§ Ordered—That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any' part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if any thing shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw until their Returns are determined.
§ Resolved—That no Peer of this Realm, excepting such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
§
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
47
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. Balfour.)
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the words from the word 'Kingdom,' in line 2, to the word 'for,' in line 8 (Mr. James Lowther).
* MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)I move to leave out the words from "Kingdom" in line 2 to "for" in line 8, which would have the effect if, as I hope it will be, adopted by this House, of restricting this Motion to Lords-Lieutenant of Counties as distinguished from Peers. I shall not go over ground which has been trodden before with regard to this Order further than to repeat that it is a sham and a farce; and in using the term farce, I am employing an expression of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who, in 1894, so described this Order. Now, Sir, my objection mainly is that, be the Order wise or foolish, we have no power whatever to enforce it. Undoubtedly there were times when a Resolution of this kind might have been required. There was a time, no doubt, when the old feudal lords used to surround the polling booths with armed retainers, and when, in various ways, freedom of election was interfered with by Members of the House of Peers. There were times also when this House, by means of this Resolution, was the only source of authority which existed for dealing with such cases. The law in those days was practically silent on this point. So long ago as 1641 this House adopted a Resolution which I will not trouble hon. Members further with than to say that it contemplated restricting the action of Peers in dictating at Parliamentary Elections, and that, no doubt, is the ground upon which the present Order proceeds. I have seen it stated—indeed, I think the Leader of the House has said—that this Order does not come into operation until after the issue of a Writ, but I can find no authority for any such limitation. Even if it were the case, I would suggest that that affords all the more reason for not 48 adopting words which have a far wider interpretation. The Order has, I say, been openly disregarded. We know— without going into details—that in the year 1894 Lord Rosebery, being then the Prime Minister of this country, delivered a speech, which he had a perfect right to deliver, in a locality which was separated by a few yards only from a borough in which an election was actually in progress, many days after the issue of the Writ for that borough. I may, in passing, observe that at the time it was explained that Lord Rosebery's arrangements for the meeting had been made long in advance, and that the meeting had not been called for any special purpose in connection with the election. But it makes my case all the stronger. Lord Rosebery, however, followed in the steps of Lord Beaconsfield, for we all remember how, in the height of a Buckingham by-election, in 1876, Lord Beaconsfield attended an agricultural meeting at which he did not say a word either about unexhausted improvements or the state of the crops, but immediately rushed into a discussion of the Eastern Question, and vindicated, in most vigorous terms, the policy of his Government at home and abroad.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)He named the candidates.
* MR. LOWTHERYes, as the honourable Gentleman reminds me, he made specific references to the election then in progress, and mentioned the names of the candidates. For instance, I think he said, if I remember rightly, that he had known the Liberal candidate since he was a child, and personally had a great regard for him. But, at any rate, he made a distinctly political speech in the height of an election. These may be called old times. But not very long after Lord Rosebery had made his speech at Leith, the Duke of Devonshire, a Minister of the Crown, and Lord President of the Council, went down to Darlington and delivered a speech there hours after the Writs had been issued from the Crown Office for the General Election of 1895. That requires no further comment. I have, however, a still more recent instance. I find that after the publication in the London Gazette of Mr. Speaker's notice respecting the issue of a Writ for the Aylesbury Division 49 of the County of Buckingham, meetings were held in the division for the purpose of choosing a candidate to represent the constituency in Parliament. Now the words which have been read from the Chair debar a Peer from concerning himself in any election, and I think it will be admitted that if a Peer takes part in a meeting such as I have indicated he is distinctly concerning himself in an election to this House. I find that the chair at three meetings held subsequently to the publication of Mr. Speaker's notice was occupied by a noble Earl, a Peer of the realm, who, I may mention in passing, was a member of the late Administration. Thus we have four Ministers of the Crown, one after the other, setting the spirit and letter of this Order at defiance. I may say that the presence of Peers at these meetings can no longer be judged from the same standpoint as in former years. In 1868 we placed the regulation of elections under Statute Law, and after that date this House ceased to have any power in regard to such matters. Up till 1868 it had the power, if it had been foolish enough to use it, which I do not think it ever was, of unseating any Member at whose election these practices had occurred. But that power, shadowy as it was in those days, has now disappeared. Not only have we no power to enforce this Order, but we have not the force of