§ Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [7th July], "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Galway, North Galway, in the room of Richard Hazleton, Esq., who since his election for the said county hath accepted the office of Steward or bailiff of His Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Bonenham, in the county of Buckingham."—[Mr. Sheehan.]
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Wicklow moved the adjournment of this Debate, and I resisted that Motion, confining myself to the point of Order arising on the question of the adjournment. Without knowing anything of the facts of the case, for the first time in British history, and without any sanction of reason and supported by a Liberal Government, this House has denied to a constituency in Ireland, which is entitled by the Act of Union to 103 Members, the issue of a writ granting to that Irish constituency representation in this House. I say that there exists no precedent for the action taken by the House, and I further say that the 1099 House took that action without a single Member of the Government, or a single Member of the majority seeking the reason for its action. I therefore propose to state, I hope without heat, the facts of the case as known to me, and in so far as they concern myself I shall be, I hope, extremely brief. I will submit to the House that we have as much right to avail of the forms of this House to vindicate our position, the position of our party, as others have to avail of its forms to hide the facts or prevent justice from being done.
The facts are these. Three years ago an election petition was brought in North Louth, which unseated the sitting Member, Mr. Richard Hazleton. That petition lasted something like three weeks, and he was found guilty by his agent of bribery, corruption, intimidation, and the circulation of false statements of facts about myself who was the opposing candidate. The costs were given against him, and for over three years the matter was not pressed against that gentleman while the Home Rule Bill was under consideration. Some two months ago the costs were taxed against him, and judgment was had in the High Court of Justice in England for a sum of about £2,000. A day or two after the writ was served on Mr. Hazleton he applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds. It was his own act. There was no pressure upon him to do so. It was an act entirely personal to himself. The Chiltern Hundreds was granted to him on the 24th of May last, some six weeks ago. Upon that statement of facts I want to know why this House, six or seven weeks later, should not issue a writ for the vacancy thus created. When the late Mr. W. H. Smith led this House on the death of Colonel Cotton, late in December, some twenty years ago, as it was well known that Winchester, for which he was sitting, would have a new register in January, I and others pressed the then Conservative Government of the day to delay the writ for a couple of weeks, but Mr. Smith laid down from that box that it was the constitutional right of every constituency to be immediately represented in this House, and that no reason connected with the register, or any other matter of that kind, should delay the issue of the writ.
What is the suggestion in this case? On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cork (Mr. Sheehan) put a question to the Whip of the party, led by the 1100 Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), asking him whether he intended to move this writ, and what was the reason of the delay. No answer was given to the question as to what was the reason of the delay, a rather important question. To the question whether he intended to move the writ the answer given was "shortly." I do not know what is his idea of shortness or of length, but, as it was six weeks ago since the vacancy was created, surely any person, having regard to the rights of the constituency, was thereupon entitled to move. Accordingly, as I stated yesterday, I examined into the precedents laid down by the Member for Waterford himself, and laid down by his then Whip, in consultation with the Liberal Whip, the late Lord Tweedmouth, and with the Conservative Whip, Mr. Akers-Douglas, who is now in the House of Lords, and, according to the statement of the Member for Waterford, it is strictly in accordance with the procedure of this House, when notice has been given to the various parties, that the writ should be moved as a writ of right and a writ of privilege by any Member of this House. It lies on those who say that the writ should be delayed to show the reasons why. I ask any hon. Member who voted in the majority yesterday, Does he know the reason for his vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the minority?"] We saw the visit of the Member for Waterford to the Treasury Bench, we saw the consultation which went on—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."]
