§ 52. Mr. S. MacNEILLasked whether, having regard to the possible change in the Parliamentary status of Members of this House on acceptance of office of profit under the Crown or of payment or pensions, without portfolio, from the Crown, held at its pleasure under the provisions of the Place Acts, and the various modifications thereof, temporary or otherwise, and the doubts and difficulties incident to this position, and the penalties incidental to sitting or voting in this House in contravention of the provisions of the Place Acts, a Motion will be made on behalf of the Government, as in the case of Sir Stuart Samuel in 1913, that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or consideration the questions of law involved in the position of such hon. Members, and further praying that His Majesty upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee will be pleased to communicate such advice to the House of Commons in order that it may take such action as seems to it proper under the circumstances?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith)The Law Officers are of opinion that the Ministers referred to in the question are not recipients of a payment or pension at the pleasure of the Crown. But the matter is far too technical to be discussed by question and answer. If my hon. and learned Friend can spare an afternoon for the purpose, either the Solicitor-General or myself will be very pleased to consider with him the very complicated statute law which is relevant to the point raised by my hon. Friend, and we hope to be able to satisfy him that his apprehensions are ill founded.
§ Mr. MacNEILLI am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he allow me to share with others the treasures of wisdom and learning which he is going to communicate to me? Why not argue it before the Privy Council and I will come 421 and attend? Why should he give to a single individual the treasures that are meant for mankind?
§ Sir F. SMITHThere is much force in the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, but quite a sufficient answer for the moment is that to give him the information in private will cost the Treasury nothing, while an inquiry of the kind indicated by him would cost a very large sum of money. There are very many legal inquiries proceeding at the present moment, and there is every reason for limiting them as far as we can to those inquiries which are absolutely necessary having regard to the War. Perhaps my hon. Friend will come and see me?
§ Mr. MacNEILLOh, yes.