDISON

I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman. I was addressing myself to the speech of the hon. Baronet who brought forward the Motion, and who stated that he was founding it on the authority of The Times of Saturday—a charge against two Noblemen respected on that side of the House. Although the hon. Member had two clear days to make inquiry as to the truth or not of the statement, he abstained from taking any steps of the kind; and now he comes forward and states that he has no evidence except that of a loose paragraph in The Times. Is this a becoming way in which to bring forward such a Motion? I myself reside in South Paddington, and know something of this election. On Thursday night Mr. Routledge, the Liberal candidate, boasted that he intended to bring a chimneysweep to the poll next day in the carriage of a countess—a countess who was known to some hon. Members on the other side of the House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I hope the House will now be allowed to proceed to a Division. In regard to the Sessional Order, it was retained after full inquiry, and on the Report of the Select Committee of February last. The Report stated— That the Sessional Order appears to be a declaration by the House of Commons of its Privilege, as well as of that which is, in the opinion of that House, the common law of the land; that such declaration was first made in 1641, and since 1700 has been renewed annually in almost identical terms; that as far as the Committee have ascertained, this declaration of the common law has never been controverted by the House of Lords or by any judicial tribunal; that the Sessional Order has been recognized by the Courts as a declaration of the law; that although a rescission of the Order would not alter the common law, it would be calculated to give rise to a mistaken idea either that the law had been incorrectly stated, or that it was obsolete. I must remind the House that in several Election Petitions judgment has been given with reference to the interference of Peers, showing that if there had been any substantial interference, the matter would have been brought before the notice of an Election Commission. But according to the terms of the Motion moved by the hon. Baronet, the House is asked to declare that some act done on Friday last was an infringement of the Privileges of this House. In other persons a chance of saying a word, either by themselves or their Representatives, without their being asked a single ques- tion whether the facts are as had been stated, and without hearing those persons, the House is to pass judgment against them.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

May I be allowed to say that I am quite willing to accept a Committee?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Motion which has been made by the hon. Baronet distinctly is, that the House shall declare that what has been done is a Breach of Privilege. If I were myself allowed to deal with the matter, I could tell the House of serious interferences of Peers at elections which I should be prepared to prove, not by newspaper paragraphs; but I do not suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House are so very anxious to expose the conduct of Peers who do not take their views. It is perfectly true that the use of carriages at elections was well known long before the Corrupt Practices Act, and it is a strange thing now to suggest that the casual use of a carriage is an interference with an election in the sense of the Sessional Order. I do not for one moment deny that there might be interferences in regard to carriages so gross that the House or the Election Judges would deal with them. But to suggest that on the more statement of a newspaper the House is to assume that there has been a breach of Privilege, and an infringement of the Sessional Order, is going beyond precedent. The Sessional Order is undoubtedly of use, and I trust that the House will not accede to its abrogation; I believe that it is recognized substantially by the Peers of the Realm; but to say that because a Peer may have sent his carriage for his friends, or allowed his carriage to be used for people whom he knew, or in the same way as Peers on the other side used theirs, and to treat the case seriously as a matter to be inquired into without a scrap of evidence, would, I submit, be hardly consistent with the dignity and gravity of the House. I therefore trust that the House will now pass to something of real importance, and allow the Public Business to be proceeded with.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 196: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 292.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.