Ending ministerial by-elections: Lords debate 1926

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

At a glance

• Before 1926, MPs appointed as ministers had to vacate their seats and contest by-elections to remain in the Commons.
• The 1707 rule originated to limit crown influence and ensure ministerial accountability to the electorate.
• While crown influence faded over time, electoral accountability became the main justification for its continuation.
• Temporary suspensions during and after the first world war reflected concern about its practicality.
• In 1926, Parliament passed legislation abolishing the requirement, arguing it was outdated and hindered effective government.

Until 1926, holders of certain ministerial offices were required to vacate their seats and contest a by-election to remain in the House of Commons. As historian Martin Pugh explains, the Succession to the Crown Act 1707:

[…] specified that certain offices were indeed incompatible with membership of the House of Commons but allowed the holders to remain members on condition that they vacated their seats and fought by-elections. This was held to be justified not simply as a means of restricting royal control over Parliament, but also as establishing the principle that a ministry should be accountable to the electorate. Over the next 150 years, the first of these objectives dwindled while the second gradually became the chief rationale for the practice.^[1]

While they could now be seen as a historical curiosity, Martin Pugh, in his study of ministerial by-elections between 1867 and 1926, has said the by-elections were significant in four ways.^[2] First, candidates often tried to frame contests as personal or local matters rather than national political tests, with mixed success. Second, there was little widespread demand to abolish the system, as both parties broadly accepted its value as a form of public endorsement. Third, defeats in such by-elections rarely ended ministerial careers, as prominent politicians could usually find alternative seats, though they were more vulnerable to defeat. Finally, these contests provided a useful barometer of public opinion, allowing governments to gauge reactions to policies and adjust their strategies accordingly. However, while Pugh emphasises their signalling function, their reliability as indicators of public sentiment was questioned even at the time, as illustrated by the debate in 1926.

During the first world war, legislation passed in 1915, and then twice again in 1916, suspended the by-election requirement for short periods. In 1919, the Re-election of Ministers Act provided a new nine-month exemption from by-elections for ministers appointed following the 1918 general election. Martin Pugh notes “its immediate object was to relieve seven ministers of the need to vacate their seats and to allow the government to appoint three ministers-without-portfolio, rather than one, without the need to vacate their seats”. On 5 February 1926, a private member’s bill was introduced in the House of Commons seeking the abolition of the by-elections. The bill, sponsored by Christopher Clayton (Conservative MP for Widnes), passed second reading on 12 February and its remaining stages on 11 June 1926, when the government adopted its sponsorship.^[3]

The 1926 reform illustrates a recurring constitutional question: when does a mechanism designed to secure accountability become an obstacle to effective government? The Lords debate reflected a clear division between those who saw by-elections as an outdated constraint on effective government and those who viewed them as a continuing constitutional safeguard. At its core was a tension between administrative efficiency and democratic accountability.

Did you know?

Eight ministerial by-elections between 1905 and 1922 ended in defeat for the minister standing. Among the defeated was Winston Churchill, who lost in Manchester North West in 1908.

The Times noted “his opponents will be the first to admit that he is a man of brilliant and conspicuous ability, for whom a prominent place in his country’s counsels is probably reserved in the future”.^[4]

1. Arguments for abolishing

On 22 June 1926, the Earl of Clarendon, parliamentary under secretary of state for dominion affairs, moved the bill’s second reading in the House of Lords.^[5] He explained the bill would abolish the requirement that MPs must seek re-election when appointed as ministers. The bill had clear Commons support with two to one in favour at second reading and “a majority in its favour of very nearly two and a half to one” at third reading.^[6] He argued that the rule originated from outdated fears of crown influence, which no longer existed, and created practical problems and anomalies. He added existing rules further restricted prime ministers in their choices, forcing consideration of “safe seats” rather than merit. The by-elections, he added, then became a distraction for newly appointed ministers from their duties. He said that normal by-elections still provided opportunities to sense public opinion at any given time.^[7] Lord Clarendon added that, in reference to opposition in the Commons to the bill applying immediately, if the principle was right “then it is not unreasonable” the present government should “reap the undoubted advantages”.^[8]

