Grave questions of principle are involved in this Bill, affecting our business, public, private and Parliamentary life. Those principles were in danger of being lost sight of until they were recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and I congratulate him and the House on recalling the attention of hon. Members to the serious questions of principle involved. My hon. Friend has done that with his customary clarity and logic. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) tended to confuse the issues by introducing the word "corruption", which really is not relevant to this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne emphasised, the word used in the Report of the Select Committee is "inadvertence."

Another observation which I should like to make at the outset is that I do not agree with suggestions by one or two of the later speakers in this debate that the House should necessarily or slavishly follow the Report of its own Select Committee. This House is sovereign in these matters and it is a matter for the House itself to consider what it will do about the Report of a Select Committee or of any Bill based upon such a Report, as this Bill is.

The interesting argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) seemed to point to the fact that the Select Committee was wrong in finding that Mr. George was guilty of no more than inadvertence. My hon. Friend sought to discuss the company with which Mr. George was associated in order to show that Mr. George is a careful and experienced business man and director and an able money earner, and, therefore, unlikely to be the type of person who would in an important matter such as that arising on the Bill be guilty of inadvertence. For that purpose, my hon. Friend sought to investigate the affairs of Mr. George's company to prove Mr. George's ability and success in business and to indicate that his character was such that he was the type of man who would be unlikely to be guilty of inadvertence.

I approach this matter in a different way. I want to deal with one important principle and I submit that the Government have shown that they have not paid sufficient regard to the questions of principle involved. Indeed, I think I am not doing the Attorney-General an injustice if I say that he did not emphasise questions of principle at all. He confined himself to dealing with the facts of the Report as they related to the facts of the Bill.

I feel very sorry for the plight of the two gentlemen who were elected for the Pollok division of Glasgow and the Hallam division of Sheffield. The circumstances of those two elections have placed each of them in a penal position. But that is a comparatively trivial matter arising on the Bill. The important thing is the manner in which those circumstances affect, not these two gentlemen, but the prestige, dignity and effectiveness of Parliament.

Those circumstances have had many manifold and diverse results. They have caused trouble and expense. They have affected the validity of the two elections. They have contravened Statute law. They have necessitated the appointment of a Select Committee. They have involved the Treasury in expense. They have caused public inconvenience. They have used up the time of civil servants. They have diverted, and are diverting, the energies of Members of this House and—perhaps this is the most important of all—they have for a time disfranchised the citizens of those two constituencies. In my submission, these are the important matters which affect our democratic system and they should have been so treated by the Government in relation to their effort on good administration, which has not been mentioned by the Leader of the House or by the Attorney-General, and for the sake of the good name of Parliament. But they have not been so treated by the Government.

I make no attack upon the two gentlemen concerned and I make no criticism of them, because they are in misfortune as good citizens it having been found that they have contravened the law even though they did it unintentionally. Therefore, I say, let them have their indemnity to protect them against the consequences of their unintentional illegal acts and breach of law. I am sorry for them and sorry for any good citizen who finds himself in such a position.

That may end the matter so far as these two persons are concerned, but not so far as the Government and the Bill are concerned. Four things have been found by the Select Committee, on whose Report the Bill is founded. The first is that these gentlemen contravened the law—a very grave matter. Secondly, they are disqualified from acting as Members of Parliament for valid reasons, stated in the Report to be technical reasons, which are none the worse for that because this is largely a technical matter. Thirdly, the Committee find that their elections should be validated, and fourthly, that they should be indemnified from the penal consequences. That, as the Attorney-General said, is the origin and foundation of the Bill.

I now come to the question of principle involved: namely, that care should have been taken to ensure that the House of Commons should be and remain independent of the Executive by not having place men among its Members. That Executive is administered by the present Conservative Government, in whose interest it is to secure the passage of the Bill to validate the two elections of two Conservative Members and so add two more votes to the Government in the Division Lobby.