§ Mr. HAYDENBetween you and the Tories.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYAnd the result was that, without knowledge as to the secret and hidden motives which caused the delay of this writ, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford was able to secure a majority of this House to vote down the rights and privileges of an Irish constituency. Is the presence of an Irish Member in this House of so little importance? We have seen them brought here, we are told by newspapers, from hospital and from sick beds, with the greatest sacrifice on their part, to secure a single vote, and a single vote is estimated so high that you will bring a man almost from his dying bed to vote in this House, and a single vote may be of momentous importance, especially when majorities fall to twenty-three. Now as this vote would probably be on the side of the Government were a Member returned to this House, what strange motive 1101 possesses the breasts of the advisers of the majority to abstain from making an effort to have an additional supporter in this House? Why this delay? I am told by one who is qualified to speak, namely, the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who states that there is the case sub judice in Dublin in reference to this very Gentleman. That is to say the man petitions to be made a bankrupt; he is a self-made bankrupt, if not a self-made man, and then it is said that the case is sub judice in regard to him. That is, I petition in order to get rid of my creditors. I avail of the process of the law and then my neat little attempt to do away with my debts and injure my creditors is a case sub judice. I think, therefore, we are entitled to know, when Monday has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Donelan) as the day upon which he would move the writ, if we abstain in the meantime—I should like to know if somebody would tell us whether anything is going to happen meanwhile. Is it that the Gentleman expects to get his discharge by Monday next, and, if so, are the processes of this House to wait on the footsteps of a bankrupt?
The procedure of this House is ancient and is respected. I think I may say that all of us, no matter from what part of the three kingdoms we come, feel respect for the ancient processes of this Assembly. I think I may say that for every quarter of the House. It is the first time it has taken this action. It rests upon those who are in favour of delay to state the reasons and indicate the reasons that animate their conduct. With the knowledge that this delay is intended to assist a bankrupt to defeat his creditors, then I say that those who avail of the processes of this House, and those who support them, are themselves accomplices in the act of fraud.
§ Mr. JOHN DILLONThe gentleman (Mr. Hazleton) who has been assailed with very characteristic virulence and ferocity is an honoured colleage of ours who up to a few weeks ago was a Member of this House and as honourable a man as sits in this House to-day, but he has been guilty of one crime, and one crime only, in the whole course of his life, and that is that he defeated the hon. Member for North-East Cork. [Interruption and HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] One of the meanest things ever done in this House has been the endeavour to insinuate against a colleague who was lately sitting on these 1102 benches with him that he was guilty of those crimes, when the judge solemnly declared at the trial that he was absolutely innocent of any complicity or knowledge of the trivial offences alleged. He was named for the constituency in his absence, and he was acquitted by the judge of all knowledge of or complicity in any improper practice. I do not intend to pursue that for a single moment, because it is entirely unnecessary to vindicate the character of my colleague in Ireland. I shall not attempt to pursue any defence of him against this virulent attack. What really made me rise at all was this: The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) had the audacity to say that hon. Members opposite did not know why they voted the other day.
§ Mr. DILLONAnd the hon. Member for North-East Cork had the audacity to state, what I shall prove to be an absolutely false statement, that there was no precedent for what had been done. Why was it we appealed to hon. Members to vote to defeat yesterday the issue of this Writ? We did so simply in defence of an old custom of this House, which has been observed for all the years I have been a Member of this House, and which has been most jealously protected by all parties. That is the custom—that the Writ for an election should be moved by the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why did you not move?"] I will explain why we did not. I think I carry with me Members on all sides when I say that that has been the custom of the House. As far as my information goes, it has been the custom of the House from time immemorial. What is the justification for that custom? There are two reasons for it. The first is to cultivate good feeling. Every member of any party—I am not speaking now merely as a member of the Irish party—must see what would be the consequence if this custom were set aside, how inconvenient it would be, and how detrimental to good feeling and orderly procedure. If any man could get up on any night and announce that he was going to move a Writ for a seat belonging to some other party, ill-feeling and bitterness would undoubtedly prevail. This custom arose to avoid that.
