HC Deb 19 August 1886 vol 308 cc73-88

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it 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 at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I venture to ask the House not to assent to the renewal of the last of the Sessional Orders which you, Sir, have just read to the House; and I ask them not to assent to it on this ground—that the Sessional Order has been disobeyed and infringed without regard to Party; that it has been disregarded and infringed by Peers of both Parties for the last 40 or 50 years. In various cases, when such infringement has been brought before the House, I think I shall be able to show that the House has practically said either that it was powerless to enforce its own Resolution, or that it did not think it wise to endeavour to give force to it. Now, Sir, I submit respectfully to the House that it is beneath its dignity to continue to renew a Form which is no longer practically applicable to the political circumstances of this country. I know of no reason why a Peer, so far as the political strife of this country is concerned, should be placed in any inferior position to any other citizen in the State; and I propose to show, very briefly, that at the last Election this Sessional Order was absolutely disobeyed and wilfully disobeyed—that is to say, that the Peers who have disobeyed it, by the language they used, showed that they clearly knew of the existence of the Sessional Order, and clearly knew that they were disobeying it. I shall, further, be able to show the House that since some notice has been taken by the Press that the matter was likely to be considered by this House to-day one of the Peers to whom I refer has intimated that whatever may be the decision of this House—I am not using his own words, but I am stating the sense of what he says—namely, that whatever the decision of this House may be he shall continue to act as he has hitherto done. Allow me, Sir, to enumerate the instances in which the infringement I complain of has occurred. In the first place, the Sessional Order has been disobeyed by Peers who have presided at election meetings after the issue of the Writ. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, once for all, that the infringement of the Sessional Order might be complained of whether it occurred before or after the issue of the Writ; but I am content to confine myself to cases which have occurred after the issue of the Writ. I have no wish to weary the House with the details of many cases; but I desire to point out that Peers have spoken at election meetings in favour of particular candidates; that they have signed circulars delivered to voters after the issue of the Writ—the circulars being dated before the issue—urging upon the voters to vote for particular candidates. In some cases Peers have called upon and canvassed voters to vote for particular candidates; in other cases they have written letters in the nature of semi-private letters in order to influence the voters in favour of a particular candidate. They have further infringed the Sessional Order by lending their carriages and servants to convey voters to the poll. The instances of infringement in the last case are so numerous that they must be within the knowledge of every Member of the House, no matter on which side he happens to sit, and therefore I will not specify the particular instances. The first case which I desire to mention is that of the Earl of Sandwich, who, in South Huntingdonshire, attended election meetings, and spoke on behalf of one of the candidates. Since the Election there was a rejoicing demonstration at his seat, Hinchingbrooke Park, at which, the noble Earl used this language— In spite of Mr. Bradlaugh, I venture to assert that I, as an Englishman, have a right to have a deep feeling as to how the country is to be governed. In spite, then, of the Motion which Mr. Bradlaugh proposes to bring before the House of Commons, when I find that a despotic Minister is endeavouring, contrary to the views of all his late and trusted friends, to ruin the country, I shall do my duty in striving for what I consider to be the welfare of the Empire. This noble Earl claims that he is entitled to mix in the election of Members of the House of Commons, and to determine who shall be the Minister chosen by the vote of a majority of this House by contributing either to send Members in or to keep them out. Another case is that of the Duke of Hamilton, and I believe this is not his first experience in connection with Parliamentary Elections. At the last Election he worked very hard in Buteshire. On a previous occasion I am informed that he devoted the whole of one day to the performance of the duty of an extra poll clerk outside a polling station, where he kept a list of the voters as they went in. Unfortunately, this taking notice of the voters as they went in to poll was not so harmless a matter as it may appear, but many of the voters were his Grace's tenants, and they were not uninfluenced by his presence, because there was a conviction among them, whether rightly or wrongly, that their livelihood depended more or less upon his Grace's favour; and if the House thinks fit to decide against me in this question, I certainly think it will be its duty to make this case a matter of Privilege which ought to be inquired into, in order to ascertain how far the election in Buteshire was influenced by the conduct of his Grace the Duke of Hamilton. The next case is that of the Duke of Argyll, who has written letters to the newspapers in connection with the elections for Argyllshire and the borough of