MR. JAMES LOWTHER () Cumberland, PenrithI beg 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?
The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON () Cumberland, CockermouthTo ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement that on 10th February two meetings were held for the selection of Parliamentary candidates—one for South Bedfordshire, which meeting was presided over by the Duke of Bedford, and one for South Buckinghamshire, which meeting was presided over by Lord Carrington; and, if this be the case, whether, under the Sessional Order, passed on the 7th February, declaring it to be 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, he proposes to take any action against the two above-named Peers?
§ SIR JOHN WILLIAM MACLURE () Lancashire, StretfordTo ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that two meetings convened for the purpose of selecting candidates to represent constituencies in the House of Commons were presided over by Peers, one of whom was the proposer of the Address in the House of Lords this Session in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, while the other was a member of the 869 late Government; if so, what course he intends to pursue in view of the Sessional Order declaring it to be a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of this House for a Peer to concern himself in elections?
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTONI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Friday last two Peers, viz., the Duke of Bedford, in the constituency of South Bedfordshire; and Earl Carrington, in the constituency of South Buckinghamshire, respectively, took the chair at a meeting to select candidates for election as Members to serve for the Commons of those constituencies, respectively, in Parliament; and, in view of the Resolution passed by this House at the commencement of this Session, 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, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYMy attention has been called to the reports of these two meetings by the four notices of Questions on the Paper. I understand the usual practice has been for Peers to abstain from any action in connection with an imminent election, at all events after a Writ has issued. I do not think elections are imminent in these instances, and certainly Writs have not issued.
§ MR. MACNEILLIs the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Sessional Order was first passed by the Long Parliament, which he referred to in uncomplimentary language last night?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI was not aware of that fact. My opinion about the Long Parliament depends upon what period of the career of that Parliament is in question.
§ MR. MACNEILLIt was its first and best year—1641.