PARLIAMENTARIANS AND DRINK.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19981, 24 December 1926, Page 22

PARLIAMENTARIANS AND DRINK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS • DEBATE. t ! CHARGES OF DRINKING. n e { DE.AN INGE’S BOOK, n (From Ore Own Correspondent.) 1 LONDON, November 3. Dr Sailer, Labour M.P. for West Beru • niondsey, attended the House of Commons to explain a speech which he made at a s temperance meeting, in which ho alleged d tfaai he had seen certain members of the House under the influence of drink. Chal- - longed by a motion which sought to convict him of breach of privilege. Dr Salter e saw lit to reiterate his charges, and the i- sequel to an aggressive speech of self-justi-fication was a debate upon which admirers of the House of Commons will look back 1 with but faint satisfaction, i Mr N. Maclean, a Socialist M.P., urew attention to a statement in a book called "England,” by Dean Inge, in which, he f said, the author made certain reflections 1 upon certa.ii] members sitting in a particular portion of the House, and cfeduc--3 tively made reflections on the Speaker, the Deputy-Speaker, and the Chairman of J Ways and Means. Ho referred to the , words, “That the incompetence and corruption of public men thrown up by univerj sal suffrage are almost taken for granted. and that the personnel of the House of t , Commons is visibly deteriorating.—(Laughr ter.) A new type of Labour member—(cries of “Ah!”) —is sometimes a drunken y blackguard—(laughter)—and turns the , House of Commons into a bear garden.” BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Did not that, he asked, constitute a x breach of the privileges of that House? “I ask,” he said, “whether it is not possible 1 in any way, either by summoning the ros verend gentleman who wrote the book to the Bar of the House, or by referring the | matter to the Committee of Privileges, to “ get tKs particular matter deleted.” The Speaker: According to the rules, a 5 matter concerning a breach of privilege must be raised at the first available op- ■ portunity with the production of the paper or book in which the passage is contained. 8 I find that the book to which the hon. member refers was published more than a month ago, so that his plea fails clearly on • the point of time. I do not, therefore, . give any ruling on the question of sub- • stance in the passage complained of; but ■ perhaps it may be sufficient for me to say that in my experience, now a somewhat long one, the present Parliament can com- • pare favourably with any of its predecessors. i The debate was resumed on the motion of Sir A. Holbrook condemning the rec marks made by Dr Saltei - on alleged drunkenness in the House as a gross libel on its members and a grave breach of its 3 privileges. = DR SALTER REFUSES TO RETRACT. Dr Salter explained that he was not in r the House when Sir A. Holbrook made his complaint. The speech of which complaint was made was delivered a fortnight ago. With regard to the indictment, speaking with a full sense of responsibility and regardless of any consequences to himself, he was not prepared to withdraw, modify, or apologise for anything he had said on this matter. He proposed to repeat the words ho had used with the indulgence of the House. At the same time, the House should certainly know the general setting of those remarks in the framework of the speech and not judge by two or three items. The speech was delivered at a small local temperance meeting.—(Ministerial laughter.) He made a historical review of the drink 1 problem for a hundred years. Ho pointed out that at that time drunkenness was .common in all ranks of society, and the old phrase “Drunk a s a Lord !” indicated that the practice was conventional in the upper circles. He used the words comolained of, and he repeated them in that House, that he had seen members of all parties in that House—his own party, he regretted to say, included—drunk in that House not on one occasion, but on many occasions.—(Cries of “Name,” and interruptions.) TRADUCING THE MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS. , So this remarkable performance went on. Unable at first to believe their ears, members all over the House found themselves at last challenging every new charge with indignation. That he was traducing the Mother of Parliaments in the eyes_ of the world never seemed to enter the mind of the speaker, who, with a passion for personal vindication, offered to supply to a committee the names of those whose conduct he impugned and to give evidence against them. The House, despite its vexation, could hardly repress a smile when Dr Salter appealed to it to show a proper sense of proportion and to remember that, after all, tire number of offenders in the House, like those outside, was relatively small. He even agreed with the Speaker’s pronouncement that the present House might claim to compare favourably with its predecessors. But, as to the charges he had tirade he was entirely unrepentant. TEMPERANCE PROPAGANDA. At the close of his statement. Dr Salter withdrew, at the direction of the Speaker, while his alleged breach was debated. Appropriately, the first to rise in defence of the dignity of the House was its “Father," Mr T. P. O’Connor, who from his own long experience testified to the marked improvement that had come over the habits of its members. With dignity, Mr O’Connor protested against the discussion of such a subject. Particularly did he deprecate anything in the nature of a tribunal, fearmg not the “washing of dirty linen, ’ but the “dirtying of clean linen.” Mr Clynes, who was leading the Labour Party in the absence of Mr MacDonald, warmly corroborated Mr O’Connor as to the pronounced progress to be seen in the House, as outside. He was of opinion that the speech of Dr Salter might best bo treated as temperance propaganda, and the motion be allowed to drop. In view of the reiteration of the charges Sir Arthur Holbrook declined to withdraw, and then the Prime Minister intervened. He expressed the gratitude of the House for the vindication of Mr O’Connor, with which he personally agreed. Mr Baldwin was quite clear that such statements were a libel, and a breach of privilege, and he would therefore vote for the motion. Finally, the motion declaring a grave breach of privilege was ■ allowed to go through without division.