LIQUOR IN COMMONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 28 October 1926, Page 5

LIQUOR IN COMMONS

ALLEGATIONS OF DRUNKENNESS DR. SALTFR’S CHARGES REFUSAL TO WITHDRAW, MODIFY OR APOLOGISE (By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Auntraliuu A R.Z. Cable Anßociation.) LONDON. 26th Oct-. In the House of Commons, immediately Dr. Salter’s drunkenness charge was again mentioned. Dr. Stiller rose to repiy and said: "Speaking with a full sense of my respnnsiiblit.y and regardless nf the consequences, I. am not picpared to withdraw, modify, quality, nr apologise for anything 1 have said, and I repeal to-dav that I have seen members of all parties, including mine, drunk in tins House, not on one occasion Iml on many It was within the (-<llll lll <hi knowledge ol practically, every member, and is therefore a piece of atIVetatimi and hypocrisy for members to deny it. Between 50 and 60 members of the lleus.e nf Commons told me that they approved what I had said, though they did not approve the wisdom and propriety of saying so. "Flirther. 1 have assisted members ol this House to remove at least one hopelesslv intoxicated member. It is rummini knowledge and a, smoking-room jest." Dr. Salter agreed with.the Speaker that the present PnrliameTil. compared favourably with its predecessors. “I saw more drunkenness in tDo 1922-23 Parliament,” lie said, “and my accusation is not against members as a whole, but against a certain section. If it is a breach of privilege to criticise members hr- disgracing, degrading, and lowering the t radii ions and prestige of the House of Commons, then be it- so, but the fact remains that many times I have seen members alter dinner flushed with wine, and with all I heir higher powers of control abrogated. I have repeatedly been present when disorderly interruptions have been met with the t rut It fit I retort, ‘You’re, drunk.’ Dr. Salter continued that these observations were made from both sides of the House. Jly desired earnestly and sincerely to maintain the high, prestige of the Commons because lie believed Parliament’s tradition alone was to save the nation from industrial economic disaster. If lie consented to name individuals as transgressors he would be guilty of breach of courtesy, but should (he House desire to pursue the matter further and appoint- a committee of privilege lie was prepared to supply the information painful though (lie ordeal would lie. He would continue inside and outside to protest, against, the drinking facilities afforded to members of tilt* Commons at all times of the day and night, though it was not allowed to public bodies or individuals. It was scandalous.

When I)r. Sailer sat downJbe Speaker ordered him to withdraw while the House proceeded to debate the matter. Mr O’Cdmtor said Dr. Salter’s speech was tin instance, of ardour and extremeness of opinion which often developed into rancour of partisanship. Drunkenness was rare in the Commons to-day. lie recalled the story of Pitt- who, when asked if lie could see the Speaker, replied that lie could see three speakers. The drinking habits nf people generally bail enormously improved and Ibis was no more apparent anywhere than in the House nf Commons. Such discussions. unfortunately, were apt lr> create false impressions. "This is a House of good manners. We ought lo live up to it.”

Mr Civne.s. said it would he best to regard tin; speech as a well-intentioned vigorous effort to promote temperance propaganda. He suggested the mover should withdraw the motion and let, the House proceed with more ' important business.

Sir A. Holbrook said lie regretted that. Dr. Salter did not. apologise. He would willingly have withdrawn the motion only I°*’ the studied manner in which Dr. Sailer endeavoured to eon linue the scandalous eliaige.

PREMIER. CONDEMNS DR SALTER'S ACTION

Mr Baldwin said that for the sake ol its own dignity the sooner the l Louse disposed of the matter the better. In an assembly such as the House of Commons, numbering 600. it was obvious that, there must occasionally he cases where men forgot themselves temporarily. All were aware of this hut did not taik about it. What hurt his feelings was the fact that one uf their number who worked among them and shared their social life should have considered it- his duty to sjm.'ik in that- connection outside, and then not express regret for doing so. Dr. Sailer's speech made a- division obvious. ”1 am certain the statement is a libel on the-House and a breach of its |>rivileges, Mr Baldwin concluded.

Mr Lees Smith moved an amendment referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges. Mr Lloyd George said he regretted the matter had been raised. ll was not even a|)proximalcly correct. It- was untrue and unfair to tiie most, importaii! assembly in the life of the nation.

The amendment, was defeated and Sir A. Holbrook's motion that a. breach <4 privilege had been committed was carried.

NO FURTHER. ACTION PROBA.TH.TLONDON. 26th Ocl. As no member n owed Dr. Sailer s siis ponsioti. it is presumed that nothing lur I her will he done in regard to Sir A Holbrook's motion.

The House jirnceedeil toil general dis mission.