HC Deb 21 April 1911 vol 24 cc1251-8

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following certificate and report from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions relating to the Election for the City of Exeter:—

In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,

and

The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883,

Election for the City of Exeter, holden on the 3rd day of December, 1910.

Between Henry Edward Duke, Petitioner.

and

Richard Harold St. Maur. Respondent.

To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.

We, Sir Edward Ridley, Knight, and Sir Arthur Moseley Channell, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales,—

Do hereby certify, in pursuance of the said Acts, that upon the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th days of April, 1911, we duly held a court at the Guildhall, Exeter, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the City of Exeter, in the county of Devon, between Henry Edward Duke and Richard Harold St. Maur, whereby the said Henry Edward Duke-claimed the seat.

And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that Richard Harold St. Maur, being the Member whose election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, and that, on the scrutiny of the votes given and tendered at the said Election, we determined that the Petitioner,. Henry Edward Duke, of Maryfield, Exeter, in the county of Devon, one of His Majesty's Counsel and Recorder of Devon-port, in the said county of Devon, had a majority of valid and lawful votes, and ought to have been returned as duly elected, and we determined that he was duly elected, and we do hereby certify in writing such determination to you.

And whereas charges were made in the said Petition that certain persons personated and voted at the said Election as and for certain other persons whose names appear on the register of voters of the said city, and who did not themselves vote, and thereby committed corrupt practices, and that certain other persons voted at the said Election, being prohibited by statute from voting, and that they did so knowingly and were thereby guilty of illegal practices.

We further certify and report that no-corrupt or illegal practices were committed with the knowledge and consent of either candidate at the said Election, or by their election agents.

That the persons whose names appear in the First Schedule hereto were proved to have been guilty of the illegal practices of having voted at the said Election, knowing that they were prohibited by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, from voting at such Election.

That it was not proved, nor is there reason to believe, that corrupt and illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

That Certificates of Indemnity have been furnished to the persons found guilty of the above-mentioned illegal practices, whose names appear in the Second Schedule.

A Copy of the Evidence and of our Judgments, taken by the deputies of the Shorthand Writer of the House of Commons, accompanies this our Certificate.

The First Schedule.

The names of persons guilty of having voted at the said Election, knowing they were prohibited by statute from so voting:

William Edward Down.

George Henry Pullen.

The Second Schedule.

The names of persons who have been furnished with Certificates of Indemnity:

William Edward Down.

George Henry Pullen.

Dated this 14th day of April, 1911.

EDWARD RIDLEY.

A. M. CHANNELI.

And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. Speaker.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last return for the Borough of Exeter, and amend the same by substituting the name of Henry Edward Duke for that of Richard Harold St. Maur as the Member returned for the said city.—[Master of Elibank.]

Mr. MORRELL

I beg to move,

"That no directions be issued by this House to the Clerk of the Crown in the matter of the Exeter Election Petition until the shorthand-writer's notes of the remarks of the Judges and of the evidence taken at the trial have been laid upon the Table of the House."

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot accept that as an Amendment to the Motion. The Motion I have just read out follows as a natural consequence upon the report of the Judges. Even if the hon. Member were successful in carrying this Amendment, and we were to postpone for a month or two months the consideration of the matter, no power on earth could prevent the hon. Member for Exeter from taking his seat. The decision of the Judges is final, and the mere fact that the House declines to alter the writ cannot prevent the hon. Gentleman from taking his seat.

Mr. MORRELL

Very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that in asking leave to move this Motion I follow almost exactly the precedent of the Evesham election in 1880. In that case the Attorney-General held that the House had no power to interfere with what had been done, but that an opportunity ought to be given to any hon. Member who wished to draw the attention of the House to the special circumstances connected with that election.

In that case I would point out that the Judges found there had been no corrupt practices. At the same time the Government consented to delay the issue of the new writ so that the circumstances of the trial and election might be enquired into by the House. May I read what the Attorney-General said:— But what could the House do in this case if it came to the conclusion that corrupt practices had prevailed? No provision was made for further inquiry. Then he went on to say:— In the particular circumstances, the Government would offer no objection to delaying the issue of the writ; but it must be uderstood that when the shorthand-writers' notes of the evidence had been produced, the motion for the issue of the writ would be almost immediately renewed. I respectfully submit this is the only opportunity which this House gets of review the conduct of Election Petitions. It is certain, although it may be possible we cannot override the action of the Judges, that this House ought to have the opportunity of seeing that the Election Petition is properly carried out. After all, whether we summon the Clerk of the Crown to attend this House to amend the writ is a matter that is within the discretion of this House; therefore, I venture to submit, very respectfully, this House is entitled to say that it will not summon the Clerk of the Crown to amend the writ until we are satisfied that the trial of the election petition has been carried out in accordance with the law as laid down by the Act.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I cannot possibly accept the view of the hon. Member. This House is not a Court of Appeal from the Judges. Very much against the desire of the Judges, and in spite of their protests, this House imposed upon His Majesty's Judges the duty of determining the results of Election Petitions under the Act of 1868, and under that Act that determination of the Judges is to be "final for all intents and purposes." That will be found in Section XI., Sub-section 13 of the Act of 1868, and therefore this House is not, and cannot be, a Court for reviewing either the manner in which the Petition has been tried or the result of that Petition. There are other opportunities open to Members, if they desire to call attention to the system under which Election Petitions are tried, or the manner in which any one particular Election Petition has been tried. There are other methods open to them, but that method is not open upon this occasion. I would also call the hon. Member's attention to Section 13 of the same Act which says:— The House of Commons, on being informed by the Speaker of such Certificate and Report or Reports, shall order the same to be entered upon the journals, and shall give the necessary direction"—I omit the unnecessary words—"for altering the Return. In the case to which the hon. Member has just referred there was a doubt as to whether there had been corrupt practices in the Constituency or not. In this case the Judges have reported, in the words I read just now, that it was not true nor is there reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed. Therefore, it seems to me, that, as I have to put the Question, the hon. Member is entitled to vote against it if he pleases, but no discussion is possible. I do not see what discussion can be relevant.

