HC Deb 05 February 1846 vol 83 cc502-6
MR. BANKES

rose to move for— Returns of all applications for the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds received from any Member or Members of Parliament by the Government during the present Session, with the date of such application, and date of the appointment, where such applications have been complied with. Of all applications made to Government by Members of Parliament for appointments to offices of the like nature with the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, being appointments applied for with the view of vacating the Seats of the Applicants, and the dates of such appointments, where the applications have been complied with. Of the particular Forms of Grants of the Stewardship or Stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and of other Grants of the like nature, and of the Time necessarily occupied in completing the same, when such Grants are made. The hon. Member spoke as follows:—I rise to address the House on a subject of some importance as it respects the operation of the representative system. It appears that there is a power in the Government (which I am sure I do not pretend to say has been on the present occasion abused)—but as to the exercise of which I think inquiry is demanded—it appears that there is a power in the Government of delaying or accelerating the issue of writs when Members have accepted offices which occasion the vacating of their seats. I was informed last week by general rumour (having had no other means of information), that two seats for the county which I have the honour to represent were vacant; and I have since had reason to believe it is true; but up to this period the writs have not been moved for. My hon. Friend Mr. Miles the other night asked some explanation on the subject; and it then appeared, that though the office which could occasion vacancies had been applied for, the Government writs had not been made out so as to justify the moving for the writs. Now, at this particular period, when a very important question is coming on, it is a matter of some consequence to the county, that two seats should be vacant. The result must be, so far as I can anticipate, that two of the votes of that county cannot be given on the first division that is likely to take place. I have no right in any degree to anticipate how those votes would be given when the Members were returned; but I have a right to say it is a hardship on the county to be deprived of those two votes, whichever way they would be given. Had these writs been moved for on Monday (I am not assuming it was possible they should have been), by this day se'nnight—the day on which it is most probable a division will take place—those two Members would have been here. But, the writ being moved for to-night or to-morrow, it is impossible such a result should take place. According to every ordinary calculation, giving fair allowance for long speeches and several nights' debates, it is hardly now possible that the two Members for Dorsetshire should attend the House on the first division in the approaching debate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to bring this subject before the House. In doing so, I by no means intend to impute blame to any one. As to my two hon. Friends, the late Members for the county, I have a right to say, that had I arrived at the same opinion as I understand they have arrived at, I should have felt bound to pursue the same course as they have taken; because, though I came into the House with no pledges, so that I need not consider myself the delegate of any man, yet, under the circumstances of the late election—taken as it was, and known to be taken, with reference to this particular question, I certainly should have felt, as it appears my hon. Friends have felt, that the declarations then made, did raise expectations—which expectations if I could not conscientiously satisfy by my votes—would have compelled me to resign into my constituents' hands the trust which they had committed into my charge, and to desire them to place it in the hands of some one whose opinions were more in accordance with their own. I cannot, therefore, feel at all surprised at the course pursued by my two hon. Friends, my late colleagues in the representation of the county. And I am convinced it must be their wish that the county should not be deprived of their two votes on the important occasion I allude to. Whether the constituency may re-elect my two late hon. colleagues, I cannot pretend to say. But this I claim for the county, the right of having its two votes at the earliest possible period. I wish especially to know—as the information would be peculiarly valuable under existing circumstances—what is the earliest period at which, in regular course of procedure, the writ can be moved for after the occurrence of such vacancies. And I can venture to say, there could be no better rule adopted for the future than this: that the Member of the Government who grants the offices referred to, should be responsible for moving that the writs be issued. For at present it appears that no party is responsible, even supposing the grant is made. How can the public at large know of any such grant having been applied for? The consequence is, that (without imputing blame to any one) the writ may be delayed, and the constituencies deprived of that representation to which they are by law entitled. It is under those circumstances I am induced to submit my Motion to the House for the production of Papers which may perhaps explain a matter of no small importance.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that so far from being opposed to the Motion of his hon. Friend, he had brought down to the House a Paper containing all the information required by his Motion, and that Paper he was ready to lay on the Table of the House, in order that there might be no delay. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always acted while in office according to what he believed to be the uniform custom—namely, to consent to every application for the office of steward for the Chiltern Hundreds, when he had ascertained that such application came from the Member himself. Under such circumstances, the office was always granted without hesitation, and he had acted upon what had been the invariable custom; but in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would add, that he never felt that the duty devolved upon the Government of obtaining a new writ when such an office was granted. If the Government were responsible, and if that power of obtaining a new writ was confined solely to it, he was of opinion that the possession of such a power would be likely to lead to great abuses—to abuses which he had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Bankes) would be one of the first to object to. The manner of granting the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds was, by the com- pletion of an instrument, conferring that office on an individual; and although it might sometimes happen that delay took place in completing that instrument, yet it would be seen by the Paper which he hold in his hand, that no such delay took place with respect to the cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded. With reference to a question which had been put on a former night, relative to Lord Ashley, he would state that the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds could not be given twice on the same day; and when it had been given to an individual, and that another applied on the same day, it was necessary to call in the aid of another stewardship. He hoped that his hon. Friend saw the inexpediency of forcing such a responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With reference to the case of Lord Ashley, he had not been able to give an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. W. Miles), at the moment the question was put, because as the Chiltern Hundreds could only be conferred once on the same day, it was necessary, when applications were so frequent, to call in aid other stewardships; so that he had been unable to state the precise office which had been granted to Lord Ashley. He, however, trusted the House would not impute to him any blame in these transactions, which, he repeated, had been conducted according to established practice.

SIR W. MOLESWORTH

could not avoid expressing as his opinion that it would be better to get rid of all these forms of applying for and obtaining the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and to leave Members at liberty at once, when they so thought fit, to resign their seats.

MR. WILLIAMS

was of opinion, that the inquiry which the hon. Member opposite was desirous of instituting, might be carried still farther, for it was most desirable that the particulars of some recent resignations should be laid before the country; and it was also most essential for them to know if it were true that, in contravention of the orders of that House, any Peer or Peers had interfered, or used influence, in returning Representatives to sit there. He could name a Gentleman who held one of the highest offices of the Government, and whose constituents for the last fifteen years had been perfectly satisfied with his conduct in Parliament. That Gentleman had been recently appointed to the high office to which he had alluded; but he was not again returned by the constituency which he had represented for fifteen years. What prevented that Gentleman's return by his former constituency? Every individual in the country knew—every newspaper in the country stated—that he was not again returned in consequence of the interference of a Member of the other House of Parliament; and that his return was so prevented in consequence of his support of the liberal and enlightened measures which had been proposed by the Government. He would say that an inquiry ought to be instituted into these circumstances. The House of Commons ought, in justice to its own character, to inquire into the influences which were used to send Members to that assembly, and to ascertain if it was true that Members of the other House sent Representatives to the House of Commons, not for the purpose of attending to the interests of the country, but for the purpose of attending to the private interests of those Peers themselves. They ought to ascertain if any such influence had been used in order to prevent the return of a Gentleman, because he was favourable to the enlightened measure which had been recently brought forward by the Government for the good of the country. If the House of Commons truly represented the people, they would not sit quiet for one day until an inquiry had been established into those flagrant abuses and violations of the Orders of that House. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down with the Returns in his hand, for he should have been desirous for additional returns; and, indeed, he thought that their information could not be considered complete without a Committee of Inquiry, which might enable them to sift the selfish views that opposed hon. Gentlemen who preferred supporting liberal and enlightened policy to any private interests.

Motion agreed to; the Returns were forthwith brought up, and ordered to lie on the Table and to be printed.