§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI desire to ask your ruling on a matter arising out of yesterday's 610 proceedings. I raised the question as to who was responsible for the exclusion of the deputation which desired to interview the Prime Minister on the previous evening. You quoted the Sessional Order under which the police acted. I desire now to call your attention to an Act of Charles II. that has a direct bearing upon the position, and to ask your ruling upon the point I shall submit to you. The Act, as you of course know, was intended to prohibit tumultuous assemblages and riotous proceedings in connection with the presentation of Petitions to Members. Certain penalties were imposed upon those guilty of that offence. Clause 3 of the Act which, with your permission I shall read, safeguards the right of petition not only to His Majesty the King, but also to Members of the House—and that is the point I wish to ask your ruling upon. Clause 3 stipulates: "Provided always that this Act or anything therein contained shall not be considered to extend to debar or hinder any person or persons, not exceeding the number of ten aforesaid, to present any public or private grievance or complaint to any Member or Members of Parliament after his election and during the continuance of Parliament." That recognises the right of citizens not merely to present petitions to the King, but also to approach Members of this House. The point I desire your ruling on is whether the Sessional Order under which this deputation was prevented from approaching a Member of this House is not ultra vires, and whether any Order can override a right which exists in common law, and which has been expressly confirmed by Act of Parliament?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that the question raised by the hon. Member is really a point of law, and not one for me but for the Courts to decide. Indeed, I believe it is the subject of investigation and consideration in the Courts at present, and it would be an improper thing for me to give an opinion upon it. I could not either undertake to hold that a Sessional Order, which has now been passed every Session exactly in its present form for nearly seventy years, was out of order. It would be a great reflection on all former Parliaments if I enunciated any such view, or laid down any such ruling. I understand an Order, though not exactly in the same terms, but of a similar character, has been passed, I might almost say, for centuries, but at all events for a century. It would seem almost impossible to con- 611 ceive that all our predecessors in this Chamber have been acting ultra vires in this matter.