§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I desire permission to call the attention of the House to some remarks made on Thursday last, I think, the 14th of June, at Birmingham, by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), which appear to me, if they are correctly reported, to amount to a breach of the Privileges of 802 the House. I have already had an opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman of my intention of bringing this matter forward, and have sent him a copy taken from The Times newspaper in order that he might inform me if there were any inaccuracies in that report. I presume that I may take it for granted that the words are faithfully reported. The matter is one which I am sorry to be obliged to bring before the House, because I quite feel, as you, Sir, have on former occasions expressed it, that it is undesirable that time should be taken up with discussions of this character, except when the case is strong and important. But, Sir, it does appear to me that, in the present instance, the gravity of the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman and the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself are so great that it is one of those cases that must be treated as exceptional, and demanding immediate notice. I will read the words to which I specially object; but before doing so I wish to point out that by the context the words are evidently pointed at the great body of the Conservative Party in this House. They occur in the course of an argument addressed by the right hon. Gentleman to his constituents at Birmingham, in which he points out various faults which he has found with the Conservative Pary to which he has so long been opposed. He makes a survey of the course the Conservative Party have pursued from the days of Sir Robert Peel to the present time; and there can be no doubt, therefore, as to the persons to whom he refers. The remarks to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the House are these. The right hon. Gentleman says—
Now, the House of Commons at this moment, and it is the last point to which I will make reference, the House of Commons, in a portion of its Members, seems to me to be abandoning the character and conduct of gentlemen, as heretofore seen in that assembly. The party of which I have spoken, in not a few of its Members, appears willing to repudiate the authority of a majority of the Constituencies.That appears to me a charge against us for not immediately accepting the dictates of the majority. Then come the words to which I particularly wish to call attention—They know that the majority believes as the Constituencies believe, and wishes to do for the Constituencies what the Constituencies de- 803 mand, but they are determined, if it be possible, that the majority of the Constituencies shall fail in their efforts. And, what is worse at this moment, as you see (and you do not so much see it here as it is seen in the House")—therefore, he was speaking from his own experience in the House—They are found in alliance with an Irish rebel party, the main portion of whose funds, for the purposes of agitation, come directly from the avowed enemies of England, and whose oath of allegiance is broken by association with its enemies. Now, these are the men of whom I spoke, who are disregarding the wishes of the majority of the Constituencies, and making it impossible to do any work for the country in the House of Commons.Now, so far as these words are intended to convey to his hearers and the public that there is anything in the nature of systematic Obstruction by the Conservative Party of measures brought forward in this House—I mean Obstruction as distinguished from that fair opposition and discussion which it is the duty of every minority, which I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman in his past career has on many occasions found it necessary to give to measures in this House—I say that if there is in these words an intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to impute to the Conservative Party any other opposition than that, that charge is unfounded and baseless; and I say, moreover, that it is a charge which, if made at all, ought to be made, not on a platform at Birmingham, but it should be made in the House of Commons, and in such a manner that it can be met and discussed and settled in the presence of those against whom the charge is made. That is my complaint with regard to the substance of the charge; but as regards some of the language which I have read, the matter goes even beyond that. The right hon. Gentleman has charged the Conservative Party, in language which is very clear—his language always is clear —with being in alliance with a "rebel Party," and a Party whose Oath of Allegiance is broken by association with the enemies of the country. That is language to which it is utterly impossible that Members of this House can, on whatever side they sit, listen without demanding some explanation and some satisfaction for such extraordinary observations. I do not mean to trouble the House by going into the question of precedents for calling the attention of the House to 804 breaches of Privilege, though I could detain the House at some length if necessary, for the purpose of showing what the precedents are in this connection. I will only refer to one case, one of the latest, and I refer to it for the purpose of quoting an opinion then expressed by Mr. Disraeli, the Leader of the House, and which I think fairly expresses the view we ought to take on this matter. It was on the occasion when Mr. Sullivan, then a Member of this House, brought certain charges against more than one Gentleman as to certain language used with regard to the Irish Party outside the House, and more especially by Mr. Justice Lopes, who was then a Member of this House. In the course of the discussion Mr. Disraeli said—I am not here to deny that it is a breach of Privilege to speak of any Members of this House in their capacity as such in terms which imply disgrace or ignominy.It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has so spoken of Members of this House. It appears to me that the language he has used is of a character that, being very serious and being applied to hon. Members in their capacity of Members of Parliament, demands notice on the part of the House. I shall not detain the House any longer, as I think it is unnecessary to do so; but I will ask that the remarks which I have quoted as reported in The Times newspaper be now read by the Clerk at the Table; and, when they have been so read, it is my intention to move that they constitute a breach of Privilege.The said Paper was delivered in, and the paragraph complained of read as follows:—
Now, the House of Commons at this moment, and it is the last point to which I will make reference, the House of Commons, in a portion of its Members, seems to me to be abandoning the character and the conduct of gentlemen, as heretofore seen in that assembly. The party of which I have spoken, in not a few of its Members, appears willing to repudiate the authority of a majority of the Constituencies. They know that the majority believes as the Constituencies believe, and wishes to do for the Constituencies what the Constituencies demand, but they are determined, if it be possible, that the majority of the Constituencies shall fail in their efforts. And, what is worse at this moment, as you see (you do not so much see it here as it is seen in the House), they are found in alliance with an Irish rebel party, the main portion of 805 whose funds, for the purposes of agitation, come directly from the avowed enemies of England, and whose oath of allegiance is broken by association with its enemies.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the words complained of are a Breach of the Privilege of this House."