§ 5. Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the publication of a seditious pamphlet, circulating in this country, through a Mr. Jack Gaster who was a member of a committee sent by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers to consort with the enemy in North Korea and North-East China; and if he will initiate proceedings against the publishers and distributors of this pamphlet.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanBefore this Question is answered may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the form in which the Question appears on the Order Paper? There is reference in the second line
to the publication of a seditious pamphlet.In the fourth line there are the words:to consort with the enemyand in the last line the words:initiate proceedingsIs not this rather an abuse of the privilege of Members of Parliament? Does not it assume that crimes have been committed before any charge has been brought or investigations made? Would it not be very much better if Questions of this kind were put in a more interrogatory and neutral way?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is an old rule of this House, as the hon. Member is aware, that hon. Members who put Questions on the Order Paper are themselves responsible for the allegations which they insert in them, but I think that there is force 5 in the hon. Member's point that, as far as possible, words condemnatory of other people should be avoided until the matter is disposed of.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe answer to the Question is as follows; I have considered a pamphlet by Mr. Jack Gaster entitled "Korea—I saw the Truth." That pamphlet is substantially a reprint of articles which have already appeared in the "Daily Worker." In my opinion it does not justify any criminal proceedings.
§ Colonel Gomme-DuncanWhile thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the habit, as it seems to have become, of British citizens visiting the enemy during war-time is a very undesirable one, and used to be considered to be treasonable? Is it not time that we regarded the Communist Party not just as another political party but as an international conspiracy, which it is?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order. Does not the answer which the Attorney-General gave reinforce the point I made with you, Mr. Speaker, before the Question was answered? It seems to be now clear from what the Attorney-General has told us that there was not the slightest foundation for any of the words used in the Question, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman—although no doubt he must take responsibility himself for what he puts on the Order Paper—is really clothing himself with the protection of this House in circumstances in which he really is not entitled to it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have nothing to add to what I said before, except to say that it is an undesirable thing, I think, to put down a Question which accuses other people, if one can avoid it.
§ Mr. ShinwellFurther to that point of order. If, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, this is not a seditious pamphlet, then clearly what was contained in the Question was merely a matter of opinion and ought not to have appeared there. Would you, Sir, say why the Question was accepted at the Table?
§ Mr. SpeakerI had no knowledge of this pamphlet; I never saw it in my life. It is the rule that hon. Members make themselves responsible for what they put down. The Table cannot check all matters of fact contained in a Question; still less 6 can they come to a proper conclusion as to the law.
§ Mr. ShinwellSurely this indicates not responsibility, but irresponsibility.
§ Sir H. WilliamsFurther to the point of order. Is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that Mr. Jack Gaster was one of the signatories of a pamphlet which was circulated to all Members of Parliament, in which he said that he went to North Korea, where we are engaged in hostile military operations; and is not that an act of treason?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis matter has been disposed of now. It is not the first time in my experience, or in that of the House, when allegations contained in a Question have been denied by the Minister answering it.
§ Mr. Hector HughesFurther to that point of order. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, a Member is liable for imputations in any Question he puts down on the Order Paper, but is there not a limit to that? Is any Member entitled to put imputations, however gross and unfounded, upon the Order Paper at his own risk? I ask for your guidance. Surely there must be some limit to that.
§ Mr. SpeakerMy Ruling does not go as far as that. I have in the past intervened to stop Questions which I thought were of an undesirable character, but this one I did not; I did not know enough about it.