PERSONAL EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 26 February 1914)

§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON

I wish to call attention to a matter entirely personal to myself, and to ask you, Mr. Speaker, one or two questions on the point, and, finally, to ask you whether a breach of privilege of the House has or has not been committed. What I refer to is a statement in a newspaper of considerable repute, I believe—and, perhaps, of wide circulation, a matter with which I am not personally acquainted—in which it imputes to me by name insolent behaviour to the Throne. I will first of all read what 1957 the newspaper says, and then give my explanation. The heading is: "Hats off for the King," and then it proceeds:— There are certain common courtesies to the Throne which are still observed in the House of Commons, even under a Radical majority, but those courtesies were, I can only imagine, deliberately ignored by a Radical and by a Labour Member, when Captain Guest brought up the King's acknowledgment of the Address in reply to the King's Speech. In his official uniform, as Treasurer of the Household, he appeared at the Bar to announce, in military tones, a message from the King. Such an announcement is usually followed by the uncovering of Members, but this afternoon neither Mr. John Ward thought it necessary to remove his huge grey sombrero, nor did Sir G. Scott Robinson,"— That is incorrect, but evidently it is intended for me— the Radical representative for Central Bradford, take the trouble to doff his tall hat. A momentary forget fulness might well have been pleaded, but whether the discourtesy was intentional or not, it was instantly met by cries front the Opposition of 'hats off,' but neither of the offending Members paid any heed to the condemnation, and persisted in their insulting action. What actually occurred was this. I was a little late when the hon. Member for Dorsetshire brought up a message in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I was also in a hurry. Without knowing quite how much respect was necessary on this occasion to an official so beautifully attired—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—well, I think he was beautifully attired—I edged along sideways and proceeded to my place. I noted at the time that hon. Members opposite were calling "Hats off," and I asked an hon. Friend who sat next to me why they were making that remark. He said, "Because the Member for Stoke has not taken off his hat." I asked why he had not taken off his hat, and he replied, "Because of the commanding tone in which he was ordered to take it off by Members opposite." I thought that was a mistake. Now, I do not know myself how the matter stands. I have asked my Friends, and they are inclined to think I had my hat off, and that. I was properly uncovered. I ask you, Sir, whether you are able to say whether I had my hat off or not. On the whole, I think I had it off, but these accidents do sometimes, occur, and I have noticed that Members on all sides have kept their hats on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!")—when, as a matter of good manners, if they remembered, they would have taken them off. I only wish to say this: that I am second to nobody in this House in the deep loyalty I feel for His Gracious Majesty the King, and the perfect reverence and respect I have for his person, and if by any chance I did keep my hat on for a moment or two longer than it should have been, or if I forgot 1958 circumstances and kept it on, I should most profoundly apologise to the House, and I shall apologise simply on the question of good manners, because I believe it is not absolutely necessary to take off your hat when a Message is brought in the way in which this was. I want to ask for your ruling or opinion on this point, and whether it is necessary to go further and move a Resolution that a breach of privilege has been committed?