§ Mr. JOHN DILLONI wish to bring under notice a very gross and outrageous breach of the privileges of this House, and to submit, after briefly explaining the case, the following Resolution: "That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Norfolk did infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning himself in the election of a Member to represent the county of Derby, High Peak, in the Commons, the Committee of Privileges do inquire into the said alleged breach of privilege." The ground on which I propose to make that Motion is as follows. On Saturday last one of the candidates in this division of the county of Derby, from a platform, in the middle of the contest read the following letter—Mr. Profumo, before addressing the meeting, read a letter from the Duke of Norfolk to the following effect:—
My dear Profumo,May I wish yon every success in your present contest. On general grounds, I most earnestly hope you will be returned, hut I am all the more anxious for this result when I remember that you have always cheerfully pledged yourself to support the interests of our Catholic children in our schools. The question is not of such pressing interest at this moment us it has been at other times, but the struggle is not ended, and at any times and with little notice we may find ourselves in need of every champion in whom all can place our trust.There are many precedents for bringing breaches of privilege of this character before the House of Commons, but I think of the instances that come to my memory that this is one of the most outrageous and deliberate violations of our Resolution in this regard that I can ever recall, because in this instance the Duke of Norfolk, in the very heat of the contest, in the middle of the contest, wrote a letter to one candidate apparently with the inten- 274 tion, at all events with the result, to have that read as a campaign document. In all the other cases that I can recall—and I am not going to trouble the House with a long list of precedents—the interference was of a much less open and deliberate and aggressive character. The last case, and I only mention the last precedent, was in the case of Lord Atkinson. The case was brought before the House on 19th February, 1906, of the present Parliament, and was the only case brought forward in the present Parliament. I moved on that occasion that Lord Atkinson was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House because he voted in the election for St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin. Now what happened? Lord Atkinson had heard some rumours that this Motion was about to be made, and he acted very properly and wrote to Mr. Speaker a letter of apology and explanation, which was read from the Chair on the occasion of the Debate, when I withdrew the Motion. I will read one passage from Lord Atkinson's letter:—At the time I voted I did not think that any question could be raised as to my right to exercise the franchise, since my Patent had not been delivered to me nor had I received any summons to the House of Lords.That, at all events, was a plausible excuse, and it showed a desire on the part of Lord Atkinson not openly and outrageously to defy the Resolution of the House of Commons. In the present instance no such excuse can possibly be offered. The Duke of Norfolk surely cannot have any doubt as to whether he is a peer of Parliament, and he has been too long a Member of the other House to have any doubt as to the character of his action. Therefore, I maintain in writing this letter he must have written it with the fullest knowledge that he was defying and trampling under foot the Resolution of this House. I am one of those who have supported Mr. James Lowther, and seconded his Motion over and over again, to put an end to this preposterous position of this House in passing this Resolution, but I do most earnestly submit to hon. Members opposite, and to all Members of this House, that this House ought not to allow itself to be flouted, and their procedure to be turned into an absolute farce. If you like remove this Resolution. I shall vote for its removal from our proceedings. You pass the Resolution in these terms every Session:—"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of 275 Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Irleand, at such elections in Great Britain respectively, where such peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any lord-lieutenant or governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
Every Session we pass that Resolution that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of this House, and then when the Noble Duke comes forward in the most flagrant and deliberate fashion, defies that Resolution, takes an active part, sending a letter as a campaign document to be read out by one of the candidates. I say that that is turning this House into ridicule. Without taking up any more time, because the issue is too clear to require lengthy discussion, I earnestly appeal to hon. Members, no matter what the Front Benches may say, to do one thing or the other. The Front Benches always say the same on this matter. They always deprecate action, and say that we cannot do anything. If we cannot do anything, why do we pass the Resolution every Session? I ask hon. Members opposite, who are in an overwhelming majority, to mark their sense of their own dignity and the dignity of the House by proceeding against this high and mighty Duke, or else drop this Resolution for ever. I beg to move.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDformally seconded the Resolution.
