HC Deb 14 February 1899 vol 66 cc872-81
* MR. J. LOWTHER () Kent, Thanet

Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit to the House a matter of privilege arising out of Question 39. That Question was as follows:— To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to reports of two meetings held 10th February for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, one in South Bedfordshire, alleged to have been presided over by the Duke of Bedford, and the other in South Buckinghamshire, at which the chair is stated to have been taken by Lord Carrington; and whether, in view of the Sessional Order passed at his instance upon 7th February, in which it is declared that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons for any Peer to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, it is his intention to propose to the House any action in vindication of its privileges. Now, Sir, I have no desire to trench upon ground which, occupied the attention of the House on Tuesday last, but I desire to draw attention to the answer which has just been given by the First Lord of the Treasury. My right honourable Friend remarked that it had been the practice for Peers to abstain from taking any part in elections when those elections were imminent, and it would seem to be his view that such a course constituted compliance with the Sessional Order in question. Now, Sir, I venture to say that there is no authority whatever for the limitation which the First Lord of the Treasury seeks to impose upon the Sessional Order. I have searched in vain for any authoritative utterance to that effect. On the contrary, I find that a Resolution of the Long Parliament makes special reference, not to any action after the issue of Writs, but to the fact that letters from Lords of Parliament have been received by electors, and there is no limitation whatsoever as to the period when these letters were despatched. I submit that it is clear on the face of it that what the House of Commons at that time had in view was the selection of candidates at the instance of Peers. Whether wise or foolish—on that I make no comment—the Resolution of the Long Parliament was not directed to combat action in relation to imminent elections. The Resolution went on to say that any such letter, if received, should hereafter be sent by the parties receiving the same, who should certify the contents thereof, or by bringing the letters themselves to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, I think the honourable Gentlemen who have brought this matter before the notice of the House of Commons have simply obeyed the injunction of the Resolution passed hundreds of years ago. Now, Sir, the period my right honourable Friend has suggested as limiting the operations of the Ses- sional Order has never been seriously contemplated by the House of Commons. Take the case of the Bishop of Carlisle: I find that in 1710 the Bishop was alleged to have concerned himself in the election of a Member for the City of Carlisle, and a Resolution was then passed by the House of Commons declaring that— William, Lord Bishop of Carlisle, by dispersing several copies of a letter, has highly infringed the privileges of the Commons of Great Britain. In more recent times we find that in all the discussions which have taken place such a limit as the right honourable Gentleman has arbitrarily assigned has never been imposed either by this House or by any competent authority within its walls. The action of Lord Beaconsfield, of Lord Rosebery, and of the Duke of Devonshire has been mentioned to the House, and I would cite also the case of Lord Salisbury, who not only violated this Order, but claimed a vote for a Member of this House, and carried his appeal to the highest Court in the land. We therefore have during the last quarter of a century all the Prime Ministers who had sat in the House of Lords—Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, and Lord Rosebery—acting unanimously in contravention of the Sessional Order. I would remind the House that the Duke of Devonshire, to whom reference has also been made, was very near becoming a Prime Minister, being actually charged with the duty of forming an Administration, so that he may very fairly be added to the list of Peers occupying the highest position in the Government who have set this rule absolutely at defiance. The right honourable Gentleman was apparently rather shocked the other day—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right honourable Gentleman is now pursuing and commenting upon the Debate which took place the other day. He must confine himself to the Question of Privilege."

