HC Deb 19 July 1909 vol 8 cc31-4
Mr. H. BOTTOMLEY

I desire, Mr. Speaker, respectfully to call your attention to what, I submit, is a breach of privilege on the part of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Mr. P. Whitwell Wilson), in regard to the proceedings of this House on Wednesday night last. It will be within your knowledge that the House sat all night and into the next day on the Finance Bill. You will not be surprised to hear that various Motions were made to report Progress, and various Motions were made to closure those Motions. The hon. Member for South St. Pancras, I do not think it will be disputed, is in the habit of publishing every day in the columns of a newspaper, or, to avoid anything argumentative, in a publication called the "Daily News," what are described as "Pictures in Parliament." On Friday last, giving what purported to be a picture of the proceedings of this House an Committee during Wednesday night, the hon. Member, after a description of the state of things which existed at certain points under the conditions which I do not think will be disputed, wrote:— The question of the moment was whether the Budget can he carried without closure by compartments, a hateful instrument as applied to finance, and very dangerous at this juncture, when the House of Lords is searching for a pretext upon which to attack the Com- mons. The guillotine has certainly been postponed and, one hopes, rendered unnecessary by the efforts of the House this morning. And one would only venture the comment that the defence of existing procedure depends a good deal upon the Chairman. Ho one denies Mr. Emmott's difficulties, but last night his demeanour seemed to be barely courteous to the Minister who is the Leader of the House for the time being. I put it to you that that went beyond the border line of privilege. The article goes on:— Motions to report Progress are after all, acknowledged frivolities, and to refuse the closure on such a Motion after several speeches of the usual kind had been delivered upon it is simply to create a deadlock. There again he suggested that the Deputy-Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, having been guilty of rudeness and barely courteous conduct, created a deadlock by his procedure. That, I would suggest, would be near the border line of privilege. The article goes on:— When that closure is moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself the refusal of it amounts to a snub, which in the present case was singularly undeserved. With brisker management of the House several hours might have been saved. I do not lay particular emphasis on that. The article then goes on to give a picture of the incident to which the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) referred a moment ago. This is the phrase to which more particularly I desire to call your attention. Having referred to the unfortunate incident and having mentioned the accusation made by the Noble Lord, there comes this phrase:— Mr. Thorne's protests were warm but he received no protection from the Chair. Later on comes the phrase that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) was ordered to withdraw and then comes this:— The monstrous injustice of this treatment was everywhere recognised. Taking all these phrases together, upon the authorities with which you are familiar, I respectfully submit that to charge the Chairman of Committees of this House, and Deputy-Speaker, first, with rude conduct in the chair; secondly, with so dealing with the administration of the closure so as to delay the proceedings of the House; and, thirdly and mainly, with monstrously unjust treatment towards a Member of this House when, as I respectfully submit, he had no alternative whatever but to act as he did, comes well within the cases of privilege. It would be an impertinence on my part to refer you to any kind of authority, but I do venture to submit just one passage in Sir Erskine May, which seems to me, with great respect, almost to meet this case. I quote from page 88 of the last edition of May, in which I find this:— An accusation of partiality in the administration of the closure directed against the Speaker by a Member of the House was held to be a breach of privilege. With great respect I submit that that applies equally to the Deputy-Speaker. Subsequently, however, the same Member published in a newspaper a letter which contained a repetition of the same offence against the Speaker. The House thereupon, having heard the Member in his place, resolved that the letter was a gross libel upon Mr. Speaker, deserving the severest condemnation of the House, and that the Member be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session, or for one calendar month, whichever should first terminate. I respectfully call your attention to the case, and to submit with great humility that the hon. Member, if not within, is very near the Rules of privilege. I hope the House will forgive me for having interrupted the proceedings with this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER

Before the matter goes any further perhaps the House would like to hear what the hon. Member has to say on the matter.

Mr. P. WHITWELL WILSON

I am quite certain the House is in all these personal matters the fairest judge and jury that any Member could lay himself before. The House will, I am sure, recognise that it is not always easy either to write or to think with perfect discretion after heated and arduous all-night sitting. I need not say that I am perfectly ready to withdraw any statement in my writings, which my hon. Friend appears to have studied so closely, that may have overstepped the mark. I can only trust that the Chairman of Ways and Means will accept this withdrawal in the unqualified spirit in which it is offered. The Chairman has a very difficult task, and I should be sorry if I caused him any personal irritation. At the same time, as reference has been made to the unfortunate incident of Thursday morning, I think the House will realise that if I wrote with heat, which I do not in any way defend, that I was writing in no way on my own behalf. I had in mind solely the reputation of a fellow Member, and I thought it might be perhaps subjected in a public manner to unfounded assertions. Under those cimcumstances, I leave myself in your hands.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think I need add anything to what has already been said by the two hon. Members who have addressed the House. There is no doubt that the offence is rather a serious one. The position of the Chair is always a diffi- cult one, whether occupied by myself or by the right hon. Gentleman who devotes so much time and patience to his duties in the Chair; and it becomes doubly difficult if he is criticised—of course he expects to be criticised—but if he is somewhat ungenerously criticised for the action which he feels bound to take. I am convinced the House will agree with me when I say that there is not a Member of the House who is more anxious to hold the balance fairly between all parties than the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. The hon. Member who made this attack, or gave vent to this criticism, impatient, no doubt, at having gone through the arduous hours of an all-night sitting, feels that it was improper, and has entirely withdrawn it. In these circumstances, I think the House will hardly desire to pursue the matter any further, and that we may now regard the whole incident of last Wednesday night as completely wiped out.