§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not it is his intention, on the part of the Government, to grant the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or any of the other appointments commonly employed to vacate a Seat in the House of Commons, to any Member against whose Return a Petition was now pending, previous to or during the period of the Recess, and before the reassembling of Parliament next Session?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, I understand the question of the hon. Member for Devizes to imply an opinion that, at all events, in a case when a Petition is pending, and the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is applied for, upon the simple ground that such Petition is pending it should be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to grant the application. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that I do not take that view of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think he would be bound to refuse, or that even he would be justified in refusing the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds upon the simple ground that a Petition was pending against the return of the person who applied for the Stewardship; and perhaps, as this matter had been referred to on several occasions, I may say that I think the hon. Gentleman's question proceeds upon a misapprehension of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to this grant. The House of Commons has always shown the utmost jealousy, and in my opinion a most proper jealousy, in reserving to itself exclusive jurisdiction in every matter with respect to the election of its Members, and my belief is that this House would resent most strongly any interference from any quarter, but especially on the part of a Member of the Executive Government who might assume to himself 1343 any new or unusual discretion with regard to the resignation of Members. The true doctrine on this subject was, I think, laid down recently by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that it was for the House itself to determine these matters, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not entitled to consider in any case whether there were patent facts that gave him a locus standi. I have no means of inquiry. Hon. Members who apply for the Chiltern Hundreds are not accustomed to state to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons which induce them to make the application, and I believe that if that official called upon them for a statement of those reasons they would resent such a demand as an unauthorized interference. The reason of this is plain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has neither the machinery for making the necessary inquiries, nor is he in a position so impartial with regard to Members sitting on different sides of the House, as to make it at all certain that there would be confidence in his exercise of the power were it entrusted to him. It appears to me that the subject is one for the consideration of this House; and that the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is limited to action when the House by some formal proceeding, or when an hon. Member by some substantive proposition, which the House may entertain, restricts the Chancellor of the Exchequer from exercising the power which is formally, and I may say Ministerially, lodged in his hands, of granting certain offices under the Crown to persons who wish to be enabled to resign their seats in Parliament.