§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYI beg to ask permission to make a very brief statement with reference to a matter which arose shortly before the adjournment of the House for the Autumn Vacation, and which, I am advised by some of my friends, in the absence of such statement might conceivably bear on the honour of Parliament. I happened to be defendant in an action-at-law in which the representatives of the deceased gentleman, with whom some years ago I had various stock and share transactions, alleged that those transactions had been induced by what the law calls false and fraudulent representation. I have no idea, of course, to comment for one second on the merits of the case, but I may be permitted to say this, that it was common ground that the deceased gentleman in question had never himself made such a complaint. But his legal representatives took that view. They brought their action, and, unfortunately, I lost it. Thereupon I took immediate steps to go to the Court of Appeal, and I asked that the verdict of the jury might be set aside on various grounds. The Court of Appeal very generously acceded to my request to accelerate the hearing of the appeal, and at the end of the arguments the President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, expressed the view that the verdict could not stand, and that I was entitled to have the case retried on the ground of misdirection by the learned Judge, and for other reasons with which I need not trouble the House. The two other members of the Court, I am sorry to say, did not agree with the President. They thought the verdict should stand; and they also conceived it to be portion of 8 their duty to make certain strong comments on the character of the transaction which, summarised, were not complimentary to me.
Immediately after that decision I took steps to take the case to the final Court of Appeal, the House of Lords. It was obvious that such an appeal could not be heard for a very long period, during which I should have to remain under the stigma of that verdict, and accordingly I availed myself of the good offices of a friend to meet the legal representatives of the plaintiff's in the action, when various explanations were given, various documents were produced, and ultimately it was arranged that I should abandon my appeal to the House of Lords upon a document being signed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, which stated simply that
The plaintiff having had her attention drawn to a certain document, the contents of which were unknown to her advisers when she commenced the action, and being satisfied that the shares in the John Bull Investment and Trust Agency, Limited, might have been exchanged for shares of value, agrees that her claim was not based upon any specific misrepresentation of fact. It is understood that the appeal to the House of Lords is withdrawn.On that document as the judge of my own honour, a matter in which with the utmost respect I require no assistance from anybody, I considered that the admission—first of all that the action was brought in ignorance of the existence of vital documents; secondly, that many of the shares involved in the transactions, and which happened to be the bulk of them, were unquestionably for securities of value; and, finally, that I was not accused or convicted, if I may use the term, of any misrepresentation of fact, I considered that sufficient vindication of my personal character in the matter, and thereupon I entered upon certain arrangements with the plaintiff, with the details of which I shall not trouble the House. In the ordinary way I should have thought the matter ended, but it is suggested in various quarters that in some way or other this case may reflect on the honour of the House of Commons, of which I am happy to think, you, Sir, and the Prime Minister are the guardians. If that be so I am most anxious to recognise the position. The House of Commons is jealous of its honour. It has always been anxious to preserve the reputation and integrity and quality of its Members, but at the same time, jealous as it is of its honour, it is not fastidious, and, provided that a Member within its walls duly recognises the high traditions of the House and the classic spirit of Parliament, it is not over inquisitive 9 as to the details of what I would call adventitious matters. But if the House thinks that in this case there is ground for further inquiry or action, I am here to say that I submit myself unreservedly and in the fullest loyalty to its judgment. If it cares to attach sufficient importance to the matter to refer it to a Committee of the House, I will submit to that Committee all the documents and facts, and if the Committee is adverse to me I will then appeal to the final and supreme tribunal which our Constitution recognises in these matters, namely, my own Constituency. But I venture to hope that, having heard my statement, the House will, in its generosity and large-heartedness, accept it as disposing of the necessity for further action, and that it will permit me to continue the efforts which I can say I have honestly made for the past few years to counteract and undo, if, indeed, there be things to counteract and undo, in connection with my past, by a sincere and approved, if unconventional, endeavour to do a little good public work. If the House thinks fit, I ask it to permit me to resume my Parliamentary activities in the firm determination, from which I have never swerved since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, so to conduct myself, both within its walls and outside, as not to disentitle me to the proud designation, which I can say I value as my life, of being the hon. Member for South Hackney. I thank you for permitting me to make this statement.