public opinion behind us, should we desire to do so. Does anyone believe that if public opinion in this country were strong upon this subject, Prime Ministers and Ministers of the Crown would openly defy the Order, as I have shown they have done. We know that Peers attend meetings because they are invited to do so, and those who advocate the right of public meeting and the freedom of election are entitled to take exception to limitations of this kind. No doubt there are people who will find fault with my Motion, and probably among them there will be some Peers. They have now a sort of close time," and naturally they will complain if they are dragged forward at a time when they would prefer to be at home. We know quite well that in the exigencies of modern politics the electors get tired of their own familiar leaders, and they like to get someone fresh to speak to them at election times. One word in conclusion. 50 My right hon. Friend last year gave as one of his reasons for not acceding to this Motion that, if it were adopted, it would be a great advantage of a tactical Party character to his own side, and with that gallantry which we know he always exhibits, he hesitated to avail himself of a weapon which would be so greatly in favour of his own side. He appealed to the Opposition to enlighten him as to their feelings on the subject. But although the Leader of the Opposition was wise enough not to do so, I see in front of me several right hon. Gentlemen who voted in favour of my Motion. The two Law Officers of the late Government and the late Chairman of Ways and Means went into the Lobby and supported my Motion, and that shows that from a legal constitutional standpoint this innovation is not dreaded by the Liberal Party. The fact, too, that the late Home Secretary and the two Whips of the Liberal Party also supported me shows that from a mere electioneering point of view, this change is not objected to by the other side. Therefore I hope we shall not have Party considerations brought into this matter, and that we shall vote on practical common-sense lines for the purpose of removing a farce and a sham.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)It always gives me great pleasure to be able to co-operate with my right hon. Friend opposite because I have a great Parliamentary admiration for him. I consider him to be an interesting and honourable survival, for he is the only avowed Tory who remains in this House, and when such a man as that makes such a Motion as this, one would a priori suppose there must be something wrong in the thing which he is attacking. The Leader of the House last year told us that this was an Order which we had no power to enforce. That ought to condemn it at once. Can anyone tell me what is the use of passing an Order which we have no power to enforce? But the right hon. Gentleman, for some reason took the Order under his wing, and said that it embodied traditions to which the vast majority of Peers gave their assent. What is a tradition? I think it is generally humbug. I do not think it is our business to tell the Peers how to behave them- 51 selves at election times. Then there was another, and what I may call a saturnine argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, viz., that if we did away with this Order it would be much more favourable to his side of the House than to our side. But what does that matter? This is a question we ought to settle on common-sense grounds, and on grounds of justice, quite regardless of Party. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are Peers on our side as well as on his, and that the only reason why they do not do so much harm is that there are not so many of them? The right hon. Gentleman opposite has quoted cases in which this Order has been defied, and we know that a few weeks ago the Earl of Buckinghamshire was searching the whole civilised world for a Liberal candidate and could not find one. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman used last year was that he did not like to act without the consent of the Leader of the Opposition. Well, we have a new Leader now, and I want to know what he has to say on this subject. He has got a capital chance. What did he say yesterday? To my great delight he said that he always had the greatest regard for the House of Commons—He said he was a loyal son of the House. Let him do something for his father to-night. Let him and the Leader of the House go into the Lobby arm in arm like brothers, and do something for the credit of this House, and prevent it hereafter making a fool of itself, as it does by passing this Order.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I do not know that I have much to add to what I stated last year when my right hon. Friend raised the same question, and, with the hon. Baronet opposite, delivered very much the same speech as we have heard to-day. I can only say that if an earnest appeal comes to me from the right hon. Gentleman to whom reference has already been made, I shall not feel myself bound to offer strenuous opposition to his wishes. But, for reasons which I will presently state, I confess that I do not see any adequate object to be gained by the somewhat revolutionary proposal of my right hon. Friend—a proposal which is the last I 52 should have expected to come from one who has just been described by his chief ally in this House as the only old Tory amongst us.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONThe only "avowed" one.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYVery well, the only avowed Tory amongst us. We have been told, and with some truth, that if this Order of the House is contravened, we have at our disposal no effectual machinery for its enforcement. My right hon. Friend who made this Motion appears to think that there was a time in the early days of our Parliamentary history when matters were different—when this House had some power of coercing—
