HC Deb 10 February 1947 vol 433 cc40-62

Report [3rd February] of the Committee of Privileges considered.

Mr. Speaker

This is a somewhat novel procedure for this House. Therefore, perhaps I had better explain that it is customary, before a Motion such as the Motion on the Paper in the name of the Lord Privy Seal is moved, for the hon. Member concerned, if he so wishes, to be allowed to make a statement to the House. Then the custom is that the hon. Member withdraws, so that the House can discuss, not in his presence, the Motion before them. Therefore, I must ask the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) if he cares to make any statement.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End)

Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of your invitation. I do not propose to make a long speech; I do not think it is necessary. I hope that all hon. Members, if they have had the opportunity, have read the whole Report, and not merely the conclusions. If they have done so, they may agree with the main points in it. It is not for me, in my particular position, to criticise or make remarks on the findings in the Report. I do, however, want to say this. I made my statement on the evening of the incidents several weeks ago, and I then said that, in the first instance, I was responsible for lowering the dignity of the House. I apologised then, without any request from anybody in this House to do so, because I felt that I had done wrong. If I have to apologise again, it cannot add to the sincerity which I employed on that occasion several weeks ago.

In regard to the second incident, I would say this. Whatever the content of the Report and its conclusions, whatever the character of any particular evidence in it, I have nothing to be ashamed of. With regard to that incident, throughout the whole of that period I acted as a responsible Member of this House. I took no aggressive part whatsoever in that incident. I have given my evidence, and I stand by it. I gave my evidence on oath, and I am not required to do it now. All I would say is that, on my word of honour, I told the truth. I have done nothing wrong in regard to the second incident. The Committee, of course, reached its own findings on the evidence. I am glad to have this opportunity which you, Mr. Speaker, have given me of making this statement before a full House, and I have spoken this afternoon, however briefly, with some feeling. That, of course, would be understandable, but may I say, and I hope the House will accept it, that that feeling is expressed not so much for myself, as for the dignity and standing of this House? It is right that this House should come to a proper con- elusion, and I feel, as much as if it were anyone else, that a conclusion should be arrived at by hon. Members of the House after a careful study of the whole of the evidence. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity of speaking.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

3.54 P.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)

I beg to move, That the conduct of Philip Piratin, Esquire, a Member of the House and Thomas Daniel Lucy, as found by the Committee in their Report was a gross violation of the order and decorum of the House; that this House doth agree with the Committee in their opinion that Philip Piratin, Esquire, was guilty of a gross contempt and Thomas Daniel Lucy of a contempt of the House; and that this douse places on record its high displeasure with their conduct and its determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases". It falls to me to move this Motion on the Order Paper relating to the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges, arising out of its investigation of two incidents which took place within the precincts of the House on 18th December and in which the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and a member of the Press Gallery were involved. In the first place, I would like to pay a tribute to my colleagues on your Committee of the House for their co-operation in what was, to all of us, a most painful task. The House will have noted that the Committee's Report is unanimous, and it will, I hope, therefore, commend itself to the House.

The House is called upon today to give its approval to a Motion to place on record its high displeasure with the conduct of the persons concerned, and its: determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases. I should like to make it clear at this stage, that both the hon. Member for Mile End and Mr. Lucy apologised for the parts they played in the events which took place on that day. The hon. Member for Mile End has repeated, more or less, what he said in this House and before your Committee. I should also like to make it clear that both persons concerned expressed satisfaction with the way the proceedings had been conducted.

There can be no doubt that both a Member of this House and a member of the Press Gallery were guilty of an affront to the honour of this House, and the events cannot, in the circumstances, be ignored by the House. When the Second World War broke out, Parliament took on a new dignity, and felt a new pride in the part it had played in the past and the part which it would play through the life and death struggle in which we were engaged. The House, in those days of 1939, realised that these buildings in which we sit were the symbols of an attitude towards life, and a way of life which Hitler hated. That made us or those of us 'who sat in that last Parliament, determined that, even if Hitler destroyed the shell of Parliament, he could never destroy its spirit and its tradition. We modified our Standing Orders to meet the circumstances, and succeeded, in very difficult conditions, in maintaining the character of our Chamber. After the old Chamber was destroyed, we even carried on with efficiency in Church House, in strange surroundings and with some inconvenience.

