§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI have to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, a constitutional question, and to ask whether the matter I am about to bring before you constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House. As you are aware, a Bill dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors passed its Second Reading and was referred to Standing Committee C, of which I am Chairman. Certain alterations in the original text of the Bill have taken place as a result of Amendments being carried. On Thursday morning last, at the opening of the Committee session, the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) drew my attention to the following letter that he and many other hon. Members of the Committee had received. In my judgment it constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House. When the question, however, was put to me I was unable to give a decision, but intimated that I would refer it to you immediately. The letter is as follows:
§ " British Temperance League,
§ 29, Union Street,
§ Sheffield.
§ Sandbagged by Liquor and Lunacy.
§ Dear Sir,
§ The House of Commons by 338 votes to 56 affirmed the need for the protection of the young of both sexes under 18 years of age from alcohol because of its poisonous influence, spiritual and physical. Those who prosper by the sale of the alcoholic poison are working by subtle and dubious ways to sandbag Lady Astor's Bill. In Committee 24 to 16 have voted apparently 'out of the Bill and 'knowingly' in, so that the trafficker in liquor may have legal immunity to continue to deal out his moral and physical poison for profit, and reap a rich harvest of gold by tempting the young of both sexes to ruin. The 24 who voted are made up of 18 Conservative, four Liberal, and two Labour, the Conservative, as usual, leading for liquor. That they have Liberal and Labour allies in that lead shows the power of liquor to deflect and seduce. The voters who sent these 24 to Parliament, especially the mothers, wives, and sisters amongst them, should learn that their Member regards liquor and profit therefrom as a supreme consideration, and is prepared to continue the poison of our young rather than stop the flow of gold to the traffickers in that drug.
§ Yours faithfully,
§ CHARLES SMITH."
1693§ As you are aware, Sir, a Member's right in this connection lapses after one day, any, therefore, to safeguard the rights of the Members interested, I undertook to put the point at once. I have, therefore, to submit this question at the request of the Members, intimating to you that copies of the letter were received by a large number while the Committee was in session, and ask you to say whether, in your opinion, the letter constitutes prima four a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn my opinion, this is a grossly improper letter to be addressed to members of a Committee to whom the House has delegated the duty of considering a particular Bill. As to the taste of the letter, I think everyone can judge, and I need make no remark. The style is enough for anyone to form his own opinion about it. I am asked whether it constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House, my recommendation to the House would be to treat it in the way it deserves. The machinery which the House holds in reserve for dealing with attempts at in timidation, or at wrongfully influencing any of its Members, is hardly the machinery to be brought into operation in a case of this kind, though, a course, it would be open to the hon. Member to move. Do I carry the House with me in this view?[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, heard!"]