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTMr. Speaker, I am surprised at the course which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it his duty to take, though I admit that, in taking that course, he has not said a single word I could complain of, and his manner has been as respectful to me as I hope in what I have to say I shall be respectful to him. I am not surprised that some of the passages in my speech should have excited what, in ancient phraseology, is said to be "searchings of heart" among hon. Gentlemen opposite. In judging of this matter the House will bear in mind that I was speaking to my constituents, on which occasion men have a right, if at all, to speak with great freedom, and I have had the opportunity during the past week of seeing a great number of my constituents—a greater number than I ever saw before, and, probably, than I shall ever see again; and I found among them a considerable anxiety—an anxiety which, I believe, exists not only amongst them, but also amongst the constituents of many Members of this House—at the slow progress made in the Business of this House. They felt that questions ought to be fairly discussed, and, after being debated to a reasonable extent, that progress should be made, but that, in point of fact, last year and this year no progress has been made; and I think that many constituencies throughout the country partake of that anxiety. Now, that being so, it was my duty to explain to my constituents what it was that caused the difficulty; and I believed that was to be found in showing that on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite the most easy way to damage the Government was found to be by making it impossible for the Government Business to succeed. I have no objection whatsoever—no man ought to have less—to a full debate and an honest division, and then my opinion is that Business should proceed; and if there be a conduct opposed to that, which I believe there has been, then I think it was my duty to explain my own views 806 to my constituents; and if the right hon. Gentleman bad read the whole of the passage at the end of my speech, he would have found the advice I gave to my constituents on the matter; in fact, it would have been a great advantage to the House if he had read it. The right hon. Gentleman's objection — in fact, I think, his whole objection—is to the use of the word "alliance." The right hon. Gentleman does not object to a section of the Irish Party being called "rebels." The right hon. Gentleman objects to my statement that some Members of the Conservative Party have been acting in alliance with certain Gentlemen, whom I specified, among the Irish Members. There can be no doubt about their acting with them. [Cries of " No, no ! "and" When?"] Hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of speaking afterwards. I am free to admit that the term "alliance" is capable of a meaning which I did not intend to give it. I had no idea at all that there were any two Parties or sections who had met or agreed what was to be done, or that there had been any kind of arrangement. I found them acting together, and therefore the word "alliance" is the word that came first to my lips. I quite admit that it is capable of another interpretation, and perhaps I ought to leave been more careful in the selection of the phrase. The right hon. Gentleman must be happy, I think, that I did not use another word — the word "treaty." Why, Sir, for 12 months past hon. Gentlemen opposite have been assailing the Government, and especially my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, on the ground of some treaty which some ingenious person called the Treaty of Kilmainham. Although my right hon. Friend, over and over again, explicitly denied that any such term could be rightly applied to anything that had taken place, still hon. Gentlemen opposite were incessantly returning to the charge. I used no such words as that I believed there was a treaty; for I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this subject would not make any treaty, or, in fact, any alliance of the description to which I have referred. Well, then, there are, as the House well knows, in opposition to the Government two sections of the House, one sitting opposite me there, on the 807 Opposition Benches—and one sitting opposite me here—on the Benches below the Gangway—[An hon. MEMBER: And another there—the Fourth Party.] Well, those two sections of the House appear to me to have the same purpose in view —I do not say every Member on that side of the House would admit it—and that is to worry the Ministry and destroy the Government. Well, this state of things leads naturally, not to a combination or alliance, but to an acting together and combined action in debate and in division. [Cries of When?" and "Name!"] I could name an individual; but hon. Members will well recollect that at a great Division lately, in which, taking only the Members for Great Britain, there was a majority of 63 in favour of a Government Bill—[Cries of "What Bill?"] —in favour of a Government Bill. We know that about 1 o'clock in the morning, or lateror earlier, when the Division took place, we were present, and know what exultation there was on that side of the House, cheering of the most vociferous kind, and mutual congratulations; and it was impossible for anybody here to determine accurately to which section of the Opposition the principal glory of the conflict and victory ought to be awarded. There is another point on which I observe the same course is pursued, and that is with regard to Questions at Question time. The House knows that on particular nights—Government nights especially—there are three or four times as many Questions put down on the Paper as on other nights, the purpose of that being, no doubt, to baffle the objects of the Government. The Members of the Government are on these Benches every night. ["No, no!"] I am not, of course, speaking of Wednesday night, but of other nights, and they are ready to answer Questions; but the crowd of Questions are placed upon the Paper for two nights particularly in the week. I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to my having spoken rather unfavourably with regard to the gentlemanly conduct I have observed in the House. Now, I have seen at Question time sometimes five or six Members getting up at once and clamouring to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in a manner which I can assure hon. Members in my younger days in the House would never have boon thought of. Do you suppose that my 808 right hon. Friend Mr. Charles Villiers, the Member for Wolverhampton, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ricardo, myself, or three or four others who sat here constantly debating the question of Free Trade—do you suppose that any one of us would have dealt with Sir Robert Peel in the manner in which hon. Gentlemen deal constantly with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman who has brought this matter before the House will permit me, I hope, to bring one case under his notice of things that are sometimes said by hon. Members out of the House. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman does not read any of the speeches made by his own supporters out-of-doors. He cannot read them; for if he did he would not be so ignorant as ho appears to be of what has taken place. The right hon. Gentleman himself is always courteous. I have never known him, in the House or out of it, to say anything that could be regarded as uncourteous by any person. Supposing, however, the right hon. Gentleman were to read the speeches of one of his followers—I am not sure whether he is a follower or affects sometimes to be almost a Leader—the right hon. Gentleman might not have taken his present course. Now, I should like to read a short paragraph that has been sent me, taken from a speech of the hon. Member to whom I refer. This paragraph states that Lord Randolph Churchill—[ Cries of "Question!"]—I shall not trouble the House with more than this short extract, and I shall sit down in two or three minutes. I hope, therefore, hon. Members will allow me to proceed—
