MR. JAMES LOWTHERI rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a question of privilege. In answer to a question, I elicited from the First Lord of the Treasury the statement that he had no knowledge of the letters to which my question referred. Now, I have, unfortunately, during the present Session had occasion more than once to call the attention of the House to breaches deliberately made of the Sessional Order regarding the interference of Peers in Parliamentary elections. But the case which I desire now very briefly to submit to the House differs in one very important point from others which have been raised. When I raised other questions of this character I was told that until the issue of the writ the House had not been in the habit of taking any cognisance of breaches of the Sessional Order. I never admitted myself that there was any ground for the differentiation. I never admitted that the mere fact of the writ issuing or not took away any force from the Sessional Order passed every year. With the permission of the House I shall read a short extract from one of the letters, and the whole of the other letter, which is very short. The letter of the Duke of Devonshire was not, as my right hon. friend surmised, a private letter, but was obviously written to be published. It is addressed apparently to a perfect stranger, and could have been written for no other purpose than being printed. It appeared in one of the local newspapers, which stated:
The following reply has been received by a Southport Unionist, who called the Duke of Devonshire's attention to the reasons urged by and on behalf of a few Southport Liberal Unionists for not on this occasion considering it their paramount duty to oppose the Home Rule candidate.The reply is dated Lismore Castle, May 22; and I may say in passing that the writ for the Southport election was issued ten days before, although I myself attach no importance whatever to the argument that the breach of privilege depends on whether the interference is before or after the issue of the writ. The letter runs:Sir,—I have received your letter of the 19th inst., and am sorry to hear that there is any difference of opinion among Liberal Unionists at Southport as to the duty of 312 giving their support to Mr. Balfour. … The present demoralisation and powerlessness of the Opposition are, in my opinion, most inadequate reasons for supporting a candidate whose return would, in however small a degree, tend to resuscitate the unfortunate Home Rule proposals which were rejected at the last General Election.Then, sir, the Bishop of Liverpool wrote the following letter to a Churchman in Southport:Dear Sir,—I answer your question without any hesitation. If I had a vote for Southport, I should certainly not give it to any candidate who was in favour of Home Rule for Ireland.I need hardly say that I heartily sympathise with every word contained in those letters. I feel also bound to add that I myself consider that both the Duke of Devonshire and the Bishop of Liverpool were perfectly right in writing those letters; hut, as the right hon. Gentleman told me on a previous occasion that the fact of the alleged breach of privilege being committed before the issue of the writ prevented his taking notice of it, I desire to emphasise the fact that such an answer would not hold good at the present moment. Now, sir, it is not for the House to deal in a legislative capacity with this question. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether the Order is wise or foolish; the duty before the House is a judicial duty. We have to interpret our Order upon judicial lines, mid it is to that point that I shall endeavour to confine myself. It is necessary, no doubt, from a judicial standpoint that both sides of the question should be placed before the House, and, very briefly, I shall endeavour to do so. It is a matter of notoriety that every Prime Minister dining the last quarter of a century has set this Order at defiance, and consequently we must not judge harshly the noble duke and the bishop if they may think that they were perfectly justified in adopting this course. They no doubt remembered that Lord Beaconsfield, when Prime Minister of England, set this Order at defiance, and Lord Salisbury and Lord Rosebery also set it at defiance. But there have been recent cases brought before the House, every one of which, I think, shows that this House is not in earnest in its desire to enforce the Order. The Lord Chancellor, who is, as we know, the head of the law, threw his great weight into the scale in favour of the proceeding in question not being a breach of the law, and consequently the 313 Duke of Devonshire and the Bishop of Liverpool may feel called upon, in reply, to quote that high authority in favour of their contention. When I speak of the Duke of Devonshire I must remind the House that this is not a case, any more than the others to whom I have recently drawn attention, of an obscure peer. My right hon. friend the Leader of the House has imagined me spending a great part of my time in endeavouring to rake up cases of this sort. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far from that being the case, I have declined to bring before the house numerous cases which have been mentioned to me. I have always gone on the principle that my right hon. friend the member for Dartford (Sir W. Hart Dyke) so pithily put when he said that I had gone to the top of the tree to find the fish. The Duke of Devonshire cannot be stated to be an obscure peer any more than the Lord Chancellor or those other peers I have mentioned in connection with this Sessional Order. The Duke of Devonshire will be remembered in the House of Commons as an old Parliamentary hand. He is not merely a leader at this moment of one of the recognised parties in the State, but he was for some years an acknowledged leader when the party opposite was in opposition, and he is one of the highest authorities on Parliamentary procedure. I must also point out that the noble Duke has had some considerable experience in the interpretation of this very Sessional Order. It will be remembered that a complaint was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, that he went down to Derby, the county of which the noble Duke was Lord Lieutenant, and delivered a speech of an electioneering character, and we are aware that at Darlington, after the issue of the writs from the Crown Office for the general election of 1895, a very able speech was delivered by the noble Duke on current topics which had been submitted to the