HC Deb 06 December 1900 vol 88 cc68-81

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 anything 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 till their Returns are determined.

Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except 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 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. A. J. Balfour.)

* Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

I beg to move to eliminate from the Sessional Order all words except such as relate to Lords Lieutenant of counties alone. It is not my intention to detain the House for more than a few moments, but it would scarcely be respectful, I think, to the new Parliament if I assumed that it was acquainted with the arguments which have been addressed to its predecessor on this subject. I nevertheless trust I may be excused from going at any length into matters which have been frequently discussed. Moreover, the systematic manner in which, from one end of the kingdom to the other, this Sessional Order has been disregarded during the recent General Election places the matter in a different light to what it has occupied before. This Sessional Order—without going into the question from a constitutional point of view—may no doubt in times remotely past have had some of the advantages claimed on its behalf. The statute laws in those days did not make due provision for the legal conduct of elections, and the common law was all that could be relied upon for the protection of electoral rights. But in these days, I venture to say, the Sessional Order is entirely out of date. It has, indeed, been systematically disregarded during the recent General Election, and if I were to detain the House by quoting the instances in which, to my own knowledge, it has been absolutely set at defiance I should have to break through the rule of extreme brevity which I have laid down for myself. If I took each county in its turn I could show that the Order has been everywhere infringed. To begin with, I believe there is scarcely a county division the political organisation of which has not for its chairman or president a Member of the House of Lords. Some high office in the organisation—and this applies equally to both political parties—is sure to be filled by a Member of that House. I will start with the county of Northumberland. In that county a letter written by a peer—and he not an obscure one—was very largely used. The letter was not of the nature of a manifesto such as party leaders are supposed to be entitled to issue regardless of resolutions of this kind, but it was a letter addressed specifically to a candidate standing for a particular constituency. It was written by no less a person than the late Prime Minister. Lord Rosebery, in my judgment, had a perfect right to write the letter, and in doing so he was only following his own precedent in the Leith election in 1894. Moreover, every Prime Minister, being a peer, who has held office during the last quarter of a century has done precisely the same thing. We know, of course, that Lord Beaconsfield did it in Buckinghamshire, and Lord Salisbury's efforts in a similar direction—and in fact going beyond it—have not escaped our notice. I may observe that this letter from Lord Rosebery did not do duty merely in the constituency which was being contested by the gentleman to whom it was addressed. It was used in adjoining constituencies as a wrapper, and sent immediately before the polling, together with the poll cards, to all electors, and I have no doubt that other Members as well as myself were recipients of copies of the document. Now I pass on to other parts of the country, mentioning, however, only very few of the numerous instances of which I have evidence. In Cornwall, Lord St. Germans took an active part in calling over the coals a Member of this House for his votes and speeches delivered here, and an active part in procuring the return of a candidate in place of the one to whom he objected, as he had a perfect right to do. In the adjoining county of Devon a noble Lord who was formerly a Member of this House appears to have addressed, at some considerable length, a meeting in support of a candidate who shared his views. I refer to the speech delivered by Lord Portsmouth on the 6th October, the writs having been issued on the 25th September. He is described as having been present at a mass meeting at Barnstaple—at an enthusiastic Liberal gathering—and, so far from his presence being resented, I see that the candidate he supported, who is now a Member of this House, cordially welcomed him upon his platform, and is reported in a local newspaper to have said— Most of the Conservative newspapers had taken exception to the fact that Lord Portsmouth had been kind enough to come and speak for him, and they sneered at the Liberals because they said, 'You Radicals dearly love a lord.' Yes, they did love a lord, when he was on the right side. The Duke of Devonshire, a Cabinet Minister, in 1895 spoke at a great public meeting some hours after the issue of the writs; and he consistently followed up that action by writing a letter, only a year ago, ten days after the issue of the writ for Southport, in which he recommended by name a candidate for election. I think he was within his right in doing so. But, at any rate, Lord Portsmouth could quote the leaders of all the different parties to which he has by turns belonged, as endorsing by their example the course he pursued. He could also quote the case of the Lord High Chancellor of England, who took the chair at a meeting held practically within the precincts of this House, for the selection of a candidate for a certain Parliamentary vacancy. And the circumstance is the more remarkable from the fact that the Lord Chancellor was invited to occupy that position by the two Cabinet Ministers of oldest standing in the House of Commons. He was invited to preside on the motion of Mr. Goschen—whose presence we wish we had here to-day—seconded by my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is worthy of note in connection with this matter that the result of the deliberations of that meeting was the selection of a gentleman whom, I think, we may rightly term the highest living authority on constitutional law. I could quote other instances in which this Sessional Order has been evaded. I might be tempted to glance at the Eastern Counties, and to refer to Lord Kimberley's personal exertions on the platform during the recent General Election, but I think I have given a sufficient number of cases. Although this matter, on its merits, is very unimportant, and with all respect I may suggest that it is a matter of absolute indifference whether a peer does or not take part in an election—as in these days a man's influence is not weighed by his social rank—it is not a matter of indifference that this House should continually stultify itself by passing in its Orders, in grandiloquent language, a resolution which the House knows perfectly well it cannot enforce, and which, indeed, it has no desire to enforce.