Lord Randolph Churchill was present at the annual dinner of the Woodstock Conservative Association; and, in responding to the toast of the Conservative cause, he complained that the Government had taken no notice of the agricultural interest, which could only be described as desperate. The real truth, he said, of the present political situation was, that they had to do with a Government of impostors, with an Administration of make-believes, whose every act was either a fraud or an imposture, and it was the duty of all to lose no opportunity of enforcing an appeal to the country.I think, Sir, if your attention is to be called to everything that is said in the country by hon. Members of either side with regard to public men or Parties in this House, we shall have a great deal to do that will not be satisfactory to the public, and will not be creditable to our- 809 selves. There is another question to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred. I will refer to it, because it is not unlikely that certain hon. Members opposite may see something in it applying to them; but I beg them to understand that my observation was limited to very few, and I suppose that that few would be very likely not to deny its accuracy. [ Cries of "Name!" and "Order !"] The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is not here, or else I would address my observation to him. Not that I have ever received anything from him that I have reason to complain of; but I think the House has a right to complain of their sitting in it with the views they have expressed and the conduct they have pursued; and I will say, in a sentence or two, what I have to say in justification of the phrase referred to. I refer to the declarations which have been made by Members of the Irish Party in Ireland and in this House. I recollect that on more than one occasion a Member, or Members of that Party, have said in this House that this was a Foreign Legislature, and that the Government sitting on these Benches, selected by the Queen and in accord with the majority of the House, was a Foreign Government. I recollect one of the Members of that Party, who is not at present a Member of the House—I refer to Mr. Dillon—stating in an impressive and remarkable speech that the Irish Party were obliged to carry on the conflict on the floor of this House, because they had not the means to carry on that conflict—he meant against the Government of England—on another field. I have not quoted the precise words of Mr. Dillon; but hon. Members will know that I have not misquoted him. I should like to mention two other points. I have before stated to the House what took place at the Convention at Chicago. There has been another Convention at Philadelphia, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork was reported in the newspapers to have telegraphed to the people of Philadelphia that in the things they were doing, the resolutions they were passing, and so on, they were to take care not to cause him any embarrassment by the line that they might adopt. Everybody knows; nobody denies; nay, it is notorious, that the people who assembled at these Conventions in America are 810 avowed enemies of this country, and seek by all means to prepare—this is an idea of Bedlam—for some course of action in order to commence an operation of war against the English Monarchy. Of that there can be no manner of doubt. [Mr. O'BRIEN: They give you the chance of preventing it.] At the present moment funds are being collected in the United States, and publicly announced from time to time, for the use of an Association in Ireland whose Leaders are in this House. I say—and I might put it to the Attorney General, or any eminent lawyer in the House or out of it—whether, if there be an Association in the United States which is raising funds for purposes hostile to the English Monarchy and the English Crown, and sending these funds over hero to an Association which does not adopt the same name, but looks to the same ends, these men do not break the law, and are deserving of the title which I gave to some of them? The object—the avowed object—of that particular Party with which some hon. Members opposite are associated in the United States, is to dethrone the Queen from Her Sovereignty in Ireland. [Cries of "No, no !" from Irish Members.] I would say to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if he was here, and I will say so to his followers, if there are any of them here, that if they declare that their objects—objects, if you like, of reform of land, reform of various kinds —that their objects are loyal to the Crown—if they will say that the opinions and feelings of the Association in America are not theirs, or if they will dissociate themselves from these Associations, then I will withdraw the words I used. Nay, I will not only withdraw them, but I will make the most complete apology that it is possible to put into words. [An Irish MEMBER: An apology of words.] I am very sorry that there has been any cause to bring me into a discussion of this nature. I have not been accustomed in past years to enter into conflict with the Members of the Irish Party. They have had no warmer friend than I have been to Ireland. The father of Mr. Dillon—John Blake Dillon—a man whom I daresay many of you know, and all who knew him respected him, wrote to me on one occasion, and invited me, on behalf of more than 20 Members of Parliament from Ireland, 811 to go over to Dublin. I went over to Dublin, and I was received by them, not only with courtesy, but with more attention than I was worthy of. Mr. Dillon invited me there for a particular purpose. He was a man who held extreme opinions, who had been concerned in a revolutionary movement, and had to run away to America. He came back, entered this House, and he said that he believed there was no security for the real advantage and good government of Ireland, except by an alliance between the Irish Members and the Members of the Liberal Party. I wish to say no more, Sir. I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman opposite what it was that induced me to make the observation I did. I have told hon. Gentlemen opposite that if it be not true what I said with regard to them, let them say it is not true. If they say they are not disloyal—[Mr. O'BRIEN: We are loyal to Ireland.]—if they say that they do not desire to dismember the United Kingdom, then I withdraw the words I used, and express the utmost sorrow for having made a mistake that was unintentional and so grave. I hope the House will take into consideration that in a free country it is the duty of Members of the House of Commons, when they address their constituents, to speak freely—to speak that which they believe affects their constituents and the country at large. If I have transgressed—if it be the decision of this House that no man can use a word under such circumstances which is liable to two interpretations, as I have explained, and remember that I have repudiated the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman—then I say that I think it is unnecessary that the House of Commons should tie its hands more than at present, should tie itself down more by its Members, and thus induce Members to bring by—what shall I call them?—other precedents, questions like this before the House. I am certain that I have not intended anything disrespectful to the House. Many hon. Members opposite have known me for a long time; some of them have known me 40 years, and they have never known me to treat lion. Members with discourtesy; and as long as I have a seat in the House they never will. If the House decides that anything I have said or done is not in accordance with that freedom which I 812 think Members of Parliament ought to have out-of-doors, I shall bow to its decision, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will enable me also to change the opinion I have expressed with respect to some of them.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the ordinary practice of the House, it is usual, when attention is called to the conduct of a Member, for that Member to withdraw.
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTMr. Speaker, I was going to ask the permission of the House to remain. I presume it is likely that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House may speak, and probably they may say something which I should wish to hear. I waited after the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had spoken for the purpose of allowing any Member to rise who might have felt it his duty to do so; but no one did rise. I spoke, therefore, under some disadvantage; and if I were to leave the House, and something were to be said, I should have no opportunity of making an explanation, and I am sure the House will think that that would not be quite fair to me.
§ MR. O'DONNELLMr. Speaker, on the point of Order —
SIR STAFFORDNORTHCOTEWill it be in Order, Sir, no one objecting, for someone to move that the right hon. Gentleman be permitted to remain?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf it is your pleasure that, under the special circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman be allowed to remain, no doubt the House can so determine.
