HC Deb 02 May 1899 vol 70 cc1125-32

Complaint made to the House by Mr. James Lowther, Member for the Thanet Division of Kent, of the interference of the Lord High Chancellor and other Lords of Parliament in the selection of a candidate to fill the vacancy in the representation of the University of Oxford:—

Motion made, and Question proposed— That, it having been represented to this House that the Lord High Chancellor and other Lord of Parliament did infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning themselves in the election of a Member to represent the University of Oxford in the Commons, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into such alleged breach of Privilege."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent. Thanet)

said he rose to call the attention of the House to a question affecting its privileges and liberties as defined by the Sessional Order. That Order declared that it was a high infringement of the privileges and liberties of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer to concern himself in an election of a Member to serve in the House of Commons. He had had to trespass on the attention of the House on many occasions on this subject. The fault, however, was not his. The reply his right honourable Friend had given to the question he addressed to him confirmed the report which had reached the House through the ordinary channels of information. He might, therefore, take it that the report he read in "The Times" newspaper was correct. That report was to the effect that at a meeting of Unionist electors at Oxford University on Friday last, held at St. Stephen's Club, the Lord Chancellor presiding, it was unanimously resolved on the motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, seconded by Mr. Goschen, that Sir W. Anson be invited to become the Unionist candidate for the vacancy in the representation of Oxford University, caused by the death of Sir John Mowbray. The vacancy actually existed at the time the meeting was held. His right honourable Friend just now made himself responsible for the proposition that the Sessional Order only applied when a writ had been actually moved.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

What I said was, that the Sessional Order was very commonly interpreted in the sense I have indicated.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said his right honourable Friend had gone a good deal farther than that, for he had said that the Order had been set at defiance year after year, and was of no binding effect whatever. His right honourable Friend was scarcely right, therefore, in saying that the limitation he sought to apply to the Order could be in any way established. On the contrary, he undertook to say that all the authorities on the subject showed that the Order was not pressed with the view of preventing Peers from delivering speeches at casual elections, but for the clear and deliberate purpose of preventing the interference of Peers with regard to the selection of candidates. He had no desire to attack the Lord Chancellor, whom he regarded as the only avowed Tory Protectionist in the Government, and therefore the very last Member of Her Majesty's Ministry against whom he would, directly or in- directly, say a solitary word; but dealing with the Lord Chancellor in the capacity he assumed on Friday, he must point out that there were special circumstances connected with the case which differentiated it wholly and entirely from all the others which had been brought before the House. He had previously called attention to cases in which Prime Ministers—Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, and Lord Rosebery—and others, including the Duke of Devonshire, had one and all openly defied the Sessional Order. This was not a case in which the action of an obscure Peer was reported through the medium of an obscure provincial journal. They obtained their information from the leading organ of the country, and in a most prominent portion of the Paper they found that the Sessional Order was openly defied by no loss a person than the Lord Chancellor. It was not merely the official position of the Lord Chancellor which merited attention. The Lord Chancellor was the highest living authority on the interpretation of the law. The meeting in question was not held in some obscure locality, but in a place which was practically within the precincts of the House itself. St. Stephen's Club was connected with the House by the Division bells, and was literally under the shadow of the Palace of Westminster, so that if that unwieldy structure the Clock Tower should take it into its head to fall it would smash St. Stephen's Club to atoms. He had no doubt, moreover, that some Members who would come in to vote against his Motion were at the club at that moment. He would not be in order if he moved that the Order should be expunged, but he would be in order in giving some authority for the view he held upon this question. Now, he knew that the House always delighted to hear his right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and he would therefore venture to quote a few words from one of his speeches, which were always to the point and never unduly long. On 19th March 1894, when attention was called to the fact that the then Prime Minister had acted in a manner contrary to the Order, the present Leader of the House said— If we decide to-night that the action of Lord Rosebery in speaking at Edinburgh during the Leith election was not an action which comes within the fair meaning of the Sessional Order, well and good. Let it henceforth be known that every Peer may do everything he likes, may speak where he likes, and when he likes, in regard to any election whatsoever, and that the Sessional Order which we still go through the form of passing at the beginning of each and every Session is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. The right honourable Gentleman went on to say— This, I think, I ought to add. Lord Rosebery has now convinced us finally that the Sessional Order we pass every time we assemble must be acknowledged to be a farce. Many of us have long suspected it would not hold water; now the thing is conclusively demonstrated. I invite the right honourable Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to put a Motion on the Paper rescinding it, and if he does I shall consider that at all events he has acted a consistent and logical part. Those words put the matter in a nutshell. In the speech he had just quoted the right honourable Gentleman was supporting the proposal that the question be referred to a Committee which had been made by another previous Leader of that House, Lord Randolph Churchill.

SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his right honourable Friend, with whom he had entered into a kind of holy alliance with the object of cleansing that House from cant, which, of course, was a very difficult thing to do. Their alliance was quite as close as that of the Duke of Devonshire and the Vice-President of the Council. They were fighting against shams; that was all they wished to do, as far as he was concerned. On the last occasion when they wished to have a Select Committee to inquire into a matter of a similar nature the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House opposed them. He said he would have nothing to do with a vain and frivolous inquiry. He was sure that after the right honourable Gentleman's support of the Old-Age Pensions Committee on the previous night he could never say that again. The right honourable Gentleman said that if they had a Committee and it was reported that there had been no breach of privilege, nothing would happen, but if the Committee reported that there had been a breach of privilege, the House had no power to enforce penalties. That reminded him very much of a judge in America, who said, "Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe the evidence for the prosecution you will find the prisoner guilty; if you believe the evidence for the defence you will find him innocent; but if you believe neither I'll be hanged if I know what you ought to do." If the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House could not help them, then he did not think they could do better than appoint a Committee of men of light and leading, who might find some way to rescue the House from a pitiable and ridiculous position.

