HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICE IN HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL. (Hansard, 3 September 1939)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill is similar to one which it was thought necessary to present at the beginning of the last War, because difficult questions of law might arise under the Succession to the Crown Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, as long ago as the year 1707. Those difficulties arise in regard to the position of people who might be elected to or be sitting in or desiring to vote in the Commons House of Parliament by reason of their occupying an office or place of profit under the Crown. The question may arise what is an office or place of profit under the Crown and there is difficulty often in the minds of quite a number of lawyers as to officers of the Regular Army, officers of Marines and naval officers. That difficulty may arise with regard not only to commissioned but warrant officers in the Services. Therefore it has been thought very desirable that all doubt should be removed by a simple Bill, which may be described as a Bill of one clause, which provides that: A person shall not be incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in, the Commons House of Parliament by reason only that, as a member of any of His Majesty's Forces, he holds any office or place of profit under the Crown.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, at first sight this Bill may appear not to affect your Lordships' House, but it raises questions of principle and I would like to state the situation as the members of my Party see it. With regard to the contents of the Bill we have nothing to say. The Bill is necessary. But on Second Reading we are permitted to raise questions of principle, and I want to be sure that it is not the intention to give any special privileges to a man because he is a member of the House of Commons that would not be open to any serving soldiers and sailors. If this is a long war we may have to have 965 an Election later. My Party consider that the fact that a man is serving in the Forces should not preclude him from being adopted as a candidate in that Election.
Let me put another case of which my noble friend Lord Snell reminds me, that of a man in an Election who is at present a candidate for Parliament, who enlists or who takes a commission in any of the Services. The whole question of the political rights of serving soldiers and sailors is a thorny one, and I do not think my Party have ever taken an unreasonable view of it. Because a man has joined up to serve his country he should not be deprived of all political rights. We do not suggest that he should go to public meetings and make a fool of himself in uniform, but we do say that in case of an Election a man should not be under the disability of not being able to stand for Parliament.
At the end of the last War there was a case of a friend of mine which I might quote. Mr. Guy Wilson, a distinguished member of the Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, belongs, was a neighbour of mine as member for North West Hull. He was serving in Mesopotamia. He could not get leave to come home, and, although he was given the coupon—I do not know whether he asked for it or wanted it—an independent Tory appeared on the scene and managed to get leave from his unit to win the seat, and Guy Wilson was turned out. This has a great deal to do with what we are now discussing. Though we are dealing with Members of Parliament who happen to be now commissioned we must think of people in the future who may not be Members of Parliament but who may be candidates. I only just want to stake the claim, because things are going to happen in a great rush and we want to stake as many claims as we can to the individual rights and liberties of the subject, especially of our own Party.
The other thing is this. There were complaints at the end of the last War that a candidate adopted by the Conservative Party or who was known as a supporter of the then Coalition could get leave, but in the case of anyone adopted by my Party or to a lesser degree the Liberal Party, a very good reason was found for not giving leave or for sending 966 them further away from the scene of political action. By that time, political passions had risen. Political passions are dormant at the present moment, I am glad to say. The fact that my Party have declined an invitation with which we have been honoured to join the present Government does not mean that we do not support the Government in their recent action, as my noble friend made perfectly clear a little while ago. While political passions are dormant is the time to stake out these claims and that is why I am doing it now. I have a lively recollection of what happened at the end of the last War and if any noble Lord wants an illustration of the things that were done, I will tell him that when the General Election took place in 1918, the bluejackets did not know for whom to vote and they were told "If they have double-barrelled names, you can safely vote for them because they are sure to be Conservatives." We do not want that sort of thing to happen again. This is a war for democracy. We want to defend democracy, and we are doing it now from the very word "Go."

§ EARL STANHOPE
My Lords, His Majesty's Government will certainly pay very great attention to what has been said. I am chary of saying anything about the privileges of those who sit in another place, but when the Bill gets there, the matter will be considered. I may say that the Government of the day will keep in mind what has been said. I hope that candidates will not be of such a reputation that they have to be sent from this country for the safety of the Realm.