HC Deb 13 March 1951 vol 485 cc1297-316
Mr. Speaker

The House will remember that we left over from Thursday a matter which purported to be one of Privilege. I have examined the matter. Since then I have discovered that it was—unwittingly, I have no doubt—improperly raised, and further proceedings on the matter of Privilege must be out of order. The whole matter was discussed on Tuesday in the last leading article of the "Daily Worker." Therefore, if the matter should have been raised, then it should have been brought up at the first available opportunity; but it was not. Therefore, I cannot allow any further discussion on the matter, which was improperly—unwittingly, I admit tout, nevertheless, improperly—brought before the House, and the matter of Privilege cannot, so far as I aim concerned, be discussed.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Is it in order for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) to make a personal statement?

Mr. Sydney Silverman

I have had, as I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, no notice at all of the statement you have made. [Laughter.]Hon. Members opposite may find that amusing, and I am making no complaint of it. I am mentioning the fact in order to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that any submission I make to you about it has not had the advantage of being considered beforehand. I have to do the best I can in the circumstances. The submission I make to you is that this matter has already been raised and that you have already given your Ruling upon it. That Ruling was that you were not able to advise the House that no prima facie case had been made out. I submit to you, Sir, with respect, that that Ruling, having been given, cannot now be withdrawn, and that the matter is now in the possession of the House.

Furthermore, I submit to you that the doubt cast last Thursday upon the form of your Ruling was a doubt that was misconceived. The Ruling was given, certainly, in a negative form, but that negative form, I submit to you with respect, is the correct form. Matters of Privilege have to be dealt with by the House in priority to all other business unless you, Sir, advise the House that no prima facie case has been made out.

Therefore, your Ruling last Thursday was not at all amenable to the kind of reflection or doubt that was cast upon it. It remains your Ruling, and upon that Ruling the House must proceed. Had it not been for the completely misconceived and, if I am right, quite improper doubt cast last time upon the terms of your Ruling, the Motion which I then made in the House would certainly not have been withdrawn; and even if I had wanted to withdraw it, I doubt whether I should have had the permission of the House for doing so.

In regard to my own action, and to the time at which it was taken, I brought the matter to the attention of you, Sir, and under your direction, to that of the House on the first occasion on which I had the opportunity of so doing. I was not influenced by—nor, until yesterday, did I have any knowledge that there had been—any newspaper which knew of the matter or which had commented upon the matter. [Laughter.]I really must apologise to the House. I really cannot keep up with the sense of humour of hon. Members opposite. I raised the matter without any knowledge, I repeat, that it had been raised in any newspaper at any time. I raised it upon the letter which I had personally received from the Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, which letter I presented for consideration, and which letter I handed in.

I would say with all respect, but with real conviction, that it is not now open to you, Sir, or to the House to do anything but proceed on the Motion which, as complainant, it is my duty to move in the House as soon as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks has had the opportunity, if he wishes to take one, of saying something about it. As soon as he has done that, then, I say, I have not merely the right but the duty, your Ruling being what it was, to move that Motion. As at present advised, that is what I propose to do.

Mr. Speaker

I do not see that. The matter has been introduced to the House improperly. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not see how we can proceed with a matter which should not have been produced before the House.

Mr. Silverman

With great respect, I say that there is no ground whatever for saying that the matter ought not to be before the House. It was my duty to raise it. I did raise it. It was my duty to raise it at the first opportunity. I did raise it at the first opportunity which I had. You have given a Ruling, Sir, and once that Ruling has been given the matter is in the possession of the House, and I think, with great respect, that it is utterly wrong to say that it was improperly introduced——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has no right to say "utterly wrong." Really, he must contain himself. I have given this Ruling. I have thought the matter out very carefully, and it is now outside the scope of the House. It was improperly raised. It was not, therefore, properly a matter to be raised before the House. It was, I admit, improperly brought before the House quite unwittingly, but I do not think we ought to go on with it.

Mr. Paget

Would it not be a help to the House if we had an indication of what the first opportunity was. Here we have somebody who is aggrieved. He writes to a Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament brings it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the moment he receives that letter. Does that cease to be the first opportunity merely because a newspaper of not very wide circulation and of not great reliability as to its facts happens to have mentioned it on a previous day? Really, to say that one must take everything mentioned in the "Daily Worker" as being true and that it is not the first opportunity because the "Daily Worker" has already mentioned it, does, in my very respectful submission, amount to a most extraordinary Ruling. Surely it is not for the "Daily Worker" to decide what is the procedure of this House?