* MR. J. LOWTHER

I will confine myself to the Questions on the Paper, bearing as they do upon another case, that of Lord Buckinghamshire, which I will not specifically refer to in detail because it was mentioned the other night. I can only say that the right honourable Gentleman was entirely wrong this afternoon in saying that the Order is generally observed by Peers. The facts show that not only the eminent Peers to whom reference has been made, but Peers holding a very prominent position, likewise disobey this Resolution. I am reminded by one Question on the Paper that the noble Duke referred to was, whilst we were considering this Question, proposing the Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne in another place, and the other Peer whose case was referred to occupies, and has occupied, a very important position in the public life of this country, both as a Minister of the Crown and as holding an important post under the Crown in one of the principal Colonies in the Empire. Sir, the question we have to decide is, not whether the House has been acting wisely or foolishly in passing annually this Resolution, but what is the interpretation we place upon this Resolution, and what reasonable interpretation can be placed on the language in which it is couched. I think we have a right to know whether the House intends to act up to this Resolution, or whether it intends to proclaim to all whom it may concern that black means white, and that the language of the Resolution is not to be construed in the ordinary and natural sense. I desire, Sir, to consult the House generally as to the precise course that should be pursued. When attention was called to the case of Lord Rosebery, some fire years ago, a resolution was submitted to the effect that, in the opinion of this House, a breach of its privileges had been committed. Now, Sir, I do not think we have sufficient information, especially after what has fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury, to commit ourselves to that assertion. I would rather suggest that we should follow other precedents, which are, perhaps, more convenient, viz., to refer the question of the alleged breach of this Order to a Select Committee. There is a Committee, which this House annually sets up pro formâ, called the Committee of Privileges. I believe that that Committee has never actually acted as a corporate body since 1833; it was, I believe, revived pro formâ on the opening day of this Session; but for practical purposes it does not exist. When the House has found itself confronted with questions of this kind it has been it practice on several occasions to appoint a Select Committee specially to consider the subjects, and that is the course which I venture to suggest to the House at this time. If that be the view taken, I will propose: That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Bedford and Earl Carrington—two Lords of Parliament—did severally, on 10th February last, infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning themselves in the election of Members of the Commons, it is ordered that these matters be referred to a Select Committee. That is the course which was taken, though the circumstances were not quite the same, by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1879, and it relieves the House from undertaking to judge, upon the insufficient information now before it, whether the acts alleged did or did not constitute a breach of its liberties and privileges. I will relieve the House from the necessity of going further into the subject at the present moment, by formally moving the resolution.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON () Cumberland, Cockermouth

formally seconded the Motion.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I do not advise the House to concur in the suggestion of my right honourable Friend, for I think the course he proposes would really lead to no practical result, and would be of no value whatever. The Committee would either report that a technical breach of the Standing Order had been committed, or that it had not been committed. If they reported that it had not been committed, it is evident that no action on the part of this House could even be suggested. If they reported that it had been committed, it is equally clear that this House has no power of enforcing the Standing Order, or taking any action against either the Duke of Bedford or Lord Carrington. In fact, I think it was the main contention of my right honourable Friend when he called the attention of this House to this subject, at an earlier stage of our proceedings, that this House was powerless to apply any remedy if the Stand- ing Order was infringed. Well, Sir, if it be not in the power of this House to take any overt action, even if the Standing Order has been broken, what is the object of having the inquiry that my right honourable Friend desires? It may be that the object of my right honourable Friend is not to take action against those two Members of the other House, but to lay the foundation for some future Motion in a future Session on the lines of the Motion the House has already rejected on the first day of the present Session. But in that case, Sir, we ought to inquire not into the action of these two noble Lords, but into the propriety or impropriety of maintaining the Standing Order. I should certainly not advise that course; but that is not the question before the House. If the House were to accede to the Motion it would not, I conceive, be in the power of the Committee of Privileges to give any advice to the House involving the Question of maintaining, year after year, Session after Session, the Sessional Order which we have already discussed within the last fortnight. Under these circumstances, Sir, if I am right—as I think I am—in saying that the sole subject of the inquiry, on the part of the Committee, would be as to whether a technical breach of this Order had, or had not, been committed by the noble Lords, we should be asking a certain number of our Members to go through a perfectly empty and vain task, which would lead to no prac-

tical result whatever. The value of the Standing Order, if it has any value, as I think it has, does not depend on our power of enforcing it, because we have no power of enforcing it. By common admission we have no power, and it never has been enforced in any case mentioned by my right honourable Friend—

MR. J. LOWTHER

The Bishop of Carlisle, in 1710, came to the Bar.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

