RIOT IN COMMONS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 205, 18 November 1927, Page 1

RIOT IN COMMONS

LABOUR CENSURE MOTION WILD SHOUTS FOR BALDWIN m SPEAKER ADJOURNS SITTING CWP' ~ Sj/ Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. Received 10.30 &.m. LONDON, Thursday. r 3 uproar that arose in the House of Commons, from Mr. Ramsay Macdonald’s motion of censure of the Government’s policy in regard to the coalmining idustry, may result in Labour being robbed of further opportunity of discussion.

TN the House, Mr. Ramsay MacA Donald asked whether In view of the grave importance of the position of the coal Industry, the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, would take an early opportunity of making a statement on the subject. Mr. Baldwin replied that the Government’s position in respect of the coal industry would have been fully explained yesterday by Sir Philip Cun-liffe-Lister but for the unfortunate incident which then occurred. “In the circumstances,” he added, “I cannot promise a further opportunity of discussion.” Mr. MacDonald then gave notice of motion, protesting that on the coal industry motion involving the censure of the Government, the Prime Minister had deliberately evaded any defence or explanation. Mr. MacDonald had concluded his speech the day before by saying: “We want to know what the Government is doing in the matter, and the President of the Board of Trade is not the Minister to answer.” This remark led to an unusual scene. The Minister referred to, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, rose to reply, and was greeted with insistent cries for the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin. Sir Philip was unable to make himself heard. Mr. D. Kirkwood, Labour member for Dumbarton, shouted to the Speaker, “Cannot you move that the Minister be no longer heard? This is a man’s job, not a boy’s.” The Speaker again called on Sir Philip to continue his speech, and tried to restore order, but owing to the continued uproar he suspended the sitting for an hour. CRIES FOR BALDWIN When the House resumed after the adjournment the benches were packed. Mr. Baldwin was present. The Speaker called on Sir Philip, who rose (nstantly. The Labour members at once began in chorus to demand that Mr. Baldwin should speak. In an interval of the babel Mr. J. H. Thomas, Labour member for Derby, asked the Speaker If there were any precedent for a Prime Minister refusing to reply on a vote of censure moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Thomas: It may not be strictly so, but the matter affects the whole House. I do not desire to attack Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, but the Minister last year, at my own request, did not take part in the coal debates. It was stated at the time that this was due to the fact that he held interests in coal mines.

The Speaker again called on Sir Philip, and the babel again broke out.

The Labour members cried in chorus: “We want Mr. Baldwin.” Sir Philip several times tried to speak, but there was always one interjector shouting amid the disorder: “We want the organgrinder, not the monkey.” After trying vainly to ootam order te speaker said: “Under my powers I adjourn the House.” The announcement was received with jeers and catcalls. The Labour members all stood in their places. The members of the Cabinet were the first to leave the House, and the Labour members hissed Mr. Baldwin as he left. Some of them shouted "Coward!” FEARS OF FREE FIGHT The Government members, who were by then walking out, looked back and shouted heatedly, “Disgraceful!” A free fight seemed imminent, until the Government members shouted, “Let us leave them to it.” After that the majority of them slowly filed out. Only a number of the Labour members were left in the House, but the atmosphere of heat gave way to liveliness when a Labour member went through the form of putting the vote of censure and declaring it carried. One Government member went up to a Labour member on the floor of the House, gesticulating and raising his arms, but other members, fearing they would come to blows, separated them. This provoked shouts of "Come out into the corridors.” After this the House emptied rapidly. DIVIDED OPINIONS Opiinons in the lobby of the. House of Commons and In the newspapers to-day are divided on the question whether Mr. Baldwin should have spoken in the debate. The "Daily Telegraph” says it would be an intolerable burden if the Prime Minister were expected to take the lead In replying to a vote of censure on any department, while the Minister of that department sjgt^^pent. The “Daily Express” says Mr. Baldwin should have met the attack, because it was a vote of censure on his Government and because the problem is a pressing one. The “Daily Chronicle” says surely the least Mr. Baldwin could have done was to rise immediately after Mr. MacDonald had spoken, to show the House that he was alive to the tragedy of his fellowcountrymen. The political correspondent of the “Daily Herald” says the Opposition, before the debate began, had learned that the Prime Minister had no intention of speaking. The correspondent of the “Morning Post,” on the contrary, says that although no arrangement was made for the Prime Minister to intervene, he was quite prepared to speak, if it were the general desire. It was in pursuance of the ordinary course that Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, as the Minister responsible, should reply. The correspondent says, with reference to Mr. J. H. Thomas’s remark, that Sir Philip had disposed of all his coalmining interests, that he has every reason to believe that Mr. MacDonald had been made aware of the fact, but presumably had not passed on his information to Mr. Thomas.—A. and N.Z.