QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 25 March 1926)

§ Colonel GRETTON
1 wish to submit a question of privilege to your attention, arising out of an article which appeared this morning in the "Daily Mail," a newspaper with a large circulation, and again this evening in the "Evening News." It appears En the "Daily Mail" on page 10. It is headed The Electricity Bill Battle. It calls attention to a meeting which, it is understood, is to be held upstairs 1389 during the course of this afternoon. It goes on to state that Ministers in charge of the Bill will then see the depth of the plan which is being engineered by interested members of the Conservative party to wreck the Bill. It states that The real opponents are a handful of Conservative Members of Parliament in fluential by the fact that they have sat in the House for a number of years and are directly interested in the control of electricity supply undertakings. Then there is a paragraph that refers to someone who is apparently anony-mous, and the next paragraph goes on to state: The opposition is being organised skilfully, however, and the names of 'interested' persons are being kept largely in the background while the 'Die-Hard' up-holders of the rights and privileges of Parliament are being encouraged to attack the scheme as an infringement of those principles. Then there are some remarks which are not important, and a list of the names of 28 Members of the House is added, among which mine is included. I submit that it is improper for any journal to state, or to insinuate, that Members of this House are influenced by improper or corrupt motives in the action they take. The first paragraph I have read plainly makes an insinuation and a statement of that kind. It is to seine extent undoubtedly qualified by the second paragraph I have read, which states that the persons who are interested are keeping themselves largely in the background. The concluding lines of that paragraph, I submit, insinuate that several Members of the House included in this list are being influenced by persons with corrupt motives and therefore are partaking in a corrupt practice. That, I submit, is a breach of the privilege of the House and an attempt to intimidate the 28 Members whose names appear in the list that has been printed, and others, from the free exercise of their conscience and their judgment in carrying out their duties ac Members of this House. In regard to myself, I think I need hardly say I have no interest whatever in any electrical undertaking. My only interest is that which is probably shared by all other Members in the House, that I am a user of electricity for light, and to a certain extent for power. I submit that the 1390 names of Members of Parliament should not be published and used in this way and subjected to gross insinuations for which there is no ground or justification.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman submit any Motion?

§ Colonel GRETTON
No; I am submitting this matter to your judgment and seeking your advice.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I beg to move, "That, the Editor be brought to the Bar of the House."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not think it is for me to express an opinion. It was only brought to my notice at Question time, so that I have not had sufficient time to examine it carefully. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman submits a Motion, that the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges, it will be within his power to do that.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I beg to move, That the passages complained of in the "Daily Mail" newspaper of this day he referred to the Committee of Privileges. At the same time, I apologise to you, Sir, for not having brought this matter to your attention at a much earlier hour in the day. I regret that I had not studied the "Daily Mail" with attention this morning.

§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERT
May I ask whether that is strictly the correct form, or whether the proper method of procedure is not a Motion on which this House should decide whether it is a breach of the privileges of this House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is for the hon. and gallant Member who first raised the question. There are two forms of the Motion which may be made. I under stand the hon. and gallant Member to move, "That the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

§ Mr. BASIL PETO
I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, I wish to state that it appears to me that the statements read out by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) are not only a gross breach of privilege, but are un true; certainly untrue in respect of the majority, and, I believe, in respect of all the Members mentioned in the Paper. With regard to myself, I wish to state 1391 that, with the hon. and gallant Member, I am one of those-who has been pilloried in the Press as moving this House for interested motives of my own. Personally, I have never had any interest in any electrical undertaking whatever, and I am confident that my colleagues who have put their names to the Amendment on the Paper are also in the same position themselves.

§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I would like to ask, in the event of it being decided that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, whether the editor or the author of the article will have an opportunity of appearing and endeavouring to substantiate his case?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is impossible to anticipate what the Report of the Committee will be. There is a Standing Committee of Privileges of the House, and we cannot anticipate what their decision will be.

§ Mr. THURTLE
May I ask if the Report of the Committee of Privileges on this matter will be debatable by the House? Will there be an opportunity of discussing the Report, when it is brought forward by the Committee of Privileges?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I am afraid there is some risk of the House rushing to some conclusion before it is really thoroughly aware of the subject which is under discussion. I can quite understand the indignation of hon. Friends of mine, judging from the passages which have just been read by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). At the same time, the question was addressed by him to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has told the House that he has had no opportunity of considering this very important point. I do suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend, now that he has safeguarded the position by having raised the question, it would be a far wiser course to adjourn the matter at this moment, and to give Mr. Speaker an opportunity of giving a considered judgment upon it, so that the House should at least have the benefit of advice from him before it proceeds further in the matter. The matter, I quite agree, is a grave one, but it is one of which many of us have heard this afternoon for the first time. I myself had neither heard of, nor read, anything about it.

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not one of the most cherished privileges of this House that the House itself and no Member of the House, however dignified he may be, should decide whether a certain matter is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House?

