HL Deb 05 November 1906 vol 164 cc4-12
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)

My Lords, in rising to move the Motion of which I have given notice—namely— That notice having been taken that the following Lords, viz., the Lord Manners, the Lord Clements (E. Leitrim), the Lord Grimthorpe, and the Lord Armstrong, voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath, I desire to say, with respect to something which fell from the noble and learned Earl opposite on Thursday night, † that I requested the Clerks at the Table to make a further and more complete examination of the Journals and other sources of information, and that I find there is no case of a Bill of Indemnity having been passed or proposed in this House since the decision in the Brad-laugh case. That. I think, we may take as clear. At the same time I say frankly to your Lordships that I do not know that there is any case of a Peer having sat without taking the Oath during that period; so that all that is established is that there has been no instance of a Bill of Indemnity. There was a case two years ago which had some bearing on this one, and which the noble and learned Earl knows very well—the case of Lord Henniker; but that case was not exactly on all fours with this one and consequently I do not know whether at this moment it is necessary that I should refer to it in detail. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

Moved, "That notice having been taken that the following Lords, viz., the Lord Manners, the Lord Clements (E. Leitrim), †See (4) debates clxiii., 1293. the Lord Grimthorpe, and the Lord Armstrong voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I confess I am a little embarrassed by the situation at which we have arrived. It is quite possible that what the noble Marquess says is true, that no Bill of Indemnity has been actually passed, but that such Bills have been proposed there is no doubt whatever, as I myself brought them in. I daresay the Clerk, in looking into the matter, has only looked at those Bills which were passed into Acts, and I think he is very likely right. It is possible that in the discussions which arose upon them it was pointed out that the Attorney-General was the only person who could prosecute, and therefore the Bills were laid aside and no action taken.

I regret to have to say that I do not think the course proposed by the noble Marquess is altogether satisfactory. Everybody would, I think, agree that a careless or inadvertent act should not be visited by a penalty of £500. But in this case it appears to me to be a more serious matter, as I am informed that one of the noble Lords in question was warned that he had not taken the Oath, and, in spite of that warning, voted. Furthermore, I cannot help thinking that it is a somewhat strong thing to avail one's self of the right of the Attorney-General only to prosecute, and not to enforce the law. It becomes rather a serious thing if, although Members of the House of Lords, and of the House of Commons, too, for that matter, are under an obligation to take the Oath, it should be taken as a matter of course that if they do not do so the Attorney-General will not be allowed to prosecute. My own impression upon that matter is that the Attorney-General is entirely independent of the Government, and that if he thought fit to prosecute he could do so in the exercise of his judicial office; and as he is exercising a judicial office I think he would require to be satisfied that the act was done inadvertently.

I observe that the Motion of the noble Marquess is that notice having been taken that these noble Lords voted without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the division lists, I do not know what authority there is for striking out the names of the noble Lords. The votes have been recorded, and, whatever may be the consequences, you cannot strike them out. If proceedings were taken for recovery of the penalty it would be said that as the votes were struck out no harm had been done. I think it would be a serious matter if such a precedent were set by the passing of the Motion now before the House.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the terms of this Resolution and to its effect. The noble Marquess moves that, notice having been taken that several Lords voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath. I should like to ask what authority there is for such a proceeding. The Act says nothing about striking out a vote; the Act does not even say that a peer is not to vote. When a peer has once taken his seat and proved his right to sit, he is summoned at the beginning of every Parliament, and the statute provides that he is to take the Oath, and if he sits or votes without having taken the Oath in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House, he is then made liable to a penalty of £500. The statute does not say he is not to vote, but that if he does vote, it will be, or may be, an expensive proceeding to him. In my opinion, therefore, there is no authority for the proposal to strike out the votes.

I do not know what is the object of this Motion. If it is merely for the sake of the Journals of the House, then I say that, so far as I can see, we should be making the Journals not correct, because these noble Lords did vote, and the fact that you strike out their votes does not do away with the fact that they did vote. Moreover, let me point out what might be the effect of a procedure of this kind. Suppose, for instance, there had been a tie, the division ending with votes equal, or supposing it had ended with a majority of one either way, the result of expunging votes in such a case might be to alter the decision of your Lordships' House. I should like to know whether there is any precedent for this House taking upon itself such a course. Possibly the House if it chooses to take a supreme view of its own rights, has the power to strike out from its journals votes given in this way; but do not let it be supposed that if your Lordships do take that course you are thereby purging the offence which these noble Lords have committed. The offence was against the statute, and no Resolution of your Lordships' House is of any avail against a statute.