Inverness. One letter was written by his Grace to the officials taking part in the election with the view of influencing electors as to the way in which they ought to vote. The Earl of Leicester attended more than one meeting, and spoke against the candidature of the hon. Gentleman who was returned for the Freebridge Division of Norfolk in the last Parliament (Mr. Joseph Arch). The noble Earl went into the election with all the vigour and enthusiasm of a man who might have been desirous of winning a seat for himself. I am not blaming the noble Earl for that at all. I do not think that what we allow to a coal-heaver in this country, and to almost every ordinary worker in every class of life, although we refuse it to a policeman, we should deny to any nobleman, and it is for that reason I ask the House not to assent to this Sessional Order. I find that Earl Cowper presided after the issue of the Writ at a meeting in favour of the candidature of the noble Viscount who is now Member for the Biggleswade Division of Bedfordshire (Viscount Baring). Lord Wantage took an active part in the North Berkshire Election against the candidature of a particular gentleman. The Duke of Norfolk attended numerous meetings in South Islington and in Penryn and Falmouth, at some of which he acted as Chairman. Lord Bramwell and Viscount Sherbrooke signed a circular to the electors of Chelsea, a copy of which I hold in my hand. The bulk of these circulars, if not the whole of them, were delivered after the Writ was received by the Returning Officer; and in the circular itself the electors—Liberal, Radical, and Conservative—are called upon to vote for a Gentleman who is now a Member of this House. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; it is because I think that noble Lords should have that opportunity; because I think it is a farce for this House to say that they shall not have it, and then for noble Lords to reply that they will have it, that I now ask the House not to stultify itself by adopting this Sessional Order. The Earl of Northbrook personally called upon and canvassed voters in North Bedfordshire. I have already told the House that I should give instances altogether without regard to political Parties. I find that the Marquess of Ripon introduced candidates at Oldham; that the Earl of Jersey attended a meeting in the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire, and then there is a somewhat curious case in connection with Lord Belper. Lord Belper seems to have thought that after the Writ was issued he had no right to interfere, and he wrote a letter to the election agent of one of the candidates stating that as the Writ had been issued he could not interfere; but he hoped that all the electors would vote for Mr. Charles Seely. I do not propose to trespass upon the attention of the House with any other instances; but I have no doubt that the cases I have enumerated may be supplemented by many others. [Cries of "Wolverton."] I have only submitted cases which I have been able to verify. There are a large number which I have not been able to verify; but I shall be very happy to receive further evidence from the other side of the House after I have concluded my remarks. The matter is one which has been discussed over and over again in previous Parliaments; but I believe that only one decision has been come to. I only propose to trouble the House with two instances in which the matter was discussed. The last occasion was on the 23rd of February, 1880, when Mr. A. M. Sullivan, who was then a Member of the House, moved that the conduct of Earl Cadogan was a Breach of Privilege. The Previous Question was then moved by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) on the ground— That these Motions of Breach of Privilege apply to matters which you cannot restrain, and the House carried the Previous Question. The right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, which occurred a short time before, took the same course, and the House endorsed it by a large vote. In 1847 another case was fully discussed in this House, and a large number of precedents were collected by the learned Attorney General for the time being—Sir John Jervis—who quoted, among other instances, the case of Earl Cawdor, when the Member who had raised it had taunted the House of Commons with the inutility of barking where they could not bite. On that occasion, also, the House decided not to take any action. Sir John Jervis cited about 20 cases which had been before the House, all of which ended in nothing. Then I would ask whether the House ought to renew a Sessional Order which has always been utterly disregarded, and which in the late General Election was treated as naught? I would ask if it is consistent with the dignity of the House to keep repeating a form of words to which it gives no effect whatever? The whole of the precedents were collected by the late Sir Erskine May, and will be found on pages 719 and 720 of his very valuable book. If the House is now prepared to renew the Sessional Order, is it prepared to enforce it? I believe I have furnished evidence to the House to show that the Sessional Order is now disregarded and infringed. Is the House prepared to take proceedings in the matter? Is it prepared to summon any one of the Peers I have mentioned to attend at the Bar of the House? Is it prepared to bring itself in conflict with the other House in the event of a Peer neglecting to obey its Order? If not, the whole thing is a farce, and I would ask the Liberal and Radical Members who sit on this side of the House, for I make sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who