§ Mr. McGOVERNI desire to ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, that I have been charged in the Glasgow Central Police Court with breaking a police by-law by lecturing in the public street and thereby causing an obstruction. I have been remanded and ordered to appear at that court on Monday, 8th May. Therefore, I desire to know if I am compelled to obey the order of the court, or if my duties as a Member of Parliament give me the right to refuse to attend the court during the period that Parliament is in Session.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member gave me notice of his question yesterday, and I have had an opportunity of considering the matter. On the question addressed to me I have to rule in this way: That the privilege of Parliament conferring immunity from arrest and trial does not extend to any offence of the nature of a breach of the peace or otherwise affecting public order, which is cognisable in the criminal courts. I have, therefore, to inform the hon. Member that he cannot claim the privilege of Parliament in the event of his refusal to appear in obedience to the order of the Court.
§ Mr. McGOVERNI desire, arising out of that Ruling, to ask for your guidance. I have read Erskine May's book on this matter of the law regarding felony, treason or breach of the peace, and J would respectfully point out to you that this case is simply a breach of an ordinary local police regulation for regulating traffic, and therefore not a criminal charge in any shape or form. I would ask you if that does not materially affect your decision, that it is not a criminal charge.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. I am advised that whether it is a breach of the Common Law or whether it is a breach of a by-law makes no difference. If the hon. Member will look at pages 120–121 of the 13th edition of Erskine May, he will find that in cases quoted there there is an expression that immunity is construed as excluding any offence against public order, as for example causing an obstruction to traffic—which is the offence charged in the present case—and it would apply to statutory offences of tore kind as well as offences at Common Law.
§ Mr. MAXTONThe reason why my hon. Friend has raised this matter is because it seems to us of first-class importance in these times. We have seen how Parliaments in other countries have been rendered far from the intention of the electors by the arrest or wholesale arrest of members who were entitled to sit in those Houses. The essence of this case is that it is the Ring versus McGovern. I put it to you that the whole history of this House makes it a House of the common people, and that privilege arises historically, so that Members elected to carry out the will of the people should not be prevented from carrying out that will by the action of the Monarch or anyone acting on his behalf. I ask you, Sir, if this ancient right of immunity, which extended to Members at the most important constitutional periods in the history of this House, has now vanished entirely, so that it is possible for the Government of the day, or an authority acting for them, to arrest large numbers of the Members of this House on a trivial pretext and so prevent them from doing the ditties for which they were elected.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to give an expression of opinion as to what is right or what is wrong. All I have to do is to interpret what is the law of the land and to gain guidance from the section in Erskine May which gives a detailed account of occurrences of this kind over a very long period of years, and I cannot but be guided by that section. I have only to consider the present case. When a case is brought to my notice my duty is to consider the particulars of that case. I cannot go into other cases which might 1167 arise. When they do arise I shall be only too pleased to give my Ruling upon them.
§ Mr. McGOVERNI thank you for your Ruling in this matter. I wanted it more as a guidance for the future. I want to explain that I had no intention, even if your decision had been that I should not obey the court, of absenting myself from the court, because I gave my word in the court that I would be present, and my word will be kept in all circumstances.