§ Captain CrookshankWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your guidance on what may or may not be a matter of Privilege, but which at any rate has troubled some hon. Members, including myself. I have received a letter, and I think many other, if not all, hon. Members, and possibly you, Mr. Speaker, have received similar letters, from an organisation which I must admit I had never heard of, called Service Equity. It is a printed document, and it is not signed, although the name of the secretary is shown at the bottom as F. R. Muddle—there is nothing to show whether it is a Mr., Mrs., or Miss. The letter, with which I need not trouble you, Mr. Speaker, deals with some service organisation. It is the last sentence which, in this connection, is of importance, and I will read it to the House: 886
In the event of no reply, we shall be forced to assume that the Member of Parliament concerned is against us.I do not know what would be the effect of the assumption that a Member of Parliament was or was not against this organisation, but it does seem to me to imply some sort of threat in the case of no reply being given. I do not think that any Member, except as a matter of courtesy, is under any obligation to answer any letter unless he or she so desires. I wonder, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you would be good enough to give us a Ruling on a matter of this kind in protection of hon. Members of this honourable House?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)Like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) I would not dogmatise on whether any point of Privilege arises, but I do sympathise, and I am sure my hon. Friends sympathise, with what he has said. If Members of Parliament get communications from organisations of any character, it seems to me that they are free to agree or disagree with the organisation, or send a reply which is not clearly "Yes" or "No"—from time to time it is quite right that they should send no reply at all. The implied threat in this letter, of a sort of blackballing arrangement if a Member does not reply, does seem to me to be an effort to coerce the free judgment of Members of this House. Therefore, although I am not sure that any question of Privilege arises, I sympathise with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said and would affirm that so far as the Government are concerned, Members of this House must be absolutely free to answer communications as they like, or not to answer them at all.
§ Mr. WalkdenIs there not a famous Mr. Muddle of music-hall fame; and might not this be a fictitious Muddle such as we know on the B.B.C.?
§ Sir Ian FraserAre we not bringing up rather big guns in invoking Privilege over so trivial a matter; and in any event is there not good warrant for the view that "he who is not with us is against us?"
§ Mr. SpeakerI will read out one line from Erskine May:
To attempt to influence Members in free debate by threats is also a breach of Privilege.887 I think that is perfectly clear. I cannot say that this letter appears to contain a prima facie breach of Privilege. It is quite true that it is worded in such a way as to insinuate what I might call a veiled threat. In tone it is disrespectful to Parliament. I think that a repetition of such a letter might justifiably incur the serious displeasure of the House. As it contains no very definite threat, I suggest that we had better treat it as undeserving of consideration.
§ Mr. W. J. BrownIn view of the fact that Erskine May lays it down that it is improper to influence by threats Members of Parliament in their conduct, may we assume that the doings of Party Whips in this House are equally out of Order?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member speaks as an Independent, and I do not know what his Party Whips try to do.