It is right to point out that the Report of the Select Committee did bear in mind that aspect, for it said: Your Committee consider that the principle underlying this disqualification is still important in order to ensure that the House of Commons acts independently of the Executive, and because it is essential that the House should not contain an excessive number of persons holding Government offices and depending on the will of the Executive. That, in my submission, is the very essence of these two invalidities. Both of these hon. Gentlemen held Government offices, and they escaped the loss of their seats and heavy penalties because the Select Committee, in its wisdom, found that they did so by inadvertence. It is only just and fair that I quote what the Select Committee said about that: They are satisfied, however, that both Members acted by inadvertence in standing for election and that the posts they held were taken in a public spirit and not for profit. Therefore, says the Select Committee: … legislation should be introduced at once to indemnify Mr. George and Sir Roland Jennings from any penalties they may have incurred and to validate their elections. That is what the Government are seeking to do today, but that does not end the matter, because the Select Committee, very properly, went on to comment in an adverse way upon the haphazard conduct of the Government in this important sphere. In paragraph 11 of its Report it says that it has … noted the fortuitous way in which the cases … have been brought to notice. That paragraph refers to the evidence in the case of Mr. George at Question 66, and so refers to a casual conversation. It refers also to Questions 67 and 71 and a casual discussion at lunch. It refers, in the case of Sir Roland Jennings, to the evidence in answer to Question 89, which says: It came to light in a rather curious fashion. Question 88, to the Attorney-General about Sir Roland Jennings, was: Since January, 1923, when he was appointed, has he done only one audit?That I cannot give any definite information about. The only information I have is that contained in his letter of resignation. Perhaps I could assist the Committee, if they wanted it, as to how this first came to light. Now we come to this significant question and answer, Question 89: If you please.It came to light in a rather curious fashion. There was a candidate (I do not think I need mention of which political party) who, during the course of the Election, apparently raised this question, he being a public auditor appointed under one of these Acts, and that caused investigation to be made into the position, and then the conclusion was reached that he was not qualified for election. That fact coming to light, it was then thought that there was yet another category which might come within the scope of the 1707 Act; further inquiries were, naturally, made to see whether any others might be affected. That seems to be a strange way for so important a matter to come to light. The word "casual" is not misplaced in this Report. The Select Committee, as a natural result of this strange and unusual disclosure, expressed its suspicions and made a recommendation, and here is its recommendation: They cannot overlook the possibility that there may be, amongst present Members of the House of Commons"— we all shudder— some who might be found to have unexpected technical disabilities. They consider that all Government Departments should at once examine their lists of public appointments in order to determine whether there may be other Members who should be warned that there may be doubt about the validity of their election. I say nothing about the obscure English in which that is couched, but the meaning seems to be that the Government should have done something at an earlier stage. The Government, the House will agree, have the responsibility for that Executive, and if they had taken the obvious and simple precautions which are indicated in that paragraph of the Report, this situation might not have occurred. There would not have been the inordinate delay and the considerable expense which the nation now has to face.

I say "inordinate" delay, because delay is a comparative term. It is one thing for delay to occur in the building of a house; it is another thing for delay to occur when a wounded man is bleeding to death and awaiting a doctor; and it is a serious matter for the Government to delay in a matter which involves the disfranchisement of two constituencies for a month at the very least, as has occurred in this case.

Accordingly, my next criticism of the Government is that, because of the grave question of principle which is at stake, there has been undue delay. The Government have not acted expeditiously. Even now they are treating this problem in a piecemeal way, and they have not acted in the way that the Select Committee Report indicates they should have acted. They have not followed the precautionary measures which any intelligent business man, such as Mr. George perhaps, would have followed in his own private affairs or in his own company affairs.

Let us consider the dates. This new Parliament was elected on 26th May, which is now nearly two months ago. This new Parliament assembled on 7th June, seven weeks ago, but it was not until 29th June in the case of the Pollok division and 5th July in the case of the Hallam division that the invalidities and disqualifications which have made the Bill necessary were even mentioned to the House.

The odd and peculiar features of this matter go even farther than that. The disclosure about Pollok having been made on 29th June, the Select Committee to investigate it was appointed the next day, 30th June. Very properly, there was only a day's delay there. Then came the second disclosure, that about Hallam, on 5th July, whereupon the Select Committee was on 6th July instructed to include Hallam in the investigations which it was already undertaking in the case of Pollok. On 11th July the Select Committee concluded its labours with commendable celerity and ordered that the results be reported to this House, but it was only today, 22nd July, eleven days later that we have the Bill for Second Reading.

The Bill is more or less a Bill of common form. It was quite easy to get the form and draft the Bill, but eleven days elapsed during which those two constituencies were disfranchised. They are disfranchised still. I suggest that there has been inordinate delay, having regard to the importance of the matters involved.

The House is, therefore, entitled to ask the Government questions, and I put them categorically. First, why were these long periods left to expire—two months after the General Election, seven weeks from the assembly of Parliament—before these matters were even mentioned in this House? Secondly, who discovered them and how? Thirdly, why were both not mentioned together? Fourthly, why were both together not submitted to the Select Committee? Fifthly, why was there a delay of eleven days between the completion of the work of the Select Committee and the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill? It must be remembered, as I have said—