Mr. WHARTON (Yorkshire, Ripon)

I desire to detain the House for but a very few moments in seconding the Amendment of my right hon. friend. I take this course because I look upon this Sessional Order as an absolute farce. I want to know why this House of Commons should disfranchise a body of 500 well-educated Britons, and deprive them of what many of us think to be one of the greatest privileges on earth—that is, the right to concern themselves in elections. I scarcely know what is the operation of "concerning oneself in an election." I have never heard it described. I was a voter at the last General Election for the constituency of South-east Durham, and I received by post a very excellent photograph of my old friend, who was the Liberal candidate. It was accompanied by two fly-sheets of very indifferent paper containing letters purporting to have been written by noble Lords. One of these letters has already been referred to by my right hon. friend—the one written by the late leader of the Liberal party, who, as far as we can gather, will probably occupy that position again. I suppose the only object of sending it to me was to convert me from the errors of old Toryism and to persuade me to become a Radical. It has not yet effected that. The second letter was from the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Durham, and I presume that that was sent to me with a similar object. I really should like to have it laid down what peers may and what they may not do during election times. Are they allowed to appear on platforms? Are they to be permitted to deluge us with fly-sheets like leaves in the autumn? If so, it appears to me that a clever letter-writing peer might prove more powerful by pen than by voice. To allow the one to be done and not the other is absurd. There is one point which does not seem to have struck my right hon. friend, and which possibly has not occurred to other Members of this House. It is that this is merely a Sessional Order, and, consequently, at the time of the last General Election it was not in force. At that time, indeed, a peer might do exactly what he pleased. Well, I want to see every peer do that. I know my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, when he opposed this suggestion on a previous occasion, said it would not look well for the Conservative party to rescind this Order in view of the state of political parties in the Upper House. I at any rate am willing to approach this question from an unselfish point of view. What would be the effect of the rescission in my own constituency? It would un-muzzle the Marquess of Ripon. We all know how potent and powerful he is, and he would be enabled to use his voice as well as his influence in the division. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am not, in supporting this motion, suggesting anything which from a selfish point of view would be to my advantage. I do hope that the House will take a commonsense view of this matter, and, by its vote to-day, rescind what I call "the peers' muzzling order."

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'Kingdom' in line 2, to the word 'for' in line 8."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

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

To a large number of the Members of this House the arguments which we have just heard so ably urged by my right hon. friend are familiar. Indeed, we have so often heard the Member for Thanet take this opportunity of bringing the topic before the House of Commons: that one almost feels the session could hardly be said to begin in order unless the speech was made and a division challenged upon this point. I mean to be very brief in my reply. I should like to content myself with placing once more before the House the argument which has hitherto convinced it: that if there is to be a change in this matter—and it would not be an unimportant change—it should not be initiated on these benches, or, I venture to say, even on this side of the House. My right hon. friend has gone through a list, which he said he might have made much longer, of cases in which noble Lords have disobeyed this Sessional Order. But in the list he brought in some cases which, according to the strict interpretation of the rule, are not really breaches of the Order. It has always been held that a peer may concern himself in electoral matters up to the date of the issue of the writ.


There is no authority for that.


There is no authority except that of general custom and general acceptance. As my right hon. friend has said, cases have occurred in the last election in which, apparently, a peer has, subsequent to the date of the issue of the writ, either written a letter or made a speech, thereby "taking part in" the election. My right hon. friend referred to a letter by Lord Rosebery to one of the candidates for the city of Newcastle.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

That was written before the issue of the writ.


If the letter was written before the issue of the writ, then it appears to me there might have been some excuse for it; at any rate, it cannot be said to have influenced the election. My right hon. friend who seconded the motion asked that this Sessional Order should be rescinded on the ground that it was a farce. I say the Sessional Order is not a farce. It has a very great practical effect on the conduct of elections in this country. It is perfectly true we have no power to penalise any peer for infringing it, but the number of peers who do so is extremely small. I was told as I came into the House this afternoon that even my right hon. friend had seduced a noble Lord on to one of his own platforms.


