§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)Idesire, Sir, to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Sir W. Marriott) a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the report on the leader page of the Times of yesterday of a speech delivered by him on Wednesday evening at a meeting of a body called the United Club, held at St. James's Hall, is correct?
§ MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet)As a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether a question can be put by one hon. Member to another unless such question refers to some Bill or Motion before the House?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Brighton holds an official position, and therefore the question can be put.
§ SIR W. MARRIOTT (Brighton)I have only a few minutes ago received notice of this question. Unlike most Members of this House, I do occasionally read the report of my speeches, and I have read the report of my speech of last Wednesday in the Times of yesterday. Though not verbatim, it was, according to my recollection, a very accurate report.
§ MR. SEXTONI have, then, to call the attention of the House to a matter of privilege. In order to ground the case of breach of privilege, I hope the House will allow me to road a brief extract from the Report of the Special Commission. The Commissioners say, on page 58 of the Report—
The third charge we have to consider is that, when on certain occasions the respondents 182 thought it politic to denounce and did denounce certain crimes in public, they afterwards led their supporters to believe that such denunciation was not sincere. This was chiefly based on the letter known throughout the inquiry as the fac simile letter. We find that all the letters produced by Pigott and set out in the Appendix are forgeries, and we entirely acquit Mr. Parnell and the other respondents of the charge of insincerity in their denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders.Having read that extract from the Report of the Commission, I propose to bring to your notice, and the notice of the House, three extracts from the report of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton, on Wednesday, at the United Club, which the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted in the presence of the House to be substantially correct. This, Sir, is the first extract—When the Report of the Commission came to be examined in all its details, he might venture to say that, on the whole, the Times had substantiated the points upon which they started.I denounce that statement as untrue. The charges upon which the inquiry was demanded and upon which it was conceded were charges of complicity in crime on the part of Members of this House. These were the only charges in which the Irish Members and the country were interested—charges of intimacy with murderers, of payments to criminals for the commission of crime, and to secure the escape of criminals; and all those charges have been repelled by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman, by his votes in this House on the 10th and 11th of this month, concurred in the adoption of the Report of the Judges. What, then, are we to think of the man who, after giving his vote concurring in such Report, within a fortnight afterwards declares that these heinous charges have been proved? He further said—It should be recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell and his friends. They were only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge.And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the charge had been "substantiated." What is the charge that he says has been substantiated?
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman has asked the permission of the House to raise a matter of 183 privilege; but he is now making a statement and entering into arguments as to the meaning and effect of a speech delivered by an hon. Member of this House outside this House. Matters of privilege are much restricted. It is usual in such cases to read the incriminated passages to the House, and then we have to see whether they constitute primâ facie a case of privilege. But, so far, the hon. Gentleman is stating to the House his version of what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he will hand the passages of the report to the Clerk at the Table they can be read to the House.
§ MR. SEXTONThen I move that the passages which I have marked in the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton be read by the Clerk at the Table.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will bring the paper to the Table the Clerk will read the passages referred to.
§ MR. SEXTONI have only one copy, and I desire to have it back.
Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sexton, Member for West Belfast, of certain passages in a speech delivered at the United Club by the Right Hon. Sir William Marriott, Member for Brighton, and reported in the Times newspaper of Thursday, the 27th March, reflecting on certain Members of this House, which he submitted constituted a breach of the Privileges of this House:—
The said newspaper was handed in, and the passages complained of were read, and therewith, at the request of the Right Hon. Sir William Marriott, the context also, as followeth:—
When the Report of the Commission came to be examined in all its details he might venture to say that, on the whole, the Times had substantiated the points upon which they started, and the result of the Commission was to justify the action of the Unionist Party in the year 1886. It should he recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell and his friends. They wore only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge. The charge which was sought to be proved by the letter was that Mr. Parnell was insincere in his denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders. Of what was that letter evidence? For his part, he never thought so much of the letter as many people did, because he thought it a very natural letter under the circumstances. Mr. Parnell was in alliance with these people, he was paid from the same funds, and he had the unpleasant task of denouncing his allies, He believed that Mr. Parnell had a perfect horror of the murders, and that he might have known they 184 did more harm than they could possibly do good to his cause; but he was bound to take off the rough edge of the denunciation he was compelled to give of the crime. If Mr. Parnell had written the letter he did not think he would be in a bit worse position than he now was placed in by the Report of the Judges. The Times had entirely established its case, namely, that Mr. Parnell was acting in alliance with others wanting separation, that he and his Parliamentary colleagues had no complicity in the illegal means taken to advance their common end by his allies, and that the letter was only one proof of the charge brought against them, which charge had been substantiated before the Commission. The Report was very satisfactory in some points, but with regard to others there was still a mystery. There was still a mystery over the letters, and there was still a mystery over the question bow that £100,000 had been spent. The Report found that the letter sometimes called the fac simile letter was a forgery. What was a fac simile letter but a letter like another letter that had been written? What was a forgery? It might be a pure invention, and the person whose name was used had never signed such a letter, or it might be a copy of an original document. That subject was left in the dark by the Report of the Commission. The Parnellite Party complained that the Judges did not denounce the Times for its negligence with regard to these letters. He knew Her Majesty's Judges extremely well, and he would undertake to say that they had always good reason for either saying something or omitting to say something.
