§
The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Sir RICHARD COOPER:
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Reigate Division of Surrey, in the room of Colonel Richard Hamilton Rawson, deceased.
§ Sir R. COOPERI desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order in regard to the Notice which stands on the Paper in my name. I understand that where notice is given asking for the issue of a writ, there is no need to give notice on the Paper unless it is likely to be opposed, in which case one has to put it on the Paper two days previously in order that it may be debated, and, if necessary, a Division taken upon it. In this case I was led to understand that this Motion would probably be opposed by the Government, and therefore I placed it on the Paper. I ask now whether I am not entitled to move this Motion after Questions in order that I may quite briefly state my reasons why I trespass upon the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member may move it.
§ Sir R. COOPERI beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice. If the House knew that a General Election was going to take place, and that Parliament was going to be dissolved at a very early date, I recognise that it would be unreasonable on my part to press this Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"] It is on the Paper. I understand that the Government has not yet come to any decision with regard to the date of a Dissolution, and, having regard to the very extraordinary events which are occurring, it is quite possible—indeed, it is even probable—that the date of the Dissolution may be put off for some little while. If that is so, and having regard to the serious responsibility which devolves on this House, probably much more serious than it has had in the life of any one of us, I feel it is a wrong step for the 1821 Government to say that they are hoping very shortly that we may dissolve Parliament, and with this in our minds that we should determine that the electors of this constituency must be disfranchised. If the representative of the Government cannot tell the House that the Dissolution will take place within twenty-one days, I would not press this Motion; but if we cannot be told this, I feel that the Motion ought to be granted by the Government, and I think they will be taking a very wrong step indeed if they offer any opposition to this Motion, thus denying the electors of Reigate representation in this House.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI beg to second the Motion.
§ Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household)I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned," and perhaps I might give nay reasons for doing so. I do not complain that the hon. Baronet who moved this Motion in the absence of my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot), or that he thought by this Motion he would be able to draw a Member of the Government into giving him this information as to when a General Election is going to take place. He said he moved this Motion because the electors of Reigate wanted it. The reason why I object to it is not for the important reason which he has alleged, namely, that he believes a Dissolution may take place, but it is for a very much simpler reason. I have taken steps to find out what the electors of Reigate do want by applying to the association which returned the late Member, and the answer which I got from the representatives of that association is that they do not want the election to take place at the present moment, and they do not give as their reason anything whatever about a Dissolution. Their reason is a much more homely one. The candidate who in all probability they are going to adopt is laid up with influenza, and that appears to me a very reasonable cause for not forcing an election at the present moment. I put it to the hon. Baronet and his hon. and gallant Friend that it is not a very sportsmanlike thing to rush an election when a man who wants to stand is ill in bed, and I am surprised such a course should commend itself to the hon. Baronet.
4.0 P.M.
I am quite convinced of this, that there was no one to whom such a course would have been 1822 more absolutely repugnant than the late Member. I am not springing this on the hon. Baronet; I wrote to him as soon as I got a verbal message from him in regard to his intention to move. I found out as soon as I could the wishes of the association which returned the late Member and I wrote to him that I hoped he would refrain from moving the writ to-day, giving my reasons why I hoped he would so refrain. In spite of this he has moved his Motion. I have had no very long experience in these matters, but I was in the Whips' Room before the War when party feeling ran very high, and I think my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gulland) will bear me out when I say that these matters of routine, in spite of keen party strife, were so managed as to avoid squabbling, quarrelling, and, I might say, friction. I believe it is for the good of the House that these matters should be settled in a friendly way after full consideration and with give-and-take on each side. I do not know what changes the hon. Baronet and his Friends have in view, but if one of those changes is to abolish the old courtesies I venture to suggest he will be doing good neither to the methods of conducting business nor will he be making the atmosphere of this House more pleasant for political parties.
