§ 50. Sir CHARLES TOWNSHENDasked the Lord Privy Seal, with regard to the refusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to grant a passport to the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) to visit Turkey, why the Hon. Member, who would proceed there in a private capacity, may not have the same privileges as are extended to other Members of this House and to other subjects of His Majesty generally?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. and gallant Friend has repeatedly proffered his assistance to the Foreign Office during the last three years to conduct negotiations, either in a private capacity or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, both at Angora and at Constantinople. While convinced of the entirely patriotic spirit in which these offers have been made, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been unable to take advantage of them, because he did not feel that the presence of my hon. and gallant Friend would conduce to the ends which, equally with him, His Majesty's Government have in view. Nevertheless, my hon. and gallant Friend has continued to press for passport facilities for Turkey, though he knew well that his intervention was not desired. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State had no alternative but to inform him, as he did on the 27th March last, that such a journey undertaken by my hon. and gallant Friend at the present time would be the reverse of opportune, since it could not fail to be misconstrued, both by our Allies and by Turkey, as an official mission, and, consequently, to prejudice the present negotiations and to delay still further the re-establishment of peace with Turkey; and that in these circumstances he regretted that he must postpone the grant of a passport to those places until a more suitable moment.
§ Lieut-Colonel ASHLEYMay I ask why a passport was refused to my hon. Friend, when a passport was granted to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to visit Genoa? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was authorised to negotiate with the Soviet Government on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINOf course, my hon. and gallant Friend knows the answer 1348 to his own question. I will not attempt to state it. There can be no sort of parallel between the position of my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend), with the reputation which he enjoys in Turkey, and the interpretation and effect of a visit by him to Turkey in the present situation of that country, and the effect of a visit by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull to Genoa. Nobody is likely to suppose that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull carried any authority, direct or indirect, from His Majesty's Government.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDo not His Majesty's Government sometimes regret that they have not taken the, advice both of myself and the hon. Member for the Wrekin with regard to Turkey?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI have never had occasion to regret not following the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentle man.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThen you are hopeless.
§ Sir C. TOWNSHENDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that my passport was returned to me with an explanation which, not only in my opinion but in the opinion of many Members of this House, was offensive, and that not only was Turkey obliterated, but the different countries which had nothing to do with Turkey, such as Italy and Spain, where I had occasion to travel for recreation? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a grateful way to recognise my past services or a proper way in which to treat me?
§ Sir C. TOWNSHENDI shall be very glad to show you the passport.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf my hon. Friend says that that is so, then it is so, but I am not personally aware of the circumstances. I will make inquiry into that aspect of the matter if he wishes. As regards his suggestion that the explanation which he received was offensive, I should be very sorry that either he or any of his friends should so consider it. I have embodied it almost textually in the answer which I have read to the House, and not only was it not intended 1349 to be offensive, but there was nothing in it to give offence. My hon. Friend occupies such a position in those countries that his visit would necessarily attract great attention, and after the proposals which he has made the presence there of a man of such distinction as he could not but embarrass the negotiations and the prospects of peace. It was on these grounds that the Government felt bound to refuse the passport.
§ Captain GEEAre passports refused to Members of this House who are not in agreement with the policy of the Government?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINPassports have been issued to Members of this House who are very far from being in agreement with His Majesty's Government. The granting of passports is regulated, not by the feelings of His Majesty's Government, but by the interests of the public service.
§ Captain GEEOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. REMERHave not Members of the Labour party been granted passports to go to countries where they have caused great mischief?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of this question.
§ At the end of Questions—?
§ Captain GEEI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the final refusal of the Government to name a date on which it is prepared to issue a passport to a Member of this House to proceed to a country in the occupation of British troops."
Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSOn a point of Order. In view of the fact that there is a Debate on a private Member's Motion to-night, and that there are very few opportunities left in this Session for private Members' Motions, might I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the event of your accepting this Motion as a matter of urgency, it will not be possible for you to waive urgency and allow it to come on to-morrow night, so as to save the rights of private Members to-night?
§ Mr. SPEAKERDealing with that point of Order, I am afraid I could not do that. A Motion, if proper and accepted by the House, must come on at 8.15. It is a matter for Members whether it happens to come on a private Member's day or not.
Lieut.-Colonel. GUINNESSMay I, on that point of Order, ask whether there has not been a precedent under your Speakership for postponing an Adjournment Motion to meet the convenience of the House, and have you not, Mr. Speaker, on certain occasions consented not to raise the neglect to bring it forward on the first possible occasion as a bar against its being considered on a later date?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have in mind one case of the kind, but that was a case, I think, where the information was not available to the House at the moment, and therefore it was taken on the following day. There was no distinction in that case between a private Member's day and any other day The answer I am just going to give will really show the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it does not arise now. The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the final refusal of the Government to name a date on which it is prepared to issue a passport to a Member of this House to proceed to a country in the occupation of British troops." This Motion fails certainly on the ground of urgency, and that, perhaps, will make it unnecessary for me to deal with the other matter, of public importance. From the information given to the House to-day, the matter arose on the 27th March, and therefore clearly it could have been raised the first or, at least, the second day on which the House met after the Easter Recess. I could not countenance a Motion where so much time has elapsed, quite apart from the question of whether I could treat this matter as one of public importance. In regard to the words of the Motion, "to a Member of this House," I think I must treat any citizen the same in a matter of this kind and not make a distinction in favour of a Member of this House.
§ Captain GEEWhilst bowing to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that it was requested by the 1351 Foreign Office that the hon. Member should postpone his request on the 27th March, and he did it, and on application a second time he was refused, and that is why the question has been raised?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI certainly understood from the inquiries I made that the hon. Member's request was made before the meeting of the House a week ago.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOn the point of Order. Are we to understand that there is no difference in these matters between Members of this House and members of the public?
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT£400 a year!
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOught we not to be very jealous of retaining the privileges of Members of this House to travel abroad, even though the Government might not think their voyage abroad is in the public interest?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think there might be such a question if the application had been refused, because the applicant was a Member of the House, but that does not arise here.
§ Mr. A. HERBERTMay I ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, on two points? May I ask, first of all, if that decision has not now been given finally; and, secondly, if this question does not involve two things, that the refusal to travel abroad to the hon. Member for Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) must be based on one of two reasons, either discriminating against him, against his character, as against the rest of the House, or, as that has been, definitely repudiated by the Leader of the House, if it is not a definite attack, not upon the privileges, but upon the liberties of this House, of which you, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian? Does not that constitute a matter of immediate urgency and importance which ought to be decided by the whole House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf that were the case, it would arise in a different form from this. It would not be a Motion under the Standing Order 10, but I do not think it does arise as privilege, as affecting a Member of the House as such. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member's other point, the introduction of the word "final" into this Motion does not, in my 1352 judgment, affect the question of urgency. A decision was made, and it ought to have been raised several days ago.