During this time, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, a new comradeship grew up between hon. Members of the House, Pressmen and servants of this House. Many of them served together in the Home Guard or in fire watching. Hon. Members and Pressmen were brought together more closely when they shared a common dining room, and I think everybody in those days welcomed and derived much from the closer association of all concerned in the prosecution of a common duty, and hoped that it would be maintained after victory. The country saved its democratic institutions, and especially the Mother of Parliaments, but democracy can live healthily only if people show tolerance to one another. The success of a democratic State depends as much on the conduct of its citizens as on the soundness of its principles. It is sad that, after the House of Commons had vindicated itself and when it had been nourished and re-invigorated by a large number of new hon. Members, whose duty it is to cherish the honour and dignity of the House, that a Member of this Assembly, and a member of the Press Gallery should have been guilty of high breach of Privilege.

I do not wish to stress this. I hope I have disclosed no prejudice; I hope, further, I have shown no bitterness. I trust that, when this unhappy occasion has ended, all concerned with the life of the House of Commons will deem it a high duty to protect the dignity and decorum of the Commons House of Parliament.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill (Woodford)

I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the acting Leader of the House. He conducted the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges with his usual good humour and good taste. I do not think that the House would expect me to plunge into a careful analysis of the very fine statement which he has put on record for the guidance of future Parliaments, and to go into the question of Hitler and other matters, which seem very remote from the scuffle in the cafeteria, which, unfortunately, occurred before we parted for the Christmas holiday. However, I must say that I do not in any way underrate the importance of the House preserving its dignity and authority within the Palace of Westminster, and I frankly say that I started upon this Committee, which I regularly attended, with the quite definite feeling that an assault by a stranger upon a Member was more to be condemned than an assault by a Member upon a stranger, for the very simple reason, which, I think, will commend it self to all parties, that strangers need not come here if they do not want to, whereas Members are bound to do so in the discharge of their duty towards their constituents, and of the great functions which are entrusted to this ancient House.

As discussion went on, my views became a little modified by the evidence I should like to draw the attention of the House to one point in the Resolution which we are asked to accept. We are asked to censure the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for "a gross contempt,"and Thomas Daniel Lucy for "a contempt."The omission of the adjective in the second instance was not intended by the Committee to be without significance, as, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will agree. I strongly advise the House to accept this Motion, and not to push the matter any farther. I think that it was right to take serious cognisance of the dispute which occurred and, in a way, to make heavy weather of it. These things ought not to be allowed to slide, because strong passions run high inside this Assembly. At the same time, people are expected to have strong characters, and to contain those strong passions, and the dignity and Rules of the House must be effectively preserved. They will, I think, be preserved by assenting to the Motion which the sight hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the House has just moved. I, personally, shall support it, and I trust that my hon. Friends will join with me in so doing. The Leader of the Liberal Party, who was a Member of the Committee, will, no doubt, speak later upon this subject.

There is, however, one point which I would like to mention before I sit down. It is about the journalist, Thomas Daniel Lucy. I trust that he will not lose his access to the House and his opportunity of practising his profession. He has been ten years a journalist in the Gallery of the House of Commons. It was quite evident to us from the witnesses who came before us, that he was a welcome, habitual and, if I may say so, a gentlemanly and polite member of those journalists who frequented the cafeteria. It was perfectly clear that he was an old customer who had, over a long period of time, behaved himself with extreme decorum and courtesy, and it would be a great pity, no penalty being inflicted on the other party to the quarrel, if he should suffer any severe deprivation of facilities in the prosecution of his profession I must say this in all fairness, because I believe that that would be the wish of the hon. Member for Mile End, as recorded in his evidence.

4.5 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I want, in the strongest possible way, to oppose this outrageous Motion. I think that the conclusions of the Committee of Privileges are very bad conclusions, but I will say that that Committee. like Mr. Gradgrind, dealt with facts and that, on facts, they came to their conclusions. But the imponderables are missing. There is no sufficient consideration given to the circumstances which preceded the incident in the cafeteria; there is no sufficient consideration given to the characters of those involved, and there is no serious consideration given to motive, such as. for instance, whether the Pressman was particularly motivated at that moment to approach the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), or whether the hon. Member for Mile End just laid down his tray and committed the first assault.