If he came to the Bar he certainly came of his own good pleasure. This House would have no power to compel a Member of the other House to come to the Bar. In these circumstances, it appears to me that this House would only put itself in a false position if it committed itself to make an inquiry which, in any event, can lead to no useful result. We shall be no further advanced either in dealing with the two noble Lords in question, or with the general principle of the Resolution, than we are at the present time. As we have a sufficient number of really important inquiries demanding the attention of this House, I see no object in entering upon the perfectly vain and frivolous inquiry which my honourable Friend desires.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 230.—(Division List No. 7.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Daly, James Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Allen, W. Newc. under Lyme) Davitt, Michael Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)
Allison, Robert Andrew Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Dillon, John Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Atherley-Jones, L. Donelan, Captain A. Hogan, James Francis
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Doogan, P. C. Hudson, George Bickersteth
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Duckworth, James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Baker, Sir John Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Jacoby, James Alfred
Barlow, John Emmott Dunn, Sir William Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Bartley, George C. T. Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Jordan, Jeremiah
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Fenwick, Charles Kilbride, Denis
Billson, Alfred Ffrench, Peter Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth
Blake, Edward Flynn, James Christopher Labouchere, Henry
Boulnois, Edmund Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lambert, George
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gibney, James Langley, Batty
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gilhooly, James Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)
Carew, James Laurence Goddard, Daniel Ford Leng, Sir John
Channing, Francis Allston Gold, Charles Lewis, John Herbert
Clough, Walter Owen Hammond, John (Carlow) Lloyd-George, David
Colville, John Harwood, George Logan, John William
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Macaleese, Daniel
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
M'Ghee, Richard Philipps, John Wynford Strachey, Edward
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Pickersgill, Edward Hare Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Maden, John Henry Pinkerton, John Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Mandeville, J. Francis Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Maple, Sir John Blundell Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, David Alf'd (Merthyr)
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Tully, Jasper
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Reckitt, Harold James Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Morris, Samuel Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wayman, Thomas
Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Richardson, J. (Durham) Wedderburn, Sir William
Moss, Samuel Rickett, J. Compton Weir, James Galloway
Murnaghan, George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Williams,John Carvell (Notts.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Roche, John (East Galway) Wilson, Henry J.(Yorks,W.R.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) Wilson, John (Govan)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Woods, Samuel
O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.) Shee, James John Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur Sheehy, David
Paulton, James Mellor Smith, Samuel (Flint) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Mr. James Lowther and Sir Wilfrid Lawson.
Perks, Robert William Stevenson, Francis S.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Denny, Colonel Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)
Arrol, Sir William Doughty, George Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton
Asher, Alexander Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Johnston, William (Belfast)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Drage, Geoffrey Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Joicey, Sir James
Balcarres, Lord Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'sea)
Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J. (Manch'r) Ellis, Thos. E. (Merionethsh.) Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn Sir U.
Balfour, Rt, Hn. G.W. (Leeds) Engledew, Charles John Kemp, Gorge
Banbury, Frederick George Fardell, Sir T. George Kenyon, James
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Farquharson, Dr. Robert King, Sir Henry Seymour
Barry,RtH.A.H.Smith-(Hnts) Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Knowles, Lees
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Fergusson, Rt H.Sir J.(Manc'r) Lafone, Alfred
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Laurie, Lieut.-General
Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)
Beckett, Ernest William Fisher, William Hayes Lawaon, John Grant (Yorks.)
Bethell, Commander Fison, Frederick William Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)
Biddulph, Michael Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)
Bigwood, James Folkestone, Viscount Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Blakiston-Houston, John Forster, Henry William Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry Long, Rt Hn Walter (Liv'pool)
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's L.) Gilliat, John Saunders Lowe, Francis William
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k Lowles, John
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goldsworthy, Major-General Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gordon, Hon. John Edward Lucas-Shadwell, William
Burt, Thomas Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Caldwell, James Goschen, Rt Hn G.J. (St Geo.'s Macdona, John Cumming
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Maclure, Sir John William
Carlile, William Walter Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Cawley, Frederick Gretton, John M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Greville, Hon. Ronald M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) M'Killop, James
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Gull, Sir Cameron Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Bir.) Hall, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Halsey, Thomas Frederick Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Charrington, Spencer Hamilton, Rt.Hn. Lord George Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John
Chelsea, Viscount Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Monckton, Edward Philip
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hanson, Sir Reginald Monk, Charles James
Coddington, Sir William Hardy, Laurence More, Robert Jasper
Coghill, Douglas Harry Harr, Thomas Leigh Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cohen, Benjamin, Louis Heath, James Morrell, George Herbert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Helder, Augustus Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley(Staffs) Mount, William George
Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H. Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Murray, Rt. Hon A. G. (Bute)
Crombie, John William Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cruddas, William Donaldson Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh Myers, William Henry
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hornby, Sir William Henry Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Curzon, Viscount Howard, Joseph Nicol, Donald Ninian
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hughes, Colonel Edwin Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Parkes, Ebenezer Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) Simeon, Sir Barrington Valentia, Viscount
Pender, Sir James Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Penn, John Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)
Pilkington, Richard Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Plunkett, Rt.H.Horace Curzon Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Purvis, Robert Souttar, Robinson Webster, Sir R.E.(I. of Wight)
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Spencer, Ernest Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Reid, Sir Robert Threshie Spicer, Albert Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Rentoul, James Alexander Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Ridley, Rt.Hn.Sir Matthew W. Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)
Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Round, James Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)
Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham) Stock, James Henry Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Stone, Sir Benjamin Wortley, Rt.Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wyndham, George
Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Savory, Sir Joseph Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Younger, William
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.)
Seely, Charles Hilton Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Seton-Karr, Henry Thorburn, Walter Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Sharpe, William Edward T. Thornton, Percy M.