DRUNKENNESS

Southland Times, Issue 20012, 28 October 1926, Page 7

DRUNKENNESS

COMMONS FLUTTER DR. SALTER’S ALLEGATIONS HAS HELPED TO CARRY MEMBERS OUT INTENSE INDIGNATION EXPRESSED (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Rec. 5.5 pan.) London, October 26. Immediately Dr. Salter’s drunkenness charge was again mentioned Dr. Salter rose u> reply. He said, “Speaking with a full sense of responsibility, and regardless of consequences, I am not prepared to withdraw, modify, qualify or apologise for anything I said. 1 said, and repeat it to-day, that I have seen members of all parties, including mine, drunk in this House, not on one occasion, but on many. It is within the common knowledge of practically every member, and therefore it is a piece of affectation and hypocrisy for members to deny ik Between fifty and sixty members of the House of Commons have told me they approve l ' of what I said, though they did not approve of the wisdom and propriety of saying to. Further, I have assisted members of the House to remove at least one hopelessly intoxicated member. It is common knowledge and a smoking room jest.” Dr. Salter agreed with the Speaker that the present Parliament compared favourably with its predecessors. He saw more drunkenness in the 1922-23 Parliament.

“My accusation is not against members as a whole, but against a certain section,” he said. ‘Tf it is breach of privilege to criticise members for disgracing, degrading and lowering the traditions and prestige of the House of Commons, then be it so. The fact remains that many times I have seen members after dinner flushed with wine and with all their higher powers of control abrogated. I have repeatedly been present when disorderly interruptions have been met with the truthful retort Tou’re drunk* ”

Dr. Salter continued that these observations were madp from both sides of the

House. He desired earnestly and sincerely to maintain the high prestige of the House of Commons because he believed Parliament’s tradition alone could save the nation from industrial and economic disaster. If he consented to name the individuals as transgressors he would be guilty of a breach of courtesy, but should the House desire to pursue the matter further and appoint a Committee of Privilege, he would be prepared to supply the information, painful though the ordeal would be. He would continue, inside and outside, to protest against the drinking facilities afforded to members of the House of Commons at all times of the day and night, though not allowed to public bodies or individuals. It was scandalous.

When Dr. Salter sat down the Speaker ordered him to withdraw while the House proceeded to debate the matter. Mr T. P. O’Connor said Dr. Salter’s speech was an instance of ardour and extremeness of opinion which often developed into the rancour of partianship. Drunkenness was rare in the House of Commons to-day. He recalled the story of Pitt, who, when asked if he could see the Speaker, replied that he could see three Speakers. The drinking habits of the people generally had enormously improved and this was no more apparent anywhere than in the House of Commons. Such discussions were unfortunately apt to create false impressions. ‘This is a House of good manners,” he said. “We ought to live up to it” Mr Clynes said it would be best to regard the speech as a well-intentioned and vigorous effort to promote temperance propaganda. He suggested the mover should withdraw his motion and let the House proceed with more important business. Sir A. Holbrook said he regretted Dr. Salter did not apologise. He would willingly have withdrawn the motion only for the studied manner in which Dr. Salter had endeavoured to continue his scandalous charge. Mr Baldwin said for the sake of its own dignity the sooner the House disposed of the matter the better. In an Assembly such as the House of Commons, numbering 600, it was obvious that there must occafoonafly be cases where men forgot themselves temporarily. All were aware of this, but did not talk about it. What hurt their feelings was the fact that one of their number who worked among them and shared their social life should have considered it his duty to speak in that connection outside and then not express regret for doing so. Dr. Salter’s speech made a division obvious. ®T am certain the statement is a libel on the House and a breach of its privileges,” Mr Baldwin concluded. Mt Tjees Smith moved an amendment referring the matter to a Committee ot Privileges. Mr Lloyd George said he regretted the matter had been raised. It was not even approximately correct. It was an untruth and unfair to the most important assembly in the life of the nation. The amendment was defeated and Sir A. Holbrook’s motion carried As no member moved Dr Salter’s suspension, it is presumed that nothing further will be done in regard to Sir A. Holbrook’s motion. The House then proceeded to a general discussion. —A. <t N.Z.