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I can shorten matters this way, although I think I am really out of order because I said that the matter should not be discussed. But I shall be quite plain. I have looked at all the matter and I have considered the letter, and I have decided that there is no prima faciecase.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

When I have ruled that there is no prima faciecase, it cannot be raised again. That must end the matter.

Mr. Driberg

In that case, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, would you be kind enough to say what you propose to do about the matter raised yesterday, the matter of the B.B.C. and "Any Questions?"? Does that simply fall to the ground, since, if the matter did not exist at all, how could it be sub judice?

Mr. Speaker

I do not see what yesterday has to do with today. It has nothing to do with today.

Mr. Eric Fletcher

May I submit to you with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the House ought not to be in any different position from the position in which they were at the time that the matter was raised in this House last Thursday? Last Thursday you ruled that you were not prepared to say that there was not a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition withdrew an Amendment that the matter should be adjourned, and, following that, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was prepared to allow the matter to stand over for your consideration.

Mr. Silverman rose——

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Fletcher

What I desire to submit to you as a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the House now ought to consider the matter in the same light as that in which the House was prepared to consider it on Thursday last. On Thursday last nobody in the House had any idea whatever that this newspaper, the "Daily Worker," had referred to the subject the day before. Whether that reference in the "Daily Worker" was an accurate reference or not I do not know; but it seems to me that the crucial matter, the real test on the matter of Privilege, is whether or not the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. I would, with great respect, submit to you that, if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne states, as he did on Thursday last and as he has repeated today, that he raised the matter at the earliest opportunity that he could, that ought to be conclusive on the question of raising it at the first opportunity; and that the rights of the hon. Member and the rights of the House ought not to be prejudiced merely because of the fact that some newspaper, which very few people read, has referred to it at an earlier date.

Mr. Churchill

Are we not right in understanding, Mr. Speaker, that you have given a definite Ruling now that there is not a prima faciecase for submission to the Committee of Privileges? You have given your Ruling. I thought that was the Ruling which you had just given. If so, does not that decide the matter?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is under a misapprehension. My last statement had nothing to do with whether it was in the "Daily Worker" or not. I passed that over. But it was left on Thursday for me to consider. I had said that I could not say that there was no prima faciecase; in other words, I did not know one way or the other. I was then invited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General to say at the beginning of Tuesday what I had decided. I considered the matter and I saw the letter, naturally, and I had to rule one way or the other; and I am quite satisfied with my Ruling that there is no prima faciecase in this instance.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede) rose——

Mr. Churchill

Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for one moment?

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order——

Mr. Churchill

We are on a point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will resume his seat. I am calling the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will resume his seat. I am calling the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Churchill rose——

Mr. Silverman

Is this a point of order?

Mr. Churchill

It is a point of order. You having given your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, does not that definitely terminate the matter so far as the House is concerned? If so——

Mr. Manuel

It did not last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill

I would appeal to the Leader of the House to sustain Mr. Speaker in the Ruling which he has given.

Mr. Manuel

The Leader of the Opposition did not last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill

I have only one plea to add, and that is that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rogers), should have the opportunity of making a personal statement.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, even if the House were to accept this extremely surprising Ruling—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members are cheering but they have not seen the letter which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks wrote to the Bishop. I have. One should not prejudge the matter. It was left in my hands to judge, and I saw the letter, and I am satisfied; and it ought to end there.

Mr. Silverman

I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, that even if—I repeat—this surprising Ruling is accepted by the House, it is quite wrong to say that that disposes of the matter as far as the House is concerned. The only effect which such a Ruling could have, were it accepted, would be that the matter of complaint would lose the priority before all other business of the day which it would otherwise have. That would be the only effect. It does not take it away from the consideration of the House at all.

