BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 12 July 1917)

§ Mr. ASQUITH
I desire to ask two questions of the Leader of the House. In the first place, I assume that the Debate which is to be opened to-day will be continued to-morrow? I am quite sure that it is desirable to take it to-morrow as well as to-day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us as to this point, and also tell us what business the Government propose to take next week?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I have no doubt that it will be desired that the Debate begun to-day should be continued to-morrow, and, of course, that will be done.
With regard to the business for next week, on Monday and, if necessary, on Tuesday, we propose to take the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and if there is time we shall take some of the other Bills on Tuesday.
On Friday we shall take Supply—Irish Education.
Perhaps the House will allow me to state on Monday the business for Wednesday and Thursday.

§ Mr. DILLON
When do the Government propose to take the further stages of the Corn Production Bill?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
We intend to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible.

§ Mr. EUGENE WASON
Will an opportunity be given for discussing the question of food prices on the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras and many other Members?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
My right hon. Friend knows that it is very difficult to get an Adjournment in reasonable time. This subject can be discussed on the Vote of Credit, which will be taken the week after next, and I hope that the House will be satisfied with that.

§ Colonel C. LOWTHER
Will a day be given for the discussion of the labour unrest in the country?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I have received no indication of any such desire.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I desire, as a matter of order, Sir, to ask your guidance in respect of the Debate this afternoon, more particularly with reference to the freedom of debate in regard to the officers and administrators whose conduct will be under review. It is within your knowledge that the Government have appointed a joint Military and Judicial Commission, that evidence will be taken by them, and that the case will be presented by the Attorney-General. The members of the Commission will be nominated by the Secretary of State for War, and will report to him with respect to the officials concerned. It is not itself entrusted with the executive act of meting out punishment. That is left to the Secretary of State for War in respect of officers, and to the Government in respect of civilians. I submit, with that exception, that this Commission is a judicial body, and occupies the same position as a Court of law, and these men, in effect, will be on trial before that Commission. The Government, in advance, has committed itself to the verdict of the Commission. Therefore, I submit that the case of these officials and men may be seriously prejudiced by the Debate that takes place this afternoon. The only precedent to which I will call your attention in this matter is the case in connection with which an Act was passed to authorise the appointment of a Commission. I call attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, at that time Secretary of State for War. He asked the House to support the Bill, and he said: I trust that while the matter is sub judice there will be no reference or discussion either in Parliament or the Press of the circumstances. It is not merely very unfair to distinguished officers who have rendered great services, but also unfair to the Army, and therefore I trust there will be no further reference inside or outside to the matter until the Court has investigated. What I desire to ask is whether, under these circumstances, there will be any limitation of criticism during Debate, and, further, whether individual cases may be treated in the category of persons whose cases are sub judice?

§ Mr. DILLON
Before you decide the point of Order, Sir, I respectfully desire to submit this view, that the decision of the Government is to refer the cases of persons incriminated by the Mesopotamia Commission's Report to a Commission which may sit for an indefinite period, and thereby to withdraw from this House all power of effective criticism of the findings of the Commission—which would 2151 be most unfair to the exercise of the rights of the House, while the effect on the public opinion of the country would be simply disastrous.

§ Sir FRANCIS LOWE
May I ask your ruling, Sir, upon this point? We are informed that a judicial tribunal has been appointed to consider these matters connected with the Mesopotamia Report, and that means that they are about to be investigated by a judicial tribunal. Is it therefore in order for this House to consider these matters at all and of matters which may be considered to be sub judice? If the matter were outside this House, and were commented upon by the newspapers or by the public, it would be considered to be a contempt of Court. Should this House take a course which would be absolutely illegal and liable to be punished, if done by any people outside?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The position, I admit, is one of some difficulty, and perhaps the House will think that I decide purely on technical grounds; but I think I am justified in saying that there is no Court sitting, that the Court has not yet been set up, and whether it is possible, after debate in this House, it may not be set up. I express no opinion on that, I only say that is a possibility, and, therefore, the matter is not to my mind a matter sub judice. This Court which it is suggested will be set up is not a court-martial, it is not a Court of law, it is a Court of inquiry. So far as I understand, the inquiry will take place, but there will be no person in the position of a defendant. The Court will hold such inquiry as it thinks fair and reasonable, and will then report. I think I should be stretching the general rule of this House a little too far if I were to preclude the House from discussing the matter on the ground of its being sub judice.

§ Mr. HOGGE
On a point of Order, Sir, which is of rather a technical nature. On the Order Paper to-day you will notice that there are Motions down in the name of the hon. Member for Brentford Somerset (Mr. King), and also in the name of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I would like to call attention to the fact that the first Motion put on the Paper with regard to this Debate was put down by my hon. 2152 Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch), who is not able to be here at this moment. It is a Motion thanking the Commission for its labours, but it does not appear on the Order Paper. An Amendment to it was put down by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald McNeill), but it does not appear on the Order Paper. I also put a Motion down, and besides thanking the Commission for their labours I called upon the members of the present Government, who have any responsibility, to resign their offices, but that also has not been put upon the Paper.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Those who put them down did not put them down for to-day, but gave notice for an early date. The notices which appear on the Paper were handed in for to-day.

§ Mr. HOGGE
My Motion certainly was for an early date, but obviously, when a Member puts down a Motion with no particular date attached, he would like to know, when he puts it down, that it will appear upon the Paper on a relevant day, and not left off the Paper.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have no control over the Motions that hon. Members put down; they are within the control of the Members who put them down, and it was an act of omission or forgetfulness on the part of the hon. Member not to put his Motion down for a particular date.

§ Mr. HOGGE
On that point, have the clerks at the Table any discretion?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If they had, the hon. Member would be one of the first persons to dispute it.

§ Sir J. JARDINE
May I ask, Sir, when dealing with the composition and powers of this Court, we would be within our rights in discussing matters relevant to and arising out of the findings of the Commission, or in discussing whether this Court is a proper one for the purposes of an inquiry as to military and civil persons?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think that will be one of the chief topics of debate.