§ 5. Mr. Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made in the News-Letter, issued by Commander Sir Stephen King-Hall, that he has evidence of the Prime Minister having been informed on 16th October of the impending attack by Israel on Egypt; and whether, as this has been denied by the Prime Minister, he will take action against Commander Sir Stephen King-Hall for causing disaffection and unrest among Her Majesty's subjects and Service men.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralNo. My right hon. and learned Friend has no evidence that Commander Sir Stephen King-Hall has committed a criminal offence.
§ Mr. LewisHas not the Solicitor-General's attention been drawn to the News-Letter which Sir Stephen King-Hall has sent out stating that he has irrefutable evidence that the Prime Minister 853 was informed on 16th October of the impending Israeli attack on Egypt? Is he not aware that this News-Letter has been circulated to Her Majesty's Forces and, of course, to Members of Parliament? Surely the Solicitor-General ought to take some action to charge this man or at least to get him to withdraw the statements.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe hon. Member should recognise that neither a charge of seditious libel nor one of incitement to disaffection turns upon the truth or falsity of the statement in respect of which it is made.
§ Mr. E. JohnsonWould not my hon. and learned Friend agree that none of the statements made by Sir Stephen King-Hall is as likely to cause disaffection among Her Majesty's subjects as some of the Questions asked by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis)?
§ Mr. LewisOn a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to insinuate or infer that another hon. Member is putting down Questions to cause disaffection among Her Majesty's Forces, particularly when that statement is completely untrue?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is an insinuation. I thought it was rather light-heartedly made, but if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) thinks it was meant seriously, I think it would be better for the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) to withdraw it.
§ Mr. JohnsonFurther to that point of order. I made no insinuation. I merely asked a question.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere was an insinuation in the question.
§ Mr. JohnsonIf you think I should withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in doing so.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerIs the Solicitor-General aware that it is generally believed all over the world that Her Majesty's Government had foreknowledge of the Israeli attack? That is generally believed. Will he represent to those senior Ministers who deal with the matter that it is vitally important—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a question for the Solicitor-General.
§ Mr. PagetIs it not a fact that this News-Letter clearly constituted a criminal libel? Is it not further a fact that it would be a defence to that libel that the words were true and in the public interest? Is that why a prosecution has not been preferred?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe Question which I answered was addressed to taking action for causing disaffection and unrest among Her Majesty's subjects and Service men. If the hon. and learned Member likes to put down a Question directed to something else, I shall have great pleasure in answering it.