§
The following Notice of Motion appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Neil Maclean:
That the editor and publisher of the 'Plain English Newspaper' do attend at the Bar of this House, at four of the clock on Thursday the 2nd day of June, to answer in that he or they has or have written and published articles in that paper imputing corruption and breach of trust to Members of this House, the articles complained of constituting a gross breach of the privileges of this House.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANOn a point of Order. With regard to the Notice of Motion standing in my name on the Paper, I wish to ask a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] My question is regarding the articles which have been published in the paper named reflecting upon certain Cabinet Ministers. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that from the 839 position which my Motion occupies on the Order Paper, it will not be taken until the other business has been disposed of. I take it from the Standing Orders that a question of privilege has precedence over all other public business, and I wish to ask whether I am right in my interpretation of the Standing Order, and whether I shall be permitted to move this Motion before any other public business comes before the House this afternoon?
§ Mr. SPEAKERBefore a question of privilege can be raised, in interruption of the ordinary business of the House, it requires to satisfy two conditions. One is that it is instantly raised as soon as possible after the alleged breach has been made, and the second is that the interposition of the House is necessary for the protection of its dignity. The hon. Member's motion fails on both points. It has not been raised instantly, and it certainly, in my view, cannot be a protection of the dignity of the House to raise this matter now. The hon. Member referred to the matter two months ago by means of questions to Ministers, and, if I remember rightly, his complaint then was that certain Ministers of the Crown had not taken action. That is not a question of privilege of the whole House, because the Courts are open if it be necessary to use them.
§ Mr. MACLEANMy complaint is to the effect that any question which affects, not merely the dignity of the House, and the dignity of a Member, but which is likely to conflict with the honour of this House is a matter of privilege. With regard to the other point of immediate action being taken, this paper has continued these articles, and even in its most recent issue has repeated the allegations made against Cabinet Ministers These allegations are to the effect that in the business relating to the affairs of the office that they hold, they have been guilty of actions of which no Member of this House, and certainly no Cabinet Minister, should be considered guilty, or even think of. In these circumstances I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, if it is not within the interpretation of the Standing Order that this matter—even if the allegations had been continued for a period of three months, and been made in the most recent issue of the paper, and con- 840 sidering that it impugns the honesty and the motives of Ministers of the Crown who are responsible to this House is brought within the scope of a motion of privilege.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo, I do not take that view. If the persons referred to in the articles think it worth their while, they have their remedy open to them, and it is not for the House to intervene.
§ Mr. MACLEANBut if Ministers of the Crown, who are accused of doing certain things which one would consider even in private life to be dishonest, refuse to take action—if those individuals as Members of this House refuse to take action, even although the articles appear in a small paper, does it not then become, according to May in his "Parliamentary Practice," as well as according to Standing Orders, the duty of this House to see to it, either by instructing them, or by the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, that the persons concerned do take action?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think the hon. Member has gone quite far enough into what is stated in May. If he will read page 242, as well as page 240, he will see that a Motion in such a case must satisfy the condition that it involves the dignity of the House. That does not apply to an individual in the House. This certainly does not satisfy that condition.
§ Mr. MACLEANDoes not May, on the same page, state that it must not only satisfy that condition, but also that it must be done in the transaction of business and do not Ministers who are alleged to have been guilty of certain actions in the transaction of their business as Members of the Cabinet come within the Section?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo; in my opinion, it does not apply to a case of this sort.
Mr. J. JONESMay I ask, seeing that obscure Socialist newspapers have been prosecuted for making attacks on the Constitution and those who represent it, why this Noble Lord is to be allowed to escape scot free?