Viscount Haldane (Labour) thought on balance “a good case for the measure” had been made.^[9] He said that the rule originated in a period of tension between crown and Parliament, which had “wholly passed away”. He agreed that the requirement unnecessarily restricted the prime minister’s freedom to choose his government and the by-elections disrupted governance.^[10] Lord Darling, a former Conservative MP, felt present restrictions could see a prime minister, with few safe seat occupants to choose from, be “induced to fill up his government from the House of Lords”. He also disagreed with the idea that by-elections were a reliable indicator of national opinion. He cited an example in 1880 whereby the then prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, called a general election following his party’s success in the Southwark by-election.^[11] Disraeli went on to lose the 1880 general election with Southwark, according to historian Robert Blake, “undoubtedly the chief reason for this ill-starred decision”.^[12] Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative) favoured the bill because it would “relieve the House of Commons […] from a disability”.^[13] Lord Buckmaster (Liberal) thought, irrespective of how it materialised, the bill should be judged on whether it was good or not.^[14] He said he did not believe “that the country will permit the restoration of the conditions which, as I read history, were the genesis of the [1707] act”. He felt that the bill should pass as he did not see why the prime minister’s judgement “should be biased and restrained” in who he felt able to appoint to government. However, he opposed the bill becoming operational on royal assent and said he would return to it at committee stage if the government maintained its position.^[15]

2. Arguments for retaining

Among those opposing the bill were Lord Strachie (Liberal).^[16] He felt the bill represented a major constitutional change that had no public mandate. He argued that Commons support was weak, pointing out at second reading there were “only 143 prepared to support it while 74 were against, making a majority of 69”. This, he said, meant about 400 members “thought the bill was worthless”.^[17] He added that “an enormous number of members of the House of Commons, even on the third reading with the government whips put on, refused to come down and support it”. Lord Strachie maintained that re-election remained a vital safeguard against executive power and that, because ministerial roles required support of the government, constituents deserved the right to have a say on whether that was in their interests as voters. He concluded by moving an amendment to the second reading motion to delay it by six months, in effect rejecting the bill, saying “if this House accepts this great constitutional change […] passed by a small majority in the House of Commons […] it will be very difficult and illogical in other circumstances to resist measures altering the constitution when the electorate has not been consulted upon them at a general election”. In reference to the frontbench support from the Liberal and Labour parties in the Commons, Lord Banbury of Southam (Conservative) said there was an old House of Commons saying that “when the two front benches agree you should beware”.^[18] He said he opposed the bill. Lord Banbury believed that the current requirement did not restrict ministerial choice. He thought “the majority of members of the House of Commons are pretty much the same and it does not make very much difference which you choose” to serve as ministers. He went on to say that while he was “not a democrat” he believed in “government by the people in a modified degree”. Passing the bill would therefore “deprive the country of the power of veto that it possesses at the present moment”.

The Earl of Derby, a former Conservative minister, also opposed the bill.^[19] He thought by-elections remained essential for gauging public opinion between general elections. He said “you cannot get […] the will of the people in newspaper articles, or in meetings, or in speeches”. He thought, in light of the House of Lords’ reduced powers, were ministerial by-elections ended “it will deprive your Lordships of one of the best ways […] to ascertain […] whether the attitude that has been taken up on a bill meets with the approval of the country generally”. Others raised specific concerns. Lord Wittenham (Unionist) said he did not like the way the bill was initiated, starting life as a private member’s bill then being adopted by the government for political “expediency”.^[20] He said he supported the 1919 act, thinking it “fair and just” that there was a nine-month suspension for a new government. However, he was concerned that in passing this bill Parliament risked losing a “brake” in a scenario where “a very extreme government” is returned. He concluded that, despite being a self-proclaimed “party man”, because the government only adopted the bill at Commons third reading, he would follow his own will at the vote. Lord Phillimore (Liberal) argued the bill should not be passed while the Parliament Act remained in force.^[21] He said the Parliament Act had created “single-chamber government” whereby members “begin to forget they are there merely as representatives of the popular will and begin to think they are of importance in themselves”. He felt “anything which sends members back to their constituents and enables the constituencies to pronounce upon the acts of their representatives, is something which we ought most zealously to stick to”.

3. Bill passes

The leader of the House, the Marquess of Salisbury, closed the debate.^[22] He said the bill “comes to us with the full authority of the House of Commons”. He said that the number of ministerial by-elections was small relative to parliamentary by-elections, and whilst the latter were the responsibility of the electorate, the former were not. He added that “we should have the best government that the prime minister can provide”. He disagreed with Lord Banbury about the interchangeability of MPs and said that the prime minister should be given “every opportunity” to exercise their judgement about who should serve as ministers.^[23] The bill was given a second reading by 108 votes to 25, a majority of 83. It passed committee stage on 8 July 1926 unamended and was given third reading on 13 July 1926, before receiving royal assent on 15 July 1926.

---

Image by Jacob Diehl on Unsplash.