§ 46. Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether, when the Government passed the Defence of the Realm Act, they contemplated that the new law would suspend the Habeas Corpus Act; and whether, now that the Law Courts have interpreted the Act as depriving British citizens of this safeguard for personal liberty, the Government will take steps to restore to British citizens their legal security against the exercise of arbitrary power by the Executive?
§ 62. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether a recent case in which a British subject has been imprisoned without trial and his demand for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by a Divisional Court of five judges, that decision being upheld by the Court of Appeal, has been brought to his notice; whether he understands that Parliament in passing the Defence of the Realm Act intended to confer this absolute power on the King and his Ministers or whether the Regulations made under the Act do not exceed the powers intended to be conferred on the Executive Government; and, if so, will he take steps to restore the ancient liberties hitherto enjoyed by His Majesty's subjects by the protection of the Habeas Corpus Acts?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe Regulation in question applies only to British subjects of "hostile origin and associations." It gives the Secretary of State power to place them under certain restrictions and obligations when he is advised by the competent authority that 224 this is "expedient for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm." Before the Regulation was made it was pointed out to the House by my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary that it would be necessary for the Government to have such powers, and the matter was discussed on the Home Office Vote after the Regulation was made on the 17th June last year. It was considered that the Advisory Committees would provide adequate safeguards against possible cases of hardship. I believe that the decision referred to is under appeal.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESIn view of the fact that the Attorney-General assured the House on the discussion on the amending Bill in March last that a writ of habeas corpus would still run, will my right hon. Friend allow the House to reconsider the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe statement referred to had no reference to this class of cases.
§ Mr. DAVIESDid not the undertaking given by the Attorney-General relate to a case where a British subject had been arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act and held in custody and a writ of habeas corpus was refused by the Court, and when the Attorney-General assured the House that a writ of habeas corpus was still available to the man?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy recollection of what my right hon. Friend said is that if there was undue delay a writ of habeas corpus would run. It had no reference to this case.
§ Sir W. BYLES. My right hon. Friend has not replied to my question: Whether he believes the House of Commons intended to part with this protection of the liberties of the people?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat, of course, I cannot say, but if my hon. Friend will refer to the Debate he will see that the matter was discussed.
Sir H. DALZIELDoes the answer admit that British subjects have been in prison since the commencement of the War and have not yet been told what the charge is or had an opportunity of defending themselves?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will have inquiries made.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what he would consider undue delay in these circumstances—how long a man must be in prison without trial or sentence before the term will be considered undue?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe undue delay referred to was undue delay before the man was brought to trial before a Civil Court or court-martial. It had nothing to do with this class of case.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman state the length of time during which a man may be in prison when it would or would not be undue delay?
§ Mr. ANDERSONWill the right hon. Gentleman afford the House facilities for discussing the matter in a more satisfactory way than can be done by question and answer?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think this is a very unsatisfactory way of discussing it, as the question is now under appeal.