20 JUNE 1958, Page 9

A Question of Privilege

By CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS

MR. HOBGOBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance on a matter of privilege. As 1 was leaving the House this evening at opening time, a person, alleging himself to be what is known as a Whip, came up to me and told me that I might not go out because there was likely to be a division. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that such action on the part of such a person was quite clearly a breach of privilege, punishable by admonition, reprimand, or even, since the person in question alleged himself to be an honourable Member of this House, by imprisonment in the Clock Tower during the pleasure of the House.

The list of possible breaches of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is given by Erskine May, 16th edition, chapter viii. These breaches are summarised by Anson. I. 187. We there read, as also in Campion, that 'Attempts to threaten or intimidate Members for their actions in the House have been declared to be breaches of privilege by the House.' I sub- mit. Mr. Speaker, that, since this person, the Whip, not only indicated that I must remain in the House but also indicated the way in which I must vote in the event of a division, his action amounted to an attempt to threaten and/or intimidate an honourable Member of this House and was therefore clearly a breach of the un- doubted privilege& of this House, as defined by the Bill of Rights of 1688.

The Speaker: But the Bill of Rights is concerned with proceedings in Parliament. The honourable Member was apparently proceeding out of Parlia- ment. (Laughter.) Mr. Hobgoblin: Further to that point of order and with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that proceeding out of Parliament is clearly a proceeding in Parliament. If an honourable Member uses an argument in a letter rather than deploying it on the floor of the House, that is a proceeding in Parliament because he might have deployed it on the floor of the House, although in fact he did not do so. Had I been expelled from the House, then it might be argued that my pro- ceeding out of Parliament was not a proceeding in Parliament. But, since I was trying to proceed out of Parliament at a time when I might still, had I preferred to do so, have proceeded in Parliament, it is clear, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that under these circumstances my 'proceeding out of Parliament was a proceeding in Parliament and that this contention is in no way invalidated by anything in the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1770. Mr. Scrunchback: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the honour- able Member say that if he did not have a good division record the Whips would see to it that he did not get a job. Now, if he got a job—that is to say, an oflice of profit under the Crown—he would automatically vacate his seat. Therefore I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this case the honourable Member's proceeding out of Parlia- ment cannot have been a proceeding in Parlia- ment, since by proceeding in Parliament he would automatically have proceeded out of Parliament.

Mrs. Screaming: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that by the Vacation of Seats Act, 1918, all offices of profit under the Crown that attract a profit are for the purposes of the Act deemed not to be offices of profit under the Crown? Does it not therefore follow, Mr. Speaker, that if the honourable Member can show that he was anxious to obtain an office of profit which, because it attracted a profit, was therefore not an office of profit, then his proceeding out of Parliament may well have been a proceeding in Parliament, and in that case may not the Whip well have been threatening and/or intimidating him if he conveyed to him that he was damaging his prospects of obtaining an office of profit that was not an office of profit?

Mr. Hobgoblin: I am a Member of this House, I have no idea what the division was to be about The Speaker: The fact that the honourable Member had no idea what the division was to be about does not in itself constitute a prima facie case that he is a Member of this House. In 1771 (Command Journal. 33.

212) when a division was called on the motion that `Mr. Speaker do leave the chair,' a stranger, who was not a Member of this House, was discovered, after the doors had been locked, in the No lobby and was indeed counted in the division, but this stranger pleaded that he had been locked in by mistake and that he only, made his way to the No lobby because a man must be somewhere. He pleaded that he had no notion what the division was about and had no wish to record a vote. On evidence being given by several honourable Members that he was a good fellow, he was 'ordered to be taken from the Bar,' and it was decided that no further action was necessary.

Mr. Hobgoblin: But I submit, M r. Speaker, that there is no parallel between a person who is not a Member of this House voting in a division when he does not know what it is about and a person who is a Member of this House voting in a division when he does not know what it is about. The 'ancient and undoubted privileges' of this House are 'most readily granted and con- firmed' to us by the Crown at the opening of each Parliament. Now, just as it is a well-known maxim of the law that 'ignorance of the law excuses no man' except the lawyer, so in political affairs 'every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts' except the politician. While it may be an excuse for another man that he cannot have intended to vote because he did not know what the vote was about, no one can reasonably maintain that such an excuse applies to a Member of this House. It is one of the most ancient and most undoubted privileges of a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, to cast his vote under such circumstances, and, if he is entitled to cast his vote, he is entitled not to cast his vote. He cannot properly be prevented from abstaining merely because he does not know what he is abstaining from.

The Speaker: I think that the honourable Member has made his case. I rule that there is here a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, to be submitted to the Committee of Privileges, under the resolutions of January 31, 1694, and January 3, 1701, for their advice to this House whether or not all Whips should be confined in the first instance to the Serjeant and afterwards imprisoned in the Clock Tower during the pleasure of the House.

Mrs. Screaming: But further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hands two letters received this morning from constituents. The one urges me to vote in favour of the Loose Button Bill, maintaining that there is strong opinion in my constituency in favour of that Bill. The other, which goes even farther, threatens, on the other hand, that I shall not be readopted if I support the Loose Button Bill. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that such letters from con- stituents are clear threats and/or intimidations and therefore undoubted breaches of the priv- ileges of this House.

Mr. Scrunchback: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, as it is the assumption of democracy that all constituents should record their votes and as it is impossible for a constituent to vote for one candidate without voting against another, I submit for your consideration whether there is not a prima facie case of breach of privilege for constituents to exist.

The Speaker: Erskine May says, 'Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duty but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty will also be treated as a breach of privilege.' Therefore, while it could hardly be maintained that it is a breach of privilege merely to be a constituent per se, it would appear that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed when- ever a constituent in any way takes any political action.