On the Thursday afternoon in question, I spoke to the hon. Member for Mile End and persuaded him that he should accept the Report, and, as the Leader of the Opposition says, finish with the business I told him that the Leader of the House would come in with a Motion accepting the Report and regretting the incident, and that that would be all that there was to it. I showed him the Report of the proceedings taken against a Tory Member in this House for a far worse offence than that committed by the hon. Member for Mile End. I showed him what happens in a case of this kind. In the case of the Tory Member, who was guilty of a very much worse offence than that now under discussion, the Motion put to the House was: That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee. That is the character of the Motion that was moved on Tuesday, 29th January, 1941, as can be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. There the matter finished. That is what I thought would happen. Two things determined me to oppose this Motion. One was an incident on Thursday night between the same Pressman and myself; and the other is the character of the Motion. I cannot understand how anyone. could be responsible for drawing up such a Motion if they had looked at the precedents which are to be found concerning Members on the other side. Before I relate the incident, let me remind the House that in the last Parliament we were not all such kindly brothers as the acting Leader of the House would assume. As a matter of fact, on one occasion—it happened on many occasions, but this is one occasion—the then Prime Minister got so deeply under my skin, that he brought down my outer. moral defences. The jeering laughter from the benches behind him completed the job and I was lost.

Mr. Churchill

What I failed to do was fully to trace the diversionary activities.

Mr. Gallaeher

The right hon. Gentleman is not putting any diversionary activities on me at the present moment. The result was that I shouted across the Floor language that should never have been used in this House. Mr. Speaker, later in the evening your predecessor sent for me and asked me to agree that my language should be kept out of the OFFICIAL REPORT. With such a desirable and sensible suggestion I immediately agreed. But I went out of this House immediately after the scene in a condition totally unfit for human association. My Friends—and I have many good friends in this House—had good understanding and consideration. They left me severely alone until I had my emotions under control again. On Thursday evening I was coming from the Tea Room to this House. Maybe it is as well that I was coming from the Tea Room and not from another place. As I passed through the corridor leading to the public Lobby, some Pressmen went flashing past. One of them got his eye on me as he went past, and he shouted, "Hey, Willie!"I turned and went to meet him. He said in a plaintive sort of way, "Willie, you and I have been good friends for many years, haven't we?""Sure,"I said. I was in a mood when I would agree with anybody about anything. "Sure,"I said, "We have been good friends.""Willie,"he said,"you will not believe the story that I am an anti-Communist because of the trouble I had with Phil Piratin?"I said, "What?"I did not know the lad's name. I know all the Pressmen, but I do not know their names. I did not know who Lucy was. I said, "What? You are the man who had trouble with Piratin? No, no, do not get me involved. There is enough harm done.""But, Willie,"he went on. I said "No buts,"and left him. In the Members' Lobby I met another Pressman with the acting Leader of the House, to whom I told the story, and we had a good laugh at the folly and the irresponsibility of this lad.

Mr. E.P. Smith (Ashford)

On a point of Order. Is this sort of hearsay evidence desirable, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Gallacher

Hearsay evidence?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is opposing the Motion, and I think he must be allowed to state his case in his own way.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the hon. Gentleman's drift, he is trying to bring out facts which would prove that the conclusions which were arrived at by the Committee of Privileges were, in fact, misguided or mistaken. But, surely, if that were so, and if these facts, which I understood, took place at about the time of the incidents complained of— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— or shortly afterwards—surely, if those facts were in the hon. Member's possession, it was his duty to put them before the Committee of Privileges as evidence. But, as I understand the position in regard Order, it is this: This is not only a gross injustice to the journalist concerned who cannot answer back, but it is also an affront to the Committee of Privileges that totally new evidence should be brought to us here at the present time, and I submit to you, Sir, that this is a gross abuse of the rights of a Member of this House, and it is out of Order.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot accept the hon. Member's submission. It seems to me that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is opposing the Motion because he says the conclusion arrived at by the Committee is wrong and, therefore, he is entitled to give reasons why he thinks it is wrong. If by any chance his statement is prejudicial to a journalist of the House, that is his affair. I cannot stop him. He is responsible for making his case in his own way.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

Mr. Speaker, I understand your Ruling is that though it is a matter of honour to the House not to repeat a private conversation outside, there is no Rule of Order which enables you to call a Member to Order?

Mr. Speaker

There is no Rule of Order by which I can stop him. It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member.

Earl Winterton

I am obliged to you, Sir. It is a breach of honour.

Mr. Gallacher

I am speaking in defence of my colleague, as I am certain that hon. Members opposite would defend their colleagues. In the case to which. I referred of the Tory Member, the then Prime Minister said that it was very painful for him. He said, "It causes me very great pain,"when one of his colleagues was condemned. Believe me, it causes me very great pain when I read a Motion of this kind. Let me make my point. I was in a very good mood when I came from the Tea Room; I was pleased with the world. But, supposing I had gone from this House after being 'operated upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr: Churchill) and the wild cohorts behind him; supposing I had gone out of here in a passion, as I have in the past, and this fellow stopped me, anything might have happened. I am certain that if I had been in the mood that I have been in sometimes, when I have had a pretty tough time in this House, and he had come to me with that story, I would have raised the roof in the public Lobby; I would have been heard from here to Scotland.

