HC Deb 26 November 1912 vol 44 cc1018-9
53. Lord ROBERT CECIL

asked the Prime Minister whether he will advise His Majesty to submit the question of whether the hon. Member for Whitechapel has vacated his seat to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of 3 and 4 Will. IV., c. 41?

Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL

Can the course suggested in the question be followed having regard to the fact that proceedings of this House, especially in relation to the qualifications of its Members, are guarded against any interference not authorised by the laws of the country, and that by law and custom of Parliament the Crown cannot take notice of anything done in this House but by the report of the House itself?

The PRIME MINISTER

No doubt that is a correct statement of constitutional doctrine. In reply to the Noble Lord's question, the House having decided to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, I do not see my way, at any rate at this stage, to adopt, the suggestion of the Noble Lord.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that the Section of the Act to which reference is made includes any question whatever, and is not confined at all to questions which affect the Crown; and is he further aware that any Report made by the Privy Council will not be in any way binding upon the House, but merely by way of authority and advice?

The PRIME MINISTER

I think the Noble Lord is quite right in what he says. He will notice I carefully guarded my answer. I said I do not see my way at this stage.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

In the event of a Court of Law finding that the hon. Member has vacated his seat and incurred penalties, will the Committee continue their interesting researches?

The PRIME MINISTER

I do not like to repeat a hackneyed answer to the question. We do not know yet what a Court of Law may find.

Mr. A. LYTTELTON

I beg to ask the Attorney-General a question of which I have given him private notice: whether it is a fact that a writ was issued on the 11th instant against the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Sir Stuart Samuel), claiming penalties in respect of votes given in this House which are alleged to be illegal? When did information of the issue of the writ reach His Majesty's Government, and why was such information not disclosed to the House and to the Members required to serve on the Committee before the Motion of Friday, the 22nd instant, was passed?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

No information of the issue of a writ had reached His Majesty's Government on Friday when we discussed the matter, or has reached His Majesty's Government at the present moment. All that I know of it is that I have seen it in the Press this morning.