Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Prime Minister, seeing that no opportunity is likely to arise during the Debate on the Address on the questions arising out of the Wick Burghs Election, if he will give an early opportunity of enabling the House of Commons to be put in full possession of the facts relating to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burgh on the occasion of the by-election in Wick Burghs?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have made inquiry into this matter, and I find that any hon. Friend, after eulogising the services which the Lord Advocate had rendered to the local interests of his constituency while a private Member, added an expression of opinion that those services might be still more valuable now that he had become a Member of the Government. I regret, and my hon. Friend shares my regret to the full, that such language was used. But he assures me that his speech was unpremediated, and that when he employed the words which have been criticised, he did not intend to convey and did not realise that what he said was capable of the construction which has been put upon it. My hon. Friend committed an error of judgment, but I feel sure that the House, always generous to its Members, among whom I believe he is one of the most generally esteemed, will accept his disclaimer of any corrupt or improper intentions.
§ Mr. GULLANDMay I be allowed to add that I can assure the House that I never intended to suggest more than that the Lord Advocate had been a most useful local Member. I can only express my deep regret that I used language which could be regarded as conveying any other meaning.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWe had, of course, intended to ask the Prime Minister to give time for the discussion of this subject, but after the expression of regret which has been made both my himself and by the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs (Mr. Gulland) I am ready to accept it.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)May I, with the permission of the House, just add a few words with regard to my position in this matter? I referred to the Wick Harbour on one occasion only in the course of my election. I did so in reply to a question at Wick, which was put to me on 13th November. What I then said was:—
Nothing has been said and nothing will be said by me or with my authority to the effect that tile result of the election will affect the result of the application for the Harbour Grant. I cannot speak either for the Treasury or for the Development Commissioners. All that I can say is that if I am returned to Parliament, as I believe I will be, I will do my best to secure the grant. If, on the other hand, Mr. Mackenzie is returned, as I do not think he will be, I do not doubt that he will do the same.So far as the speech of my hon. Friend is concerned, I was unable to be present at the meeting at which it was delivered till a comparatively late stage, and, in particular, I was not present during the portion of it to which objection is now taken. Nothing occurred to suggest to my mind that my position with regard to the Harbour, already, as I thought, specifically defined, both with regard to the past and the future, required elaboration or modification on my part.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask the Prime Minister whether all reflections and imputations upon the accuracy and veracity of the newspaper reporters implicated are withdrawn?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not know why that question is addressed to me. I made no reflection of any sort or kind.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask the question of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs?
§ Mr. GULLANDI shall be glad to answer that. The newspaper reporter admitted that his report was not a verbatim report, but, at this distance of time, I do not challenge his report. It is very difficult to remember three months after a speech is delivered the exact words used, and I am quite ready to accept these words as accurate.