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The Resolution moved by the hon. Member naturally raises once more, though in an indirect way, the question of how far the Sessional Order which we pass at the beginning of each Session should be regarded as a piece of waste-paper. I may claim to have a perfectly open mind on the matter, as in the course of my Parliamentary experience I have voted both for and against maintaining the Sessional Order. It is only by a very slow process of reasoning, and after a good deal of hesitation, that I have finally come to the conclusion, for reasons which were very well stated by the Leader of the Opposition—I think on the last occasion when the matter was dis- 276 cussed, in 1905—that on the whole it is better that this House should annually renew the determination that the electors of this country should be free to exercise the franchise without any interference from any Member of the House of Peers. If that is the case, it seems to me if a clear instance is produced—and on the facts stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), which we have no reason to doubt, there has been such interference—of a deliberate infraction of this Sessional Order, the House will be stultifying itself if it takes no notice of it, or if it adopts the course taken on the occasion to which I have referred, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Leader of the House, of simply carrying the "previous question," and thereby giving the go-by to the whole thing. Without attempting to prejudge the merits of the partner case, still less forecasting what action, if any, this House should take on the Report of the Committee if it be shown that a breach of privilege has been committed, I. think on the facts stated a case has been made for sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges to be investigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the matter goes to a Division, I shall vote in favour of the Resolution.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURIf the Leader of the House and the majority of the House think it worth while to go through the formality of sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges, I do not think that anybody need greatly concern himself one way or the other. The matter seems to me to be exceedingly trivial, and I am really astonished at the tone of tragedy in which the hon. Member for Past Mayo (Mr. Dillon) laid it before the House. I have often had to speak on the subject of the privileges of the House of Commons, and I have always taken the line that no doubt the procedure is antiquated, and that doubtless from time to time there are breaches of the Sessional Order, but that if you formally abolish the Sessional Order you will practically give an invitation to every Member of the other House to take an active part in elections; and I see no advantage from the House of Commons point of view—it might possibly be an advantage from the party point of view—in extending a formal invitation to Peers to concern themselves in the actual contest for every vacant seat. That, I think, is a perfectly sound line to take; but it does not follow that you should set to work some great constitutional 277 machinery whenever some Noble Lord makes a speech or writes a letter which in our opinion provides a primâ facie case for imagining that the Sessional Order has been broken. Everybody knows that in spirit the political life of this country is one, and you cannot possibly keep out any member of the community, male or female, peer or commoner, from taking some active part in the political life of the country. So clearly is that felt, that this Rule is interpreted—I do not know whether it has been formally laid down—as meaning that, when the Writ has been issued, a Peer, who may without offence make a speech every day for a month beforehand in favour of either of the recognised candidates, must thereafter hold his peace until the result of the election is declared. That is evidently a most arbitrary and technical distinction, although it may serve some general useful purpose. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pike Pease) reminds me that at the election of a relative of his for Darlington the late Duke of Devonshire spoke on the night before the nomination, and I am not aware that that was con tended to be a breach of privilege. Every body will admit that the Duke of Devon shire's going down the night before the nomination was a much more substantial interference with an election than a letter to a candidate expressing a desire that he may get in, which that candidate, as the letter was not marked "Private," was presumably at liberty to read in his constituency. When it comes to so fine a point as that, that a man of the political position of the late Duke of Devonshire may, without violating the Sessional Order, speak on the day before the nomination—
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDWhy did it not?
§ Mr. BALFOURThe House took no action.
§ Mr. JOSEPH PEASEIn that particular case, the Writ was issued the day the speech was delivered, but it had not been received at Darlington.