The pleasure of the House having been signified, Mr. BRIGHT did not withdraw from the House.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSSir, I listened with very great attention to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman in the remarks which he has made; and I was in hopes, until the moment he sat down, that he would, at all events, have said something which the House would have accepted as apologizing for the charge which he made against a large number of the Members of this House, and I state this not in the interests of either one Party or the other, but in the interests of the House itself. I am quite sure that we must all feel that such an accusation as the right hon. 813 Gentleman made in that speech of his at Birmingham ought not to have been made unless there was absolute foundation for it, and that when it is quite clear that there was no foundation for such an accusation, it should, at all events, be withdrawn. I still hope, before this debate closes, that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit, out of deference to the House itself, to withdraw the charge, which, I am quite sure, he must himself feel he cannot now substantiate. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he used a word which might be misinterpreted and used in two senses—the word "alliance"—but he must have known perfectly well when he used the word, from the manner in which it was received by his audience, in what sense they would interpret it. That was the whole reason of the speech, and that was the meaning which would be attached to it by those listening to it, and no one could be more conscious of it than the right hon. Gentleman himself. We have now had from the right hon. Gentleman this admission—that if that was the sense in which not only those persons obviously interpreted the word, but in which everyone and every newspaper in London interpreted the word, that was not the sense in which he intended to use it. I am not sure whether I clearly understood the right hon. Gentleman; but, at all events, I did not understand that it was accompanied by an apology for the charge he made—namely, that we, as a Party, or a large number of Members, were not simply doing our best to oppose legitimately those measures of Her Majesty's Government that we thought wrong, but that we were willing to lend ourselves to devices, plans, and schemes by which we might defeat the aim of the Government otherwise than by fair and legitimate argument. Now, I say fearlessly that at no period has the Conservative Party been Parties to anything of the kind. I say fearlessly that they have set themselves decidedly against any action of that character; and I defy any Member of this House to name any time, place, or circumstance in which the Conservative Party in this Parliament have allied themselves to obstructive measures at all. I am quite willing to take the definition of the Prime Minister himself that Obstruction means opposing the action of the Government 814 otherwise than by means of fair argument. I think that was his own definition of it. We have more than once during the present Parliament received the thanks of the Prime Minister himself for the action we have taken. Not only have we received his thanks this Session so far as the Corrupt Practices Bill is concerned, but also last Session in regard to some of his Irish measures, although we were, as he knows, bitterly opposed to many of them. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to any Bill which the Government have brought forward in the course of the present Session, except one, he will find, I believe, that one single night has been sufficient for the second reading of each. The right hon. Gentleman wished to quote an instance in which he says we had obstructed the Government. There was one instance in which we used the legitimate power of opposing a Bill of the Government; and if that is said to be Obstruction the word "Obstruction" has two senses, and the right hon. Gentleman uses it in one sense, and we must use it in the other. We did oppose the Affirmation Bill, and we used our legitimate power for defeating the Government; and if that be Obstruction the right hon. Gentleman is welcome to the example. We were right in opposing that Bill; and if that is brought forward as an instance of Obstruction, or of alliance, no one can know better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was defeated because it was against the religious instincts of the vast majority of the people of England. It was defeated, no doubt, because all Members who sit on this side of the House voted against it; but that would not have defeated the Bill. It was defeated, not simply because the Irish Members also voted against it, but because many Liberal Members sitting above the Gangway in this House abstained from voting. If this be held up to the people of Birmingham as an instance of Obstruction by the Conservative Party, I think the right hon. Gentleman really ought to withdraw the expression that he has used. The only other instance which the right hon. Gentleman has condescended to give is that of Questions; and he complains of the great number of Questions that are principally put down on Mondays and Thursdays, which are Government nights. He forgets that, at the present moment, they 815 are the only Evening Sittings that we now get. If the right hon. Gentleman goes before that, and means before the Morning Sittings took place, then I must refer him to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who came to me some time ago, and said—"I only wish every Question put to me was put down for Mondays and Thursdays. I am myself endeavouring," he said, "to do all I can in that direction, because it is so inconvenient for the Office if they are put down on any other night." If those really are the only instances which the right hon. Gentleman can produce, I think we may be very well satisfied with the results of this debate; but if such charges are made I must say, on behalf of the Party with which I have the honour of acting, that we have a right to demand that time, place, and Bill should be specified when opposition such as this was offered by the Conservative Party, and I defy any Member of the House to bring forward such an instance. Sir, I hope this debate may, at all events, end as quietly as it began. I have no wish to say one single word to injure the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman; but I sincerely hope that now, seeing the interpretation that has been placed on the words he used at Birmingham, he may be able to say that he is very sorry he made use of any words—[Cries of "No, no "]—I think hon. Members might hear the end of the sentence—that he is very sorry that he used any words which were capable of two interpretations. [Cries of "No, no!"] The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) thinks that that is not the proper thing to do.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSThen I suppose I may consider the remark withdrawn.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSThe right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) must feel that the words he spoke at Birmingham were not only capable of two interpretations, but that they were interpreted in the way that has now been shown. Therefore, he has now only to state that he is sorry he made use of any words towards any Party in the House, whether Conservative or 816 Liberal, attributing to them proceedings contrary to the dignity of the House, and to the honour of the Party; and I believe my right hon. Friend will accept his assurance.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not intend to enter into the family quarrels which might have taken place between different English political Parties in that House. It was a matter of indifference to those hon. Members with whom he acted what charges might be made by the Leaders of the two great Parties against each other. But if the Conservatives were sometimes accused of unscrupulous tactics against the Government now in power, it should be remembered that Liberals themselves used similar tactics when their opponents were in Office. The time had, perhaps, not yet come for writing the history of the Parliamentary strategy of the last five or six years; but it was as notorious a fact as any alluded to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham that during the last Parliament there was not an occasion when what were rightly or wrongly called obstructive tactics were practised against the Government by a certain section of Irish Members that they did not get the direct, and, still more, the indirect, support of the Liberal Party. Nor was he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) concerned with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he had alluded to the so-called alliance between the Conservative Party and Irish Members. Both the great political Parties at times evinced a strong anxiety to disavow anything like an alliance with the Irish Party. But, disastrous as they regarded such an alliance to themselves, Irish Members, on their side, were equally conscious that anything like alliance with the English Parties was regarded by their constituents with dislike and suspicion. Now, a word as to what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to Mr. John Blake Dillon; and he ventured to say that the sentiments and views which the right hon. Gentleman had attributed to Mr. Dillon never existed in that Gentleman's mind, and that he never could have given expression to anything of the kind. Prom what he had read and knew of Mr. Dillon's family—and their career was well known and thoroughly familiar to Irishmen—he was satisfied that never 817 at any moment did he express the conviction that the welfare of Ireland would be secured by a permanent alliance with the Liberal Party. He desired to be more courteous to the right hon. Gentleman than he had been to his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) Party; and, therefore, he said that he had not the least doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had unintentionally mis-stated the views of Mr. Dillon, as he had done those of the Irish people. The Irish people had learnt this, if they had learnt nothing else, since the time of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken—that the English Liberal Party, which once posed as their traditional friend, was now their enemy. The first time he had ever heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham was in the City of Limerick, when he was much impressed, and even moved, by the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence. The right hon. Gentleman was the first English orator he had ever heard; and, listening to his eloquence, he felt much inclined to change his malevolent views of English politicians in general. On looking at a volume of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, he found he stated on that occasion that—
