§ For the Borough of Halifax, v. Thomas Shaw, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
§ Borough of Burnley, v. Jahez Spencer Balfour, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
§ MR. WILLIAM CODDINGTON (Blackburn)May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the enormous frauds committed by Mr. Jabez Balfour, he was permitted to accept the honourable office of the Chiltern Hundreds?
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT)The Hon. Member who put this question, and I think some other hon. Members, are mistaken as to the nature and tenure of the Chiltern Hundreds. The hon. Member used the words "accepted the honourable position of the Chiltern Hundreds." Now, in order to prevent any conception that the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds was conferring any honour, that any credit attached to it, certain words from the warrant were deliberately struck out. This is referred to in Sir Erskine May's book. Thus a good many years ago the words that attached any honour or credit to the Chiltern Hundreds were deliberately struck out, with the object of removing the misconception that had arisen. This is the only form in which a Member can resign, and by which the House of Commons can get rid of a Member. (Cries of "Oh!") Well, it is quite true that under certain circumstances you may get rid of a Member by expulsion, but we have had some recent experience of the difficulties of that process. For my part, I would always much rather give the Chiltern Hundreds to a Member who is an undesirable Member of Parliament, and whom I should be glad to see cease to be a Member, than to a good Member, whom I should he sorry to see leave this House. That is the true principle attaching to the gift of the Chiltern Hun- 51 dreds. I have taken the trouble to look into this matter, and I am quite sure that anyone who has held the office I now hold will confirm my view that this is the true principle to follow. First of all, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant the Chiltern Hundreds immediately when they are asked for, unless there is some lawful reason to the contrary. That is a duty which was laid down as early as 1845. In the second place, the grant has no reference to the character or fitness of the applicant. That is shown by the change in the warrant to which I have referred. Thirdly, the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is purely ministerial. He has not the duty, or the right, or the means, to investigate cases of suspicion. That was laid down by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury in 1859. Fourthly, there are no exceptions to these rules except in order to maintain the authority of the House in cases where it has jurisdiction, as in matters relating to elections. There the House does not allow its jurisdiction to be defeated, as it would be by the withdrawal of the question. It has, however, even in such cases been laid down that it is not enough that an election should he pending, but proceedings must have been actually instituted. As to how far, when actual criminal proceedings are in progress in the Courts of Law, you can interpose an obstacle to the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds, does not seem to have been decided. But in this case no criminal proceedings have been instituted. The hon. Member states that the late Member for Burnley was guilty of gross fraud. I had no means of knowing that, and I could not assume that which had not been proved. It had not been brought to a test on which I could act. If Mr. Balfour had not accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and had now been a Member of this House, you would have had no means of coming to a conclusion on the subject. He would have remained a Member of this House, the borough of Burnley would have had no opportunity of electing. a fit Member to serve in the present Parliament and you might have been hung up for months, and even for years, before being in a position to decide the question. I think that shows the wisdom of the rule which has been established in this respect. 52 The whole proceeding is merely a constitutional fiction equivalent to resignation. It is certainly au anomalous and inconvenient fiction. A former Member of this House, Sir H. Drummond Wolff, in 1880, intimated that he would move for a Committee to alter the system. I am very sorry he did not do so, because I think it would be very desirable that another form of resignation should be established by this House. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied, from what I have said, that I have not departed front the practice which has been universally followed on former occasions.
§ Motion agreed to.