In view of that, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when I submitted to the obviously general view of the House, and, I think, of yourself, last Thursday that the Motion should be withdrawn, I expressly said, and you expressly agreed with me, that it would be without prejudice to my right to move the Motion again? Therefore, since, in spite of your Ruling, the matter is still one for the House, I think that the only way in which the pledge that I should not be prejudiced by the delay could be discharged would be by enabling me to move the Motion, which I desired to move, on this Tuesday at the same time as I would have moved it last Thursday but for the representations made to me. Otherwise the pledge that I should not be prejudiced has obviously been broken.

Mr. Ede

When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rose, I was about to rise, and I gave way to him at his request. I am bound to say that my reading of the end of the discussion last Thursday does not quite agree with the statement just made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I was not present in the House at that particular moment, but the last words in the discussion which took place are: Mr. S. SILVERMAN: I am perfectly prepared on the understanding which we have been discussing to withdraw my Motion—it being understood that it is without prejudice to my right to raise the matter as soon as you indicate that you are ready to give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. That was followed by this statement by Mr. Speaker: Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member now withdraws his Motion and will move it again later if I rule a prima facie case, say, on Tuesday next. The record ends: Motion, by leave, withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 694.] I was not present, and, therefore, I have to rely on the written record for the history of what actually occurred.

Mr. Silverman

My right hon. Friend will bear in mind that no question had arisen of Mr. Speaker changing the Ruling which he had already given, except that he would consider whether he could convert it into the positive form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense; that is exactly what happened. The Ruling had been given, and someone from the Liberal benches questioned whether the negative form was good enough, and, in view of what had been said, Mr. Speaker said that he would consider whether he would give it in the positive form or not. But the negative form is the right form. There is no need to change it; it has been given, and it ought not to be withdrawn.

Mr. Ede

I gave way because I thought that my hon. Friend wanted to make merely a short correction of something that I had said. Having listened to him again, I feel bound by the words that you, Mr. Speaker, used just before the Motion was withdrawn. They are: I understand that the hon. Member now withdraws his Motion and will move it again later if I rule a prima facie case, say, on Tuesday next. The hon. Member was right in the last statement that he made. The fact that you have ruled out his application to move on two grounds—first, in the order given this afternoon, that the original application was out of time; and, second, that no prima faciecase has been established—does not withdraw the matter from the consideration of the House. All that it does is to deprive it of the priority that it enjoys if both those conditions are fulfilled, and it is open to any hon. Member to take such action as he thinks fit to bring it before the House. I suggest that it would be in accordance with the dignity of the House and the harmony of our proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have no alternative but to accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but if the plain facts of the situation were now recognised by all Members of the House——

Mr. Silverman

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I would ask him whether, if I followed the course that he is suggesting, any early time would be found for the consideration of such a Motion.

Mr. Ede

I am now in exactly the same position as the hon. Member was in at the commencement of this discussion this afternoon. I hope that he will allow me to consider the matter, and I will undertake to consult with him, on the question of giving time, and through the usual channels, as to what would be acceptable to the House in the matter.

Mr. Bowles

On a point of order. Is it necessary to have a notice of Motion on the Order Paper, or, if not, can it be moved at 10 o'clock tonight?

Mr. Speaker

I think that it requires a notice on the Order Paper.

Mr. Silverman

I am in difficulty about this. My right hon. Friend's statement is perfectly consistent with this result: That he would have these conversations through the usual channels and find that there was no early acceptable time, and if I had refrained from the only other action which is open to me, on the understanding that an early day would be provided, I might then have found myself with no early day provided and again prejudiced by delay. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend unduly, but he must make some recognition of the unexpected position in which I find myself. Therefore, I wish to press him to say, whether the other side want it or not, if he can give me early time. If he can, I am well content with that, because all I want is that the House shall consider the matter without pre-judging any issue or any person. I want it dealt with publicly. If my right hon. Friend cannot say that, there is another course open to me, but I must do it now, and, unless my right hon. Friend can give me that assurance, I shall do it now.

Sir Waldron Smithers

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Ede

I take my position as Leader of the House as not identifying me in that position with either party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As Leader of the House I am responsible to the House. I am not the leader of a party and I regard myself in this matter as being at the junction of the usual channels. I was careful in the statement that I made to put "conversations with my hon. Friend" before I said "and through the usual channels." because I have a duty to him as Leader of the House to see——

Mr. Churchill

I apologise for interrupting. I was only going to assist the right hon. Gentleman by saying that, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, if the Government like to give an opportunity out of their own time for the discussion of this matter, we have no objection.