It all depends on the circumstances in which an approach is made to an individual, and all Members of this House will appreciate what a strain it is to go through such an experience as the hon. Member for Mile End went through that afternoon. All his emotions were worked up, and he was in a highly nervous condition at a time when no one but a friend should have approached him. Surely, that can be understood. For an old Member it would be bad enough, but for a new Member it is a very hard experience to have to go through what the hon. Member for Mile End went through at that time. He was in a condition when anything untoward could easily have irritated him. Anyone is capable of being irritated. What about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford getting irritated in this House, and throwing a book across the Table at another Member?

Mr. Churchill

It was the other hon. Member who threw the book across the Table at me

Mr. Gallacher

Of course, in that case there was no differentiation as between an hon. Member and a stranger, so it applies so far as the other hon. Member is concerned. Take tie case of the late Secretary of State for India, who is no longer a Member of this House. He stepped out on to the Floor and hit another hon. Member, because he was irritated by something that had happened. It has happened on several occasions. I say that this approach was made to the hon. Member for Mile End at a time when his friends would have left him alone, and when only a fool, or one determined to provoke him, would have made an approach or forced himself upon his attentions. It is shameful, after. what the hon. Member for Mile End went through that evening, that this should not be taken into account, and that we should get conclusions such as this drawn by the Committee.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Collie)

What was that incident?

Mr. Gallacher

It was the affair in which he had to make a statement and to defend his position as a Britisher against the attack that had been made upon him by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), —the oldest Member of the House, against one of the youngest men—

Earl Winterton

Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to a Ruling which you gave on Friday, l9th December—

Mr. Speaker

If I might interrupt the noble Lord, I was just about to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to that fact. We cannot go back to previous Debates, nor to incidents prior to this Report. We cannot rehash the whole of what happened shortly before.

Mr. Gallacher

I was trying to explain the imponderables. The circumstances which led up to the event are very important, and without them there is no possibility of understanding what happened down in the cafeteria. As every hon. Member on this side knows, the hon. Member for Mile End—

Earl Winterton

On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to your specific Ruling on this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] I am certainly not going to sit down. I am going to put a point of Order. On the evening of 19th December you said, in reply to a statement which I thought fit to make, to the effect that I did not propose to take part in the deliberations of the Committee: Perhaps I might, for the noble Lord's consolation, say that this matter did not arise out of the incident this afternoon."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1946; Vol.431, c.233] That being so, in view of your specific Ruling, I suggest, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to suggest by insinuation that what had occurred had anything to do with the incident in question.

Mr. Speaker

The noble Lord is perfectly correct. I would point out that the issue then was a statement made by the hon. Member for Mile End in which he merely gave some facts about his parentage. The quarrel which took place occurred the day before. The noble Lord then wanted to rise, but he was told that that matter could not be pursued.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of Order. May I suggest, Sir, with respect, that your recollection is mistaken, and that the quarrel took place on the evening following upon that statement? The statement was not made following the quarrel.

Mr. Speaker

After Questions on l9th December the hon. Member for Mile End made a statement about his parentage.

Mr. S. Silverman

It was before.

Mr. Speaker

After Questions is always the time for making personal statements, and that was when the hon. Member made it. I can tell the hon. Member that I knew something about it, because I saw the statement before it was made; I saw that it was quite innocuous, and did not offend anybody, and was quite in Order. The quarrel with Mr. Lucy took place after that statement had been made—half an hour or an hour afterwards.

Mr. Gallacher

I was not suggesting that the quarrel between the hon. Member for Mile End and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham had anything to do with it. That is not the point. The point is, that having to make a statement of the character which he made, is an ordeal for an old and experienced Member of Parliament; but it is a much greater ordeal for a new Member of Parliament to get up before a full House and make a statement of that kind. One cannot get up and make a statement of that kind, and be cool, calm and collected —certainly not any new Member of this House. The emotions are aroused, and the nerves are on edge. When the hon. Member went out the one thing his friends should have done was to have let him alone, in order to give him time to quiet down, and to get himself in order. I say that only a fool, or someone determined to provoke him, would have thrust himself upon his attention at that particular moment.

