HC Deb 16 February 1882 vol 266 cc787-9
MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a breach of its Privileges. The breach did not seriously affect any individual; but it directly affected the power and position of that Assembly. The case was very simple, and he could compress his statement into a few sentences. On the first day of Parliament the House adopted the following Resolution:— That is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate—not being a Peer of Ireland—to concern himself in the election of Members for the Commons of Parliament. The Resolution also provided that for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any country to influence the election of any Member was a further and greater infraction of their liberties. This Rule was either important, or it was not. If it was unimportant it ought not to be passed. If it was important it ought to be enforced. It had been violated in a recent election in the North of England. The contest took place some weeks ago in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The Marquess of Ripon—who was a large landowner in that Division of the county, who was Lord Lieutenant for the Riding, who was a Lord of Parliament and a great officer of the Crown—telegraphed from India his warm approval of one of the candidates, and his extreme desire to see him elected. He supported that desire in a substantial manner. He gave £1,000, or was reported to have done so, towards the expenses of the contest. Another Lord of Parliament, the Earl of Zetland—also a large landed proprietor in the Division—following the bad example of the Marquess of Ripon, wrote a letter approving of the opposite candidate, and promised to subscribe £1,000 towards his expenses. The language of the Resolution was clear and precise. No Peer of Parliament was allowed to concern himself,—that was, to intermeddle in elections for Members of that House. The infringement of the Rule was equally palpable.

MR. SPEAKER

I understand that the hon. Member raises this question as one of Privilege; but in order to entitle him to Privilege, he should have brought the question forward as a question of urgency at the earliest possible moment, instead of which he has allowed a considerable time to elapse before bringing the matter under the notice of the House, and he has thereby lost his claim to deal with the matter as Privilege.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he appreciated the point upon which the Speaker ruled him out of Order. He knew that, on previous occasions, it had been ruled that the essence of Privilege was its urgency; and he was willing to allow that the Motion, not having been made on the first day of the Session, was removed, to some extent, from that category. But he wished to explain that he was not aware of all the facts when Parliament assembled; and there had been a desire on the part of the House, which he respected, not to have the discussion on the Address interfered with. For these reasons, he had not submitted the matter before. But, the Speaker having now given a decision adverse to him, the only course remaining open was to bring the subject forward as a substantive Resolution. He begged to say that on the first day available he would do this.