§ 9. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the practice, which is increasing, of members of His Majesty's Forces, both in and out of the House of Commons, delivering speeches, writing letters, etc., dealing with questions of policy; whether he can say if any action has been taken with regard to such practices; whether, if any action has been taken, it has been taken in all cases; and whether he can say in which cases it has been taken, and what was the nature of the action in such cases?
§ Mr. TENNANTThis question has been engaging my attention. I would point out 1620 to my hon. Friend that there is a distinction between statements made outside the walls of Parliament, and those made inside. Questions of policy seem to be proper subjects of discussion by Members of Parliament. It has been the immemorial custom to consider statements made inside Parliament as privileged. I am not able to define precisely the limits within which that privilege may be applied. Such a definition is as difficult as would be one delimiting the boundaries of good taste and, while it may be possible to overstep the borders of the one, there may be a liability to violate the neutrality surrounding the other. I think the traditions of this House and the good sense of hon. Members should prove an adequate safeguard.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMAre we to understand that officers, who are Members of the House of Commons, and who have returned from the Front, are not to be allowed to make any statements in regard to the conduct of the War? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of Captain Jorsy de Knoop, of the Cheshire Yeomanry, who has been refused permission to return to the Front, by reason of having stated—what is perfectly true—that we were short of ammunition?
§ Mr. TENNANTIn answer to my hon. Friend, I do not think the description given of Captain Jorsy de Knoop's speech is wholly accurate. He cast a certain amount of slur upon those in high authority. That is a question of discipline, and ought to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the military authorities. What I should like the House to realise is that any gentleman who is good enough to give his services to the country, and is a Member of Parliament, is not thereby debarred—it is not proper that he should be so debarred—from discussing questions of policy. If, however, he discusses other questions, questions, for instance, relating to military discipline then I think a different rule should apply.
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of information, whether, when a Member of this House is an officer on full pay, he is entitled to make speeches in the House concerning military authority, or whether it is not the practice that Members of this House attached to the naval or military authorities only make such speeches when they are on half pay?
§ Sir H. CRAIKBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him whether the privileges of a Member of this House are defined by any Department of the State, or whether they do not stand upon an altogether different footing, and cannot be interfered with?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes, Sir, I think the hon. Member opposite is quite right in his definition. It is not possible, as I have said in answer to the main question, to lay down a definite rule. In regard to the other point, of course it is quite true that hitherto it has been the custom of Parliament for Members who were serving with the Forces of the Crown either to be seconded or to be placed on half pay, in order to enable them to discharge their Parliamentary duties. In this War, owing to the large number of hon. Members who have been good enough to come forward and serve the State, that practice has been abrogated during the War.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWould the right hon. Gentleman's Department not consider the special circumstance that this House has passed a special statutory provision to enable these Gentlemen to accept commissions without vacating their seats, and is not that to be taken into consideration in regard to the way they exercise their rights of speech?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not know that I quite understand the point referred to by my hon. Friend, but so far as I do, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Craik) was emphasising the exact differentiation as between the two cases mentioned.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONMay I inquire, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman must not wave me down. [Laughter.] He must give notice of any further question.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONOn a point of Order. First of all, may I explain that it was only in my way of speaking, and I had no intention of being out of order. May I ask if it is not allowable, considering the very interesting point which has been raised, for a Member who puts very few supplementary questions, to put one on a point which I am sure will be in the interest of the House on this very interesting occasion?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe already have had six supplementary questions on this one. 1622 There must be some limit, for there is a moment when supplementary questions tend to become a general debate. When hon. Members rise first on one side, and then on the other, it is evident to me that the time has come when a stop must be put to questions.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONI would like to ask whether, at the end of questions, supposing there is sufficient time, I might put a supplementary question on this point to the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me see the question, and also give notice to the Minister concerned.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONIs the Under-Secretary for War aware that there is a general feeling of uneasiness in the country that officers of the headquarters staff criticising the Government in this House are acting as mouthpieces of the Field-Marshal commanding in France, and can he say anything to allay that feeling?
§ Mr. TENNANTI was wholly unaware of any such feeling. If it exists—of which I have the gravest doubts—I would say, in order to allay it, that there is not a word of truth in it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is right, without notice to this House, so that we may have an opportunity of judging the nature of a question, that an attack should be made on the Commander-in-Chief?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is one of the difficulties of hon. Members putting supplementary questions without notice. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was here earlier this afternoon when the hon. Gentleman thought he was ill-used because I had suppressed his supplementary question. I have now allowed him to ask it, chiefly for the purpose of letting the House see how right I was on that occasion.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONMay I first of all make a remark before asking a further supplementary question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe must not have any more supplementary questions.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONMay I ask, if the officers of the headquarters staff were to come into this House to-night and criticise the Field-Marshal—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman will see that that is quite out of order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes.
Mr. CATHCART WASONI beg to ask the question standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell), whether the initiation of the present policy of the British Expeditionary Force on the Continent to kill Germans rather than conquer them dates from his visit to the front, and accounts for the phenomenon that no prisoners of war are now being taken; whether recruits are being informed of this new condition of the War and its reciprocal consequences; and whether this House or this country will be afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion of the policy of killing men after they have laid down their arms?
§ Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONMr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have already called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow me the opportunity to make a personal explanation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhen I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat and I call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in ordinary courtesy he should wait and hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
§ Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONI apologise very sincerely for my seeming discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker; but an attack was made upon me by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), who said I had attacked the Field-Marshal Commanding in France. I want to know when I shall have an opportunity of replying to that attack and repudiating it most emphatically? [An HON. MEMBER: "Take the Albert Hall!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must take the first opportunity he gets.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna)Question No. 37 standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) 1624 was postponed by him and consequently was not answered; but as the question contains a scandalous and wholly false attack—
§ Mr. GINNELLOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is a Minister entitled to answer a question which has been openly postponed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERCertainly, if there is any attack upon any private individual.
§ Mr. McKENNA (continuing his answer)Upon the British Expeditionary Force. I desire to take this opportunity of saying that there is no foundation whatever for the allegations contained in the hon. Member's question.
Mr. CATHCART WASONOn that, may I ask you whether your attention has also been called to the certain fact that a question such as this must necessarily cause much loss to many of our gallant soldiers at the front, and also be productive of much bitterness and entirely unnecessary feeling?
§ Sir A. MARKHAMWill the right hon. Gentleman ask the United States Government to convey to the German Government that the hon. Member opposite is not of sound mind?
§ Mr. PRINGLEI desire, with reference to this question, to ask you, Sir, whether it appeared upon the Paper with your approval and knowledge?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMy attention had been called to it, but I am placed in a very grave difficulty. The question in the ordinary course of things would be a perfectly regular one. It does not violate any Parliamentary rules, and, however much I might deprecate it appearing on the Paper, if I were to strike it out we should have the hon. Member and other hon. Members attacking me for not having carried out the ordinary rules, and for having struck out a question of this character. Hon. Members have a great responsibility, just as great a responsibility as I have, and they must act according to their best lights.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMCan any inquiry be held into the state of mind of the hon. Member?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf we were to begin inquiring into that kind of thing, I do not know where we should end.