• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Supplement: House of Assembly Debates...
 Statutory Instruments Supplement...














Group Title: Official gazette, Barbados
Title: The official gazette
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076861/00054
 Material Information
Title: The official gazette
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 33-42 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Barbados
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: BridgetownBarbados Published by authority
 Subjects
Subject: Law -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: Supplements issued for some of the numbers.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076861
Volume ID: VID00054
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001043625
oclc - 12594829
notis - AFC6434

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 639
        Page 640
        Page 641
        Page 642
        Page 643
        Page 644
    Supplement: House of Assembly Debates for 13th February, 1968
        Page A-1158
        Page A-1159
        Page A-1160
        Page A-1161
        Page A-1162
        Page A-1163
        Page A-1164
        Page A-1165
        Page A-1166
        Page A-1167
        Page A-1168
        Page A-1169
        Page A-1170
        Page A-1171
        Page A-1172
        Page A-1173
        Page A-1174
        Page A-1175
        Page A-1176
        Page A-1177
        Page A-1178
        Page A-1179
        Page A-1180
        Page A-1181
        Page A-1182
        Page A-1183
        Page A-1184
        Page A-1185
        Page A-1186
        Page A-1187
        Page A-1188
        Page A-1189
        Page A-1190
        Page A-1191
        Page A-1192
        Page A-1193
        Page A-1194
        Page A-1195
    Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 44; S.I. 99
        Page B-1
Full Text












VOL. CIII


*lfietaI


PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY


BRIDGETOWN, BARBADOS, 22ND JULY, 1968


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Gazette Notices
Applications for Liquor Licences District "A":
Ernest Arthur Cadogan.........................
Isalene Shepherd................................
Appointments:
J. F. Bourne to be Senior Clerk..............
L. Vaughan to be Assistant Accountant....
Consular: Garett Gordan Sweany as Vice
Consul of the U.S.A. at Barbados............
Executorial: Eloise Estelle Phillips...............
Industrial Incentives re reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete components.................
Patent: "The Clarification of Sugar Juice".......
Provost Marshal re land at Middleton, St. George.
Resignation: Mrs. Glynn We llington..................
Resolutions Nos. 50 and 51, 1968 for $450,000
and $8,100.........................................
Retirement: Seymour Lashley, Writ Server..........

House of Assembly Debates for 13th February, 1968
Legal Supplement


640
640

639
639

639
644

640
643
644
639

641, 642
639


S.I. 1968 No. 99: Export Industry (Umbrellas) Order, 1968.


NOTICE NO. 597
GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Consular

The Government of Barbados has been
pleased to accord provisional recognition to
Mr. Garett Gordon Sweany as Vice Consul
of the United States of America at Barbados
pending the issue of Her Majesty's Exequatur.

(M.P. 9037/3/T4).


6 22


Appointments

J. F. Bourne to be Senior Clerk, Office
of the Prime Minister (Training Division)
with effect from 15th July, 1968.

(M.P. 1310/39/8).


L. Vaughn to be Assistant Accountant,
Office of the Prime Minister (Training
Division) with effect from 15th July, 1968.

(M.P. 1515/39/7/7).


Resignation

Mrs. Glynn Wellington, Laboratory As-
sistant, Enmore Health Centre, resigned from
the Public Service with effect from 8th July,
1968.

(M.P. 4727). -


Retirement

Seymour Lashley, Writ Server Police
Department to retire from the Public Service
with effect from 18th August, 1968.

(M.P. P8801).


1+


NO. 59'


(Ib








OFFICIAL GAZETTE Juy 22. 196


NOTICE NO. 598
THE INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES ACT, 1963
(Section 6)
NOTICE
The Honourable Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance pursuant to Section 6 of
the Industrial Incentives Act, 1963, hereby
gives notice that he is about to be asked to
consider whether for the purposes of the
abovementioned Act, a company to be regis-
tered as Precast Components Ltd. should be
declared as an approved enterprise in respect
of precast, reinforced and prestressed con-
crete components at a factory to be situated
at A Government Industrial Park.

Any person interested in the manufacture
or importation of the products in question
who objects to the proposed Company being
declared an approved enterprise for the pur-
poses of the Industrial Incentives Act, 1963,
should forward to the Director (Ag.) Eco-
nomic Planning Unit, Office of the Prime
Minister and a copy to Manager, Barbados
Development Board to reach him not later
than Monday 29th July, 1968, a statement in
writing setting forth the grounds of his
objection.


NOTICE NO. 583 (second publication)
PUBLIC NOTICE

RatentsAct, 1903-7, Sec. 10)

NOTICE is hereby given that THE
TONGAAT SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED of
Maidstone, Natal, Republic of South Africa,
lodged in this Office an application and com-
plete specification for a patent under the
Patent Act 1903 (1903-7), for an invention for
"THE CLARIFICATION OF SUGAR JUICE."

The said Specification has been accepted
and is open to public inspection at this Office.

C. A. ROCHEFORD
Registrar.


NOTICE NO. 599

LIQUOR LICENCE NOTICE

(Act 1957-40)


APPLICANT:

OCCUPATION:

PREMISES:


ERNEST ARTHUR
CADOGAN
Secretary, Barclays
Bank B'dos Sports Club.
A two storey wall build-
ing situated at Wildey.


Dated this 11th day of July 1968.

Signed: ERNEST ARTHUR CADOGAN
Applicant.


This Application for a Club Licence will
be considered at a Licensing Court to be held
at Magistrates' Courts Dist. 'A' on Thursday
the 15th day of August 1968 at 9 o'clock a.m.


GEORGE COLLYMORE
Clerk to Licensing Authority.


NOTICE NO. 600

LIQUOR LICENCE NOTICE

(Act 1957-40)


APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
PREMISES:


ISALENE SHEPHERD
Fittz Village, St. James.
A board house situated
at Bay Street.


Dated this 15th day of July 1968.

Signed: ISALENE SHEPHERD
Applicant.

This Application for a Retail Liquor Li-
cence will be considered at a Licensing Court
to beheld at Magistrates' Courts Dist. 'A' on
Thursday the 15th day of August, 1968 at
9 o'clock a.m.

GEORGE COLLYMORE
Clerk to Licensing Authority.


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


July 22. 1968








OFFICIAL GAZETTE


Resolution No. 50/1968


M.P. 5001/8/T.14


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.

Resolved that the sum of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS be granted from the Consolidated Fund and placed at the dis-
posal of the Government to supplement the Estimates, 1968-69, Part II -
Capital as shown in the Supplementary Estimate. 1968-69 No. 14 which
forms the Schedule to this Resolution and that the Senate be invited to
concur herein, and if concurred in.

Resolved that iis Excellency the Governor General be asked to
asrent nnd takp the necessary steps to give effect to this Resolution.
17th July, 1968.

J. E. THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.

Concurred in by the Senate the 18th day of July, 1968.

E. S. ROBINSON
President.
I assent,
A. WINSTON SCOTT,
Governor-General.
19th July, 1968.


SCHEDULE
Supplementary Estimate 1968-69 No. 14


Provision in Provision in Suip!enentary
HEAD AND ITEM Approved Estimates Supplementary Fsti- Provision
1968-69 mates Nos. 1- 13 Pequired
OF
Statutory Other Statutory Other Statutory Other
APPROVED ESTIMATES Expendi- Expendi. Expendi- Expendi- Fxpendi. Fxpendi-
ture ture ture ture ture ture


$ $ $ $ $ $
PART II CAPITAL

HEAD 108 MINISTRY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Item 1 (New) Acquisition of
Property. .. 450,000


July 22. 1968


OFFICIAL aAZETTE








OFFICIAL GAZETTE July 2Z 1968


Resolution No. 51/1968


M.P. 5001/8/T.14


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.

Resolved that the sum of EIGHT THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS be grahtesd from the Consolidated Fund and placed at the
disposal of the Government to supplement the Estimates, 1968-69,
Part I Current as shown in the Supplementary Estimates, 1968-69 No.
15 vhich forms the Schedule to this Resolution and that the Senate be
invited to concur herein, and if concurred i-i.
Resolved that lis Excellency the Governor General be asked to
asse .. and take the necessary steps to give effect to this Resolution.
17th July, .1968.

J. E. THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.

Concurred in by the Senate the 18th day of July, 1968.

E. S. ROBINSON
President.

I assent,
A. WINSTON SCOTT,
Governor-General.
19th July, 1968.


SC'IEDU LE
Supplementary Estimate 1968-69 No, 15


Provision in Provision in Supplementary
:lEAD AND ITEM Approved Estimates Supplementary Esti- Provision
1968-69 mates Nos 1 14 Pequired
OF
Statutory Other Statutory Other Statutory Other
Fxpendi Expendi. Expendi. Expendi Fxpendi- Expendi-
APPROVED ESTIMATES ture ture ture ture ture ture


$ $ $ $ $
PART I CURRENT
'EAD 22 MINISTRY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Item ?0 -- Non-Established
Staff 60.000 8,100


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


July 22. 1968








Jul 22 198OFCA AET


COMMERCIAL BANK STATISTICS


Consolidated Quarterly Statement for end of March, 1968, Section
13 (1) (b) of the Banking Act, 1963.


ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMERS' LIABILITIES TO COMMERCIAL BANKS
IN RESPECT OF LOANS, ADVANCES AND OTHER ASSETS.
(All figures in E.C. dollars 000 omitted)
I. Short Term Loan and Advances
(i) Primary Production ... ... 11,634
(ii) Other Industries ... ... ... 34,662
(iii) Personal ... ... ... ... 6,991
(iv) Other Advances ... ... ... 7,221 60,508


II. Long Term Loans for Capital Purposes
(i) Primary ... ... ... ... 3,354
(ii) Other Industries ... ... ... 9,090
(iii) Personal ... ... ... ... 2,094
(iv) Other Advances ... ... ... 2,384


16,922
77,430


COMMERCIAL BANK STATISTICS


Consolidated Statement of Assets and Liabilities as at
31st March, 1968.


(All figures in E.C. dollars 000 omited)

LIABILITIES ASSETS
Notes in Circulation 19 Cash
Deposits Balances due by other
(i) Demand 37,679 Banks in Barbados


Time
Savings


27,965
40,671


Balances due to

(i) Banks in Barbados 330
(ii) Banks abroad 5,696

Other Liabilities 5,953

118,313


Balance due from
Banks abroad

Loans and Advances

Other Assets


2,463


1,271



26,188

77,430

10,961


118,313


(ii)
(iii)


July 22, 1968


OFFICIAL GAZETTE







I .I.


NOTICE NO. 443 (fourth publication)

NOTICE

Re the Estate of

ELOISE ESTELLE PHILLIPS

Deceased


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat all per-
sons having any debt or claim upon or affect-
ing the estate of Eloise Estelle Phillips, late
of Black Rock in the parish of Saint Michael
in this Island, who died in this Island on the
1st day of September 1962, are hereby re-
quested to send particulars of their claims
duly attested to the undersigned in care of
Cottle, Catford & Co., 17 High Street, Bridge-
town, on or before the 8th day of August 1968,
after which date we shall proceed to distri-
bute the assets of the estate among the par-
ties entitled thereto having regard to the
debts and claims only of which we shall then
have had notice; and that we shall not be li-
able for assets so distributed to any person
of whose debt or claim we shall not have had
notice at the time of such distribution.

And all persons indebted to the said es-
tate are requested to settle their accounts
without delay.

Dated this 29th day of May 1968.

PETER MADESON GUBI,
DAVE ARRINDELL BANFIELD,
Executors of the Will of Eloise Estelle
Phillips, deceased.


NOTICE NO. 442 (second publication)


PUBLIC OFFICIAL UNRESERVED SALE



(The Provost Abrshal's Act 1904 (1904-6)

Sec. 50)



On Friday the 25th day of July, 1968, at
2 o'clock p.m. will be set up for sale by the
Acting Chief Marshal at the Registration Of-
fice, Law Courts, Coleridge Street, Bridge-
town by PUBLIC COMPETITION WITHOUT
RESERVE.

All that certain piece or parcel of land
situate at Middleton in the Parish of Saint
George in this Island containing by admeas-
urement Two Roods or thereabouts abutting
and bounding on lands of Theophilus Brereton
on lands of Providence Plantation on lands of
Bernice Evelyn and on a road or however else
the same may abut and bound attached from
Hampton St. Clair Oliver, Owner.

Any persons claiming any estates, rights,
titles, interests, liens or incumbrances
affecting the above described parcel of land
should bring in their claims before the date
of sale.



Dated this 20th day of May, 1968.


L. L. DURANT,
Chief Marshal Acting.


Government Printing Office


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


July 22. 19fi










THE





House of Assembly Debates




(OFFICIAL REPORT)


SECOND SESSION OF 1966 71


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, 13th February, 1968
Pursuant to the adjournment, the House of As-
sembly met at 12 o'clock (noon) today.

PRESENT

His Honour J. E. T. BRANCKER, Q.C., F.Z.S.,
(Speaker) Mr. K. N. R. HUSBANDS; Mr. E. ST.A. HOLDER, J.P.;
Hon. C. E. TALMA, (Minister of Health and Community Develop-
ment); Hon. J. C. TUDOR, M.A., (Leader of the House); Mr. J. W.
CORBIN; Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, (Minister of Trade, Tourism,
Co-operatives and Fisheries); Mr. R. ST.C. WEEKES, J.P.; Mr.
W. R. LOWE; Hon. N. W. BOXILL, (Minister of Communications
and Works); Mr. J. B. YEARWOOD, (Chairman of Committees);
Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS, (Minister of Agriculture, Labour and
National Insurance); Sir G. H. ADAMS, C.M.G., Q.C., B.A.,
D.C.L. (Hon.) (Leader of the Opposition); Mr. W. C. B. HINDS
His Honour G. E. SARGEANT, (Deputy Speaker); Mr. C. A. E.
HOPPIN, J.P. and Mr. J. B. SPRINGER.

Prayers were read.

Messrs MOTTLEY, SMITH and St. JOHN entered the House
and took their seats.

MINUTES

Mr. SPEAKER: I have the honour to inform the
House that the Minutes of the meeting of Tuesday,
30th January, 1968, and of Friday, 2nd February, 1968
are, according to my advices, duly circulated and un-
less there is any objection, I declare firstly, the Min-
utes of Tuesday, 30th January, 1968, duly confirmed.
In respect of the Minutes of Friday, 2nd February,
1968, I hear no objection, and I declare those Minutes
duly to be confirmed.

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE SENATE

Mr. SPEAKER: I have the honour to announce to
the House that I have received a letter from the
President of the Senate dated 31st January, 1968,
and it reads as follows:-

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I have been informed that on Tuesday last, 30th
January, 1968, certain Hon. Members of the House of


Assembly made use of the Senate's Lunch room be-
tween the hours of 2.00 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. without
asking my permission.

I now write to bring to Your Honour's attention
that under the Standing Orders of the Senate I am
charged, as President of the Senate, with the respon-
sibility of granting permission to the Press and
strangers to make use of the Senate Chamber and its
precincts. I also have power under the same Standing
Orders to order the withdrawal of the Press and
strangers from any part of the Senate Chamber and its
precincts.

My permission by certain Hon. Members of the
House of Assembly to use the Senate's lunch room was
neither sought nor asked for, and in the circum-
stances the use of this room without my permission
was, in my opinion, a breach of parliamentary pri-
vilege by those Hon. Members involved.

I would thus be greatly obliged if you, Mr.
Speaker, could convey to those Hon. Members in-
volved my displeasure of their action, and trust that
this act of discourtesy to the Senate will not be re-
peated in the future.

I am,
Yours faithfully,
E. S. ROBINSON
President of the Senate.

In acknowledging receipt of that letter, I ad-
dressed the following to Mr. President of the Senate.

Mr. President of the Senate:-

Dear Mr. President,

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter to
me dated 31st January, 1968, and I thank you for
same.

I have carefully noted contents of the saiddocu-
ment, and particularly your expression of "dis-
pleasure" therein contained. Your communication
will certainly be read by me to the House, and thereby
will be conveyed to Hon. Members as you request -
your feelings, Mr. President, inthis matter. The last
mentioned I fully appreciate; and it is hoped that yo'
will never again be "informed" of any apparent "f


. I







1159


of discourtesy to the Senate", or of any alleged
"breach of Parliamentary Privilege".

I am,
Mr. President,
Yours faithfully,
J. E. T. BRANCKER
Speaker, General Assembly

LETTER FROM THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Mr. SPEAKER: I have also to acknowledge re-
ceipt of a letter from the Hon. Leader of the House
wherein he states:-

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to enclose a copy of a letter
which I have sent to His Honour the President of the
Senate in respect of an incident which occurred in the
precincts of the Senate Chamber on the 30th January,
1968.

Your Honour may wish to apprise hon. members
of its contents.

Yours sincerely,
J. CAMERON TUDOR
Leader of the House.

The letter, a copy of which has been submitted to
me and of which I am now apprising hon. members,
reads as follows:-

Dear Mr. President,

Mr. Speaker has informed me that he has re-
ceived a letter from Your Honour protesting against
the use without previous permission, of the ante room
of the Senate Chamber "by certain members of the
House of Assembly" on Tuesday, 30th January, 1968.

The fact is that the majority Party in the As-
sembly found it desirable to hold discussions during
the luncheon recess, which, according to our Standing
orders, is only thirty minutes, on certain matters
affecting the public business of the house on that day.
For the sake of convenience, the room used appeared
the most suitable, but through an oversight prior in-
timation of this desire was not given to Your Honour.

This omission, for which I now express regret,
was in no way intended as an invasion of rights or
privileges of the Senate. I must state, however, that
on that occasion there was no intrusion into the Senate
Chamber and that no such action was ever contem-
plated.

On behalf of the majority Party I wish once again
to express regret and to request that the Hon. Senate
be informed accordingly.

J. CAMERON TUDOR
Leader of the House.
Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Is that letter intended,
Mr. Speaker, I to speak on behalf of the House? Your


Honour, of course, makes a statement as Speaker in
the normal routine way, but is the letter intended to be
an apology to the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not in a position to say
whether it is intended to be an apology to the House,
but I have been asked to apprise the House of this
document which has, according to my understanding,
been sent to the President of the Senate.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I should just like to findout this
for clarification Sir. Is it not traditional that a mem-
ber of the Government would make a statement to
which no member can reply unless he gave notice of
it? I thinkthat that was the procedure. A member pre-
sents a petition, but the House does not consider a
letter which is sent from a member as a member of
the House. It is not sent on behalf of the Government;
it is sent by a Party. This House does not consider
letters; it considers Petitions.
12.25 p.m.

I just want to be clear on this. I have a little ex-
perience; I have not had sufficient legal background
or anything of the sort to say that I am absolutely
right, but I have heard it so often argued by such
parliamentarians, by such legal luminaries in this
House, that this House must consider Petitions and
not letters. But the Minister of Government can make
a Statement to this House and we have to sit. If we
want to debate that Statement, we would have to give
notice of a motion to debate that Statement. I do not
think anybody would want to worry to debate that
Statement.

I would like to know if this is creating a prece-
dent, then it would be possible that I can write a letter
to you, Sir, and we claim the same rights and privi-
leges that you have to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: And if the circumstances were
similar, the claim would be laid without hesitation.

Mr. MOTTLEY: But it is not inthe same circum-
stances. As far as this letter is concerned, I can see
the President of the Other Place writing Your Honour
a letter which you draw to the attention of this House,
but not a member of this House who can make a State-
ment. It is a matter for you.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: It is absolutely im-
proper. An insult to a single member of this House is
an insult to the House, and an insult of one member of
this House to the Other Place is an insult of the whole
House. And it is extraordinary I have to try to use
mild language that the Leader of the House should
take it upon himself to speak for only half of the
House in apparently what was intended to be a letter
of apology. It is an insult to the House what he has
done.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am satisfied that the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition is now making a speech. He
has made his point of order and I would remind hon.
members that the first business to be done today is,
of course, this motion of privilege.






1160


Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of
order. Before dealing with this motion of privilege, I
am speaking directly in relation to a letter which was
read to this House and purporting to have come from
the Leader of this House, I suppose, Sir, in his ca-
pacity as a member of this House, not a member of
Government.

I do not think there can be a precedent even for
members writing to the Speaker of the House, save
on the question of resignation. It is not done on the
question of asking for leave because that is done in
the House by the member himself or by another hon.
member speaking on behalf of that member. But if a
precedent is opened that members are allowed to
write letters, Mr. Speaker, well, the gap is being
opened and no one knows what confusion will arise
after that precedent is made.

Again, Sir, if we notice what occasioned that
letter. Mr. President of the Other Place brought it
out that in his opinion a breach of privilege had been
committed by certain not by all members of the
House. Again, to show the absurdity of it, the Leader
of the House is not a Speaker, or part of the House,
but for the entire House he speaks.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will I point outto the hon. mem-
ber that he is now proceeding, apparently, to make a
speech, and also in that speech to deal with a letter
which I received from the President of the Senate.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am dealing
with the beginning of a dangerous precedent the fact
that a member of the House is writingto Mr. Presi-
dent on behalf of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly hear the hon. senior
member for St. Peter because of some interruption.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Yes, Sir. I am sayingvery cal-
culatingly and I am expressing the same sentiments
expressed by the hon. senior member for the City.
A member of the public cannot address a letter to Mr.
Speaker. Yes, he can in Mr. Speaker's capacity as an
esquire but not in Mr. Speaker's capacity for it to
reach this House. A member of this House is not al-
lowed to do it.

That letter is absolutely out of order, Mr.
Speaker, and if that is entertained as a document to be
read to the House, a dangerous precedent is being
made. There is no doubt about that; andwhat actuates
me more, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that as a member
of this House I am concerned, How can we speak as
members of this House? Are we the Government? He
must not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, our ancient rights and pri-
vileges must be maintained and must be upheld by Mr.
Speaker always. I speak of Mr. Speaker quite im-
personally.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraidthat the hon. member
has transcended a point of order and is making a
speech.