§ General CROFTThe hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down based the whole of his case, as far as I could make out, on the fact that this was a matter of routine and not a matter of principle. I venture to think there are very few people outside the Whips' Room in this House but will agree that this question of a writ being issued for an important constituency such as Reigate at this moment is a matter which seriously affects not only the constituency of Reigate but the whole country. The hon. Gentleman told us that one reason why he suggested delay in issuing the writ was on account of the fact that the prospective candidate was suffering from influenza. I venture to think that people in the country will not approve such a reason being put forward for delay in issuing a writ. Then the hon. Gentleman informs us he has consulted the association at Reigate. I was unaware that the association had been called to consider whether the writ should be issued or not. The hon. Gentleman may have written to one or two individuals, but their view does not necessarily reflect the view of electors in the Reigate Division. He has declared it is not sports- 1823 manlike to take this course, but I would like to point out that as a matter of fact a reasonable period has elapsed since the lamented death of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We are now approaching issues of importance in this House such as have never yet been considered by the people of our country, and I submit on two grounds this writ ought to be issued without further delay. The first is that no constituency at this moment ought to be disfranchised. We are told that secret diplomacy is going to cease, and that the will of the people is going to prevail with regard to the peace terms which may, very possibly, in a few weeks or a few days, come before this House for consideration. I submit that the Reigate Division ought not to be disfranchised at this moment, but ought to have its representative in this House to enable them to put their views before the House on this important question. My second point is this: Never probably in recent years has it been more important that a by-election should take place than at this moment. The mind of the people is very anxiously concerned with regard to this whole question of peace. In spite of the fact that we have had statements from various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the country as to unconditional surrender, which was summed up in President Wilson's last Note as the keynote of our policy, yet it is known widely that negotiations are supposed to have been taking place—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to drag that matter in He must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House, namely, the Question of Adjournment, and he should not raise these other matters at present.
§ General CROFTAm I not entitled to point out the tremendous seriousness of the decisions which must be taken in the very near future as a reason why this writ should be issued?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe only Question before the House is whether the issue of the writ shall take place to-day, or whether it shall be adjourned.
§ General CROFTI bow to your ruling. I will only add that the issue of the writ is a question of primary importance to the electors of Reigate, and my hon. Friend has moved that the writ be now issued in 1824 order that these electors shall not be disfranchised at this vital moment in the history of this country.
§ Mr. DILLONI speak with considerable experience on questions of this character as in the past history of this House when these questions have been raised it has always, with one or two exceptions, been in regard to Irish writs. I confess I listened with amazement to the statement made on behalf of the Government tonight. We have had many Debates on Irish writs during the last fifteen years, involving questions similar to that raised to-night, but when I heard the Whip on behalf of the Government lay down two propositions on which he based his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate I really was bewildered. His first proposition was that he had consulted the association which returned the late Member. Is it to be taken by this House that associations are entitled to speak for a whole constituency. Is a Whip of the Government entitled to oppose a Motion in the House for the issue of a writ solely on the assumption that the constituency will return the same kind of Member as it returned seven or eight years previously, and that the voters who may be anxious to vote are to be disfranchised because some members of the association which returned the late Member think it more convenient to adjourn the election? I have never heard such a proposition laid down in this House before by a Government Whip. It is astonishing too that the hon. Gentleman did not give us any evidence as regards the association to show that it had met or had discussed the matter, or was in a position to send out any authoritative communications. It is nothing but an outrage on the House of Commons that the question of issuing a writ enabling the constituency to return a Member to this House should be held up avowedly at the dictation of a political association. That was the hon. Gentleman's first reason, and I say in my opinion it is an absolutely preposterous reason.
The second reason is absolutely ludicrous. It was that the main reason for the adjournment was that the prospective candidate—he is not a candidate; he is only supposed to be anxious to become a candidate—is in bed with influenza, and, therefore, the constituency must be disfranchised. I have taken part in many of these Debates, and am entitled to speak with great authority on this matter, for they have 1825 nearly always been Irish writs in regard to which the dispute has arisen; but never before have I heard such a reason alleged for suspending a writ and preventing a constituency having an election. I am strongly with the Government Whip on one point, and that is as to the desirability, from many points of view, of maintaining the old traditions of this House and the old courtesies with regard to the issue of these writs. I do not think that any private individual ought to be encouraged to move a writ—as he has a right to do—until a very considerable interval has elapsed, during which the customary privilege of allowing the writ to be moved by the Whip of the party to whom the late Member belonged could be exercised. But it has always been the custom of this House, when that privilege has not been availed of after a decent interval—and I assume that in this case the usual interval has elapsed—to allow any Member of any party to move the writ unless it can be shown why the writ should not issue on public grounds, which equally apply to all sections of the constituency and to all voters. That principle has been laid down over and over again, and the party to which I belong has been compelled, on two or three occasions recently, against our will, to consent to the issue of writs at the dictation of private Members who desired to issue them simply to inconvenience us, and any plea which we made as to public convenience was set aside. We were compelled to issue the writ.