I say the conclusions that have been drawn are based upon mere facts —and in my opinion are not even exactly in accordance with the facts—but the imponderables have been left out. The circumstances leading up to the event, the characters of the individuals, and the motive that was associated with the act, have not been properly or effectively dealt with. Therefore, I oppose this Motion. I say that hon. Members opposite would never have had such a Motion drawn up about any hon. Member on the other side of the House. Hon. Members can go back to all the precedents they care to, but they will always get Motions in the terms of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which I have quoted: That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee and finish at that. If a Motion had been brought in, say, "That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee, and regrets that this incident took place. "I would have offered no opposition, but would have said, "Let the matter go and be finished with it. "But in view of the traditions and precedents I cannot see how any hon. Member on this side of the House can give approval to such a Motion, directed against the bon, Member for Mile End, and I hope the Motion will be opposed.

4.28p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I had not intended to intervene at all in this Debate, and I shall do so now for only a few minutes. I had the honour of being one of those nominated by the House to sit upon this Committee of Privileges. May I say at once, that having sat on many tribunals, I know of no tribunal which takes its duties more conscientiously than that, upon which hon. Members of this House sit? As has been pointed out in the short Report that the Committee has issued, in our desire to be perfectly fair to everybody we created a new precedent in this particular case. It had been drawn to our attention that there might possibly be a conflict of evidence. For the first time, I think, before that Committee, the two persons immediately involved were asked to attend, and allowed to call any evidence they desired, and to ask any questions. I would add, that at the end both persons, very rightly, and I think properly, thanked the Committee for the way in which the Committee had acted in taking evidence.

I do not know what are the imponderables mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The Members of the Committee had it well in mind that, when the incident took place, the hon. Member for Mile End might have been disturbed in his emotions, as the hon. Member for West Fife suggested.

Mr. Gallacher

Might have been what?

Mr. Davies

He might have been disturbed in his emotions.

Mr. Gallacher

"Might" have been?

Mr. Davies

One cannot say more than that. What I want to point out is this. What we desire to do by this Motion is to maintain the order and dignity of the House. They must be maintained; and we are making it perfectly clear that there can be no brawling within the precincts of the House. No punishment has been suggested either to the hon. Member for Mile End or to Mr. Lucy. May I also. point out, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), with regard to Mr. Lucy —and I am sure that this is the desire of every one of the Members of this Committee —that there should be no punishment meted out to Mr. Lucy. Whatever was done between these two, let it be at an end. But the House cannot pass such an incident by, without recording its displeasure, and making it perfectly clear that in future, anything of that kind done in this House will be met, possibly, with quite severe penalties. It is with those words that I would commend to the House the Motion that has been moved by the acting Leader of the House.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)

May I say a few words as an Independent after the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)? I entirely agree with him that he has a great many friends amongst hon. Members on all sides of the House; and it is a great tribute to the House that he has. I gladly count myself among them. But I do think he should think once or twice before he abuses that privilege —and, indeed, the Committee of Privileges. When I heard his speech I, at last, understood —or began to understand, I thought —a very surprising heading which I saw in a very important newspaper this morning. At the head of the principal leading article I saw: "Tory Plot. "I thought, "What in Heaven's name have the wicked Tories done now? Is it the wreck of the schooner "Hesperus "? Is it the Battle of Hastings? Is it the avalanches on the mountain of Everest? Is it the death of King Charles I? What is it? "It could not, of course, be the misfortunes which are upon this country at the moment. Oh, no. This Tory plot I now perceived must have to do with the Report of the Committee of Privileges —on which, I see, among seven or eight Members, there are two Tories. Only on that slim foundation, the hon. Member has thought it fitting to speak, and make a charge against the Committee of Privileges of this House which even he, with his special experience of the principles and practice of justice in other countries, should not have thought fit to make, I think.

Mr. Gallather

I said that I persuaded the hon. Member for Mile End to accept the Report, as I was going to accept it, on the understanding that some formal Motion was to be put, as was put in the previous case of a Tory Member. I thought that the same form of Motion would be put in this instance. That is what I told the hon. Member for Mile End, and I showed him the sort of Motion that I thought would be put in this case. I said to him, "Let us accept it and let it go" I ask why the form of Motion put in the case of a Tory Member for a worse offence could not have been put in this case.

Sir A. Herbert

If this is the technique of the hon. Gentleman and his colleague in accepting a Report, God help us If they ever have occasion to oppose one. A small point, but the House will have observed that this and, according to the hon. Member, other similar incidents approaching violence, have taken place in the cafeteria, and places where they drink nothing but tea and coffee, and that sort of thing. I have often remarked that if you want real Christianity, and really good fellowship, go to the places where people drink beer and wine; for un-Christian backbiting and envy, go to the tea-party. But my main purpose is —I say it with respect and affection for the hon. Member —to induce him to think twice before he again thinks fit to attack in such a manner the Committee of Privileges on which there are, in fact, two Tories, And I hope that later on we shall hear what the "Tory plot "was.