It arose, secondly, for the purpose of enabling the convenience of the consti- 1103 tuency to be consulted through the proper channels. The hon. Member who stands up to-day and, with vamped-up eloquence, appeals to the House of Commons not to deny the constituents of North Galway their right to be represented in this House has no more right to speak for the citizens of North Galway than I have to speak for the citizens of London. If he, or any man who thinks with him, stood at the next election for North Galway, he would not get fifty votes. Therefore I say that in making that appeal he is really acting a hypocritical part in the House. If the constituents of North Galway desired to expedite this election they would have communicated with us. [Laughter.] What is the use of laughing? That is a truism. Our party represent the constituency, and no one would ever be elected but a member of our party. Therefore we are entitled to speak for the constituency, so far as the interests of the constituents are concerned in this matter. Hence I say that in voting as they voted yesterday hon. Members opposite voted in accordance with the practice and custom of this House. The hon. Member for North-East Cork went on to say that in the whole history of the House of Commons no such outrage had been perpetrated, that never before had the right to move a Writ been refused, and a constituency denied its right to representation. Of course, that is a grotesque misstatement, and the hon. Member is far too old and experienced a Member of this House to imagine that he was accurately stating the facts. I could quote a great number of precedents, but I will content myself with one. On the 6th July, 1906, the late Colonel Saunderson, the then leader of the Irish Unionist party, attempted to move the writ for East Tyrone in the room of Mr. Doogan, who had been a Member of the Nationalist party. Colonel Saunderson felt that he was bound to give the House an excuse for such a proceeding which he knew was an outrage and a departure from the settled practice of the House, and in moving the writ he said:—
In the past he had know Nationalist seats to be vacant for many months. He took no action then because it was to him a matter of satisfaction to have one Nationalist less in the House. This was a peculiar case; the majority was very narrow; for the last few years the pendulum had been swinging in the Unionist direction; and there would be no surprise in the constituency if the Unionist were elected.That was the justification that Colonel Saunderson put before the House for de- 1104 parting from the rule—that he thought the constituency had so altered that it was now going to be a Unionist seat. The hon. Member for Waterford, the leader of the Nationalist party, moved the adjournment of the issue of the writ until the following week. I think he mentioned the Monday of the following week. Colonel Saunderson, after considerable debate, recognising that the case was going against him, gave way and accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend and the issue of the writ was adjourned until the following week, in accordance with the settled practice of the House, at the request of the leader of the party to whom, in ordinary Parliamentary language, the seat belonged. What is the present situation? I confess that the ruling under which we are now acting is a surprise to me. It seems that the only Motion by which such a proceeding as that of the hon. Member for Cork can be met is by moving the Adjournment, and then it will be open for the hon. Member, or anyone who pursues this practice, to move the Motion at the beginning of public business every day, or not to move it for a week or a fortnight, as he pleases. He is in possession of the whole business. In these circumstances, I see no possible object in moving the Adjournment. It would be open to us to carry on this Debate night after night—and I am certain the majority of the House would support us—until we thought the writ should be moved. The Tory party must recognise this is a weapon which can be used against themselves. Under the present ruling the bottom is knocked out of this rule of courtesy altogether. There is nothing to prevent us from moving writs for the Tory party. Hon. Members must remember that we can move those writs any night we choose if they decline to move them, and once we have done so we are in possession of them, and according to the present ruling, as I understand it, we should keep possession of them. If the Adjournment was moved and the writ did not issue, we could put down the Motion for the following day, or that day week, or any other day we pleased, and nobody else could move it. Therefore I think that the Tory party, in supporting this vindictive, vicious, uncalled-for, and purely personal evasion of the rule, moved for no other purpose except to spite an enemy who defeated the hon. Member in fair fight, have undoubtedly shown themselves false to the best traditions of this House. Under 1105 these circumstances, and having informed the House of the true inwardness of the whole business, I think it would ill beseem us, after the support we received yesterday and the vindication by that support of the character of our colleague, to submit the House of Commons to the punishment of a repetition of these personal Debates night after night. Therefore, as far as our party is concerned, we do not intend to offer further opposition.
§ Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENI am glad that the party behind have had the wisdom not to proceed further in obstructing the issue of this writ. If it were possible, we would gladly have avoided airing any domestic differences among Irishmen at this particular moment. But our domestic differences are not one bit more serious than the domestic differences of any other party. We refrained even from discussing the report of the election judges in order to avoid recriminations among Irishmen in the House. After the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) it is not necessary for me to do more than insist that our action was more than justified—that we were absolutely compelled, in common justice, to submit this matter to the judgment of the House. All that we asked was that the process of this House should not be made the instrument of a mean and shabby defeat of justice. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred with pride to the performances of his party in the county of Louth. No doubt the influences behind this young Gentleman did succeed in ousting from his seat the oldest Nationalist Member of this House, and certainly not one of the least distinguished. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) was never a man to whine or whimper. He never claimed any exemption from criticism or from the ups and downs of fair political warfare. But he was defeated in Louth by a system of foul play, corruption, organised terrorism, and repeated attacks upon his character, for which the sentence of the election judges was an extremely inadequate punishment. Now the attempt is made, by a petty technical trick to enable this young Gentleman, or rather the people behind him, to escape from the consequences of even that inadequate punishment, and actually to throw the punishment upon those persons who brought to justice those who were guilty of these crimes by compelling them to pay £1,800 or £1,900, to which those Gentlemen, or rather the party 1106 behind me, were condemned. The hon. Member for Mayo complained of the vindictive attack upon Mr. Hazleton. If this were a mere personal, vindictive attack upon Mr. Hazleton, or if those expenses were to fall upon him at all, I for one should take no action; but we know thoroughly well—nobody knows better that the hon. Member for East Mayo—that this is a purely party debt, and that sooner than drive him out of Parliament his party would have been bound instantly to pay up if last night the majority of this. House had decided upon the issue of the writ.
We are not dealing with Mr. Hazleton in this Debate. That is why I hold that it is a dishonest position which has been taken up. We are dealing with the war-chest of a party—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is your money we want!"]—who have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Irish race, and from the British Treasury, and who are using those funds in a way that at this moment I forbear to mention. I venture to say that it is the war-chest of that party alone that could have benefited by the vote of last night. It was solely with a view to their escaping from their honest debts that they have at a very late stage learned wisdom. I cannot help suspecting that the way in which the majority of this House, and the Members of the Cabinet, were ordered about last night with a perfect frankness that was a little brutal may have had something to do with the altered attitude of the party behind us, and that they must have suspected that so long as there is any sense of fair play in the House and any obligation to play the game with honour and honesty, that possibly the majority of this House, when they heard the statement of my learned Friend, might have hesitated to make themselves a party to a fraud upon public justice in the sordid, pecuniary interest of a party that is already receiving over £30,000 a year from the British Treasury.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am sure that every friend of the Irish race must have been greatly edified by the exhibition which has been given in the sight of all men to-day by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork and the hon. Member for Cork City. Had, indeed, any enemy of Ireland been desirous of doing that country a disservice they could not have done better than have these two hon. Members by their exhibition. It is, however, interesting to find a somewhat different picture of the 1107 relations between the Irish party and the Government painted to-day from what we have been in the habit of having from those hon. Members opposite. In nearly every Debate on the Irish question that has taken place during the present Parliament we have been told, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) was the obedient tool of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but he only told the same story as the hon. Members above the Gangway. He was talking for consumption in Ireland; they were talking for consumption in Great Britain. They spoke of the Dollar Dictator—always forgetting the extent to which they themselves were dependent upon millionaires. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, who never loses an opportunity of dissembling his love for the majority of his countrymen, always refers to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as the mere tool of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister only needs to nod, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford follows him into the Lobby; he has sacrificed Ireland and sacrificed the financial interest of that country for promises which will never be fulfilled—all these things are commonplaces of the stock-in-trade of what, I suppose, I may call for want of a better name, the O'Brienite party.
