QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. (Hansard, 25 October 1926)

§ Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK
I beg to move, That the speech of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), reported in the 'Daily Express' newspaper of 13th October, is a gross libel on the Members of this House, and a grave breach of its privileges. I desire to call attention to a speech made by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey on the 12th October last. When addressing a meeting of Good Templars he made these remarks: I have seen many Members drunk in the House of Commons, and I am sorry to say no party is exempt. Then, later on, when he was interviewed on this question, he said that the allegation he had made in his speech was quite true, particularly on the Conservative side, because there more Members were concerned. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I consider this to be a most outrageous attack upon the dignity of this House, and one which is quite unjustified and which I consider brings the hon. Member within the Rules of the House as regards breach of its privileges. It is laid down that any reflection upon a Member constitutes a breach of privilege, and it is also laid down that insults to Members constitute a breach of privilege. Surely, a statement of this character is calculated to do irreparable damage to this honourable House, and those of us who are here to maintain the dignity of our position—[Interruption]. I know that some hon. Members on the opposite benches who come from North of the Tweed have made it their boast that they intended to destroy the character of the House of Commons—[Interruption].

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. And gallant Member is attempting to raise a matter of privilege, I must warn him not to introduce extraneous matters.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. And gallant Member was in order in making a charge against Members of this House, and if he should not be asked to withdraw the statement that he has made?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have already called the hon. and gallant Member to order. He is not in order in going outside the purpose for which he rose.

§ Mr. CLYNES
May I ask whether it is permissible for a Member to proceed with a statement of this kind in the absence of the Member affected, and whether in this instance notification was given to the Member affected?

§ Sir A. HOLBROOK
I sent a telegram to the hon. Member for West Bermondsey telling him that I was going to raise this matter to-day. He had notice from me by telegram, and he ought to have been here.

HON. MEMBERS
When?

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On the point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have already dealt with that.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
May I submit to you, Sir, that when an hon. Member makes a statement reflecting on certain Members of this House, he should either be prepared to substantiate or withdraw it?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I shall not allow the hon. and gallant Member to do either the one or the other. I have dealt with the matter as a matter of order. The hon. and gallant Member was out of order in entering into another matter, and I have warned him.

§ Sir A. HOLBROOK
I will not continue on the point. With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey, he said, when questioned upon it: Bless my soul, of course I did. I obviously am not going to name colleagues of my own, but if I am challenged in the House I will tell them to their faces. I say that that is a great reflection upon the character of the Members of this House. Some four or five years ago the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) made a similar statement, and it was brought before this honourable House. The Speaker at that time, when the matter was under discussion, made these remarks: This paper has only been put into my hands since I came into the Chair, and I have not had time to do more than glance at it, but it is so serious a matter that I 563 can hardly believe the hon. Member has been correctly reported in what the paper reports that he said about his colleagues in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1921; col. 49, Vol. 148.] That hon. Member, when the matter was brought forward, withdrew the statement and made an ample apology to the House. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey has declined to withdraw his statement, and, moreover, he has repeated it on more than one occasion. I say that this constitutes a breach of privilege, and I beg to move accordingly.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
is the hon. Member for West Bermondsey present?

HON. MEMBERS
He has received no notice!

§ Mr. CLYNES
I do not associate myself with the observations made outside this House by my hon. Friend referred to in the question which has been raised, but I trust that this Motion will be resisted because of the offensive terms in which the subject has been discussed, and because of the unnecessary and unfair counter-charges which have been made—

HON. MEMBERS
By a brewers' advocate!

§ Sir A. HOLBROOK
On a point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Order, order!

§ Sir A. HOLBROOK
I am challenged with being a brewers' advocate—

Mr. BECKETT
Everyone knows it!

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Hon. Members must not make interruptions of that kind.

§ Mr. CLYNES
I was saying that I hope this Motion will be resisted, and that my hon. Friends behind me will vote against it because of the unfair and totally unwarranted counter-charges that have been levelled against Members on this side of the House. [interruption.] I think the records of the Debate will show. A speech of that kind ought not to be made except in the presence of the Member concerned, and the House is entitled to know when the telegram was sent to the hon. Member, who is absent.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved 564 this Motion draws attention to what is unquestionably a very serious matter—a reflection upon the character and dignity of the House—and one which, if it were allowed to persist without being repudiated by the House, might be taken gravely to injure in the country the reputation of a democratic institution. The right hon. Gentleman who is leading the Opposition says we ought to resist this Motion on the ground that the hon. Member who moved it used provocative language, or made grave charges. Everyone in the House can judge of that for himself. I should have thought that at the very utmost what could have been said about the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he deviated into the region of the facetious at an unseasonable moment. There is no question whatever of any charge of any kind being made, and if that were the only reason the right hon. Gentleman could urge against this Motion being accepted by the House. I think it would be a very slender basis. But there is this point which, I think, should be considered. We have to meet again to-morrow. The hon. Member who made the statement is not in his place to-day, and it was always contrary to the general sense of the House to judge any matter in the absence of any fellow Member until they are assured that that absence is due to some cause which that Member had under his control. I wish, therefore, to ask this of you, Mr. Speaker. If we do not proceed any further with this matter, would the privilege be equally alive to-morrow in ease the hon. Member should then be in his place. Privilege, as the House knows, has to be raised immediately, and if it could he equally raised to-morrow, as far as the Government is concerned we should be quite ready to propose the Adjournment of the Debate, and it could he continued to-morrow.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is quite within the rights of the right hon. Gentleman to move that the Debate be adjourned.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
In the event of this matter being raised to-morrow and debated in the presence of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), will it also be right for the House to discuss the statement made recently by Dean Inge reflecting upon the sobriety 565 and also the character of the Labour Members, when he described them, irrespective of where they sit, as a set of "drunken blackguards"?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is a matter of which I have no knowledge. No such allegation has been brought to my notice.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
If it be brought to your notice, will it be competent to discuss it to-morrow?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is clearly a question that I cannot answer without knowledge of the facts. I must have time before I can give an answer.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
Then I beg to give notice the I shall raise the matter to-morrow.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I rise to support Motion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the Government have taken a very wise course It is obviously very desirable that the Member concerned should be here. There seems to be some doubt as to whether he received the notice in time. It is undoubtedly a very serious charge to make against an assembly upon which so much depends. The repute of Parliament is not the inheritance of any particular party. It is important to the whole nation. On the other hand those who have experience of these questions of privilege know that on the whole it is a very difficult procedure and the House does not always come out of them very well. I cannot help thinking that when the hon. Member comes face to face with the sentiment of the House—because it is not a sentiment which is by any means confined to supporters of the Government; unless I am mistaken it is a sentiment which is common to all parties in the House—I think he will feel that it is not so much in his own interest as in the interest of the nation as a whole and the repute of such an important part of the constitution as the British Parliament that it would be desirable that he should withdraw a charge which would be only too readily believed by those who do not know about Parliament, because it is not true. I am speaking now as an old Member. Therefore I sincerely hope the opportunity will be 566 taken to-morrow to clear up the situation and that it will not be necessary to proceed with the hon. Gentleman's Motion.