BREACH OF PRIVILEGE?

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 April 1934, Page 5

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE?

MR CHURCHILL’S ALLEGATIONS

INDIAN ENQUIRY EVIDENCE

[BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.]

(Received April 17, Noon.) RUGBY, April 16. With the Government’s full concurrence, the House of Commons ac-

cepted a motion, moved by Mr Churchill, that certain matters which he claimed constituted a breach of the privileges of the House, be referred for investigation' to the Committee of Privileges. Mr Churchill contended that a series of negotiations with the Indian section of the Manchestex* Chambex* of Commerce amounted to pressure being brought to bear upon them to procure a fundamental alteratioxx in the evidence already submitted to the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform. Mi* Churchill asserted that the pressure was exerted by the Government, and came primarily from Sir Samuel Hoare, but arose also from the fact that Lord Derby, who was the leading member of the Joint Select Committee, interviewed members of the Chambex* of Commerce, and counselled them to altex* their evidence. Eventually, the evidence was withdrawn, and an entirely different document was presented. Mi* Churchill contended that a full

dication of the charactex* of the ev

donee of the Manchestex* Chamber of Commerce representatives had reached Six* Samuel Hoare early in June. A dinner was held at Lord Derby’s house on June 27, at which Six* Samuel Hoare and two other Ministers were present. This was the beginning of a long series of negotiations, amounting to pressure on the Chamber* of Commerce representatives, whose new statement was submitted

in November, and was a mere ghost of the original evidence, being a poor shrunken, emasculated thing. Though no malice or corruption was imputed, there was irregularity and impropriety enough to constitute a flagrant breach. The Speaker ruled that Mr Churchill had made out a prima facie case. . .

Sir Samuel Hoare welcomed an impartial investigation. He said he thought the Committee would find that the alteration in the memorandum was due to the representations of the Lancashire delegation, at that ume, in the India enquiry. He said that he would prove Mr Churchill had found another “mare’s nest.”

He said that he did not see the first Manchester memorandum until July 7, when he thought -some passages would not facilitate a settlement. His efforts to obtain a modification had failed. It was only four months later, on the suggestion of the Lancashire Delegation, then in India, that a modification was made. The Opposition leaders supported the resolution, and the Prime Minister expressed the Government’s full concurrence. LATER. Mr. Churchill's allegations will be investigated by a committee, including Mr. MacDonald, Major Attlee, Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Baldwin. Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Austen Chamberlain, and Sir Herbert Samuel. The committee, which will sit in private, will meet immediately. Apparently, there is no precedent for the Committee of Privilege dealing with allegations against a Cabinet Minister.