STATEMENT BY Mr. RONALD MCNEILL. (Hansard, 21 July 1932)

Mr. RONALD McNEILL

I desire, with the permission of the House, to make a short statement of a personal character which I would have made yesterday had it been possible for me to be in the House. In the course of a speech which I made in the Debate on the grant of honours, I referred by name to two gentlemen recently raised to the peerage—Lord Forres and Lord Waring. Both the Noble Lords—as, of course, I knew they would have the opportunity of doing—have since then replied in another place to my observations. I have, as I was bound to do, carefully considered their statements, with a view to determining whether they imposed upon me the duty of modifying or withdrawing anything which I Bad said.

I should like, in the first place, to say quite clearly that I cannot and do not subscribe to the doctrine that a Member of this House who conceives it to be his 2414 duty, when, as he believes, exposing abuses to mention the names of individuals outside this House, is under any obligation to waive Parliamentary privilege, and invite litigation to test the accuracy of his statements. I think it is obvious that, if it came to be regarded as an honourable obligation to take any such course, there would be at once an end of that complete freedom of criticism in Parliament which it is essential in the public interest to protect and maintain. I do not think hon. Members are more likely to favour such a doctrine when they find the head of the judiciary before whom any litigation in the last resort may come up for decision, expressing himself in terms of strong bias without more knowledge of the subject matter than could be gained from an ex parte statement of the facts. On the other hand, of course, I recognise that it would be an abuse of Parliamentary privilege if an hon. Member were to make reckless charges in this House against other people. He is bound to exercise the utmost caution, and to satisfy himself, to the best of his judgment, that any charges he may feel it his duty to make are based upon cogent and trustworthy evidence

I can assure the House that in the two cases referred to I did, to the best of my ability, use that caution, and satisfied myself, as far as it was possible to do so, that the information at my disposal was thoroughly reliable. But it is unnecessary to trouble the House with a recital of the steps I took to test it. I think I am entitled to assure the House that I acted perfectly bonà fide in the matter, that I had no sort of malice or animosity against either of the Noble Lords, one of whom I had never seen, and the other of whom had been a Member of this House for years, and with whom I never had the slightest disagreement. My speech was made on a Motion for an inquiry which, had it been accepted by the Government, would have enabled my statements to be thoroughly tested. I regret very much that the Government refused to grant such an inquiry, which I think would have been the most satisfactory course for all parties concerned. In these circumstances, I must now refer to the two cases separately, for they stand on different grounds. Lord Forres has categorically denied that he ever wrote 2415 such a letter as I said he had sent to one of his houses in South America, and he has also assured the House of Lords that the action brought against his firm in the Chilean Courts was genuinely and bonà fide defended. I wish to say that I accept Lord Forres' statement unreservedly, and I desire to withdraw the charge which I made, and to express my sincere regret for having done him and his firm an injustice. He has also explained that, while it is true, as I stated, that his firm carried on business with the enemy during the War, this was done with the knowledge and sanction of the Government. That undoubtedly puts a very different complexion on the matter as far as Lord Forres and his firm are concerned, and any criticism as regards such conduct should have been directed against the Government of that day. On this point I also, therefore, apologise to Lord Forres for having passed strictures on the conduct of his firm, which I would not have made against them had I been aware of the action of the Government in relation to it.

The case of Lord Waring is different. Here I have nothing to withdraw and no apology to offer, except for having perhaps expressed myself less clearly than I might have done, as most of us are liable to do when speaking without notes. In reality Lord Waring himself has not controverted anything which I said but only something which I did not say. My statement was that when his business was, owing to its financial position, reconstructed in 1910 both debenture holders and shareholders lost their capital, and that subsequently during the War he made a considerable fortune for himself, and I added these words: No part of that fortune wont to paying the shareholders or making up the deficiency for the debenture holders in the concern of which he was the head and the managing director."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1922; col. 1803, Vol. 156.] It is obvious that these words applied exclusively to the shareholders and debenture holders in the original business which went into liquidation, and not to those in the new business created by reconstruction, in which Lord Waring was not, in fact, the managing director. It is no answer to that to state, as Lord Waring does, that the shareholders in the new 2416 company shared the fortune he made during the War. I have no doubt that is true, but I never suggested the contrary. The facts as I stated them were perfectly accurate, but I expressly admitted that the loss of capital by debenture holders and shareholders was no doubt due to misfortune or bad management, and not to anything more reprehensible. I only referred to the case at all as an example of what I called "not very successful business." I must apologise for having detained the House, and thank hon. Members for their indulgence in giving their attention to my statement.