HC Deb 22 February 1869 vol 194 cc190-6
MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

, in moving that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed "to consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the Statute 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, arid to report their opinion thereon," said it would be remembered that at the last General Election, after a strong contest, Sir Sydney Waterlow had been declared duly elected for Dumfriesshire; but in conformity with the Act of last year, a petition had been presented against that return; and among the allegations of that petition was one that the hon. Member was disqualified and ineligible to be elected a Member of the House in consequence of being interested in a Government contract. After the petition was presented, and before the time came for it to be tried, it was withdrawn, under the sanction of judicial authority, and without the least imputation on any of the parties. The result of the withdrawal had been to place the hon. Member in a position in which no hon. Gentleman ought to remain. Ordinarily, if a petition was presented against a return and afterwards withdrawn, all the allegations which went to vacate the seat fell to the ground, and the Member petitioned against, the petition having been withdrawn, stood in precisely the same situation as every other Member for the purpose of discharging his duty. But in this instance, although the petition had been withdrawn, the allegation as to disqualification remained, and the difficulty was how that question should be determined. It would have been determined if the petition had been proceeded with. It could now also be determined but in a way which he thought no hon. Member should be bound to have recourse to—namely, by his sitting and voting with the certain prospect—for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire had received notice to that effect—of being sued for the penalty of £500, for everyday he sat and voted, which a Court of Law might inflict upon him. That was the position in which the hon. Member would be placed if the proposal he was about to make referring the question whether he was disqualified from sitting to a Select Committee were not adopted. At present the hon. Member might hold his seat without taking his place in the House, a course of which no one would approve, or he could accept Office under the Crown—the Chiltern Hundreds—and vacate his seat, a course of which the hon. Member's constituents disapproved, for they had elected him and he enjoyed their confidence; or he might take his seat in the House, running the risk of the serious consequences which might result from his so doing. He saw no reason why the hon. Member should be expected to take any of these courses, and he therefore proposed the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the case. He made this Motion at the earnest request of the hon. Member himself, who desired to act in accordance with the decision of the House.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, To consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the statute 22 Geo. 3, o. 45, and to Report their opinion thereon."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

thought that Sir Sydney Waterlow should adopt the second alternative mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and vacate his seat, because that portion of the electors of Dumfriesshire who were opposed to the worthy Alderman were determined, whatever might be the decision of a Committee of that House, to proceed for the full penalties if Sir Sydney Waterlow should take his seat in the House. This case did not run on all fours with that of Baron Rothschild in 1855, when contractor for a Government loan, and therefore there was no use in appointing a Select Committee, the hon. Member having admitted that he held the contract for stationery at the time of the election, though he had since resigned it.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, it might be well to consider what better position the hon. Member would be in after a reference to a Select Committee and a Report thereupon. Without presuming to venture a positive opinion, it occurred to him that the hon. Member would be exactly in the same position after the Committee had reported as he was before, inasmuch as that decision could not be pleaded as an answer to an action for penalties in a Court of Law. It would simply be a preliminary inquiry which might bring that House into conflict with a Court of Law. He would therefore advise him to accept the Chiltern Hundreds.

MR. WALPOLE

observed, that the question was an important one for the House to consider. He thought it would be very unadvisable to take any step which might possibly bring the House into conflict with the Courts of Law. He understood his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) to say that the law was clear, but that the facts were of such a nature that Sir Sydney Waterlow ought not to be brought within the provisions of the statute. Now, if his hon. and learned Friend could so lay the facts before the House as clearly to show that Sir Sydney Waterlow's seat could not be questioned in point of law, there might then possibly be some reason for the appointment of a Committee. There were the cases of Daniel Whittle Harvey and another which had been referred to Committees; but those cases differed from the present. There the Members had taken their seats; whereas the hon Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had never taken his seat at all. That seemed to him to put the question on a different footing, and he did not see what advantage would be gained by referring the matter to a Committee, while it might possibly bring a difficulty upon the House which it should be their wish to avoid. It might be very unpleasant for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire to accept the Chiltern Hundreds; but that would certainly be the most desirable course, as it would prevent any collision with the Courts of Law.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had forgot the most important precedent which existed on this matter—he meant the precedent of the case of Baron Lionel Rothschild in 1855. If he (the Lord Advocate) were not much mistaken, all the objections which the right hon. Gen- tleman had urged to the course now proposed would have been equally applicable to that case. There had been the previous case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, which was referred to a Committee, and the Committee found that Mr. Harvey was disqualified. But if the Committee had come to a contrary decision, and Mr. Harvey had, in consequence, taken his seat, the same risk, as was now suggested, of conflict with the Courts of Law would have risen. The case of Baron Rothschild no doubt raised the question whether a contractor for a loan was within the statute; but the right hon. Gentleman would not forget that the Motion that was made in the House was one for the issue of a new Writ, bcause it was so plain and palpable on the face of the contract that he was disqualified, that it was no use for the House to make any further inquiry. But the right hon. Gentleman himself was the Member who resisted that proposal, and proposed that there should be substituted for it:— That the Contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty's Government, on the 20th day of April last, for a loan of £16,000,000 for the Public Service be referred to a Select Committee, and that they be directed to report their opinion whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild has vacated his Scat by his entering into the said Contract."—[3 Hansard, exxxix. 169.] That Amendment was adopted after a long debate, and the result was that the Committee found that he had not vacated his seat by entering into the contract. That was exactly the position in which the present case stood, with this exception, that Baron Rothschild at that time was under another disability from taking his seat in that House. But here the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) said he was elected for that county, and why should he be asked to accept the Chiltern Hundreds if, in point of fact, he had been well elected? If he had not been well elected the sooner he was made aware of that fact the better. He (the Lord Advocate) conceived it to be somewhat unconstitutional on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) to suggest that a certain number of the electors of Dumfriesshire were prepared to set the decision of that House at nought if it should be unfavourable to their views. If it were competent to other persons to take the case into a Court of Law, the House, of course, could take no cognizance of that. The question was whether in a matter which concerned the privileges of this House it was not right to do as had been done before—namely, make a full inquiry and take the opinion of the House upon the subject. What might happen after that opinion was given was another matter; but he could not help thinking it very improbable that the question would be tried in a Court of Law if it appeared to the Committee that the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was not within the statute. Apart from the particular question which had arisen here, the whole machinery of these statutes would be much better for revision. It was a barbarous state of the law under which a doubtful question of this kind could not be resolved without the risk of enormous penalties for every day the Member took his seat. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would throw no impediment in the way of the appointment of the Committee.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had no wish to enforce the penalties, but thought it only just to Sir Sydney Waterlow that he should have timely notice that certain persons were prepared to proceed against him under the statute of George III. The opinion of a Committee of this House would not in any way prevent these persons from adopting such a course, and his hon. Friend had merely expressed his belief that such a course would be adopted. It was for the House to decide whether it was desirable that a conflict should arise between a Court of Law and a Committee of the House.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, the question really seemed to be one of privilege. Two Members of that House appeared to have communicated with another Member something that they intended to do.

