HC Deb 05 July 1859 vol 154 cc704-6
MR. WRIGHTSON

said, he wished to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act 6 Anne, c. 7, with respect to vacating seats in Parliament on accept- ance of office. The object of this Bill was merely to prevent the forfeiture of a seat which occurred when a Member of that House who had received the sanction of his constituents to the acceptance of one office in the Government was promoted to another office.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act 6 Anne, c. 7, with respect to Vacating Seats in Parliament on acceptance of Office.

MR. A. SMITH

said, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to bring forward his Motion. Last year he had introduced a similar measure, which was negatived by a very considerable majority. He (Mr. A. Smith) thought this Bill would have the effect of removing an important constitutional security with regard to the acceptance of office by Members of that House. He knew it might be said they were now experiencing one of the inconveniences of the existing law, for the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), who had a very short time since been returned to that House, had, in consequence of being transferred to a new office, been compelled again to solicit the confidence of his constituents. They must not, however, on account of the inconvenience to which a few individuals might be subjected, lose sight of the great principle involved in this question. An hon. Member of that House who had accepted office under the Government might subsequently be transferred to another office after the lapse of a considerable time, during which important political questions might have been discussed, and it was only fair that his constituents should have the power of ratifying or disapproving his acceptance of a new office. There were rumours recently in the newspapers that it was intended to form an Administration of which one-half should be composed of Liberals and the other half of Gentlemen who were members of the Derby Government. Now, if the Bill which the hon. Gentleman wished to introduce were in operation, a Government of that sort might have been formed without the sanction and against the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. Nay, some time ago in Canada, by means of such a law as it was now proposed to enact, a Ministry was formed out of the dregs of a former Administration, which had not the confidence of the country. He hoped, therefore, the House would not agree to the introduction of this measure. It would look very bad if the first act of the new Parliament, which had put a Reform Ministry in power, was to carry a measure of this kind.

MR. INGHAM

remarked, that in former times, when the power of the Crown was greater than now, the existing restriction might have been necessary; hut now, when the power of the several Estates was more equally balanced, unless it was felt that there really was danger to the independence of the House, he thought they should go into a consideration of the measure. In times of emergency difficulties might arise in carrying on the affairs of the Government under the present system, and he thought it would be wise to make the proposed attempt to aid the Government. They saw at the present moment the inconvenience resulting from the absence of a member of the Government (Mr. Milner Gibson), who had already received the approbation of his constituents to his acceptance of office in the Government.

Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 53: Majority 2.