§ Mr. LANSBURYI wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you private notice—whether it is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House for Ministers of the Crown or any other Member of this House holding shares in companies engaged directly in the business of coal mining, to introduce or vote for legislation having for its object the increase of the working hours and the general regulation of the industry?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt has been well stated by Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811, that disqualification does not apply in such a case. Mr. Speaker Abbot said:
This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the person whose votes were questioned and not in common with the rest or His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of State policy.It seems to me that the Bills to which the hon. Member refers are parallel, for instance, with the Corn Production Act and the Railway Act, which were passed recently by this House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWith respect, may I call attention to the fact that in the Session of 1892 the votes of three hon. Members who voted in favour of a grant of public money in aid of a survey for a railway in Africa, from the coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza, were disallowed because all three were shareholders and one a director of the company concerned in the survey, and are not the Coal Mines Bill and the Bill which we discussed yesterday on all-fours with that?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think not. The quotation which the hon. Member has just given is one which he has found on 555 page 370 of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" In the preceding page, he will see the ruling of Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811, to which I have referred. Ever since that date that ruling has governed this question.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a point of Order. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to establish a, new precedent, and that when a body of men interested in an industry like this are using their power in this House to push Bills for their own interests—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not put his own views on a point of Order. In regard to the setting up of a new precedent, I am quite ready to do that when the occasion requires it, but I do not see the occasion at present.
§ Mr. LANSBURYShall I be in order on a future occasion, when these Bills come up, to ask for a decision of the House as to whether these votes should be allowed or not, immediately after the Division has been taken?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has asked for my opinion, and I have given it.
Captain A. EVANSIs it not a fact that when the Trade Union (Amendment) Bill was before the House, trade union officials who were Members of this House voted against it, although they were in receipt of salaries as trade union officials?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere are many Bills covered by the term "State policy" For instance, there was the Bill embodying the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament. Had I taken a narrow view of the question, I suppose I might have held that no hon. Member could vote on that.
§ Mr. MACLEANHas not the precedent of 1811 which you, Mr. Speaker, elicited, and upon which you are basing your decision, been superseded by the later decision quoted by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe two cases are entirely dissimilar.