LORD SELBORNE AND THE COMMONS.
THE House of Commons appear bent on making themselves ridiculous over the claim of Lord Sel- borne to sit in the Lower House till he has been summoned to the Upper. They seem to regard his action as a piece of actual impiety, and talk of him as if he were trying to commit an act of gross sacrilege. Sir Michael Hicks- Beach, in his most solemn manner, declares, for instance, that the claim is preposterous, and Mr. Labouchere tries to pour contempt and ridicule on the whole proceeding. In a word, the majority of the House seem to regard Lord Selborne as a bold, bad man, who is doing something con- trary to the moral law, and who ought to be ashamed of himself. For the life of us we cannot see it. If there is anybody that ought to be ashamed it is the House of Commons. They have spent two days arguing round and round the subject and doing their very best to avoid the clear and plain issue that lies just before them. Oddly enough, too, it was an issue which they all realised perfectly well last year, and actually set a Committee to investigate. Instead, however, of insisting on that Committee giving an answer at once to the ques- tion it was set to investigate, the Members have pre- ferred to talk a lot of random nonsense, and call each other names, and generally develop an amount of temper which would have been out of proportion even on some great political question.
The issue before the House of Commons is, as regards its form, childishly simple. It resolves itself into asking two questions, and no more. When the answers to these questions are known all difficulty disappears. The two questions are :— (1.) What circumstances vacate a seat in the House of Commons ?
(2.) Have any of these circumstances occurred in the case of the seat held by the present Lord Selborne ?
If none of the circumstances which are ascertained to render a seat vacant have occurred in the case of Lord Selborne, then his seat is not vacant. If any of them have occurred, then his seat is vacant. That is not law or high policy or constitutional etiquette or the custom of Parliament, but something much higher and more ele- mentary and more essential,—common-sense. This being so, the natural thing for the House of Commons to have done would have been to declare that they would first answer Question 1 [what vacates a seat in the House of Commons], and then apply the result to Question 2. Did they do that ? Not a bit of it. Instead, and in spite of the fact that they had already ordered a Com- mittee to answer Question 1, they set a perfectly separate Committee to answer a totally irrelevant, and, as far as we can see, utterly futile question as to whether or not Lord Selborne had succeeded to his father's peerage. What earthly need was there for the House of Commons to re- solve—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether the Honourable William Waldegrave Palmer, commonly called Viscount Wolmer, has since his election to this House succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne in the peerage of the United Kingdom " ? The Committee can only report one thing,—namely, that Lord Selborne has so succeeded ; but what is the use of ascertaining that fact ? Every one knew it and admitted it before ; and when it is officially ascertained, it is a perfectly worthless fact. The House might just as well have appointed a Com- mittee to inquire and report (1) whether there was really such a person as the late Lord Selborne, and (2) whether there was such a constituency as West Edinburgh. When Sir William Harcourt's Committee has reported, things will be exactly where they were before it delivered itself of its futile and irrelevant pronouncement. As we have said above, and must keep on saying, what is wanted to solve the whole matter is a plain answer to the plain question, " What vacates a seat in the House of Commons ?"—a question now under consideration by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but one which it is apparently trying how it can best manage not to answer. And here it is worth noting that the inability of the Committee to find its voice and speak out is not a little significant. Why has the Committee on vacating seats sat for nearly a year and given no reply ? We have no inside know- ledge as regards the matter, but, nevertheless, we will hazard a guess. We believe that the reason why the Committee has not reported is in reality this :—If it had reported, it would have been obliged to make a report which did not include as a vacating circumstance the mere suecession to a peerage,—i.e., to the right to claim a writ of summons to the Upper House of Parliament. But the chief persons on the Committee on both sides were very anxious (on grounds of public policy, no doubt) that no report of that kind should be issued. They do not want to say that the ennoblement of blood by its mere operation and without the writ of summons has never been held to vacate a seat, for that admits the claim of the eldest sons. Yet this, we take it, is what the Committee would be obliged to report if it reported at all.
Since the House of Commons seems unable to face two plain questions, and answer them fairly and squarely, we must, though all unwilling to tread on the sacred ground of the Parliamentary experts, attempt to give some sort of answer ourselves. Let us take Question 1, —What vacates a seat in the House of Commons ? We hold that four things do :-
(1.) The appointment to a post of profit under the Crown.
(2.) Bankruptcy.
(3.) The receipt of a writ of summons to sit in the other House.
(4.) Death.
We now ask Question 2,—Have any of these circum- stances arisen in Lord Selborne's case ? No. Lord Sel- borne, the Member for West Edinburgh, has not accepted a post of profit under the Crown. Next, he is not bank- rupt. Next, he has not received a writ of summons to sit in the Upper House. Finally, Lord Selborne is not dead. Lord Selborne, then, has not vacated his seat. Therefore, Lord Selborne remains a Member of the House of Commons.
So far, we have argued the matter on technical grounds. We are, however, prepared, on the ground of policy, to go much further. We regard the choice of a constituency as an imperative mandate. Election by a constituency should override all constitutional etiquettes, and should at once place the subject of the people's choice in the people's House. This is the true democratic principle. It is also, we venture to think, the safest one, for we do not believe that the House of Lords will be bled to death by allowing Peers to sit in the Commons. The number of Peers who want to sit, and who could find seats, is not big enough. As a rule, the Peers, even if eligible for the Commons, would remain in the sweet security of the Lords. If however, and when, a Peer is singled out by the people to do their business in the Commons, that Peer should be permitted to obey the summons, and no argu- ments, however strong, should prevail to prevent the electors from obtaining the representative of their choice.
Previous page
