PARLIAMENT’S HONOUR IMPUGNED BY MEMBER

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1040, 2 August 1930, Page 9

PARLIAMENT’S HONOUR IMPUGNED BY MEMBER

CRITICS DISSATISFIED CHARGES OF BRIBERY United P.A.. — By Telegraph —Copyright LONDON, Friday A hushed, crowded House watched the spectacular and dramatic seen*’ when the Speaker admonished Mr. E. Sandham, a Labour member, who had failed to substantiate charges of bribery against his fellow members The Speaker, Captain Fitzroy, took up the typewritten copy of the reproof which he read out in icy, clear tones This declared that no more painful duty could fall to the Speaker, upon whom rested principally the guardian ship of the privileges of the House of Commons, than admonishing a member who had committed a breach of privilege. The Speaker reminded Mr. Sandham that a member could not make public utterances derogatory to the House without being called to account. Mr Sandham had neither made specific, definite charges nor apologised. in stead of upholding the rights, privileges and prestige of the House and the honour of the members he nad gone out of his way publicly to degrade it and them in the eyes of their countrymen and the world. “It now remains for me to admonish you which accordingly 1 do,” concluded the Speaker. This was the first admonition for 30 years. HANGING IN THE AIR

Members of the House of Commons and the newspapers generally consider the ending of the Sandham affair unsatisfactory. They argue that the member’s charges should have been 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 the members—Labour, Liberals and Conservatives—felt that by the silence of Mr. Sandham they were being con demned by implication of» dishonourable conduct without a chance of defence. Other newspapers say that the last has not been heard of the affair. COMMITTEE’S REPORT A verbatim report, has been issued of the proceedings before the committee. Mr. Sandliam was invited by the committee to make a statement. He said that during the time he had been in the House he had seen things degrading to the Labour movement. He had heard and been shown evidence of other things which in his view had 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,” continued Mr. Sandham. “The charges I now make are: (1) That certain members of this House, to my knowledge, have been seen drunk; (2) that certain members have received money from the Moneylenders’ Association in consideration of services rendered during the passage of the Moneylenders’ Bill; (3) that in April the “Daily Mail” openly charged members with using facof the stationery of the House for the purpose of writing what it described as “puff" letters, for which they weie paid sums of money.” * WITNESSES READY

Concerning the first charge, Mr. Sandham said he was prepared to call six witnesses to prove the statement. In regard to the second charge, the witnesses were poor men, he said, whose means of livelihood depended upon their names being kept secret. The Attorney-General said he would not be justified in instituting an in vestigation unless more or less definite and precise charges were preferred, and unless he knew who was involved, or against whom allegations were made.