CABINET SECRETS

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 110, 11 May 1934, Page 14

CABINET SECRETS

DIVULGED IN A BOOK

MINISTER'S SON FINED

Mr. Edgar Lansbury was fined £20 and ordered to pay, twenty-five guineas costs at Bow Street for contravening the Official Secrets Act in his book "George Lansbury, My Father," says the "Evening News."

Mr. Lansbury appeared on two summonses. The first alleged that he "unlawfully received certain information contained in a certain secret memorandum issued to the Cabinet on February 6, 1931, having reasonable ground to believe that the information had been communicated to you in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, 1911." . There was another summons referring to a document dated May, 1930. The Attorney-General (Sir Thomas Inskip, K.C.) and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted. Mr. Lansbury, who pleaded "Not guilty," was .defended by-Mr. C. H. Pearson. Mrs. Edgar Lansbury— Miss Moyna McGill, the actress—was present in Court.

"There is no suggestion," said Sir Thomas, "that the defendant was ac : tuated by any motives or with any idea of doing anything at all likely to be contrary to the interests of his country."

Sir Thomas quoted from Page 19i of the book "George Lansbury, My Father," the following passage:—

"He (Mr. Lansbury, who was then First Commissioner of Works) urged the same policy in the Government itself. For example, in May of 1930, as First Commissioner of Works, we find him addressing his colleagues in tho following terms."

Then there were ■words.quoted which were obviously extracts from a document.

. On-page 199 the author said: "It has been stated over and over again that father was in favour of this proposal. His position is given as clearly as possible in the- following extracts from a memorandum dated February, 1931." "G.L." ■■■■■■' "I shall prove on the evidence," said' Sir Thomas, "that these quotations are given from two documents which were dated respectively May 6,: 1930, and February 6 ; 1931, addressed from hia Majesty's Office of Works."- : "In the case of the first; of the .two documents I shall prove that it was headed 'This document is,the property of his Britannic Majesty's Government. Secret.1 To be kept under lock and-key. It is requested that "special care may be taken to ensure the ■.secrecy of this document.' , . "The document from which the quotation in the book is made is initialled 'G.L. .'" ■ . , ' , ■ . ' "In the case of the other document dated February 6, 1931, from which information quoted in the book was derived, the heading was a 1 little different. ~,--.. "This second document was only headed- in the usual form, 'This document is the property of his Britannic Majesty's Government. Cabinet. Secret;' " ' ' ' ■ . The' first witness called was Sir Rupert Howard, who gave his address as Eidgeway Place, Wimbledon, and said that he had served in the; Cabinet Office since 1920. He becaimo Deputy •Secretary to the Cabinet on September 2S, 1930, and had been for many years responsible for the circulation of Cabinet documents under the Secretary of tho Cabinet, Sir Maurice Hankey. He produced a copy of the document of May 6, 1930, and.said it was one of the actual copies sent by My. George Lansbury to the Cabinet Office. These) werß on the same day circulated to members of the Cabinet, of, whom Mr. George Lansbury was one. The document was.' headed "This document is the property, of his Britannic Majesty's Government. . Cabinet. Unemployment policy, 1030 Committee. Memorandum by the First Commissioner of Works." • '• • NOT RETUENED^ He had checked the document with the book written by, Mr. Edgar Lansbury, and ho found that passages on pages 194, 195, and 196 to 198 wero all extracts from that document.

The Attorney-General: Are you able to'say whether the copy of that document which was circulated to Mr. George Lansbury was ever returned to the Cabinet Office?

Sir Rupert:-We have no record of it, and if it had been returned it would be recqrded. A very careful trace is kept of all such documents.

The document Of February 6, 1931, received from Mr. George Lansbury, was fyeaded, "Cabinet panel of Ministers on unemployment. Unemployment insurance. Memorandum by First Commissioner of Works." There was no trace in the Cabinet pffice of Mr. George Lansbury ?s copy of that document ever having been returned to the Cabinet. - ... '':.

Mr. Pearson stated that the documents were not now in Mr. Lansbury's possession.

Chief-Inspector Barker said the book had since been withdrawn from circulation. . ~ y ■ ,

The. Magistrate, Sir Rollo Graham Campbell, giving his decision, said: "In my opinion an offence has been committed in respect of both those documents which had been entrusted to Mr. George Lansbury in confidence as a peiv son holding office under his Majesty. "It is necessary I should impose some fine in both these cases just to mark the seriousness of the offence. As the Attorney-General has said, no great harm has been done in this particular case."

The documents in the case would be retained in Court until the defence decided whether to ask him to state a case. ■ '• . . -~''■