HC Deb 14 November 1927 vol 210 cc785-94

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. THURTLE

I desire to raise a question concerning the conferring of titles for payment to party funds. It is a matter of common knowledge that this practice has been very prevalent in our political life in the past, and it became so widespread at the time of the Coalition Government that a Royal Commission was appointed to deal with the matter. That Commission reported, and made certain recommendations for restricting or doing away with the practice. Those of us who have some regard for the purity of public life, and who regard this as a particular nauseating form of political corruption, hoped that this practice had come to an end. I notice that a rather animated journalistic quarrel has now developed between the " Morning Post " and the " Daily Mail " newspapers, and as a result of that quarrel there is reason to believe that the practice of selling honours is still being practised by the present Government. The " Daily Mail " has come out with a clear and definite charge against the present Government that they are continuing the selling of honours in return for payment to party funds. I will give the terms of the charge, which lack nothing in regard to definiteness. The charge is contained in a leading article in the " Daily Mail " of 15th August last, in which the following passage occurs: The charge against Mr. Lloyd George is that he recruited the funds of his party through the bestowal of honours. The reply is that the Conservative party has done and is doing exactly the same thing. The House will note the employment of the present tense. There is no question of past history; the "Daily Mail" says specifically that it is being done at the present time. The "Daily Mail" goes on further to say this: We have called upon the Conservative party to allow a searching independent investigation into its financial affairs during the last five years. We are prepared to make the period the last four years, so that there may be no inquiry beyond the period when the present Leaders of the Conservative party had charge of its finance. There should be no difficulty about this in a party which has lately and loudly proclaimed its purity. The inquiry"— and this is a definite charge— The inquiry will reveal striking instances of the conferment of honours on men who have made large contributions to the Conservative party funds. That is the charge. It is as clear and definite as a charge possibly could be, and I ask, what is the Conservative party going to do about it? I would point out that there is no question here of an obscure publication with a negligible circulation, which might very properly be ignored. The "Daily Mail" is a paper with the largest circulation in the country, running, I believe, into several millions, and it penetrates into practically every village and hamlet in the country—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the Continent! "]—and on the Continent too, as my hon. Friend reminds me. A paper like that cannot be dismissed as an unimportant publication, and it is really incumbent upon the Government to make some reply to it. I want to know what the Government is going to do. Apparently, from the attitude of the Prime Minister when I questioned him on this matter last week, there is a disposition on their part to do nothing at all. If the Conservative party really has a reply to this charge of the " Daily Mail," a reply which will show that the charge of the " Daily Mail " is ill-founded and false, then I submit that, not only in its own interests—which may not be so important—but in the interests of public life, the Government ought to come forward and produce such evidence as will prove the falsity of the " Daily Mail's " charges. If it takes no action at all, then I submit that the public will be justified in assuming that the charges are true in substance and in fact.

There is an old saying that silence gives consent. It is a well-known fact in British public life that, if the personal honour of a public man is assailed in responsible quarters and he does not bring forward a reply to that attack, then the worst is assumed. I submit that the same thing applies to the reputation of a Government. If the honour of a Government is assailed, as the honour of this Government is assailed in this instance, from a responsible quarter, and no reply is given to that charge, then I say we are justified in assuming the worst. [Interruption.] I do not know that I have caught the interruptions aright, but certainly the Conservative Government has had a great deal to thank the " Daily Mail " for in the past, when we remember the Red Letter. Anyhow, my case is not an elaborate one. I have stated it. I want to know what the Government is going to do about the matter. What will the ordinary plain men and women of this country think— [An Hon. Member: "Nothing! "] That is the hon. Member's opinion of the plain men and women of this country. He thinks that they never think; let him wait and see. What will the ordinary plain men and women of this country think if, in the case of a grave charge like this, the Government does nothing at all? Last year the Conservative party instituted a malicious attack against the Labour party's method of obtaining funds from the trade unions. The Conservative party's sense of propriety is shocked at the idea that the Labour party might be obtaining a few pence—I speak comparatively—from trade unionists in a manner which they think improper. This is not a question of pence. It is a charge that the Conservative party is obtaining large sums of money by the despicable method of selling honours and, unless there is a definite rebuttal of that charge, the present Government stands convicted of continuing to sell honours and at the same time of colossal hypocrisy.

