§ Colonel GRETTONI desire to raise a question of privilege. It will be within the recollection of yourself and of hon. Members that on a recent date the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) called attention to certain criticisms and aspersions on the conduct of the Chairman of Standing Committee A which appeared in the "Daily Herald" newspaper, and by the decision of this House the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges to report to the House. I have to explain that, as the name of an hon. Member of this House is mentioned in the statement that I am about to read, I tried yesterday to find that hon. Member but failed to do so, and I hope that the House will absolve me from any delay because I have endeavoured to follow the invariable practice, when an hon. Member's name is raised, that he should receive notice of what is impending. The paragraph to which I desire to draw your attention and the attention of the House appeared in the "Daily Herald" of yesterday, Tuesday, 13th of this month, on page 2, and in the 4th column. It is there stated:
If the editor is to be arraigned for alleged breach of privilege, and the only 1350 point of privilege which can possibly arise is the comment on the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee, then my colleagues and I should also be arraigned. This was the declaration made to the 'Daily Herald' last night by Mr. Mardy Jones, leader of the Labour group on the Standing Committee.It goes on:During the past week-end most Labour Members of the Committee have been criticising in the country the conduct of the Chairman as well as the tactics of the Tory obstructionists. The 'Daily Herald' has merely repeated the criticisms which we have levelled against the Chairman during the Committee's proceedings. There is not the slightest doubt that the Tory obstructionists have been allowed to submit frivolous amendments scribbled during the proceedings. I have repeatedly protested against the ruling of the Chairman, and I am prepared to repeat my criticism either inside or outside the House of Commons.The only matter which involves privilege is the aspersion in that statement cast upon the conduct of the Chairman of Standing Committee A. The aspersions have already been brought to the attention of the House. I submit that it is a serious breach of privilege that a Member should again raise a question which is now, in fact, sub judice, and that such a comment should appear in a public newspaper. I submit that the statement in this paragraph should also be brought to the notice of the Committee of Privileges and form part of the subject which the House has directed it to investigate. I do not know that it will be necessary for me to move any Motion. You, Sir, may hold it sufficient that the matter has now been raised on the Floor of the House. In conclusion, I would only submit that, if any hon. Member has a criticism or a grievance against the conduct of any Chairman of Committees, the proper place to raise that grievance and to state it is in the House itself, and not to a public newspaper outside.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis gives me the opportunity of saying that the statement I made on Monday last with reference to myself applies equally to the Chairman of any Committee of the House. There are means provided in our Rules, if the necessity really arise, for calling in question the conduct of the Speaker, or the Chairman of the Whole House or of a Standing Committee. Hon. Members, I am sure, will see, especially after a recent incident, that it is essential that that procedure should be observed.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWe do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhen an hon. Member comes here he comes presumably prepared to accept the rules under which the House works. With regard to the particular question, if the hon. and gallant Member had asked leave to move on this occasion, I should have had to rule him out of order on two points: First, on a matter of time; and, secondly, on the fact that the paper which has been presented to me contains no sufficient evidence on which to base a Motion. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member did not ask to proceed with a Motion, and I think that what I have said will be sufficient to meet the particular case, especially as the main matter has been, by the consent of the Whole House, referred to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESWith regard to this matter, if I may with your permission and the permission of the House, I would like to correct one statement made by the hon. and gallant Member who has raised the question to-day. He said that I made this statement in the interview to the "Daily Herald" after the proceedings had been started against the "Daily Herald" in this House. That is not so. It was last Monday evening that I gave the interview complained of, and that was prior to the incident in this House yesterday. Therefore, it was not sub judice when I made the statement.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI felt sure that that was the case, and I am glad that the hon. Member has made that statement. There is no question now before the House. I have declined, on the ground of time, to take the question on a Motion for Privilege, and therefore no question can now arise.
§ Mr. HOPEI take it that the Committee of Privileges will be competent to inquire into and report on this particular question as part of, and arising out of, the question submitted to them.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROn that point, I must not interfere with the duties of the Chairman of that Committee.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOn a point of Order. Has not the Committee of Privileges been appointed to deal specifically with the breach of privilege alleged to have been 1352 committed by the "Daily Herald," and unless the House amends the reference to the Committee it will not be competent for the Committee to deal with the matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised to-day?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have said that it is a matter of interpretation for the Chairman of the Committee.
§ Mr. DICKSONAs a member of the Committee upstairs I wish for your guidance on a point with regard to your ruling. It is whether your ruling governs the comment of any member of that Committee who may be speaking in the country and may express an opinion about the Chairman.
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes, I think that ought not to be done. Members ought not to criticise the conduct of a Chairman unless in the manner provided by the Rules of the House.
§ Mr. DICKSONPrior to the question being raised in the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo, at any time.
§ Mr MACLEANWhen the matter was raised in this House by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), I raised a point with regard to a similar attempt that I made on a previous occasion to raise a question of privilege, and you asked me to send you on the reference as you did not remember it. I have done so, and I think that you will have received the communication that I forwarded to you. I wish to repeat the question that I then put. Why is it that this trifling question should be considered of such importance as to warrant a Committee of Privileges being set up when the question of impugning the honesty of a Cabinet Minister in this House was not considered to be of sufficient importance to set up a Committee of Privileges?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have looked up the reference which the hon. Member was good enough to give me, and I find that on that occasion, in the month of May, 1921, I gave to him my reasons for not accepting the Motion which he proffered. I cannot now repeat them, but I hold entirely by what I said on that occasion.
§ Mr. W. THORNEOn this question, I would like to ask—
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINTo prevent any misapprehension arising, or possible confusion between answers to different questions, may I ask, in regard to the conduct of Members of the House as distinguished from any outsiders, whether I did not understand you to rule that, whether any question of privilege had been raised or not, the only place where it was proper for Members of the House to challenge the conduct of the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee was on the Floor of the House in appropriate form, and that it would be improper for any Member of the House to challenge—I am asking whether this was your ruling—the ruling of the Chair in the House or upstairs, or anywhere except on the Floor of the House in that form?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that the right hon. Member's statement can be accepted in toto with this addition: challenging the integrity or impartiality of the Chair or of any Chairman. Hon. Members frequently put questions to me here on points of Order after a decision, and within limits I listen to them. It cannot quite be said that no question of a ruling can be raised on the Floor of this House. Otherwise I agree.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf the Committee is set up to investigate this question, will the Report of that Committee be open to discussion in the House afterwards?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Report will be presented to the House. The second part is a question for the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an opportunity? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been promised!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question arose yesterday, and it does not now arise. There is no Question before the House, and we cannot argue this matter further.