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYVery well; perhaps the House might have had, but in any case my right hon. Friend does not contend that the House ever had a remedy against the offenders. There is no change in this respect since the early times when this Order first became part of our usual procedure. Of course we have had the old instances cropping up again—the speech of Lord Rosebery, the speech of Lord Beaconsfield, and the speech of the Duke of Devonshire, to which has been added—it is rather a drop in the political hierachy—the speech, or many speeches of Lord Buckinghamshire. Lord Buckinghamshire, it appears, presided at a series of committee meetings, or meetings for the purpose of selecting candidates for the borough of Aylesbury, and, as the hon. Baronet has reminded us, no candidate was selected. But, Sir, that is not a very serious interference with the liberties of the House, nor is it, in effect, an attempt to modify our constituent element, and certainly it is hardly one to be brought up as a case of important infringement of our liberties. Hon. Gentlemen who contend for this change are right as long as they say we have no power to enforce the Order, and they are wrong, as soon as they go a step further and say that the Order is without influence upon Parliament. The very fact that the assiduous exertions of my right hon. 53 Friend, extending over two or three generations, have only resulted in his being successful in discovering four precedents—
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI was not aware of that, and I withdraw the point. I can only say that considering this number of precedents we might, in future debates, spare Lord Rosebery, Lord Beaconsfield, and the Duke of Devonshire. I think it will be better, perhaps, on the whole, to have a new cortege, so as to enable us to secure a better case. Nobody can deny that if this House now formally repeals this present Order, or refuses to pass this Order, it will be regarded, and will be justly regarded, by all persons concerned, as a deliberate statement of opinion upon our part that we do not object to Peers taking as much part as they think just or proper in elections. It must make a change; it must violate an ancient tradition, and a tradition which has, on the whole, been very faithfully obeyed, and it seems to me that where obedience to a tradition is willingly rendered, that tradition is worth retaining. The hon. Baronet who seconded this Motion said that tradition was all humbug, which is a curious statement considering how much we have heard of the traditions of the Liberal Party of late. The Motion for
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Rhonnda) | Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Butcher, John George |
| Allan, W. (Gateshead) | Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Caldwell, James |
| Ambrose R. (Mayo, W.) | Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Cameron, Robert (Durham) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Beach, Rt Hn Sir M H (Brstl) | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. |
| Arnold, Alfred | Beach, W. W. B. (Hants) | Carlile, William Walter |
| Arnold-Foster, Hugh O. | Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward |
| Arrol, Sir William | Biddulph, Michael, | Causton, Richard Knight |
| Ascroft, Robert | Bigwood, James | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bill, Charles | Cawley, Frederick |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Billson, Alfred, | Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Blakiston-Houston, John | Chaloner, Captain R. G. M. |
| Austin Sir John (Yorkshire) | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Chamberlain, J. A. (Worctr.) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Bond, Edward | Channing, Francis Allston |
| Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry |
| Baker, Sir John | Bousfield, William Robert | Charrington, Spencer |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midsx.) | Chelsea, Viscount |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Broadhurst, Henry | Clarke, Sir Edward Plymouth |
| Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Man.) | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Clough, Walter Owen |
| Balfour, Rt Hn G. W. (Leeds) | Brown, Alexander H. | Cochrane, Hon Thos. H.A.E. |
| Balfour (Rt Hn. J B. (Clckm) | Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Cohen, Benjamin Louis |
| Banbury, Frederick C. | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Barnes, Frederick Corell | Bullard, Sir Harry | Colston, Chas.Edw.H.Athole |
| Barry, Rt Hn A. H. S. (Hnts) | Burt, Thomas | Colville, John |
§ the adoption of this Standing Order embodies a venerable tradition, and I think that when you consider how much of our public life is regulated by tradition, and how useful those regulations are, we should not hastily, or rashly, modify those traditions which, on the whole, work well. If this House desires that Peers should interfere with elections at all stages—that between the issue of a Writ and the day of election Peers should appear with the candidates on the various platforms, and go through the ordinary process of elections like any other political supporter, then the House would be well advised to accept this Motion. But I do not think I misinterpret the general feeling on both sides of this House when I say that we should certainly advise the House not to adopt a change which we do not desire deliberately and willingly to bring about, and if we do which we do not desire deliberately and willingly to bring about, and if we do not desire deliberately and willingly to bring such a change about as that, I should certainly advise this House not to take a course which would, in this respect at all events, cut us completely adrift from the political traditions of our forefathers.