§ MR. SEXTONI respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the extracts read by your direction by the Clerk at the Table from the report of a speech the accuracy of which has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman constitute a gross breach of the privileges of the House. I first call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Times has, on the whole, substantiated its charges before the Commission. I denounce that statement as unfounded, and I say that with regard to all these heinous charges the Irish Members, as is universally admitted, have been absolutely acquitted. Now, I come to the passage with regard to the forged letters. The right hon. Gentleman said—
It should be recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell. They were only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge. The charge which was sought to be proved by the letters was that Mr. Parnell was insincere in his denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders. Of what was that letter evidence? …. The letter was only one proof of the charge brought against them, which charge had been substantiated before the Commission.I ask the House what charge has been substantiated? I ask the right hon. and 185 learned Gentleman to define it in precise terms.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI have listened to the hon. Member, and I am bound to say that this is not a ease of privilege. It is the first time I have heard the passage or anything connected with it; but it is not a case of privilege—that I am clear about, having listened to the whole statement. It is a matter of argument as to the conclusions drawn by an hon. Member from a certain decision of the Judges, as to which every hon. Member is at liberty to affirm his own conclusions. Whether those conclusions are just or unjust is a matter of opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman advances this statement on his own credit and on his own responsibility. As to this being a matter of privilege, the passages in question do not relate to the action or to the conduct of any hon. Member in this House, and this is the point to which privilege is restricted in cases like the present. I, therefore, do not consider this a case which I could properly submit to the House as a broach of privilege.
§ MR. SEXTONAllow me to submit a few considerations. This speech arises out of a number of charges now ascertained to be false, made against a number of Members of the House. Those Members besought the Government to afford them means of investigation, and the Government appointed a Judicial Tribunal. That Judicial Body found certain charges to be false, and reported to that effect. The House is seized of the Report and of the findings of the Commission with regard to certain charges; and I humbly ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is still competent for a Member of this House to declare that the charges found by the Commission appointed by this House to be false, are proved?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat does not in the least alter the case. The whole of the quotations made by the hon. Member have been comments on the decision of the Judges; and provided they are made in such a way that they do not reflect upon the action of Members of this House——[Mr. W. REDMOND: Oh!] The hon. Member does not understand what privilege is if he interrupts me in that manner. I say that privilege is restricted in this House, and comments, unjust or unfair though they may be—I say nothing of their justice or fairness 186 —it is competent for any hon. Member to make, and to state the judgment he has formed as to the decision of the Commissioners. If every hon. Gentleman's speech commenting on the Report of the Judges is to be brought up as a question of privilege the time of the House would be entirely occupied with such questions.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish first to say that I was not the Member who interrupted you.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI am quite aware of that.
§ MR. W. REDMONDMr. Speaker——
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. SEXTONI now beg to submit to you in regard to the forged letters, as to which hon. Members of this House from their places here have declared their innocence, that the right hon. Gentleman in maintaining in a public speech that those Members were guilty has made an imputation against them as Members of this House.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI do not gather from the extracts read that the right hon. Gentleman did state that there was any responsibility attaching in regard to the forged letters to those hon. Gentlemen acquitted by the Commission. There was no charge of that sort made by the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood it.
§ MR. SEXTONThe learned Gentleman in his speech said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork was responsible for the forged letters, for he said—
What was a fac simile letter but a letter like another letter that had been written? What was a forgery? It might be a pure invention: and the person whose name was used had never signed such a letter, or it might be a copy of an original document. The subject was left in the dark by the Report of the Commission.I humbly submit to you that although the learned Gentleman admits that the letter forged by Pigott was a forgery, he suggests that it was the reflection of a genuine letter written by the hon. Member for Cork.
§ *MR. SPEAKERPerhaps the best way would be to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation on that specific point.
§ SIR W. MARRIOTTI admit fully the accuracy of the report; but there are some points omitted which would afford an explanation, and there are also some 187 words in my speech, the whole of which was not read, which would give the House a full idea of what was said. A great deal was said in no very serious way, but rather as chaff and banter. What I did say, and what does not appear, was this: I said it was reported that Mr. Parnell was going to ask for a Committee, and I said I thought that would be a great waste of time, and if he would take a friendly hint he would ask, not for a Committee, but for a friendly arbitration with the Times, with Lord Herschell as arbitrator. I further suggested that if Mr. Parnell was inclined to act in a friendly manner to the Times he should let the Times have the services of Mr. George Lewis; and the Times, by way of returning the compliment, might let Mr. Parnell have the services of Mr. Soames; while the senior Member for Northampton might come in as amicus curiœ, and then no doubts they would get at the facts as to the letters and the expenditure of the £100,000. But I never made a single charge against any Irish Member or against the hon. Member for Cork. I gave my interpretation of the Report of the Commission; that interpretation I am ready to maintain, and I think I am as well entitled to my opinion as other Members of the House are to theirs.
§ MR. SEXTONI will not add another word. The right hon. Member, having made grave and deadly charges against Members of the House, now shelters himself behind what he calls chaff. I leave him to what he has deserved—the contempt of the House and the country.
§ MR. W. REDMONDAs a matter of personal explanation, I should like to explain that the involuntary exclamation which escaped mo was not intended in any degree to interrupt you, Sir, or to cause any disrespect to you. It was merely a protest against the action of the hon. Member.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI am glad to hear what has fallen from the hon. Member, and I quite accept his explanation that the exclamation was involuntary, and thank him for his courtesy.