An Act which the Parliament of the United Kingdom had passed the Parliament of the United Kingdom can repeal.What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by those words, addressed to au audience of Limerick men? It was possible to put but one interpretation upon them. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say further that—He was to admit that any nation had a right to ask for and strive for national independence.If he himself were to use such words in Ireland now he should recommend himself to the attentions of a Liberal Viceroy; and if he had used such words in Chicago or Philadelphia the right hon. Gentleman would have come down to the House and denounced him as a rebel. If he were to take the trouble, or had the time, he could find in other speeches of the right hon. Gentleman many passages which, if used by him, would be described as incitements to the assassination of a large section of the Irish people. What did they suppose would be the consequences to him under the Crimes Act if, for instance, he was to say to-day in Ireland that if it had 818 not been for the interference of the English Parliament the Land Question would have been settled long ago, and the landlords would have been exterminated? Within two weeks he should have made the acquaintance of Green Street Court; and if his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) were to have printed such a passage in United Ireland, within three weeks he would find himself imprisoned for seditious libel. And yet this converted rebel who had used such words was the Gentleman who came down to the House to teach them what were their duties to the Crown and Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to give a pledge of loyalty to the Crown; but he thought that a pledge of loyalty to the Crown was more necessary from some Members sitting on the Treasury Bench at the present moment. No Englishman had done more than the right hon. Gentleman to encourage the Irish people to look for assistance to the Irish in America. He had surrounded the kindred alliance with more of the magic of eloquence and poetry than any other man. Some of the most beautiful and touching passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been passages in which he described the indestructible love that existed between the Irish at home and the Irish in America. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman denied what he once lauded, and reviled what he once praised—an alliance between the Irish at home and the Irish abroad. What the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt on most strongly in his speech was the fact that the funds for use in Ireland were obtained from America; so that he was now reviling that which in his earlier and better years he applauded. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked what were the aims and purposes of the Irish in America. They could be best judged by their acts; but he would say, with regard to the Philadelphia Convention, that it was, in every sense of the word, a Parnellite Convention for the purpose of giving loyal support to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork in the Constitutional agitation he had adopted. Neither in that House nor out of it, nor in the country, had his hon. Friend used other than Constitutional means. Two or three times the right hon. Gentleman had honoured himself with his abuse; but he would say this—and he trusted the House would. 819 not distrust his personal assurance—that never on any platform in America—and Le spoke on 120 platforms—did he use words that he would not use in that House, or that were incompatible with Constitutional agitation. This he did because he made up his mind before he went to America that he would say nothing which he was not justified in saying; and he did this because his friends in America would have contemned and despised him if he had endeavoured to flatter their prejudices by unconstitutional speeches. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have changed the love he once had for Ireland into an implacable and malevolent hatred; and he was now employing all his great talents to malign the Irish Leaders and misinterpret their purpose. The Irish cause, however, would go on in spite of the right hon. Gentleman. But the Irish people saw with surprise that a rather mean and rather vain old age had succeeded to a manhood of vigour and justice. [Loud and continued cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!" from the Ministerial Benches.]
§ MR. CALLANI rise to Order. I suggest that the names of the hon. Members who are interrupting the hon. Member for Galway should be taken down.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to deny the part which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had taken in the political life of this country; but he believed it would be one of the bitterest and saddest reflections of his old age that, in spite of his impotent attacks, the Irish cause, against which he was misusing his last years, would be eventually triumphant.
MR. GLADSTONEI have heard, Sir, with very great regret, some of the expressions used in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I must say that I do not entertain the regret in the interest or on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. I am not here, I think, to enter, upon an occasion like this, into the polemical part of the debate. I refrained from asking to address the House until I had heard someone who might be entitled to speak on behalf of the portion of Irish Members who had been glanced at, or were supposed to be glanced, at by my right hon. Friend. 820 The hon. Member who has just spoken, on behalf, I presume, of himself and his Friends, has made no complaint of the words used by my right hon. Friend; but simply contented himself by bringing a number of charges against my right hon. Friend, in respect to which I think my right hon. Friend may rest perfectly tranquil in the knowledge of the judgment that will be passed upon them by the nation.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI rise to Order. What is the Question before the House? [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. GLADSTONEThe reason why I refer to the matter is because it is to be recollected—though anyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member would not have believed it—that we are engaged in discussing the question, not whether my right hon. Friend has been right or wrong, but whether certain language used by him was a breach of Privilege. That question the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not condescend to notice; but it is to that question I wish to call the attention of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject, with a moderation of tone that has been generally and fairly acknowledged, must feel that there is a great inconvenience —though I will not say that he is to blame for it—in our having placed before the House as a breach of Privilege a lengthened passage involving very various matters, with regard to which it cannot be intended to assert that the whole passage is a breach of Privilege; and it is not very obvious which part it is intended to designate as a breach of Privilege. There are two parts of this passage that are clearly distinguishable; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has, in his most candid speech, fairly and clearly distinguished them. I draw the broadest line between them, because it appears to me they are entirely distinct. The words in which my right hon. Friend referred to the conduct of certain Irish Members were not dwelt upon in the slightest degree by the right hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, or by the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). Perhaps they conceive that it is for each section of the House to defend what it thinks fit, and to notice or not to notice what it thinks fit; but they have simply taken up what they consider to be a serious charge 821 against the Conservative Party. With regard, then, to certain Representatives of certain Irish constituencies, I would only remind the House that my right hon. Friend has certainly adhered to this proposition—that the whole circumstances of the case—what has been said and what has not been said taken together—do raise such inferences or such presumptions that he is entitled to say to those Irish Members — "Will you declare your loyalty to the Crown and your dissociation from the enemies of the Crown in America?"
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether it is in Order for any Member of this House, no matter what may be his position, to call upon any other Member of the House to declare his loyalty to the Queen?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe question of the right hon. Gentleman was addressed to the House. He has not made any observation that is irregular.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. If the hon. Member rises to a point of Order he may do so.
§ MR. MARUMIs it in Order of debate that the Prime Minister should assume that no one would speak from these Benches when they have not got the opportunity of speaking?