To-day the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has merely to walk down the steps of the Gangway, cross the floor of the House, and walk past the Treasury Bench without a word—he does not even say a word—and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is qualifying for the Leadership of the Tory party! Indeed, he would be the first Leader the party ever had! If they had been able to enlist the services of the hon. and learned Member they might have the Government out before this Session is over! I believe the Government would have been out long ago if the hon. and learned Member had only been in the position suggested! There is more ability and capacity in his little finger than in the whole of the bodies of hon. Gentlemen [opposite! I am delighted to see that they are recognising him. I have no doubt that they will enlist him in their service now that he sees there is no hope of Home Rule ever passing Parliament; and as the Tory is now largely converted to Home Rule he will doubtless find an excuse to 1108 put his great abilities at their service! There should be a new lease of life for the Tory Opposition! But, Sir, I only wish to say, speaking for myself, that we on this side of the House supported the Motion for the adjournment for the perfectly constitutional reason that it was consistent with the traditions of the House of Commons. In relation to this question the performance which is taking place to-day reminds me of the celebrated phrase of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. He used this phase in describing an episode in his relations with the hon. and learned Member for the City of Cork. He spoke then of that hon. Gentleman's record as presenting a spectacle in regard to Ireland for the benefit of the rest of the United Kingdom which resembled the Liffey at ebb-tide.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI do not propose to enter into the dispute between hon. Members sitting behind me, about which I know nothing, though certainly it seems to throw rather a disappointing light on those hopes sometimes expressed that complicated matters might easily be adjusted if only we could get Irishmen sitting round a table together. However that might be, I was anxious to say a few words about what does seem to me rather an important public aspect of the matter, quite unconnected with the dispute about this particular case of Mr. Hazleton. I understand—though I speak with a great diffidence—the practice of the House to be this: that the writ is issued as soon as possible, consistent with the public advantage and with the convenience of the constituency. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Mayo said in his interesting speech, that the writ is often delayed for a day or two from the necessity of adjusting matters within the constituency—getting the candidate on the one side or the other selected, and the like. But it is, I believe, quite without precedent, in an English constituency at any rate, that the writ should be delayed for six or seven weeks on the ground of public interest. It is delayed in cases of bribery as a penal measure, and I believe it is on one or two other occasions delayed on some grave public grounds.
Certainly it would be a most diastrous precedent if it were thought that the writ for constituencies could be delayed merely for the personal or private convenience of any individual. I do not express any opinion here as to whether this is the case or not. If it were such a case, it certainly 1109 would be a grave abuse of the forms of the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo says that the whole procedure of the issue of writs by this House might be destroyed, and one party might make a raid upon another party and take possession, so to speak, of their candidates. I think he is mistaken in one point, for I apprehend that you would take possession of the Writ by giving Notice of Motion for it. An additional Motion might be made. I believe—it being a matter of privilege—by any other Member, so it would not be possible to delay.
§ Mr. DILLONdissented.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI think the hon. Member is mistaken. I think, for example, that if this Writ had been given notice of by himself, and he had then delayed it for a fortnight it would have been perfectly open for the hon. Member for Cork to move it over his head, as it were, as a matter of privilege. I believe that to be the fact. But I think it is very deplorable that both yesterday and to-day this matter, about which the House is supposed to act more or less judicially as it is a relic of its old judicial power, and it is certainly performing a very important and essential public duty, which lies at the very root and origin of our machinery, that we have not had any guidance at all from the Leader of the House. It is said, and very truly said by both the hon. Member for North-East Cork and the hon. Member for East Mayo, that hon. Members sitting for British constituencies gave an uninformed and possibly an unintelligent Vote yesterday on the question before them. Whose fault was if? It was because we were deprived of the guidance, which I believe has never been withheld from the House before, of the Leader of the House himself, supplemented, if necessary, by the Law Officers of the Crown, I believe it has been the general practice that in matters affecting the privileges of the House, and matters in which it is desirable that the House should act in a proper manner, that the Leader of the House should state what the practice is, and should give guidance where it is necessary to have guidance, and at once raise the question out of the rather low groove into which it has fallen at the hands of hon. Members behind me. It is deplorable that the Leader of the House does not seem to think he has the smallest responsibility to the House in a matter of 1110 this kind. No one is better able by his legal knowledge and his Parliamentary experience to guide the House, and we should all, irrespective of party, listen with profound respect to what the Leader of the House should say. But he gave no sign whatever yesterday, and we trooped into the Lobby without any guidance, and even to-day he has not said a word.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDWill the Noble Lord give us a case in which the Leader of the House has intervened in a matter of this kind? I have looked up all the cases, and I do not know of one.