Dr. Salter, the Labour Member of Parliament for West Bermondsey, faced a stern rebuke from the House of Commons on Tuesday evening after he refused to retract allegations that some members had been under the influence of alcohol while attending sessions. The controversy unfolded during a heated debate triggered by a motion condemning Dr. Salter for breach of privilege following remarks he made at a temperance meeting.
Dr. Salter had accused members across political parties of public intoxication within the House, asserting that such conduct was widely known and even a subject of jest among parliamentarians. Despite challenges from fellow members and calls for withdrawal, he stood firm, offering to provide names and testify about the incidents he described. He defended his statements as a matter of honesty and temperance advocacy, emphasizing that the number of offenders was small and comparable to the general population.
The motion to censure Dr. Salter was introduced by Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, who sought to protect the House’s reputation amid growing tensions. The debate quickly took on a partisan character. Some Labour members, agitated by recent controversial remarks directed at their party in a published book, sympathized with Dr. Salter’s position. Meanwhile, other members, including the Prime Minister, expressed unequivocal condemnation of his allegations.
Mr. T. P. O’Connor, the "Father" of the House, opened the defense of parliament’s dignity by attesting to the significant improvement in members’ conduct over time and criticising the discussion itself as inappropriate. Labour leader Arthur Henderson’s deputy, Mr. Clynes, suggested treating Dr. Salter’s speech as temperance propaganda and allowing the motion to lapse. However, with Dr. Salter reiterating his charges and Sir Arthur Holbrook refusing to withdraw his motion, the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, described the accusations as outright libel and pledged his support for the motion.
Labour sought to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but the proposal was opposed by Mr. Lloyd George, who warned that such action could jeopardize the House’s standing. When put to a vote, the amendment was defeated by a wide margin of 247 to 95, leading to the acceptance of the original motion declaring Dr. Salter’s conduct a grave breach of privilege.
Throughout the exchange, the Speaker of the House reiterated his confidence in the present Parliament’s standard of conduct, dismissing the possibility that the institution was declining compared to its predecessors. The debate cast an unflattering light on the chamber, highlighting tensions between personal conviction, party loyalty, and parliamentary decorum.