Mr. Ede

May I say that that is helpful so far as it goes. I thought that this was perhaps one of the occasions where the Opposition, through the usual channels, might have agreed, as they have on some other matters, to go half and half with the contribution of time. After all, this is not a Government versus Opposition matter. This is a House of Commons matter, and I have tried throughout this discussion to adopt a House of Commons' view. I undertake to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of being in any conversations that take place, and I think that I am entitled to ask that that opportunity shall be given, because, whatever other remedies my hon. Friend has, they are not prejudiced by his considering this matter.

Mr. Silverman

I should like to ask a question about that, Mr. Speaker. If my rights are in no way prejudiced, I do not want to persist. But let me be frank with you and the House, that I do not like the Ruling which has been given on either of these points. I am not bound to accept it, and the House is not bound to accept it, but if I wish to challenge it, I can only do so by putting down a Motion disagreeing with your Ruling or reflecting upon your Ruling. I should, in those circumstances, be prepared to take that course, if that is the only way open to me; but if I am not prejudiced by waiting to see what my right hon. Friend says, then I am prepared to wait.

Mr. Churchill

As this matter seems to be about to pass away from the House for the moment until some further action is taken in the matter, ought we not to have a personal statement from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—whose conduct has been called in question and who has been impugned from various quarters and has not been given that right, a right I have never known to be denied to any Member with very much less provocation—the right to make a personal statement? I submit that this right should not now be denied.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

It is for the House—I cannot accept it or deny it. If the House wishes the hon. Member to make a statement, then by all means let him make a statement.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Silverman

Before we come to that, could I have an answer to the question I have put?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member can put down a Motion criticising or disagreeing with the Ruling I have given. He is entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to do it now because my Ruling has done away with his chance to raise it at the moment. But he is fully entitled to put down a Motion disagreeing with my Ruling, which is the proper way of doing it.

Mr. Silverman

I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. What I should like to hear from you, Mr. Speaker, is whether, if I wish to put down such a Motion, I ought to put it down quickly, or whether I could defer putting it down in order to see what comes of my right hon. Friend's offer without being prejudiced by waiting.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member wishes to wait to see what happens, he does not prejudice his chances by deferring it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Would you mind giving your Ruling again, Mr. Speaker? I understood you to begin by ruling that as the matter was out of time you would not rule one way or the other, but later, as I understand it, you did rule that no breach of Privilege has been committed. It would be an advantage to the House, I think, particularly if we are to debate this matter again, to know exactly what your Ruling is. Suppose that the complaint is proved, will it then be in order, according to your Ruling, for a Member to send a constituent's letter to his superior?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is a little mistaken. I ruled on Thursday that I could not decide one way or the other. I did not rule today because it was out of date. I thought that it was out of date and that therefore we should not discuss it, but I gave way on that point to the House, because I had been into the matter and made up my mind, having seen the letter, that there was no prima faciecase, which is what I said I would do last Thursday.

Mr. Churchill

May I recur to the point that the hon. Member for Seven-oaks, who has been reflected upon, shall have an opportunity, here and now, to make a personal explanation to the House? [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] In the event of it being held to be a matter for the House to decide whether they will hear him or not, in view of all that has taken place, shall I be entitled to move a Motion that the hon. Member should be heard at the present time, and will that Motion be subject to debate and Division?

Mr. Paget

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Motion lose its priority in the same way as the Motion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne? I would respectfully suggest that the time for the hon. Member to make the statement, which we are all anxious to hear in fairness to him, should be when time is given to debate the matter.

Mr. Speaker

I am really trying to make peace over this matter. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has the right to make a personal statement if he wishes, which is one of the rights of Private Members. I hope myself that the House will willingly agree to let him say what he has to say, which might even help the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Rodgers

I am grateful to you—[Interruption.]

An Hon. Member

Why did you no; speak last Thursday?

Mr. Rodgers

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me——

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Ede

May I appeal to my hon. Friends to give the hon. Member a courteous hearing. It is in my experience unexampled in the history of the House that when a Member who has had his conduct criticised wishes to make a personal statement he should be refused that privilege by the House.

