§ 58. Mr.s. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the evidence advanced at the trial of Miss Grace Kahumbe, of Nyasaland, on which it was presumed that she was a member of an unlawful organisation.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNo evidence was advanced. After the charge had been read and explained to Miss Kahumbe she pleaded guilty.
§ Mr.s. CastleIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter from Miss Grace Kahumbe in which she says:
I am surprised to read that I pleaded guiltyand that she has disputed the finding in her case? Is not this another example of a case where someone who has not denied being before 3rd March a member of the African National Congress being found guilty without any evidence being advanced that they had always been a member? Is not this a most serious situation developing throughout Nyasaland as a whole?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNo, Sir. It would be quite improper for either the hon. Lady or myself to comment on the action of the courts.
§ Mr. GaitskellBut will the right hon. Gentleman not reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr.s. Castle), namely, whether, supposing the person concerned had only 599 been a member of this organisation before it was declared unlawful, he would regard that as falling within the ordinance?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNo, Sir. It would be equally improper for me to comment on that.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe right hon. Gentleman is refusing to give the House necessary information on this matter. This is a matter of fact. Let me reframe Lie question. Was it the right hon. Gentleman's intention in approving this regulation or ordinance that those who belonged to this organisation before the date but not after should be caught by it?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydYes, Sir. Those who belonged to the organisation certainly would be guilty of an offence if they continued to belong to the organisation.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order. For the guidance of the House and the assistance of the Colonial Secretary, could you, Mr. Speaker, inform the House whether it is out of order to comment in good faith on the decision of a court? Is not the only rule that we must not criticise or call in question the good faith or other behaviour of a court but that comment on its decision is perfectly proper?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt depends on the circumstances of each case. I should say myself that the ordinary rule is that one should not comment on a case which is sub judice in a way which might have the consequence of perverting justice or influencing it the wrong way. Also, comments which attack the integrity or otherwise of a judge, or even his competence, must be put down as a Motion and should not be made at a peradventure. That is all that I can say. I am ignorant of the status of this court or the law on the subject, but that is the general guidance that I can give.
Mr. H. WilsonFurther to that point of order. Do you not recall, Mr. Speaker, a case in late 1946 or early 1947 when the right hon. Gentleman who later became Lord Bracken referred in the House to a decision of the counts in relation to an Order on building licensing? He did that in order to draw attention to what he considered to be the unsatisfactory nature of the Order under which a prosecution was brought forward and a decision taken. Is not that an exact 600 parallel with the case raised in this instance?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not remember the incident sufficiently accurately to say whether or not it is a parallel. If, in fact, on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the object of the intervention of Mr. Bracken, as he then was, was that the Order itself was a bad Order and the court had perforce to come to an unsatisfactory decision because the Order was bad, I should have thought that was all right. But if it was in fact suggested that the court had somehow or other misbehaved itself in giving judgement, that would be wrong. That is the broad distinction that I would make. I cannot comment on this one because I do not know enough about it.
§ Mr. SilvermanWould it be a fair interpretation of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that as long as the integrity of the court is in no way criticised and proceedings are not actually pending, comment is perfectly proper and there is no rule which would allow a Minister to deny information on the ground of impropriety in those circumstances?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not know that I would be prepared to go as far as all that. It is quite improper, of course, to comment on the integrity, which is a matter of the personal character of the members of the tribunal. That would be clearly wrong, but there might be comments of an abusive character, which might refer to their intelligence or lack of it, which would be equally wrong, and therefore it is not entirely limited to a matter of integrity. Without notice, I would not be prepared to go much further than I have gone, but I have tried to give the House the general sense of what I have always believed to be the practice in this matter.
§ Mr. HaleAs recently as yesterday, questions were asked about a court-martial decision. When the Labour Government were in power in 1945–50, there were questions about the decisions of a lady stipendiary appointed by the Labour Government, who was apparently under criticism because of that. Questions were also asked about a former Recorder of Liverpool. There were discussions in the House about the conduct of a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Mead, which resulted in a committee being set up. The 601 decision of a court was challenged on the Adjournment Motion in the case of Edmund Galley who was rehabilitated by the House 42 years after his conviction, and there was the case of George Edalji when the House appointed a committee of inquiry, three or four years after his conviction. This is part of the common practice of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not remember all the instances to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has referred, but I know that in certain cases the House has bestirred itself with what it believes to be a miscarriage of justice in a specific instance, but that is not the case here. At the moment I am dealing with a Parliamentary Question, and although I admire greatly the memory and the lore of the hon. Member for Oldham. West, I cannot be bound by everything that happened when I was not Speaker. I am giving the House the best advice I can on a general question, but I am conscious that general answers to Questions are apt to be dangerous, and that is why I am reluctant to go further unless the exact facts of the case are present in my mind. Sir David Eccles.
§ Mr. StonehouseMay I ask a question?
ShinwellOn a point of order, Sir. I think my point of order is a legitimate one. It is this: are we to understand that if hon. Members raise points of order immediately before half-past three, while a Question is pending in the House which you have permitted, an hon. Member who wishes to put a supplementary question is precluded from doing so simply because of those points of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am bound by the Standing Order not to allow Questions after half-past three, and I do not see how I can avoid that.
§ Mr. ShinwellMy hon. Friend the Member for wednesdays (Mr. stone-house)—whether I agree with him or not is another matter—was on his feet and was called, Sir.
§ Mr. SpeakerBut then the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervened on a point of order. to which I was bound to give precedence. All the time the hon. Member for Nelson 602 and Colne was dealing with his point of order the mechanism of the clock was working.
§ Mr. GaitskellFurther to that point of order, Sir. It is normal on occasion for the initial Question to be asked before half-past Three and for a series of supplementary questions to he put which sometimes continue, with your permission, for as long as a quarter of an hour. On thiy, occasion you called my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) but my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) intervened on a point of order. Are we to understand, from what you have just said, that in future, as soon as there is an intervention on a point of order, the opportunity for asking further supplementary questions on the original Question lapses? Is there any precedent for this, particularly in a case where you have called an hon. Member to put a supplementary question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI called the hon. Member for Wednesbury and was anxious to hear his question, but when a point of order is raised, that must come first, because the business of the House cannot go on until the point of order is settled. It was put to me in the form of a point of order and I had to listen. I am afraid that the argument which transpired. and all the minor questions I was asked, put the question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury out of my mind. In general, I think I am right in saying that after half-past three I should not allow Questions, although on occasions, when a Question has just been asked, with the indulgence of the House, I stretch the Standing Order to allow a supplementary question to he asked. So on this occasion, if the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it, I think it would be fair to call the hon. Member for Wednesbury to ask his question, but I hope it will be brief.
§ Mr. StonehouseWithout wishing to delay the House, Sir, may I ask the Colonial Secretary if he is aware that the charges against Miss Kahumbe were quashed because the charges were wrongfully brought? In view of this, and in view of the seriousness of this and similar cases, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make an early statement to the House?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNo, Sir. Even at this late hour the hon. Gentleman must not try to get away with that comment. The High Court set aside the conviction not on the grounds that it was wrongly brought in the general sense of the word, but on the grounds that, the consent of the Governor to the prosecution had not been obtained—Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the trial was therefore null and void. The conclusion to be drawn from this should be that the rule of law in its most exact form prevails in Nyasaland.
§ Mr. StonehouseOn a point of order, Sir. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.