§ Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech by the Lord Privy Seal at Southampton on Saturday last, 27th July, in the course of which he repudiated the view that the functions of the League of Nations involved in the last resort the employment of compulsion by force of arms against an aggressor; whether the Noble Lord was expressing the views and policy of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, how such a statement can be reconciled with the obligations of this country under 2485 Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations wherein the Council of the League is charged with the duty of recommending what effective military, naval or air force the members the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the Covenants of the League?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI notice that in the copy of the question which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me, speaking of my Noble Friend's speech, he says, "in the course of which he is reported to have repudiated," which gives slightly a different shade to the question, but I think that my answer—
§ Mr. ATTLEEI understand that the word "reported" was cut out at the Table.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThank you, I am glad there is no dispute about it. The right hon. Gentleman is not justified in interpreting my Noble Friend's words in this manner. The proposition which he stated was that the League was the embodiment and expression of the common interest of all the nations in the maintenance of peace, and that its object was to make the maintenance of peace a collective responsibility in which every nation should bear its due part. He added that the League was no super state controlling armed forces of its own. That is, of course, a totally different thing from suggesting, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to imply, that the States members of the League are not bound or prepared to fulfil their obligations under the Covenant.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIn the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal, did not he specifically draw distinction between what he called the Conservative view of the League and the Socialist view of the League, and say that the Socialist view of the League implied or involved in the last resort the employment of compulsion by force of arms against an aggressor? Those words are taken from the speech, and yet the Prime Minister says there is no difference, and why did he draw that distinction?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe right hon. Gentleman must remember that the report is extremely truncated and telescoped, and if he will examine the speech 2486 again with my answer and will forget for the moment that the Lord Privy Seal is a colleague of mine, I think that he will see the position.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is impossible under the Rules of this House for a Member of the House to question a Minister about a reported statement without making himself responsible, so to speak, for the statement having been made? The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite says that he handed in a question referring to a "reported" statement of the Lord Privy Seal. The word "reported" was cut out at the Table, thus making the right hon. Gentleman himself responsible for the accuracy of the report. I venture to submit that it is contrary to the public interest that we should have to make ourselves responsible for a report as to which we desire to inquire whether it is accurate or not.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman knows that it is an old Rule of this House in putting questions on reports, that Members must make themselves responsible for the accuracy of the statement in the question, otherwise, as he will readily realise, questions of every conceivable description might be asked about reports in newspapers. That would be contrary to the ordinary Rules of the House.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThat Rule has arisen within the time I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House. It was not a Rule when I entered. Is there no limit to that Rule? Here is a case where a Minister is reported to have made a definite statement. A Member of this House desires to ascertain whether he has been accurately reported. Must that Member of the House make himself responsible for that for which he cannot vouch, or go without any explanation as to whether the report is accurate or not?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI hope the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Members should put down questions asking whether reports in newspapers are accurate or not. If that is what he means, there will be considerable difficulty in regard to it.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWhen a Member of this House sees a report in a newspaper of a statement by a Minister and he proceeds to look at as many newspapers as possible, some five or six of which reports it in identical terms, is he bound to go beyond that before putting the statement on the Order Paper in order to ask a question about it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe point that arises is that a Member asks a question on a report of a speech by a Minister. That is the only question that arises.
§ Mr. DICKIEAs one who had a similar experience only a fortnight ago, may I ask for your Ruling as to whether there is any means of ascertaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of some statement which may be greatly against the interests of this country without accepting responsibility on the Order Paper of this House for its accuracy?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI see no means of conducting questions in this House if questions are to be put as to the accuracy of statements in the newspapers. We have quite enough questions already, and their number would be increased many fold.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe question is whether the man was correctly reported or not.