Mr. HUSBANDS: In order to elucidate a point of
order. I just cannot getup and say: "Mr. Speaker, Sir,
the hon. member came in here and read a letter and
it is out of order. I think that I should be allowed
to do much more than that.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but the hon. senior member
for St. Peter has the gift of concise explanation which,
perhaps, may be denied to certain other parliamen-
tarians.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I accept the
compliment, but I hope that I have made myself cry-
stal clear and pointed out to the House the danger of
such an opening. Thank you, Sir.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I called on Your Honour
to rule when I made a point of order and said that that
letter was an insult to the House and out of order. I
am awaiting Your Honour's ruling.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour
rules on the point of order from the Letter which Your
Honour has read here as coming from the Leader of
the House and Leader of the'Majority Party, I am sure
that Your Honour would not like to show yourself as
the Speaker of the Majority Party of this House. That
is the first point. You are Speaker of the whole House.

One would think that the letter which Your Hon-
our has just read was officially released the con-
tents thereof for the first time to all hon. members
of the House at the same time here this morning.
Are we to understand then, Sir, that the Leader of the
House is some superman to get through the key hole
or whatever it might be to have known the contents
of a letter in Your Honour's possession before all
other hon. members so that he could write to Your
Honour?

Mr. SPEAKER: Let me deal with that point at
once. This letter which I receivedfrom the President
of the Senate has not to my knowledge been shown to
any member of the House and this is the first occa-
sion that I am aware that any member of the House
has heard or heard it read to him. I have heard and I
gather from this same letter of the President of the
Senate that he has informed members of the Other
Chamber of the contents of this letter or even may
have read the same to them. Whether publication of
such or information about such appeared in the Press.
I am not in a position to vouch; but this letter, as far
as I am concerned, should have beenkepta secret
as any other document of the House, not in my per-
sonal possession, but in the office of the Clerk of the
House.
12.35 p.m.
Mr. HINDS: Well, Sir, I have not completed
making my point, but I thank you for the explanation
you gave; but then Your Honour is puttingyourself in
the position of entertaining a reply to a communica-
tion which has not been officially released to the
House. That is what Your Honour has done this morn-
ing, and has created a precedent. Sir, I am being
bamboozled by every action that is taken here when
I have to rely on Your Honour to bring me out of it.







1161


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am still asking Your,
Honour for a Ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. and Learned Leader of
the Opposition would have received my Ruling if he
had not given way to the hon. junior member for St.
Peter who also rose on point of order. So far as the
letter from the Hon. Leader of the House is concerned
I regarded it and in fact I still do regard it merely
as a covering letter containing in the envelope what
was intended for my consideration. If I had merely
received a copy of the letter written to His Honour
the President of the Senate, I would have been in dif-
ficulty to know what to do with it or how it had come
into my possession. The covering letter I regarded
merely as a document explaining why this document
was sent to me andfrom whom it had been sent to the
President of the Senate, and thereby vouching for it as
an authentic copy of that which went to the President
of the Senate.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, you have
not yet ruled. I ask you to rule as to whether an in-
sult to or by a single hon. member of an Assembly
is not an insult to and by the whole House and that it is
wholly improper. Suppose we had done it on this side.
It is wholly improper for this side or that side to
speak as though they are speaking for the House, and
the point made by the hon. member who has just sat
down,I ask youto rule on this. We saw it in the Press.
Until a few minutes ago, we hadno official intimation
of a complaint by the President of the Senate; and
here is this side of the House to be treated as though
they are not part of the House. I ask Your Honour to
rule it is too important to slide over as to whether
it is not wholly improper and against the privileges
of the House for a single member of the House to pur-
port to speak on behalf of the whole House. I repeat it
is against the privileges of the House.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like that
letter read again, because if understand it correctly,
it says "Mr. Speaker has informed me".

Mr. SPEAKER: It so states.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Well, then, he is a liar. You have
said that as far as you are concerned the first time
it has got out of your hands is now, and that letter
says "Mr. Speaker informed me".

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said that I did not show
or read it to any member of this House.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I would like this to go into Han-
sard. I believe you, Mr. Speaker. You said you did not
show anybody; therefore a letter which says that Mr.
Speaker has informed me......

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not show the letter to any-
body. I read the letter to nobody.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I heard you, but the letter to you
from the Leader of the House says "Mr. Speaker has
informed me". Read it again if I am wrong, and if I
am wrong I bow.


Mr. SPEAKER: It says: "Mr. Speaker has in-
formed me". It does not say "he has read to me" or
that "he has shown to me". It says "he has informed
me."

Mr. MOTTLEY: You see, I am very dense. I am
not a lawyer, but how do you mean "informed me"?
If a letter is written to His Honour the Speaker in re-
spect of something which is a breach of the privileges
of this House, for the first time you said officially it
is read here. I am contending that the Leader of the
House can make a Statement to this effect, and not
one of us can get up inhere and reply to him. I might
be wrong. Perhaps precedents have changed, but now
he has written a letter saying "Mr. Speaker has in-
formed me." This is what I do not understand. This
is wrong. This is a letter.

Mr. SPEAKER: "Informed" means "told".

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, lunderstandEng-
lish very well. A lot of people who receive certifi-
cates in English do not knowhow to analyse or parse,
but I know what "has informed me" means. It does
not mean "informed me yesterday home or last
night home"; he might not have seen the letter, but
he has informed me. I was not informed.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point

of order, does not the letter read "has informed me
of the contents"? Is that what is in the letter? If so,
is not the gravamen of the complaint of the junior
member for St. Peter truly substantial merely that the
Leader of the House was informed of the contents of a
communication from the President of the Senate to
this House before the House was informed, and was
not only informed of it, but committed a breach of
privilege of this House by purporting to reply to it?
He was not only informed of its contents but purported
to reply to it before it came to this House. Mr.
Speaker, I did not hear the hon. junior member for St.
Peter complain that the letter was shown or read.He
complained that its contents were made known, as the
letter itself said. So to say it was not shown to or
read, Mr. Speaker, you may have a very long secret
document and you tell somebody what the contents are.
You may not show or read it to him, but you never-
theless have informed him of its contents and created
the occasional complaint which we now seek to bring
to the attention of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Let me go further. In no way were
the contents of this communication conveyed to any
member of the House by me or by my authority or
with my knowledge, consent or permission.

Mr. J. M. G, M. ADAMS: On a point of order,
will Your Honour read the letter again? Is Your Hon-
our calling the Leader of the House a writer of un-
truths?

Mr. SPEAKER: Ido not propose reading the letter
again, but it will be printed.

Mr. St. JOHN: Mr, Speaker, on a point of order,
the thing that disturbs me, sir, and I ask Your Honour







1162


to rule is whether it is proper to have read a letter
written by the Leader of the House on behalf of this
House. It says "on behalf of the members of his Party
in the Chamber". In my submission, and I ask Your
Honour to rule on that point, that forms no part of the
business of this Chamber at all. I want to ask Your
Honour to rule as to whether it is proper for any
member's letter with respect, not to the conduct of
members of the House as a whole, but with respect to
a particular Party to be read to the House. If that is
correct, it would mean that Your Honour in here is
recognizing different Parties, and Your Honour is
recognizing that the Leader of the House canwrite to
other people in connection with their Party's busi-
ness, and that is the business of this Chamber.

Mr. SPEAKER: Now I would just mentionfor the
benefit of hon. members that at a previous session,
the then hon. junior member for St. George, Mr. F. E.
Miller, wrote a letter to the Speaker and that letter
was read in this Chamber.
12.45 p.m.
Members may recall that that letter which he wrote
was to state that he had changed his mind about mov-
ing the vote of censure in the House, or a vote of no
confidence. It was a letter written by a member of the
House, whilst he was a member andwhilsthe was not
in a state of suspension, which was readfrom the
Chair of this House. (Mr. MOTTLEY: That is a dif-
ferent matter.)

Mr. HINDS: I am asking for Your Honour's gui-
dance on this point. Is a communication from the
Other Place, addressed to this House through Your
Honour the Speaker, proper as a communication to
this House as a body, or is it a communication to His
Honour the Speaker and the Leader of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: My answer to that generally is
that if the communication is addressed to Mr. Speaker
and if Mr. Speaker is asked to convey certain senti-
ments or views to hon. members, I regard that as
a communication to the House through me.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, was the letter which
you read this morning such a communication coming
from the Other Place asking Your Honour to convey
certain sentiments to this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I regard it as such.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, was the letter from
the Leader of the House a letter to Your Honour the
Speaker asking Your Honour to convey certain senti-
ments to this Hon. House, or what?

Mr. SPEAKER: That was a letter to Mr. Speaker
Wherein it is stated:

"Your Honour may wish to apprise hon. members
of the contents of the document which was sub-
mitted......"
Accordingly I apprised hon. members of the contents
by reading the document which was submitted.
Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I am just seekingyour
guidance. Is it proper for any member of this House
to communicate to this Hon. House in that manner?


Mr. SPEAKER: This communication I do not re-
gard as improper, and any other communication will
be considered on its merits or demerits, and will be
considered proper or improper according to the
merits or demerits of such communication.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order,
Sir. Am I now at liberty to write to the President of
the Other Chamber and say that I considerthe beha-
viour of the Prime Minister on the occasion of which
the President complains disgraceful? Will that letter
be read out, if I wrote it on behalf of the Minority
Party?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. If
hon. members want advice, or counsel, or guidance,
and they seek it from the Chair, that is sought in the
privacy of the Speaker's Chambers.

Mr. HUSBANDS: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. Has Your Honour yet replied to the letter
submitted to you by the President of the Other Place?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have in writing acknowledged
receipt of that letter, and I read to the House my
letter of acknowledgment.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Am I to takeit, Sir, thatyou
acknowledged that a breach of privilege had been
committed?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a matter forthe hon. mem-
ber how he cares to take it. I understood the hon.
member to say "Am I to take it". I apologise to the
hon. member, if I misheard him, but it is intended as
none other than a formal acknowledgment of the re-
ceipt of the letter and regretting any concern, or any
disquiet, or whatever else the President may have
suffered as a result, without expressing any opinion
thereon.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Your Honour, as soon as you
regret, you admit that a breach of privilege hadbeen
committed by certain members of this House. You do
not regret, or you are not sorry for something that
does not exist and is not worthy of censure. As soon
as the word "regret" is used, you admit that some-
thing had been done that deserved censure.

Mr. SPEAKER: The word "alleged" was used in
the letter, and that is a word which an experienced
lawyer never fails to use.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, we arevery seri-
ous in this place, because breaches of privilege are
very serious matters. Since the letter written to you
by the Leader of the House explained what had hap-
pened on that particular day, I deem it that that mat-
ter is now the property of this House and a debate can
be initiated on it as a matter of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER: Not now.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Your Honour, when does the
privilege arise but now?







1163


Mr. SPEAKER: A debate on this correspondence
as such cannot arise now by virtue of points of order
being raised. That is how I understand every hon.
member who has risen to preface his remarks. I re-
minded hon. members earlier that the first Business
of the Day is, of course, after notices are given, a
motion in the name of the Hon. Leader of the Op-
position. It is a motion to resume debate on a motion
relating to a breach of Privilege.

Mr. HUSBANDS: If I am not in order now to raise
it as a matter of privilege and have it debated right
now, I will give noticeto initiate a debate on the letter
which was received by you, a copy of which has been
sent to the President of the Other Place, on the mo-
tion of adjournment of this House. I will give notice
of that.

Mr. HINDS: That is one point. Would it not have
been the proper thing to do in any reply, whether by
way of acknowledgment or otherwise, to Mr. Presi-
dent that Your Honour should have informed him that
there was presently a motion before this House re-
garding the alleged breach of privilege arisingout of
the incident of which he complained, and that Your
Honour would inform him as to the outcome of the de-
bate on the said motion?

Mr. MOTTLEY: I cannot suggest to you how you
should reply. Iwantto suggest, Sir, and I think it is in
the best interest of all concerned (Hon. N. W.
BOXILL: Sit down.) I wonder who over there can tell
me to sit down?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am listening to the hon. mem-
ber.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I know that, but I want to tell
some of these rats in here they may be strangers.
They cannot tell me to sit down I cannot tell you how
to reply to the letter, but I am suggesting it is un-
fortunate that I asked the Clerk to ask you to allow
me to see the letter, and he said that you were using
it. I made another request to have it read over, be-
cause I made some notes here. Personally, feel that,
whatever faux pas has been made, the second letter
written to the Leader of the House should be taken out
and not put into the Minutes, or the Hansard, or any-
thing at all. I am serious about this, because this
really is tantamount to......
12.55 p.m.

I know that the Hon. Leader of the House can play
with the English language, but because of that, there
are those of us who have commonsense. (Asides) If I
was getting your salary I would getup there and bark
like a dog too. You know you have got some people
like them who always want to control a member in
here.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Mr. MOTTLEY: Oh, yes Sir. Sometimes you
catch a dog and give him a bath and he will shout for
murder. The reason why young dogs...... (Asides) I
am sorry, Sir.


Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point in directingmy
attention to canine speeches because I am not in a
position to rule thereon. 1 (Laughter) .

Mr. MOTTLEY: I would like to suggest......
(Asides) You cannot contribute to this kindof debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not intend to contribute to
this debate.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I know you would not. I say it is
unfortunate. I know you were usingthe letter. I asked
for it and you said that you were still using it, but I
would like to suggest that you withdraw it. What is the
point of allowing another breach of privilege to come
up because that is what it is. There is no question
about it. You may have the majority of people in here
to vote against it, but you have the majority of the
public to think what is right from what is wrong.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is nowmaking
a speech.

Mr. MOTTLEY: No, Sir, this is a point of order
.... (Asides) I beg your pardon, sir; I apologise if I
have overstepped my bounds. You know whenyou are
drowning puppies and you wet them, how they smell.
Do you see them, how they get on?

Mr. SPEAKER: What further alleged point of
order is this?

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am dealingwith these wetpup-
pies; do you hear them?

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the hon. member proceed.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I suggest to you, I am not mak-
ing a motion yet. Let them stand down, mangy cats.
(Asides) Mr. Speaker, you must not only hear my
asides; you must hear asides from the other side too.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do nothear asides from an hon.
member who is addressing the Chair.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I know, I know; well,you did not
hear me say anything about any hon. member.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am listening with such rapt at-
tention to the hon. member that it is difficult for me
to hear asides.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am not saying "You"; not at
all, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am looking at and listening to
the hon. senior member for Bridgetown who is on a
point of order.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I appreciate that. You were
thinking at the same time and turning over things
rapidly in your brain; but I suggest that this second
letter be withdrawn. I have asked that it be re-read,
Your Honour says that you do not propose to re-read
it, you were using it and I could not have it. I do not
know if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wanted to







1164


have it. I am not the Leader of the Opposition. If he
wanted to have it he could have it, but I suggest that
this letter be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have heard and noted the point
made by the hon. senior member for the City.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I suggest it now and I will see
what will happen.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I join with the hon.
member who has just sat down on a point of order. I
am drawing to your attention I shall give it to the
Clerk in a minute a motion against this breach of
privilege. I draw Your Honour's attention to Standing
Order 68 (2) which says this:-

"If during the sitting of the House a matter sud-
denly arises which appears to involve the privileges
of the House and which calls for the immediate inter-
vention of the House, the proceedings may be inter-
rupted, save during the progress of a division, by a
motion based on such matter."

I am making that motion now, and no notice is
necessary. If a notice is necessary, it is sufficient
to hand it in to the Clerk. Iwould remind Your Hon-
our and the House that the motion of privilege with
which we are dealing, which is on the Order Paper
today itself has been given by me orally and pro -
ceeded with straightway. That was in order. I join
with other hon. members and point out that it is a
gross breach of privilege of the House for one hon.
member, whether he is the Leader of the House or
not, to purport to speak on behalf of the House, and I
join with the hon. senior member for the City in ask-
ing Your Honour to re-read that letter.

Need I remind Your Honour that Your Honour
is the servant of the House and not its boss? You read
a letter to us, no copies of it have been circulated,
no copies of it have been printed beforehand, but we
can have it as soon as Your Honour has finished read-
ing it! It can be got to somebody, to one member of
the House or it may be the whole lot over there, but
when we say that we cannot possibly remember every
word that Your Honour read out and we ask that it be
read again, we do not get it? This is treating us with
contempt. It is bad enough for an hon. member around
the Table to treat other hon. members with contempt,
but for the Speaker to do it......

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. memberyet continu-
ing on a point of order?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am continuing on a
point of order. I am askingthat we be informed of the
contents of that letter again because this point of pri-
vilege has arisen suddenly.

Mr. SPEAKER: I gather that the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition is raising another motion of privilege
under Standing Order 68 (2) which, of course, he is
perfectly entitled to do. I suggest thatthattakes pre-
cedence over other matters, but there is already a
motion of privilege to be further debated. That ear-


lier motion, in my Ruling, will take precedence over
this second one, which second one will follow im-
mediately after the first. That is my Ruling. If there
are two motions of privilege, the second one will, so
far as I am concerned, come after the first, and if
hon. members would like copies of the correspon-
dence and they can be made available, am prepared
to have such made available. I assure hon. members
that I am not parting with what is in my file; else I
would be without a copy. I am not parting with the copy
from my file; otherwise I will be at sea when hon.
members are making comments and I will have
nothing on my file. I do not intend to denude myself of
my file and the contents thereof. (Laughter)

Mr. MOTTLEY: I suggest that rather than you
denude yourself of the contents thereof, you have them
printed now so that we can have copies of them right
away.

Mr. SPEAKER: That can take place so long as
the matter is not yet under discussion because I am
not parting with this. It cannot be taken from me even
physically.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Are you suggesting, Sir, that the
hon. junior member for St. Thomas cannot take that
from you?

Mr. SPEAKER: Neither hon. member from St.
Thomas can get it from me.
1.05 p.m.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order.
However, Your Honour, may smooth this thing over,
is Your Honour ruling that a document sent to you as
Mr. Speaker and not as J. E. T. Brancker, Esquire, is
not a document of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not making any such Ruling.
I am saying that so long as a particular matter, or
any matter, is under discussion, I must have in my
file the document or a copy thereof of that which is
under discussion.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, is anybody
a lunatic suggesting that the original -if the Speaker
likes to keep it in his personal file should be taken
out? Nobody is suggesting that. But what we do say
is that they should be handed to somebody who can
type copies to hand to members of the House. That is
all we want. But this outburst about not even political
violence. It is unworthy of the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is unworthy of who sug-
gested it.


Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: That I have a point of
order which is unworthy of who suggested it, Mr.
Speaker? How can you tell me that, Sir?







1165


Mr. SPEAKER: I challenge the hon. member to
have addressed me. Am I correct?

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: YourHonour is correct,
as Your Honour invariably is.

I am asking that Your Honour's remarks upon
this debate be also circulated to members, es-
pecially those parts of it which said that you never
read or showed the letter to the hon. senior member
for St. Lucy, the Leader of the House, because it
will form an important part of our debate. If Your
Honour's remarks and the context of the letter can
both be true, that would form an important part of
the debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that is not a point
of order. That is an enquiry.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I am asking that the earlier proceedings of
today in the House today's words be made avail-
able to hon. members. This is not an earlier debate;
this is today's words. We are calling what Your Hon-
our said "words".

Mr. SPEAKER: I have no doubt that everything
that is said today would be made available at the ear-
liest possible time to hon. members.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order. This
is a definite matter. The fact that a question of pri-
vilege takes precedence over other matters; it is that
motions before Orders of the Days are called or it
is that motions before any business whatsoever is
done. I wish to know that because Your Honour has
read out that letter, but you stopped I think it is
No.3 of the A.B.C. under Standing Order No.8.

(a) Formal Entry of the Speaker,
(b) Prayers,
(c) Announcement by the Speaker.
Sir, you stopped there and you said that the next
Order of the Day is to resume debate on the Motion of
Privilege. Well, (a) is necessary; (b) is "Prayers".
But then Your Honour proceeds to go on to "An-
nouncements by the Speaker". Is that in order? Or
the resumption of the debate on the question of pri-
vilege should not be (R) or between (Q) and (R)?

I am asking Your Honour for a Ruling on this be-
cause when Your Honour began to read this letter, I
took it that Your Honour was going down the line until
you came to Orders of the Day. The debate on the
question of privilege is just before Orders of the Day.

Mr. SPEAKER: I also was to quote the Hon. and
Learned Leader of the Opposition going down the
line, and although I proposed going down the line, I
have had to tarry because of certain points of orders
being raised. I proposed going down the line and to
have treated as the First Order of the Day, the first
motion of privilege; as the second Order of the Day,
the second motion of privilege; and after this any
other motion of privilege,and then to proceed with the
Order Paper as it stands.


S Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.
Is Your Honour in apositionto tellus if copies of the
letter which Your Honour read out here today or
copies of the letters which Your Honour read out
today will be made available to us sometime during
the course of today's sitting?

Mr. SPEAKER: Every effort will be madebythe
office on my instructions so to do. As I said, quoting
the Hon. Leader of the Opposition's phrase about going
down the line, there are no other announcements to be
made. Let Mr. Clerk call the other Orders of Busi-
ness. Proceed Mr. Deputy Clerk.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am on point of
order. I am very serious about this matter. I am sug-
gesting now so as to avoid any embarrassmentto the
Hon. Leader of the House that the only thing to do in
this is to withdraw this letter. This is one of the
worst things that can be done, for either members of
the Opposition or anybody else, to have to speak dis-
paragingly about the Speaker. This letter should be
withdrawn so as to prevent any embarrassment;
otherwise, I am going to deal with this thing if it takes
my sitting here until midnight on it.

I feel that this is an insult.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a speech.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Whatever it is, I apologise. It is
intended to be a point of order, and if Your Honour
so rules that it is a speech, I apologise. I suggest to
the Leader of the House to withdraw the letter and to
let the matter drop. I also suggest to members of the
Opposition, if it is withdrawn, to stop it. It has no
right in here.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made that
point.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am apologising, Mr. Speaker,
because nobody wants to get up in here and to be cri-
ticising the Speaker. There are a lot of things in that
letter which the Leader of the House would have to
get up and say. It says: "that Ihave been so informed
by the Speaker." Were you informed by mail, aero-
plane, submarine, tug boat?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not on a
point of order.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Yes, Sir. Iam sorry. Iknow that
I am not on a point of order, but you will be surprised
to see what would come out of this. I suggest to the
Leader of the House to withdraw this letter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member may seek,
either personally or by party Whips, to convey his
suggestions to other members of the House. I am ask-
ing the Clerk to continue with the Order of Business.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am asking Your Hon-
our to rule as to whether precedence over public
business means I did not intend to push this all
public business. I was really drawing to Your






1166


Honour's attention, when Your Honour made that non-
sensical statement, that you were breaking that rule.
1.15 p.m.

I did it as softly and politely as possible, but I
was not suggesting that the public business whichthe
Chair purports to deal with now is in order. It is not
in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion, and
so far as my opinion goes, it is the opinion of this
Chair.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already called on the Clerk
to continue with the Order of Business. Is this a point
of order apropos the continuation of calling the Order
of Business?

Mr. HUSBANDS: Yes, Sir. Your Honour yourself,
if I heard Your Honour correctly, told the House not
very long ago that matters of privilege would be
taking direct precedence over any other Business of
the Day, and I expect now and Your Honour stated
that we would be dealing with the continuation of the
debate on a breach of privilege, and then the second
instance that pointed out that a breach of privilege
was committed, and debate on that would follow im-
mediately. Am I to understand that we are doing Gov-
ernment Business now?

Mr. SPEAKER: May I remind hon. members of
Standing Order No. 8 Order of Business: (a) Formal
entry of Speaker; (b) Prayers; (c) Announcements by
Speaker; (d) Messages from the Governor; (e) Papers;
(f) Petitions; (g) Government Notices; (h) Private
members' Notices; (i) Notice of Questions; (j) Re-
ports from Select Committees; (k) First Reading of
Bills; (1) Statements by Ministers; (m) Congratula-
tory and/or Obituary speeches; (n) Personal explana-
tions; (o) Motions for leave of absence; (p) Oral re-
plies to questions; (q) Notice of motions for the ad-
journment of the House on matters of urgent public
importance; (r) Orders of the Day.

Let this be perfectly clear: under (r) Orders
of the Day the first Order of the Day is the first
motion of privilege; the second Order of the Day is
the second motion of privilege, and any other motion
of privilege subsequent will be dealt with in order as
Orders of the Day.

Mr. Clerk, will you please continue?

PAPERS LAID

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker,onbehalfof the
Hon. and Learned Prime Minister, Minister of Fi-
nance and Minister of External Affairs......

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, onapoint
of order, this is utterly and absolutely wrong. Last
week I did not care to do what would be an exposure
when Your Honour refused to let this privilege debate
take place. Your Honour says that you have done pro-
found research.


Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member making a
speech?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am asking Your Hon-
our to rule. To rule notices now is out of order. Your
Honour said you didprofound research, but if you look
casually at Hansard, you will find that if even on a
specific day the House decides to do so-and-so,pri-
vilege comes before that. To put it bluntly, I did not
want to expose Your Honour, but now Your Honour
repeats it. It is absolutely out of order for notices to
be given now.

Mr. SPEAKER: I rule that it is in order for no-
tices to be given now and that the first Order of the
Day is the outstanding motion of privilege. The Hon.
and Learned Leader of the Opposition has spoken of
my stating that I did deep research. That is per-
fectly so. Would to God otherhon. members had done
equal research. And when reference is made to ex-
posure, it would not have been myself who would have
been exposed.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, onbehalf of the
Hon. and Learned Prime Minister, Minister of Fi-
nance and Minister of External Affairs, I am com-
manded to lay the following: -

The Public Officers Loan and Travelling Allow-
ances (Amendment) Regulations, 1968.

The Customs Duties (Amendment) Order, 1968.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, I am com-
manded to lay the following:

Statements showing the sums advanced to the
Postmaster General for the payment of Money Or-
ders, the amounts repaid to the Accountant General
and the amounts due to the various Post Offices at
the 31st August, 30th September and 31st October,
1967.

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Hon. and Learned Prime Minister, Minister of Fi-
nance and Minister of External Affairs, I beg to give
notice of the following:

A Resolution to place the sum of $242,400 at the
disposal of the Government to supplement the Esti-
mates 1967-68 Part I Current as shown in the Sup-
plementary Estimates 1967-68 No. 47 whichformthe
Schedule to the Resolution.

A Resolution to place the sum of $362,000 at the
disposal of the Government to supplement the Esti-
mates 1967-68 Part II Capital as shown in the Sup-
plemeritary Estimates 1967-68 No. 48 which forms
the Schedule to the Resolution.

A Resolution to place the sum of $19,380 at the
disposal of the Government to supplement the Esti-
mates 1967-68 Part I Current as shown in the Sup-
plementary Estimates 1967-68 No. 49whichformthe
Schedule to the Resolution.







1167


A Resolution to place the sum of $6,485 at the.
disposal of the Government to supplement the Esti-
mates 1967-68 Part I Current as shown in the Sup-
plementary Estimates 1967-68 No. 50 which form
the Schedule to the Resolution.

A Resolution to place the sum of $7,910 at the
disposal of the Government to supplement the Esti-
mates 1967-68 Part I Current as shown in the Sup-
plementary Estimates 1967-68 No. 51 which form
the Schedule to the Resolution.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give
notice of the following:-

A Resolution to approve under Section 10 of the
Barbados Harbours Act, 1960, the expenditure re-
quired to supplement the Estimates of the Port De-
partment for the year 1967-68 as shown in the
Schedule to the Resolution.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, in respect of
the Resolution for $7,910, I wish to give notice of my
intention to proceed with it inall its stages at today's
sitting. Copies are here available forhon. members,
and I think when they see it, they will understand the
urgency.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, withrespectto
the other Resolutions, I beg to give notice of my in-
tention to move the House into Committee of Supply
at its next meeting to deal with those Resolutions of
which notice has been given.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Hon. and Learned Prime Minister, Minister of Fi-
nance and Minister of External Affairs, I begto give
notice that Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question No.
76 asked by the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
is ready.

Also, Oral Reply to Parliamentary QuestionNo.
90 asked by the hon. senior member for St. Joseph,
is ready.

Also, on my own behalf, I beg to give notice that
Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question No. 114, asked
by the hon. senior member for St. Thomas, is ready.
1.25 p.m.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give
notice that the Reply to Parliamentary Question No.
95 asked by the hon. senior member for St. James
is ready.
Also that the Oral Replyto Parliamentary Ques-
tion No. 107 asked by the hon. senior member for St.
Joseph is ready.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Are we skipping H, I, J,
K, L, and going down to Oral Replies? Mr. Speaker,
all of us make mistakes. A man is not a man, if he
does not admit when he makes a mistake.


Mr. SPEAKER: We are under Government No-
tices and Government is giving notice to Oral Re-
plies to certain questions which are now being laid.

The hon. junior member for St. Peter. The notice
of his Resolution re incidents in schools.


INCIDENTS IN SCHOOLS

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads as
follows:



WHEREAS recent incidents in schools involving
certain parents of children tend to show there is a
decline in the standard of parent-teacher relationship
especially at Primary School level;



AND WHEREAS such disregard for law and order
as exhibited by such parents who enter upon school
premises and misconduct themselves by cursingand
swearing, using abusive and insulting and threatening
language to teachers, challenge them to duels on the
premises, threaten to lay-wait and ambush them out
of school hours, tend to have very far-reaching ef-
fects upon both the physical and mental performances
of the teachers and upon the children before whom
such parents demonstrate their bad tempers;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges upon
Government the necessity to act speedily in stamping
out this growing spate of lawlessness amongst parents
so inclined, with a view to restoring the equilibrium of
teachers, who have become increasingly perturbed at
such known acts of assault upon teachers whilst-at-
work, and cultivate amongst them a greater sense of
security and protection from fear and ensure that
children in classrooms are not further made victims
of these frightening, harassing and embarrassing
outbursts by unbridled parents.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Resolution stands in
the name of the hon. Leader of the Opposition re in-
vasion of the precincts of the Senate by some mem-
bers of the House.

INVASION OF THE PRECINCTS OF THE SENATE

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
give notice of this Resolution. I, too, will stress the
word "invasion" which Inotice appears in the Leader
of the House's letter. It is not only Your Honour's
letter that saw the light of day before it came to the
House, but hon. members who hand in Resolutions -
seem to suffer the fate of letting the matter be known
before it reaches the House, and the whole House will
see when I finish reading this why that letter was
sent. The Resolution reads as follows:-

"This House being distressingly aware of the
disorderly invasion of the precincts of the Senate
House by some of the members of this House express
to His Honour the President of the Senate and to other







1168


hon. Senators their profound regret at the flagrant
violation of the privileges of the Upper House."

This was not to see the light of day.

"In tendering their profound apologies for this
Insult to His Honour the President and to the Senate
this House place on record their destestation of con-
duct by the Prime Minister and other members of this
House which tends to lower the dignity of Parliament.'

Having read this, that letter appears. This is how
things are done in this House. That is why the letter
came in. (Mr. MOTTLEY: That is how the letter got
here, Mr. Clerk, did you hear that?)

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. senior member for St.
Joseph......

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. In giving notice of his Resolution the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition, while in the course of doing
so, made certain remarks, the indication of which is
that the text of the Resolution of which he had just
given notice was somehow, in some fashion, known to
me and communicated to me, and that Iwas informed
about it before the moment of his giving notice. I wish
to state categorically this is not so, that like myself
who had only heard of Mr. President's letterwhen it
was read by Your Honour, I only knew about his notice
when he himself gave notice of it. I wish to make this
perfectly clear, that the reference made by innuendo
is completely unjustified. That is all Ihave to say on
the matter. When the second motion of privilege is
debated, I shall have a lot to say in defence of myself.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order....

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion caught my eye first.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon.
Leader of the House were capable of always having his
statements believed, we would not be in doubt on this
side of the House as to whether Your Honour's state-
ment this morning or the hon. member's is true. We
are still in doubt, though some of us shrewdly sus-
pect what really happened. All I said is this: The
use of the word "invasion" it is not worthwhile
talking about, and I accept his word.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leaderof theHouse
rose on a point of order, and the point has been made.

Mr. J. M. G.M. ADAMS: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. Will the Hon. Leader of the House now, at
this stage, say which is true, since he is answering
things, out of the remarks that Your Honour informed
him, and his remarks that you did not inform him?

Mr. SPEAKER: (a) That is not a point of order;
and (b) even if it was so thought by the Hon. Leader
of the House, I would not allow a debate or a dialogue
now, or questions and answers.
Mr. HINDS: On a point of order, Sir. What the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas has just said, to


my mind, while not a point of order as ruled by Your
Honour, is a serious reflection on the veracity of the
Leader of this Hon. House. I am sure the Leader of
the House would like to avail himself of an opportunity
if given by Your Honour, to offer an explanation in his
own defence.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and
there could be no alleged point of order apropos of
that which has been ruled not to be a point of order,
and the Hon. Leader of the House may not avail him-
self of an opportunity to be a third apparent trans -
gressor.

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order, Sir.No one
likes to think that the Hon. Leader of the House has
any antipathy to the truth, nor would anybody attempt
to feel that Your Honour's word could not always be
taken.
12.55 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion cannot go on. That
is not a point of order. The hon. senior member for
St. Joseph; his question re subsidisationof essential
commodities.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to enquire of the appro-
priate Minister:-

1. Is Government aware that the increased
cost of imported foodstuffs on the local market, has
had the effect of raising the cost of living to heights
beyond the reach of the incomes of the working class
people?

2. If the answer to the above is in the affir-
mative, will the Government consider immediately
the advisability of reintroducing the subsidisation of
essential commodities which are used mainly by the
poorest class of working people?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. senior member for St.
Thomas; his question re car parking spaces sur-
rounding the Law Courts.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to enquire
of the Minister of Communications:

1. Will the Minister direct that provision be
made for car parking spaces to be reserved in the
general area surrounding the Law Courts and the
Registration Office for employees of the Courts and
for Barristers and Solicitors attending Court?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member; his
question re party political Broadcasts on CBC.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to enquire
of the appropriate Minister:

1. Has the policy of a regular system of Party
Political Broadcasts on the Caribbean Broadcasting
Corporation been abandoned?

2. If the answer to the above is "yes",is the
reason therefore that under the Corporation's pub-







1169


ULshed formula the Barbados Labour Party would now
be entitled to a much larger proportion of broadcast-
ing time than prior to November, 1966, when the
formula was in force?

3. What is the Government's policyonpoliti-
cal broadcasting?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member; his
question re day-to-day control over the operations of
the C.B.C.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to en-
quire of the appropriate Minister:-

1. What measure of day-to-day control is
exercised by the Minister responsible for broadcast-
ing over the operations of the Caribbean Broadcasting
Corporation?

2. Is it a fact that the Minister directed that
an end of year function planned by the Corporation to
entertain representatives of advertisers should not
take place although the function had been requested by
the General Manager and approved by the Board?

3. Will the Minister make a statement as to
what, if any, reasons were given by the General
Manager of the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation
for his request for re-assignment of duty?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member; his
question re high quality rice imported for Muslim
wedding.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to enquire
of the Minister of Trade:-

1. Is the Minister aware that the consignee
of a quantity of high quality rice imported from St.
Vincent for the purpose of festivities surrounding a
Muslim wedding due to have taken place on January,
25, 1968, has been refused permission by the Minis-
try of Trade to import it into Barbados and that the
rice which has been already paid for by the con-
signee has for some months beenheldin an airline
warehouse?

2. In the special circumstances of the case,
will the Minister give permission forthe importation
of the said rice?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member; his
question re queueing at bus stands and stopping
places?

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to en-
quire of the Minister of Communications andWorks:

How soon does the Government plan to enforce
the system, for which the legislative framework al-
ready exists, of queueing at bus stands and stopping
places?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member; his
question re shortage of staff at the Government In-
formation Office.


Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to en-
quire of the appropriate Minister:-

1. Is there a shortage of staff at the Govern-
ment Information Office?

2. Will the Minister state why the normal and
correct practice of revealing information on Govern-
ment activities and plans through the medium of the
Government Information Office has recently been
broken in that Press Conferences have been con-
ducted by Ministers at the Headquarters of the Demo-
cratic Labour Party?

3. Is the Minister aware that no invitations
were issued for these Press Conferences to the
"Beacon" and the "Truth" newspapers?

4. Will the Minister agree that the moneys be-
ing spent to carry out the activities and plans of the Gov-
ernment are the taxpayers' money and not the funds
of the Democratic Labour Party?

5. Will the Minister make representation to
the Cabinet that the Government Information Office is
fully capable of publicising Government activities and
that Ministers' first duty is to Government and not
Party organs of information?
1.45 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member. His
question re report of Select Committee.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: To enquire of the ap-
propriate Minister:

Will the Government take urgent action to im-
plement the Report of the Select Committee of this
Hon. House on the payment of pensions to Members
of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member. His
question re facilities for holding parade.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: To enquire of the ap-
priate Minister:-

1. Is the Minister responsible for the Bar-
bados Regiment aware that, notwithstanding the
recent resurfacing of a part of the Barrack Square
Headquarters, the Barbados Regiment is still without
proper facilities for holding large parades?

2. Will the Minister take steps to improve the
Regimental parade area on the Garrison Savannah,
whether by filling and draining or by providing a hard
surface?


Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. junior member for St.
Peter. His Question re Standpipe at Rock Dundo, St.
James.



Mr. W. C. B. HINDS: To enquire of the appro-
priate Minister:







1170


1. Will Government seek to have installed 4
Standpipe at First Gap, Rock Dundo, St. Peter for
use by residents in the area?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same hon. member. His
question re parent-teacher bodies.

Mr. HINDS: To enquire of the appropriate Min-
ister:

1. What is the policy of Government relative
to parent-teacher bodies or groups functioning at
Primary, Senior Elementary, Secondary Modern or
Comprehensive or Secondary Grammar School
level?

2. Does Government consider parent-teacher
relationship an indispensable link in any system of
education for the upbringing of the youth?

3. How many parent-teacher bodies are at
present functioning amongst Government-maintained
Schools; how many amongst Government -assisted and
approved schools?

4. What assistance of any kind, except the
availability of school-buildings for meetings, has
Government rendered to any parent-teacher body or
bodies during the school-year ending 1966, and the
school-year ending 1967?

5. How many meetings held by these bodies
have been addressed by Education Officers of the Min-
istry? And if addresses were given was the initiative
taken by the Ministry or was it merely in honour of a
request from the parent-teacher body so addressed?

6. How many teachers and how many par-
ents are actively involved at Primary, senior Ele-
mentary, secondary Modern or Comprehensive
school or Secondary Grammar School level in the
parent-teacher movement in this Island?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. senior member for St.
Peter. His question re Barbados Housing Authority.

Mr. HUSBANDS: To enquire of the Minister of
Housing:

1. Who was the previous holder of the job
at the Barbados Housing Authority now held by the
Organising Secretary of the Democratic Labour
Party, Mr. Howard Roberts, and what was his salary?

2. What is Mr. Roberts' salary and what are
his normal hours of work?

3. Will the Minister state on what basis Mr.
Roberts is permitted to absent himself from his du-
ties at the Barbados Housing Authority in order to be
present at Press Conferences held at the Democratic
Labour Party's headquarters in Roebuck Street,
during normal workinghours ona number of Fridays
during this year?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. junior member for St.
John. His question re Foster Hall, St. Joseph.


Mr. YEARWOOD: To enquire of the appropriate
Minister: -

1. Is Government aware that the road lead-
ing from Foster Hall, St. Joseph, by way of New-
castle to Bath is in an acute state of disrepair?

2. Will Government, bearing in mind the im-
portance of the said road as a medium of tourist traf-
fice along the St. John coast and as a medium for
plantation owners and peasants in the area for trans-
porting their canes to factories during the crop season,
treat the repair of the said road as an urgent priority?

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. and Learned Leader of
the Opposition. His notice of motion re a matter of
public importance.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not
quite understand my position in this matter. I have
got from the Clerk Your Honour's acknowledgement
of the receipt of my letter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I contacted the Clerk and I have
considered the subject matter of your letter in re-
spect of discussing a matter of a definite matter of
public importance, and I allow the claim as I am
satisfied that the matter is definitely a matter of
public importance.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a
motion of public importance. It reads as follows:-

This House being deeply concerned at the present
grave crisis that has arisen in this Island as a result
of the breakdown in negotiations between the Barba-
dos Workers Union and the Sugar Producers Federa-
tionon the question of out-of-crop wages in the sugar
industry, calls on the Government to take immediate
steps to forestall the threatened dislocation of the
everyday life of the community and to the very eco-
nomy of Barbados which will be the inevitable result
if the General Strike threatened by the General
Secretary of the Barbados Workers Union takes place;

The House draws to the attention of the Govern-
ment that, apart from the questionable legality of a
General Strike the existence of prolonged disorder
and undisciplined conditions envisaged by the General
Secretary of the Barbados Workers Union in his re-
ported public utterances are matters of such profound
significance as not to brook further delay on the part
of the Government in declaring its policy in this na-
tional crisis and any action it proposes to take to
anticipate island-wide disruption of the national life;

This House calls on the Government, in the ab-
sence of agreement by the contending parties to have
their dispute settled by arbitration to send down to
the Legislature a Bill, with ad hoc effect, to secure
a settlement of this impasse by arbitration having
among its sections provision for safeguarding the
interests of those persons who are willing to work
in the coming sugar-crop reaping season by' inter







1171
I I 1' '


alia guaranteeing retrospective payment of any sum.
of money that may be awarded them by the findings
of an Arbitrational Tribunal.
1.55 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: Under Standing Order No. 16
(3) either leave of the House has to be given, or at
least nine members rising in their places.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is seeking the
leave of the House to deal with this matter as a mat-
ter of urgent public importance, in which event, if
leave is granted, it shall stand over until 6.15 p.m.
today.

If there is no objection, leave will be granted.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, there is objec-
tion.

Mr. SPEAKER: Accordingly, leave is not unani-
mously given.

The alternative is under Standing Order No. 16
(3) (b). If at least nine members rise in their places
to support the request, that will suffice.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS, Mr. ST. JOHN, Mr. SMITH, Mr.
HUSBANDS, Mr. HOLDER, Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS, Mr. CRAIG,
Mr. HINDS and Mr. LYNCH rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am satisfied that nine members
have risen in their places to support the request.

Accordingly this motion shall stand over until
6.15 p.m. today.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I am bound to
say in the light of that, that the majority Party will
neither participate in this debate nor will feel itself
bound by any of its conclusions. (VOICES)

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr. SPEAKER: Fortunately I do not have to sus -
pend this sitting for grave disorder. The time for
suspension has arrived until 2.30 p.m. o'clock.
On resumption:

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, Iobserve
that there is no quorum and ask that you direct the
Clerk to ring the Bell.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Clerk, let the Bell be rung
for a quorum to be summoned.

The Bell was rung and a quorum lwas obtained.

HOUSE RESUMES DEBATE ON MOTION OF
OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. SPEAKER: Normally this would be Ques-
tion Time, but in respect of Orders of the Day, a
motion of privilege, as I have stated, is entitled to
take precedence. I almost called Question Time, but
on consideration, in view of the fact that in my opinion


privilege precedes every other Order of the Day
whether private or public, we are now about to start
business and the motion of privilege is before the
Chamber. When this was last being discussed, the
hon. junior member for St. Peter was addressing the
Chair.
2.35 p.m.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate on a
motion of privilege, and I think it may be appro-
priate forme at this stage, Sir, if I were to read the
text of the Resolution. It states:

BE IT RESOLVED that House views with
the utmost gravity and consternation a breach of the
privileges of members of the House committed by
the Prime Minister in invoking the aid of a member
of the Royal Barbados Police Force to restrain the
freedom of movement of Hon. members;

That this House calls on His Honour the Speaker
to take the necessary steps to punish this breach of
privilege committed by the Honourable Prime Min-
ister;

That this House desires to place on record its
profound detestation of the conduct of the Prime
Minister as being disruptive of the dignity and good
order of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that I can
hardly hear, I rely even more than ever on members
not to transgress any Standing Order.

