INCIDENT IN COMMONS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 183, 6 July 1931, Page 6

INCIDENT IN COMMONS.

Tiie dignity of the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, has again been offended by a Labour member. Because of his defiance of the Speaker’s ruling, Mr McGovern, who was successful at the by-election for Shettleston some months ago, was suspended. Following wiyxt seems to have become a habit of the Left Wing members of the Labour Party, he aggravated his offence by declining to leave his seat, and was assisted by several friends from the Clydeside, a section of the Labour representation at Westminster who have caused the Prime Minister some anxious moments, a “struggling mass* disappearing through the lobby," while the “House looked on in shocked silence" at the incident, which is the worst that has happened in the House, since the Labour Government assumed office in 1929. The incident, painful alike to most Labour members and to the other parties, for the House of Commons is proud of its traditions and jealous of its dignity, reflects once more the inability of the Labour Ministers to control the more, turbulent spirits in the party’s ranks, especially those who hail from the Clydeside. A member who figured in Thursday’s unpleasant episode was Mr J. Beckett, well remembered for the incident of the Mace a year ago, which was followed by the sensational Sandham charges. During- a division on the question of suspending a Labour member who had disobeyed the Speaker’s ruling-, Mr Beckett, who was acting in the capacity of “teller," seized the Mace and gave vent to his feelings in other than Parliamentary language. The situation was somewhat retrieved by a scandalised Sergeant-at-Arms who replaced the Mace “in a dignified manner," but the affront to Parliament and the discredit he brought; on his Party resulted in Mr Beckett’s suspension.

These two incidents appeared to have rankled in the mind of another member, Mr J. Sandham, who, in addressing an Independent Labour Party meeting at Manchester, defended Mr Birkett, and charged .fellow members of his Party with accepting- bribes “to help pass doubtful Bills in the interests of private individuals," and of becoming intoxicated in the House. Yet, when called upon by the Speaker for an explanation, Mr Sandham, in the words of the Prime Minister, “withdrew nothing, explained nothing, and justified nothing." When Mr Beckett rose to speak in Mr Sandliam’s _ defence the House refused to listen to him. The Committee of Privileges who

considered tlie charges found they were too vague to permit an investigation",and in a “hushed and crowded House” Mr Speaker, in “icy clear” tones, reproved Mr Sandham for his breach rf privilege in making public utterances derogatory to the House. The first admonition for thirty years, it was to many a ’novel event. The rights, privileges and prestige of the House of Commons, and the honour of the members are prized possessions of the nation. Foreign publicists have written of the gravity and order at Westminster, even when the Government of the day has been in strenuous conflict with the Opposition. The “scenes” of the French Chamber of Deputies, when members loudly argue in undignified manner, and the air is tense with what may happen nest —often the legislators come to grips and the sitting is suspended—are foreign to the House of Commons. ; But the episodes that have taken place in the past two years invite the question whether the very high standard of decorum in past years has any appeal to some members, whose turbulence and refusal to obey the Speaker’s rulings bring discredit upon the Mother of Parliaments. The tone of Australian Legislatures, especially in Hew South Wales, has been lowered on occasions by acrimonious debates and charges outraging the canons of good behaviour. Hew Zealanders, on the contrary, have reason to be pleased with the condu'ct exhibited in their own House of Representatives whose decorum ranks high.