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI remember one, not a common case, but in connection with a petition, and we did get guidance from the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDIn a case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, very much on all-fours with this, when the Adjournment of the Motion was moved and carried, the Leader of the House took no part in it.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI could mention a case in which I, myself, took part when a seat was vacant. An hon. Friend moved the Writ, which had been suspended as a penalty against the constituency. There was a Debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who was leading the House at the time, took a leading part in it. As he always did in important discussions of this kind. It is foolish, at any rate, to complain of Members giving an uninstructed and an unintelligible vote if those whose business it is to guide do not do so. In matters of privilege the Leader of the House should give guidance to the House. These matters are not treated, and never ought to be treated as ordinary party questions, but as part of the common responsibility of the whole House, under the guidance of distinguished Members who lead it. I venture to make an earnest protest against this neglect of his duties by the Leader of the House.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The Noble Lord is entirely wrong in his facts. I have been for nearly thirty years in this House and I have heard numerous eases of writs issued, and I say with perfect assurance that the cases in which the Leader of the House stood up to take part were not the rule but the exception. They have only been cases in which either the circumstances were of a very exceptional kind, or 1111 where large questions of principle were involved. On the contrary, it is the business of the House, as a House, in the exercise of its corporate judgment to deal with matters of this kind. I knew no more than any Member sitting opposite when this question was raised, and I was no better instructed than they as to how to vote. I voted, not as was suggested, under some kind of dictation, but as an ordinary Member of the House. I never exchanged a word or syllable with any Member as to how I should vote. I voted entirely on the merits of the case, as I should again today if we were to go to a Division. I need not emphasise the fact that the simple principle involved is this—if there is any question of principle at all—that it is part of the comity of parties in this House, unless the circumstances be most exceptional, that the Motion for the issue of the writ for a seat vacated should be left to the Whips of the party to which the Member who vacated the seat belonged. That is the comity of the House of Commons. It requires a set of circumstances extremely exceptional for any other course to be taken, and I should vote again to-day on the same principle, but I am very glad the hon. Member has relieved us of that necessity. This seat has been vacant for six weeks, and it is a little curious that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork should become suddenly possessed after this six weeks with a new-born zeal for the interests of this constituency and vigilance for its welfare. As far as I am concerned I speak with no more authority on this matter than any other Member of the House, and I think we should do well in the interest of Parliamentary tradition, and Parliamentary good feeling to adhere as far as possible to the established practice that the Motion for the issue of the writ should be made by the Whip of the party to which the Gentleman vacating the seat belonged.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI must say I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not take part in this discussion yesterday, and for this reason. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has been the practice of the House, and it is a convenience that the Motion for writs should be made by the Whip of the party to which the former Member belonged. We all admit that. But surely there are exceptional cases which require to be treated in an exceptional way, and the best proof that this is 1112 an exceptional case is the taunt which the right hon. Gentleman has just levelled against the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork for delaying so long in taking the step which he took yesterday. That in itself, to my mind, clearly shows, that when the House of Commons had its attention drawn to the fact that this long delay had taken place, we were bound at once to issue the writ unless some exceptional reason should be given for taking another course. That is where we expected the guidance of the Prime Minister. What exceptional reason was there? I am not, like my Noble Friend below the Gangway, going to enter into the merits of the dispute. I spoke once or twice to Mr. Hazleton, and I certainly should be the last to say anything against him. The fact that the result of an election petition has been successful need not, in my judgment, in any way condemn him as a man of honour or of probity. But in the information we had yesterday it was clearly stated by the hon. Member for North East Cork that the reason that this writ was not issued was that the Whip of the party, represented by Mr. Hazleton, was waiting until Mr. Hazleton had got his discharge in bankruptcy in order that he might again become a Member of the House. That fact is not contradicted.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDIt is contradicted.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNot by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
§ Mr. J. REDMONDI contradict it emphatically.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI should be glad to hear the reason. I say if that was so it would alter my whole view of the case, but even yesterday that statement was made and was not contradicted, and it seems to me that for Members of the British House of Commons to make this a convenience for a gentleman who was a bankrupt—to have to stand still and allow this House to suspend its action and to leave a constituency unrepresented—until his bankruptcy was annulled so as to enable him again to become a Member of the House is a discredit to the House of Parliament.