4.36 p.m.

Earl Wintertan (Horsham)

There are two matters arising out of this Report which, I think, should be mentioned in justice to one of the persons condemned. I would say that I entirely agree with my colleagues in thinking it is an admirable Report. The first thing arising is the attack which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has just seen fit to make upon Mr Lucy. I have had, as the House knows, long experience of this House. I am glad to say that this is the first time that I have heard an hon. Member —who is, of course, universally popular with everyone in the House; universally popular and respected —I say this is the first time I have heard an hon. Member get up and repeat an alleged private conversation that he had with a stranger in the Lobby. It is the first time I have ever heard it done, and I hope, for the honour of the House —and for the honour of the Communist Party —that it will never be done again. I hear with the gravest suspicion any story of the kind told in the House by the hon. Member for Galashiels —[Interruption] —for West Fife. I apologise to Galashiels. I do not want to include Galashiels with the constituency which the hon. Member for West Fife represents.[Hon. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It may be cheap, but it is not as cheap as the attack made by him upon a journalist in this House, who cannot answer for himself. That is worse than cheap; it is disgraceful.

Now I turn to two remarks by other hon. Members about this gentleman. I hold no brief for Mr. Lucy; I have never met him, as far as I know. Quite inadvertently, I am sure, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) did this gentleman an injustice at the time this incident was first reported to the House. The hon. Member for Nuneaton, rising, said that he understood that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End had, outside this Chamber but in the precincts of the House, been twice visibly assaulted and battered. Does he now realise —I am sure he did not then —from reading the Report, that nothing of the kind occurred? The hon. Member was not assaulted and battered, though there were the incident upstairs and the incident downstairs. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon rose and said that he regretted to say: I also have some knowledge of these events. The person guilty of the repeated assault was a Press correspondent accredited to the service of this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday 19th December, 1946; Vol.431.c.2246.] There was no repeated assault.

When I heard these two hon. Gentlemen, I turned to my colleague on the Bench beside me and said, in a tone that is sometimes accidentally heard round about — fortunately, however, I was not overheard on that occasion — "This sounds to me somewhat fishy." I think it was fishy. I could not believe it possible that any journalist, or person accredited to the House, could have done that. I make this suggestion in all courtesy to hon. Members —and I think they will accept this suggestion —that it would be as well in future that only those who have actual knowledge, visible knowledge, of an incident of this kind should come and speak in this House on it. I think it should be mentioned, because it does great injustice to this journalist, to say that he twice assaulted and battered somebody, or that he repeatedly assaulted him. I hope therefore that in future only hon. Members who really have any knowledge of an incident will speak.

Mr. Warbey (Luton)

Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Earl Winterton

I am not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, but I will sit down.

Mr. Warbey

Is it not clear from the evidence given by both parties that the Pressman was the first to lay his hand on the hon. Member — [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] —in that he did, with some violence, catch hold of his arm and shake him in the first incident, and admitted it in evidence; and secondly that he also admitted in evidence that he struck blows against the hon. Member for Mile End in the second incident?

Earl Winterton

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been following the quotation I made. I will read it out once again. What the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said was: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End, has outside this Chamber but in the precincts of this House, been twice physically assaulted and battered."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 19th December, 1946; Vol 435, C.2245.] That is not a statement of fact. Anyone who reads the Report can see that. Equally, the statement made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that there had been a repeated assault, was also incorrect. My point was that any person with any sense of fairness would realise that it is inadvisable that charges should be made against people outside this House by hon. Members, unless they themselves were actually witnesses of the incident in question.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

Very shortly, the position was this. About a quarter to seven on this particular day, 19th December, I was asked by one or two of my hon. Friends whether it would be a breach of Privilege if an hon. Member of this House had been assaulted. I said, "Quite obviously it would; I will now go into the Library and find out." I turned up the latest edition of Erskine May and found that it was, and also that it had to be reported to the House at once, interrupting any other Business that might be on hand. As the House will remember, a Division was called, and I said that I should like to raise this matter immediately the Division was over. You, Mr. Speaker, said, "Certainly," and then called me. I was told, as I said in my statement, that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) had been twice involved in brawls. I saw his face. I assure the House, and the noble Lord, that it was on the very best information at my disposal, and at the very earliest possible time, that I said what I did say. Perhaps I ought to explain that maybe the noble Lord does not know the difference between assault and battery. Assault is merely a threat; battery is when the person is touched. As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) has pointed out, and has drawn the noble Lord's attention to what the Report says, the first actual touching on the body of one by another was by Mr. Lucy, and that is battery and assault, and that is exactly what I alleged in my statement. I apologise to Mr. Lucy; I have never met him in my life and I have no prejudice in the matter: I was trying to keep the Privilege of the House inviolate.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that at this moment, in this country, there are millions of people out of employment because of the coal situation? Is it not time we turned to that subject?