electorate, with the candidate for Darlington by his side. Therefore, sir, I feel justified in saying that the case of the Duke of Devonshire is one which, if passed over, as I hope it will be, by this House, will finally and indelibly emphasise the opinion of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was correct when he said that this Order was a sham 314 and a farce. Sir, I quoted my right hon. friend on a previous occasion, and I will not do so again. But I think it right to point out that my right hon. friend is not alone in his opinion amongst his colleagues as to this being a sham and a farce. If it is desired to enforce this obsolete Order, the least my right hon. friend can do is to lend his countenance as far as he can to the maintenance of the Order. But what did we find the other day when I called attention to the case of the Lord Chancellor and of other peers? We find that some twenty Members of the House of Commons themselves took part in the proceedings. They were not obscure or young Members. They were headed by my hon. friend the Father of the House of Commons, who, for upwards of forty years has had experience of Parliamentary ruling. A gentleman who was present tells me that the Lord Chancellor was moved into the chair by one of the oldest Members of this House, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the proposition was seconded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These are two high Parliamentary authorities, and certainly old hands. I found them here thirty-four years ago when I first entered the House, and one was a Cabinet Minister very shortly after that time. Therefore, sir, I need not detain the House further than by calling my right hon. friend's attention to another great authority upon this subject—Lord James. Lord James, another of the Cabinet colleagues of my right hon. friend, is perhaps one of the greatest authorities living on election law, and he took a very active part in all the legislation regulating elections in this country for many years I hold in my hand a report of a speech of his delivered in this House, in which he said —The resolution we pass every year is an obsolete and a meaningless resolution, and the time will come—next Session, I hope—when the House of Commons will have to say whether the period has not arrived when we should cease altogether to go through this form of protesting without foundation, and without having the power to give any effect to our protests. The resolution does not add to the dignity of the House or to the protection of its Members.Now I have shown that the Duke of Devonshire has on more than one occasion proved that lie takes an enlightened view of this 315 absurd obsolete Order, and that being so I place the matter now in the hands of the House. I have no desire to anticipate the commencement of the next Session, but if I am in a position to do so I shall feel it my duty to afford the House an opportunity once and for all of getting rid of this absurd and meaningless Order. Meanwhile I shall put myself in order by moving a Resolution.Motion made, and Question proposed—
That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Devonshire and the Lord Bishop of Liverpool did severally infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning themselves in the election of a member to represent the Southport Division of the county of Lancashire in the House of Commons, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the alleged breaches of privilege."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)I will not detain the House for more than a moment, but I feel it my duty to say a few words in support of the proposition. I do not think that anybody can say that the present state of affairs is satisfactory. In public or private life the most contemptible of all characters is the swaggerer, and I think it is a bit of swagger on our part to affirm a resolution, threatening all sorts of pains and penalties, which we have not the slightest power to carry out.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy right hon. friend, if perseverance deserves reward, is certainly predestined, after, I suppose, a long series of similar speeches, to succeed in his endeavour. This, I think, is the third or fourths time in the course of the present Session in which fie has brought the same matter before the House in substantially the same speech, and really the importunate widow is not in it with my right hon. friend. I confess I am unwilling to imitate my right lion. friend in one respect. Doubtless he has less reason to regret the necessary repetitions which these discussions force upon him, but I myself have personally the strongest 316 objection to repeating the same arguments more than a certain number of times. I have really nothing to add to the reasons which induced me to advise the House on a previous occasion, as I advise it now, not to take any formal action in regard to these matters. Whether a court of law—if the matter could be referred to it—would decide that the two letters read by my right hon. friend are breaches of the Standing Order or not I am unable to say; but of one thing I am certain, and that is, that the Standing Order is not without effect, and great effect. It conduces to the abstention of Members of the other House from our electoral contests, which would not occur if the Order were repealed. It is not, therefore, a mere empty form. Whether it is desirable to exclude the House of Lords from entering into our electoral affairs is another matter. I do not know whether my right hon. friend would agree with me on that point—I rather think he would not; but he has not raised it now, though he threatens to raise it next Session. It was raised last Session, and the Session before the last, and the Session before that, and so on back into the indefinite past, whenever the Sessional Order came up for discussion. In the meantime I strongly advise the House not to take any steps with regard to these letters, and although, perhaps, it may lie less relevant to the point of order, I d0 not advise the House now any more than in the past to make any change in the Standing Order which would have more far-reaching and wide-spreading results than my right hon. friend anticipates.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERAfter the renewed assurance of my right hon. friend that peers can do what they like, I will not proceed any further in the matter. (Cries of "Divide, divide.")
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 86. Noes, 231. (Division List No. 169.)
319| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Gourley,SirEdwardTemperley | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Allen, W. (Newe. under Lyme) | Hayne,Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale | Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Heaton, John Henniker | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Scott, Charles Prestwich |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Holland, Wm. H.(York, W. R.) | (Leigh) |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Kearley, Hudson E. | Souttar, Robinson |
| Baker, Sir John | Kinloch,SirJohn GeorgeSmyth | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Labouchere, Henry | Steadman, William Charles |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Lambert, George | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Langley, Batty | Strachey, Edward |
| Billson, Alfred | Lloyd-George, David | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Blake, Edward | Lough, Thomas | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Bowles,T.Gibson(King'sLynn) | MacAleese, Daniel | Tully, Jasper |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | MacDonnell,Dr. M. A(Q'n'sCo) | Ure, Alexander |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Burns, John | M'Cartan, Michael | Warner,Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Caldwell, James | M'Ghee, Richard | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Cameron, SirCharles (Glasgow) | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Weir. James Galloway |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Williams, J. C. (Notts.) |
| Dillon, John | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devon port) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Doogan, P.C. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Woods, Samuel |
| Duckworth, James | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Evans, Sir Francis H. (S'ton.) | Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Perks, Robert William | Mr. James Lowther (Kent) |
| Galloway, William, Johnson | Pilkington, SirG.A. (LancS.W.) | and Sir Wilfrid Lawson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allhusen, Augustus Hy.Eden | Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Fison, Frederick William |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm) | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Chamberlain, J. A. (Wor'r.) | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Arnold, Alfred | Channing, Francis Allston | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chelsea, Viscount | Fry, Lewis |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gedge, Sydney |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Coddington, Sir William | Gilliat, John Saunders |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bagot,Capt.JoscelineFitzRoy | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Gold, Charles |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Goldsworthy, Major-General |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Colville, John | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Mnch'r. | Courtney, Rt. Hon.LeonardH. | Gosehen, George J. (Sussex) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds) | Cox, Irwin Edward B(Harrow) | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Barry, Rt. Hn.A. H.S.-(Hunts) | Crombie, John William | Green, Walford D. (Wedn'b'y) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. | Curzon, Viscount | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Beach, Rt Hn Sir M H (Bristol) | Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Gurdon,SirWilliam Brampton |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Davies, M. V.-(Cardigan) | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Denny, Colonel | Hamilton, Rt. Hn.Lord George |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Hardy, Laurence |
| Biddulph, Michael | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers- | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. |
| Bond, Edward | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Helder, Augustus |
| Brassey, Albert | Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Hill, Arthur (Down, West) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Drage, Geoffrey | Hill,SirEdward Stock (Bristol) |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu. | Drucker, A. | Hoare,E.Brodie (Hampstead) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Engledew, Charles John | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Burt, Thomas | Fardell, Sir T. George | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn.JA(Glasg'w) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Houston, R. P. |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn.Sir J.(Mtr.) | Howard, Joseph |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil |
| Carlile, William Walter | Finch, George H. | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Fisher, William Hayes | Jackson,Rt.Hon. Wm. Lawies |
| Jessel,CaptainHerbertMerton | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Stanley,Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk |
| Johnson-Ferguson,Jabez Edw. | Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen) | Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) |
| Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Morley,RtHonJohn(Montrose | Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth) |
| Jones, D. Brymnor (Swansea) | Morrison, Walter | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Kemp, George | Morton,ArthurH.A,(Deptford | Stock, James Henry |
| Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH. | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Kimber, Henry | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Sturt,Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Knowles, Lees | Myers, William Henry | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lafone, Alfred | Northcote, Hon.SirH.Stafford | Tennant, Harold John |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Oldroyd, Mark | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn | Paulton, James Mellor | Thorburn, Walter |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) | Tomlinson, Win. Edw.Murray |
| Lecky,Rt.Hon.WilliamEdw.H | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Leng, Sir John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Usborne, Thomas |
| Llewellyn, Evan H (Somerset) | Pierpoint, Robert | Valentia, Viscount |
| LlewelynSirDillwyn (Swansea | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Vincent,Col.Sir C. E. Howard |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham | Purvis, Robert | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverp'1) | Pym, C. Guy | Ward, Hon Robert A. (Crewe) |
| Lowe, Francis William | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Lowther,RtHnJW(Cum'land) | Rankin, Sir James | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. | Webster, Sir R.E.(I.ofWight) |
| Lyell, Sir Leonard | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L. |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Maclean, James Mackenzie | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) | Russell,Gen.F.S.(Cheltenham | Williams, J. (Powell (Birm.) |
| M`Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.) | Russell, T.W. (Tyrone) | Wilson-Todd, Wm.H. (Yorks.) |
| M'Ewan, William | Rutherford, John | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley | Woodall, William |
| Malcolm, Ian | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart- |
| Manners,LordEdward Wm. J. | Saunderson,Rt.Hn.ColEdw.J. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Wyndham, George |
| Maxwell,Rt.Hon.SirHerbertE | Seely, Charles Hilton | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) | Younger, William |
| Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Simeon, Sir Barrington | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sinclair, Capt J. (Forfarshire) | Sir William Walrond and |
| Milward, Colonel Victor | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Mr. Anstruther. |