Where was that?


If my right hon. friend contradicts me, I will withdraw it.


No, I do not contradict you.


I am sure so remarkable an instance, if it occurred, could not have escaped my right hon. friend's memory.


Platforms are so full of noble Lords that I cannot say, but if my right hon. friend will tell me where it was, and when, perhaps I may recall it.


I was not aware my right hon. friend had so many noble Lords on his platform that his memory cannot be charged with this instance. But I am told that he did induce Lord Hothfield to take the chair at one of his election meetings. Isolated and sporadic cases of that kind might occur, but everybody in this House, especially with the experience of the last General Election, will bear me out when I say that, broadly speaking, the 500 peers do not concern themselves in elections by speaking and appearing on public platforms. It might be a great relief to some of us if they did, for at times there is great pressure for speakers, and if we could draw an unlimited quantity from the other House it would be a very convenient thing. Still, I am unwilling that this change should be initiated on this side of the House, for if it would benefit anybody at all it would benefit us. In the meanwhile we have behind us the broad practice and traditions of this House, and if you amend the Sessional Order as has been proposed, that practice and tradition will be broken for ever. It is quite useless to say that things will be in the future as they have been in the past. It is quite true that in the past this Order has been disobeyed here or there, by this peer or that peer. But, generally speaking, its spirit has been obeyed, and I am sure the general sense and tact of the House of Lords would prevent any large number of its Members running counter to the express wish of the House of Commons in this matter. If the House decides to change the Order it must not do it in the erroneous belief that it is doing away with some antiquated and ineffective part of the machinery of Parliamentary elections. It must realise that any such change must inevitably be followed by a great alteration of practice.

Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

This is so old an Amendment that we might leave it without further discussion, but it is usual for one or two of us to express our opinions regarding it. For my part I have always voted against it, and I have done so as being myself an old-fashioned constitutionalist, rejecting the innovation of the right hon. Gentleman, but mainly on this humbler and simpler ground. Here is an old practice traditionally crystallised through many generations—namely, the practice of excluding peers from concerning themselves in elections to this House. I am told that it is not successful, and that the fence has been broken down in many places, but still it remains. Even admitting that it is not very efficient, it can do no harm, and it may do good What harm is done by it?


No one takes much notice of it.


That does not prove it does any harm.


It affects the dignity of this House.


This House will look after its own dignity. The Sessional Order acts as a barrier and a check upon the tendency of Members of the other House to interfere, but if this House were deliberately to remove the fence and deliberately to repeal this Sessional Order, or refuse, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, to pass it, it would be a direct invitation on the part of this House, and a declaration that we desire that peers should interfere in the election of Members of this House. Having constitutionalist sympathies I prefer to leave matters as they are. No harm can possibly be done, and I believe that the Sessional Order will continue,