Mr. Rodgers

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for this opportunity of making a personal statement on the subject which was introduced last Thursday after Question Time by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. At that time, as I informed the House, I had no intimation until the hon. Member was on his feet that the subject was going to be raised at all. Certain Members opposite seemed to doubt this, and so I hope I may be permitted to give the details.

I left the House last Wednesday at about five o'clock, having earlier arranged to pair with one of the hon. Members opposite. I do not know at what hour the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne handed his note to one of the messengers in the House. It would appear, however, that it lay in the rack unaddressed until late evening, when it was addressed by the House postal authorities to my flat in London. The postmark is shown as 11 p.m. The letter was not delivered by the first post Thursday morning, and I left for my office at about 9.30 a.m. with such mail as had arrived. From my office I came straight to the House at 2 o'clock and I was in the Chamber from Question time until the matter under discussion. Subsequently about 6 o'clock in the evening I went back to my flat to find what I presume is the hon. Member's letter. I have it here with me, and I have it here unopened.

Like a lot of hon. Members, I receive many letters from my constituents. One of my correspondents both by letter and telegram has been a Mr. Fielding Clarke. This gentleman is vicar of Crockham Hill, near Edenbridge, in my constituency. He makes no secret of his views, and was one of the sponsors of the Communist-inspired so-called "Peace Conference," which was to have been held at Sheffield but which was later transferred to Warsaw. His letters to me have not raised any personal problems but have been purely propaganda efforts. Recently I received a letter from this vicar dated 11th February. It was not marked either "private" or "confidential." I should like to read this letter to the House.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. [Interruption.] If any letter is read there may be a lot of letters to be read. I have them all here. What I am submitting is that the principle of making a personal statement is that the Member ought not to take the opportunity of making an attack on other people who are not present, who cannot answer, and when those very matters are just the matters which if you, Mr. Speaker, had ruled otherwise would have been properly investigated by the Committee of Privileges and not in the way in which the hon. Member proposes. If I am wrong in my point of order and if the hon. Member is to be entitled to make his statement in this characteristic way, then I must request leave, when he finishes, to make a statement in which the correspondence can be completed.

Mr. Rodgers

Here is the letter.

Mr. Speaker

I wonder if it would shorten the proceedings. Is it a very long letter?

Mr. Rodgers

It is not very long; it is only two pages.

Mr. Speaker

We will hear it.

Mr. Rodgers

The letter is as follows:

"DEAR MR. RODGERS,

"I see that there is to be a debate on rearmament and the re-arming of the Germans.

"At the present moment as 'The Times' points out, there is widespread apathy over Civil Defence, and as I go about among ordinary people never have I met so much anti-American feeling and dislike of war—especially in the Far East.

"It would seem that the cause for which we are to fight World War III under the command of the Americans and marching in step with the Germans is not sufficiently understood. The Americans, it is true, did their best the week before last to make clear what the cause of the Western. Christian and Free World is. At the same time as they released a number of so-called Nazi murderers and organisers of murder, they sent seven Negroes to the electric chair for an offence, in which no one had been murdered at all. How blind people are not to learn from this that the sacred cause of white supremacy and western democracy are the real issues at stake. The really important thing is to preserve the white, the rich and the strong—let black and Semitic half-men perish.

"Of course, the Church is partly to blame. We still have lists up in every church of the names of those who were killed fighting to destroy anti-Communists and expounders of racial theories. Cannot these boards be removed from churches by Act of Parliament and the names of the real martyrs of the Cause—Hitler, Goering and Goebbels—substituted? People, I am sure, would then be so much more enthusiastic about our foreign policy, and our politicians, both Labour and Conservative (it is so difficult nowadays to remember which is which) would no longer be apprehensive of a stab in the back.

"Of course, a few paragraphs of that curious document, the Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1948, will have to be removed as the Church is clearly warned of the disastrous consequences of linking-up with anti-Communist forces (Part II, page 21) and Resolution 6 condemns the racialism on which Nazi Germany and democratic America alike thrive.

"But I am sure that the leaders of the Church will do this if pressed. They came with moral support to the rescue of our bipartisan foreign policy by smearing the petition for banning the atom-bomb, and I have no doubt they will supply more of what a recent broadcast on American Forces Network called 'the spiritual asset' in defence of' a culture based on superforts' (to use the admirable phrase of one of our modern poets).