This Resolution, so far as I can judge, is a sort of indefinite whitewashing of the offence. The inference one would naturally draw would be that this is a small offence to which no attention need be paid. I think that in a matter of this importance it is very undesirable that your Lordships should adopt indefinite Motions of this kind, and I must say that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is, in my opinion, making a sort of indirect invitation to noble Lords not to trouble about taking the Oath. For he says, "It is a matter of small importance. If you vote we will expunge your votes from the Journals; and as to the £500 you need not be afraid; no Attorney-General is going to prosecute." I do not know about the present Attorney General. I have known him change his mind about things; but, even supposing he does not change his mind in this matter, what guarantee is there that the next Attorney-General will not proceed to prosecute? Lord Grimthorpe and the other noble Lords have committed this sin, and they will remain liable for the penalty for the rest of their natural lives. Suppose that under the next Government some other Peer votes without having previously taken the Oath and the Attorney-General proceeds to prosecute him He will naturally say, "This is very unfair. Four other noble Lords did the same thing, but the Attorney-General of that day paid no attention to the matter. Why should you be so ill-natured as to prosecute me?" The Attorney-General might then retort that he would not only prosecute that noble Lord, but the other four besides.

Speaking more seriously of the matter. I submit to the House that it is very undesirable to overlook breaches of order of this kind. Of course, none of us want to inflict this penalty of £500; but I do not think we ought to imagine for one moment that by simply adopting a Resolution of this sort—and I question whether it is altogether in our power; it may be, but it is very unusual and I believe quite unprecedented—we are in any way purging the offence which these noble Lords have committed. My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has stated that one of the noble Lords was warned that he was acting illegally. If that is so, it makes the offence more serious. At any rate, I hope your Lordships will not pass this Resolution and adopt a course for which we have not yet heard any precedent. The natural course is to pass an Act of Indemnity. Such a Bill would pass through this House without trouble, and there would be no difficulty in securing its passage through the other House, as the chief offender sits on the Ministerial benches. But, in any case, I submit to your Lordships that the right course is not to pass this Resolution. The Government should bring in a Bill of Indemnity.

LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH

I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether there is any precedent for striking out names in the way proposed. The Act of Parliament makes a distinction between Members of the two Houses, and in the Lower House a Member vacates his seat if he votes without taking the Oath. Unless I am informed to the contrary, I submit that the vote having been given was legally given, and ought to stand upon the records of the House.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

My Lords, I am reluctant to intrude myself again upon the House, but, in view of remarks that have been somewhat pointedly aimed at me, I think your Lordships are entitled to demand some explanation. I can only repeat what I said when the matter was first raised on Thursday, that when I voted I voted in ignorance. I refuse to modify or withdraw any part of that statement, and am prepared to sign any declaration that is put before me to that effect.

What occurred, my Lords, was this After the House adjourned, and before we went to dinner, I was washing my hands, when someone came up to me and said, "Have you taken the Oath?" I replied ''Of course, I took the Oath when I took my seat. "Somebody else said, "I told you so," and then there was a certain amount of desultory and rapid conversation, which only left the impression on my mind that somebody was trying to amuse himself at my expense. In the light of subsequent events I see plainly enough that what was said to me was intended as a friendly warning, but I took it at the time as a joke. In vulgar parlance, I believed that some noble Lord was "pulling my leg." Five minutes afterwards I met the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, and had I thought there was anything in what I had heard I should, of course, have told him what had happened and asked my noble Leader what I ought to do. But information conveyed at such a time, in such a place, and in such a way was not calculated to leave a very deep impression on my mind; as a matter of fact, it left no impression at all.

I thought no more about it until I was handing up an Amendment to the Clerk at the Table, who called my attention to the fact that I had violated the rules. I knew, at all events, that the Clerk was not joking. I could not leave the House at once, because the doors were locked, but immediately after the Division I withdrew my Amendment from the Paper and left the House. Nothing could have been more simple and easy than to have taken the Oath when I came down to the House, and there could have been no conceivable motive for my refraining from doing so had considered it obligatory upon me. Therefore I can only again assure your Lordships that what I did was done in ignorance. I have already apologised for having inadvertently committed this breach of the rules, and I can only apologise again.