not with standing that it is imperfect, to act as some check on a practice which I believe would be undesirable.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 326; Noes, 68.(Division List No. 1.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hare, Thomas Leigh
Allen, Charles P(Glouc., Stroud Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Allsopp, Hon. George Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th
Anson, Sir William Reynell Denny, Colonel Harris, Dr. Fred. R.(Monm'th
Archdale Edward Mervyn Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh. Harwood, George
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets S. Geo. Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Hayter, Sir Arthur D.
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Healy, Timothy Michael
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dorington, Sir John Edward Helme, Norval Watson
Austin, Sir John Doughty, George Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Higginbottom, S. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds) Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)
Balfour, Maj K R(Christchurch Duke, Edward Henry Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.
Banes, Major George Edward Duncan, James H. Hogg, Lindsay
Barker, John Dunn, Sir William Holland, William Henry
Barlow, John Emmott Durning-Lawrence, Sir E. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor Edwards, Frank Hornby, Sir William Henry
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Horner, Frederic William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l) Emmott, Alfred Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants. Faber, George Denison Houston, Robert Paterson
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Fardell, Sir T. George Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Favers.
Bell, Richard Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r) Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.
Big wood, James Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Bill, Charles Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Black, Alexander William Fisher, William Hayes Jackson, Rt. Hon. W m. Lawies
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fison, Frederick William Jacoby, James Alfred
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Johnston, William (Belfast)
Brigg, John Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Broadhurst, Henry Flannery, Sir Fortescue Joicey, Sir James
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Flower, Ernest Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Jones, W m. (Carnarvonshire)
Bull, William James Fuller, J. M. F. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Bullard, Sir Harry Garfit, William Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gibbs, Hn. AGH (City of Lond.) Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)
Burt, Thomas Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Buxton, Sydney Charles Goddard, Daniel Ford Keswick, William
Caldwell, James Godson, Sir Augustus Fred k. Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth
Cameron, Robert Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Knowles, Lees
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow Gordon, Maj. W. (T'wr Hmlts Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- Langley, Batty
Causton, Richard Knight Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Lawson, John Grant
Cawley, Frederick Goschen, George Joachim Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Graham, Henry Robert Lecky, Rt. Hon. W m. E. H.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Grant, Corrie Lee, Lt-Col A H (H'nts Fareham
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r Greene, Sir E W(B'ryS Edm'ds Legge, Col. Heneage
Channing, Francis Allston Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs. Leng, Sir John
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gretton, John Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.
Chapman, Edward Greville, Hon. Ronald Levy, Maurice
Charrington, Spencer Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Lewis, John Herbert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Groves, James Grimble Loder, Gerald W. Erskine
Cook, Frederick Lucas Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Lough, Thomas
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Guthrie, Walter Murray Lowe, Francis William
Craig, Robert Hunter Hain, Edward Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cum. Penr.
Cranborne, Viscount Hambro, Charles Eric Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cremer, William Randal Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G (Mx. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowest' ft
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'y Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)
Cust, Henry John C. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Lyttelton, Hon, Alfred
Macdona, John Cumming Radcliffe, R. F. Thomson, Frederick W.
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Randles, John S. Thornton, Percy M.
Maconochie, A. W. Rankin, Sir James Tomkinson, James
M'Cann, James Rea, Russell Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Reid, James (Greenock) Tufnell, Col. Edward
Majendie, James A. H. Remnant, James Farquharson Tuke, Sir John Batty
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Rentoul, James Alexander Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.'H.(Shef'd
Markham, Arthur Basil Renwick, George Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Rickett, J. Compton Walker, Col. William Hall
Mather, William Ridley, M. W. (Stalybridge) Wallace, Robert
Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriessh. Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Rigg, Richard Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Wanklyn, James Leslie
Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Mitchell, William Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Robson, William Snowdon Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Webb, Col. Willia George
More, Robt. J. (Shropshire) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Weir, James Galloway
Morgan, D.J. (Walthamstow) Ropner, Colonel Robert Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E (Taunt'n.
Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Round, James White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Morris, Martin Henry F. Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house) Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)
Morrison, James Archibald Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Schwann, Charles E. Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)
Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Sharpe, William Edward T. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Mount, William Arthur Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) Williams, Arthur O (Merioneth
Muntz, Philip A. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Murray, H n. A W. (Midlothian) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wills, Sir Frederick
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) Wilson, Arthur S.(York, E. R.)
Myers, William Henry Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynes Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Newnes, Sir George Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Nicol, Donald Ninian Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.) Spear, John Ward Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Norman, Henry Spencer, Rt. H n. C. R. (N'thants) Wilson-Todd. W m. H.(Yorks.)
Oldroyd, Mark Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromw'h Wodehouse, H n. Armine (Ess'x)
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf.
Parker, Gilbert Stevenson, Francis S. Wortley, R t. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Parkes, Ebenezer Stone, Sir Benjamin Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Partington, Oswald Strachey, Edward Wylie, Alexander
Pemberton, John S. G. Stroyan, John Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Percy, Earl Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Pilkington, Richard Talhot, Lord E. (Chichester) Yoxall, James Henry
Plummer, William R. Taylor, Theordore Cooke
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Priestley, Arthur Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Purvis, Robert Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hast'gs
Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n, Gowr
Aird, John Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Allan, William (Gateshead) Haldane, Richard Burdon Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley
Bailey, James (Walworth) Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil Penn, John
Baldwin, Alfred Hay, Claude Pickard, Benjamin
Bartley, George C. T. Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) Pirie, Duncan V.
Beckett, Ernest William Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Pym, C. Guy
Bignold, A. Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Blake, Edward Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)
Bond, Edward Hearley, Hudson E. Richards, Henry Charles
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Kitson, Sir James Robinson, Brooke
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Labouchere, Henry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lambert, George Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Laurie, Lieut.-General Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Dalziel, James Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Seton-Karr, Henry
Dilke, R t. Hon. Sir Charles Maclure, Sir John William Soares, Ernest J.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Tollemache, Henry James
Ellis, John Edward M'Kenna, Reginald Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)
Fenwick, Charles Maple, Sir John Blundell Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Forster, Henry William Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Furness, Sir Christopher Milward, Colonel Victor
Galloway, William Johnson Morgan, Hon. F. (Mon.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gibbs, Hon. Vieary (St. Albans) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Wharton.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Main Question put, and agreed to.

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 Members 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.

Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such per sons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.

Back to
Forward to