§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I desire to call attention to a matter of privilege affecting most seriously the dignity and proceedings of the House. I spy strangers within the Bar. I believe there are several strangers within the Bar, but the particular stranger I have now in my mind is the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. By a Statute of Queen Anne any one appointed a, Minister of the Crown vacates his seat by the appointment. I read in the London Gazette of 25th January the following—
This day the Right Hon. Arthur James Balfour was by His Majesty's commands sworn First Lord of the Treasury.The right hon. Gentleman was reappointed, but surely a reappointment necessarily is an appointment? That, at any rate, is the contention which is held by a very large number of Members of this House, and I believe that it is a correct contention. Under the circumstances, I ask whether the Deputy Speaker sees his way to direct the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to retire from this Chamber, or whether, if he thinks his authority does not stretch to that point, as a matter of privilege I have a right to move that the right hon. Gentleman be invited to withdraw from the House.
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERI understand the hon. Member for Northampton takes exception to the presence here of the First Lord of the Treasury on the ground that he accepted an appointment in the month of January, and that 377 thereby he vacated his seat. I cannot decide whether the hon. Member for Northampton is correct in that surmise or not, but anyhow it seems to me that he cannot be serious in asking me to look upon the First Lord of the Treasury as a stranger here. If there is anything in the point it ought to have been raised on the first appearance of the First Lord of the Treasury, and this is not the first appearance the First Lord has made in the House this session. If the hon. Member seeks to raise the question as a matter of privilege, I think he will also be aware that it is the essence of privilege that the motion should be brought in at once—as soon as the wrongdoing takes place. In this case notice, if taken at all, should have been taken at the commencement of the session. I think the hon. Member for Northampton is too late.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this question. Supposing that a Member taking the Chiltern Hundreds was in the habit of strolling into the House after he had accepted it. Suppose no one knew him by sight—would that gentleman secure the right to come into the House? I have had brought quite recently to my notice the fact that day after day the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has occupied a most prominent place in a most prominent part of the House. This is a very serious matter if the right hon. Gentleman has no right to sit here. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether a Member has waived his privilege by not calling attention to the presence of a stranger before; whether the offence is not a continuous one; and whether it is not open at any time to any Member to call attention to the fact of a stranger being present? Further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you consider you have no right to order him to withdraw, I ask whether the matter cannot be brought before the House? I would remind you that Mr. Bradlaugh was frequently invited to leave the House—force being used on one occasion—and whenever he appeared in the House some hon. Gentleman got up—I am not quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, was not one of them—to call attention to his presence.
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe case which the hon. Member for Northampton has just put makes the case perfectly clear. He said that whenever Mr. Bradlaugh appeared in the House notice was immediately taken of the fact. That really is the point. The moment the First Lord of the Treasury appeared in the House the hon. Member for Northampton, with his usual vigilance, ought to have taken notice of his presence.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)I want to ask whether the offence, if there be one, is not a continuing one, and whether it is not repeated every time the right hon. Gentleman enters the House?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)Supposing the contention of the hon. Member for Northampton, that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted office, is well founded, I would ask you how that matter could be called attention to in this House, if not by the House?
* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERIn the same manner as in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. Proceedings were taken in the courts of law against that gentleman. I think there was also another hon. Member against whom similar proceedings were taken—Dr. Clark.