have volunteered already to supply me with additional evidence, will vote with me—I ask my Liberal Friends on this side to consider whether it is not better to say that this Sessional Order should not be renewed than to renew it and then to allow the Peers to do what they please? Personally, I see no reason why the Peers should not do what they please. I think it would be far better for the Peers to do what they please openly and fairly in this country than for this House to say they have no right, and then to shut its eyes and ears when the Peers treat their Order as if it were a mere farce. I would not ask the House to abandon any of its old Forms if it showed any disposition to enforce them; but it shows no disposition to enforce them; and I maintain that it is unworthy of the House to continue to pass this Order. If the Government—the powerful Government now in Office, so ably led, as I have no doubt it will be when the occasion arises—if the House, so ably led, pledges itself to enforce this Sessional Order, then, as a mere private Member, I have nothing more to say. I shall object to the renewal of the Sessional Order, and if the Sessional Order be renewed I think I am speaking within the Rules of the House when I say that every one of the cases I have mentioned may be brought before the House as a Breach of Privilege. I submit that each case ought to be brought before the House as a case of Breach of Privilege; and if each of these cases only takes some two or three hours to discuss, I will ask Members of the Go- vernment, who may have some concern for the disposal of the time of the House, whether they intend to have those cases investigated? If they say no—that they intend to renew the Sessional Order, but do not intend to enforce it—if they say that, then I maintain that they have no right to renew the Order, and I will take the liberty of asking the House to divide against it. Surely the most dignified course will be for the House not to repeat a form of words which has no longer any real meaning, and to which they are not prepared to give effect. I hope the House will declare that it will be no party to the putting of a sham upon its Order Book, which it has neither the will nor the intention to enforce.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will not be put to the trouble of a division, because the prospect which has been held out by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is a very appalling one. We are not likely to have too much time for getting through the regular Business of the House; and if our time is to be occupied in going through all these cases of the conduct of impenitent Peers, I think the Session will be likely to go on much longer than we wish. I beg leave, however, to second the Motion of the hon. Member; but I do not wish to waste the time of the House in doing so, because we are all anxious to hear—as, no doubt, we shall very shortly—a statement as to what the policy of the new Government is. I second the Motion on the ground of justice. I belong to a Society for the abolition of the House of Lords; but I wish to do justice to all Her Majesty's subjects, even the very meanest of them; and I think that, under the present Sessional Order which you, Sir, have read out from the Chair, a certain injustice is done to Peers of the Realm. In what position do they now stand? They are in the House of Lords, and they are strictly prohibited by the Constitution from taking any part in taxation. They are, however, very large taxpayers, and as they are not allowed to vote for those who have to control the taxation of the country, theirs is, consequently, a case of taxation without representation, and on that ground I feel sure I shall get the support of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, for it is on account of their determination not to dissociate re- presentation from taxation that they defeated the late Prime Minister, and that they are now sitting on that side of the House. My other reason for opposing this Sessional Order is that the whole thing is a sham. We pass a solemn Rule in this House, and we know perfectly well that we are not going to enforce it. My opinion is that, both in the country and in this House, there are quite enough organized hypocrisies, without adding another.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

There is one feature about this Motion which the whole House will agree is very pleasant and very agreeable, and that is that it has given to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) an opportunity of reminding the House that the House is once more enlivened by his genial presence and his shrewd humour and wisdom. No one, I think, on this side of the House, at any rate, is prepared to feel anything but satisfaction at the presence again of the hon. Baronet. There was one remark which fell from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), which I hardly think he intended to apply as a threat, because it was a remark which would, I think, be likely to indispose a great many Members of the House from supporting his Motion. I am certain I am speaking correctly when I say it was of a character to prejudice the Motion itself. If I understand the hon. Member for Northampton aright, he intimated that, in case the House did not entirely and immediately agree with the views he had expressed in regard to the Sessional Order, he would deem it his duty to obstruct the proceedings of the House night after night. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: No!] I understood that to be the meaning of the hon. Member, and I am bound to take notice of it.