MR. GLADSTONEI have simply, Sir, been reciting—not adopting as my own—certain words, or the effect of certain words, used by my right hon. Friend—a request from my right hon. Friend, under all the circumstances, that those Gentlemen would enable him to state, and that he would then state, in terms as strong as he could use, an expression of regret that he should have suspected their loyalty. All I wish to say is this—that, under these circumstances —nay, taking into view the circumstances of this debate, and remembering this circumstance, that when the right hon. Member for Birmingham spoke of loyalty, one or more Members in that quarter of the House said—" Yes; loyalty to Ireland." I wish simply, Sir, directing myself to a practical purpose, to say that I do not propose, under the existing circumstances, to take any further notice of that portion of the passage which refers to Irish Members; but I 822 leave it exactly as it stands, with the invitation of my right hon. Friend, and with the frank offer which my right hon. Friend has made contingent on the acceptance of that invitation. Then I come to the question as it has been raised. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). I perfectly understand his anxiety to rebut a charge which he says was made; and, for my part, I am not going either to rebut or to support any charge at all. The question is strictly, whether certain words of my right hon. Friend amount to a breach of Privilege of this House? But the charge, as well as I could recollect it, was this—
That we were, as a Party, not simply legitimately opposing the Government, but were willing to lend ourselves to devices by which we might defeat the Government.Something to that effect was the charge which the right hon. Gentleman protested against, and far be it from me to blame him for so protesting; he is entitled to do it. But does he seriously think such a charge, in the words in which he himself recited it, amounts to a breach of the Privileges of this House? I do not think that the charge of illegitimate methods of opposition is a question of breach of Privilege. It is exceedingly desirable that we should discuss this question in the temper with which I admit the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed it, because a Motion of this kind is a Motion to lay down a limit to liberty of speech. [An hon. MEMBER: The clôture.] There is one word in the speech of my right hon. Friend with regard to which I do not think it is a breach of the Privilege of this House, but the recital of a melancholy truth. It is where, at the beginning of his speech, my right hon. Friend says that—A portion of its Members seem to me to be abandoning the character and conduct of gentlemen as heretofore seen in the assembly of the Commons.However, I pass on, and look at the contention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and I ask myself, Does this amount to a breach of the Privileges of this House? The right hon. Baronet, most discreetly, as I think, adopted the principle that, for the convenience of the House, in no cases excepting extreme cases, ought language used outside of the 823 House to be brought into discussion in the House. Those who heard the citation from the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and which the noble Lord does not deny—probably he thinks he did great service to the country—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI do not admit the accuracy of the report.
MR. GLADSTONEOf course, it is in the pleasure of the noble Lord to do one thing or another—to deny it or affirm it; but the effect of what he said was that the Government were a set of impostors.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI said a set of political impostors.
MR. GLADSTONEThat would be a phrase which I rather think would not be allowed to be used in the debates of this House. Well, I think the late Home Secretary, not very long ago, expressed his contempt for the conduct of the Government in regard to one of the political questions which they had in hand. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) undoubtedly used language in respect to the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) which went beyond the bounds of anything I have ever known in its licence and its odious character.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERWhich I repeated in this House.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not prepared to admit that the words were repeated in this House. They were not repeated in this House according to me. Of course, the question can be raised if the right hon. Gentleman likes.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERWill the right hon. Gentleman give me the reference?
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty about the reference, because a certain portion he did himself refer to and repeat in the House. They were words to this effect —that we had dishonourably plotted against my right hon. Friend and turned him out of the Cabinet. I will ask the House whether anything of that kind has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham? I take no credit for it; but we have acted ourselves upon the principle that is adopted by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon—namely, that except 824 in extreme cases language spoken outside ought not to be brought before the House; and, at any rate, in one extreme case we have waived bringing it before the House. Now, is this an extreme case of charge made? In the first place, against whom is it made? The right hon. Gentleman said it was made against the Conservative Party; but my right hon. Friend says "against not a few of its Members." That is, again, a limitation as far as it goes. What is the charge made? My right hon. Friend said at Birmingham that these Gentlemen have not submitted to the verdict of the majority of the constituencies. And the right hon. Baronet opposite says that is a complaint on his part that they do not accept all the Bills of the Government. But, suppose that were the meaning of my right hon. Friend, is that a breach of the Privileges of this House? If he goes to Birmingham and complains, or if I go and complain, that the Opposition have not given their assent to all our Bills, that may be an extravagant or absurd opinion to express, but he who expresses it does not commit any breach of the Privileges of this House. And if it be true that my right hon. Friend stated that, in his opinion, some portion of the Conservative Party had resorted to methods connected with the consumption of time, or any indirect method of slackening the progress of Public Business, was that language amounting to a breach of Privilege? I have nothing now to do with the justice or the injustice of any opinion. If I entered into that question I should have to traverse a very wide field of debate and, consequently, I look upon everything that has been said in no light except this—Does it amount to a breach of the Privileges of this House? Does it imply an insult to character? Does it imply dishonourable conduct? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes; alliance with rebels.] No objection is taken to the charge that it is au alliance with those Members. But to say, whether justly or unjustly, truly or untruly, that some portion of a Party has adopted indirect methods of opposition other than those of fair argument, partaking of the nature of a resort to unnecessary discussion, is no breach of the Privileges of this House. Now I come to the question of an alliance. I must say I recollect the manner in which the words 825 "Kilmainham Treaty" have been used during the last 12 months; and I am, therefore, a little surprised at what I think is the exaggerated importance attached to the use of the phrase of my right hon. Friend. An alliance, at any rate, is not so bad as a Treaty. I do not hesitate to say that what was conveyed under the phrase "Kilmainham Treaty" was so bad, so disgraceful, so dishonourable to every man concerned, personally as well as politically, that had it been true the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have been justified in using the phrase he applied to it—namely, that it was an act of infamy. But this mode of handling the question comes from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Have hon. Gentlemen considered what that charge involved? The Legislature had placed in the hands of the Government, I may say, the awful power of imprisoning at their sole will their fellow-citizens if we believed them to be parties to or inciters of measures hostile to the public peace; and the meaning of the phrase "Kilmainham Treaty" was this—that we had made use of that power to traffic with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for political advantages to ourselves and our Party. [ Opposition cheers.] That is the charge that is made by the Gentlemen who cheer me. But these are the very Gentlemen who cannot bear to be told that a certain number —not a few—of them are given occasionally to dabble in a little measure of Obstruction, although they do not scruple to charge upon us—probably there is not a man opposite who has not made the charge—that which is politically and personally dishonourable and base in the last degree. So much for this Kilmainham Treaty. Now as to the question of alliance. I own I do not recollect an important case in which it has happened that Gentlemen of different Parties have voted together when that union, however casual, has not been described by those who objected to it as an alliance or combination. It is not an assertion that there has been a document signed and sealed. It is a mode of describing that concurrent action; and what I state is that habitually, and without offence, it has been adopted by persons of the greatest influence and of the greatest authority. Now, I will quote one instance where the word al- 826 liance does not occur; but the worse phrase does. The speaker was Lord Palmerston, and he was a speaker who employed measured language, and was well acquainted with the just limits of Parliamentary debate. The case was one in which either the right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir Stafford Northcote), or, at any rate, my noble Friend the late Postmaster General (Lord John Manners), whose absence we all regret, was concerned. It was in the China debate of 1857. In that debate a number of persons, not acting in political concert, joined to give effect, by their vote, to their conscientious opinions, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman and his Party have repeatedly given effect to their conscientious opinions, by walking into the same Lobby as the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). On that occasion Lord Palmerston first declared that a combination had been formed against him. The reference is 3 Hansard, vol. 144, p. 1831. That combination consisted of my right hon. Friend—[Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: I was not here.] I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I presumed him to be where Mr. Cobden was. There were Mr. Cobden and his Friends, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and others who were then called Peelites; there was Lord John Russell, acting in a completely separate and independent situation from the Government of the day; and Mr. Disraeli, acting with the general mass of the Tory Party. All these were voting together when Lord Palmerston declared that a combination had been formed. Lord Palmerston said that this combination, fearing to put forward their objects in the face of day, and having concluded a secret treaty guaranteeing to each other the state of possession which they hope to obtain by coming into Office together, have done so and so. Then he says the question they put forward is—Will you have the existing Government, or the Coalition Government we have prepared for you? So that Lord Palmerston did not scruple to say in debate—[Opposition cries of "In debate!"] But that does not make it less a breach of Privilege. I apprehend that what is breach of Privilege out of the House is a breach of Privilege in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of some 827 Members of his Party being charged with having formed an alliance; and yet Lord Palmerston, on the simple approach of a single vote which he expected would be given in common, declared that a combination had been formed and that a private treaty had been made. He declared that the object of this treaty was the formation of a new Government, and that in this new coalition among the Parties who were then going to vote together, arrangements had been made for the government of the country. That was done on the floor of this House. It was done by the Prime Minister of the day, and it was done by a man with an experience of half-a-century in Parliament. We who were the objects of that charge sat there with perfect patience and satisfaction. We never dreamt that there was a breach of the Privileges of the House. There was not even a breach of our composure. We certainly gave our votes against Lord Palmerston, but made no complaints whatever of the language he had adopted. The allusion of my right hon. Friend with respect to this question of alliance I should have thought had been a successful one. Ho distinctly stated that he spoke of concurrent action, and did not speak of anything in the nature of a treaty or arrangement; and with regard to his use of the term, I have shown that a similar, but much stronger, phrase has been habitual in Parliament without any intention of imputing what was offensive. Certainly, Lord Palmerston had no intention of imputing dishonourable conduct to Lord John Russell; and I cannot but think that the right hon. Gentleman will see there is no ground for the assertion in this House that there has been breach of its Privileges. My right hon. Friend, I am sure, has had every desire to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen by frankly stating, as he has done, that there has been no arrangement, nothing in the nature of a compact between the Party of the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. What more can be desired? Is it possible to have more? Having regard to the common usages of this House, whatever be the justice or the truth of the opinions which we might entertain, or the opinions entertained opposite, in respect to the modes or measures, or quantities of opposition—I do not at all 828 recede from what has been cited out of my own mouth by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary—I hold it would be a serious mistake on the part of the House of Commons to treat such matters as a breach of Privilege, because, by so doing, they would be narrowing the just liberty of debate, which, of all Privileges belonging to the Members of this House, is the one most vital to its efficiency and its power.
§ MR. GIBSONSir, I am glad that, for the first time openly in the face of Parliament since that charge of Obstruction has been made, the person who has put that charge forward as plainly as the English language could do has not stood by it, and that the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of his late Colleague, has not used words suggesting the existence on this side of veiled or any other form of Obstruction. I do hope, before the debate closes, another Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench, not only a late Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, but a Colleague also in the representation of Birmingham, will come forward and say what he meant himself on a recent occasion. If he does so I think the House and the country will be grateful to him. I think the view taken, both in this House and in the country, as to the recent proceedings at Birmingham, is that they might be permitted to draw to a conclusion amid the enthusiasm of the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and without want of sympathy from his political opponents. As long as possible those opponents regarded those proceedings with no want of kindly feeling. They recognized the illustrious career of the right hon. Gentleman, and the Marquess of Salisbury took the opportunity to pay the right hon. Gentleman a high tribute. Therefore, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not influenced by feelings of magnanimity and generosity, and did not allow the week to close without making against his political opponents unworthy, groundless, and baseless charges. This debate has lasted an hour; if it has not yet closed, it is not the fault of my right hon. Friend, who opened it briefly and in a temperate manner, commendable for moderation and forbearance. How has he been met? If, in a few plain, manly words, the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged and explained the passage objected to, the position would 829 have been different; or, again, it might equally have been so if, in a few plain and simple words, which he is such a thorough master of, he had stated what he meant, and what he did not mean. If he had done that, instead of going into an elaborate reiteration of suggestions of the same charges in different words, this debate would have closed with the approval of everyone in the House; and none would have been better pleased than we should have been with a fair and generous explanation. The right hon. Gentleman has not met us by apology, by withdrawal, by explanation, nor yet by frank and manly insistance. He was invited more than once to use some word of frank and candid withdrawal. ["No, no!"] The suggestion was at once met with cries and exclamations which indicated that the right hon. Gentleman was not to withdraw; he was not to apologize; he was not to explain, but he was to repeat in this House, with a slight variation of language, charges of a gross, serious, and unworthy character against his long-established political opponents. Has the right hon. Gentleman met the charge by saying" I did use the words, and I stand by them?" Nothing of the kind. Has he met it by saying—"I regret the use of the word which you think most serious of all, and I withdraw it unequivocally?" Nothing of the kind. He has met the charge by a laboured and general criticism and discussion of the procedure of the House, beginning with Question time, and ending with the Affirmation Bill. I hope it will be understood that the right hon. Gentleman, having been challenged by letter and by speech, has not given one single instance, one solitary case, to justify, in the face of Parliament and the country, the grave charges which he has made recklessly, and without a shred of foundation, in Birmingham. It is all very well for the Primo Minister to try to throw a shield over his late Colleague. The Prime Minister is a master of language, of resource —shall I say of special pleading?