§ 48. Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company; whether he is aware that His Majesty's Government have been purchasing large amounts of silver through, or of, that firm; whether he is aware that, when the Government purchased two ships through Messrs. Antony Gibbs and Sons in 1904, Lord Aldenham and Mr. Vicary Gibbs, then Members of this House and partners in the firm, resigned their seats under the Statute 22, George III., c. 45; and when it is proposed to move the writ for the Tower Hamlets Division?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLMay I ask whether this is not a matter which involves the construction of Acts of Parliament, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety, as in the Rothschild case, of appointing a Select Committee to deal with the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am advised by the Law Officers that the question whether in this case the seat has been vacated under the Statute referred to is one of difficulty and doubt. In accordance with the precedents, I shall propose that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in the Indian Government contract, which I hold in my hand, this Clause is inserted?
By the Act 22 George III., chapter 45, no person who is a Member of the House of Commons is competent, either alone or jointly with any other person, to enter into a contract which is made on the condition that no such Member is to be admitted to any part or share thereof, nor to any benefit or advantage derived therefrom. This will not, however, extend to any incorporated trading company, tendering in its corporate capacity for the benefit of such company.This was the form of contract for the India Office in 1907.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat does not in any way affect the answer I have given. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this is a matter of doubt, and, therefore, this being a highly penal Statute it was in accordance with all precedent that we should appoint a Select Committee to consider whether the Statute has been broken or not.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the person who decides whether a Statute has been broken or not is one of His Majesty's judges and not a Committee of the House of Commons, and whether in the event of a Committee of the House of Commons coming to a decision, that decision would in any way over-rule or over-ride a decision that may be arrived at by one of His Majesty's judges, if anyone being able to sue took action in a Court of Law?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question, I imagine, which the judge would have to decide is whether the penalty has been incurred. The question which the House has to consider is whether the seat has been vacated. That is a question for this House, and this House alone, and, in accordance with precedent, it has always been considered by reference to a Select Committee.
§ 58. Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether, seeing that the Statute 22, George III., c. 45, was devised to exclude from the proceedings of this House any person having a pecuniary interest in a Government contract; that owing to the wide extension of the joint stock principle the Statute in question has been rendered null and void in the larger number of cases in which it ought to operate, the gross assessment of profit to Income Tax under persons and firms being £188,000,000, whereas the assessment of public companies is £302,000,000; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Prime Minister proposes to introduce immediate legislation to amend the Statute in question to render it effective by preventing directors and shareholders who draw profits from Government contracts from sitting in this House?
§ The PRIME MINISTEROwing to the circumstances referred to, the law at present appears to me to operate unevenly, and should, I think, form the subject of inquiry.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the late Administration twenty-five Gentlemen held forty-one directorships in public companies and ten were railway directors?
§ Mr. MOOREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that two hon. Members below the Gangway hold three farms from the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act?
§ Sir F. BANBURYDoes not the Statute say that the seat is vacated in certain circumstances, and is it not the vacation of the seat which entails the penalty?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question for the Committee to consider is whether in the circumstances, having regard to the terms of the Statute, the seat has been vacated.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWhen does the right hon. Gentleman propose to move for this Committee?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAt once; that is to say, to-morrow or very soon.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYIs it not a fact that the position of the hon. Baronet (Sir P. Banbury) in regard to railway companies is entirely the same?
§ Mr. MOOREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the Law Officers reported that the matter was one of doubt in 1902, when Dr. Rentoul was given a position in the City of London, the Government of the day at once said that it was a matter of doubt, and that they would not oppose the vacation of the seat?
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIs there any doubt that the Member for Tower Hamlets (Sir Stuart Samuel) is a member of this firm, and is there any doubt about the fact that this firm have become contractors to the Government of India? If so, what question of doubt then can arise?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, should put a question of that sort. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that there is a doubt as to the proper construction of this Statute.
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members can resume the discussion on the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee.