With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which a number of names of Members of this House were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on 16th April"—

I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman right away. He started by saying that it was with my permission. I had already informed him, when the matter was submitted to me, that my permission had not been granted because there was no prima facie case.

I meant that I was rising with your permission, Mr. Speaker, not that I was moving my Motion with your permission. The Motion is to appoint a Committee of Privileges to inquire into the circumstances in which a number of names of Members were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on r6th April to Signor Nenni wishing him outstanding success in the forthcoming Italian elections.

The facts are stated in today's "Daily Herald," which says that on Friday last a telegram was sent purporting to be in the names of 37 Members of this House. Today's "Daily Herald" says that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) states: I deny all knowledge of the telegram. I did not see it. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) says: I refused to sign when I was asked, and I certainly did not sign. The hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Long-den) says: I knew about the telegram, but I did not sign it. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) says: I disclaim having signed the Nenni telegram. In my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which does give rise to a breach of Privilege for this reason. In sending telegrams overseas, particularly on the eve of such an important election as the Italian Elections, Members of Parliament are responsible for what they do, and it is part of their Parliamentary conduct. In my submission, their Parliamentary conduct is not strictly limited to everything they do in the House of Commons, in as much as the consequences of the Italian Elections will influence the foreign affairs Debate now pending. It is, indeed, a very serious matter, because, if it be the case, as hon. Members have stated—and there are other hon. Members who have made similar statements—that they did not sign the telegram, then some of the signatures on the telegram were, in fact, forged; and others concerned were obtained by fraud. In all the circumstances I ask that I may move that a Committee of Privileges be appointed to inquire into the whole of the circumstances with the sole object of getting the facts ascertained and decided upon by an entirely impartial tribunal.

The Committee of Privileges already exists, and, therefore, one has not to be appointee. It all depends whether I rule that there is a prima facie case. While I quite agree that this is a serious matter, I have to deal with the question whether it affects Privilege or not. This is a matter which affects individual Members. They are Members of Parliament, but this is a question affecting certain individuals, and is not a matter of Privilege. I rule that there is no prima facie case.

In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will find time for the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of 10 hon. Members for a Select Committee to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which a number of names of hon. Members were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on 16th April to Signor Nenni, wishing him outstanding success in the Italian Elections?

I will consider it. I have not seen the Motion. I will consider it, if it is on the Order Paper. But I am not sure that there are not other methods, and more appropriate methods, of dealing with this matter. My hon. Friend may be assured that, as far as I am concerned, it will be dealt with.

In view of the observation of my right hon. Friend, would it be proper if I said something in my turn? As one of those who adhered to the telegram which was sent to the official Italian Socialist Party—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I should like to say a word. It has been suggested that certain Members of this House have sought to dissociate themselves from—

A personal statement must not bring in provocative matters. It must be a statement of fact. While I quite agree that a matter of Privilege may concern the hon. Gentleman, I have ruled that there is not a prima facie case, and, therefore, that is out of the way. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

In those circumstances I reserve my observations to some other occasion.

If this matter is to be dealt with on the basis of discipline, ought not the House of Commons to decide the issue? Surely it ought not to be decided only by a Party verdict?

This is a point about which I do not want to pronounce final judgment until I see the notice of the Motion which my hon. Friend has said he has put down. It is really a question of what is the most appropriate and effective way of dealing with it. It is going to be dealt with effectively.

If the fact that hon. Members' names have been used in vain is true, then have those hon. Members no redress in this House whatever?

Not in the House. An hon. Member has his redress because the matter was published in the newspapers, and he has redress in the courts.

We all realise that the Leader of the House must have time to consider this matter, but will he remember that this is not only a question which might be one for Party discipline—as to the contents of the telegram which was sent—but that there is a very grave allegation, that names were appended without authorisation? That is a matter which concerns the House as a whole, because if that were to spread we might all find ourselves involved in things with which we did not agree. Moreover, the denials which come later never are quite able to catch up with the original story.

I shall certainly keep that point in mind and take it into account.

Whatever may be the pros and cons of this matter or the effective treatment of it, may I make it clear that the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) in no way speaks for the political conscience of myself and many other hon. Members on this side of the House?

Have not the facts of the case made that abundantly plain already?

There are an awful lot of people on this side of the House for whose consciences I should not like to have to speak.