NOISY SCENE IN THE HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18760, 13 January 1923, Page 13

NOISY SCENE IN THE HOUSE

MANNERS IN THE COMMONS. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CHAMBER MR JACK JONES, M.P. (Fbou Oue Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 30. A few days ago Mr Ben Tillett, M.P., responded, at a city dinner, to the toast r : "The House of Parliament,” and remarked that ho represented rather a formidable party—the Labour Party. Although some of the now members might not be of the dilettante order, there was a great deal 'behind their robustness which would have a fair field in the House of Commons. There was plenty of opportunity in the House, and he believed that in this ' period of world distress this great catastrophe of the aftermath of war, Parliament would rise to the occasion. He believed that behind our country men and women there were forces potent for good, which were lepresented and stabilised in the Oomm°ns > ot which he was proud to be a member. He had never forgiven the city for knocking Wat Tyler on the head—(laughter) but he could assure _ them that, so far as the Labour forces in Parliament were concerned, they would do thir best, on lines that would help towards the groat human uplift. The House would not disgrace the nation, but would do all that * Q y J n its power to make the world better.- ' —(Cheers). “DIRTY DOGS 1” After this it was rather unfortunate that at days later Mr Jack Jones, Labour ■M.P. for Silvertown, should have done hii best to turn the House into a bear garden—he distinguished himself to such a degree that the speaker had to request him to withdraw from the Chamber. Politely ho retorted: “I don’t care a damn whether I go or not. You are a dirty lot of dogs, robbing soldiers and starving women.” Ihe scene arose over a series of questions Put to the Minister of Pensions, Major Tryon, about mentally afflicted ex-service men who are now classified as pauper lunatics. He explained that only a small of men >verd affected. They were mien whose affliction was ndl the result of service. “DISCREDIT.” The House, however, was obviously concerned about these men. Mr Hayday asserted that the position was ‘‘an eternal discredit to the nation,” and Mr Austen Chamberlain asked the Government -o reconsider the matter. He argued that as -tjae men were few the cost could not be heavy,and declared that there was a widespread public feeling that men who; were-accepted for service should not now ho put in pauper lunatio asylums. Major Tryon tried, to explain matters by saying there were many cases of men. who ivere enlisted “by mistake” —a remark that “tew jeers from tile Labour benches. He added that they were only in the army at a very short time. - ■ Mr Lanshury shouted: “He for service, fit for pensions,” and.Mr Jack Jones, who was standing in a gangway leading to a gallery, which is technically outside the -.House, shouted _an interruption. Viscount L'urzon asked if it w%s in order, for a member to speak ■ from the gallery, and Mr Jones bawled: “I’m not in the gallery! I’m in the stalls.”. Major Tryon wont on to point out that -many of these men had been lunatics before, and had been enlisted by mistake, but as they were, released from the army in a few days it was not right to regard them as mentally affected as a result of the war. Mr Jack Jones, amid loud cries of “Order!”. exclaimed. “Oh, you dirty dog!” '■ the Speaker called on "Mr Jones to with-- 1 draw. Mr Jones, pointing his finger ex-/ citedly at the Pensions Minister, cried, “We - , are not going to stand that sort of thing.” There were renewed rails of “Oroer!” ’ from the Government benches, to which Mr Jones retorted; “You can turn me out if you like. I don’t care a damn if you do.” ihe Speaker asked Mr Jones'to leave the chamber, and the' member for Silvertown 'responded: “I am glad to do so. You are a dirty lot of dogs.” There was renewed commotion, members shouting at Mr Jones and the latter shouting back at them. He walked up the gangway to the door into one of the division lobbies. ; When there ho paused and made a final * thrust before disappearing: “You’re slobbering over dead soldiers and starring the living ones.” MANNERS OF THE GUTTER- ! Ihe Daily Telegraph refers to the scene os an exhibition of b’rutal coarseness and blatant vulgarity, and recalls another but much less serious instance of the decay 0f... Parliamentary courtesy which took place the ? olner day. On rising to put a question, Mr George Lanshury was greeted with cries of' “Speak up!” which, is the ordinarily recognised intimation that a speaker is being indistinctly hoard. “You shut up,” was the retort, "and you will hear!” This was mere rudeness, nothing more, but still it let down the House of Commons. Mr Ben Tillett has just observed very justly of some of his colleagues that they axe “not all of the dilettante sort.” They are net, indeed, but-.; one need not bo a dilettante to observe the ■ decent civilities and courtesies of Parliamentary life. Tho Morning Post comments: “The fact is that Mr Jones fears, in the language well understood in his constituency, that his ‘pitch is being queered.’ Ho was , practically tho only rude man in the last’ Parliament, which tolerated his rudeness until he became the chartered libertine of debate. The appearance of a Communist, who 1 has been none too choice in his remarks, has been a challenge—Glasgow against Silvertown —and Silvertown has felt that., it must maintain its pre-eminence at all costs. Just a little manoeuvring for place, but is it that for which Mr Jones is -paid £4OO a year?” The Daily Express: ‘The scene will bring home to all parties th-> wholesome truth that there is no gain of strength in borrowing the manners of the gutter. Decency is the first of British instincts, and the man who offends it wipes himself off the slate' so far as influence jp-es in public affairs. Although a Labour member was involved in this instance, it has to be acknowledged that nothing could be less typical of,: Labour's parliamentary record. There are ' exceptions upon all sides, but the Labour Party has shown as high a respect as any for the canons of orderly debate and for the standards which are essential to selfrespect and to effective argument. There is a clear lino between interjections which do make for the logical thrashing-out of a point, and exclamations which are the fruit of more ill-temper, or which are intended to discompose a speaker.” HOW MR JONES PROFFERED AN APOLOGY. In the House last evening Mr Jones apologised for his behaviour. He said: “In ' the course of yesterday’s proceedings I lost my temper —the only thing I had to lose.— (Laughter.) During that time 1 used 1 certain. language which, I believe, is considered unparliamentary. It is docker’s English.— (" Hear, hear. - ') As I happen to represent a constituency on the east side of London, - mostly inhabited by casual labourers, I thought I was usiner the kind of language they would have expresed under the circumstances when discussing tho situation then existing.' If I have offended against the rules of the House, I bog leave to with- . draw the remarks —(general cheers) —and to ■ express my regret. Possibly in the future I may have an opportunity of using more parliamentary language under similar cir- . cumstances.” —(Cheers,' Tho Speaker said no one would regret more than he if lie should have to take stronger measures than he took. The House laughed at his statement that > ns he represented a constituency in East London mostly inhabited by casual labourers, he thought he was using the kind of language they would use in the circumstances. Sir Jones has “a way with him” when ho likes, and Inst evening that way was to the liking of tho House.