§ Mr. MAURICE HEALYI rise for the purpose of contradicting as emphatically as possible the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that my hon. Friend in moving this Writ had committed some offence against what is called the 1113 comity of parties, and I was still more surprised that the Prime Minister should have lent the great weight of his authority to that statement. With great respect I desire to say that nothing has been done by us which in any way offends the rules which the Prime Minister so properly stated. It is quite true, and I hope it will always remain true, that the privilege rests with the party to which the late Member belongs to move the Writ when a vacancy takes place, but that rule is qualified by the further rule that it lies upon that party to discharge its duty promptly, quickly, and regularly. And with great respect, it is an entirely new Parliamentary doctrine to hear it laid down, as we did hear it laid down this afternoon, that because through the courtesy of parties this privilege has grown up, and that the Whips of the party have that privilege, that that privilege can be abused by an indefinite delay of the Writ. Is it to be suggested that if a vacancy arises in some English seat tomorrow, where there is a narrow majority, that because of the privilege enjoyed by the Liberal Whips, if the seat was held by a Liberal, the Whip can indefinitely delay the Motion because he considers the time inopportune. No such doctrine could ever be entertained or promulgated, and I say the principle laid down by the Prime Minister is true, but only partly true, and although on the one hand the party who holds the seat has the privilege of moving the Writ, that right carries with it the obligation that the right should be exercised promptly, quickly, and regularly. We did not follow the precedent the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford set in 1893. We did not move this Motion without notice. His party attempted to do so then. We first waited for six weeks, surely not an unreasonable period. We then gave formal notice to the hon. Gentleman the senior Whip of the Irish party, and it was only when he refused to discharge his duties that we claimed the right, which is the common right of every Member of this House, to move the Writ. I rose not to continue the Debate, but to only make that clear, and I do respectfully submit that the qualification of the general rule which I have stated is just as plain and clear as the rule which has been laid down.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDI wish to say a word on the question of the issue of Writs. I suffered very severely in connection with the issue of a Writ—I mean a Parliamentary Writ, of course. I know 1114 there are two sorts of Writs. The circumstances are these: The Member for Portsmouth who belonged to the Liberal party unfortunately died, and I was asked to stand for the seat. There was a General Election pending, and there was some sort of idea that I should win the seat, but the Liberal Whip kept the Writ back for five weeks because the General Election was coming on. It became very hard upon me, because I had to speak in many parts of the constituency, and not only that, but I had to pay about £1,200 in order to get everything ready in case my opponent came down. He never came down, and I had to pay for two elections on account of the fact that the Liberal Whip knew I would win the by-election, and he thought it would have a bad effect as the General Election was coming on. I intervene only to say these questions on the honesty of Whips and the honesty of parties in these matters do not really exist.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI am not going to enter into the family quarrel amongst the Irish party, but I wish to state that in my opinion Writs should be issued for the convenience of the constituency and not for the convenience of parties. The custom is a bad one if the House of Commons is going to suit the convenience of a particular party and not the interests of the constituency concerned. What happened the other day in the case of North-East Derbyshire? The Labour party came here and by virtue of Mr. Harvey having taken their Whip at one time—as a matter of fact he was receiving the Whips of both parties at the time—they claimed the right to move the Writ instead of consulting the views of the constituency. That constituency at the time had no Liberal candidate ready to fight, and the Labour party thought they could gain a tactical advantage by at once moving the Writ. In this House we do not recognise party, and everybody is supposed to come here independent and free, but as a matter of fact, we are fettered and shackled by the party system. There are one or two hon. Members who do not receive Whips, and what is going to happen in case those hon. Members die? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! order!"] We are now talking about the rights of constituencies which the Labour party have done everything in their power to prostitute. I feel very strongly that a constituency ought not to be deprived of its rights in this way. Take, for example, the case quoted by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford). I think this 1115 system ought to be put a stop to. If we have a bad precedent why, for the sake of maintaining a bad precedent, should Portsmouth be disfranchised for five weeks, not for the convenience of the constituency, but for the convenience of party? I think it is a perfect scandal. I was not present last evening or I should have voted in favour of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Cork on the ground of principle. If the principle is bad, as I think it is, and constituencies can be disfranchised for the convenience of the party Whips, the sooner the House breaks that principle the better. In future if the Whips do not move the Writs I shall get up and move them myself and take the decision of the House whether the Writ should be issued or not.
§ Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Galway, North Galway, in the room of Richard Hazleton, esquire, who since his election for the said County hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.