§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I wish to bring under the attention of the House a matter of privilege. Yesterday, Sir, you communicated to the House a letter which you had received from one of the Judges in Ireland informing this House that an order of attachment had been issued against Mr. P. A. M'Hugh, a Member of this House. Now there have been, as far as I can find out, only about four cases of this kind within recent times in the House of Commons, and in each case the question was treated as a matter of privilege and a Motion was submitted to the House appointing a Committee to inquire into the circumstances. I have looked into the eases with some care, and I find, with reference at any rate to one of the cases in the past the hon. Member in question was not in custody, and had not been arrested at the time the Motion was brought forward. It was the case of Mr. Charlton against whom an attachment was issued in the year 1837. The last case which came before the House was in the year 1882, and on that occasion Mr. Gladstone, who was then the Leader of the House, immediately rose and stated that the responsibility and duty rested upon him as Leader of the House of making a Motion in regard to the letter which had been received, announcing the issue of the Order. He moved in that case that the 1335 letter should be laid on the Table of the House, because, as a matter of fact, the date upon which the letter was communicated to the House was the very day before the adjournment, and Mr. Gladstone pointed out that it was impossible for the House to appoint a Committee to deal with the matter before the adjournment. He made a Motion that the letter lie on the Table, and when the House reassembled in the following October, on the very first day of its meeting the right hon. Gentleman followed the invariable precedent in every ease which had occurred for at least 100 years or more and moved that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the ease, and to report to the House thereupon. I propose, if I gather from you, Mr. Speaker, that the course is in order, to shortly state the facts to the House, and to conclude by bringing forward such a Motion as has been moved in previous cases.
§ * MR. SPEAKERMy impression was and is that no question of privilege arises until a Member is prevented from attending the service of the House. The making of an Order of Attachment is one thing, the actual arrest is another. In the case of Mr. Gray, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Member, when Mr. Gladstone made the Motion for a Committee, the learned Judge had reported that Mr. Gray had been committed under an Order for Attachment, and, although I believe he was subsequently released, he had actually been committed during the sittings of the House; therefore it appears that a question of privilege did arise. I am not aware of the circumstances of the case of Mr. Charlton, to which the hon. and learned Member refers, whether it appears that in that case—perhaps the hon. and learned Member will tell me—there had been an arrest or committal.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIt appears that in the case of Mr. Charlton the attachment had been issued, but he had not been arrested. As a matter of fact the report of the proceedings commenced with the reading out of a letter received by Mr. Speaker from the hon. Member in question, stating that an attachment had been issued against him, and that he was in fear if it were executed that he 1336 would be prevented from performing his Parliamentary duties. Therefore he asked that the House should take cognisance of the Order which had been made against him.
§ * MR. SPEAKERDo I understand that the Attachment Order in that case was made by an English Court, and that Mr. Charlton was in England at the time?
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDYes, it was made by the Lord Chancellor of England, and Mr. Charlton wrote to the House from an hotel in Palace Yard.
§ * MR. SPEAKERMr. Charlton, then, was clearly in immediate danger of apprehension. This case seems to be somewhat different. I believe the fact is that the hon. Member for North Leitrim, as long as he is in England, is not liable to arrest under the Order of Attachment, and he can go on actually serving in this House. As a matter of fact he is so serving, for yesterday he presented a Bill. It appears to me that under these circumstances there is no present case of privilege. If he is arrested, then a question of privilege will arise, and the hon. Member will be in a position to make the Motion, if it is not done by the Leader of the House.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDOf course, Sir, I must accept your decision, and I take it the effect is that inasmuch as a Writ of Attachment has been issued by an Irish Court, it cannot be executed in England. Therefore the hon. Member against whom it has been issued is in no immediate danger of having his Parliamentary duties interfered with. The question of privilege we are told does not arise at the moment, but it will arise when the hon. Member is arrested, if over he should be arrested.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat is my view. Of course, if I am right in the view I have expressed, that an Order of Attachment made in Ireland cannot be executed in this country, it is quite possible that the hon. Member for North Leitrim may remain free from arrest the whole session.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMay I interpolate this observation? I have carefully considered the cases brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall consider it my duty as Leader of the House, and in obedience to precedent, to move for a Committee if the hon. Member is attached.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDMay I be allowed to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman? He says that he has carefully inquired into the case. Has he taken the advice of the legal advisers of the Government, and is he prepared to endorse the view of the law laid down by Mr. Speaker, namely, that the Attachment cannot be executed while the hon. Member for North Leitrim remains in England?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAny statement of mine on the subject cannot be regarded as carrying with it the smallest authority, but I believe that Mr. Speaker's view of the law is regarded as absolutely correct.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThat was not my question. The right hon. Gentleman says he has inquired into the case. I want to know if he has taken the advice of the law officers of the Crown.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think I ought to be asked to go further than I have done. If the hon. and learned Member means have I submitted a case for the consideration of the law officers of the Crown in a formal way, I may say that I have not taken any such step, but I have, of course, consulted my hon. and learned friends.