HC Deb 31 May 1883 vol 279 cc1336-43
MR. M'COAN

Sir, I wish to ask the leave of the House to address it briefly on a question of Privilege. I regret, for many reasons—some of which will be obvious to the House—the necessity that has been cast upon me; but, acting upon very competent advice, I have reason to believe that I am about to pursue the proper course under the circumstances. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the debate on the Address, in reply to the Queen's Speech, on the 22nd February last, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was suspended for an interruption addressed to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). On that occasion I did not vote either for the suspension or against it, but walked out- of the House. My action, however, was misrepresented in certain Irish newspapers, in which I was said to have voted against a Colleague and fellow Member of the Irish Party; and for that I was held up to the reprobation of my constituents. Recently, during the last Recess, I visited the County (Wicklow) of which I have the honour to be one of the Representatives; and in the course of an address to my constituents I was interrupted by a few persons who, I was informed, had been sent by a neighbouring branch of the National Land League to interrupt me on that occasion. One of the chief objections against me was that I had voted against the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). Thus called upon to explain my action and defend myself, I recounted very briefly the circumstances which had taken place, and said I did not vote on the question at all; and further, to justify my action, or, rather, my inaction, I very briefly, and, as I think the House will agree with me presently in considering it, in moderate and courteous language, told them what had taken place, and what had been my conduct upon that occasion. The report of that meeting appeared, among other papers, in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, a copy of which, it seems, came under the observation of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) in Paris, and from Paris he telegraphed to his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) instructing him to ask me if I accepted the responsibility of the statements in that Report, and if I did to call upon me for a very peremptory and complete apology. I probably cannot do better than read the brief correspondence, which embodies really all the facts, and to which I will add but very few personal observations. The first of the short series of letters was dated 24th May, and was from Mr. Wm. O'Brien (the hon. Member for Mallow). It was marked "private" at the top, but I failed to recognize his right or my own to take any exceptional privilege in a matter of this kind, and I did not mark my reply "private;" and, therefore, I consider myself entitled to make this use of the correspondence. It was as follows:—

"May 24, 1883.

"Sir,—On behalf, of Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., I have to ask whether the following extract from The Freeman's Journal of May 17 is a correct representation of your words at Tinahely:—' In reference to Mr. O'Kelly's expulsion from the House, Mr. M'Coan narrated the incident, and observed that the House of Commons, at all events, was supposed to he composed of Gentlemen. He would not have responded as Mr. O'Kelly did.' Should you have been correctly reported, I have to request, on his behalf, that you will promptly apologize for the offensive imputation on Mr. O'Kelly's honour which these words convey.

"I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

"WM. O'BRIEN."

I have not a copy of my answer to that letter with me; but it was nearly in these words—"Sir,—Without meaning to be at all discourteous, I must decline to recognize your right to question me on this subject;" and I went on to say that if Mr. O'Kelly applied to me personally for an explanation I would promptly and candidly give it. Some days passed, and I then received from the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) himself the following communication:—

"May 28, 1883.

"Sir,—In a speech made by you at Tinahely, and reported in The Freeman's Journal, there is a reference to me of a grossly offensive nature.

"Will you be good enough to inform me whether you accept the published report of this speech as substantially accurate? On seeing The Freeman's Journal in Paris in which the report appeared, I immediately telegraphed to my Friend Mr. William O'Brien, requesting him to put himself in communication with you on my behalf: but as you object to indirect communi- cation on this matter, I now apply to you personally, in order that I may be accurately informed as to your responsibility for the offensive references alleged to have been made by you to me at Tinahely.

"I am, Sir, yours obediently,

"JAMES O'KELLY.

"J. C. M'Coan, Esq., M.P."