§ Mr. BALFOURThat really confirms the point I am endeavouring to lay before the House. My view was, and it appears to be right, that the Duke of Devonshire did not violate the technical letter of the 278 Resolution. Everybody will admit that he made a far more important and substantial contribution to the result of that election by making a speech in the constituency on the day before the nomination, after the Writ had been issued, but before it had been received, than if a mere letter had been written of the character described by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I remember another case, the reference to which I have here in the Journals of the House. On March 19th, 1894, a Motion was made:—
That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery, a Peer of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, a member of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the county of Midlothian, has, by a speech on the 17th March, in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the Burgh of Leith for the Commons in Parliament.That was moved by the late Lord Randolph Churchill. An Amendment was proposed to leave out all the words after "That," in order to add the words, "the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day." That Amendment was moved by the late Sir William Harcourt.
§ The PRIME MINISTERLord Rosebery's speech was not made in the constituency, but in Edinburgh. It is not very far off, but a substantial difference exists.
§ Mr. BALFOURIf anything had been required to turn the whole thing into ridicule, to make the proceedings utterly absurd, ab initio, it is the distinction which the Prime Minister has drawn between Leith and Edinburgh. Everybody knows that Leith and Edinburgh are continuous, much as Manchester and Salford are. According to the statement of the late Sir William Harcourt, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, it would be a breach of privilege to make a speech in Manchester if there was an election going on in Manchester, but to make a speech in Salford, which is just over the street, would not be a breach of privilege. And so important did the Radical Government in 1894 think that, that instead of pursuing the course now suggested or accepted by the Prime Minister, they moved to proceed to the Orders of the day.
I just ask the House to compare the two cases. You have the Prime Minister of the day and the Lord Lieutenant of the County in which the thing took place making a speech—
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt had nothing to do with the election.
§ Mr. BALFOURThat was not the point the right hon. Gentleman made just now.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWhat happened was this, speaking from recollection: Lord Rosebery made a political speech at Edinburgh, and there was a bye-election going on in Leith. The speech in Edinburgh had nothing whatever to do with the candidature. If my memory is correct, the meeting was arranged weeks, if not months, before. It was an ordinary political meeting. In this case it is a letter written to a candidate.
§ Mr. BALFOURI wonder whether any body, including the Prime Minister, thinks he has improved his case by that interruption! Observe what the distinction between the two cases is. Which is the greater interference with a pending election: That you should write a letter saying you hope the candidate will get in, or that the Prime Minister of the day should go to the adjoining constituency in his own county and make a speech in favour of the Government, of which he is a member, and its policy, and which the candidate in the neighbouring constituency is endeavouring to represent? Why everyone knows that if you leave the form and try to get at the substance of this matter, that the interference of Lord Rosebery—I am not criticising it—
§ Mr. W. P. BYLESLord Rosebery lives in that constituency.
§ Mr. BALFOURNot in Leith.
§ Mr. BYLESHe was merely present at a political meeting in his own constituency at the time this election was going on.
§ Mr. BALFOURI am not quite sure that I apprehend the hon. Gentleman yet! He seems to think that Lord Rosebery was not interfering in the election of a friend who was also, I think, at the time, his secretary.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHe had been appointed a Lord of the Treasury.
§ Mr. BALFOURA Member of his own Government. The difference apparently is that Lord Rosebery lived in the constituency. I should have thought that if anything could aggravate the offence that would, because Lord Rosebery not merely spoke as Prime Minister, not merely as a colleague of the candidate, as a former chief of the candidate, but as a personal friend of the candidate. He also spoke as Lord Lieutenant of the county, and with 280 all the authority of a neighbour, and a great personage in the district naturally possesses.
§ Mr. BALFOURIt is perfectly absurd—if we are looking at realities, not at forms—it is perfectly absurd to either condemn the action of Lord Rosebery in that case or that of the Duke of Devonshire in the other case which I quoted. After all, nobody so loves these antiquated and rusty weapons as a Radical. They have a perfect passion for these semi-obsolete forms. If they really want to satisfy that passion I do not sec why they should not do so, so long as they do not ask too many hon. Gentlemen who have to attend all-night sittings to take part in these important deliberations of the Committee. For my own part, I confess I think the House will stultify itself by the proposed action. Those who are concerned in proving can easily prove that. Whatever the Committee of Privileges find, they will be perfectly helpless.