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

I shall only take up half a minute, but as the noble Lord did refer to me, I think I ought to say a word. I am perfectly prepared to apologise for having omitted the word "allegedly '' before the word "guilty." I would, however point out to the noble Lord that I only intervened secondarily in order to correct the misapprehension which seemed to have arisen in the mind of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), that two hon. Members of this House were involved.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Warbey (Luton)

I must confess that, as a comparatively new Member of this House, I am rather astonished at the manner in which this affair has been dealt with. We have had speeches from the party leaders, the leader of our Party, the leader of the Opposition Party, the leader of the Liberal Party, and a representative of the Independents, and there seems to be a kind of feeling in the House that now we ought to close down the discussion.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must say that I am astonished at the levity with which an affair of this importance is being regarded. Since I have been in this House we have discussed matters of tremendous international and national significance, but I do not think there is one issue which has caused me so much anxiety, so much strain, and so much uncertainty as has this particular issue.[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is an issue in which 639 hon. Members of this House are called upon to sit on judgment, not only upon a stranger but also upon one of their own colleagues. They are called upon to sit in judgment in circumstances in which there is a dispute about the facts, and where the facts are uncertain and incomplete. They are called upon, moreover, in respect of one of the two parties concerned, to pass upon him a stricture and a condemnation of the severest kind.

It has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that we should just vote upon this matter, and have done with it. We cannot have done with it in that fashion. Here we are going to say that an hon. Member of this House has been guilty of gross contempt. We are going to pass a Motion to that effect. The passing of that Motion attaches to that hon. Member, as well as to the other party concerned, a stigma which will last with them all their lives, a stigma which is bound to affect their future careers. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to plead that no penalties should be inflicted from outside upon Mr. Lucy, but we cannot bring these matters to an end here. We must consider, if we are to consider this properly, what will be the consequences not only on the Press career of Mr. Lucy, but also on the political career of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). What will be his political future? I must say that, it I am called upon to go into the Division Lobby at the end of this discussion, and cast my vote in such a way as to put a stigma upon two people, I feel hound to consider this matter very seriously and deeply indeed. Let me say that I hope no hon. Member will cast a vote, upon this question unless he has read every word of this Report, and every word of the evidence. Unless he has done so he is not entitled to make a judgment on this question.

Let us be clear —and I am sorry to take up the time of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe it has to be done in fairness to those concerned. Let us be clear that what we are asked to do is to say that Mr. Lucy was guilty of a contempt, and that the hon. Member for Mile End was guilty of a gross contempt. We are asked to make a sharp discrimination —an exceedingly sharp discrimination, because that word "gross" is a word of considerable strength and emphasis; it means a good deal more than "grave" or "serious" when we say that an hon. Member is guilty of a gross contempt. It is a very sharp distinction indeed. Is it right —that is what we have to ask ourselves first of all —that we should make this sharp differentiation between the two parties to this dispute?

If all we had been called upon to say was that they were both guilty of contempt of the House, there need have been no further discussion. Clearly, upon the undisputed facts of the case, there can be no dispute at all that both parties concerned were guilty of contempt. But we are being asked to go beyond that, and to make this sharp differentiation. On any prima facie consideration of the facts, one might have supposed that if a differentiation were to be made, it might have been made in the other direction. I say that for these reasons, namely, that against the hon. Member for Mile End there was one charge, that he was guilty of offending against the order, dignity and decorum of the House, whereas against Mr. Lucy there are two charges, first that he also was guilty of offending against the order, dignity and decorum of the House, and, secondly, that of molesting a Member in the execution of his duty within the precincts of the House. There are therefore two charges against the one and one charge against the other, and it would need a very large degree of difference in their behavior to be able to reverse the consequences of that order, and to place by far the sharper condemnation upon the Member of this House.