Mr. HINDS: Iwas saying, Mr. Speaker, that this
is a debate on a motion of privilege, and I think it
may be appropriate for me at this stage, Sir, if I
were to read the text of the Resolution. It states:

"BE IT RESOLVED that this House views with
the utmost gravity and consternation a breach of
the privileges of members of the House committed
bythe Prime Minister in invoking the aid of a mem-
ner of the Royal Barbados Police Force to restrain
the freedom of movement of Hon. members;

That this House calls on His Honour the Speaker
to take the necessary steps to punish this breach of
privilege committed by the Hon. Prime Minister;

That this House desires to place on record its
profound detestation of the conduct of the Prime
Minister as being disruptive of the dignity and good
order of the House."


Mr. Speaker, since the debate on this motion
was entered upon, much has taken place which, I am
sure,has not in any way tended to lessen the gravity
as complained of in the text of this Resolution. In
every way we have seen that it worsens the situation.
What do we find? Above all, the pace has been set
whereby the Prime Minister is being encouraged to
come back into this House and to repeat his per-
formance 'of what led to a.row for food What has
brought me to that conclusion? You will find, Sir,






1172


that this House exercises no control over the news-
papers, but if one were to see the way the daily press
treated an incident of this sort,one must come to the
conclusion that the Prime Minister well knows that
he can behave inside this Hon. House as he likes,
and if the public had to depend on the daily Press to
make his bad behaviour known, it would never be
known. It can do himnogood,and I amto say now
that it can do this country no good. So much for the
newspapers.

Now, Sir, there is no doubt that the Prime Min-
ister invoked the service or the aid of Sgt. Her'-)?:;
of the 3.rba.1or Police Force. Let us ask ourselves
at this stage: For what purpose did he call on the
Police Sergeant? Where the Prime Minister and his
other members and his guests, including a lady guest,
were about to dine on that day in question, you will
find, Sir we were to see this: the Police Sergeant
being brought to the door of the banquet hall of this
Hon. House. Inside the banquet hall were all hon.
members of this House, with the exception of a few
Officers and the caterer.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime
Minister sought to draw to your attention that the
caterer was being detained against his will. He sub-
mitted further, as if in a court of law, that the caterer
was being falsely imprisoned. Now, Sir, what was an
hon. member in the banquet hall onthatoccasion en-
titled to? Are we to understand that if an hon. mem-
ber is inside the banquet hall, and the occasion
demands it, there is something to prevent that hon.
member from closing or barring a door? So when
the Police Sergeant was brought to the door of the
banquet hall with a view to having him enter the
banquet hall, one must come to the conclusion that
the Prime Minister feels within his mind thathe can
so reduce the dignities and privileges of this House
to what might exist in his opinion as being within the
confines where he lives. There may be no freedom
there for anybody, but it is not so in this Hon. House.
So when the Police Sergeant was brought there, it
must be accepted beyond all reasonable doubt that
the Police Sergeant was brought to restrict the move-
ments of somebody whether it be by laying of hands,
or otherwise. The Policeman in uniform couldhardly
be expected to act in any other manner than by taking
into custody the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
who, according to the Prime Minister's report, was
at the time acting in a manner which did not find the
approval of the Hon. Prime Minister. It meant this:
the Prime Minister had had a lady in his company.
2.45 p.m.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order. I should just like that corrected. The lady
was more in my company than in that of the Prime
Minister. The lady was my guest and not the Prime
Minister's.

Mr. SPEAKER: I trust that we will not have too
much play with the lady. It is admitted on both
sides that it was a lady. May it rest at that.
Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon.
junior member for Christ Church is accepting the


responsibility today because the Prime Ministerhap-
pens not to be present. We have learnt......

Hon. C. E. TALMA: On a point of order. I am
saying specifically and definitely that the lady was
my guest sent here to me by Lieutenant Fairweather
from the U.S.A. She was my personal friend. She was
unknown to the Prime Minister or to any of my col-
leagues here or anybody in the House of Assembly
for that matter.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, it happens to be very
unfortunate for the lady guest; the weather was not
at all fair on that day inside this Hon. Chamber. This
Hon. House has been told by the Prime Minister that
one reason for going into the dining hall of the Other
Place was because Government members had some-
thing to discuss. Itwas only a short period of half an
hour and they thought that they should take the oppor-
tunity while eating to discuss the matter inthe pres-
ence of the lady guest of the hon. junior member for
Christ Church. That is the point, to discuss Govern-
ment Business. For instance, I have found in the
banquet hall, of this Chamber, that there are two
tables. One table was usually occupied or reserved
for Government members. That is what I think I can
say I found.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not reserved.

Mr. HINDS: It may be set aside then. We find
that, apart from Government members in the banquet
hall, there would be members of the Opposition; but
here is a case where the business of the Government
is to be discussed in the presence of the lady guest
of the hon. junior member for Christ Church, rather
than within a respectable distance away from the Op-
position even in the same room. But, Sir, that side
of the story has been given, and, as Your Honour
must have heard, is all right if we were only to hear
the report from one hon. member of the Government.
The Prime Minister got up in this House, however,
and said that he would rather eat with South Africans
than dine with members of this Opposition. He said
that he would rather sit and eat with South Africans,
and that was his reason for going below there. In
other words, it is either not true that something was
to be discussed or it is true thatthe Prime Minister
is using his numbers, his helpless numbers at times,
to show and set the pattern of division in this coun-
try, and I pray God that the Prime Minister and he
alone will pay that price when a total division is
called.

It cannot be denied that if one were to walk the
streets of this island, wherever you go, youwill find
that people are being separated one from the other
politically. There is no question of my belonging to a
political Party and another person belonging to an-
other political Party, each person expressing his
own political view or belief and shaking hands and
going on saying: "Hail fellows, well met; you are
entitled to your belief and I am entitled to mine."
That is not the case now. When the Prime Minister
of this country can take those hon. members over
there and lead them when he is about to commit his






1173


breach of privilege, when he is about to do every act
that trespasses upon the dignity of this Hon. House
not one single member of them has enoughpride and
honour left to let the Prime Minister understand:
"Thus far and no further:" when they know what is
right from what is wrong. We are approaching a very
dangerous situation in this country, and what must we
say when this Hon. House is to be used as a pattern
for such ill-behaviour, such an exhibition of bad man-
ners, the principal character being the Prime Min-
ister of the country? What must the youth of this
country look to? Which way must they go?

In many of our schools today it is accepted by
the children that what the Prime Minister of the coun-
try does is right. If the Prime Minister comes in here
and behaves so badly as to cause a row in the House
of Assembly for food, do we want our children to ac-
cept it as a standard that, when they come to occupy
the seats of members, they have a right to come in
here, behave as they like and fight and row for food?
I say: "No", Mr. Speaker. Iwill tell you this, that the
Prime Minister needs some priming.
2.55 p.m.

He needs some priming and the one regrettable
feature is that he has aroundhim numerous spineless
people.

Mr. Speaker, money is a very useful thing. But
money can be put to very dangerous use and I am
charging, Sir, now judging from the behaviour of
some hon. members that side,the salaries beingpaid
to them, I want to say, Sir, are not being put to the
best use of this country. They are not being put to the
best use for the benefit of the country.

Mr. Speaker, if your position, in politics or
otherwise at any moment of life prevents us from
discharging a clear and honest conscience, the best
place for us is the grave. I want to say right here and
now that the time has come when members of the
Government ought to be seriously examining them-
selves. They might prefer the assistance of a
psychiatrist, but it is time in any case that they be
told that two wrongs do not make a right, and above
all, that having been elected to this Hon. Chamber
they are supposed to have reached some stage of
maturity and are expected to act and to discharge
their consciences I cannot say for their own per-
sonal benefit but whenever they act, whoever is in-
volved, they should so discharge their consciences
that although it might not find the favour of every
hon. member sitting around this Chamber, it is a
discharge of conscience which would bear an examin-
ation anywhere, in any audience and before anybody
of people in this Island.


Mr. Speaker, this motion before this House calls
on Your Honour to discharge a duty. That duty is to
take the necessary steps to punish this breach of
privilege. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, you will say
that before you can punish any such breach of pri-
vilege, it has got to be established that there was a
breach of privilege.


Now, Sir, if from amongst the members of this
Hon. House you had felt or had cause to feel that
there was any essential ingredients lacking to prove
that there was a breach of privilege,you have had it,
I think, in a communication from the Other Place.
That is before this Hon. House. That is the situation.

It was never right for the Prime Minister to
have led Government members in the lunch room of
the Other Place. The thing is, Sir, that good shep-
herds follow the sheep I mean good sheep. The
Prime Minister has to lead and, Mr. Speaker, you
are satisfied that a breach of privilege was com-
mitted. You must be satisfied now, Sir, that that
breach of privilege was committed by none other
than the Prime Minister of this country, andthat the
Prime Minister set about to convey to a policeman
and to the members of the Royal Barbados Police
Force and to the world at large that the situation in
Barbados under his regime is such that whenever he
feels that a member of the Opposition is delaying his
food and he must eat, he can have his policemen come
in to manhandle an hon. member.

That is what it amounts to: and you, Mr. Speaker,
have got at this stage to do all in your power, all that
lies within your power, to remove all that stain that
the actions of the Prime Minister have caused. We
are willing to admit, Sir, that to be here debating a
motion of this sort is not pleasant. It is very un-
palatable.
3.05 p.m.

We are willing to admit that debating a motion
of this sort is not pleasant; but, Mr. Speaker, you
have good food and you have bad food, and if the
Prime Minister adds bad taste to a good meal of
food, in what realm must we put it? The Prime Min-
ister would rather have us here debating actions
which one should say would be expected to have fallen
far beneath the standard, showing or performance of
any hon. member of this House, far less the Hon.
Prime Minister, but that is not the case. The Prime
Minister today reminds me of some boy or girl who
had been kept strict by the parents, and the parents
one good day turned out from the House leaving the
keys in the larder door. The little boy turns up, un-
locks the larder and sees sugar, salt,lardoil, butter
and pushes everything in his mouth, because that is
his only opportunity. The behaviour of the Prime
Minister from the day he was made Prime Minister
has done everything to drag the dignity of this coun-
try down, and then he lays the blame on others, par-
ticularly on the Opposition. It is no wonder, Mr.
Speaker, when at the opening of the College of Arts and
Sciences just last week the Prime Minister was then
functioning in the capacity of Dr. Errol Walton
Barrow, that the television cameras promptly brought
on Dr. Who.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member must be care-
ful not to contravene Standing Order No. 26 (6) which
reads:-

"No Member shall refer to any other Member
by name."


~







1174


Mr. HINDS: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I have
no intention of contravening any Standing order. I
would like to see and to know that never again in the
history of this House will there have to be any debate
initiated over the Prime Minister or any other hon.
member rowing over food. I am sure, sir, that the
Prime Minister ought to hang his head in shame when
the boys and girls who now attend our schools see him
go up and down the streets as the man who caused a
row in the House for food.

Mr. Speaker, you are asked to punish the breach
of privilege. The President of the Other Place was
not slow in drawing to Your Honour's attention that
there was a breach at his end. If there was a breach
at his end by going into the Senate dining hall without
permission, then there was a breach by bringing a
policeman to the door of the dining hall of this House.
You will remember, sir, that it was not a case where
the Prime Minister came in any mood which demon-
strated that he was for peace. The Prime Minister
came armed with a policeman, with his jacket off and
out for a fight. He had backed his jacket and brought
along two body guards in addition to the policeman,
one of whom seized two dishes of salad and challenged
any man to touch him. That is the exhibition that hon.
members of this Chamber are to put on, and they
expect that the public must not be told the reason.
They will repeat it and will go from bad to worse.We
have a duty, Mr. Speaker, to the public, and it is our
duty to focus attention on these things. If hon. mem-
bers who form the Government in this House headed
by the Prime Minister do not know how to conduct
themselves in a proper manner over a meal of food,
can you expect them to conduct themselves in a pro -
per manner over greater things? Their exhibition is
bad, however one might look at it. And, Sir, this is
what we must say: that in punishing a breach of pri-
vilege by yourself......

Mr. SPEAKER: In punishing a breach of privi-
lege by me?

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the
House is that this House calls on His Honour the
Speaker to take the necessary steps to punish this
breach of privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was merely pointing out that
the hon. member said "abreachof privilege by me".

Mr. HINDS: It is to be punishedby Your Honour.
Your Honour might as a human being have committed
a breach of privilege, but in this particular motion
before us, Your Honour certainly has not. It is the
Prime Minister, and as if to prove that Your Honour
must not be held party to it, when Your Honour's
attention had been called by the Prime Minister, see -
ing the mood of the Prime Minister, Your Honour
called him by his first name as if in searching vein
you wanted to let the Hon. Prime Minister know that
you did not approve there and then of the action he
was taking.
3.15 p.m.
What was that action? That action was bringing
Sgt. Herbert to the door of the banquethall in readi-


ness to lay hands upon an hon. and elected member
to this House, because the hon. senior member for
St. Joseph was being then accused of preventing the
caterer from getting out from the banquet hall to
carry food to the Senate's dining room forth Prime
Minister, his Government members, and a lady guest.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house feel
hurt. We are sad to see our Prime Minister behav-
ing in such a manner and choosing such a place and
occasion for such exhibitions of bad manners. There
can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if any hon. mem-
ber of this House has had proper parental training,
he cannot depart to the extent to which the Prime
Minister sunk on that occasion. It is a grave reflec-
tion on this Hon. House. It is something, I am sure,
that of all the incidents that have been sparked off
during Your Honour's presence in this Hon. House,
this incident, the rowing for food, will go down and
rest indelibly on Your Honour's mind. It is not some-
thing that can easily be forgotten.

We know that Your Honour would much have pre-
ferred if it had been on account of some hon. under-
taking, or some hon. incident in this Chamber that
was leaving its impression on Your Honour's mind.
We regret it, Mr. Speaker; we cannot help it; we
have to let it be known that it is the Prime Minister
of this country whose conduct in and out of the House
and his behaviour here, there and everywhere else
that is dragging this country down. We in the Op-
position will not allow him one day after today to get
away with these things, and then try to place the
blame on the Opposition for damaging the reputation
of this country.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, politics make
some strange bedfellows. Today we are seeingthe St.
Peter baboon.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is, of course,
not referring to any hon. member of this House?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Of course not, Sir. I was
referring to the baboon trying to represent the
Spooner's Hill ape. Later on in my speech I will
clarify what I mean by those two remarks. There is
an old saying that "power corrupts", but I say that
the loss of power corrupts absolutely; for the ex-
hibition that we have been seeing in this Chamber
for the past two weeks has prevented us from attend-
ing to one scrap of the people's business, because
people, who are discontented at even the results of a
fair election, who have been obsessed all of their
lives with power, and who have made statements to
the effect that they would destroy their very mother
to remain in power, are giving trouble. All of these
things we are seeing because the loss of power cor-
rupts absolutely.

The matter before this House, Mr. Speaker, is
one dealing with privilege. You, as the Speaker, have
allowed a debate on this. We on this side have no in-
tention of challenging Your Ruling. Even If we do not
agree with it, we will abidewith it, and that is differ-
ent from the people on the other side of the bench.






1175


Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that there is no refer-
ence to hon. members, when you refer to people on
the other side of the bench.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: If you take it so, Sir.

Mr. HINDS: On a point of order. The hon. mem-
ber is either addressing the Chair, orhe is referring
to hon. members on this side of the House, or he is
not addressing the Chair, and he should be made to
sit down.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, before I get
through they will be much hotter. Nowthe Resolution
that has taken up all of the time of this hon. Chamber
is that the Leader of the Opposition said on more than
one occasion that he would join with the devil in hell
to get the Democratic Labour Party, this wicked
Government, out of power.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows that he is not speaking the truth. I
never said anything of the sort. I am sorry that I am
in the House; otherwise I would have characterized
him with the only words that suit him.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of
the Opposition, the junior member for St. Joseph,
said that he would join with the devil in hell to get
the Democratic Labour Party out of office; that it is
a wicked Government, andhe is not goingto rest until
he has done that. Just a fewdays ago, when they were
coming back in here dropping remarks, he said out
there that his intention is to cause an election before
the five-year term is out. But I agree with senility;
when one gets old, one is not responsible for one's
actions. I will get old some day, too,but I hope I will
not make myself a public nuisance as some old
people have done.

Mr. Speaker, going back to the Resolution that
has taken up all of the time of the people's business
and has prevented us from doing our work, I was not
there: so I cannot speak as authoritatively as other
members on the other side who all seemed to be
there at the precise moment. I am not trying to ex-
plain what happened, but I am going on with my
speech. I saw Mr. Jones, the caterer, in a state of
desperation, I should say; he was actually crying. To
see a big man like that in a state of hysteria you will
know what it means he was really upset. I asked
him what was the matter, and he said that somebody
in the Mess room would not allow him to bring out
the food for other members.

Now, I heard a lot of talk about people fighting
for food. I want this point made explicitly clear here
and now. From.the time we had the last Election on
the 3rd November, 1966, I have not eaten a meal in
this House of Assembly, and I have no intention of so
doing. I ate in here on a Friday night when Your
Honour invited me here, because it was the twenty-
fourth anniversary of the hon. senior member for
St. Joseph. Say what you may about the hon. senior
member for St. Joseph I sometimes treat him very
roughly, and he in turn treats me the same way, but I


have found him to be a man. The Leader of the Op-
position did not see fit to attend that function on the
Friday night.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, onapoint
of order. I was suspended from the House, and if the
hon. member who has just sat down, if I can call him
honourable, knew the slightest thing about the Rules
of this House, he would have known that I could not
have attended the precincts of the House. Why have
the dinner at a time when I could not be there?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, he could not
attend the function, but the other hon. member who
was suspended attended the function. Do they not
cook at the other hon. member's home?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be glad if hon. mem-
bers would refrain from making any more speeches
about that very pleasant function.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I only mentioned it, Mr.
Speaker, just by the way, to set the record straight.
I have not eaten a meal inthis House since I was re-
turned in November, 1966. I was returned to this
House on the 3rd November, 1966.
3.25 p.m.

So when hon. members are trying to give the
impression about somebody snatching up food, I am
the person who took up the two plates of food, but I
will tell you why. I did not go in there to take up the
food; I went in there with the intention that if the
members of my Party could not eat, then nobody in
the House of Assembly was going to eat. I intended
to throw away all the food. That was my intention.
(Laughter) If we are not to eat, you are not to eat; so
do not try to give the impression that somebody
snatched up food, because they cook at my home
every day. I can vouch that I left here at 2. o'clock,
went outside in the verandah and talked to my friends.
I have not eaten. I have no intention of eating.

Now, Sir, the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
in his debate says that he was hurt because we would
not eat with him and all the rest of it. Apparently,
they are not worried because we eat somewhere else,
but because we are not eating with them; but the hon.
senior member for St. Joseph (Asides) I can repeat
what I said; it was nothing unparliamentary. I said
that the hon. senior member for St. Joseph says that
he was worried because we would not eat with them.
I said that that seemed to have been the problem. I
think that the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
ought not to be unduly worried for the simple reason
that for the former five years that we were in this
House, we all ate together. Nobody has imposed any
embargo on me; I have imposed an embargo on my-
self. I am making this statement here and now. I do
not hope to be seen in Westbury Cemetery dead with
some members on the opposite side. I have abso-
lutely no use for them and I am expecting them to
have the same for me. There is no love lost.

Now the Resolution, or a part of it, states this;
when I look at this Resolution, I am convinced that






1176


the tax-payers some time down in 1917 or 1919 I think
it was, were completely hoaxed because you cannot
believe that a Resolution like this would be drafted
by somebody who is supposed to be this big criminal
lawyer, special lawyer and all of this kind of non-
sense. As I was saying, Sir, apartof this Resolution
reads as follows:-

"That this House calls on His Honour the
Speaker to take the necessary steps to punish this
breach of privilege committed by the Hon. Prime
Minister."

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Prime Minister is a man
soon to be forty-eight years old. I have a penknife
here in my pocket and I am prepared when I go out
side to cut a tamarind rod and bring it back in here
so that you can punish the Hon. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Punish the Speaker?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: The Prime Minister, Sir,
because this is what the Resolution is asking you to
do, to punish the Prime Minister. I will bring a
tamarind rod so that you can punish him at the next
sitting. I would not waste any time with the first part
of the Resolution. I am proving to you that, in my
opinion, and my opinion counts at some time or other,
there was absolutely no breach of the privileges of
this House. Let us assume, for instance, that the
Barbados Labour Party has a pimp by the name of
"Slims" who is always running about the island. Let
us assume that the House of Assembly andthe Senate
are opened daily with the exception of Sundays and
Bank holidays. Let us assume that "Slims" walked
into this House this morning at 10 o'clock and sat
in your Chair; is that a breach of privilege? You
could only charge him with trespassing and I doubt
if you could charge him with that. This is a joke;
this is only an idea that theyhave set out upon them-
selves to waste the time of the people. Anybody can
walk into the House of Assembly on any day of the
week and sit in your Chair and nobody has elected
him there. That is not a breach of privilege; I would
say that it is a breach of etiquette, but not a breach
of privilege. Whereas it has been alleged that the
Prime Minister brought a policeman and asked the
policeman to remain outside, even if he brought a
policeman to apprehend somebody, who was the
somebody that the Prime Minister brought the police
to apprehend? It would be a breach of parliamentary
democracy, of parliamentary privilege and all the
nonsense that we have been going onwith for the past
two weeks, if he brought a policeman to arrest some -
body. It was the Prime Minister's right as well as
mine, your right or the right of anybody else in this
House if he wanted to call upon a policeman, and if
he wanted anybody apprehended, he could ask the
policeman to apprehend the person, if he wants to do
that. It is a matter for the policeman now; it is a mat-
ter for you now, but do not tell me that it was any
breach of privilege. If I saw in the newspaper that the
President of the Senate said that he considered this
to be a grave breach of privilege in the Senate, that is
a joke. (Laughter) Of course it is a joke. The Senate
was not in session. If we were to say that it was a
breach of privilege......


Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is
the hon. member who has just sat down, a member of
the majority Party which sent that letter, bearing in
mind what the hon. member has just said?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid thatthere isno point
of order.

Mr. HUSBANDS: On a point of order. The hon.
member, a Minister, who is addressing the House,
has made disparaging remarks of a member of the
Other Place, no less a member than His Honour the
President, in that he said that what the President of
the Senate referred to as a breach of privilege is a
joke. Under our Standing Orders we are not allowed
in this Place to make that kind of comment of a mem-
ber of the Other Place. I would therefore ask Your
Honour to point out to the hon. member who knows
quite a few things that are known to most of us, that
that in itself, constitutes the sort of behaviour
which has never been allowed to be indulged in under
the ancient Rules, Standing Orders, privileges and
customs of this Place. I hope Your Honour has un-
derstood me well.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker,......

Mr. HUSBANDS: I am still on my feet; I am ad-
dressing the Chair. The hon. member has referred
to a member of the Other Place disparagingly, that
hon. member being no less a member than the Presi-
dent. I am asking Your Honour to point out to the hon.
member the error into which he has allowed himself to
fall, speaking parliamentarily.

Mr. SPEAKER: Standing Order 26 (9) states that
the conduct of Her Majesty etc., members of either
House of the Legislature etc., shall not be referred
to except upon a substantive motion. I will advise the
hon. junior member for St. Thomas to bear that in
mind.
3.35 p.m.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I never saidthat the Presi-
dent of the Other place is a joke. What I said was that
what is said is a joke. I am not even saying that he
said it because I know that the newspapers have a way
of playing up things. But since we cannot refer to
things which we see in the newspapers when we are
in here, I know how to get around these things.

What I am saying is this. The Senate, is open like
the House of Assembly, from Monday until Saturday.

Mr. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member is
referring to the Other Place?


Hon. N. W. BOXILL: The Other Place. The Other
Place is open from Monday until Saturday. Anybody,
Mr. Speaker, can walk into the Chamber of the Other
Place at will. Not onlythat theycan, but they do: and,
furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a statement which was in
the Press said that this was a breach of privilege;
but when the messenger over there roasted a potato
in a kettle belonging to Senator Odessa Gittens,there
was no breach of privilege then., (Laughter)







1177


Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not re-.
ferring to any conduct of a Senator?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: No. Mr. Speaker; I am
talking about the Senator's kettle in which a potato
was roasted and as a result, it burnt out the ele-
ment. I did not hear any talk about breach of pri-
vilege then. Cooking was going on in the Chamber
of the Other Place. No breach of Privilege. I would
not be surprised if salt fish was not thrown in for
good measure, but I know about a potato which burnt
out the element of the kettle and I did not hear any
fuss then. The whole place smelt of roast potatoes.
It was no breach of privilege. But Iwould say this in
my opinion. My opinion is not bound to be right. I
would say that it is a breach of etiquette. Do not tell
me who had been playing to the moon and the papers
or that it was a breach of privilege because you are
not talking to village idiots.

Now, getting back to the Resolution, Mr. Speaker,
everybody in the country, those who wear clothes
and those who do not wear clothes, can see the mo-
tive of this Resolution. This Resolution has been
brought in specifically to retard the progress of this
country because even if it were a breach of privilege
as is claimed, what can Mr. Speaker do? You cannot
name the Prime Minister for it. All that you can do
is to tell the Prime Minister thatyou do not like this
kind of happening to take place within the precincts
of the House and you would ask that it does not hap-
pen again.

You get all of this nonsense, just wasting the
taxpayers' time; but I hope that the people of Barba-
does are not asleep any more, and that they can see
who are the people that set out to retard the progress
of this country.

The Resolution goes on to state:-

"That this House desires to place on record its
profound detestation of the conduct of the Prime Min-
ister as being disruptive to the dignity and good order
of the House."

Now, I am going to ask about the conduct of the
Prime Minister. He did this in the House of Assem-
bly. Did the Prime Minister lie down on the floor and
they had to bring policemento puthim out as they did
a time when a member from this Chamber, when he
was playing to the Gallery, had done? What conduct
are you trying to tell me about? If the Prime Minis-
ter called on the policeman to maintain order accor-
ding to the policeman's office, what conduct is this
that we must talk about and must take up two weeks
of the taxpayers' time?

I am wondering if some people do not have any
conscience. They are getting on platforms and they
are trying to impress the masses that they are look-
ing out for their interest. Two weeks have been com-
pletely wasted; we have done absolutely nothing of the
people's business, but they have come in hereto ar-
gue about who eats food from who does not eat food.
All of them, in fact, all of us are getting money and I


feel that we should eat, either at home or bring our
meals with us; but if we feel that there is a bread
line where we must dine and that as soon as there is
an adjournment, you see a stampede of members of
the opposite side trying to get into the dining room...

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I am not going to sit here and let the hon. member
carry on how he is carrying on. What is he saying
about stampede and when it is time for dining and all
this sort of thing? Mr. Speaker, you must call on the
hon. member and tell him that he is making himself
look very ridiculous. This is an hon. Chamber; we are
not dealing with children. Call the hon. member to his
senses. I want to know if he went out at the "Old
City". He is not talking like a man whom I believe to
have awakened this morning and only took his meals
home and did not go somewhere and drink something
wrong.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. senior
member for St. Joseph has transcended whathepre-
faced as a point of order.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, you see what
I said?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: You have read from
the section, and so on and so on, of the conduct of
members. Here is the hon. member saying "stam-
pede". "Stampede" is about the strongest word that
you can use. Nobody is accusing him of stampeding
but he is the only member who went and snatched up
two plates of food.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is transcending the point of
order. I do not regard "stampede" as unparliamen-
tary. It is not offensive or insulting. Inthe context in
which the hon. member used the word "stampede",
I do not regard it as transcending the Standing Order,
but I would ask the hon. member to keep to the point
and try to let us get on.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, we on this
side of the Chamber sat and allowed almost all the
other members of the other side of the Chamber to
speak without interference. All sort of things were
said about us by members of the other side. They
even accused me. They said that I snatched up two
plates to give the impression that I snatched up two
plates of food and ran outside.

Well, I will put the record straight. It was my
intention to throw away the food. "I was not eating,
so nobody eating;" that is my motto. You bring pun-
ishment on me, I bring punishment onyou. But do not
talk about snatching up food because I took the food
outside of the dining room and passed iton to some-
body else. The senior member for St. Joseph, as I
said to him before, has nothing to worry about. He
has seen us eating in there with him on divers oc-
casions. I have gone up at his place, Mr. Speaker, and
he always invites me to have a drink. I take his drink.
I am not afraid of him. That is why I say that a man
should be able to choose his friends. Well, I have
chosen my friends. Nobody is going to tell me whom I







1178


nust eat with. That is why I am insisting that every-
body should pay for their meals, and we would not
have all this trouble. You will see then how many
people would be running over to the dining room to
eat.
3.45 p.m.



In this Resolution, Mr. Speaker, we have heard
all sorts of vilifications levelled at the Hon. Prime
Minister and members on this side. I want to make
this explicitly clear. The Hon. Prime Minister is a
lawyer, and I have no intention now or at any time of
sticking my neck out defending lawyers, because
lawyers have their own little cult. The basic training
of law starts off with this sort of thing. But let us
get the second straight. As a member of this Party,
I am not going to sit overhere and allow people to use
such remarks as about parental training andthe rest
of it. If we on this side had the same parental train-
ing as some members on the opposite side, our
names would have been changed to numbers. We
would not be fit for human society inmy opinion, but
this is the price one must pay for democracy. When-
ever you look back at the comics, Mr. Speaker, you
read about Matty Square, Mr. Bribery, the Chinchil-
lars and all these people, and whenever you hear
them argue, they argue about constitutional rights.
The biggest criminals in history, as soon as you ar-
rest them, the first thing they talk about is their
constitutional rights being infringed.



It is quite easy, Mr. Speaker, for members to
get up in this Chamber and try to fool the general
public about the last straw of democracy and that this
is the thin edge of the wedge. Democracy, as I have
said, Mr. Speaker, in here already and will say again,
is as much a joke as any of the other "isms" and
"ocracies". The meaning of democracy,as I know it,
is the views of the people, by the people, for the peo-
ple. How many people have any say in this democracy?
Look at democracy in Great Britain, the biggest or
one of the biggest democratic countries inthe world -
if not by size, at least they always play they are more
upright than anybody else. Democracy went through
the eddoes when they were dealing with the South
African problem; so you see, Mr. Speaker, it is all
right to talk about democracy when it suits our pur-
pose, but do we believe in this democracy we are
talking about? We believe in the democracy of my
taking from you, but we never believe in the demo-
cracy of my sharing with you what I have. You hear
now about democracy; but the Labour Party never
saw fit for the seventeen years they were in power
to make it possible that the agricultural worker's
child could go to a free Secondary School. That is
the type of democracy that these people want to per-
petrate. As Malcolm X has said, Mr. Speaker, and I
fully endorse every word, there is nothing so dan-
gerous as the negro man with the Ph.Dand the B.Sc.
behind his name, because he always feels that the
moment he gets this kind of thing, he is uplifted
from his fellow man who is down there. He is not the
kind to bring his fellow man up.


You, sir, have been in this longer than I have
Jaeen, and you could see for yourself the snob class
that obtained in this country prior to 5th December,
1961, when we came into power. However, I do not
want to waste too much time of the House on this
Resolution. They went onto say -andthe gist of their
conversation was that the Prime Minister was in a
fight for food. The people today, Mr. Speaker, in all
of the African countries, the people in Vietnam,
Cambodia and India have at some time during the
day to fight for food. When a man is hungry you do
not know what he might do, and as I have said before,
to prove our point apparently we on this side can
withstand hunger much better because apparently it
seems as though we are better fed than members on
the opposite side.


Mr. SPEAKER: That is notunparliamentary, but
it is not really good enough.



Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, I did not say
it is so. I said apparently. It is not a statement of
fact.



Mr. SPEAKER: I realise that appearances may
be deceptive.



Hon. N. W. BOXILL: You know English even
better than I do, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. SPEAKER: I appreciate the compliment
even better than the hon. member. I thank the hon.
member.



Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Getting back to the Reso-
lution, Mr. Speaker, I have on more than one oc-
casion appealed to members on the opposite side to
remember that we came in here specifically first
to do the people's business, and that should come
before us at all times; but it would seem to me and
to all of us on this side that the Opposition is bent on
retarding the progress of this country as much as
possible, and then going to the people and saying that
we did not do anything, trying to make out a case that
when we should be doing business we are in a food
row. Well, Sir, you have all sorts of rows in the
Chamber of the Legislature, whether it be here in
Barbados......



Mr. CRAIG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of explana-
tion, Garfield Sobers' score is 98.



Mr. SPEAKER: Explanation of what? Iapologise
to the hon. junior member for St. Thomas for that in-
terruption which may well have got him off his stride.







1179


Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I am batting like Sobers,
Sir. We will still make a century. I am glad for the
information, notwithstanding the interruption. It is
good news to me. However, I have spoken on more
than one occasion admonishing members on the other
side of the Chamber that the business of all of us is
to see that the people's business is done first; but
as we can see from this Resolution if it can be so
called, this misinformedResolution, they would place
you in a most invidious position if this Resolution
were to be carried, because it is asking you in very
strong language to take necessary steps to punish
,this breach of privilege committed by the Prime
Minister. I will reiterate the statement I made be-
fore. I am prepared to bring a tamarind rod and lend
you to castigate the Hon. Prime Minister for this
alleged breach of privilege to this august body. Be-
fore I sit down, Iwill repeatwhat I started by saying,
and it is that power corrupts, but the loss of power
corrupts absolutely.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
that anybody on either side of the House is in any
doubt about the nature and purpose of this debate,
and like my colleague who has just sat down, although
I shall raise different reasons for supporting our
stand on it, I am convinced that it has been a device
of the Opposition to delay the proceedings of the
House in respect to Government Business.
3.55 p.m.

To me it is all of a pattern with the numerous
obstructions, the numerous delays, the tactics, some
of them I admit to be very clever parliamentary
tactics which have been used from time to time since
this Session began to slow down the Government's
work. (Applause)

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather premature to ap-
plaud the speech of the Hon. Leader of the House.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: I think hon. members were
applauding something much better than that, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Sobers has gained his century, Mr.
Speaker, which I am sure you will be pleased as I am
to hear.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will be pleased so long as we
get unanimity in this Chamber.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: On that score you do have it,
Mr. Speaker. I may say, secondly, Mr. Speaker, that
there ought to be no question of resistingthis motion,
because it has no significance really outside of the
very compass of this Chamber. Like any other mo-
tion before the House, it is a good opportunity for
both sides to indulge in a sliding match, and I think
that the other side should have really enjoyed them-
selves to the full. It must be noted that we on this
side sat in perfect silence while they were having
their go at us.

To my mind, however, only two speeches inthis
whole debate, and I exclude even my own, have at-
tacked the gravamen of this whole debate. Although


speeches were given from differing points of view
and from differing sides of the House,onlytwo came
to grips with the issue. I refer to the speech of the
Prime Minister and the speech of the hon. senior
member for St. Joseph, because from those two
speeches anybody who have not been aware of the in-
cident, either in its entirety or in part, would cer-
tainly have come to understand what the argument
was all about. The remarkable thing to me about
those two speeches was how the speech of the hon.
senior member for St. Joseph seems to bear out
quite truly the contention which the Hon. Prime Min-
ister was establishing in his speech.


When I examined the two speeches and what was
said in them, I certainly came to the conclusion that,
while we all have a good idea and a perfect under-
standing of what transpired, we all know that it did
not transpire in this Chamber; we all know that the
occurrence took place at a time when the House was
in recess; we further know that no harm came of it,
either physically or otherwise, to anybody; and we
know best of all that the charge, which is the main
contention of the motion that the privileges of this
House have in some way been breached by the oc-
currence, just could not stand examination.



One peculiar feature of this debate, as, perhaps,
of other debates which have taken place, whether on
special motions or in the course of the business of
the House, has been the -if Imay say so without dis-
respect, Mr. Speaker diligence of personal attacks
upon the Prime Minister. I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
of any other Parliament I am not saying there is
not; I am merely saying that I do not know of any
other in which it would be said that the Head of the
Government is a lunatic; that he has to receive at
frequent intervals psychiatric treatment. I do not
know of any Parliament in which it would be said -
there may be one such Parliament, but Ido not know
of it that the Prime Minister in order either to cir-
cumvent, or to promote a given policy, connived at
the murder of one of his own servants. I do not know
of anywhere else where this would be said, Mr.
Speaker.


I do not know in what Parliament anywhere in
the world it could be said that the Prime minister is
a self-confessed destroyer of public documents. Yet,
all of this we have heard from the other side of the
House. Now, I am not saying that the Prime Minister
does not know how to defend himself. He certainly
in the course of the debates in this House, in my
opinion, and he knows my opinion about it, uses lan-
guage and remarks which I think oughtnotto be used
by a Prime Minister in the sense that when you are
the Head of a country you can afford even more to
'let slide' a lot of things which are said. This is how
I feel about it.

I sit here in my seat and I hear some hon.
members, not all opposite, say the most disgraceful
things about me. What am I to do? I take them, be-






1180


cause if this is the levelof their debate; if this is the
contribution which such hon. members feel that they
can purposefully make to a public debate in or out-
side of this Chamber, and if this is the only way they
know how to gain debating points, this is all right
with me.

I, occasionally, clash swords with the Leader of
the Opposition, because I think in a Parliament the
Leader of the House and/or the Leader of the Gov-
ernment and the Leader of the Opposition ought, from
time to time, to exchange fire. I do it with him be-
cause I think it ought to be done sometimes and, cer-
tainly, for a better reason; whenever he makes a
public statement, it requires tremendous restraint
on anybody's part not to take him to task for it. But
even with him I restrain myself, because I think that
there are certain things that you ought to let slide.

I, certainly, do not think that when attacks are
made on the Head of the Government, whether those
attacks are made in Parliament or not, that the Head
of the Government should not defend himself andre-
ply; and for this reason I know that the Prime Min-
ister is fully capable of answering unjustified, or
justified, true or malicious, attacks made upon him.
But I do not think that the matter before us should
even be debated in that region at all. There is, after
all, the commonsense view you can take to this prob-
lem. It suits hon. members opposite to castigate the
Prime Minister merely because he is a public figure
of some deserving repute; he is the sort of person
who stands out in a crowd, and certainly has made a
tremendous contribution to his life and times; he is
the leader of the political Party which runs the Gov-
ernment and, therefore, he is significant enough to be
attacked. I do not think that even they believe that
when they attack him that this is all their motivation
can manage, or this is the real reason for clashing
with the Government.

I think hon. members on both sides of the House
must understand that basically this is a question of
power: who gets it, and who enjoys it. This is at the
root of the whole question. Now, our country is a
democratic country. Although I appreciate the point
of view of my colleague, I do not share the con-
clusions which he has reached on this matter of de-
mocracy, because it is the real thing. Iwould rather
have it than not have it. That is how I feel about it.
4.05 p.m.

Basically, what is dividing hon. members of this
House is the question of power, and I think that we
all have to understand that this country has changed
within the last two years. What has caused it to
change was something which divides us fundamen-
tally. Before 1965 it was possible for two or three
political Parties to exist in this Island and not to
discover that there were deep and irreconcilable
cleavages of principles between them. This is not so
now. What has brought the political watershed is that
hon. members on this side bravely and courageously
took their political future into their hands and opted
for independence for this country. Hon. members on
the opposite side did not, andthe side which opted for


independence has won. In the light of thatvictory, the
other side does not trust the winning side because it
feels, first of all, that the country should not be in-
dependent, and secondly, if it is to be independent,
it should not be independent under us. We must face
these facts because if we do not understand what it is
we are quarrelling about, we would not be able to
find what we are about to find. It cannot be a question
of who eats with whom or who sits down in the dining
room, because it is perfectly possible for a crowd
to have to eat and drink with each other every day
and still feel no fellowship with one another. That is
perfectly possible. I am contending that what we think
we are quarrelling about are only the things on the
surface, and the things which we are not quarrelling
about are the things which are really dividing us. I
believe, because I am an incurable optimist, that,
in time, we shall reach accommodation of outlook in
this country between both sides, because you have to
reach an accommodation outlook when the third,
fourth or fifth force threatens to overturn the es-
tablished and existing order, especially if that gives
everybody wealth to demand the pumps,and the little,
silly political games which we try not to play will be
washed away in the limbo-if we do not straighten up
as we think we should. But' there are deep and irre-
concilable cleavages of principles which are still
dividing us and these cleavages, are being reflected -
if I may say it without offence because I mean no
offence these cleavages are reflected in the snarl-
ing and scuffling which go on not unnecessarily and
not only in this House, but outside of it.

In the political arena generally and because we
are so deeply divided on a matter of principle, and
because the General Election has not healed the
breach but has tended to widen it, we see as a sort
of outpouring consequence of this division amongus,
all these little silly rows, if I may say so, that we
indulge in from time to time. But there is an even
more fundamental thing which is bothering us.

Mr. Speaker, the longer I stay in public life, or
as long as I have been in public life, the more con-
vinced I have been and this conviction grows on
me with every day that passes that it takes a tre-
mendous amount of courage for any twenty-four
people of this Island to get themselves elected to
this General Assembly. A lot of people when they read
the misrepresentation in the House, when they refer
to the bad behaviour among the smug, the satisfied
little classes in this island, none of whom would
venture to have the courage which the hon. junior
member for St. Peter, despite his attitude, has had
in offering himself none of the people who criticize
us as being bad-behaved and setting a bad example to
others, has had the courage to go to the same people
that we appealed to and asked them for their suf-
frage. It is their view that you have to be of a low
calibre to get into the House of Assembly. They say
that we are the worst form of animal life; perhaps
we are. But if the twenty-four of us are the worst
form of animal life, Mr. Speaker, where are the
representatives of the better form of animal life?
Where are they in this island? Why are they not of-
fering themselves since, on their own admission, if







1181


__n nobody else's, theyhave all the talent, the decency
the culture and everything else to get into the House
of Assembly? This is the problem that they are up
against. We are criticised, and in many instances
rightly so, but in more instances wrongly so, by
people who would never exchange places withus, be-
cause although they boast that they have superior
qualities, superior manners, superior dignity and
everything, they do not possess one-tenth of one per
cent of the political courage which it has taken the
most junior of us in this House to stand up on a pub-
lic platform at Nomination Day and offer himself as
a Candidate for the House of Assembly.

Having been elected, Mr. Speaker, look at the
conditions under which the people's representatives
allow themselves to work! Mr. Speaker, I say this;
frankly, it is no surprise to me that human relation-
ships are breaking down in this House, because we
tolerated for ourselves levels of comfort, levels of
commodiousness which we assume and would not
countenance in the clubs or associations to whichwe
belong. Who would have thought that in this year of
grace, 1968, a House of Assembly, charged with the
ultimate responsibility of the welfare of this country
would allocate itself a dining room which, if the truth
must be told, might well have been existing down-
stairs in the yard or at the Esplanade for all the
privacy, decorum and dignity which it couldaffordto
hon. members? Who would have thought that in a
Parliament which is three hundred years old, and
which is now Parliament of an independent country,
it is impossible for the Prime Minister or the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition and for this as at all
times, the incumbent Government must carry some
part of the blame.
4.15 p.m.