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household)

I must first apologise to the hon. Member for the absence of the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who were quite unaware that he was going to bring up this matter to-night. I must commence the few remarks I have to make by referring to the statement on which the hon. Member has based his remarks. He says large sums of money have been obtained by the despicable method of selling honours. I maintain, standing here at this Box, that there is not one single word of truth in it. It is completely false from beginning to end. It is touching to me to find the confidence which the hon. Member and some of his friends have in the "Daily Mail." He says we have been assailed in a responsible quarter, and that responsible quarter appears to be the " Daily Mail." For my part, and for the part of my friends, I do not suppose it matters in the least what the " Daily Mail " says. The Prime Minister himself said on Thursday that if he were to make inquiries into all the charges that appear in the Press—[Interruption.] We all know that a Royal Commission was appointed. They recom- mended that a Committee should be set up. That is the system that has been continued ever since, by the Government that was in office then, the Government that succeeded it, the Labour Government that succeeded it, and the present Government which succeeded the Labour Government. That is the system that has been established by usage, and that is the only one we know about or will have anything to do with.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I wish to add one remark to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us. The quarrel now is between the " Daily Mail " and the Government. My hon. Friend only relied on the "Daily Mail." [Interruption.] I heard every word of his speech, which is more than hon. Members did who came in late. The Government is willing now to jeer at the " Daily Mail " and to twit us with paying attention to what it says. At the last General Election they owed hundreds of thousands of votes to the " Daily Mail," and to its influence in frightening the people. The " Daily Mail," by its exposure of the so-called Zinovieff letter —[An Hon. Member: " Did you believe that?"]—obtained scores of thousands of votes for the present Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were anti-Socialist yourself! "] I am very glad of that interruption. The hon. Member said I was anti-Socialist. When I stood I had no Labour candidate against me, and I said I would support the Labour Government as long as it legislated in the interests of the whole of the people. I was attacked upon the grounds of the Zinovieff letter, and my majority was cut down from 5,000 to only 2,500 because of that Zinovieff letter. Scores of my best supporters voted against me, not because they wished to vote for a Conservative Government, but because of this terrible plot from Moscow. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Western (Captain Fanshawe), just now made a remark about trade unions. I rather think he, a Member of Parliament, is fathering a so-called non-political union among the miners in his Division, and they are getting funds from the Sailors' and Firemen's Union. [Interruption.]

Captain FANSHAWE

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought what he thinks is a charge against me, but it is not a charge at all. I 'have taken a certain responsibility for a large number of miners in West Stirlingshire, whom I have enabled to see the other side of the picture, an alternative trade union system. I did not want to speak on this subject to-night, but I thought that I might perhaps say a few words upon the subject on Wednesday. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any cause to twit anybody with bringing a new form of trade unionism before the miners. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member may think so, but I do not. 1 say it is not for him to judge the merits of this other form of trade unionism, but for the miners in my constituency to judge. I have raised funds—I have told my miners on the public platform—in order to have this alternative system put before them. I leave it at that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I gave way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I did not expect him to make a long speech.

Captain FANSHAWE

I regard this as a sort of charge made against me for doing something which I consider to be entirely right. I am simply rebutting this charge made against me, and I say, and I repeat it, that I am responsible for the raising of this money in order to put this alternative point of view before my miners in West Stirlingshire. I consider this to be my bounden duty. I entirely rebut the charge.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I did not say the hon. and gallant Gentleman had got money from the trade union, but I called attention to the organisation he is fathering. The charge of the sale of honours is made in a leading article of the " Daily Mail." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says there is not a word of truth in it, and we are entitled to accept it.

Captain FANSHAWE

May I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will withdraw the remarks he made about me?

Mr. SPEAKER

I did not note any personal reflection upon the hon. Member. I thought it was good-humoured chaff.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Of course I naturally withdraw if I have hurt the hon. and gallant Member's feelings. I make no accusation of corruption o>r anything of that sort. The Government must take more note of this matter than the word of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol "West (Colonel Gibbs). He is from the Whips' Office, but his responsibility is limited. I say that without any offence to him. He has certain duties. The only way in which the Government can possibly satisfy public opinion is by ordering an impartial inquiry into these charges; or their alternative is to bring the editor of the newspaper to the Bar of the House, and let him answer. They have only those two things to do: either to have an investigation by an impartial -committee or to bring the editor of the newspaper to the Bar of the House.

