SPECIAL COMMISSION ACT, 1888—PRODUCTION OF THE TEST ROLL. (Hansard, 22 December 1888)

§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)
presented a Petition from Messrs. Soames, Edwards, and Jones, 158, Lincoln's Inn Fields, the solicitors to The Times, praying that leave he given to the proper officer of the House to attend the Special Commission now sitting in the High Court of Justice for the purpose of producing the Test Rolls of the House of Commons from the year 1875 to 1888 inclusive, and having read the Petition, moved that leave be given in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners.

§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)
This, Sir, is a surprising and unprecedented proceeding; and I wish to know, in the first place, whether notice has been given to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that this 1000 Petition would be brought forward today. We all understood that this Sitting was simply for formal Business, in order that the Session might be brought to a close; but this is a proceeding which has reference to an Act passed in August last, nearly five months ago. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork was in attendance yesterday; he has been in constant attendance this week, but he happens to be absent now; and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the other Ministers now present whether a Petition of this kind, affecting, as it does, mainly and directly, an hon. Member of this House, should be made without notice in the absence of that hon. Member, although I have no doubt he would cheerfully accept it if he were present. I would beg to move, as an Amendment, that due notice be given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and that the prayer of the Petition be taken into consideration when my hon. Friend can be in attendance.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I think, perhaps, I ought to explain my action in this matter. During the Adjournment a Petition was presented to me asking that the Test Roll might be produced before the Court then sitting. I considered it very carefully, and I agreed to allow it to be produced, but only on condition that both parties should have access to it, and that no action should be taken on it unless under the direction of the Commission Court. No action was taken until the House met on November 6; and I then informed the parties that I should not consider it my province to allow the Test Roll to be supplied to the Commission Court, inasmuch as the House was sitting, and the ordinary course must be taken to petition the House that it might be granted.

§ MR. SEXTON
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, I am unable to say what action he would desire to take in the matter; but it certainly seems to me that in so vital a principle no action affecting a Member of this House should be taken in his absence and without notice, and I think it right to divide the House on the Question.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)
The general principle laid down by the hon. 1001 Gentleman is, of course, true—namely, that action should not be taken against an hon. Member of this House unless he is in his place and has received notice. But I do not gather that this Motion involves any action affecting an hon. Member. A duly constituted Court is sitting, and it is desired, in the interests of the Court itself and of the parties, that the Test Roll of this House should be produced. The House of Commons has sole control over its own documents. That is a matter which is notorious, and which cannot be affected by the present application in the least degree. Then I would ask, is the House prepared to withhold a document which is in its custody and which is required for the purposes of justice? I apprehend that it is clearly not. I cannot conceive that the absence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork can, in the least degree, affect the question. What ulterior consequences may result is a matter with which we have nothing to do.

§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)
May I ask if it is not the more usual course for the Court itself to make an application of this kind, rather than a firm of solicitors? I understand that the production of the Test Roll is required in order to test the signature of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether, as a lawyer, this is a regular course to take?

§ MR. MATTHEWS
I understood the Speaker to say that an application had been made to him; but that he refused to accede to it until a Petition was presented in regular form to the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
An application was made to me, and I said the Test Roll should be produced; but I guarded my consent, so that no unfair advantage should be taken, by saying that it should only be produced on condition that both parties had access to it, and that no action should be taken on it except under the direction of the Court. Of course, the Test Roll would have been produced if the House of Commons had not met again; but as the House had met again, and as I thought I had discharged my functions, I thought it best for the House to decide for itself when the Test Roll should be produced.

§ MR. SEXTON
I beg to thank you, Sir, for your statement; but having re- 1002 gard to the principle that no hon. Member should have action taken against him in his absence, I shall certainly divide against the Motion. I do not understand why the Motion cannot be postponed until Monday.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)
The House will only meet formally on Monday, and not for Business.

§ MR. SEXTON
Why not?