But who would have thought that you could have a
Parliament in which the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition could not have two properly
furnished rooms for their comfort and convenience
so that if in the case of the Prime Minister, he had
to be in attendance in the House but not necessarily
required in the Chamber he could still get on with
his work without interruption in a properly fitted-out
room of this House. Who would have thought that the
Leader of the Opposition has to share the lobby with
other members and a dining room with other members
as in the present case? He has already been head of
a Government, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER
took the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, he has been the head of the
Government here and head of the former Federal
Government. How can you expect responsible people
in Parliament to tolerate with these standards? Isay
this because I believe in those standards of comfort
:rd convenience and commodiousness and nothaving
us quarrelling with one another. The question of eat-
ing or drinking would easily solve itself. That is
no problem at all.

What you need for this Parliament is to have all
of these buildings this one, both topand bottom, as


well as the building on the other side to be put en-
tirely at the disposal of Parliament so that both Gov-
ernment and Opposition can have their own lobbies,
their own dining rooms, their own reception rooms,
and in addition to this, in case somebody thinks that I
am using the best possible arguments for separation
- in addition to the separate conveniences which I
think we should have because after all we are poli-
tical people doing political jobs, and political people
doing political jobs ought to be able to consult with
one another in the privacy of their own rooms or
their own apartments. There is nothing wrong with
this.

In addition to the separate lobbies and separate
dining rooms, separate reception rooms and separate
refreshment rooms, I would say that the entire Par-
liament I mean not only this House but the Other
Place should have a properly equipped and most
expensive and most tastily furnished common room
or lounge usable by both members of Parliament -
members of this House and members of the Senate -
without distinction of location or even party allegi-
ance so that hon. members not being pressed for
private discussion among themselves and their re-
spective political Parties but wishing to enjoy the
social amenities which the whole Parliament offers,
not only for all its members but for its members'
guests, if it so wishes, would have this common
meeting- room properly furnished with all the ac-
coutrements and equipment which a dignified andde-
corous setting would provide for the use and enjoy-
ment of all members of Parliament.

If this were so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they could
be no objection to the Leader of the Opposition say-
ing on some occasion, maybe duringthe Estimates or
during a discussion on the Budget, "I would like
members of my Party to meet with me in Lobby No.1
over lunch or over dinner to discuss our strategy to-
wards the Government's policy with respect to this,
that or the other." It would be proper for me or the
Prime Minister to say "I would like us to get to-
gether next Tuesday, or today or Friday in Lobby No.
2 to discuss our strategy and we would have our tea
served there or our lunch", and on those days that
we feel like not eating anywhere at all,we just do not
eat, and on those days when we feel and sometimes
in the case that Parliament as Parliament, or the
House as a House, or the Senate as a Senate, wishes
to use the common meeting room for the purpose of
entertainment, then this can be done, and we all can
meet on equal grounds without rancour or bitterness
and without any necessity of having to inconvenience
one another when we have reasons for eating or not
eating.

This separation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this
Parliament did not begin with the Prime Minister. I
can remember when this horse shoe table was not
divided in two as it is now, and as members are
sitting now. I believe there may be one,possibly two
or three members who can remember when instead
of having two sections of the horse shoe table, you had
one joint table. I can remember when this was so in
this House.






1182


Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point
of explanation. I did nothear all that the Minister had
to say. The change came as soon as Party politics
came into being. At one time there were three groups
which sat together in this House. I am not making a
speech on that; I was just letting the hon. member
know something about that.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was
never so grateful for an intervention as I am now. I
am grateful to the Hon. Minister for the intervention.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
what is the motion before the House? What sort of
Parliament building is it that you should have? What
has that to do with the Resolution?

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was
saying that I was never so grateful for an interven-
tion as I am in respect of this one. There was a time
when there was one table. The intervention of Party
politics divided the table. The then Leader of the
Government felt that it would be appropriate no
quarrel with you for it to separate those who be-
longed to that side from those who belonged to this
side. Naturally, as constitutional changes came, the
Opposition went one side, Government goinganother.
To me, that was a more significant departure from
tradition than anything which we can complain of to-
day because it means that for 200 or 320 years or
whatever it was, the burgesses elected to the Gen-
eral Assembly of Barbados had sat in conclave with
one another around a single table, and it rested with
the now Leader of the Opposition, then the Leader of
the Government, to desire a change in consonance
with the constitutional development.

So too, in the dining room. You see, what I am
establishing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this. Everybody
is now saying that the country is goingto the dogs be-
cause there is this division avery, very good factor
in politics. I think that is true, but I want to show that
it did not start with us. There was a time when in the
dining room, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was a large
table which we now see there, and there was a much
smaller table than the one which now exists upon
which certain Officers of the House used to dine.

Now, in time it was inconvenient for the Officers
of the House or all of them to use the little table
because the Opposition wanted to move away from
the Government.

(Mr. MOTTLEY made an aside.&

When the hon. member makes his contribution
he can say his side of it. The larger small table which
is now there was brought in to accommodate the mi-
nority Party or such members of the House as did not
then belong to the majority Party.
4.25 p.m.

Now these are changes. First of all, the table
separates. You go into the dining room -this is long
before the Democratic Labour Party came into power,
long before the Prime Minister was ever heard of -


and the change starts here to reflect the political
realities of the time. You push the Officers out in
order that the Opposition can be accommodated at
the smaller table. Well, the changes come further. v
We are now saying that we wish to refurnish and ex-
pand the comforts and conveniences of the House so
that both sides of the House -not the Government, not
the Opposition as such but both sides of the House
should have commodious and comfortable appart-
ments in these precincts for the better doingof their
work. But it is a bit more than this.

You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I
said earlier in my speech that the whole atmosphere
in the dining room is such that it is bound to be not
only worse, but worse in a peculiar kindof way from
anything we enjoy in our own homes, and this should
not be so. We should not have standards of comfort or
convenience obtaining in this House of Assembly
which are lower than those we would accept in our
own homes or in the clubs to which we belong. It ought
to be possible and it is possible now, but under cir-
cumstances which are very questionable that without
any doubt hon. members ought to be able to enter-
tain visitors, guests and- friends to a meal some-
where in these buildings, because we are a Parliament
of politicians who may have people coming to see us
on public business or-as a matter of courtesy either
from within the Island or from outside. You would be
surprised to know the trouble an hon. member has
to go to and the precautions he may have to take be-
fore he can entertain a guest. It is not only that you
must ask Mr. Speaker's permission, but he is well
aware, for instance, that a certain number of meals
are ordered, and he does not wish to presume upon
the comfort of the House by introducing guests per-
haps at inopportune times.

There has been worse than that, though. I can
remember before I was a member of the House that
I was asked in good faith to come into the dining room
by a Mr. Allder who was then the member for St.
John, because there was something which he wished
to discuss with me, and he thought it would be more
appropriate to discuss it over a meal. Now I do not
know whether or not Mr. Allder sought the customary
permission of the Speaker, but of course, it was not
my concern because I was his guest and not a mem-
ber of the House; but no sooner had I started to eat
than Mr. Speaker came and embarrassed me and,
presumably, must have embarrassed Mr. Allder who
was my host by asking him how dare he to have some -
body in the dining room without asking him, Mr.
Speaker. The hon. senior member for Bridgetown did
say that the Speaker was wrong at the time. This is
the sort of thing that can happen even now, and every-
body knows, of course, that the Speaker was the now
hon. senior member for St. Peter. All of this I have
lived through, and perhaps hon. members will for-
give me if I speak this afternoon in this strain, be-
cause I think I am admirably placed in this House
to do so. I have not been in it as long as the senior
three or four hon. members, and I have been in it
more than the junior ten or eleven. In this midway
position I remember a little more than those who
have just come and slightly less than those who have






1183


been before, but what I remember provides the con-
tinuity between the old days and the new days which
we are now seeing. That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I really cannot take a motion in these terms seriously
It arises, if at all, out of the very conditions under
which we live and work in this building, and what I
will campaign for and the reason why I accepted the
idea mooted by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to
go into this and other things, is that I really do be -
lieve that a Parliament in any country ought to be
the best furnished, most commodious, the most de-
corous, and enjoy the most dignified surroundings of
any public building or any public body in the whole
island. Therefore my support will always go for a
separate office and room for the Leader of the Op-
position, a separate Lobby including facilities for
dining or discussing for the other side, a separate
Lobby including facilities for dining or discussing for
this side, and a common room suitably furnishedfor
everybody where everybody can eat together if they
wish, can hold functions, can entertain, can sit and
read, can drink, can do anything they wish which it
would be proper to do in a common room. I bet you,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, well it is wrong to say I bet
you but I would lay a wager that if we had at the
moment that sort of facility in these buildings, we
should not now be wrangling over this unfortunate
matter. This is the level of my thinking. It is worse
than useless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to regret the di-
visions among the Parties. Divisions there are and
divisions there must be. After all, we are in power
now; and if the other side is honest to itself, it must
wish to have the Government some time or other. We
think from indications we have seen that although hon.
members opposite may wish to have it sooner, they
would have it later. Their hope on the other hand is
that although we think they will have it later, they
will have it sooner. In the last resort there is a Court
of Appeal to which we all go, and that is the elec-
torate when the time comes; but until the time comes
to make that appeal, we have to do the people's busi-
ness, and I am contending that the people's business
cannot be done unless it is done inproper surround-
ings. If proper surroundings existed......


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order, I
am drawing to Your Honour's attention the Standing
Order against irrelevancies. I have been watching
the clock since 14 minutes past four, and you see
what the time is now. Not for one half second in
that period has the hon. member dealt with the ques -
tion of privilege. Surely you should stop him, Sir.



Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Ido not
think I need trouble Your Honour to reply. I am try-
ing to assist the hon. member, gratuitously it would
appear, but I am trying to show him the way out of
his and our dilemma in this House, and I have tried
to show him that what he imagines erroneously to
have been a breach of privilege by the Prime Min-
ister has been in fact a breach of commonsense by
members of this House for not providing for them-
selves the facilities which would prevent the inci-
dent about which he complains.


One other point I should like to make, and it is
a personal point which has relevance, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, in my own position as Leader of the House.

I loathe and detest the duty which falls upon me
of having to make a decision, when the House is
meeting, as to whether or not a meal should be or-
dered. It renders me the most uncomfortable person
in several respects. I do not think it should rest upon
my judgment as to when other people should have
meals or not. It is an intolerable affront to those
people. Secondly, if when I think that a debate is
going to end quickly and the House is going to dis-
perse and I say "do not order dinner", and it turns
out that the debate is prolonged and dinner has not
been ordered, I get it in the neck, and I am placed in
the most invidious position as being the person who,
because he allegedly wanted to punish the Opposition,
did not order a meal.
4.35 p.m.

On the other hand, if, using my own judgment,
I ordered a meal and the proceedings of the House
were shortened or concluded earlier than my judg-
ment had anticipated, on my side of the House I run
the risk of being told it has been waste of time and
public money, because hon. members have gone home
and we still have to pay for the meal.

I think that the House of Assembly, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, which is careful and soliticitous of its
dignity, should have some arrangement which ab-
solves anyone of its members from having to make
this decision which he cannot enjoy making and which,
when he makes it, is bound to render him the most
uncomfortable member of the House. I hope, when
we reorganise our procedures, that I should be re-
lieved of having to make that decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is open to opinion on
either side of the question as to whether or not I
have dealt with the motion. I will only say in antici-
pation of anything the Leader of the Opposition may
say in winding up, if he says that I have not dealt with
the motion, he could conceivably be right, because I
can only deal with a motion before the House if the
motion seems to me to attack some problem, or to
refer to some basic problem which is upsetting the
procedure of the House. The motion in the terms in
which he has couched it does not seem to me to reach
deep down into our problems and, therefore, I could
not debate it on the surface. If, however, he wishes
to hear a pronouncement on that, I am bound to say,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have heard no arguments
on that side of the House to convince me that a breach
of the privileges of this House has been committed
by the Prime Minister.

I have heard arguments both from the Prime
Minister and the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
which have convinced me that an incident occurred
in the Lobby or the dining room of this Chamber,
which has been drawn to the House's attention and
which has been blown up out of proportion to its signi-
ficance. This is as much as I can say formally on the
motion. I cannot agree that a breach of the privileges







1184


of this House has been committed, because it should
have been the duty of hon. members opposite to say
what the privilege has been and how it was breached.
It is my contention that they have not stated this, but
I have spoken as I have because I want to arouse hon.
members on both sides to some things which have
been going through my mind which I think they had
better attend to, because it is in the conditions of our
work here and our surroundings that we get the spur
or the inspiration, if you like to call it that, to quar-
rel with ourselves. If we had more commodious or a
more convenient setting for the discharge of public
business, we should have very little time to quarrel
with each other, except on matters of principle which
divide us when we discuss public policy. Yes, on those
occasions; but they have nothing to do with our com-
forts outside of this Chamber.

We can make ourselves comfortable in a sensi-
ble way without extravagance, and be fortified in a
proper and dignified way to do our business in this
House. If we have to quarrel, we should quarrel about
how the Government's business should be run, but
we ought not to quarrel among ourselves about how we
should react to certain conditions which, if the truth
must be told, we ourselves have created, and which
conditions will remain unless we grapple further with
them.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I speakon
this matter and I think I can speak, unlike any other
member, free from all encumbrances. (1) During
my years in here, because of my health, I was not
able to partake of anything in the Lunch room: (2)
because I have had the experience here of only being
in the Opposition and never being in the Government,
therefore, I have had to defend members of the Gov-
ernment who are now in the Government, by attacking
members who are now in the Opposition including the
hon. Leader of the Opposition, and, when I speak on
this matter, I want you to believe me, Sir, when I say
that I regret that a matter of this sort had to be
brought to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have listened to the Hon.
Leader of the House. I do not agree with him on the
whole, because I cannot agree with having these luxu-
rious dining rooms and all of these luxuries for a
little 2' x 4' country like Barbados, when we still have
some people living in the same conditions under
which they lived during the last century.

I came in here inthe Gallery of this Chamber be-
fore I became a member of this House. I used to see
one man of African descent sittinghere. Then as Mr.
T. W. B. O'neale has said at an Election; "the flood
gates seem to have opened." I think that I was 29
years old when I saw quite a number of persons of
African descent taking their seats in this Chamber.
After that there were those of us who summoned
courage and got elected here. Iwill speak from there
on.


Mr. Speaker Pile, Mr. Speaker, Evelyn, Harold
Austin and so on had different political philosophies
to the new Leader of the Opposition who, in those


days, faced some very able, astute and, I may say,
hon. men. As time went on, men like the Hon. Leader
of the House and the now Prime Minister joined forces
with him. I remember in the yard of the precincts of
this Public Building the now Leader of the Opposition
attempted to introduce me he was then Prime
Minister as "Mottley the King-maker; Mottley the
King-breaker." I remember well, Sir, immediately
after that I had a discussion with the now Prime
Minister. A week or two later I attended a political
meeting in the Park. I heard the famous speech:
"In God's good time all white men and white people
should be banished and shipped out to sea."

I remember saying to the Prime Minister after-
wards:"I know how you feel coming from a war, but I
do not think this is the sort of thing that would suit
Barbados". I was surprised myself, because my
colleague, T. T. Lewis, was on the platform, and I
think he was still regarded as a white man in Bar-
bados. I have said that to showthe position. I believe
the Hon. Minister, the member for Christ Church,
knows exactly what I am saying and he can vouch for
it. All of these were members for whom the Leader
of the Opposition made an-opportunity for them to en-
ter public life.

I remember well, Sir, when I was running....
(Interruption) I have never apologised for anything -
and beat the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in St.
John I think it was Fred Bethel in those days.
4.45 p.m.

I remember that the Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion on a public platform one night at a huge mass
meeting said: "Would to God more people, more
young men, more students, educated men like
Cameron Tudor would come back to this country and
serve the people of this country." He has given up
all in all to come hereto serve. I used to flatter my-
self and the Prime Minister knew it too I could
speak well in those days; I had little mass psycho-
logy and we won. I believe that you, in those days,
know what I am speaking about. All this happened,
and it also happened that, as the Hon. Leader of the
House has said, there was the Congress Party, and
the now Conservative Party a member of which I
am never ashamed to be. You never saw me cross
any bridge; I go down fighting. This is how I feel.
When the Congress Party won eight members andwe
had eight and the Barbados Labour Party had eight,
all that happened was that the suggestion was made
that the eight members of each Party sit together
in the House or in Committee. I want to make that
point clear so that it will be clear in the minds of
people, that there was a division, but that division
was a division on political philosophy. Therefore, you
had an extreme Left and an extreme Right, and as
time went on, the now Leader of the Opposition gained
power and got his majority in the House. For all of
these years and up to now, Ihave been in the Opposi-
tion. No one gave the Hon. Leader of the Opposition
more trouble on the floor of this House than I have
given him in supporting members like the Hon.
Leader of the House and members of his Party and
Mr. Crawford who was the Leader of the Congress
Party.







1185


I would say this, that during all of this period,,
the only one man in the Government Party who ever
attempted to think that he could draw lines outside
the House, was the now ex-senior member for St.
Michael, Mr. Cox. Outside of that, the Speaker pre-
sided in the dining room and members sat not op-
position at one table and Government at another, but
all in between. The Speaker presided at the table.
I will say this, that it was the custom that if any
member thank God I have never had to do it -
wanted to offer a cup of tea, more especially to a
visiting person to Barbados who came in to listen to
the debates, he would always ask the Speaker. I have
seen the now Leader of the Opposition and Dr.
Cummins I have seen every one of them go to the
Speaker. I have seen the Speaker sit at the top of the
table and preside. I have had in this House some
turbulent rows with the now hon. senior member for
St. Joseph when he was Chairman of Committees. We
all would go out and we would laugh it off and we
would say: "Boy, wait until we come back; I will
show you what I will do with you." He would clap me
onthe shoulder and this would go on. That has hap-
pened throughout all the years; but what is strange
to me in this matter I was not there; I am going by
evidence. If this were a Law Court, we would have to
go by evidence. I believe that the disrespect for the
Speaker in this matter is something which members
of the Government will never get over. As regards
the Hon. Leader of the House talking about these fa-
cilities which he would like to see and all of this
thing for members of the House, I want to say that
there are some people in this world who are so con-
tentious, and although we know that education is the
first step in making a humble person a gentleman, that
they can never become gentlemen.
The Speaker of this House, as every one knows,
is in charge of the House. I have been told that the
Clerk of this House was given instructions by the
Prime Minister to tell the caterer to fix food I did
not know that you were dealing with hogs in the
Senate Chamber's dining room for members of the
Government Party. If any members of the Govern-
ment, let us say, the Cabinet wanted to discuss some -
thing privately, that would be a different matter. If
the Cabinet wantedto discuss something privately and
they felt that if they went in there you could eavesdrop
and so on, I would be the first to say that that is non-
sense. You could very well say that if the Prime
Minister wanted to discuss something privately in a
room with his Cabinet members but for months now
I have been noticing that, with the exception of the
hon. junior member for St. George, the Minister of
Agriculture, the hon. junior member for Christ
Church and the Speaker, no members of the Govern-
ment Party were coming into the dining room par-
ticularly. I threw a joke at them, but they never
answered or gave any reply, but it is a bad day for
anybody to be able to tell you because you are draw-
ing a salary being elected in here and you are in a
party, to whom you must speak and with whom you
must be friendly.
4.55 p.m.

If I thought that the Prime Minister can make
the hon. junior member for St. Michael who for forty


years had been my friend friendship is like a plant
of slow growth, it is true -well then, I would be very
much surprised at him. For forty years the hon.
junior member for St. Michael had been my friend.
This is the sort of thing which I think elected mem-
bers of the Democratic Labour Party need pulling
themselves together, and the Prime Minister should
not be able to tell people this.

Now, this is, I think, common knowledge. I un-
derstand that a member of the House has been told
to pick his friends; he cannot be friendly with the
Clerk of the House. (A VOICE: Who said that?) The
Prime Minister. Do not look at me and ask me "Who
told me so" because I know that is so.

Now, Sir, this is bad, very bad for Barbados. I
am in business. Do you think if I had to do business
with the Hon. Leader of the House that I was going
to take into account that he was Leader of the House,
or likewise with the Prime Minister, and because he
belonged to a different political Party from mine, I
must have some sort of venon, some sortof cancer-
ous feeling towards him? No, that is not so. That is
why I say that during the years when people of a dif-
ferent political philosophy, and a different com-
plexion too, presided in this House, they never did
that.

In the days when the Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion was suspended from this House, that did not
prevent Mr. Douglas Pile from taking his seat at the
head of the table in the dining room. I can bring this
to your knowledge chapter and verse. The Leader of
the Opposition was suspended according to the rules
of this House because he felt that he should not with-
draw something; but it did not prevent Mr. Douglas
Pile from sitting down in his place at the head of the
table.

Now, the Hon. Leader of the House has had the
advantage of some twelve years in England; he has
had the advantage of an Oxford Education. Whatever
might be his shortcomings, we do look at him as a
gentleman, and I am surprised to hear him even de-
fending this. Whatever might be his shortcomings,
he is looked upon as a gentleman and there are cer-
tain things which you do not expect him to do. After
spending twelve years in England and, maybe, five
years at Oxford, whatever the case may be, you do
not expect him to do certain things.

I have been in this House for quite some time. He
is right when he said what happened between Mr.
Allder and the then Speaker, and Icriticisedthe then
Speaker. I also criticised Mr. Allder because I said
it was his duty first to enquire from the Speaker if
it would have been all right to bring somebody in.
But I do not like that sort of thing.

Now, as I have said, if this was in the Law
Courts, you would have had to go by the evidence
which you have. What is the evidence? The evidence
is, as I understand it, that the Clerk told the caterer
to fix up, not for the Government,not for the Cabinet
members, but for the Government members the







1186


Speaker has said that he knew nothing about it, and it.
is about time that you put the Deputy Speaker in the
Chair and the Speaker come out and-say so. He said
that he knew absolutely nothing about it.

