§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has given me notice that he wishes to raise a question of privilege. Now is the time for him to raise it.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe point of privilege which I wish to raise is whether, before Black Rod is admitted, later on, it will be in order for me to move the Resolutions of which I have given notice. I have taken the trouble to go through, to some extent, the Commons Debate of 1629, and I have also gone to the outer Lobby and looked at the picture there, which the House of Commons ordered to be placed on the walls, of the remarkable scene that took place when certain Members of the House wished to enforce the right of the House to decide for itself whether it should or should not adjourn, and so conserve its liberty to meet and debate public questions without interference from the Crown or from any outside body. On that occasion, as you will remember—[Laughter]—I do not think 3354 that it is a laughing matter. You would not put up the picture if it were a laughing matter. I think that you meant by putting up the picture to prove to the people who come in their shoals that the House of Commons is a free and independent Assembly, and is competent and has the right to represent the Commons of England without interference from any outside body, however highly placed.
On that occasion the door was locked and, as you will remember, the men who held your predecessor in the Chair so as to prevent an adjournment are looked upon as the preservers of our privileges and rights as Members of this House. I understand from you that you consider that, if the Consolidated Fund Bill is passed, then the House, by passing this Bill, assents to its adjournment. I tried to find in Sir Erskine May's book some justification for that point of view, but all that I can find is that the House cannot be prorogued until the Appropriation Bill or Consolidated Fund Bill is passed, but I cannot find anything which says that when that Bill is passed the House must be adjourned. Some of us feel a responsibility in this respect. There has been considerable discussion of the question of unemployment, and we are going to be asked to-day to break up without having done anything effective for the men and women of this country. I do not deny that certain things have been done and certain money has been voted for it, but I am unable to see that anything effective has been done. I understand, from the little reading which I did before I came here, that the men who fought for the right to continue the sittings of this House considered that the country was in great danger from political action by the Monarch at that time, and, because of that danger, they insisted that this House should be kept in Session. I cannot imagine that the condition of England 300 years ago could possibly have been worse than at the present moment for the working classes. I feel that it is a crime against the working classes for us to go home without having done anything. I know that I may be told that we have spoken and, perhaps, not put any constructive proposals before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must confine himself to a point of privilege. 3355 He cannot argue the merits of the question. If he will make his observations on the point of privilege, I shall be prepared to give a ruling when he has finished.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am rather prone to trying to anticipate the objections to what I am saying. The privilege which I claim is this. As I understand the Constitution—I am not a lawyer and I am afraid I am not considered to be a Constitutionalist—the King can do no wrong, because the Ministers represent the King. I know that they represent the majority in the House, but I claim the right, as an individual Member of this House, to be able to say here when Black Rod comes that, in my opinion, the House ought not to respond to Black Rod and go to the House of Lords to be prorogued. I think that all Members have the right collectively and individually to say whether they agree to the House being prorogued or not, and it is that point which I wish to put to you. I put it on the ground that this precedent, which we have in the picture outside and as to which every Member I am sure is proud, to think of what our predecessors did on that occasion is still in existence, and that therefore we are able to claim the right to-day to move, when Black Rod comes, that we shall not respond to his invitation to go to the House of Lords.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that the hon. Member has overlooked the relevant passages in Sir Erskine May's book on Parliamentary Procedure. If he refers in that book to page 49, which deals with the question of Prorogation, he will see it clearly stated that the summoning of Parliament and the proroguing of Parliament are matters for the Crown. The hon. Member has referred to the interesting picture, now in St. Stephen's Hall, representing the scene when one of my predecessors was held in the Chair, from which he wished to retire. If hon. Members will pursue their studies a little more deeply, they will understand the meaning of that picture, because it is still preserved in our Parliamentary procedure. When we come to the next Session of Parliament, a full Session, they will observe that before I am allowed to leave the Chair, and before the Commons will enter into Committee of Supply, the Question has to be put to the House, "That the Speaker do now leave the 3356 Chair." The hon. Member is right in claiming—I quite understand the substance of his claim—that since that incident the House has always jealously preserved its right of not entering into Committee of Supply, and, therefore, not letting the Speaker leave the Chair for Committee of Supply to begin until it has had an opportunity of discussing its grievances.
The hon. Member will find that there will be a ballot for Notices of Motion next Session, before the House enters into Committee of Supply on the various Estimates for the year, for the Civil Service, the Army and Navy, and also, in more recent days, the Air Force. That is enshrined in our present-day procedure and follows the precedent of the incident in the picture to which the hon. Member has referred. So we are a very long way from departing from that incident of our constitutional history. The hon. Member claims that the coming of Black Rod with a message from the Crown enables him to raise a question of privilege. That really is not so. That, as much as the other, is part of our Constitution. The claim of the hon. Member reduced to its elementary substance is this: That His Majesty the King, instead of being advised by his Ministers, who base themselves on the support of the majority of this House, should be advised by the minority, represented by the hon. Member and his friends. I can imagine nothing less constitutional, and, therefore, I am bound to say that no question of privilege can arise.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDIn order further to elucidate this very interesting point, may I ask your ruling on this: The constitutional assumption is that His Majesty's Ministers advise His Majesty that Parliament should be prorogued today. Would it not be in order if an hon. Member, before Black Rod comes, were to move, "That this House do now adjourn"? Would not that Motion be in order and might it not be divided upon before Black Rod Comes?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. The Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by Standing Orders can only be proposed by the Minister, except, of course, in cases under Standing Order No. 10, which stand on a different basis.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNDoes this mean that it lies really with the Prime Minister not only to decide when the House shall rise and its Debates cease, but also when it shall meet again, and that no Members of the House have any power to alter the decision?
§ Mr. NEWBOLDIs the Prime Minister an integral part of our Constitution at all?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is something to be said for what the hon. Member has raised as a nice point of the Constitution, but I do not think it is quite relevant to the case we have in hand. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), it is clear in our Constitution that it rests with His Majesty the King. It is set out in page 49 of Sir Erskine May's book on Parliamentary Procedure that the summoning and proroguing of Parliament are matters for His Majesty the King.
§ Mr. McENTEEIs there any means by which any number of Members of this House can secure a re-assembly of Parliament before the time mentioned, for the purpose of considering matters of grave national importance?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThey can always make representations to His Majesty's advisers.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe statement of Sir Erskine May is that His Majesty calls Parliament and prorogues Parliament on the advice of his Ministers. As I understand from you, Sir, the majority of the House is behind the Ministers. But my point is that on this particular question the House has not said anything at all. It has not passed a Motion that we want to adjourn or that we do not want to adjourn, and, therefore, His Majesty cannot know whether the House wants to adjourn or not.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe House, by a considerable majority, granted the Supply which was asked for.
§ Mr. LANSBURYNot all our grievances have been discussed. This is a particular grievance that we want to bring before the House.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the case that the only constitutional way of preventing the Prorogation was to have voted against the Consolidated Fund Bill?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat was the advice which I gave privately to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI do not want to detain the House any longer, except to say that I am still unconverted. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much indeed for the kind way in which you have dealt with the matter, and to say that my only object in raising it was exactly what I said here to-day.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put the matter to me. If he desires to raise a Debate on any constitutional question, I imagine that there will be many Tuesday and Wednesday evenings when we meet again, and I shall listen with great interest to any fresh point he wishes to bring forward on the constitutional issue.