MR. BRADLAUGH

If my language conveyed that impression, it was not the language I intended to use.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Then I will apologize for putting a wrong construction on the language of the hon. Member. It certainly occurred to me and my Colleagues that that interpretation might be placed on the hon. Member's remarks. The hon. Member contends that this Sessional Order has been disobeyed. I wish, that the argument on that point could be left to the dialectic skill of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition; because obviously the whole question, whether the Order is disobeyed or not, turns on the meaning which the House is disposed to put on the expression that no Peer shall "concern" himself with the election of any Member. You may put on that expression a very narrow meaning or a very broad meaning. It might almost be limited to the Resolution of the House that no Peer should vote in any election, or should take any active part in the holding of an election. On the other hand, you might put so broad a construction upon it that no Peer would be allowed to express his opinion on public affairs except in the House of Lords. I myself should be inclined to put a narrow meaning upon that word "concerning." I am disposed to think that there is some value about this Sessional Order, which the House will do well not to abandon hastily. I cannot help noticing that the hon. Member himself adduced a singular instance of the moral restraint which it does exercise on Peers, because he quoted the case of Lord Belper, who wrote a public letter to the effect that on account of this Order he could not in any way interfere with a certain election. But in order not to weary the House I would suggest what is the view which the Government take of this Order. I think that the proposal of the hon. Member is somewhat too rough and ready, though I admit that there is a great deal that is sound and weighty in what fell from him. I think it is not, perhaps, advisable that the House of Commons should preserve Forms which may be proved to be what he has called "shams." But the great thing is to be absolutely certain, before we part with any of these old Forms, that they are shams. Upon that point I cannot help thinking that the view I have expressed will be supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, that the House of Commons should be very careful and cautious in dealing with these old Forms; and that such a rough and ready course as is proposed by the hon. Member is not necessarily the wisest course which this House could take. There is no doubt that the form of the Order is antiquated, and that it was intended to apply to a state of circumstances which has to a considerable extent become obsolete. The hon. Member proposes that the House should decide between these two alternatives; whether we shall try to enforce the Order rigidly, or altogether abandon it. I would suggest to the hon. Member that there is a third course, and I would support that course by this further suggestion—that whatever the House of Commons does in the matter, it would be well if it could be done unanimously by the entire sense of the whole House of Commons. Therefore, the third course is, in opposition to rigid enforcement or total repeal, that we should appoint a Committee to examine—[A laugh]—I believe that course is strictly in accordance with former precedents when questions of this kind have been raised. There used to be a Committee called "the Committee of Privileges" which has now ceased to be nominated. But I am of opinion that it would not be unwise to allow the Sessional Order to remain for the present, and that in consequence of the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member, and of the views of those who agree with him, we should early next Session appoint a Committee analogous to the Committee of Privileges to examine carefully the effect of this Order, and to decide whether it has any effect at all, and whether it would be wise in any way to revise or modify the Order to meet the altered circumstances of the times. That is the course which I respectfully suggest to the House should be taken with regard to the Sessional Order and the Motion of the hon. Member. I think that no controversy ought to arise on a matter of this kind. I am only pleading that on account of my attachment to the old Forms of the House we should proceed with caution and care, and I trust that the hon. Member will not feel discontented or dissatisfied with the suggestion I have made to him.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I venture to hope that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord proposes a Committee of Inquiry. I must remark upon that that it is somewhat singular and significant that a Commit- tee of Inquiry should be proposed at this very early date as the means of meeting difficult questions. I wish also to make a remark upon another observation which fell from the noble Lord. The noble Lord attributed to the hon. Member for Northampton a desire to obstruct the proceedings of the House. But I hope that my hon. Friend will not, in that respect, follow the bad example of the Fourth Party, now happily deceased. If my hon. Friend were to imitate the proceedings of that Party, I am afraid he would lay himself open to the charge of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, no doubt, entirely disapproves now of the proceedings and strategy of the Fourth Party. Another reason why I object to the proposal of the noble Lord to postpone any action upon this question is that the elections are fresh in our memories; and the sooner we bring the Government face to face with their actions and pledges during the elections, the better opportunity there will be of making them stand by those acts and pledges. I am rather afraid that if we leave any matter over for three or four months the Government will forget their pledges, and when hon. Members return they will be alarmed to find the enormous chasm that exists between their pledges at election time and their performances. The General Election has just taken place, and the acts of the noble Lord and of his Party are fresh in our memories. Let us then proceed with the matter now, and not put it off until the time when the noble Lord will be able to say that all these things are ancient history. All I say is that the sooner we act in the matter the better. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a division at once, if only to show how far hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches are prepared to support the Government in shelving disagreeable questions.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

I think everyone must feel—and it was frankly admitted by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there is very great force in many of the considerations that have been raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) in favour of the abolition of this Sessional Order. It is not easy to make a case in argument for maintaining what purports to be a law—which, law we have no dispo- sition to enforce strictly—which probably we have not the power to enforce strictly, and which is, undoubtedly, to a very considerable extent, either neglected or absolutely trodden under foot. At the same time, these are considerations which ought to be brought before the House in connection with the subject. Does the House think that, with the present constitution of Parliament, and with the great powers and privileges attaching to Peers, as an order, which gives them complete control over the legislation of this House—does the House think that it is desirable to encourage persons who are invested with those remarkable privileges to increase a practice which undoubtedly, to some extent, prevails of interference in popular elections? I think, Sir, I have made candid admissions to the hon. Member for Northampton; and I think he will, on his part, admit that the abolition of the Sessional Order would, to a certain extent, be interpreted in the country as an entire withdrawal by the House of Commons of all expressions of disapprobation against the interference of the Lords in popular elections, and would almost act altogether as an expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons that Peers ought so to interfere. Therefore, Sir, I think undoubtedly that if we are of opinion that the renewal of the Sessional Order, or a non-renewal of the Sessional Order, would have the effect of increasing this practice of interference, we cannot avoid looking at the question and forming our own judgment upon it, whether it is desirable to encourage and to bring about an increase of interference of that kind. Then, Sir, there is another view of the case. Although it is entirely inadmissible in this House to impute motives to hon. Members, yet I think we may impute reasons; and, looking to the fact that my hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—whom I congratulate heartily on his return to this House, as I congratulate the House in respect of it—who seconded the Motion, distinctly admitted that he did so because he was prepared to support the abolition of the House of Lords, it appears to me that the abolition of the Sessional Order and the broad adoption of the principle that Peers may be equally concerned in popular elections with Commoners, is in the nature of laying the first parallel in that siege which is, at some time or in some circumstances, to be laid against the House of Lords and its present exclusive Privileges. That is a question on which, at the present moment, I do not give any opinion beyond this. Anything that has to be done in that matter ought to be done by us with our eyes open, and with a view of the purposes to which it is really intended to be directed, and not as a matter of mere form, as if it were of little importance. My position, Sir, is this—that in a case of this kind we ought to pay considerable deference to the views of the Executive Government. The Executive Government has long been, and I think is becoming more and more, from the necessities of the case, a sort of constituted guardian of the Privileges of this House; and any opinion given by them in a case of difficulty ought, therefore, to receive considerable attention from the House, and starts with a certain presumption in its favour. If it is the opinion of the Government that it would not be wise to abolish the Sessional Order by a vote of the House, I myself should be inclined to vote with them on that question. But I must notice slightly the proposal of the noble Lord, which is that the consideration of the subject for that purpose should be referred to a Committee. Now, Sir, I find the House is still in the regular practice of voting that a Committee of Privileges shall be appointed; but of late years it has not been usual to nominate the Committee of Privileges. But, inasmuch as it is quite plain that the House so far supports the noble Lord as to consider its Privileges to be a fit subject to refer to such a Committee by passing a Sessional Order to that effect—that being so, I am inclined to think it would be the wiser, and simpler, and more natural course to allow this question to be referred to that Committee, and that we should proceed to appoint and to nominate persons to serve on the Committee for this