Having said this, arrangements were made. The
other members of the House not all Opposition
members including His Honour the Speaker, sat
in the dining room not eating, but waiting to be fed.
Well, there are only two butlers. Seeing all the food,
and so on, being passed outside, as I understand it,
one thing, that is to say, one joint or whatever you
might call it was to remain in the dining room and the
others to go outside, how else could they act on see-
ing what was going on? This is not the eighteenth
century where people, feeding servants, ate on the
table and then raked up what is left and gave it unto
their servants.

Those of us who have had the opportunity of
travelling to America, and realising that you often
had to work as a servant or maidor whatever it was
in America, saw that it was a different way of life, and
therefore, they felt that everything was being taken
out of the dining room or that the Government must
be fed first and they must be waited on afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, you are a member of the Gov-
ernment's Party; they are the Government inpower.
But you will remember this, as I have often said; all
of us got elected here under the same Constitution.
All of us came in here as elected members; none of
us was brought in here in a wheelbarrow. There is
no justifiable reason why food should be taken from
inside of the dining room and carried somewhere
else for members of the Democratic Labour Party.
I can afford to speak as I do because I have never
eaten in there for my twenty-oddyears inthis House.
This is not the Democratic Labour Party Head-
quarters. This can be done at the Democratic Labour
Party Headquarters.

Therefore, I am bound by what I heard as I was
not there, and having heard the speeches of those
who were there as to what happened that while the
food was taken out, hon. members who were in the
dining room blocked the entrance and refused to allow
any more food to be taken out, the caterer literally
got on his knees and asked to be allowed that is his
business to take out the food purely in the interest
of his contract. I do not blame him. But the members
of the Opposition refused, and rightly so. They were
right. If I had been accustomed to eating in the dining
room, I would have thrown all the foodaway and paid
Mr. Jones for his dishes,because Iwouldnot be pre-
pared to sit there and wait until you fed the Demo-
cratic Labour Party and then come to feed us.

Now, I want to show you what used to happen
when the Prime Minister was a member of the Op-
position like myself and would sit in there and eat.
We remember well enough the hon. senior member
for St. Joseph and myself when he summoned us to
appear in Court to give evidence on his behalf as to
what took place. We had the courage to go, one mem-
ber from each Party one member from the Labour


Party and one member from the Conservative Party.
A member of the Labour Party had said something
about him, and so on.
5.05 p.m.

One member from each Party was summoned.
There was one member from the Barbados Labour
Party, and one member from the Conservative Party
to give evidence as to what took place when a mem-
ber of the Barbados Labour Party had said something
about him. We .went and spoke the truth and said what
happened. This just shows you that in those days the
Speaker sat in the dining room and all members ate
together. How is it now, simply because you have be -
come Prime Minister and your guts and head have
become swollen, that you cannot sit and eat with
others like human beings? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
hope when I say this you do not get "fired"; but you
are a member of the Party. I passedthrough Strath-
clyde and you saw my car and clapped your hands
and called me. You know I do not drink, but you in-
vited me in and all your boys were there; but you
have been friendly with me for many, many years.
Is this because people have political differences?Do
you believe I share the same views as the Leader of
the Opposition? I have not changed my views. I have
never been afraid when people told me that when I
was Leader of the Opposition I recommended Dick
Leacock to be a member of the Other Place; and if
you put me in that position again, Iwould do it again,
because I feel that a man who is Chairman of the big-
gest investment in Barbados, the old iron that grinds
canes, would have a right to be inthat Chamber. I do
not say that they should predominate the Chamber or
predominate the life of politics in this country again,
but because of that, must that make people bad
friends? Do you know what I see about this? You will
be bad friends with all these little fellows around
here, and the Prime Minister would encourage you
to be, but all the time he is abusing the white people,
look in the papers and you will see the fraternizing.
Of course, he is getting what I do not want now and
that is the trouble.

On the evidence before us from members who
were in there, it appears that the Speaker was not
apprised of it, and secondly, the food was being car-
ried out while they were sitting there, and they
stopped the food. The Hon. Leader of the House says
that the reason why he cannot vote for it is because
it does not say what is the breach of privilege. The
Resolution says "That this House views with the ut-
most gravity and consternation a breach of the pri-
vileges of members of the House committed by the
Prime Minister"...... and then it goes on in simple
English that any of us can understand "in invoking
the aid of a member of the Royal Barbados Police
Force to restrain the freedom of movement of hon.
members." Either that is a fact or it is not a fact.
If it is not a fact, this should be thrown out; but if it
is a fact, it should be voted for. Is it a fact that
Sergeant Laban Herbert was called by the Prime
Minister and brought to the dining room door? Is it
a fact also that the only person who can talk about
ejecting a member of this House would be the Speaker
by invoking the aid of the Marshal, and when that is







1187


not sufficient, then with the aid of policeman? I am
sure the Hon. Leader of the House cannot deny this
is the tradition. Therefore if you step beyondbounds
to ask a policeman on your own, because you are a
Prime Minister, or if you step beyond your bounds
now as Deputy Speaker or as a member of the House,
that is a breach of privilege. After all, this is Par-
liament. Is it that because you are Prime Minister
you are in charge of the Senate or you are Speaker?
This is terrible. Let the Leader of the House tell you
that when the hon. senior member for St. Peter was
Speaker, I adopted this same attitude with him; so I
am free to speak on this matter. With the evidence
before us, how can the Leader of the House say that
no case has been made out when it says "in invoking
the aid of a member of the Royal Barbados Police
Force to restrain the freedom of movement of hon.
members"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am going to support this
Resolution because I have sat and listened to the
evidence, and the Hon. Leader of the House has not
yet said that Laban Herbert was not brought by the
Prime Minister. Of course he was not there. If he
can prove here today that the policeman was not
there, I would vote against it and I would have no
qualms about so doing, because it does not matter to
me. I have been in the Opposition all the time and I
feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you as a lawyer sat
as a judge and heard this case, you could only wait
on the evidence. What is the evidence? The Clerk
told Teddy Jones that he had been told by the Prime
Minister, not even by the Leader of the House, where
to put the plates for food for members of the Demo-
cratic Labour Party. Mind you, the table had already
been laid for the members of the House. Everything
was picked up and the members of the Opposition
Party were sitting down, waiting, with hands folded,
like boys outside waiting to ask for a plum, and they
saw all this food being moved out. What else could
they do? I think Teddy Jones is very lucky. There
was curried mutton for one set of people, and pork
chops for another set. I am not going to say what
the hon. senior member for St. Joseph has said, be-
cause no Prime Minister could stop me. The Leader
of the Opposition could not stop me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Iwant this to be made clear.
I am not speaking for the same reason that the hon.
senior member for St. Joseph spoke about being
snubbed, because being snubbed is nonsense. Do you
know why I say this? Let you and I look in a mirror,
and let us look at the Prime Minister and the Leader
of the Opposition. Do you think you look as if you can
snub me? But let us refer it back. The Prime Min-
ister's grandmother like everybody else's was the
same masher of trash in the cane fields. She was
the same thing as yours and mine; so how could he
snub me? I would have more manners thanto roll up
my shirt sleeves and come in here to make a noise
for food. You put a lot of little pigs together, and you
will notice that if you have some little white ones,
when the little black pigs are fighting, the white ones
stand by and wait. I think it is bad manners and in
bad taste. If you want to give people food, do as I do
and invite them to your home.


When I was in the Oppositionandthenow Leader
of the Opposition was Prime Minister, the hon. junior
member for St. James can tell you there were oc-
casions when I had a party. Who fought me more not
to become Mayor of Bridgetown than the Leader of
the Opposition! But I know what is right and what is
wrong, and I would still invite all the members of
his Party to functions. The only one member in my
whole experience whom I have found to stand up and
say: "You have no right going there: or "You have
no right fraternizing with the member for the City"
and so on, was the former member for St. Michael,
Mr. Cox, and he is where he is now; so will the
Prime Minister be some day. Whatever goes up comes
down. It is no sense bullying and playing bull in a
china shop and going all around doingthis. I am sup-
porting the motion because there is no evidence to the
contrary. The suggestions made by the Leader of the
House and these grandiose ideas about wanting the
whole of this compound there for the House of As-
sembly, I do not agree with. What I do agree with is
that a Committee should be appointed to go into the
matter, just as you have the Printing Committee, of
dealing with the question of accommodation for
members and the like, but not that I will ever agree
that you want all this.
5.15 p.m.

I have been into the House of Commons, and the
Hon. Leader of the House has been there hundreds
of times. Let him tell this House if he saw any cus-
hioned chairs and fancy things in the House of Com-
mons. That is in England. You will soon want some
spring mattresses in here for members if we go on
this way. It must be remembered that we still have
people in Boscobelle cooking in a yard on a rock with
a skillet. They now talk about members wanting this
and that, and they did not want it in the days when
Douglas Pile and Harold Austin were here! We have
enough comforts here.

If hon. members were acting like normal, ra-
tional human beings and not being led away in this
matter, they would realise that 'what difference does
it make'. Going outside and talking to the Minister of
Agriculture about a school, or about cricket, could
not change his mind about being a member of his
Party. If he spoke to the member for St. Michael
on a matter, could that change his mind and make
him come into this House and vote differently?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suppose this Resolution
will not pass this House. With those few remarks I
say that I am going to support it. This has been a bad
thing for Barbados. No one regrets this more than I
do. Wherever you turn in this country you hear peo-
ple regretting this incident. We have to think of the
young people aid the youngsters in this country. I
think myself that the Prime Minister must shudder
to say: "I am Prime Minister; Ihave come up and up,
but look what has happened?" I(Interruption) (Mr.
CORBIN: Do not waste time.) My friend, you are going
up the wrong tree; you are talking to the wrong per-
son. You have lots of work to do? Do not waste the
paint, or do not rush the brush.








1188


Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a very, very bad
state of affairs to see the headlines "ROW OVER
FOOD". This is a very bad thing. We cannot expect
the Speaker to descend in this arena inthis matter.He
will have to keep quiet, I suppose, but I think we all
know that the Speaker was not even consulted in this
matter. I admire the Hon. Leader of the House you
can always look in his face and see when he is de-
fending a bad case; he turns pale; he knows he has a
bad case. He regrets having to do this, but he has to
say something. He can play with words, and he said
something.

This is one of these things which I hope, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, will never happen in Barbados again.
If, because members are working for a couple of
hundred dollars when the month comes and they can
be dictated to and told: "Do not speak to Sergeant; do
not speak to Husbands; do not speak to this person and
another person", that is certainly a bad state of af-
fairs, Sir. I have been inpolitics fora long time, and
I have never changed my colours. With the exception
of Ronald Mapp and Cox, whenever members of this
House got up and I gave a lot of trouble in here.
For instance, the Leader of the House called me out
one morning very early and asked me to fire licks at
the then Government. I came in here and fired licks
at the Government. (Mr. ST. JOHN: They have dis-
owned you now.)

When I was a little boy, my aunt used to tell me:
"My dear boy, whatever happens happens for the
best." I know that they cannot point their fingers at
me about anything dishonest; they cannot do it; I chal -
lenge them to do it. You may say that I made money
and made money fast, but that is my business. I went
into the real estate business, but they have some peo-
ple who grudge others right and left. As long as they
did not go to a University and they made money, some
people think that they should not.

However, Sir, today if Iwere a member of a jury
and I saw this and I had heard the evidence, I could
not go along with the Leader of the House that no case
has been made out. He heard every bit of the evidence.
This is a question of invoking the aidof a member of
the Police Force. That is beyond the authority of the
Prime Minister. Only the Speaker can call on the
Marshal, and then the Marshal can invoke the aid of
a Police Officer. This is the case that has been made
out. I have listened to the evidence of those who were
there. We have all heard the evidence, and the evi-
dence is very clear it is as clear as a pikestaff. If
the evidence is there, much as we regret it, instead
of doing this in here, just as the Speaker said "Errol
what are you getting on with?" The Speaker admitted
that, you know be courageous enough to say to the
Prime Minister: "Do not catch at something small."

For instance, I usually talk to the hon. member
for St. Michael. If I wanted a favour done tomorrow
in respect of an opinion about something which he
was conversant with, I would go to Fontabelle to see
him. I hope if the Prime Minister comes and sees me
at your home, he will not...... (Mr. St. JOHN: Throw


him out of the Party.) No, he will not do that to George
George is in a better position. He would do that to
others. I said in here just now, and I am sorry cer-
tain members are not here, that it is a fact that he
told the hon. member for St. John: "Look for your
company; you should not be speaking with Horse
Cumberbatch". He cannot tell you that, Sir. After
all, you have your piece of parchment, your wig and
gown, and your shingles. (Laughter) .

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you sawthe senior mem-
ber for Christ Church coming through Strathclyde,
and you saw me, and said: "Come in, man; the boys
are here, let us have a drink all D.L.P. members;
let us fraternize", and you called the hon. member
for Christ Church, you would not be the Deputy
Speaker again. I am voting for this Resolution, Sir.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
do not know if any hon. member on the other side
would like to speak, because I intend to reply. If any
other hon. member on the opposite side wishes to
speak, he should speak now.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there anyotherhon.
member who wishes to speak on this motion before the
hon. Leader of the Opposition winds up?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in
the course of my reply I may be tempted to make
the sort of appeal that we on this side of the House
made when this session began, and that we have
made from time to time. I say "may be tempted",
but quite recently I did feel of course some of us
can change our minds and some do not. I may be
tempted to remind myself that a short time ago I felt
that it would be war to the death as between these two
sides of the House, because all of our appeals seem
to have fallen on deaf ears.
5.25 p.m.

Even when an appeal is made to some hon. mem-
bers who support the Government, the hon. junior
member for St. Andrew and the hon. junior member
for Christ Church are conspicuous examples of per-
sons willing and offering to cease to have rows and
let us get on with the business of the Government and
of the country. As the hon. junior member for St.
Thomas would put it, I am so old which is an hon-
our; it is nothing to be ashamed about so old as to
be very well experienced in a number of things,
chiefly parliamentary, I say "old" because I am a
lawyer as well as a politician and I do think that
some of us and I am addressing my remarks more
specifically now through you to the Hon. Leader of
the House some of us should remember that Bar-
bados comes before anything else, even parliament-
ary victories or debating victories, and we should see
that when you sometimes win victory, you have lost
the confidence and the respect of the people. Who,
apart from wanting a dialectical victory, or who are
invincibly ignorant, could possible say that this is not
a case of a breach of privilege? At one time the Hon.
Leader of the House gave the impression, although
he was drifting and drifting fore very long time, that







1189


because things said over on this side were said by
us, it did not necessarily mean that they should be
turned down. That is what caused me to say, when I
first got up a moment ago, that I have been almost
tempted again to hold out the hand of peace to them,
but I have reached the conclusion, I repeat, that
there is no hope of having a peaceful settlement be-
tween these two sides of the House.

I am making an appeal now; I know it will fall on
the majority of deaf ears. Hon. members may say that
they have scored a point this evening if they turn this
down, but to the outside world you are telling them
this the lowest of the low, if they had a family row,
would not do a thing like this, bring in a policeman.
The lowest person in this island, man andwife, sons
and daughters quarrelling does one go and fetch a
policeman? I would not insult the lowest agricultural
labourer or carpenter or the lowest of any type of
labourer in this island, to suppose that that could
happen. We know that that could not happen unless one
of them, husband and wife, son or daughter has a low,
low mentality. If you vote against this this evening,
you will be scoring a House of Assembly victory, but
you are telling the outside world that you condoned
the Prime Minister of all people, the man who should
be the symbol of what Barbados is or what Barbados
should stand for, you are condoning that conduct for
purely Party reasons. The Hon. Leader of the House
asked in his usual undergraduate, dialectical conduct,
in his saying-a-lot-and meaning-nothing style,where
is the evidence of a breach of privilege? I am not go-
ing to repeat it; I said it quite strongly enough a few
minutes ago, that bringing a policeman in a purely
House of Assembly difference of opinion -you cannot
even elevate it to say that it was a row is not a
breach of privilege?
I was about to appeal to the hon. junior member
for St. Thomas to remember his history. Charles I
threatened Parliament with soldiers, Charles I died
on the scaffold. This bring me I wish to deal spe-
cifically with the hon. junior member for St. Thomas
as I go along,and I paid him the compliment which I
do not remember paying to many people in all of my
parliamentary life, of writing down all the things he
said with the object of replying to them. He said,
for instance, that this is a part of the whole set-up
which some hon. members we should be insulting
some members of the Government to think that they
have such low gutter-like mentalities as to say this
sort of thing. The instance which the hon. member
who has just sat down referred to, we all know or
have heard of. He would not be seen dead in Westbury
Cemetery. (Laughter) He will be seen dead in Sta-
tion Hill. (Laughter) If he goes on as he goes on, he is
going to end up there.Could anybody on this side care
whether he is seen dead with him or not? How could
anyone of us on this side, by any stretch of the ima-
gination care? Then he said something which, ob-
viously, cannot be true. I saw very little of this, in
fact, when I got there Iwas in here talking with the
hon. member for St. James to an old friend from the
United States of America. When I got there, the Po-
lice sergeant was at the door and the Prime Minister
was walking off in his shirt and pants his shirt in-


pide this time and I askedthe Police Sergeant what
had happened. Up to then I did not know. I heard some
voices inside and sonon. The Sergeant was em-
barrassed and so afraid that all he could say was "I
do not know." I asked: "What are you here for?"
And he said: "I do not know, Sir." Obviously, the
Police Sergeant was afraid to say. Irepeat, and I re-
peat for the last time. You have a family row and
worse still a rowover food. Smooth it over as much
as you like; it is a plain, plain food row, who to eat
first, and who to get what, andthenyou bring along a
policeman! Does the Hon. Leader of the House still
ask where is the breach of privilege?

There has been very little reference to the fact
that the Speaker was insulted or overlooked. If it
were possible for anybody to be more embarrassed
than how the policeman looked, it was the Speaker.
When I stepped in, and I stepped in immediately be-
hind the hon. junior member for St. Thomas I saw
him snatch up the two plates and it was a snatch. He
pushed his way past, pushed his way between two
people just in front of me, and wentto one table, and
up with the left hand, and then with the other also. I
suppose that that was reminiscent of the old days when
he used his left and right hands to make a living.
5.35 p.m.

But then, the hon. member does not realise that
sometimes we say things only to goad him because
he is so easy to be goaded; though really we are pay-
ing him a compliment when we take notice of him.
But if he tells you thathe would throw them away it
is not true, of course, because he snatched them up
with the object of carrying them out to eat well, it
is just that some of us cannot live down our past.

Again, I repeat, I am too old just to be rhe-
torical. I have heard all sorts of speeches in this
House. I have heard all sorts of abuse; but I have
never heard so great an exhibition of real,low, com-
mon, bad manners as has taken place in this debate.
The Speaker, as I have said, when I saw him, looked
more than embarrassed; but it shouldbe stressedthat
our sympathy, if you like to call it so, should go out
to him in that episode.He has some faults with which we
would deal later: but in this particular matter the
Speaker looked like a little child being pushed away
because the Prime Minister felt that he can dictate
to everybody and bring a policeman. I have seen
that sort of thing happen when I was a school boy and I
have never forgotten it. It was the occasion of a match
at Harrison College. I was about 16 years old, I sup-
pose. It was a long time ago, anda man in the crowd
kept shouting out. Pickwick was playing Harrison
College, and this man kept shouting when Harrison
College was getting the better of Pickwick. I have
forgotten his name. There was a big blustering man
who became a Magistrate and was a Magistrate at the
time. He went and called a policeman to put that man
off the field. I could not helpfeelingwhat an abuse of
authority it was. The policeman dared not to tell the
Magistrate that the man was not doing anything. The
man was only shouting out. He was shouting "Harri-
son College, play on".






1190


This is exactly what the Prime Minister waq
asking that policeman to do in this case. He took ad-
vantage of that Sergeant. The Sergeant could not say
"No, Sir, I am nothing to do with it". The Sergeant
could not tell him "I must ask the Speaker if I must
go in". He is just ablusteringbully; and if the mem-
berp of the Government do not say that and do not
assert themselves, then they will retain their seats
for this Parliament alone and never get back in this
House because their manhood would have disap-
peared. Who is a man if he cannot stand up to any-
body?

This is what I mean when I said that this is the
most disgraceful speech I have ever heard. The
Prime Minister comes into here and instead of doing
what the junior member for St. Andrew did it is
true he tried to pooh-pooh it and said it was trivial -
but he said, "Let us get on with the work." Instead
of doing that, he delivered himself of a speech which
I am going to take around when the Official Gazette
is published and sheet this Island with copies of that
speech so that the people can see the type of man the
Prime Minister is.

He told you that you must not mix with us. He
told you in effect that you must eat alone. I wonder if
hon. members on the other side know that at the fol-
lowing sitting of the House fourteen lots of lunch was
placed on one side and ten on the other. I am re-
ferring to the following sitting after the debate in
here on this motion. When it reaches that stage, I
have to add a little to what the hon. senior member
for the City said. Which of us sitting around here -
even if we had the old stupidity of the white aristo-
crats of this Island of a century or so ago can af-
ford to look down for any reason whatsoever on an-
other? I was almost about to say which is better and
which is worse, but there are some worse ones.

I repeat, what members on the Government
benches if the Prime Minister, or if the Speaker
had done it, it would be the same thing would ex-
pect him to bring in a policeman if there was a dif-
ference of opinion between members of the House of
Assembly?
(ASIDES)
I agree with the hon. senior member for St.
Joseph. We can hear the scores afterwards.

