§ Sir PATRICK HANNONWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I beg to submit the following Motion:
That the statement embodied in the article written by the hon. Member for Clackmannan in the issue of "Forward," dated the 2nd May, 1936, is a gross libel upon hon. Members of this House and a grave breach of its Privileges.When I saw this article and the astounding statement to which I propose to call attention I at once communicated with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. M. Weir) and I am glad to see that he is in his place. I will read to the House a part of the article, which I think will he somewhat astounding to hon. Members. The article is headed: 1350Our next Prime Minister.Chamberlain as the rising sun.Labour's attack on the war Budget.After making some references of a sarcastic nature to the condition of the House before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech, the article proceeds:This year different. Dull. A vacant seat on Budget Day is strange and significant. Many vacant seats on Tuesday. It may have been that this lack of interest was due to the fact that the usually jealously guarded secrets of the Budget had already been divulged. Somebody had spilled the beans, and Members who should have been listening to the Chancellor were busy elsewhere making a bit by turning their advance knowledge to advantage. The fortunate folk in the know were in the City making easy money at Lloyds.I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that no more scandalous language in relation to hon. Members of this House has ever been expressed outside by an hon. Member. We live in days when the honour and prestige of this House are playing a great part in the direction of the fortunes of mankind. This House, with its dignity and the long line of honourable conduct which has characterised its Members down the ages, is an example to the rest of the world, where democratic government is at a discount, and I submit that it is an act of atrocity against the House of Commons to use language of that kind against hon. Members of the House. May I submit two references, which must be familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, in moving this Motion, reluctant as I am to move it, as it involves a colleague of this House, but I make no apology, because I am acting in exercise of that vigilance in relation to the conduct of this House which is the duty of every Member of Parliament. On the question of privilege which has been raised I find that in Erskine May, on page 85, there is this statement:Indignities offered to the character or proceedings of Parliament, by libellous reflections, have been punished as breaches of Privilege.A further statement in the same authority, on page 91, says:Libels upon Members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of Privilege they must concern the character or conduct of Members in that capacity; and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House.1351 I submit that the libellous statement which has been made, as I regard it to be, is in relation to the business of this House and, therefore, that the opinion of the House should be taken on this matter. Having regard to the quotation from the article and the feeling which must animate every Member of this House to maintain its honour and prestige in face of outside comment, I submit that this is a distinct breach of the Privilege of the House, and it is for you, Sir, and the House to say what appropriate action should be taken.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have given as careful consideration as I could to what the hon. Member has said in his speech in relation to this question, and I am bound to rule that I think he has made out a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege. The question is:
That the statement embodied in the article written by the hon. Member for Clackmannan in the issue of 'Forward' dated the 2nd May, 1936, is a gross libel upon hon. Members of this House and a grave breach of its Privileges.
Mr. MacNEILLWEIRI have to thank the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) for having, at one o'clock to-day, given me notice that he intended to raise this question in the House this afternoon. As he himself stated—and I appreciate it—the article is in a somewhat satirical vein. I certainly intended it in no other way. He says that I made some satirical references. The article, as anyone will see who reads it, is in somewhat lighter vein. The passage referred to, begins:
It may have been.My submission is that those four words govern all that follows. I am not responsible for the words put in leaded type, as we know that is the work of the compositor, but my submission is that the words "It may have been," govern all that follows. May I say that I make no definite charge? It is perhaps wild surmise, but I recognise the reflection that these words of mine may be construed in a manner which was far from my intention, and I would ask, with your permission, Sir, unreservedly to withdraw them and sincerely to apologise.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWill the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. M. Weir) leave the House while the matter is discussed.
1352 The hon. Member for Clackmannan withdrew accordingly.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member for Clackmannan has made what he now recognises is a grave and unjustified reflection upon Members of this House, but he has made a very handsome apology; he has withdrawn the offensive words, and I venture to suggest to the House that it will serve its own dignity, and show a proper appreciation of the apology of the hon. Member, if it proceeds no further in the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Sir P. Hannon) will ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Sir P. HANNONFollowing the statement of my hon. Friend and in deference to what I conceive to be the general feeling of the House. I beg to ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.