LABOUR MEMBER CENSURED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 17

LABOUR MEMBER CENSURED

Unique Scene in House of Commons

MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS LIBELLED.

For the first time for a long span of years, a Member of the House of Commons has been censured by the Speaker. Some days ago a Labour member (Mr Sandham), levelled charges at members of the House of Commons which were regarded as a gross libel on the Mother of Parliaments, and a grave breach of privilege. Confronted by the Committee of Privilege, Mr Sandham declared: “I stand by every word of the speech.” The Committee found Mr Sandham guilty of breach of privilege, and the Speaker publicly censured the offending Member, a measure of punishment which has not satisfied either politician or Press.

COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS. HOUSE OF COMMONS DECISION. United Press Association—By Electrlo Telegraph—Copyrlgnt LONDON, July 31. The Committee of Privileges reports that Mr E. Sandham attended, and merely repeated his general allegations of corruption and bribery, unsupported by evidence. He declined to give particulars for investigation, and therefore he was guilty of a gross breach of privilege and a gross libel on the whole House for which he deserves censure. Discussion in Parliament. The House of Commons on the At-torney-General’s motion, agreed to the report of the Committee on Privileges relating to Mr Sandham, after which Mr Sandham rose with a written speech in his hand, but Mr Snowden caught the Speaker’s eye. Mr Snowden moved that the Speaker admonish Mr Sandham for his breach of privilege. Mr W. Brown said he had certain evidence to submit if there was an inquiry where witnesses were protected. He pleaded that a way should be found to investigate the charges. The Attorney-General agreed with that amendment, but he was powerless unless definite charges were made. Mr Sandham said that in the absence of a guarantee of protection or a judicial tribunal, it was overmuch to ask for names.

Mr Snowden stated that if Mr Sandham would make a specific charge, he would be under no obligation to disclose the informants’ names. “I will then submit a motion creating the committee of 'inquiry general. 4 * (Cheers.) Mr Sandham did not respond to the invitation. Messrs Hopkin and Morris demanded that if there was evidence that anyone received money to facilitate the passage of the Money 1 l enders’ Bill, the charge should be immediately made. The motion of censure was agreed to by 304 to 13 votes.

The Speaker, donning his three-cor-nered hat, dramatically called on Mr Sandham, who first stood and then sat and received the Speaker’s censure, a record of which was entered in the records.

“UNSATISFACTORY ENDING” POLITICIANS AND PRESS PERTURBED. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received August 1, 9.45 p.m.) LONDON, August 1. Members of the House of Commons, and the newspapers generally, consider the ending of the Sandham affair unsatisfactory. They argue that the charges should have been definitely formulated, investigated, and disposed of, instead of being left, as it were, hanging in the air. “The Daily Herald” (Labour) states that pervading the House of Commons was a feeling that the vague charges still hung like a sinister shadow over the ancient Mother of Parliaments. The majority of the members—Labour, Liberal and Tory—felt that by the silence of Mr Sandham, they were being condemned by implication of dishonourable conduct, without a chance of defence. “The Daily Express” and other papers say that the last has not been heard of the affair.

Committee At Work. A verbatim report was issued to-day of the proceedings when the Privileges Committee dealt with the speech by Mr Sandham, alleging that Labour members accepted bribes.

Mr Sandham’s Charges. Invited by the Committee to make a statement, Mr Sandham said that during the time he had been in the House he had seen thing 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 that I do not wish to insult the House, or injure any individual with specific charges. The charges I now make, are:— (1) That certain members of this House, to my knowledge, have been seen drunk. (2) That certain members received money from the Moneylenders’ Association, in consideration of services rendered during the passage of the Moneylanders’ Bill.

(3) That during April, the "Daily Mail” openly charged members with using facsimiles of the House stationery, for the purpose of writing, which 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.

Charges Not Justified. The Attorney-General said he was not justified in instituting 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 Mr Sandham were mere general statements, unsupported by any evidence, and without the names of the persons alleged to have been bribed. The Committee therefore tc Mr Sandham that 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, he was guilty of gross libel on the House as a whole. They considered that the deserved the censure of the House. Censured by the Speaker. A hushed and crowded House of Commons watched the spectacular and dramatic scene, when the Speaker admonished Mr Sandham. After donning the black cap, Captain Fitzroy took up the type-written copy of the reproof, which he read out in icy, clear tones. This declared: “No more painful duty could fall to the Speaker, upon whom rests principally the guardianship of the privileges of the House of Commons, than admonishing a member who had committed a breach of privilege.” He reminded Mr Sandham that a member could not make public utterances derogatory to the House, without being called to account. Mr Sandham neither made specified and definite charges nor apologised. Instead of upholding the rights, privileges and prestige of the House of Commons, and the honour of members, Mr Sandham had gone out of his way publicly to degrade it and them, in the eyes of his countrymen and the world. “ !t now remains for me to admonish you,” added the Speaker, “which accordingly I do.” This is the first admonition for thirty years. Thei*efore it is a novel event.

[The speech of Mr Sandham delivered at Manchester alleged drunkenness and corruption on the part of Labour members of Parliament 1