Sir P. Hannon

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Warbey

I am very sorry if hon. Members wish to rush this matter, but we are being asked to pass judgment on this case when the essential facts are in dispute. A normal case of this kind would have been thoroughly threshed out in a court of law. There would have been all the apparatus of the courts of law, with the calling of essential witnesses, and not just two or three. There would have been presentation of the case by counsel, and, as I say, the matter would have been thoroughly threshed out, in an effort to reach some decision on the facts in dispute. Clearly, this could not he done by the Committee of Privileges. Therefore, what did they do? They followed what was the only course open to them —and I do not blame them for this —and concentrated upon those facts about which there was no dispute. In other words, they picked out of the whole picture, certain facts which were not in dispute, leaving out of account those matters which were in dispute between the two parties. Therefore, I say that in seeking to arrive at a correct judgment, by making a selection of those facts upon which there is agreement, the Committee have not given an entirely correct presentation of what issued from the evidence. I wish to stress two points. Firstly, in only one case does the Committee suggests that there might have been any provocation which resulted in the acts being committed. In paragraph II of the Report, it is stated that: Mr. Lucy's conduct immediately before Mr. Piratin struck him, was improper, but Your Committee recommend the House to take a lenient view on this as he had received some provocation. Provocation is admitted in the case of Mr. Lucy although no supporting evidence is given by the Committee to justify admission of provocation in that case. In the case of the hon. Member for Mile End, no question of provocation is admitted at all in the summing up. The question of whether the remarks made by Mr. Lucy might have provoked the hon. Member for Mile End to take the action which he did has not been considered, and it is not reported on in the Committee's summing up. Finally, and this seems to me to he a most astonishing omission from the Committee's summing up, there is no reference whatever to the fact that Mr. Lucy was the first of the two parties, in either of the two incidents, to lay hands upon the body of the other person, and, secondly, that Mr. Lucy struck any blows at all. That is not even mentioned in the summing up, although Mr. Lucy admitted that in the first incident he did lay his hands firmly upon the hon. Member for Mile End and shake him, and in the second instance, he admitted that he struck blows against the hon. Member for Mile End. I suggest, therefore, that the summing up does not give a true picture of the evidence; that even the evidence is insufficient to enable us to arrive at a correct and fair judgment on this issue, and that while it is clear from the undisputed facts that both parties were guilty of contempt, there are insufficient grounds for finding such a severe verdict that the hon. Member for Mile End must be singled out for very severe condemnation.

4.59 P.m.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

I think I am entitled to say a few words in connection with this matter. I have been a Member of the House for a long time, and I have taken part in more trouble in the House during these years than, possibly, any other Member present. I have a great deal of sympathy for the statement made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).I think that a lot of our trouble has arisen because this Motion has been put in this form, instead of the form suggested by the hon. Member for West Fife. I think that the Committee of Privileges acted very fairly in hearing the two folk concerned, but I must confess, after reading the Report, that the Committee gave the event a far greater significance than it ought to have had.

It seems to me that the trouble arose partly because the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was in a rather irritated state of mind, and possibly because Mr. Lucy, after he had given way, made a humorous remark which was misinterpreted. I think the Committee, in taking account of the evidence, should have come to some such conclusion. I feel that there was no reason for making a differentiation between the two individuals concerned. If, at the beginning of the incident, there was a certain greater responsibility on the hon. Member for Mile End, there was in the second incident a greater responsibility on Mr. Lucy.

I think the Committee would have acted with greater discretion if they had simply come to the conclusion that there had been a certain measure of contempt on the part of the two parties. I think that the acting Leader of the House should have acted more wisely. I also wonder why the Committee did not take account of some more recent history, instead of going back to all the old business. I remember Mr. Amery going across the Floor, at the end of a Debate, and giving the present Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), a black eye; I also remember the present Minister of Fuel and Power going across the Floor, to give Commander Bower a hard blow. These things happen, with no intention of contempt of the House or of being engaged in a brawl, and I think this incident was treated on far too big a scale. I fully agreed with the Leader of the Opposition when he said he hoped that Mr. Lucy's professional career would not be damaged in any way. This incident was something that might have taken place among any one of us. In our past lives we have been guilty of similar actions for which we might have been called into question. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mile End, and other Members, are anxious to see that Mr. Lucy should not suffer in any way. I regret that in this matter the acting Leader of the House did not put down a Motion in a much simpler form, but I suggest that, protests having been made. we should allow the whole thing to pass.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the conduct of Philip Piratin, Esquire, a Member of the House, and Thomas Daniel Lucy, as found by the Committee in their Report, was a gross violation of the order and decorum of the House; that this House doth agree with the Committee in their opinion that Philip Piratin, Esquire, was guilty of a gross contempt, and Thomas Daniel Lucy of a contempt of the House; and that this House places on record its high displeasure with their conduct and its determination to proceed with the utmost severity against future offenders in like cases.