SIR JOHN HAY

wished to explain. He had not communicated, nor had any one else, to his knowledge, communicated to the worthy Alderman anything he intended to do. All that had been communicated was what public rumour said would be done.

MR. KINNAIRD

regarded the explanation as a distinction without a difference. An hon. Member had been informed within the precincts of the House that in the event of his sitting and voting-certain penalties would be attempted to be exacted. That was a matter of privilege, and the only way for the House to protect the Member was to appoint a Committee. There need be no apprehension of a collision with the law; for, if an impartial Committee decided that the Member was properly seated, it was not likely that a Court of Law would be inclined to dispute the decision.

MR. CARNEGIE

reminded the House that it was competent for the hon. Baronet or for any other person to appear before the Court of Session and to object to the withdrawal of the petition against Sir Sydney Waterloo's return. If they had wished to raise the question that was the constitutional mode of doing so. The course now taken seemed to be less for the vindication of the privileges of the House than for the purpose of simple annoyance.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he would vote for the Motion if it were pressed, but he hoped the result of the discussion would be that steps would be taken in the direction pointed out by the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate). Very serious injustice was done by the operation of the Act of George III. There were many Members of that House indirectly interested in Government contracts, but who did not come under the operation of the Act, while a member of a private firm, having undertaken a contract from which he had sought to free himself, was placed in the very disagreeable situation of being threatened with proceedings for the enforcement of penalties if he sat or voted in the House. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley), who sat upon the Opposition side of the House, was in a position somewhat similar to that of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) in regard to a small contract, and his case was now before the Judges, and it appeared that the Act of George III. had the effect of excluding from the House many gentlemen who would be very desirable Members. That Act was passed when a vast amount of jobbery had been perpetrated in connection with Members of that House, and when many Members represented rotten boroughs, and only came into Parliament for the purpose of making merchandize of the seats which they had purchased. In such a state of things, it was much to the credit of the Parliament of that day that it passed an Act imposing such stringent penalties upon Members who held contracts under the Government. They had now, however, Members representing large constituencies; those constituencies kept their eyes upon their representatives; public opinion was brought to bear upon Members; and there was no longer any necessity for any such guarantee as that provided by the Act now under discussion. He hoped, whatever might be the result of the Motion before the House, the effect of the discussion would be the repeal of this section of the Act of George III.

MR. HUNT

said, that two questions seemed to be under discussion, one being what the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Sir Sydney Waterlow) ought to do, and the other what the House ought to do. Now, the only question with which they were really concerned was the latter. It had been brought to the knowledge of the House that one of its seats was said to be vacant, and he did not see how the point could be ascertained except by the appointment of the proposed Committee. If the Committee reported that the hon. Member was interested in a contract and that his case came within the statute, the House would no doubt determine that the seat was void and that there must be another election. If not, it would then be for the hon. Member to determine whether he would abide by the Report of the Committee and run the risk of penalties in a Court of Law. He saw no reason for objecting to the appointment of the Committee. In the event of the penalties being sought for under such circumstances, there might, indeed, as had been said, be some danger of a collision between the House and the Courts of Law, but there was no escape from that position, and it would be, as he said, for the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) to take the course that seemed to him most advisable, as soon as the deliberations of the Committee were over.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, "to consider whether Sir Sydney Hedley Waterlow is disqualified from sitting and voting as a Member of this House under the Statute 22 Geo. 3, c. 45, and to Report their opinion thereon."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)

And, on Feb. 24, Committee nominated as follows:—The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. BRAND, Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. HENLEY, and Mr. PEMBERTON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum:—Counsel ordered.