ELECTIONS. (Hansard, 15 February 1921)

§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
I desire to oppose this Sessional Order. I do so on the ground that it is obsolete, and that for nearly forty years it has been absolutely contrary to the established law of the land. Perhaps the House will bear with me for one moment whilst I explain exactly what is my point. It will be remembered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that the matter of election petitions at one time was dealt with by special Committees of this House, and that in the year 1862 the jurisdiction was transferred to the Law Courts. Things went on in that way until 1879, when, under the Judicature Act, it was arranged that two Judges of the King's Bench should be the tribunal for dealing with these matters. The matter so stood until 1883, when this House, as I submit, deliberately divested itself of any further 5 authority in this matter by passing the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, which provided in Section 43 that the Public Prosecutor should attend all cases of election petition, and by another Section provided that if he thought it right he should institute any proceedings by way of prosecution or otherwise arising out of the cases. From that day in 1883 till to-day this House has not had such jurisdiction as that claimed in this Sessional Order. In support of that submission, I venture to quote what Erskine May says, speaking of this Act of 1883— Thus the intervention of the House in such cases is rendered unnecessary by the direct operation of the law. That is why I venture to ask the House not once more to place this Sessional Order upon its journals, when it has not been used for these forty years. I have heard you, Sir, on more than one occasion read the reports of His Majesty's Judges as to the prevalence of corrupt practices in Various elections, but I have never seen the Leader of the House on those occasions rise in his place, and move that the offenders be brought to the Bar to be dealt with by this House. The jurisdiction is gone, and the learned Attorney-General will, I think, agree with me that you could not now enforce this jurisdiction against any offender who has been dealt with by the Public Prosecutor under the provisions of the Act of 1883. We have a precedent in 1910 when this House first of all amended, and then abrogated altogether, the old and obsolete Sessional Order about Peers interfering in elections. On these grounds, therefore, and because, if I may venture to say so with great respect to the House, of the particular times in which we live, I think it important that we should not go through the form of passing unreal and unnecessary resolutions—resolutions which we cannot enforce. I trust the Leader of the House will see his way not to oppose my suggestion.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)
I confess that there is a certain amount of innate conservatism which is still left in me, and I would have been glad had this proposal not been made by my hon. Friend. He gave me notice when the House met at twelve o'clock that he intended to raise this matter. I have since looked into it, and I will tell 6 the House exactly what are my views. The advantage of this Sessional Order is simply that it still expresses the view which I am sure is held by the House of Commons much more strongly than at the time when this was more than a form, that such practices are in every way objectionable, and are detested by the great majority of the House. It is of great value then if it were merely an expression of opinion. I have here the exact words which you have read, Mr. Speaker, of the Sessional Order. It goes on: this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices. As a matter of fact, there is an objection to a Resolution of the House which commits the House to doing something which if cannot do. That is a fact; it could not do it. It possibly might be argued that some form of bribery was not covered by the present Corrupt Practices Act, and could still be dealt with by the House of Commons. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General (Sir Gordon Hewart), and he confirms my view that that could not be done without the House of Commons coming into conflict with the Courts of Law. That has often happened, and when it has happened the House of Commons has not usually got the best of it. Certainly it would not get the best of it in this case. Personally, I would rather the Resolution remained. I cannot, however, say that, as representing the Government, we should resist a Motion. It is really a matter for the House itself. Having explained what our position is, I can only repeat to the House that the Government will not resist if the hon. Member presses the matter to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD
I am sure that the House, after hearing the speech of the Leader of the House, will be rather surprised at the proposition which he has enunciated to-day. Accusations have been bandied about in the Press that this House is more corrupt and less honest than many other Parliaments have previously been. I know there are accusations of dishonesty, by those who are out of power, and I know that such accusations are often general when there is a change of administration. I remember the first Parliament to which I was elected in 1906, when it was stated 7 that Members had been elected by overwhelming majorities, largely because of misrepresentations in some cases, and by actual bribery, and mostly by misrepresentation. I do not know what the Sessional Order provides or what is its legal status, but I do say that, for a House of Commons against the Members of which such accusations have been made to divest itself of a single safeguard, whether real or shadowy, would be to make a great mistake; and I believe that when one sees the situation of the country generally outside, and when one knows that attacks have been made upon constituted authority, I think this House had better keep every one of the privileges that it possesses, and that it ought not to leave go for a second of them. One can remember revolutionary periods when even the ordinary courts could not operate against corrupt practices, and when only this House could really perform the duty under this Standing Order. I think the Government would have been better advised had they insisted upon this safeguard, even though at the time it may not be operative.