§ 46. Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the widespread apprehension, both in this country 383 and abroad, that the rise in the price of Newfoundland sterling bonds and other Newfoundland stocks in the months preceding the issue of the report of the commission charged with the duty of examining the finances of Newfoundland indicates a leakage of official information; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain whether there is a primâ facie case for an investigation into these matters?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI assume that the hon. Member is referring to an allegation contained in a recent issue of an American newspaper. I have received a categorical assurance from the firm mentioned by this newspaper that no transactions in Newfoundland Government securities have been done for or on account of that firm or any of its partners. Apart from this, the hon. Member's question appears to be based on a misapprehension as to the facts of the case. It is true that a substantial rise occurred in the price of certain Newfoundland securities in the year 1933, but the rise occurred not in the months preceding the issue of the report of the commission but immediately on the publication of His Majesty's Government's proposals, based on the report of the commission, which were both published on 21st November, 1933. I attach no credence to the allegations.
§ Mr. THURTLEIs the Prime Minister aware that the grave allegation made is that these stocks were quietly bought up on advance information improperly obtained before the publication of the report, that is to say, they were bought at a low price and sold immediately after the report had been issued at a high price? Does he not think in the interests of public purity that an examination ought to be made into this question to see whether there is any basis for the suggestion or not?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI understand that the second paragraph in the American paper was not published in this country. Had it been published there is no doubt that action would have laid against the paper.
§ Mr. THURTLEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not merely a question of the American publication but that these suggestions have been made in this country. Does he think that 384 the public purity of this country ought to rest under such a charge? Ought it not to be examined?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat entirely, depends on who makes the charges and where they are made. If we were to take notice of every charge that is made we should be doing nothing else but examine them. If the hon. Member has any further questions to put on this matter, I hope he will put them on the Order Paper. I have answered to the best of my ability the Question on the Paper to-day.
§ Mr. COCKSDoes not the Prime Minister think that statements made by Lord Beaverbrook are worth considering?