HC Deb 27 February 1882 vol 266 cc1704-6
MR. GREGORY

asked Mr. Attorney General, If Michael Davitt, lately returned as Member for Meath, can, having regard to his present position, legally take his seat in this House; whether such return is void; and, whether a new writ must issue?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Sir, I hope the House will excuse me from answering the first part of the Question placed on the Paper, because that is a Question which the House must answer for itself, and that almost immediately. The usual course in relation to cases where a person convicted of felony is returned to the House is for the House to receive legal information of such convictions by a Report of the same being laid on the Table. In the case of Michael Davitt, a copy of his conviction will be laid on the Table in the course of the evening, and the matter so arising will be one of Privilege. If the House sees no objection a Motion will be made to-morrow, I believe, for a new Writ.

MR. R. POWER

wished to ask a Question he had put before, Whether the result of the Meath election had been communicated to the hon. Member for Meath?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I am unable to say.

MR. GORST

wished to know, whether, in the document alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General, it was stated that the Member elected to serve was a convicted felon; and, if so, whether such return was not void?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That Question has been already answered. The document will be laid on the Table this evening, and come in proper form under the cognizance of the House, when a Motion is made on the subject. It would be irregular to deal with it until the fact of the conviction can be substantiated by documents instead of by word of mouth.

MR. GORST

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had seen the return, and knew what it contained; and he wanted to know if there was any necessity for the House waiting?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that when the record of the conviction was laid upon the Table the matter could be discussed.

MR. HEALY

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the Prime Minister, Whether, before the issue of the new Writ, the usual precedent will be followed, and the hon. Member for Meath be afforded the opportunity given to Mr. Bradlaugh to himself appear at the Bar of the House in order that he may be heard in his own defence?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in reply, said that the question was one which it was for the House and not for him to decide.

MR. CALLAN

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why is it that the precedent set in this House in 1870 in the case of O'Donovan Rossa, and in 1875 in the case of John Mitchel, is not followed in the present case—that formal notice should be given with regard to the conviction, and should be laid upon the Table of the House?

[No reply.]