§ Mr. DILLONThen abolish the Rule.
§ Mr. BALFOURThen this is not a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk. To bring a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk with a view to abolishing the Rule seems to me to be a most roundabout, cumbrous and ludicrous method to arrive at an end which you can simply attain if you only take the proper steps to attain it.
Under these circumstances I shall not give the slightest adhesion to the policy accepted by the Prime Minister. I think it is altogether absurd, and quite inconsistent with the practice of this House during the last 20 or 30 years. I do not care to go back to too musty an antiquity for my precedents, or to follow the perverted Toryism of hon. Gentlemen opposite or those, below the Gangway. They might well occupy themselves in preserving within the Constitution the living working elements in that Constitution, instead of furbishing up these bows and arrows of an immemorial antiquity.
§ Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEYI move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and add the words "this House do proceed to the Order of the day." In doing so I respectfully submit, if the House desires to seek a quarrel with the House of Lords, something more substantial than a letter to "My Dear Profumo" should be the 281 basis of that contest. I desire to suggest to the House that perhaps, in the absence of the Noble Duke whose letter is under consideration, we may not be doing him justice in proceeding with this Resolution. All we know from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) is that the Noble Duke has written to his "Dear Profumo." There is no primâ facie evidence that the Noble Duke ever intended the letter to be read. For all we know he may have wished it not to be read. The writing of the letter clearly could not be a breach of privilege. It is the publication of the letter which constitutes a breach of privilege. If the publication of that letter is a breach of the privileges of this House, the crime was committed partly by the Duke and partly by his "Dear Profumo." Therefore, the hon. Member opposite must couple, I suggest, "Dear Profumo" with the Duke, as aiding and abetting in the commission of a great offence. I say, in all seriousness, that the opportunity for a quarrel with the other House may come before long on more important matters, and I suggest to the House that, in the circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence that the letter was ever intended to be used, and that the letter was, in express terms, limited to a question which—the hon. Member will admit—is very dear to the heart of the Noble Duke, and was of a special character that almost justifies the Duke in expressing his personal view to the candidate, this House may pass the matter over and without prejudice may proceed to the Order of the day.
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes anyone second the Amendment?
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI hope the House will adopt the original Motion proposed by my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. A late friend of his, and of many of us, Mr. James Lowther, annually proposed that this Rule against the interference of Peers in elections should not be re-enacted. I had the honour several times of supporting Mr. Lowther both by speech and vote, and on every single occasion on which I protested against this Rule I found the Leader of the Opposition in the Lobby opposed to Mr. Lowther and myself, and in favour of the maintenance of this Rule. The right hon. Gentleman 282 described this Rule, which he then so jealously guarded, as antiquated. Either the Rule ought not to be passed or it ought to be observed. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), I cannot take quite the same view of the interference of the Duke of Norfolk as he does. The hon. Member said the Duke's interference was on ac count of a cause very dear to him. The cause, I assume, to which the hon. Member alluded, and which is the subject mentioned in the letter, was the cause of the Catholic schools. Let me inform the hon. Member and the House that the Noble Duke had a far less serious and less sacred and a more personal cause. The Duke of Norfolk happens to be a large land holder in this particular place, and recently I find, from a speech delivered during the election by the Liberal candidate, that the Duke of Norfolk had got lately £136 per acre for land which a few years ago was only worth £25 an acre; that he got altogether £43,000—
§ Mr. SPEAKERReally, I fail to see what this has got to do with the subject of the Debate. The hon. Member must con fine himself either to the Motion or to the Amendment. The character of the Duke of Norfolk as a land-owner does not come into the matter—
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOROf course I do not in the least mean not to obey your ruling immediately; but might I be permitted to say that the point I was endeavouring to make, perhaps wrongly, was that the in terference of the Duke in this particular election was connected with his personal interest—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question docs not arise upon the Motion. The Question is whether, being a peer, he concerned him self with the election in question, not whether, being a land-owner in the division, he concerned himself with the election—
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORI do not wish to persevere with that argument in face of your ruling. I wished to answer the observations of the hon. Member opposite that the interference of the Noble Duke was entirely due to his profound religious conviction, and to suggest it was due to strong personal interest.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 62.