LORD ASHBOURNE

My Lords, I am sure no one desires any noble Lord who acted carelessly or incautiously to sustain any pecuniary loss in consequence, but there must be a strong desire also that we should not ourselves proceed carelessly and incautiously in passing a Resolution of this kind. I at first thought, when I saw the proposal of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House on the Paper, that his Motion would be a convenient way in which to mark our disapproval of what had been done, but I now feel that the matter requires more consideration.

Let us suppose that the matter had not been discovered for some time and that a Bill had become an Act of Parliament by means of votes given without legal warrant. Surely it would then be too late to move that the votes should be expunged. That would show that votes once given, although they might expose those who had acted ignorantly to pecuniary penalties, are there, and I think it would be the wisest course to defer this Motion until the matter has been further considered. The proposal of the noble Marquess does not absolve the Attorney-General from giving the matter judicial consideration. I am not for a moment suggesting that he should take any steps against the noble Lords in question, but I would point out that there is nothing in the passing of this Resolution which would in the slightest degree stop the Attorney-General, if the matter were brought to his notice, from considering it and exercising a judgment upon it. This is an age of Committees, and while I do not suggest that there should be a Committee appointed to consider this matter, I am not at all sure that the wisest course would not be to defer the Motion until the matter has been further discussed.

LORD BRAYE

My Lords, I should like to mention that I can remember a similar discussion arising in your Lordships' House twenty years ago. Lord Plunkett and Lord Byron had voted under similar circumstances, and a Bill of Indemnity was passed through both Houses of Parliament. I think that fact must have escaped the attention of the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

It is quite evident that the question is one that has attracted a great deal of attention among Members of your Lordships' House, and that very weighty opinions have been expressed differing to a certain extent from those which I have been led to form. In these circumstances I think it very proper that the subject should be further considered. I confess I should have suggested the appointment of a small Committee to consider it. My noble and learned friend opposite says there are plenty of Committees, but still this is a matter of great importance, and I should have thought that those who have most authority in this House on questions of this kind might with advantage consider it carefully and report to the House the view which they take on the subject. I am quite prepared to postpone or withdraw the Motion for the present, but I think the subject ought to be further considered, and considered, as I have suggested, by a small Committee.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I desire, if you will allow me, to make some allusion to the case of Lord Henniker. That case was a very curious one. The noble Lord took the Oath upon a writ issued to his father and not to him. What was the course taken? The noble and learned Earl opposite, Lord Halsbury, took the matter up and proposed certain Resolutions to the House. I do not understand that Lord Henniker voted, but among the Resolutions which the noble and learned Earl moved on that occasion was this one— That the entry of the name of Lord Hartismere (the name by which Lord Henniker sits in this House) among the Lords present on Thursday last be vacated. That is the same as part of my Resolution. The only difference is that this Resolution deals with votes, but it also deals with entries in the Journals of the House. I have a copy of the Journals of the House in my hand, and Lord Hartismere's name is there struck out as having been present. I do not say that this is a complete precedent for the course I am proposing, but it is a precedent. It is not worth while, however, discussing the matter further. I submit to your Lordships that it is better to have the thing considered by a Select Committee. I am prepared to withdraw my Motion now, but, as at present advised, I will move at a later date that the matter be considered by a Committee of your Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I only want to put the noble Marquess right on one matter. The noble Lord to whom he referred not only took his seat but took the Oath. There was no infraction of the law at all. The difficulty was this, that he took his seat in pursuance to a writ of summons which had not been issued to him. He therefore took his seat as any stranger might have taken his seat, and in these circumstances it was right that his name should be erased. No writ from the Crown had ever been issued to him. He believed he was entitled to vote under his father's writ of summons. He was not, and therefore the erasure of his name was perfectly right, because he had not sat in the House in the technical sense.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I only rise to say that we are quite ready to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite. It is quite clear that the arguments which have been put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury and by Lord Camperdown are entitled to further examination, and the appointment of a small Committee such as that suggested by the noble Marquess is a very appropriate way of dealing with the point.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.