purpose. I can quite understand why questions of general interest cannot be conveniently or fitly entertained in a Session of this kind; but the subject we are now discussing assumes the nature of a preliminary condition. Looking at the action of the House, and recollecting the general practice, I would say that if there is to be a Reference to a Committee, the Reference had better be to the Committee which the House of Commons already, in principle, adopts, although recently there may not have been occasion to nominate Members to serve upon it. Whatever view the Government may take of that suggestion, my disposition is to accept the authority of the Government with regard to our vote on the Motion made by the hon. Member for Northampton—the question obviously being one of difficulty. In theory there is undoubtedly a strong case against the Sessional Order; but, on the other hand, it appears not altogether irrational to suppose that the abolition of it might be followed by an increase of a practice which many of us may not be inclined to approve. For my own part, I confess that, although I do not think it very desirable to encourage the practice, it is quite evident that some limitation is imposed by the Sessional Order on the action of Peers. I may state that a number of noble Lords with whom I am acquainted did on principle, if I may say so, very strictly observe that Order. Among them was my noble Friend Lord Wolverton, who had undoubtedly been acting in various matters bearing upon the elections at an earlier period, but who, however, only humbly imitated the practice very much more largely followed by Gentlemen on the other side. I do not wish to dwell on that matter. I only say this to show that there is a certain amount of effect produced by this Sessional Order, and that it must not be considered as one that is altogether shadowy and unsubstantial. If the matter is pressed to a division, I shall vote with the Government against the abolition of the Order.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I would venture to say, Sir, that the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman have given for opposing the Motion are the very reasons why we who support it desire that it should be passed. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if the Motion is passed it will be regarded in the country as an encouragement to Peers to concern themselves in elections. That is one of the very things which the supporters of the Motion want to bring about. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it bears another aspect, and that the state of things resulting from the abolition of the Sessional Order would be used as a first means of attack against the hereditary character of the House of Lords. Well, that also is one of the things which we had in view in bringing the Motion forward. There is one consideration I should like to put before the House before I sit down. I want hon. Members to consider how this question has been dealt with by the House in past times. In connection with the West Gloucestershire Election in 1847, the Attorney General of that day, Sir John Jervis, laid before the House the whole of the precedents bearing upon this Sessional Order, and what was the result? This Sessional Order was 200 years old, and it had never been effectively enforced except in one case, in which a Bishop was the delinquent. All that happened, to the Bishop was that he was deprived of some minor office which he filled in connection with the Court. That was the only case in which the Sessional Order was put in force. In 1780 the Duke of Chandos was charged with having infringed the Order, and, after the fashion suggested by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the case. The Committee found the Duke of Chandos guilty; but the House declined to interfere. In the same year a charge was made against the Duke of Bolton of undue interference; but the House, being better informed than it was in the previous case, took no notice of the matter. In 1840 a similar charge was preferred against Lord Cawdor, and again the House refused to take notice of it, being convinced that it was perfectly useless to bark where they dared not bite. For a considerable number of years the House of Commons has been barking without attempting to bite. Perhaps it will not surprise the House to hear that among the Peers who from time to time have been charged with infringing this Order two of the most conspicuous have borne the titles of Duke of Marlborough and Marquess of Salisbury. In the year 1845 the Duke of Marlborough was charged with disobeying the Order four times in 18 months, in promoting the election of members of his own family in the borough of Woodstock. That borough, I believe, has now disappeared, and with its extinction has disappeared the chance of any future Duke of Marlborough repeating the offence. In 1880 this Sessional Order was again brought before the House, when the House, under the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) distinctly pronounced it imprudent, impracticable, and impossible to enforce the Order. That being the view of the House, I hope it will no longer continue to stultify itself, but that, by saying "No" to this Sessional Order, it will declare that it no longer intends to keep upon its Books an Order which it has neither the courage nor the will to enforce.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 294; Noes 126: Majority 168.—(Div. List, No. 1.) Resolved, That it 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 at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament. Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

Back to
Forward to