Mr. MORRELL

May I respectfully point out that in the case of Evesham Election the House was asked to take action under precisely the same section of the same Act as we are now asking the House to take in this case. In that case discussion was allowed, and I would also respectfully point out that in that case the Judges did report there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. But there were circumstances which the Government thought ought to be investigated and inquired into; therefore, I am entitled to submit to this House that there are circumstances which make it desirable that we should investigate further the trial of this election petition before we approve, as we must approve, and carry out the decision of the Judges.

Mr. SPEAKER

The custom of this House has been not to put any delay in the way of a Member taking his seat who has been duly certified by the Judges to have been returned. I have had the Records searched for over 50 years, and there is no single case in which where the Judges have certified after scrutiny, that a Member was not properly elected, and that another was properly elected—there never has been a single case in these 50 odd years in which the House placed any delay whatever in the path of the hon. Member desiring to take his seat. The only case in which delay has occurred is where there has been any suspicion or suggestion that corrupt practices have occurred. In the case of Evesham, which the hon. Member quoted, if be will look at the speech of the Attorney-General again, and the report of the Judges, he will find that though they reported that they had no reason to believe corrupt practices extensively prevailed, yet there were some qualifying expressions used, I have not in my mind at the moment the exact qualifying expression, but I remember the Attorney-General, Lord James as he now is, said upon that occasion that the character of the Judges' report was a very special one and that, although they reported that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed, and they had no reason to believe so, yet they did indicate that it was possible there had been corrupt practices. The practice of the House has been, where there has been any suggestion of corrupt practice, to withhold the issue of the writ until such time as the House had time to examine the evidence and report. In this case there is no such suggestion; and I do not think that the House is entitled, if I may respectfully say so, to stand against the right of the Constituency to be represented by its proper Member; and even if the hon. Member was successful in delaying for a day or a week, or a month, the consideration of this matter, that would not prevent the hon. Member for Exeter coming to the Table and taking his seat.

Sir HARRY VERNEY

I understand no one can prevent the hon. Member from taking his seat, and I do not think that any hon. Member wishes to prevent it; but, in the event of the Motion now before the House being negatived, would it then be possible for the House to discuss this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER

If the Motion was negatived I should say the House was committing an illegal act. The House can break the law, but the House is the last institution in this country that ought to break the law. Therefore I will do all I can to persuade the House to obey the law, and to give no countenance to the suggestion that it ought to break it.

Mr. BYLES

As I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is precluded from moving any Amendment to the Motion you put from the Chair. But I presume Members of the House are not precluded from voting against it if they wish to do so. Otherwise the matter is a mere farce. What I think we desire is, not in the least to prevent an hon. Member returned by a Constituency from taking his seat, because we do desire he should take his seat, but to safeguard as far as we can that Members sent to this House should be properly and duly returned.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is quite correct. I have to put the question, and if I have to put the question I have to call upon the Ayes and Noes. If I do that it is open to any hon. Member to say "No," and to walk in the Division Lobby against the Motion. Therefore, the hon. Member may, of course, vote against the Motion.

Mr. BOOTH

May I ask you. Sir, if we have the opportunity to say "Aye" or "No" to the Motion which you put from the Chair; have we no opportunity to discuss the Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER

Yes, if the hon. Member can say anything relevant to it, but I do not see how anything relevant can be said.

Mr. BOOTH

As a distinguished hon. Member opposite said, "I will do my best." I have listened very carefully to the exact words which you read out, and the result left upon my mind is that the whole proceeding is entirely unsatisfactory. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that your best?"]

Mr. MORRELL

May I give reasons why I think the House should not pass this Motion which you are about to put from the Chair? In the case of the Evesham Election, the Attorney-General held that although the Judges reported that there was no corruption, yet the report of the Judges was somewhat peculiar. If it can be shown that the Report of the Judges in this case was peculiar, then I suppose we are entitled to argue that that is a reason for delaying the Amendment of this Writ.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I have not made myself clear to the hon. Member. I have already said that in the case of a scrutiny, where it is simply a question of counting votes and seeing whether one gentleman or the other has a majority of legally given votes, it has not been the practice of this House ever to discuss the Motion that the Clerk should attend. If there has been any suggestion of any corrupt practices having occurred, the practice of this House has been different, and therefore the issue of the Writ can be delayed; but I must hold that in this case the Judges, having reported that there is no reason to believe there has been any corrupt practices; having reported in the ordinary way that Mr. A has been returned, and not Mr. B, I hold that it is not within the power of the hon. Member to go back upon that and to discuss either the conduct of the Petition or what is contained in the Report.

Mr. MORRELL

I am sorry to press this point. May I then assume that, however much the remarks of the Judges, as reported in the public Press, disagree with the Report which they send to this House, it would be impossible for this House to discuss the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER

I know nothing whatever about the remarks of the Judges as reported in the Press. They are probably reported very differently, according to the newspaper in which they appear.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Clerk of the Crown attending, amended the Return accordingly.

Mr. Duke took and subscribed the Oath.