HC Deb 06 July 1877 vol 235 cc887-91
MR. PULESTON

said, that after consultation with various hon. Members, and after hearing the satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, he had determined not to proceed this Session with the Motion of which he had given Notice, as to altering the Rule which enabled a Member, in Committee of the Whole House, to move any number of times that "the Chairman do report Progress," or that "the Chairman do leave the Chair."

MR. PARNELL

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that yesterday, when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) proposed on a question of Privilege to call attention to certain reports of speeches he (Mr. Parnell) had elsewhere made, he expressed his willingness to make an explanation, if the Speaker and the House so desired. As the House had not accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leominster that his Motion should be treated as a question of Privilege, and as, from the position of the Motion on the Notice Paper, there was no immediate prospect of the hon. Member being able to bring the matter before the House, he thought it right to explain, in reference to a report of the expressions he used at a meeting on the 21st of April, that it was an inaccurate report, as he himself stated in the House shortly after the meeting was held. Perhaps he might be permitted also to remind the House, in reference to that report, that he had always, publicly and privately, in Ireland as well as England, repudiated any intention of obstructing the conduct of Public Business. Any obstruction which he might seem to the House to have committed had happened after half-past 12, when he thought Business of importance should cease. With regard to the report which purported to give an abstract of a lecture delivered by him on June 17, he wished to say that he had not intended to use words, nor did he think he had used words, calculated to give any offence either to the Speaker or to any hon. Member of that House; but, now that he saw the interpretation which had been put upon part of his observations by certain hon. Members of the House, he had only to express his regret that he should have made any allusion to the Speaker capable of misconstruction, for he certainly had not intended to say anything offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, or hurtful to the feelings of any individual Member of that House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I think no one can have sat in this House for a length of time without observing that the House is always ready to accept in a generous spirit any explanations of remarks of a personal character which are made by any of its Members upon matters that have occasioned difficulty among us, especially when those remarks have reference to speeches or observations made by hon. Members outside the walls of the House, and reported, as they generally are, in a condensed, and possibly not altogether an accurate, form in the public Press. Therefore, although it is impossible not to feel that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) was justified, and deserved the thanks of this House, in taking notice of the report of words used by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)—words which, I am bound to say, we all lament, and which it would certainly have been better not to use—yet we must at the same time feel, after what the hon. Member has now said, that it is desirable we should let this matter drop, and that we should ask the hon. Member for Leominster not to take any further steps with regard to it. We cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Meath, although there may be two opinions as to his mode of promoting Business—we cannot deny that he has continually taken exception to proceeding with Business at a late hour, and he has always given the reasons which he now states. We may differ as to whether he has always taken the best course; but as to his motives, we have no right to ask anything beyond that which he has always avowed in the House, and which he now affirms. I hope that after what the hon. Member has said, the House will accept his apology and rest satisfied.

MR. GLADSTONE

As one of the Members who has held a seat longest in this House, I may perhaps be permitted by the indulgence of the House to express my entire concurrence in the very considerate and equitable observations which have just been made by my right hon. Friend opposite. I am quite convinced that in adopting that tone he is taking the course by far the most politic in reference to the peculiar class of difficulties with which he has had to contend, and I wish to express my great satisfaction at the fact that we have heard to-day the explanation of the hon. Member for Meath. I will express that satisfaction with one remark, and I hope that single remark will be excused. It appears to me that if any hon. Member of this House is so ill-advised on any occasion as to utter disparaging remarks outside the walls of this House in regard to the House itself, the House is so strong that, in my opinion, it can afford very well, if it thinks fit, to pass by remarks of that description. But, Sir, there is one thing we neither can afford to do, nor ought we to desire to afford to do, and that is, we cannot, in my opinion, tolerate any attack, direct or indirect, on the conduct of our Speaker. By "Speaker" I do not mean the present Speaker, but the Speaker as such and as known to the House. His conduct is liable to be challenged in the House; and if it is challenged anywhere, it ought to be challenged in the House. The very best Speaker that ever sat in that Chair—and, happily, it is hardly necessary to draw a comparison between one Speaker and another—cannot possibly be known outside the House as he is known within it; and, therefore, any assault or attack upon the Speaker outside the House never can carry with it its own cure, while an attack within the House ought to carry its own cure. On every occasion my feeling would be one of great leniency on the part of the House with regard to attacks upon itself; but in regard to remarks upon the Chair and on the impartiality of the Speaker in the administration of his high functions, I hope that such remarks as these will always be followed with vigilance and jealousy by the House, and that no disposition will be shown to tolerate any offence which may be committed in that direction.

MR. BLAKE

said, he had heard with great and unfeigned pleasure the state- ment of the hon. Member for Meath. He had never performed a more painful duty than that of drawing the attention of the House to the words used by the hon. Member. He felt it his duty to do this, because he knew that the hon. Member's attention had been drawn privately to these words, and he had failed to hear any expression of regret fall from the hon. Member in that House with regard to them. He wished, with the indulgence of the House, to explain why it was he took this step. Between 5 and 6 o'clock on Tuesday morning last, when most hon. Members were thoroughly wearied in consequence of the House sitting so late, and when other hon. Members were leading them round the Lobbies so many times in order, as was now explained, to facilitate Public Business, he regarded that conduct as a commentary on the speeches of the hon. Member for Meath, as reported in The Times and The Daily Telegraph. One of these was delivered in a school-room attached to the Italian Church. He stated the substance of those speeches as nearly as he could from memory, and on being challenged to produce the words, a noble Lord opposite was good enough to supply him with a cutting of The Times containing the speech at Hatton Garden, which, by permission of the Chairman, he read to the House. That hon. Gentleman, after listening for some time, stopped it, with the intimation that it should be brought before the Speaker and the House. He (Mr. Blake) then attempted to put a Question as to the truthfulness of the reports, but was stopped on the ground that the Question was out of Order, and he was therefore obliged to give Notice that he would bring it forward as a matter of Privilege, and therefore he had no alternative but to put his Notice of Motion on the Paper. That Motion he now wished to withdraw, and he hoped what had occurred would not be lost on other hon. Members. He had seen the report of a meeting held on Wednesday last, at which reference was made to trials of physical strength. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

intimated that the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to that subject.

MR. BLAKE

then repeated he would withdraw the Motion of which he had given Notice.

MR. BIGGAR

I should not have risen but for one observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who has formed an opinion from an imperfect report. I was present when the speech complained of was delivered, and it did not strike me at the time, hearing the exact words used, that my hon. Friend did speak disrespectfully of the Speaker. As to the other issue, I do not offer any opinion; but so far as the speech referred to the Speaker of this House, I did not think then, and I do not think now, that my hon. Friend did speak disrespectfully, or that he intended to do so.