To that letter I replied on the 30th of May— Sir,—I do not accept the report of my 3peech at Tinahely which appeared in The Freeman's Journal as 'substantially accurate.' My recollection of that report is that it was very incomplete, and therefore (perhaps necessarily) garbled. It certainly did not convey a fair impression of much that was said and done on the occasion; but a fuller and more correct report appeared in The Wicklow News Letter, from which, for your information, I quote on the enclosed slip a sufficiently accurate version of my remarks in reply to questions as to my vote, or, rather, my abstention from voting, on the occasion of your suspension for giving the lie to Mr. Forster. This said, of course I accept whatever 'responsibility' the remarks quoted may entail. The extract from The Wicklow News Letter is as follows:— Reference has been made by a gentleman hero to the suspension of Mr. O'Kelly, and to my conduct on that occasion. I was present in the House of Commons during the speech of Mr. Forster, which led to Mr. O'Kelly's expulsion. I heard many things fall from Mr. Forster on that occasion with which I could not agree—much that I should be sorry to believe was true. But, instead of anyone rising to answer Mr. Forster, or to refute the assertions he made by fact or argument, Mr. O'Kelly, obeying what I believe was a generous impulse, roared out in a manner I would not like to imitate—'You lie, you lie, you lie.' (A Voice, 'Like an Irishman,' and cheers for O'Kelly.) Now, the House of Commons is supposed to be an assemblage of Gentlemen, and Members of it are supposed to conduct themselves as such. Well, as I recognize' the canons of conduct which are supposed to control the House, the conduct of Mr. O'Kelly certainly did not meat my approval. If Mr. O'Kelly had risen and made a rasping speech against Mr. Forster, if he had done so in language such as gentlemen use, he would have had my sympathy and support; but he chose to act differently, and, the Speaker's attention being called to the language used by him, the inevitable result was that he was suspended. Now, though I confess my own feeling was strongly against Mr. O'Kelly's action, yet, in deference to my position as a Member of the same Party, I declined to vote against him, and took no part in the Division which followed. If the same thing were to happen again, and were Mr. O'Kelly my own brother, I would act as I acted then. To this I received the following reply, in which, as I am advised, the breach of Privilege is committed:—

"May 30, 1883.

"Sir,—" your letter of to-day aggravates the offensiveness of your Tinahely speech. You repeat, and accept full responsibility for, the reference to me of which I complain. Therefore, the matter passes out of the region of discussion. Mr. O'Brien is authorized to act for me, and I request that you will communicate with him and refer him to some gentleman authorized to act for you.

"Yours obediently,

"JAMES O'KELLY."

To that letter I rejoined, still acting on very competent advice—

"May 30.

"Sir,—As the acceptance of the challenge conveyed in your letter of this date would be a high Parliamentary offence, and as I desire not to violate the law of Parliament, I decline to communicate with Mr. O'Brien with the view suggested by your letter."

Probably I will not get credit from some hon. Gentlemen behind me when I say that I heartily desired to prevent magnifying so trifling a personal incident into what might bear the appearance of a scandal on the Irish Party; and I thought it my duty to make one final effort to prevent its attaining this proportion. I therefore—still on the same day, that is yesterday—late in the afternoon, addressed to the hon. Member for the City of Cork the following note:—

"May 30.

"Dear Mr. Parnell,—Mr. O'Kelly, as you are probably aware, has sent me a challenge—the giving or acceptance of which is, as you also know, a high Parliamentary offence. Under ordinary circumstances I should have no choice but to deal with the matter in one of the two only ways open to me; but, as it is, I am anxious to avoid anything like a scandal to the Irish Parliamentary Party; and, therefore, I address myself to you, as the Leader of the Party, to say that if Mr. O'Kelly, on reflection, desires to withdraw his letter, I will give him an opportunity of doing so up to 3 o'clock to-morrow, when I shall be in the House. If he should not so desire, the responsibility of whatever follows will rest on himself.—Faithfully yours,

"J. C. M'COAN."

This letter was addressed to a Gentleman who has a very legitimate influence over the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly); and I thought I was doing right in applying to him before I appealed to this House. I waited until this moment, and I have received no communication from the hon. Member for Roscommon, nor have I been favoured with any reply from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). That being so, I am advised, and believe, that the matter has passed out of the region of personal discussion, and that my duty is to submit it to the consideration of the House. The only element of personal feeling in my mind in the matter is a desire to protect myself from misrepresentation elsewhere, and the conviction that without a public statement of this kind I should not fail to be misrepresented. As the matter is one that affects the honour and dignity of this House itself, I hope I am justified in bringing it under its notice.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Coan) has laid before the House, with perfect clearness, a statement of facts, as to which I do not understand any exception need be taken on the part of hon. Members sitting near me; and I may therefore take that statement, for the present, as uncontroverted. I do not conceive that it is any part of my duty, or the duty of the House, to accept the correspondence which has been brought before us otherwise than as information. With that correspondence we have nothing else to do; but I have no doubt the conduct and position of the hon. Member for Wexford will be fairly and equitably appreciated by the House. I believe the hon. Member has acted in conformity with Parliamentary rule and precedent in bringing the matter before the House. I think we may understand that the fact of his having so placed it before the House amounts to a pledge given by him to the House, although I do not know that it was stated in express terms, that, so far as he is concerned, this matter will proceed no further in communication with the hon. Member for Roscommon. I apprehend that I am accurate in that interpretation. I think the usual course in cases of this kind is that the House has sought and accepted a pledge of that kind from both of the Members concerned. The hon. Member for Roscommon is not in his place; and, therefore, the regular course will be to move that the hon. Member for Roscommon do attend in his place on a future day. What day that may be would depend upon the possibility of the hon. Member appearing in connection with the distance or place in which he may now be. Probably some of the Gentlemen in the House—perhaps the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)—may be able to give us that information; and, according as we are so informed, the Mo- tion will be made. If I understand that the hon. Member for Roscommon is within reach, then I believe the proper Motion will be that he do attend in his place to-morrow; but if he be at a distance, so as to make it inconvenient or impossible for him to attend, there would be no difficulty in varying the terms of the Motion. I beg to move—"That Mr. O'Kelly attend in his place to-morrow."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Kelly do attend in his place To-morrow."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. O'BRIEN

