CENSURE OF M.P.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1930, Page 9

CENSURE OF M.P.

MR. SANDHAM’S CHARGES ‘'GROSS LIBEL ON COMMONS” DRAMATIC SCENE IN HOUSE DEFINITE CHARGE REFUSED By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, July 31. The committee of privileges of the House of Commons reported to-day that Hr. E. Sandham, the Labour member, •had attended and merely repeated his general allegations of corruption and bribery, unsupported by evidence. lie had declined to give particulars for investigation. “Therefore he is guilty of a gross breach of privilege and gioss libel on the whole House, for which he deserves censure.” The House on the Attorney-General’s motion agreed on the report of the committee, after which Mr. Sandham rose with a written speech in his hand, but Mr. P. Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, caught the Speaker’s eye. Mr. Snowden moved that the Speaker admonish Mr. Sandham for a breach of

T Mr Brown eaid he had certain evi- * dence to submit if the inquiry was one in which the witnesses were protected. He pleaded that a way should be found to investigate the charges. The Attorney-General agreed witl the sentiment, but was powerless unless definite charges were made. Mr. Sandham said that in the absence of a guarantee of protection -of a judicial tribunal it was overmuch to as k for namce. INVESTIGATION OFFEREE - Mr. Snowden stated that if Mr. Sandham would make a specific charge he was under no obligation to disclose his informants’ names. "I will then sub mit a’ motion creating a committee oi inquiry general,” he said. (Cheers.) Mr. Sandham did not respond to the invitation. , . .. Mr. Hopkin'Morris demanded if there was evidence that anyone had received money to facilitate the passing of the Moneylenders’ Bill the cha-rge should be immediately made. The motion of censure was agreed to by 304 votes to 13. The Speaker, donning the three-cor-nered hat, dramatically called on Mr. Sandham, who first stood and then sat to receive the Speaker’s censure, a record, of which was entered in the reC °A hushed, crowded house watched the spectacular and dramatic scene when Mr. Speaker admonished Mr. Sandham. After donning the formal cap Captain Fitzroy took up the typewritten copy of the reproof which he read in clear tones. The reproof declared no more painful duty could fall to the Speaker, upon whom rested principally the guardianship of the privileges of the House of Commolie, than the admonishing oi a member who committed a breach oi . privilege. Captain Fitzroy reminded Mr. Sandham that a member couid not make public utterances derogatory to the House without being called to account. Mr. Sandliam neither made specified definite charges nor apologised. Instead of upholding the rights, privileges and prestige of the House of Commons and the honour of the members, he 'had gone out of his way publicly to degrade it and them in the eyes of their countrymen and the world. . “It now remains for us to- admonish you, which accordingly I do,” Captain Fitzroy concluded. “This ie the first admonition for thirty years.” A verbatim report was issued to-day of the proceedings 1 when the committee dealt with the speech by Mr. Sandham. .Mr. Sandham, invited by the committee to make a statement, said that during the time he had been in the House he had seen things degrading to the Labour movement. He had heard and had been shown evidence of other things "which in my view have brought discredit upon the Labour movement. I want the committee to believe J do not wish to insult the House or injure any individual with epecifle chargee. DRUNKENNESS AND BRIBERY. “The charges I now make are: Certain members of' this House to my knowledge have been seen drunk; certain members received money from the Moneylenders’ Association in consideration of services rendered during the passage of the Moneylenders’ Bill; during April the Daily Mail openly charged members with using the facilities of the House stationery for the purpose of writing what were described as ‘puff letters’ for which they were paid sums of money.” Concerning the first charge Mr. Sandham said in his evidence before the committee that he was prepared to call six witnesses to prove the statement. Concerning the second the witnesses were poor men whose means of livelihood depended on their names being kept secret. The Attorney-General said he was not justified in instituting an investigation unless more or less definite and precise charges were preferred and unless he knew who was involved or against whom the allegations were made. The committee stated that the allegations made by Air. Sandham were mere general statements unsupported by any evidence and without names of the persons alleged to have been bribed. The committee therefore told Mr. Sandham it was impossible to recommend an investigation. The committee found that in making his allegations Mr. Sandham was guilty of gross breach of privilege and that in stating that the acceptance of bribes was in keeping with the traditions of the House was guilty -of a gross libel on the House as a whole. The committee considered he deserved the censure of the House. "THE LAST HAS NOT BEEN HEARD” MEMBERS '.ND PAPERS INDIGNANT Pec. 10 p.in. London, Aug. 1. Members of the House of Commons and the newspaper consider the ending of the Sandliam affair unsatisfactory. They argue that the charges should have teen definitely formulated, investigated

and disposed of instead of being left, as it were, hanging in the air. The Daily Herald states that pervading the House was a feeling that, the vague charges still hung “like sinister shadows over the ancient mother of parliaments.” The majority of members, ’ Labour, Liberal and . Tory, felt that by the silence of Mr. Sandliam they were being condemned by implication of dishonourable conduct without a chance of defence. The Daily Express, the Herald and other papers say the last has not been heard of the affair. ■ ■' •