HC Deb 17 February 1911 vol 21 cc1435-41
Mr. MALCOLM

I ask the indulgence of the House to refer to a matter of which I only had cognisance last night, but which seriously touches the honour and dignity and privileges of this Assembly, inasmuch as it constitutes a grossly unfair reflection upon the impartiality and the even-handed justice of Mr. Speaker, whose perfect conduct in the Chair has so lately won the renewed confidence of the whole House. The following letter was sent to me last night. It was published in the "Midland Reporter," an Irish paper, on 9th February, and it purports to have been written by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) to the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell). I communicated at once with the hon. Member, and I also sent to Mr. Speaker my intention to raise this matter to-day. The letter runs as follows:— 1st February, 1911. Dear Mr. Ginnell, We were not all jeering at you. You had a good deal of sympathy on the Radical Benches, especially on your point that the Speaker has no right to choose those whom he imagines the House would like to hear. He is not a bit impartial and, as I regard him as one of the most deadly enemies of taxation of land values, you had not only my admiration of your courage, but also my sympathy. Jerry MacVeagh tells me the right method is to put down a vote of censure on him, and we will too when we have a suitable opportunity. I have long since given up ever going near him or Emmott to say I wanted to speak. Yours faithfully, JOSIAH C. WEDGWOOD. Acting strictly in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, I beg to move, "That the letter written by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme constitutes a gross libel on Mr. Speaker and is a grave breach of the privileges of this House." With these words I leave the matter entirely in your hands and in those of the responsible leaders of the House to say what punishment or censure should be meted out for an offence which I believe every right-minded man in this House condemns.

Mr. SPEAKER

The first thing to do will be to hear the hon. Member in his place if he has anything to say.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Until the hon. Member who has just sat down sent me the letter, which I received about eleven o'clock last night, I never heard of the existence of the paper called the "Midland Reporter," nor that any of my private correspondence had appeared in the public Press. As I have not seen the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell) since, I cannot say why it is that a personal letter to him has appeared in print. I agree with every hon. Member here that there cannot be two opinions as to the extreme impropriety of publishing such remarks outside the House. I have no doubt the hon. Member has some explanation to offer which would be satisfactory to myself as to the House. For myself I can only regret that this incident should be calculated to cause you pain and annoyance.

Mr. SPEAKER

In the discussion of these Resolutions it is customary for the Member who is charged to withdraw. Will the hon. Member kindly follow the usual procedure?

Mr. WEDGWOOD

withdrew from the Chamber.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr Asquith)

There is one point in connection with this most regrettable incident on which I am quite certain the House, without distinction of party, will be absolutely unanimous, and that is in its regret that any English Member could, under any conditions, either entertain the ideas, or still more give expression to the language used in this letter. The absolute and unquestionable impartiality of the Speaker in the conduct of the business of this House, and the evenness of hand with which he treats all its Members, is one of our precious possessions, and one which, I think, we ought to vindicate at all times and against all possible forms of imputation. I cannot but add an expression of my own regret that my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood), who has now left the House, in the explanation he offered did not frankly and fully apologise for having used such language. It would have made the task of the House much simpler and easier if he had. It is my duty to point out to the House that this is a case for which, so far as I know, there is no precise precedent, because, from what the hon. Gentleman said, this is apparently a private letter—a letter sent by one friend or colleague in this House to another, and when he wrote it, as I think appears from some of the phraseology, he wrote it not with the object of publication, and not with the expectation that it would be published. In these circumstances we cannot help feeling that perhaps we have not got to deal with the writing of the letter, for the actual breach of the privilege of this House was committed by publication, and not by the sending of a private communication by one person to another. I do not think there ever has been, even in the strictest days of privilege, a case in which this House has thought fit to visit the writer of a private letter with the severe penalties which are rightly inflicted when the dignity of the House has been publicly attacked. Therefore the real responsibility for such a breach of privilege rests in the main upon the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman who published the letter, and who apparently is not present, and to whom I understand, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Malcolm), did not give any notice. I am not sure that the wisest course would not be to adjourn the matter until notice had been given to the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell), and until we know the circumstances in which this private communication came to be published. Anxious as we are, and none more anxious than I am, to vindicate promptly and effectively the honour of the House when it is affected by any reflection on your conduct in the Chair, yet we ought to be scrupulously anxious to do justice to all parties concerned, and I would suggest that we should adjourn the further consideration of this matter until next sitting.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