"If our Church leaders are hesitant one might get Dr. Malan, an ardent member of the Dutch Reformed Church, and one of the most distinguished leaders of the free western world, to expose for them, the fallacy that black people are children of God, or the equally curious proposition, made recently to me by an obviously seditious villager, 'after all, the Communists are human beings'.

"The Church of England, as that fervent anti-Communist, Dr. Inge, once assured us has, in its corporate capacity, never seemed to respect anything but force, and therefore, if the persuasion of a good dinner at the Athenaeum fails, other means are not lacking to our politicians to bring about a healthy identity of Church and State. Thus it will not be so hard to build up the German ruling-class again as Wall St, and the City of London did so successfully after World War I. Only this time let the gas chambers of the concentration camps be bigger to match the splendour of American Christian powers of indiscriminate massacre as exemplified in the only sheet anchor of civilisation, the atom bomb."

I may say that I was profoundly shocked to receive a letter expressing such sentiments from a priest of the Church of England. Although I have always replied to Mr. Clarke's letters before without consulting anybody, in this case I felt that I should consult with someone in the Church before replying, since matters of Church doctrine seemed to be involved. It was not a question of the re-armament of Germany, as has been stated.

Accordingly, after due consideration, I decided to forward the letter, with a short covering note asking for his comments, to the Bishop of Rochester. Incidentally, perhaps I should state that I have never met the Bishop, nor have I previously communicated with him.

Mr. Silverman

Read the letter.

Mr. Rodgers

The hon. Member has asked me to read the letter and I shall do so. It is:

"DEAR DR. CHAVASSE, I thought you ought to see this letter from the vicar of Crockham Hill, in my constituency. I have had many communications from him advocating the Communist line. However, this letter seems to me to go a bit beyond that and to attack the Church. Is there anything we can do about this?

Mr. Driberg

What has it got to do with the Bishop anyway?

Mr. Rodgers

I should be grateful if you could return Mr. Fielding Clarke's letter, so that I can reply to it in due course. I wrote to the Bishop, first, because I judged him to be like myself, in a privileged position, since he is one of the Peers Spiritual and a Member of another place; and, secondly, because my con- stituency lies within his diocese. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that a Bishop's relationship with one of his vicars is not that of employer and employee. The Bishop has no authority either to cause a clergyman to resign or submit to discipline, and, therefore, there is no possible question of victimisation. In forwarding this letter to the Bishop for his comments I acted with the welfare of my constituents in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and in what I conceived to be the public interest.

Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Churchill

On a point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was making a personal explanation, with the leave of the House. What is the status of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in intervening now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Gag."] Are we to understand that he is making a personal explanation? If not, what is the Motion to which he will be addressing himself?

Mr. Speaker

I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne also wants to make a personal statement.

Mr. Silverman

I will make a personal statement, and I will make it very short, because I hope to have an opportunity of going into these matters at greater length on another occasion. There are two points with which I think I ought to deal now. One is the question of the notice I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I can only assume—and I suppose that he must have assumed, too, because he did not open the letter to find out—that the letter that he has in his possession is the one which was the notice. If he would now kindly open it and read it he will find out. As I cannot remember any other occasion on which I have written to him, or, indeed, imagine any future occasion on which I would desire to——

Mr. Pickthorn

On a point of order. Am I right, Sir, in my recollection that personal statements should not be controversial?

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

A personal statement deals with one's own personal matters, and an hon. Member is not allowed to attack another hon. Member.

Mr. Silverman

I should have thought that nothing could have been less controversial than my inquiring into my correspondence. It seems to me a matter purely for me. It seems to me that the letter is the one to which we are referring. I have taken a little trouble to find out what happened to it, and if the hon. Member for Sevenoaks had taken trouble then, or would take it now, he could easily confirm the accuracy of what I am now telling the House.

I went straight from the House after the matter was raised last Thursday to the messenger, and from him to the post office here, to find out what had happened. I report to the House what they told me, because I think the House would not wish them to remain under any kind of uncertainty. They tell me that the letter was handed to one of them by me at a minute or two after 6 p.m. That, I think, would accord with my own recollection, because it was just before that that I had sought advice at the Table as to what I ought to do. I think that on the envelope the letter is marked "Urgent." The messenger confirmed that when I handed it to him I verbally expressed to him the extreme desirability of its being delivered to the hon. Member at once. They inform me that, in view of those two facts, they sent it round the House four times in search of the hon. Member.