285| Division No. 333.] | AYES. | [4.7 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Ginnell, L. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | O'Dowd, John |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Agnew, George William | Glover, Thomas | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.) |
| Alden, Percy | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Pirie, Duncan, V. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pointer, J. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hart-Davies, T. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Reddy, M. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hazleton, Richard | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Beale, W. P. | Henry, Charles S. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Bertram, Julius | Higham, John Sharp | Richardson, A. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Hobart, Sir Robert | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hogan, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Holt, Richard Durning | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Horniman, Emslie John | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brace, William | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Brooke, Stopford | Idris, T. H. W. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jenkins, J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Seely, Colonel |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jowett, F. W | Shackleton, David James |
| Byles, William Pollard | Joyce, Michael | Sheehy, David |
| Cameron, Robert | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Kekewich, Sir George | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Kilbride, Denis | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Snowden, P. |
| Clough, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Steadman, W. C. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W). | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lundon, T. | Summerbell, T. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lupton, Arnold | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Crean, Eugene | Lyell, Charles Henry | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cross, Alexander | Lynch, H. B. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Crossley, William J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cullinan, J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Maclean, Donald | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Delany, William | Marnham, F. J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Meagher, Michael | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dickinson W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Menzies, Sir Walter | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Dillon, John | Middlebrook, William | Weir, James (Galloway) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Mond, A. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mooney, J. J. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morse, L. L. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Falconer, J. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nussey, Sir Willans | |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Nuttall, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain |
| Fullerton, Hugh | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Gill, A. H. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Carlile, E. Hildred |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bellairs, Carlyon | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Butcher, Samuel Henry | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Oddy, John James | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Paulton, James Mellor | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Younger, George |
| Hills, J. W. | Pretyman, E G. | |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Samuel Roberts. |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Rees, J. D. | |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI desire to ask the Prime Minister for some further explanation as to the intentions of the Government. At the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and under the guidance of the Prime Minister, the House has rejected the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to pass on to the Orders of the day without expressing any opinion upon this occurrence. They have decided that there is a primâ facie breach of privilege of such a serious character that it must be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House. I presume that in due course the Committee of Privileges, having considered the matter and investigated the facts, about which there appears to be little dispute, will report to Parliament, and that Report will be made to this House. Obviously, as the Government have chosen to consider this as a really serious matter deeply affecting the privileges of the House of Commons, that Report cannot be allowed to remain an idle document. We cannot simply have a Report from a Committee which is never brought before the House, and on which the House never has an opportunity of expressing an opinion or taking any action. I wish to know whether the Prime Minister, as the natural and, indeed, the necessary corollary of the advice which he has given to the House, will undertake that when the Committee of Privileges has reported this House shall have an opportunity of discussing their Report and deciding what action should be taken upon it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERUntil we see what the Committee does report it is not possible for me to give any such pledge. I have not the faintest notion what conclusion the Committee will come to, and we must wait until they do report. I am myself as jealous of the Privileges of this House as anyone else, and if it is found necessary to discuss the Report of the Committee, I shall not be slow to give 286 the necessary time for its discussion in the House.
§ Mr. PIKE PEASEI would like to know whether it is right for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution condemning the Duke of Norfolk before he has been heard.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe are not doing that. All we do by this Resolution is to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.