Mr. J. JONES

Some of the injured innocents of the House have given expression to their views, and the subject would be fitting for one of the imaginative writers in the columns of the " Daily Mail." Most of the writers in the " Daily Mail " have great imagination, particularly when they refer to the Labour movement. In so far as we are concerned, all our cards are on the table. Where our money comes from and where it goes to is a matter of annual report. We know where yours comes from, but we do not know where it goes to. We are only asking for the facts, but we know that facts can be very stubborn things. Some of the hon. Members opposite, ex-Prime Ministers, have identified themselves with the claim that political parties should be compelled to place their financial cards on the table. No man or woman in this House, and no hon. or right hon. Member would question the integrity of Lord Rosebery. He has demanded that the facts should be placed before the people. He, with his experience, points out that it is a fact that honours are being sold. There are some hon. Members of this House who have paid something for being here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Election expenses!"] i have never had anything with which to buy a seat. I have had to buy it with the power of my own personality. I say to hon. Members opposite, " Come and contest against me." With all your money thick upon you, you would not stand a cat's chance. I associate myself with the demand for an inquiry. Are you afraid of Lord Northcliffe launching charges against you? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is dead !"] His successor is not. It does not matter what they call themselves, Lord Neverworks will do for me. Are you afraid of the proprietors of the "Daily Mail" when they charge you with an offence? They are too big to attack, but when an ordinary labouring man attacks a minor member of the Government in an obscure journal he is hauled up at the Old Bailey for criminal libel. Hon. Members opposite jeer when some of us make a comparison between the methods they adopt and the methods we have to adopt. Our trade unions have to make an annual report to the Registrar-General of their funds and how they spend them. You believe the charges made against the trade unions by the "Daily Mail," you broadcast them throughout the country and make them public on every party platform. They are used as political propaganda by hon. Members of the opposite party. [An HON. MEMBER: " Do you believe them?"] Why should I? [An Hon. Member: "Why do you believe this charge?"] Wait a moment. Let us have the facts. We are compelled by Statute to send an annual return to the Registrar-General. Every trade union in the country has to do this, and every hon. Member opposite knows that we are compelled by law to send our balance sheets to the Registrar-General every year. The facts are there.

All we ask is that you shall be compelled to do the same. You shun the light because your deeds are evil. I make no apology for that statement, because it is true. If it is not true, why do you not tackle these people 1 You will tackle an obscure journal,, and send the editor and; writers to prison. But here is a great paper which generally backs you up, and generally misrepresents us from one end of Britain to the other, and yet when they attack you and charge you with what is a criminal offence, namely, that honours in this country are sold—honours which should only be won by ability, capacity and service—you take no action. Why do you not bring the editor and the proprietor of the " Daily Mail " to the Bar 1 I do not mean the bar outside, although that is perhaps of more use than the other. This is a very serious public implication, and you are not scoring any points by jeering at what I am saying. I believe seriously you have no right to claim to be the gentlemen of England, the party of the respectables, whilst you are honestly condemned by your silence, showing that you are selling honours now and that people can get into positions in this country merely because of their bank balances. We demand that you should challenge the people who are making those statements, bring them to the Bar of this House,, and demand an apology and a withdrawal of the charges they are making.

Lord APSLEY

I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken on the sincerity with which he delivered his speech. At the same time, I think he has not stated quite the whole case of the Labour Party. Trade union funds, it is true, are governed by law, but they are not the only source of income of the Labour Party. There are others, and if all the cards are to be put on the table, those cards also ought to be there. The hon. Member who raised this question asked a plain and simple question of the Government and the Government gave a plain and simple reply. If hon. Members opposite are not satisfied with the reply, I hope they will raise the question again and get an even more definite reply, perhaps from the Prime Minister himself—if they need it. But at the same time, when they have got that reply I hope they will communicate it to their supporters and ask them to play the game in this question. Time after time Conservative Members of Parliament in their constituencies are being asked questions by constituents and supporters. It is obvious that the questioners cannot understand the difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party during the Coalition. We are being made the scapegoats for the actions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and—

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.