May I be allowed to say a word before the Prime Minister moves? I think there will probably be no substantial difference between us—at least I hope there will not—if the Prime Minister will slightly modify the course he proposes to take. In the first place I hope I may be permitted on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to express our complete concurrence with every word that fell from the Prime Minister as to your conduct in the Chair, and to echo the regret expressed by him that, whatever the circumstances under which the letter came to be published, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) did not see fit to take the course which, I am sure, every friend of his, and every Member of this House, expected and desired him to take, namely, that of at once unreservedly expressing his regret and making to you and to the House, the apology which I think the publication of the letter requires. The hon. Gentleman did not do that, and I must say I think that the course which he took aggravated the original offence. It was unfortunate that he followed exactly the course which a gentleman in another part took under exactly similar circumstances. Instead of withdrawing the offensive language and expressing unreservedly his regret for having written it, he expressed his regret only that he should have caused pain and annoyance to you, Mr. Speaker. I venture to say that shows an entire misapprehension of the offence the hon. Member has committed. It is not, and cannot be, a personal question between Mr. Speaker and the hon. Member. The offence is an offence against the dignity of the House, and against the chief officer of the House, and therefore against the House itself, and no expression of regret for pain caused to you—indeed, I do not think any such attack could possibly cause pain to you when you have enjoyed so full a measure of the confidence of the House—can be held to purge the offence or adequately to meet the necessities of the case. No-doubt we learned from the hon. Member that he had no intention that the letter should be published, and that he is the victim of the fault or misunderstanding of somebody as to what it was permissible for him to do with the letter. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that at this stage, at any rate, no penal action should follow against either of the hon. Members, but I submit that it is necessary for this House being seized of the publication of such a letter to at once declare in the terms of the Motion of my hon. Friend that that is a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and a grave breach of the privileges of this House. That I think should appear on our records the moment we are seized of what has taken place, and we could then adjourn the consideration of any further proceedings to a future time. In the case to which I have already referred the House insisted upon an apology from the Member who had written and published a letter, and but for his tendering that apology they would have proceeded to suspend him from the service of the House. It may be proper—I think it would be proper—to insist upon an apology at some future time from the two Members concerned, but I quite agree with the Prime Minister that we ought not to proceed to any disciplinary measure of that kind in the absence of the hon. Member who published the letter, or without full knowledge of how it came to be published. I submit that we cannot be content to pass from this matter without at once recording our opinion that the letter itself is a gross libel upon the occupant of the Chair and a breach of our privileges.

Sir W. NUGENT

As the only Member of the Irish Party present, I would like to associate myself with what has fallen from the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I may also add that I do not approve of the sentences contained in the letter of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, nor of the action of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, although he is a colleague of my own, in publishing such a letter.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I regret very much that having no information that this matter was to be raised, I was not in my place when the discussion opened. Had I known I should have considered it my duty to be here, because I wish to bear testimony on behalf of the Labour party to the great kindness and courtesy which you, Sir, have always shown to us in our work in the various difficulties which have beset us from time to time, and I am only voicing the sentiments of my colleagues in this part of the House when I associate myself most warmly with what I have heard from the Prime Minister and from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. I have neither heard nor seen the letter and therefore can say nothing about it, but as regards any action which the House may think fit to take in order to show its appreciation of your fairness in all your actions to all parties in this House I know perfectly well that the Labour party are willing to associate themselves with that action. It does occur to me from what I have gathered from the part of the discussion which I have heard that it would become absolutely intolerable if individual Members of this House should publish in the newspapers in unguarded moments every letter that private Members may write them. On behalf of my colleagues I desire to associate myself with the remarks that have fallen from the speakers who preceded me.

The PRIME MINISTER

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr Austen Chamberlain) has made an appeal to me which I would like to answer. I am sure we should all like in this matter to be guided as far as possible by your judgment and authority. I am quite sure that the House will unanimously accept it that on the whole it would be more convenient not to split up this proceeding into two parts; and as the person who appears primâ facie to be responsible for the publication of this libel, which I believe it to be, is not present to-day, and has had no notice of what is going on, the House, which is always scrupulously fair to its own Members, and I think rightly fair to them, stretching fairness to the farthest point, would feel that even the step of declaring the publication of this document to be a libel might well be deferred until the hon. Member who is incriminated has had an opportunity of being present and saying what he has to say. I think, on the whole, my original suggestion is one that would meet the general sense of the House, and that while recognising fully the gravity of the incident we should adjourn the further consideration of it until the next sitting, when the hon. Member would have an opportunity of being present. If you, Sir, would express your opinion on this point I feel that it would have the greatest weight with the House.

Mr. SPEAKER

As the Prime Minister appeals to me I may say that my own view is that it would be very undesirable to take action with reference to an hon. Member without his having a chance of being heard so that the House might know what he had to say for himself. If it is thought fit to adjourn this matter until Monday the hon. Member for North Westmeath will have an opportunity of being present, and the House will have an opportunity of hearing from him any explanation which he may desire to make. Until that explanation is made I think that the House would probably make a mistake in coming to any judgment. Therefore I would strongly recommend that the matter be adjourned until Monday, when the whole of it might be dealt with. Meantime, I take this opportunity of saying that, as an individual, the contents of the letter in question have not caused me any pain or annoyance, because I feel that my withers are unwrung, and the imputation of partiality upon me, as an individual, leaves me quite cold. But as the chief officer of this House, whose duty it is to maintain the ancient traditions of impartiality in the Chair and to do justice to all sides of the House, I must leave the defence of my conduct entirely to the Members of the House.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

With your permission and following your advice I accept the Motion which the Prime Minister read. May I ask whether the two hon. Members concerned ought not to be ordered to attend in their places by the House on the day on which the discussion is introduced?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think it will be necessary to order them to attend. I think that the hon. Members will be here, naturally.

The PRIME MINISTER

I move that this Debate be adjourned until Monday next.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered, That the Debate be now adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (20th February, 1911).