Sir, as the Prime Minister has mentioned my name, I may say that I am not in a position to assure the House whether the hon. Member for Roscommon will be here to-morrow or not. As far as I am concerned, I do not speak for him; but I have always tried to settle private quarrels without invoking or recognizing the interference of the British Parliament.

MR. SHEIL

Sir, this Motion is almost unnecessary, because we have the sure pledge of the hon. Member for Wicklow that he will not appear on the field to accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Roscommon. I should have thought one assurance sufficient. The hon. Member for Wicklow has been most anxious to impress upon the House his desire to protect the dignity and interests of the House. It appears to me the hon. Member would have looked after the interests and dignity of the House much more effectually if he had taken this matter, which does not affect the House, before a Police Court, and the two parties might have been bound over to keep the peace. As the hon. Member is so anxious to keep the peace, and has always shown his anxiety so to do, the matter might have been settled in that way, without troubling the House with what does not concern it in the least. I would, however, like to know if this question can be raised as one of Privilege, seeing it has no reference to anything which has taken place within these walls or the precincts of Parliament. Most of the correspondence passed during the Recess, and. only a small portion of it since the House resumed its Sittings. At any rate, I venture to suggest that, under the circumstances, the matter should be allowed to drop, and that the hon. Member for Roscom- mon should not be called upon to appear in his place to-morrow.

MR. PARNELL

Sir, I quite concur in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). If the Prime Minister had received some Notice he probably would not have felt himself justified in treating this as a question of Privilege. This matter is one which seems to have arisen entirely out of a private dispute between the hon. Member for Wicklow and the hon. Member for Roscommon; and this dispute was originated in consequence of a passage in a speech of the hon. Member for Wicklow, addressed to a section of his constituents at a place called Tinahely. I would ask the Government whether, by making this matter a question of Privilege, they are prepared to create a precedent by which the House would be bound at any time hereafter to interfere in every case of personal dispute arising outside the House between hon. Members. That is what the claim of the hon. Member for Wicklow amounts to. The hon. Member for Wicklow, in the exercise of his discretion, made use, in the speech to which I have referred, of what I consider were some very offensive words regarding the hon. Member for Roscommon. The hon. Member for Roscommon appears to have addressed a series of letters to the hon. Member for Wicklow in reference to the words so used. I do not know where you are going to stop if you create a question of Privilege out of a matter of this kind. I do not see, as I have said, how you could prevent any Member of this House from dragging any personal dispute which he may have before the House, and claiming the attention of the House to such matter to the obstruction of Public Business. I shall certainly divide the House on the Motion now before it, for I consider that this matter ought to be dealt with by the ordinary law of the land. In my opinion, the hon. Member for Wicklow has not established any right, or title, or claim, to the protection of the House. The position I take on this question is fortified by the authority of Sir Erskine May, who, in his work, with reference to challenge sent by one Member to another, says— The sending of a challenge by one Member to another in consequence of words spoken by him in his place in Parliament is a breach of Privilege, and will be dealt with accordingly, unless a full apology be offered to the House. But it does not appear that the Speaker or the House would interfere to prevent a quarrel from, being proceeded with, when it had arisen from a private misunderstanding, and not from words spoken in debate, or in any of the proceedings of the House, or in Committee. In such cases, if any interference should be deemed necessary, information would probably be given to the police. Therefore, I have established my contention that this matter, although a proper one for the Police Court, does not call for the interposition of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 19: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 109.)

Forward to