§ Sir R. COOPERThis writ is being applied for on this occasion by the Official Whip of the party, to which the late Member belonged.
§ Mr. DILLONI was not aware of that. It enormously strengthens what I was saying. I was under the impression that the late hon. Member had belonged to the party which was represented by the Government Whip, and, of course, this statement makes the case for the issue of the writ enormously stronger. It turns out now that when in accordance with the settled practice of the House, the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged applies for the issue of a writ, the writ is withheld by the Government on the ground that some gentleman who is going to run in their interests is in bed suffering from influenza. Are we to be told, is it to go abroad, that the constituency of Reigate is to be disfranchised 1826 until a gentleman who wishes to run gets into good fighting form? A more extraordinary argument was never submittel to the House of Commons, and I hope the hon. Member who has moved the issue of the writ will press his Motion to a Division. It would be intolerable and a totally new departure if a Member who is the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged moves the issue of the writ is to be opposed by the Government for its own selfish party interests, and without the statement of a solitary ground which will bear examination for a single moment; and, for my own part, if the hon. Member goes to a Division, I shall most heartily support him.
§ General CROFTNot at all!
§ Mr. DILLONIt is a new party.
Sir H. DALZIELIt seems to me that it is more a party matter than a House matter. If the late Member had left the Unionist party to join the National party, if he had refused to accept the Whips of the Unionist party, and had publicly acknowledged the Whips of the National party; if both took place some time ago, my hon. Friends are quite right in claiming him as one of their supporters, and, according to all precedents, they have the right to move the writ. I must confess that I was not much impressed with the reason given by my hon. and gallant Friend for the postponement of the issue of the writ. I do not think the ground advanced, that the candidate happens to have a little indisposition, is quite strong enough to prevent the free and unqualified expression of public opinion upon matters of public policy at the present time. I should be glad to know what was the state of his temperature. Some of us have been up to a pretty high temperature of late, and I have no doubt, if this much-talked-of General Election takes place, that mere will be quite a number of candidates who will be subject to an indisposition of one kind or another. I shall support this Adjournment if it goes to a Division for a very simple reason. It is generally understood that we are to have a public statement from the Government in a very 1827 short time as to how long this Parliament is going to last. I do not think it is right that we should put a constituency to the trouble of an election until we know whether there is any truth in the rumour that we are going to have a General Election, and I would suggest to the Government that they should give an undertaking that this adjournment will only take place for one week. We should then probably have a better notion as to the possibilities of the future, and whether the life of Parliament is to be extended till January next. If it is, then my hon. Friends will be entitled to take the opinion of the House on the immediate issue of the writ. I suggest to them in all sincerity that they should accept this suggestion. They must know that any election which takes place at the present time cannot by any stretch of imagination be assumed to represent the electorate. The register is five years old, and it is a small register compared with that actually in preparation at the present time. My hon. Friends base the party for which they speak upon the principle of the voice of the democracy of this country. Do not let them claim this narrow five years' old, discarded register, under which the men at the front would be unable to vote when they have the prospect—it may be in a few weeks—of being able to take the vote on the new register which will include the men at the front. I ask them in all sincerity to accept the suggestion that the Debate should be adjourned for one week.
§ General CROFTCan my hon. and gallant Friend inform the House—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to speak again.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think the House is entitled to a reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel).
§ Colonel SANDERSI cannot speak for the Leader of the House, but I can say that an adjournment for a week will certainly satisfy me. I only want to suit the convenience of the people in the constituency, and I understand that an adjournment for a week will be quite sufficient for them.
§ Sir R. COOPERI am not quite clear what the position is going to be. Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean that the Government within a week will either 1828 announce the date of the Dissolution, or, alternatively, that they will grant the issue of this writ?
§ Sir E. LAMBAre we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will undertake to put upon the Notice Paper for this day week a Motion for the issue of this writ?
§ Sir W. ESSEXSupposing the adjournment be agreed upon, may the present Motion be revised, so as to give precedence to the hon. Baronet rather than to one of the Members on the Government Bench?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe House will have decided to postpone the discussion of this matter for a week. When the time arrives, it will resume discussion of the Motion now upon the Paper.
§ Sir R. COOPERI accept, and I give notice that I will raise the matter, if necessary, upon Monday next.
§ Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.