§ Mr. GWYNNEI would like to ask the indulgence of the House to make a short personal statement. Yesterday, during Question Time, I asked some questions in regard to a certain controlled firm under the Munitions Department, called Haigh, Grüban and Company. At the end of questions the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) made a personal explanation as regards his interest in that firm, in which he took exception to the fact that I had been discourteous in not giving him notice of my intention to raise the question. I then said that the reason why I had not given him notice was that the question had been raised in the House last week and I was told then that, although the question referred to a certain naturalised German called Gruban, the report also referred to a Member or Members of this House who were interested in the firm, and I thought it was in the public interest that if a Member of this House was interested in a controlled firm about which there had been a report which was not satisfactory, it was right to bring the matter out. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure without knowing what had taken place, said:
This shows that extreme unfairness may occur by an hon. Member putting down questions relating to one of his colleagues in the House without knowing what are the facts."ߞ[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1916, col. 850.]All I wish to say is thisߞthat if Mr. Deputy-Speaker had been aware of what took place in this House he would not charge me with having made accusations against a colleague without knowing the facts. In point of fact, I made no charge against a colleague at all. The question was whether any Member of this House was connected with the firm of Haigh, Grüban, and Company, Limited, a controlled munition firm. That was the only question. I think, bearing in mind what took place in this House last week, that the late Sir A. Markham had raised the question several times and had elicited from the Front Bench, both from the Home Secretary and the Minister of Munitions, that this firm was a controlled firm, and that they had sent down a solicitor to investigate into this transaction with the Government. Sir A. Markham put down a further question last Thursday, to ask the Home Secretary whether he would lay on the Table the Report of the Committee in connection with this firm. The question was not put at Question Time, but it appeared in the written replies in 1060 the OFFICIAL REPORT on 3rd August. The Home Secretary said:The Reports made by the Advisory Committee are of a confidential character, ants it they were written with a view to possible publication would lose a great part of their value. Further, tir.fi Report in particular affects very closely the interest of persons other than Mr. Gruban."ߞ[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1916, col.526, Vol. LXXXV.]As a result of that statement it was stated freely in the House that the persons referred to in the reports were Members of this House. It seemed to me then, and it does now, that merely because a man who is int3rested in a firm winch is doing business with the Government is a Member of this House that should not debar any hon. Members from asking a question which they would ordinarily have asked. Therefore, I put the question without any intention to bring anything unpleasant against a colleague. I should have done it whether he had been a Member of this House or not. I put a straightforward question, whether or not a Member of this House was a member of that firm. The question was passed by Mr. Speaker, and put in the ordinary way. After what the hon. Member said last night, that he is connected with that firm, I shall do him the courtesy of giving him notice if I raise any further question in regard to it.
§ Mr. BOOTHThe late Sir Arthur Markham was approached, and he did me the courtesy of seeing me. I placed him in possession of the facts and allowed him to read any documents. There is nothing that need be concealed from any hon. Member. If the hon. Member (Mr. Gwynne) will come now I will tell him everything about it from beginning to end. It was not the first question he asked, but a second question, which conveyed an imputation which is not true. I have no objection to this question. I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the point. This is one of the incidents in my life of which I am proud, that I have rescued this firm and rescued the staff from German domination. If the hon. Member will come and help me I will welcome his assistance, as I did the assistance of Sir A. Markham. I have to-day received a telegram from the staff, which I should like to read:
Your staff at Haigh's (Oldham) have to strongly resent imputation contained in Gwynne's question in the House yesterday They tender their sympathy and loyal support in your campaign.This is the staff who have teen keeping records, who have been interviewed by the Government, and who know full well 1061 the part that I have taken. I do not know why the hon. Member has raised this matter again to-day. I told the House yesterday that an action has been brought against me in which the charge is the exact opposite to what the hon. Member suggests. I am charged with being this man's implacable enemy even at the time when the Home Office looked favourably on him. These proceedings have been taken against me, and I have to answer them. How, then, can I keep explaining in this House when I am under legal advice and I have to face the Law Courts? I am quite prepared to meet this German, and all the Germans in the country, and when I have finished with them I am quite prepared to take on the hon. Member.