SIR W. HART-DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

said he should like to say one or two words with regard to this question. In 1868, when he had the honour to be connected with the management of his Party in the House, he served under the banner of the late Colonel Taylor. Colonel Taylor had had 17 years' experience as a Party manager, and always impressed upon him that the true construction of the Sessional Order was that a breach of privilege could only take place where a Peer took part in an election after the writ had been moved for. In support of that view he (Colonel Taylor) quoted the practice of his predecessors. During the 12 years that he himself had to do with these matters he had always held the same opinion. For a vast number of years the rule he had mentioned had been observed, and it had been held that after the writ had been moved for no Peer could take part in an election. On this occasion his right honourable Friend had caught a very good fish. He had gone to the top of the tree to find it. Perhaps honourable Members would allow him to take refuge in a coral reef. He hoped some settlement of the matter would be come to without the tangled business of a Committee.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Whatever may be the merits of my right honourable Friend's suggestion, he deserves the utmost credit for the amazing perseverance which he shows in dealing with this not very important Parliamentary question. I believe my right honourable Friend would even go to the stake for the principles he advocates in connection with this Sessional Order. My right honourable Friend says it is contrary to the Standing Orders that Peers should take part in the selection of candidates. The action of which he complains, however, is of almost immemorial antiquity. It lasted through the period of rotten boroughs, when Members of the Upper House not only took part in the selection of candidates, but took the sole part, settling who was to be, and practically doing everything that was done to secure his return. Well, Sir, the Lord Chancellor may or may not have transgressed the practice in the course he has taken—I shall come to that in a moment—but in any case he has done nothing compared with what used to be done by the owners of boroughs—Whig and Tory—in pre-Reform days, and if the House was content year after year to pass the Sessional Order to which my right honourable Friend so strongly objects, at all events we cannot feel that we are falling behind them in the strictness of the interpretation which we intend to give to that Order. Now, Sir, in my view this is a purely practical question. I have already stated to the House that if the Standing Order be transgressed we cannot impose it on Members of the Upper House. The question is whether an order, avowedly imperfectly sanctioned, has any useful effect or not, and I think the Order conveys a view which the Members of the Upper House, broadly speaking, pay attention to. My right honourable Friend denies it. Is it the fact that Members of the Upper House go with candidates on their platforms during contested elections? The nearest case which my right honourable Friend's untiring industry has been able to unearth is that of the speech made in Edinburgh by Lord Rosebery during the election for Leith.

*MR. E. MORTON (Devonport)

The Duke of Devonshire at Darlington after the Writ had been moved.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Yes, with the candidate by his side.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Then I will withdraw what I said about Lord Rosebery. My right honourable Friend, then, has only two cases of active intervention by Peers in elections. Now, Sir, if we withdraw the Standing Order, it will, as I have already pointed out to the House, be taken as an indication to the public at large, and to the other House, that we in this House regard the intervention of Peers in an electoral contest as natural, right, and proper, and generally, if not immediately, the result will be that every candidate in a constituency where a Peer has influence will beg him to attend all his meetings, and hold independent meetings of his own. If the House desires this it should abrogate the Standing Order; if it does not desire it the Standing Order should be retained. But if Members of the Upper House, in spite of this expression of their views, insist on taking part in elections, we have no choice but to acquiesce, for there are no sanctions we can apply and no punishments we can inflict. Looking at facts as they are, I say the Sessional Order has a great and a salutary effect on the conduct of peers in regard to Parliamentary elections, and I should be sorry to see the House depart from immemorial practice and abstain from passing the Order next Session. These are views which I have previously expressed to the House, and it appears to me that they have lost none of their force, and certainly our faith has not been shaken by the fact that, in relation to an election for Oxford University, some Peers have taken part in the selection of a candidate. I trust my right honourable Friend will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Of course, I did not expect him to refrain from his Motion next year, for probably my right honourable Friend will think the Session not well opened without it.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I have never been able to support my right honourable Friend the Member for Thanet in his action in regard to this Sessional Order, for a very simple reason which I can state in one sentence to the House. It appears to me that the Order as it now stands, and as it is now carried out and obeyed, if it does no good certainly does no harm; while, on the other hand, if it be repealed, that repeal can do no good and may do great harm. Admitting all that the right honourable Gentleman has said as to individual instances in which Peers have, from his point of view, in regard to the Order infringed it by action prior to an election or on the outskirts of an election, yet still the Order has a deterrent effect; but if the House deliberately takes action to repeal it, it will be taken as an invitation to Peers to henceforth concern themselves in elections. Peers, like other people, have their political opinions and the right to express them, but they have means of their own, and I do not think it a desirable thing, so long as the arrangement is part of the Constitution, that Peers should be deliberately invited to concern themselves in the election of Members to the House of Commons.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said his opinion was that the Sessional Order was a mere expression of the Common Law of Parliament, and as such might be taken into account if the point were raised in an election petition on an appropriate occasion. He suggested to his right honourable Friend that he should take his action into that sphere, presuming any Peer did—as he might and probably would if the Standing Order were abandoned—take an active part in an election of a Member.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said he was quite ready to consult the wishes of the House, and it was a matter of perfect indifference to him what course might be taken in regard to the Motion. Obviously Peers could attend as many meetings as they chose, and he hoped they would do so. He was quite ready to withdraw the Motion, because his object had been gained—it was acknowledged on all hands that Peers in these matters could do exactly as they liked.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.