Was there a fear that a "pro-Peace" party might win? Were there any prominent politicians who advocated negotiations with Germany? How did the British public respond to the cancelled elections? Was it considered constitutional at the time?
My lords, I rise to thank my noble friend for his interest in the topic, and I hope I might illuminate the matter to his entire satisfaction.
One might first refer to several previous discussions addressed to your Lordships,
They are certainly good brief introductions to the subject.
But I have looked into Hansard, the records of the proceedings in Parliament, and, deeply influenced by them, I think it profitable to expand on the answers previously given to your Lordships.
The issue pressed on Parliament. The Septennial Act of 1715, as amended by the Parliament Act of 1911, forbad a parliament to extend past five years from its first meeting. The parliament of the day had first sat on 26 November 1935.
I should like to refer to the divers answers given in the Lords on 5 November 1940, vol. 117 cc. 577-84, on the occasion of the first bill.
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor (Viscount Simon) referred first to the legal preliminaries and precedent to which I have alluded in another comment. He also mentioned difficulties with maintaining the register of electors.
My noble friend Lord Addison expanded on it, with "on account of the difficulties of registration and other difficulties connected with the enormous displacement of population, it would be a practical impossibility to hold an Election just now, apart from the reasons connected with the war itself and the necessity for the non-diversion of our mental and physical energies from war ends".
My noble friend Viscount Samuel asserted that there was unanimity on the issues before the kingdom. There would be no issues to place before the people, and the existing governing coalition would probably agree not to contest existing seats, so that the new parliament would return practically the same House of Commons. "There would, however, be this difference, that the same old Parliament would be given the status of a new one, and the present artificial conditions would have their effect during a period of perhaps four or five years. That would not really be to strengthen the control of the people over Parliament, but in effect would be detrimental to it."
Or, alternately, elections might be contested, but over side issues not related to the war, "That might perhaps result in a House of Commons being elected which would not reflect the permanent desires of the electorate." And it would be difficult for the coalition leaders to continue "while their political followers were fighting for their electoral lives".
He expanded on the previous points about the register not being updated, large displacement of populations, and "there are difficulties with regard to the black-out and political meetings which would greatly detract from the effectiveness of any General Election".
I see no sign of there being a vote count in that year, regardless of the house, just a note that it passed on the third reading. In a debate in another place, on Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Bill of 26 October 1943, Mr. Morrison noted, "there is usually a minority of nine or to Members on the Prolongation of Parliament Bills". But division happened in the Commons, not in the happy precincts of your Lordships. I see a division on the second reading in the Commons, here, 30 September 1942, Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston), "On the first occasion, we challenged a Division in connection with this legislation, but the House overwhelmingly accepted the point of view that there should not be an election. At that time, the country accepted that view also, to a large extent. We carried the matter to a Division and recorded four or five votes.". I cannot help but mention a bit later,
Mr. McGovern Will hon. Members give me an opportunity to complete the point?
Sir R. Ross The hon. Member must be accurate.
Mr. McGovern I am trying to be accurate.
Sir R. Ross The hon. Member is not very successful.
The division on this occasion: Ayes, 215; Noes, 9.
I can find no division in 1943 or 1944. There were a few non-Coalition members, Common Wealth Party or Communist or whatnot, that spoke against the acts.
I thank my noble friends for allowing me to go on at such length. I should summarize the answers:
Nobody evinced any fear of a "pro-Peace" party winning. Had such happened as a result of a general election: the tenor of the remarks made by all members, that the Commons must reflect the will of the people, that the deepest constitutional principles must be upheld, and that elections are the necessary and useful basis for all governance, indicate that the will of the people would have been necessarily heeded.
I see no prominent politicians who advocated negotiations with Germany.
I do not know how the British public responded to the cancelled elections, but nobody mentioned objections in the debates that I saw.
Several members mentioned that, because the constitution was not written in stone, as in America, but could be modified by statute, the passage of the bills was an effective means of accomplishing the ends. But I must emphasize that the basic constitutional principle was still upheld, and I believe that that was one reason why each extension was for a year only, not an indefinite or "for the duration" extension.
If it's permitted to expand a question it would also be interesting to know how it was cancelled. Was there a vote in the Commons or did the two main parties simply agree that the PM needn't call an election.