HC Deb 27 May 1927 vol 206 cc2415-20

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd May], "That the Lords Message [1st April] relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the Law of Libel Amendment Bill [Lords] be now considered."— [Colonel Gibbs.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. MAXTON

Surely it is not proposed at this hour on a Friday afternoon to put through this rather important matter without any statement from the responsible Government representative whom I do not even see in the House? It is an extraordinary proposal and I should like an explanation.

Mr. HARDIE

If the Bill was objected to, does that objection not stand?

Mr. SPEAKER

Not until four o'clock.

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household)

It is proposed that this House should set up a Committee consisting of Members appointed by all parties to go into questions in regard to the Law of Libel and whether it should be amended. All that we have to decide to-day is whether we approve of the names which have been submitted and selected by all the parties in the House.

Mr. MAXTON

I do not understand the position. Here we have a Bill—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. MAXTON

No, I have not started yet to exercise it.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is speaking for the second time. This is not a stage of the Bill. It is merely a Motion to appoint a Committee to consider the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Then I have something to say on the Bill. I find that the names that are being put forward are all those of lawyers, and I want to know why we have no representation. We should be represented. There is every chance that my immediate colleagues and I may be hauled up for libel, and, therefore, we take a very keen interest in this Bill, which is of more interest to us than it is to the lawyers in this House. It is of vital importance that we should have individuals placed on these Committees when Bills are being framed and gone into that will affect us. There are individuals in this House who are prepared to charge us with libel at any time, if they thought there was any chance of getting anything off us. The great difficulty is to get anything off us, because there is nothing they can take from us. They cannot take the "breeks off a Hielan' man." We have no property to safeguard—absolutely none. The only thing that we have to safeguard is that which we represent in this House, and that is what the workers have to depend on, namely, their labour power. Therefore, we safeguard that to the very best of our ability; we guard it with our very life. This Bill is simply going to be pushed through this House as if it does not matter, The Government sit there day after day as confident as confident can be. In fact, they are typical of the brass faced men whom they represent in society. They are getting everything their own way, whatever they bring forward, because they have a horde of dumb oxen behind them who walk into the Lobby whenever the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury cracks his whip.

I do not see why it should always be lawyers who should deal with these matters. This House for the past fortnight has rung with the voices of the lawyers, and I am leaving it, not only with the House but with the country, to judge whether the lawyers have been able with all the artifices that they can bring to bear to do anything more successfully than the common layman can do. The lawyer fraternity have no special recommendations over the ordinary layman in their ability to represent the workers in this country, on these benches or on any benches.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Agreed!

Mr. KIRKWOOD

That being the case, and that being agreed by such a learned individual as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), who is a member of the legal fraternity, goes to show that the lawyers have no special qualifications over the average Member of this House to be represented on any particular Bill. Our work here should be of such a character as to demonstrate to the House that we are capable of filling certain positions in the carrying out of the business of this House, and I hold that the exhibition which we have had—because we here have taken practically no part in this Bill; this is the first time almost that I have been in here for about a fortnight, but there is plenty of time for me to come on again, and I shall. The lawyers have not assisted us one iota. They have not contributed anything to the benefit of the working classes of this country, and, therefore, I protest that none but lawyers should be put down for this Committee that is to deal with this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

We are not now discussing the proposed composition of the Committee. The only Question before the House is whether the House will agree with the Lords that a Committee should be appointed. I have to put a separate Question afterwards as to the names of the Members who, it is proposed, should be on the Committee

Captain GARRO-JONES

On application at the Vote Office I find, that this Bill is not obtainable. I should like to ask whether it is the custom to ask that a Committee should be set up to consider a Bill when we do not know what that Bill is because a copy of it is not obtainable at the Vote Office?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Bill has not yet been introduced into this House. It was introduced in another place, and we are invited by the other House to join with them in a Select Committee to examine the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE

On a point of Order. May I ask what is the process to be followed? We have before us certain names which you will submit to the to House. I understand, on a separate Motion. What we are dealing with now is whether we will agree with the request of another place for the appointment of a Committee. If we agree to the appointment of a Committee, can we afterwards discuss fully who are to constitute the Committee, because in addition to the names here there are certain other people, who, we think, ought to be on the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER

I shall put that as a separate Question afterwards, and objection can be taken to the names.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Further to that point of Order. You have stated that the business before the House is the Law of Libel (Amendment) Bill. Following that will come the appointment of a Select Committee of five members. You have said I can get in a speech on each of those? Following that, the names will be submitted, and can we get in a speech on that? Following that, will come the Question, "That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and that three be a quorum." Can we get in a speech on each of those Questions?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not propose to put as many questions as that, but I shall certainly put the appointment of a Select Committee and the names of those who are to compose it as separate questions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

What about the quorum?

Mr. SPEAKER

That follows.

Mr. MAXTON

On the point of Order put by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones). Is it right that this House should be asked to appoint a Committee to examine a Bill of the contents of which the House is entirely quite ignorant, so far as the official sources of information for Members is concerned?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of order. The question is "That the Lords' message be now considered."

Captain GARRO-JONES

You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order for the House to discuss whether the Lords Message relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the Law of Libel (Amendment) Bill should be now considered. If that be in order, I oppose the Motion on several grounds, and one is that the Law of Libel does not need amendment in the particular direction which this Bill proposes. [Laughter.] There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said with the fact that the Bill is not obtainable in the Vote Office. I have been in communication with an hon. and learned Member who heard the Debate on this Bill in another place. It took a considerable time. If it was thought necessary in another place to debate the question at considerable length, I think it ought to be debated at some length here, or, at the very least, we ought to know why it is proposed that the Law of Libel should be amended. I understand that the particular Bill for which we are asked to set up a Select Committee to discuss deals with a well known libel case, Hulton v. Jones. It may be necessary to remind the House of what that case consisted. It was the case of the writer of a novel who, in accordance with a practice which has become very common in these days, introduced into this novel a character who could be identified with a person then believed to be living. Although the writer did not mention that character by name, it was found out that his friends could recognise him by the description of his character given in the novel.

Mr. MACQU1STEN

His name was Artemus Jones, and the novelist used the words "Artemus Jones,'' and there was an Artemus Jones living.

HON. MEMBERS

And there is still.

Mr. HAWKE

It was not a novel at all. It was a newspaper article.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Now that hon. Members have corrected me on points of detail, it is necessary to observe that the point of principle still remains, and I was about to tell the House what that point of principle was.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the the merits of a Bill on this Motion?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Question is, "That the Lords Message relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the Law of Libel Amendment Bill be now considered." The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not out of order yet.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Now that the hon. Member has expressed his views and is satisfied that I am in order, it is necessary for me to explain that the Lords Message asks us to set up a Committee to consider the Law of Libel Amendment Bill. I will tell the hon. Member why the Law of Libel Amendment Bill ought not to be considered until the House is aware of what is in the Bill. I come back now to the case of Hulton v. Jones; one of the most important libel cases, and it is dealt with in this Bill. That case laid it down that, although a man might not be libelled by name, if his friends could recognise him from the description given, then, although the public might not be able to know that he was the person referred to, it was still possible for him to bring and to establish a libel action. I do not know whether there are any other aspects of the law of libel dealt with in the Bill. It appears to me that a great many of them, need alteration. There are, for example, those words—

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock until Monday next (30th May).