§
Question put—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.
§ The House divided:—For the Amendment 90; against 359.
57| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale- | M'Killop, James |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Mappin, Sir Fred. Thorpe |
| Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd) | Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) | Marks, Henry Hananel |
| Cornwallis,Fiennes StanleyW. | Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth) | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col.Edw.T.D. | Hedderwick, Thom. Charles H. | Meville, Beresford Valentine |
| Courtney,Rt.Hn.Leonard H. | Helder, Augustus | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Henderson, Alexander | Milner, Sir Frederick George |
| Crombie, John William | Hermon-Hodge, Rt. Trotter | Monckton, Edward Philip |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | More, Robert Jasper |
| Currie, Sir Donald | Hobhouse, Henry | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) |
| Curzon, Viscount | Hogan, James Francis | Morley, RtHnJohn (Montrose) |
| Dalbaic, Colonel Philip Hugh | Holden, Sir Angus | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Davies,SirHoratio (Chatham) | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Dickson-Poynder,Sir John P. | Horniman, Frederick John | Morton,Edw.J.C.(Devonport) |
| Dickson-Hartland Sir F.Dixon | Houston, R. P. | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Howard, Joseph | Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Doogan, P. C. | Howell, William Tudor | Murray,Rt. Hon. A. G.(Bute) |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hozier,Hon.JamesHenryCecil | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Doughty, George | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Myers, William Henry |
| Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Newark, Viscount |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Drage, Geoffrey | Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice- | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Drucker, A. | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Northcote. Hn.Sir H. Stafford |
| Duckworth, James | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Nussey, Thomas Williams |
| Elliot, Hon.A. Ralph Douglas | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Engledew, Charles John | Johnston, William (Belfast) | O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) |
| Evershed, Sydney | Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) | O'Connor, James(WicklowW) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Joicey, Sir James | O'Kelly, James |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Ferguson,R.C.Munro (Leith) | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Fergusson,RtHonSirJ(Manc'r | Jordan, Jeremiah | Palmer,George Wm. (Reading) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Field, William (Dublin) | Kemp, George | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Kennaway,Rt.Hn.SirJohn H. | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Kenyon, James | Pease,Sir Joseph W.(Durham) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Keswick, William | Penn, John |
| Fison, Frederick William | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund | Kitson, Sir James | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Flower, Ernest | Knowles, Lees | Pilkington, Richard |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Lafone, Alfred | Platt- Higgins, Frederick |
| Folkestone, Viscount | Lambert, George | Plunkett,RtHnHorace Curzon |
| Forster, Henry William | Lawrence,SirE Durning(Corn) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Price, Robert John |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Lea, Sir Thomas (Londond'ry) | Priestly, Briggs (Yorks.) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lecky, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H. | Priestly, SirWOverend (Edin.) |
| Garfit, William | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Purvis, Robert |
| Gedge, Sydney | Leigh-Bennett, HenryCurrie | Pym, C. Guy |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Lewis, John Herbert | Rankin, Sir James |
| Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLon.) | Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) |
| Gibney, James | Llewelyn,SirDillwyn(Swansea | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Giles, Charles Tyrell | Lloyd-George, David | Richardson, J. (Durham) |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Ridley,RtHnSir Matthew W. |
| Gold, Charles | Long,Col. CharlesW. (Evesham | Ritchie,Rt Hn Chas Thomson |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Long,RtHnWalter (Liverpool) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gorst,Rt.Hon.Sir John Eldon | Lough, Thomas | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney |
| Goschen,Rt.Hn.C J.(St.G's.) | Lowe, Francis William | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Lowles, John | Rcohe, John (East Galway) |
| Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Lowther,RtHnJW(Cumb'land | Rothschild,Hn.Lionel Walter |
| Gretton, John | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Round, James |