§ Mr. CLYNES
In considering, as no doubt you will, the observations which have just been made by the Prime Minister, I will ask you to take into account what is the obvious feeling of the House as to the nature and terms of the breach of privilege which has been brought to your notice. Although we on this side of the House are hardened in the matter of Press implications and charges, I think the matter which has been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) is one on which the House ought now to decide and have it referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. THURTLE
May I press the point I put to you as to whether the Report of the Committee will he debatable by the House?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That depends upon whether time is asked for and arranged for. It will not come automatically before the House.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I presume that this question is debatable, and, in a very few words, I propose to oppose this Motion, and, if I can get any one to tell with me, I shall divide the House against it. In the first place, this matter has been brought before Parliament without proper notice. I have read the article in the "Evening News." I have not read the article in the "Daily Mail." I have seen it, but not read it. I read the one last night, and, although I quite sympathise with hon. Members who feel that their honour has been in any way assailed, and I hasten to say that that part of it has no effect on anyone in this House—there would be no support for any such view in any quarter of the House—nevertheless, I look upon the article itself as not being outside the hounds of fair comment. I am speaking from my recollection of the "Evening News" article last night.

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
0n a point of Order. May I ask you whether the hon. and gallant Member is in order in discussing an article that appeared in the "Evening News" last night when the one complained of is that which appeared in the "Evening News" to-day?

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
On that point of Order. I think both were brought forward in the indictment. [HON. MEMBERS "No!" and other HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]

§ Mr. SPEAKER
May I point out that the Motion before the House is, "That the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges." I do not think that the House would desire, or that it would be proper, to enter into the merits on a Motion of this kind. The Motion submitted is not a Motion that this constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. It will be for the Committee of Privileges to judge, if the Motion be carried. The fact of my allowing the Motion indicates that in my view, as far as I have been able to see the Paper, there is a prima facie case which might be referred by the House to this Committee.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am quite aware of the Motion, and I put it to you and to the House that if, every time Members object to some criticism of their action or supposed action in the papers, they are going to move a Motion that it be referred to the Committee of Privileges, that is a threat to the independence of the Press, and I do not think it is in conformity with the best interests of the House that such a matter should be ventilated in this way. The 21 Members whose names are given in the article are not directly accused of any improper motives. [Interruption.] I have read the article in the "Evening News," and the 21 Members are not in any way—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Clearly, that is anticipating, whereas the Question is whether it is the pleasure of the House that it should be referred to the Standing Committee which deals with this sort of matter.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. I should like to ask, first of all, whether the Committee, if it be appointed, will inquire into anything but the one 1394 question, namely, whether this does constitute a breach, or whether, for in stance, it can go into any merits? That is the first question. Assuming that the Committee reports that it is a breach of privilege, I take it that their Report will then be submitted to you and to the House, and that then will be the time for debating the merits. I should like to ask, on a point of Order, whether that will not be the case?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have not myself sat on this Committee. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I cannot say anything about its procedure. It will obviously consider and report on the matter which is referred to it.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I will not stand between the hon. Member and the House for more than one moment. I consider that this action will set up a dangerous precedent. It is being taken in a hurry obviously. You, yourself, Sir, have only just been informed of such de tails as are available, and I think the House would be far better advised to follow the advice of the Prime Minister himself and to allow this matter to be considered further. I, therefore, wish to oppose the Motion.

Mr. BECKETT
May I ask, in the event of this Motion being carried and the matter going to the Committee of Privileges, whether, when they are inquiring into this charge with which I am sure nobody wishes to associate himself, they will also inquire into the general tenor of this paper? This is only one minor instance among many where hon. Members of this House have been accused in this way.

§ Mr. THURTLE
May I put a question to the Prime Minister on this matter? May I ask him whether, in the event of this matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Privileges submitting a report on it, he will undertake that time will be given for a discussion of that report?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL
I am one of the 28 Members whose names are given, and I want to say that I have not 1395 and I never have had an electricity share of any kind, and I am all the more surprised since this is the first time that I have heard anything about it. I think it was in the "Daily Mail" this morning. I had not seen it until now, but since it raises a question of the personal honour of Members of this House I think the House is bound to deal with it at the earliest possible moment; and if the Committee of Privileges will not, the honour of the House demands that time should be given for this House to deal with it.

§ Major BOYD-CARPENTER
Perhaps in this matter I am not altogether un interested, as my name is one of those 28 Members. Yet I have only a question of principle at heart, and have no interest in any electrical undertaking in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paid servant!"] No, I am not a paid servant of anybody, as some hon. Members there are.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong in introducing an allegation of that kind on the very matter which we are now discussing, and I must call upon him to withdraw.

§ Major BOYD-CARPENTER
Certainly, if that be your ruling, but perhaps you will allow me to say that they called it at me first. I entirely withdraw on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
On a point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Allow me to deal with the point of Order. Surely, if it be a question of the honour of hon. Members of this House, it is not improving the matter to debate it in this way. It would be far better to refer it at once to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. SPENCER
There has been a mistake made. I quite sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Major Boyd-Carpenter), who made the allegation. He thought that my hon. Friend here was referring to himself. The only persons to whom he was referring were himself and others who had been called paid agents. The hon. and gallant Member misunderstood him. That is how the mistake has arisen.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am very glad to have that explanation.

§ Major BOYD-CARPENTER
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer). I apologise thoroughly to him and his party but, at any rate, it was within the hearing of the House that an observation was made as to paid servants, which I took to be applied to myself. In the circumstances, it was natural that I should so apply lt. In the circumstances of the discussion, I willingly withdraw—not only in deference to the ruling of the Chair but in consideration for hon. Members—any insinuation which I made, because of the handsome way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has explained the matter.