CAB129-35 — Page 304

175

Page 304

IS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT)

CONFIDENTIAL

C. P. (49) 142

28TH JUNE, 1949

COPY NO.

31

CABINET

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT, 1707:

INDEMNIFYING BILL

PROPOSED

Memorandum by the Lord President of the Council

and the Home Secretary

Mr. J. B. Hynd, M. P., who was recently appointed a member of the General Medical Council, has raised the question whether, in view of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, his appointment might have prejudiced his position as a Member of Parliament. Because of his doubts on the point he has refrained from taking part in any of the proceedings of the Council since it was raised at the first meeting he attended.

2.

We have consulted the Attorney-General about Mr. Hynd's position. He considers that membership of the General Medical Council on the nomination of the Crown does constitute the holding of an office of profit under the Crown. It is possible to argue whether the office is "under the Crown" or "from the Crown" or not within the scope of the Act of 1707 at all, but he has no doubt that the better view is that Section 24 of the Act applies.

The position is not in the Attorney-General's view affected by the fact that Mr. Hynd has not taken any part in the work of the Council since the question was raised and has not taken any fee. The Attorney-General points out, too, that others are affected. Lord Kennet (1926 and 1931),' Lord Hacking (1931, 1936, 1941 and 1946) and Mr. J. J. Robert- son, M. P. (1946), all of them Members of the House of Commons when appointed to the Council, have all held the office. previously. Lord Kennet and Lord Hacking cannot now be sued for penalties because the statutory period has elapsed, but Mr. Robertson remains liable to the disqualification and penalties of the statute.

3.

The Attorney-General has also advised that indemni- fication is necessary in the case of Mr. Albert Evans, M. P.

P., the senior partner in the firm of Evans Brothers, which, in the course of the last three years, has entered into a number of small transactions involving the sale of electrical equip- ment to a value of less than £100 to the Home Office. This firm was selected to provide the equipment because, of the various firms approached, it offered the earliest deliveries at competitive prices.

4.

In the circumstances, it seems to us that there is no alternative to the introduction of an indemnifying Bill to cover the cases of Mr. Hynd, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Evans, and that the Opposition should be consulted, both as regards this Bill and the cases of Lord Kennet and Lord Hacking.

Page 304

28th June, 1949

H. M. J. C. E.

Page 304