| Greville, Captain | Lubbock, Right Hon. Sir John | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Gray, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Russell,Gen. F. S. (Cheltnhm) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone |
| Hall, Sir Charles | Macaleese, Daniel | Rutherford, John |
| Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Hamilton,Rt HonLordGeorge | Macdona, John Cumming | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Hammond, John Carlow | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Hanbury,RtHonRobert Wm. | M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall) | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Hardy, Laurence | M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim E.) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | M'lver, David (Liverpool) | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Hayden, John Patrick | M'lver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.) | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Shaw, Charles Edw(Stafford) | Stuart, James (Shoreditch) | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Sturt, Hon. Humprey Napier | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Shaw-Stewart,M.H. Renfrew) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Talbot,RtHnJG (Oxfd'Univ.) | Williams, John Carvell(Notts |
| Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) | Tennant, Harold John | Williams,Jos. Powell- (Birm) |
| Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Thomas, Abel (CarmarthenE.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | ThomasDavid Alfred(Merthyr | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Thorburn, Walter | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| Smith,Abel H. (Christchurch) | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Wilson-Todd, Wm.H.(Yorks) |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Usborne, Thomas | Woods, Samuel |
| Spencer, Ernest | Valentia, Viscount | Wortley, Rt.Hn.C.B.Stuart- |
| Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) | Wyndham, George |
| Stanley,HnArthur (Ormskirk) | Wallace, Robert (Perth) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) | Wanklyn, James Leslie | Young,Commander (Berks.E.) |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Steadman, William Charles | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E. (Kent) | Younger, William |
| Stevenson, Francis S. | Wayman, Thomas | Yoxall, James Hendry |
| Stewart, Sir MarkJM'Taggart | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras | |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, |
| Strachey, Edward | Weir, James Galloway | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Welby, Lient.-Col. A. C. E. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Galloway, William Johnson | Pinkerton, John |
| Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Asquith,RtHn.Herbert Henry | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Heath, James | Reid, Sir Robert Threshie |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Heaton, John Henniker | Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlep'l) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Blake, Edward | Jacoby, James Alfred | Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Scott,Sir S.(Marleybone,W.) |
| Bowles,T.Gibson (LynnRegis) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth | Shee, James John |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Labouchere, Henry | Souttar, Robinson |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Laurie, Lieut. -General | Sullivan, Donal (Wesmeath) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Logan, John William | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | MacDonnell,Dr.M.A.(Q'n'sC.) | Tanner, Charles Kearns |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Maclure, Sir John William | Thomas, Alfred(GlamorganE. |
| Daly, James | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Tully, Jasper |
| Davitt, Michael | M'Dermott, Patrick | Ture, Alexander |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Ghee, Richard | Vincent, Col.Sir C.E.Howard |
| Dillon, John | M'Kenna, Reginald | Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds,S.) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Maddison, Fred. | Warner, Thomas CourtenayT. |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Maden, John Henry | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Dunn, Sir William | Mandeville, J. Francis | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Wilson, John (Durham,Mid.) |
| Ellis, Thos. Edw.(Merionetsh. | Mellor,Rt. Hn. J. W.(Yorks.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Millbank, Sir Powlett C.John | Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsfield |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen | |
| Evans, Sir F. H. (Sthmptn.) | Morris, Samuel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | James Lowther and Sir |
| Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry,S.) | Oldroyd, Mark | Wilfrid Lawson. |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Malley, William | |
| Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Perks, Robert William |
§ 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 Mem- 58 bers 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.