§ MR. MUNDELLAI deeply regret, I am under the necessity for the first 182 time since I have been a Member of this House, of asking for its indulgence in order to enable me to make a brief personal statement. My first intimation as to the subject I am about to refer to, arose from the reports in the newspapers of Saturday morning, to the effect that, at the close of the Business of the House on Friday night, and just previous to the adjournment, the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron-Reed) put a Question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Trade (Baron Henry de Worms) relating to the premature publication of the Merchandize Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill of the Government in The Sheffield Independent of the 18th instant. The Question was answered by the Secretary to the Board of Trade. I am bound to say, that I am entirely dependent on the newspaper reports for what occurred, but I gather that I have been charged with a breach of confidence, and a breach of the Privileges of the House. The hon. Member for East Bradford, in answer to an inquiry by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to whether he had given Notice to the Gentleman affected by the Question, said that he had done so through a messenger of the House. Well, in fact, the first intimation I have received of what occurred was when I opened the Saturday papers. After having read the papers, I proceeded to read my letters, and found one from the hon. Member for East Bradford. The letter was dated as having been posted on the 19th of February (Saturday), and having been delivered on the 19th February. From inquiries which I had made at the Post Office, it appears that the letter must have been posted after the rising of the House on Friday night. I do not impute it as a fault to the hon. Gentleman; I only wish to state the facts. The letter simply informed me that the hon. Member for East Bradford intended to ask a Question relating to the premature publication in The Sheffield Independent of the Merchandize Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill. On Sunday I saw several Members, who practically confirmed the reports in the newspapers. It is quite true that through the courtesy of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) I received, on Thursday night, a copy of the Bill in question, and it was delivered 183 to Members on Friday morning. The Secretary to the Board of Trade also told me, on Thursday night, that the Bill had been posted to me. Soon after I received the Bill, on the same night, I received an application from one of the ubiquitous and clever gentlemen of the Press, who are always on the look-out for information, for permission to publish the Bill. The gentleman pressed me very much, telling me that it was sure to appear next morning, and that it was a public document already, for it had been sent to the other Members for Sheffield, to the Corporation, and to the Cutlers' Company. I replied that that might be quite true, but that the conditions imposed on me by the President of the Board of Trade did not allow me to communicate the Bill, and I definitely refused to allow the gentleman to have the Bill. I then discussed with the gentleman a number of statements respecting the Bill which had been published, for I am bound to say that I never hardly knew of a Bill respecting which so many official communiqués had been made, all being to newspapers which have the confidence of the Government. I explained all this to the gentleman, and discussed with him how the Bill affected certain provisions of the Bill on the same subject I myself introduced last year. When I came to examine the Bill I found that it was one of a rather voluminous and most technical character, covering eight pages of print; but when I turned to The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent I found that, so far from the Bill having appeared in its columns, there only appeared some 50 or 60 lines of notes, mostly made up from the conversation which I had had with the gentleman who waited upon me. A very much longer account of the same Bill had appeared in a certain Conservative newspaper in Sheffield on the Tuesday, three days before the publication of the short notice in The Independent; and which had all the appearance of an authentic document. I have, moreover, placed myself in communication with the authorities of the House, and have been told by them that, if I had actually parted with a copy of the Bill, I should not have been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House. It is no breach of Privilege to publish a Bill that has been read a first time three weeks ago, and which ought to have been printed 184 and in the hands of Members long ago The notice in the Conservative newspaper actually appeared before the Bill was in the hands of Members; but the notice in The Independent did not appear until after the Bill had become a public document. Therefore, the only complaint that is really made against me is, that I have discussed with a newspaper reporter matter that had appeared in the Conservative newspaper in Sheffield three days before. I hope that I have satisfied the House that I have not been guilty, either of a breach of Privilege or breach of confidence.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENEY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)I think it is unnecessary to ask the House to acquit me of a wilful breach of courtesy to any Member of the House, and I hope that the House will believe that, had it been in my power to do so, I would have communicated to the right hon. Gentleman |he question to which the present discussion related. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed) did write a letter to the right hon. Gentleman, which was handed to one of the messengers of the House; and, moreover, I communicated with the Front Opposition Bench through the usual channels that a Question had been put to me, so as to give the right hon. Gentleman facilities for answering as the other hon. Members for Sheffield had done.
§ MR. MUNDELLAI was in the House on Friday night at 9 o'clock, when I left for home. It would have been quite easy to communicate with me.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSAn endeavour was certainly made to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman. It is nobody's fault but his own that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place on Friday after 9 o'clock. But, as regards his answer, the right hon. Gentleman tries to draw a subtle distinction between a breach of Privilege and a breach of confidence. The Bill which reached the hands of the right hon. Gentleman was marked "Confidential." The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to establish a parallel between the article in The Sheffield Daily Telegraph and the notice in The Independent; but there is no sort of resemblance between the two, and if any proof were wanting that the conversation between 185 the right hon. Gentleman and the member of the Press was based upon the Bill, is proved by the way in which he accurately described its contents so confidentially communicated to him, and the use of the words "false in any material respect," which words appear only in the last draft of the Bill, and could not have been seen by anybody except the right hon. Gentleman and the other Sheffield Members. It would appear, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman certainly communicated the contents of the Bill to the reporter, who, in his turn, communicated thorn to The Independent. It is not for me to say what value the right hon. Gentleman attaches to the direction to regard the Bill as a confidential document; but it is clear that if he did not hand the Bill itself, he must certainly have communicated its contents to the reporter of The Sheffield Independent, and that, if not a breach of Privilege, was to some extent a breach of the confidential nature of the endorsement. The right hon. Gentleman has laid stress on the fact that he knew that the Bill had been sent to the Cutlers' Company and the Corporation. But the right hon. Gentleman could not have known that, the only person having the knowledge being the person who had sent the Bill.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThe hon. Gentleman told me himself that he had sent the Bill to the Cutlers' Company and the Town Council.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSI hope my memory is as accurate as that of the right hon. Gentleman; and I assert that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Bill did not reach Sheffield until 8 o'clock in the morning, too late for publication in the newspapers of the day. Consequently, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that when he disclosed the contents of the Bill it had ceased to be confidential, does not, to my mind, convey a valid excuse.
§ MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)I trust that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) will acquit me of any intentional discourtesy. I had first put my Question on the Notice Paper; but, on learning that I could raise the subject on the Motion for adjournment, I determined to take that opportunity, thinking that course more convenient and expeditious. The note 186 which I addressed to the right hon. Gentleman I gave, at about 10 o'clock, to one of the messengers, who informed me that the right hon. Gentleman was believed to be within the precincts of the House. I have myself made no imputation upon the right hon. Gentleman. The senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), however, did make a distinct imputation upon him; and it is to that hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman should address his complaints.