Mr. Rodgers rose——

Mr. Silverman

The hon. Member has already told us why that was, and I have not forgotten. He said that he left the House at 5 o'clock, having paired. I did not know that. The messengers therefore sent the letter round the House four times. I am putting it in this way, because the hon. Member left the impression that the letter had remained in the letter rack until a later hour of the evening, and that was certainly not the case. They sent it round, while looking for him, four times. In the end—and he will find, I am informed, that the envelope has four different stamps confirming that—being unable to find the hon. Member, they took it, as is the normal course, to the Members' post office and handed it in. At the post office they say that the letter was added to the rest of the hon. Member's mail and was dealt with by the post office in strict accordance with the hon. Member's standing instruction to them as to what they were to do with his letters. They took the whole mail, including this letter, and posted them to him at about 10 o'clock the night before.

Mr. Rodgers

May I point out that it was 11 o'clock, according to the postmark?

Mr. Silverman

I am only repeating what I am told. I think the House ought to know it. I am repeating it only to establish that the hon. Member did receive the letter. Of course, if he says that he did not receive it I take his word for it, but to satisfy the House, as I hope I have done, that so far as I am concerned, and as the machinery of the House is concerned—two messengers and the post office—everything was done to make the hon. Member acquainted. Short of taking the letter by hand to the hon. Member's address and delivering it on his doorstep, I do not see what else could have been done. I hope that the hon. Member will be honourable enough to withdraw the charge that he made last week, and that he implied again today, that every effort had not been made to see that he received the notice.

The other point with which I want to deal concerns part of the statement, or an omission from the statement that one might have thought would be there, because an attack had been made upon the hon. Member's constituent and I think that one short point ought to be made. The hon. Member did, in fact, acknowledge his constituent's letter. He has told us with what horror he received it and what high motives of public duty prompted him to send it on to the Bishop.

Major Guy Lloyd

On a point of order. Are not these comments and innuendos entirely out of order, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

The whole thing is quite out of order, and I hope that it will be brought to a conclusion very shortly so that we can get on with the business.

Mr. Silverman

Unless I am interrupted I hope to conclude within a few minutes. I would like to read to the House a letter which the hon. Member for Seven-oaks wrote to his constituent. We heard what he said about the letter in the House:

"DEAR MR. FIELDING CLARKE,

Thank you for your letter of the 11th. I do not think I can do better than send you a copy of the HANSARD of the recent foreign affairs debate, from which you will see that everyone is firmly of the opinion that the only aggressor in the world is Soviet Russia, and that the only reason for our re-armament is the threat of world aggression by the Soviet Union.

Yours sincerely,"

I only read the letter, not to debate the sentiments which to many are admirable, no doubt, but in order to point out that there is not one word in that letter to indicate to the constituent that his letter had been sent on to the Bishop with a request to see what he could do about it; nor is there a single word in the letter from which the hon. Member's constituent could have gathered that he resented the letter in any way.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

If we are to debate the matter, surely we should defer it until later. We are delaying matters enormously, and I do not think we are quite in a mood to debate it calmly, coolly and objectively.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones

In view of the enormous constitutional and, apparently, party importance of this matter, in view of the nature of the statement by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, and in view of the fact that this is a matter which must clearly be given further consideration by all of us, would it now be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to give the House the reasons for your opinion and for your direction today that no prima faciecase of a breach of Privilege has been made out?

Mr. Speaker

The Speaker never gives his reasons for his decisions.

Mr. E. Fletcher

In view of the great importance of this matter, and now that we have heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and since it was ruled on Thursday that this is essentially a matter for the House to decide, may I urge the Leader of the House to provide facilities for this matter to be discussed at an early date?

Mr. Ede

I have listened to the proceedings of the last half-hour or so, and I shall certainly have to take them into consideration when I reach any decision that I have to take or any advice which I propose to tender. I would suggest to the House that, the matter having been very fully ventilated, we might now proceed to the Orders of the Day.