§ The PRIME MINISTERI rise to ask the indulgence of the House to make an explanation of a word that I wrongly used in replying to a question put to me on the 30th of last month. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) put the question, which ended with these words:
and whether he has received any intimation that he would be personally required to give evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing?It refers, of course, to the case we are going to debate to-day. The form and the suggestion of the question concentrated the whole of my mind upon myself and upon my own personal and separate part in this affair. I have been accused in certain papers of having known that I was going to be summoned, and with that knowledge, and because of that knowledge, of personally interfering. I have felt that very warmly. It was absolutely untrue. The accusation was one of those things that made one feel most resentful, and in concentrating my 513 ideas about a personal approach, on account of personal reasons, I used an expression which, when my attention was drawn to it two days afterwards, I had to admit went a little further than I ought to have gone, because it implied not merely that I, as a person, was either approached by the Attorney-General or approached the Attorney-General for personal reasons—a thing I had repudiated hotly—but it also implied that I had no cognisance of what was going on. I am very sorry. I did not mean to imply that. It was simply the concentration of my personal resentment at that gross imputation which made me for a moment forget that officially, and in conjunction with colleagues, the matter was talked about when no personal considerations were in our minds at all. If I have misled any hon. Members, I apologise for having done so.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can supplement the statement he has just made. He has told us that his words were not intended to bear the interpretation which I think most of us put upon them at the time they were delivered, and when he says that, we accept it. It is the universal practice of the House. But what did happen which necessitates this correction? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what form he took cognisance of the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is going to come out in the Debate.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think, as the right hon. Gentleman has corrected the statement, which is the only information we have yet had, and implies that he did take cognisance of the matter in some form or another, we are entitled before the Debate to have a frank statement as to how that cognisance was taken.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf the House desires it, I am perfectly prepared to give it, because I assure my right hon. Friend there is nothing in this transaction that need be hidden at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is going to deal with it in detail, and in a connected narrative, so that all that I will do at the moment is to indicate what did happen. Of course, as soon as I saw 514 the report in the papers, I wanted to know the facts. I got the facts. On getting the facts, I then expressed a view upon the prosecution, a view not about what was going to happen to the prosecution, but about what happened. The Attorney-General reported to us later on the whole situation, and the matter was left in the hands of the Attorney-General.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman says "the Attorney-General reported to us." I understand, or am I to understand, that "us" means the Cabinet, that the Attorney-General reported therefore to the Cabinet on the afternoon on which the question first came before the House?
§ Sir JOHN SIMONMay I put a question to the Prime Minister? I think we heard him say that he expressed a view about the prosecution to the Attorney-General. Would it be convenient to him to tell the House what view he expressed?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am perfectly willing to do what is necessary, but I think the House is not in a position to ask by a series of cross-examinations, and anticipate what is the legitimate business of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My hon. and learned Friend just tells me that he is the person who has been attacked primarily. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The only point which I wish to assure the House about is this, that the personal allegation made regarding myself I rebutted in the answer to the question. If I had not made the slip in using a word in the heat of temper—I think if temper is ever justified, it was justified on an occasion like that—if I had not made that slip, none of these explanations would have been made, and all that my personal explanation asks me to do is to leave the House in precisely the position it would have been in so far as this Debate is concerned if I had not made that slip.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINSurely the right hon. Gentleman will see that he purported, when the question was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), to give a full answer to the question. He made a statement which he admits, owing to the circumstances in which he spoke and the feelings 515 with which he spoke, misled the House. I now ask him to give the clear answer which was due to the House and to my hon. Friend when the question was put. He tells us that on that afternoon a report was made by the Attorney-General "to us," and that he expressed a view upon it. Are we not entitled to ask from him, as we should have asked if we had not been—I do not want to be offensive—I do not say intentionally, but if we had not been unintentionally mislead by the Prime Minister a week ago, to whom was that report made, and what was the opinion which the Prime Minister expressed? This is not primarily, if I may say so, a matter for the Attorney-General. It is a matter for the Prime Minister.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI propose to tell the House what the position was, but all I have to do in making my position clear to the House at the present moment in connection with this personal explanation is to put the House in possession of exactly what was in my mind when I answered the question.
§ Sir KINGSLEY WOODMay I remind the Prime Minister of the earlier part of my question. There were two parts of my question which I addressed to him. The first was directed as to what personal knowledge he had of the prosecution. It was the second part of the question which was directed to the question of subpœnas. I suggest to him he should now answer the first part of the question which I put to him, namely, what knowledge he had of the transaction generally?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe first part of the question hinges organically upon the last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] I propose to read the question. Anyone who reads the question and what has been said and written, would know that the question was one as a whole—
Whether any directions were given by him"—that is by meor with his sanction to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to withdraw the proceedings against Mr. Campbell?No. That is what I said. In elaborating it, my hon. Friend askedWhether he received any intimation that he would be personally required to give evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing?" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1924; col. 16, Vol. 177.]516 That is what I consider the offensive end of the question, which casts a light upon the first part of the question.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory as to the answer, and say whether he thinks that the answer, as he has left it to-day, is really a candid reply to the question put. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
I was not consulted regarding either the institution or the subsequent withdrawal of these proceedings. The first notice of the prosecution which came to my knowledge was in the Press. I never advised its withdrawal, but left the whole matter to the discretion of the Law Officers, where that discretion properly rests." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1924; col. 16, Vol. 177.]The Prime Minister has told us to-day:"The Attorney-General reported to us."
He declines to tell us who "us" were. He has told us that he expressed an opinion, but he has declined to tell us what opinion he expressed. I ask him who "us" were, before whom the Attorney-General was called, and to whom he reported, and what was the opinion which the Prime Minister expressed on the very afternoon on which these questions were asked.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about his dates, but we will pass that. The point is this. The only mistake in my answer was to use the word "consulted," and technically if one would care—I do not care—to use the English language with technical accuracy that is perfectly right, because I was not consulted about it at all. But it was pointed out that that might include something more than the technical use of the word. It was that there should be no lack of candour between the House and myself that I have asked for a chance to make this explanation. I was not consulted regarding the institution of the prosecution. I knew nothing about it until it had been instituted. Therefore, in expressing a view about its institution, I Was not consulted regarding the action that led to its being taken. That is perfectly right, and there is nothing to withdraw and nothing to explain. What happened was that after — [HON. Members: "Ah!"]
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf I require information about what any of my colleagues does, I am entitled to have that information, and, when I get that information, there is no Member of this House who can say that by receiving it I am asking to be consulted, or that I am consulted.