HC Deb 13 February 1884 vol 284 cc775-6
MR. NEWDEGATE

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the power of suing for penalties any person who, as an elected Member, has voted in this House when not qualified by having duly taken the oath of allegiance, which power has devolved upon the Attorney General as an Officer of the Crown, does or does not involve an absolute duty to proceed with such suit or suits; and, whether it is in the power of Her Majesty's Ministers to exercise a discretion as to directing the Attorney General to proceed or to abstain from proceeding with such suit or suits? The House is aware that these Questions arise out of what took place yesterday relating to the issue of the Writ for the election of a Member for the borough of Northampton.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

There are some argumentative statements in this Question with which I do not agree. For instance, the hon. Gentleman says— Which power has devolved upon the Attorney General as an Officer of the Crown, does or does not involve an absolute duty to proceed with such suit or suits. I know nothing that has occurred of late that has caused the power to devolve on the Attorney General to sue more than at all times to sue on the part of the Crown. It is true that the House of Lords has decided that a private person cannot sue for these penalties. That seems to me rather to intensify the duty of the Attorney General; but it does not create the duty or cause it to devolve upon him. I may mention, in reference to this matter, that, in answer to a Question on the 17th of April last, the Prime Minister took this view, and stated that no doubt the duty did devolve, under certain circumstances, upon the Attorney General to sue for penalties on behalf of the Crown. With respect to the second portion of the Question, I think it raises certainly a very delicate question as to how far Her Majesty's Ministers might direct the Attorney General to proceed, or abstain from proceeding, with such suit or suits. It seems to me that, in the first instance, the Attorney General has no absolute duty cast upon him to sue for penalties on behalf of the Crown, without exercising his discretion whether the case is a proper one in which he ought to sue or not. As to how far the Cabinet might direct the Attorney General against his discretion to sue for penalties raises a delicate question. I am quite certain every Law Officer will be willing to listen to any suggestion, even if it amounts to a direction, from Her Majesty's Ministers. If the Attorney General's discretion differs from such discretion or suggestion I am sure the ingenuity of all future Law Officers will be sufficient to find some means of reconciling the two different conditions which may arise.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I wish to observe that the answer does not cover one particular point. It is quite true that the Attorney General acts in cases of offences against this House as prosecutor, but it is by direction of the House. I wish to ask whether the difference made by the late decision of the House of Lords was not this—that if the Attorney General prosecutes he does so not as the agent of this House or of the public, but as the agent of the Crown?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I do not know that the House of Lords in terms came, to that decision. The decision of the House of Lords was that under the particular Statute a subject cannot sue for a penalty, as the right is only in the Crown. Of course, if the Attorney General, as the Law Officer representing the Crown, sues, he does not sue as the representative of the House, but simply as the agent or representative of the Crown to recover a penalty which is due to the Crown.