As I said, I paid the hon. junior member for St.
Thomas that compliment of taking notes. Now I am
just using a Roman phrase "The invincible ignorance
of the junior member for St. Thomas." Imagine in a
debate of this sort, a debate when the dignity of the
House and the respect due to Parliament is at stake
that the hon. member does not take the trouble to
ask somebody something. He would not knowbyhim-
self, and if he read it he would not understand. But he
can take the trouble to see what happened to a person
complained of in cases of breach of privilege and what
punishment is used.

I did not look up anything on this matter. This is
the sort of thing that is in your brain anyhow. When


the word "punishment" is used, you punish people
for a breach of privilege. You either commit them to
prison in the old days there was plenty of that or
you fine them, or as in this case, what I called on
Mr. Speaker to do you reprimand or admonish them.

Some things have happened, even as recently as
this morning where the procedure has been com-
pletely forgotten. When these breaches of privilege
take place and are complained of, the custom is that
the person complained of has to withdraw, but you
would certainly give him a chance to say something
in his defence. None of that was done, but that is by
the way.

This is what I am asking Mr. Speaker to do, and
this is what I meant by the operation of the motion.
I said a moment ago that I did not look up anything.
Obviously, I did not because I made the motion stand-
ing on my hind legs soon after I had drawn the
Speaker's attention to it. But it is the duty of Mr.
Speaker to reprimand or admonish, or both, the of-
fender and in the case of the Prime Minister nobody
would want to ask more than that. I stress that the
Prime Minister had it in his power to show himself
a man instead of blustering it out.

How in the name of heavens could he go to the
Senate? That is a breach of privilege. I suppose that
some hon. member over there, especially the mem-
ber for St. Thomas, would protest against saying that
there was a breach of privilege as regards their
going in the Senate. The Prime Ministerhadit in his
power, possibly, to say the truth: that he did not think
of it, he is sorry, he made a mistake and he apolo-
gises to the Senate and it wouldnothappen again. In-
stead of that, he gloried himself inwhat he had done.
That is one of the most appalling things that could
have happened in this debate.
5.45 p.m.

Now the Leader of the House, like the Hon.
Prime Minister, though to a less degree he is not
as bombastic; in fact I do not thinkyou could use the
word "bombastic" of the Leader of the House whether
it is offensive or not offensive but the Prime Min-
ister and the Leader of the House make these ex-
traordinarily stupid accusations that we on this
side of the House are trying to pull down Barbados,
and worse still, when these things happen, the people
who say it do not realise that they are attacking
themselves and making themselves out to be idiots,
in accusing us of trying to keep back Government
business. Who was keeping back Government Busi-
ness when this House two weeks ago was adjourned
for a fortnight, and a day or two after and we all
know why the Speaker granted leave to have a spe-
cial session? I am replying now to the world on this
stupid accusation that the Opposition is only bent on
pulling down Barbados and keeping back Government
Business. The Leader of the House even used the
word "device". Here we are ready to work. We
thought we were coming back and that the House was
going to be adjourned until Friday of last week. In-
stead of that, it was adjourned for a fortnight, and we
are accused of keeping back Government Business!







1191


It was the duty of the Government to see then that we
came back on Friday and got through some more
Government Business. Two weeks were wasted, ac-
cording to the hon. junior member for St. Thomas.
I apologise to the hon. member for referring to him
so often. (Laughter) There you have it, the loud
laugh that speaks the vacant mind! I am replying, I
repeat, to the people of this Island, to the people in
the West Indies, to the people of the world. I am
speaking now as bluntly and plainly as possible to the
British High Commissioner, to Mr. Mann, the United
States Ambassador, to the other Ambassadors whom
we have here. They use their security people and send
some of their staff here to listen and to ask people's
opinion of us, and the image that Barbados has today
in the eyes of many people is that it is sinking, sink-
ing, down, down, down. I invite them to report to their
Governments who is keeping back Barbados.

We have been asked today by the Leader of the
House in what other Parliaments would this, that and
the other thing be said. In what other country where
people try at least to be decent and respectable would
you get a Prime Minister who hardly ever opens his
mouth without cursing his opponent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am as keen a cricketer as
anybody else. I suppose without boastingthat Iplayed
more cricket than anybody else sitting down around
here. I said cricket, not bat and ball for Speightstown.

The hon. member, being dishonest, thinks that
other people are dishonest. I repeat that the Prime
Minister got in here and made an exhibition of him-
self with his style of vituperation, which is the lowest
type of vituperation you can get from any type of
politician. Down in the gutter he goes. He says some
vile things inhere, and I challenge him to repeat them
outside, but he is a coward. If he were not a coward,
he would repeat them outside and stand in a witness
box and defend himself in an action for slander; but
he is going to say things and hide under the cloak of
diplomatic and parliamentary immunity. We ought to
be ashamed of having a man like the present Prime
Minister as our Prime Minister, and that has nothing
to do with this Party or that Party. We have to see
what image he gives to the outside world, and I do not
care how much I am attacked for pulling down Bar-
bados, I will make it my business whenever a foreig-
ner asks me anything about Barbados to tell him the
truth about this Government. Some hon. members
facing me, apart from politics, are the best of friends
you could want, but they are cowards. Standup to him!
Many a Prime Minister has to be "fired" by his own
people, and only then does the Opposition get a
chance of "firing" him to become the Government.
He is a bully and a coward, andhe has dragged Bar-
bados down into the mud.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be surprisedto find
members of the Government voting for this motion,
but they would be voting against the motion only for
Party reasons. Let them ask their conscience if,
when a Prime Minister calls in a policeman because
there is a difference of opinion -and, above all, over
food that is not a breach of privilege, apart from


the question that he ignored the Speaker, and only the
Speaker has control over this Place and the dining
room. Could anything be worse? If it is a breach of
privilege for him to do what he did in the Senate, is
it not a breach of privilege for him to have done what
he did in the House? Do not be like children in voting.
Do not be cowards. This is a plain, straightforward
motion to maintain the dignity and the respectability
of Parliament. This, barring one other in the Carib-
bean area, is the oldest of Parliaments. Let us live
up to the dignity of those Barbadians who went before
us and built a great name for Barbadbs.

The question that the Resolution do now pass was put and
resolved in the negative, the House dividing avfollows:-


NOES: Mr. YEARWOOD; Hon. C. E. TALMA;
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON; Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS;
Hon. N. W. BOXILL; Mr. LOWE; Mr. CORBIN; Mr.
SPRINGER; Mr. WEEKS; Hon. J. C. TUDOR and Mr.
HOPPIN 11.

AYES: Mr. LYNCH; Mr. MOTTLEY; Mr. HINDS;
Mr. CRAIG; Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS; Mr. HOLDER;
Mr. HUSBANDS; Mr. SMITH; Mr. St. JOHN and Sir
GRANTLEY ADAMS 10.
5.55 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next Order of the
Day is a motion relating to a breach of privilege
standing in the name of the hon. Leader of the Oppo-
sition.

MOTION RELATING TO BREACH
OF PRIVILEGE

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in
spite of the vote which was just taken, I am going to
make this motion and press it. This is even more
disgraceful than the last. My motion reads:- I hope
hon. members have a copy before them:

This House having heard Mr. Speaker read a
letter sent by the Leader of the House to Mr. Speaker
for transmission to the Honourable President of the
Senate respecting a breach of privilege committed by
some members of this Honourable House against the
President and members of the Senate strongly pro-
tests against this action on the part of the Leader of
the House and the Speaker;

The House having learnt from the reading of the
said letter that the Leader of the House purported to
apologise on behalf of the Majority Party of this
House without reference to others of its number con-
siders this act to be a gross breach of its privileges
and should not be condoned;

The House therefore places on record its gravest
displeasure at the conduct of the Leader of the House
and of the Speaker as being contemptuous of the
House, as lowering the dignity of Parliamentary
democracy and'as conducive to complete disrespect
for the holders of the high offices of Speaker and
Leader of the.House.






1192


Now, as I did not speak earlier, I cannot be ac-.
cused of repeating what......

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a
point of order. I should like to point out to the hon.
member that the first three lines of the proposed
motion are at variance with the facts. The first three
lines of the motion do not correspond with the facts.
The motion reads:

"This House having heard Mr. Speaker read a
letter sent by the Leader of the Houseto Mr. Speaker
for transmission to the Honourable President of the
Senate......"

That is not true. I have written to the President of
the Senate, and Ihave sent a copy of that letter to Mr.
Speaker. Those are the facts. (Mr. MOTTLEY: Then
that letter should not be before us.) (Asides) You
have to be concerned with the facts. Mr. Deputy
Speaker, on a point of order. I am not entering the
debate now. My letter to the Speaker says:

"Dear Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to enclose a copy of a letter
which I have sent to His Honour the President of the
Senate......" (Asides)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have to get this matter
straight. The motion says:

"This House having heard Mr. Speaker read a
letter sent by the Leader of the House to Mr. Speaker
for transmission......"

Sir GRANTLEY ADAM3: He has said that, and I
have accepted what he has said. I understood the
Speaker to say this, but the hon. member says it is
not so. He said that he wrote a letter to the President
of the Senate and sent a copy to Mr. Speaker. I accept
that. It will now be necessary to amend my motion
accordingly. The necessary amendment can be made.
Hon. members have the documents before them, and
they can read the letter for themselves. I have not
read my copy of the letter yet as I was on my feet.
"This House having heard Mr. Speaker read a copy
of a letter......" will be the slight amendment to be
made. (Asides)

"The House having learnt from the reading of the
said letter that the Leader of the House purported to
apologise......" I am sorry to be repeating it, Sir,
but I know that some hon. members will read it....

"on behalf of the Majority Party of this House
without reference to others of its number considers
this act to be agross...." (Interruption) (Noises from
the Clerk's Office)

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot hear
because there is too much noise behind there.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
wonder whether the Marshal forgets that he is the
-policeman of the House?


Mr. SMITH: Ask the Marshal to put them out, Mr.
Deputy Speaker.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
this is a breach of privilege, but the hon. member for
St. Thomas does not understand that. The noise is
disturbing the House, and that is a breach of pri-
vilege. Apparently appeals to reason fall on deaf
ears. Do hon. members for one half-second not see
that it could hardly be a greater breach of privilege
than this?

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot hear
him; the Reporter cannot hear him.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I should hate to say anything that would give a re-
flection on yourself, but, if you do not keep order,
I shall have to move that the House do now adjourn.
(Mr. SMITH: This is grave disorder; adjourn the
House and let us go home.)

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
when I say that it is the Government and the leaders
that bring discredit on Barbados some people get
annoyed. For instance, Mr. Speaker, is in there and
yet this is happening, and then they blame the Op-
position for bad behaviour!

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there is grave dis-
order within the precincts of the House, I suspend
this sitting for 15 minutes.
6.06 p.m.

On re-assembling,

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the sitting was
suspended some fifteen minutes ago, the Hon. Leader
of the Opposition was on his feet; but under Standing
Order 16 (3), as it is now later than 6.15 p.m. of
the clock, that matter stands over. The next matter
on the Order Paper for today is the notice of a Reso-
lution standing in the name of the Hon. Leader of the
Opposition.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMIS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it
is not often that a matter of this sort comes before
the Assembly.

At this stage, Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion is on his feet.

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no point of order
at this moment. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition
has just risen to speak and I have taken the Chair.


Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of explanation, the
Deputy Speaker....;.







1193


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I started
off by saying that a motion of this sort is a matter of
urgent public importance.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Am I to understand......

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion has not yet completed a sentence.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled...

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the Hon. Leader of the Op-
position proceed. (Asides) that is my Ruling.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, Itake
it that you......

Mr. MOTTLEY: I do not like that kind of bully-
ing. I like to be calm. I want to know whether......

Mr. SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Hon. Leader
of the Opposition may proceed. If the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition is not disposed to proceed......

Mr. MOTTLEY: What have you ruled on, Sir?

Mr. SPEAKER: Two hon. members are on their
feet.

Mr. MOTTLEY took his seat.


Mr. SPEAKER:
position proceed.

Sir GRANTLEY
member thinks that
tion ......


Let the Hon. Leader of the Op-


ADAMS: I take it that the hon.
this is not in order as a ques-


Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member is therefore
ill-advised.

Mr. MOTTLEY: You cannot tell me that I am
ill -advised.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am entitled to say that. Sit down.
I am entitled to tell any hon. member who remains
standing after Mr. Speaker has risen, or who stands
after Mr. Speaker has risen, to sit down, unless, of
course, he does so gracefully to bow to the Chair
and withdraw.

Mr. HUSBANDS: I am speaking on a point of
order backing the rights and privileges of hon. mem-
bers of this place. Mr. Speaker is in a position of au-
thority.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Speaker, are you going to
hear him and not me?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are two hon. members
on their feet.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I will sit. (Asides). Try to name
me. I am just the person to play with. Do you think
they sent me here.... (Asides) .


Mr. SPEAKER: There is an indication of grave
disorder. In view of that ..... (After a pause) The
Hon. Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS rose to speak.

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I see two hon. members on their
feet.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, I take grave ex-
ception......

Mr. MOTTLEY: Are you allowing him to speak
and not me?

Mr. SPEAKER: Two hon. members are on their
feet. I suspend the sitting for fifteen minutes on ac-
count of what I consider to be grave disorder.
6.30 p.m.

On resumption, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recall that when this
sitting was suspended the Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion was speaking.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
whole object of this Resolution is to tell the Gov-
ernment that we on this side of the House take most
seriously the position that exists today in the sugar
industry and the threat of the General Secretary of
the Union. Those who have not studied or at any rate
read the history and attempts at general strikes in
Great Britain do not realise exactly what is hap-
pening in similar circumstances and have not rea-
lised that if the community is going to be held up to
ransom......

(Members of the Government walked out of the Chamber.)


We are told that we retard Government Busi-
ness: but every single person over fouryears cannot
fail to see that the present Opposition is of a very
serious nature and the Government which is trying
to stall the Opposition, which is accusing the Opposi-
tion with holding up Government Business is playing
with fire. I think even the General Secretary of the
Barbados Workers' Union has realized that he was
playing with fire and is saying now that he is soft-
peddling.

In 1926, as hon. members know, there was a
General Strike in Great Britain and some of the La-
bour leaders had been opposed to it, but finally the
Trade Union Congress brought it about.

(The remainder of Government members walked out of the
Chamber.)

(Hand Claps)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
can anybody who has any real regard for honesty







1194


possibly say that this is a matter with which we are.
merely trying to make political capital? I do not want
to say anything that sounds boastful. I worked with
the General Secretary of the Union. I made him what
he is today, unfortunately, and I would know him. He
knows that his braggadocio comes from a real desire
to hit people hard when he thinks he has a chance and
a duty to hit them.

I take this very seriously. I take it that he thought
this was a chance for calling out transport workers
or dock workers. He forgot all about the tourist in-
dustry and the economy of Barbados. History repeats
itself. Forty-two years ago we had a General Strike
in England and it collapsed. That is one of the rea-
sons why I used the words "questionable legality."
It was because of the decision of the High Courts
that in the circumstances of the case then before the
Judge, the General Strike was illegal.


After all, the transport workers and the dock
workers have no quarrel with their employers, but
they are being asked to come out in sympathy with the
sugar workers. That failed in England, and for these
forty-two years no attempt has been made in England
to have a General Strike. We have had a dock strike
and a bus strike in 1958. We have had some big
strikes from time to time; but I knowing the effects
of a General Strike, take it seriously when I know
that if he can get anybody to stop working so as to
bring pressure to bear, he will do so notwithstanding
the suffering on the poor, on the sugar workers and
the management staff.

Now, I know that of these people who are talking,
some of them are spies; some have set out deliber-
ately to attack us. No hon. member on this side can
possibly be honestly accused of being on the side of
the Sugar Producers Association. If it is anything
else, we are on nobody's side in this sense; the cost
of living rise in this Island would make you say that
49 cents is too little. To accuse us and I am speak-
ing for myself; I hope that I do not sound as if I am
criticising my colleagues I am far more Left Wing
than it appears on the surface. I think profits under a
capitalist system are too high.

Let nobody be stupid enough to say that the Bar-.
bados Labour Party is on the side of the big people,
on the side of the capitalist and on the side of the
Sugar Producers' Association. But what we do say
is that we do not have all the facts. We do not know
if 49 cents, 5 per cent, 12 1/2 per cent, whatever it
may be, should be the amount offered. But what we
do say is this. Rather than have a general holdup of
work, I would modify what I said here a few Fridays
ago as regards the necessity to reap the crop.

All sort of stupid lies have been shed and Mr.
Walcott is saying that at the time of the involvement
we told the people not to work and now we are telling
them to work. We are doingnothingof the sort. I will
modify what I said. What I really do say is this. If the
Island is going to suffer, the working-class man is
-going to suffer more than anybody else. Therefore,


I- say that work should be continued; and, in addition,
people should be assured of getting an increase.

I will go further. This is my modification of
what might have seen bland and emphatic -even dog-
matic. We know very well that the people want money.
If workers can get some increase now, in order that
they undertake work, then the rest which may be due
to them can be given them when a board of enquiry
or an arbitration tribunal decides. Then they gua-
rantee that by law.

I think that hon. members and quite a number of
people generally know that you cannot have arbitra-
tion. In the old days when I was President of the Union
I never favoured compulsory arbitration. Let the peo-
ple get together and get together, and after a time
with commonsense they would reach an agreement
rather than that the country should suffer.

That is why I said ad hoc in particular cases if
you see negotiations breaking down and breaking
down. If both sides are adamant, then for that par-
ticular dispute have arbitration.

Therefore, I make it short because our time is
limited on a debate of this sort and doubtless some
other hon. members may wish to speak. Before I sit
down I repeat; we are not telling anybody that we are
going back on our Socialist principles; we are telling
the employers that you can afford to pay more. We
are not telling them that they cannot pay more. If
anything, we say that as a Socialist organization we
believe that profits in industry generally are higher
than they should be if a lot of people still cannot get
two square meals a day. We say that: but at the same
time we say that we do not know all the facts. I know,
and we all know, that 49 cents is too little, but we
do not know the position to tell you what it should be
and, therefore, you should have an impartial arbi-
tration.

I cannot sit down without contradicting in the
broadest strongest language consistent with par-
liamentary speech and giving the lie directly to Mr.
Walcott's telling people that I, the then Leader of
the Government, had appointed an arbitrator in 1958
and then went behind his back.
6.55 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was said that as Leader
of the Government I appointed an arbitrator in 1958
and then went behind the backs of the workers and
told him to give them little or nothing. That is not only
a damnable lie, but a stupid lie. In 1958 I was not the
Premier of this country; Dr. Cummins was Premier.
When Mr. Lewis, now Sir Arthur Lewis was appointed
I never at that time saw the Report or read it because
I was very busy in Trinidad. It was some time long
after that I read the Report. When Mr. Walcott can
get up in public and say that I appointed an arbitrator,
it is just a damnable lie andyou can see what we are
up against. What is the point of telling a lie when there
are hundreds of thousands of people who can contra-
dict it?







1195


As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not intend
to speak long in as much as according to the Standing
Order we have to finish by 8.30 p.m. I think I have
said enough and it is unnecessary to repeatwhat our
position is. We want more information; we want an
impartial arbitrator to say what exactly over 49 cents
should be paid to the workers, and we do hope that in
order to get the workers back, something can be done.
After all, we go around and we have a new Union, and
we know that the average worker will cut the canes,
but he wants to see his money, and we know that the
engineers are more emphatic about not working than
the average cane cutter.

I would also just remind hon. members that the
Resolution envisages now an ad hoc tribunal, but we
are also in favour of something over and above that
- a survey of the industry as a whole. I did not say
this on the last occasion I was speakingabout sugar,
but I say it now. We do not know because we have had
views on one side or the other side about Haggatts.
For instance, the last expert who was out here says
we have not got too many factories. On the other
hand some say we have got too many factories, and
our position is this: let an independent survey not
just a one-man but three first-class men who know
about sugar outside of this Island be made as to
how many factories Barbados should have or should
not have and as to where they shouldbe cited. If they
say one should be in the North, then scrap Haggatts
for being old iron, or improve Haggatts and let that
be one. On the other hand, they may say: "Do not
have one down there at all". How could we possibly
come down dogmatically and say you must do this
until experts go into the position, give us all the facts
and then let the matter be hammered out on the floor
of the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have very much pleasure
in moving that this Resolution do now pass.

Mr. HOLDER: I beg to second that.
Mr. St. JOHN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a mem-
ber of the Legislature of this Island and as a citizen
of this Island, one must take note of the fact that
reading all of the media of communication in exis -
tence in Barbados at the present moment, one can
only come to the conclusion that we are heading for
a grave industrial crisis. It is the duty of us as
legislators, and, in particular, it is the duty of the
Government to watch and view this situation care-
fully.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:In accordance with Stand-
ing OrderNo.5(3), this sitting now stands suspended
until 7.45 p.m.

On resumption:

Mr. St. JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I observe thatthere
is no quorum and ask that you direct the Clerk to
ring the Bell.

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the Bell be rung.
The Bell was rung but no quorum was obtained.

ADJOURNMENT
Mr. SPEAKER: It now being more than two
minutes after the time to which this sittingwas sus-
pended, and there not being nine hon. members pres -
ent, automatically this House now stands adjourned
until Tuesday, 20th February, 1968, at 12 noon.
7.50 p.m.






Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 44
Supplement to Official Gazette No. 59 dated 22nd July, 1968.

S.I. 1968 No. 99
The Industrial Development (Export Industries)
Act, 1963
THE EXPORT INDUSTRY (UMBRELLAS)
ORDER, 1968
The Minister in exercise of the powers conferred
on him by section 3 of the Industrial Development
(Export Industries) Act, 1963, hereby makes the fol-
lowing Order:-
1. This Order may be cited as the Export Industry
(Umbrellas) Order, 1968.
2. Umbrellas are hereby declared to be approved
export products for the purpose of the Industrial De-
velopment (Export Industries) Act, 1963.
Made by the Minister this 17th day of July, 1968.

ERROL W. BARROW
Minister of Finance.


(M. P. 7018/46/14)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs