WILLIAM PRESTON INDEMNITY BILL. (Hansard, 4 March 1925)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I need not detain the House for many minutes on this Bill. As your Lordships may know, Mr. Preston was a candidate for the representation of the borough of Walsall in another place. As a candidate he either was not aware or did not remember that his firm had entered into some small contract with the Postmaster-General, I think in connection with the supply of letter boxes; or, if he knew of it, he did not know that the Act would subject him to any penalty. He was elected, he took his seat, and he voted in eight Divisions. I think, during the short part of the Session which occurred before Christmas. Thereby it seems that he incurred the penalty on each occasion that he voted, on a suit by a common informer, of a sum of £500. As soon as he found out his position he explained the circumstances. He stood again for election and was again elected, thereby incurring some expense. I am sure your Lordships would not wish that he should be open to be sued at any time by a common informer for these large penalties. I hope 408 you will pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and in that case I propose to-morrow, as the matter is a small one, to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders so as to be able to take the remaining stages of the Bill in order that it may be submitted for the Royal Assent.

§ VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, representing the section of the House which I do represent, I need not say that we have not any intention of putting forward any opposition to this Bill. The unfortunate Mr. Preston suffered not from any sin of his own but from the nature of our legislation and Parliamentary procedure. I think the Government might really consider whether the time has not come to think a little over these restrictions, ridiculously arbitrary as some of them are, relating to contracts, and also over the question of the magnitude of the penalties. I have known in your Lordships' House even a Bishop sit down in the middle of his speech in terror because he was reminded by a friendly colleague that he was incurring a £500 penalty for not having taken the Oath, it is absurd that these penalties should exist as they do. I have had to deal with them on several occasions, and I suggest that it is worth considering whether we might not amend our Parliamentary procedure in this respect. I know that the one great difficulty will be the innate conservatism of the other House upon the subject. Whether it is Labour, or Liberal, or Conservative, it is always very much opposed to any changes in the traditions which it has inherited, and those of your Lordships who are responsible for affairs will have to consider that before you put anything forward. But I am sure the time has come when this state of things is a blot on our civilisation.