—gifted with enormous tact in developing a technical defence; and how has he presented the case? What his late Colleague said at Birmingham, read by the light of his reiteration hero, was that a substantial portion of the Conservative Party had been guilty of a course of conduct which amounted to Obstruction; that they had 830 deliberately applied themselves to defeat the will of the majority of the constituencies; and, worse than that—and this is the sting of it—that they have joined themselves in alliance with the Irish rebel Party for this purpose. It is impossible to take one part of this charge and withdraw the others; you must take the whole. He was accusing the Conservative Party of having abandoned the character and conduct of Gentlemen in resorting to wilful Obstruction in alliance with the Irish rebel Party. That being the charge made, and in substance adhered to, with the substitution of two words for alliance, when the House had the right to a plain and unequivocal apology or withdrawal, the Prime Minister—a master of the art of minimizing charges—simply glanced at this serious charge, and put it aside with a passing reference. The right hon. Member did not withdraw the word "alliance;" but he substituted "combined action." But, read with the context, what difference do they make? The only combined action he is able to refer to in support of the charge is that the Conservative Party and Members of the Irish Party below the Gangway were found in the same Lobby in the Division on the Affirmation Bill. Am I not entitled to say that a charge more groundless, baseless, and utterly unworthy never was made by a Member of a great Party against another great Party behind their backs? Was not the epithet "Irish rebel Party" used to cast special stigma upon the Conservative Party? Was not the object of the right hon. Gentleman to damage the Conservative Party by associating them with a Party the least popular in England? It is impossible to pass over as a nullity this reference to the Irish rebel Party. It must be connected with the rest of the charge deliberately brought against those who sit on these Benches. I would not fetter freedom of speech to the extent of one syllable any more than the right hon. Member for Birmingham; but we are not now questioning freedom of speech; we are questioning the right to attack a large Party in this House without justification, without courage, and in contempt of the rights and Privileges of this House. How has the remonstrance been met? The House has been advised to vote that this is not contempt of the House of Commons. I 831 trust it will do so, unless we get some further information from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham or from a Member of the Government. There is no alternative that I can see open to the House, and those whose conduct has been impugned, except to go a Division. I should myself be most gratified, even now, if the right hon. Gentleman would rise up, and, in some frank and candid, some worthy and generous language, say that he did not mean any injurious reflection, and would spare the House from the painful and disagreeable duty of coming to a vote with regard to one who has so long been an honoured Member of this House.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the subject was one which lent itself readily to vehement declamation; but lie intended to discuss it with coolness, and, if possible, with equanimity. One precedent, and only one, was quoted by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Lopes, now Mr. Justice Lopes, described the Irish Party as "a disreputable Irish band." Such a charge was far worse than calling them "rebels," for anyone acquainted with Irish history would understand that that term implied only political disgrace, while the term "disreputable" might have a far wider application; and yet the Prime Minister of that day had advised that no notice should be taken of it. The phrase "disreputable Irish band" was not one that could, like the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, be termed a rhetorical exaggeration. He did not mean that the charge of "rebel" was not one that should be promptly repudiated by those to whom it referred; and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had intimated by his tone and manner that he had employed a rhetorical exaggeration. A more important question than the language of the right hon. Gentleman was the attitude of both sections of the Opposition to the proposals of the Government. He had at times been as active as anybody in opposing Government proposals, and he was not going to haul down his flag; but he was bound to express his opinion that the people of Ireland, as well as the people of England, had lest a great deal by the Obstruction of Public Business that had taken place during the present and recent Sessions; and, being swayed by that conviction, he had de- 832 clined to take any part in that policy of Obstruction. Non-contentious measures had been fought at every stage with as much vigour and determination as if they had raised again the old quarrels between Parties and classes that had divided the political organizations of the country. He felt disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman had been betrayed, by the excitement of a great public demonstration, into the use of the language which had been quoted; and he felt sure that on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would regret that he had described any Members of the House as occupying a political position which was opposed to the Constitution and laws of the country. But he looked upon the words as an exaggeration, and attached no serious importance to them; and, remembering the great services which the right hon. Gentleman had for many years rendered to Ireland, he felt that if that exaggeration had been multiplied a thousandfold Ireland would still be his debtor. Entertaining these sentiments, he should certainly not support the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition. He thought the explanation and tone of the right hon. Gentleman was a sufficient guarantee that he had no intention whatever to be guilty of any disrespect to the House, or any breach of its Privileges, and that after that explanation the subject might be allowed to drop.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was not at first inclined to think that Irish Members would do well to take any notice of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not admit the right of the right hon. Gentleman, or of any man, however eminent, to charge them with being disloyal, and then to say that if they would get up in that House and declare that they were not disloyal he would withdraw the charge. The right hon. Gentleman, by calling them rebels, practically charged them with being perjurers, for he knew they had taken the Oath of Allegiance; and, apparently, he would not give their Oaths as much belief as he would do the Affirmation of an Atheist. What, then, was the meaning of asking them to get up in that House and declare that they were not rebels and were not perjurers? It reminded him of Dr. Newman's famous retort on Mr. Kingsley, when Mr. Kingsley offered to take his word and withdraw a charge of falsehood—" Take 833 my word !—the word of a professor of lying—that he does not lie." He was not going to quarrel with any of the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) as to the obstruction of this, that, or the other Party; but he might be allowed to remark that his hon. Friend's connection with what was called Obstruction ceased when Members of the Liberal Party ceased to assist Irish Members in that so-called Obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham called them rebels for holding the same opinions as he held and sustained in the House and out of it until he became a Member of a Liberal Cabinet; and so the obstruction of his hon. Friend somewhat abated when the Liberal Party came into Office. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon pressed his Motion to a Division he should certainly vote with him, regretting that time had been occupied in the dispute at all, and being of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham should have been allowed to stigmatize and brand any Party in the House, great or small, with any epithets he pleased, unchecked and unrebuked.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, the Prime Minister had actually assumed the truth of the imputation thrown on the Irish Party. He (Mr. Marum) regretted exceedingly that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chanceller of the Duchy of Lancaster, in view of his high position and the debt of gratitude that Ireland owed to him, should have made use of the language he did. He had charged the Irish Party with being a rebel Party. That was a very serious charge, and, as a Member of the Party, he felt bound to repel the imputation. As an organization inside the House it had no connection with organizations outside the House. He had held the Commission of the Peace in two counties now for some years; and it would, therefore, be most inconsistent on his part to be a Member of a rebel Party. As to their alliance with the Conservative Party, he was proud of the occasion when they took together the part of Christianity; and he was glad to see that there was an alliance between Catholicism and Conservatism. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had alluded to the Oath of Allegiance; but was he not himself a pro- 834 minent supporter of Mr. Bradlaugh, who declined to take the Oath of Allegiance? And, if he might be allowed to say so, he had supported a rebel to his God, if not to his country.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not speaking to the Question before the House.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, the right hon. Member had made a serious imputation on the honour of Gentlemen, and he only wished indignantly to repel it.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the Irish Party could afford to treat the imputation of the two English Parties with contempt. The sting of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham consisted in his saying that there was an Irish rebel Party of perjurers in the House. The Prime Minister had laid down the doctrine that when a body of Members in the House were grossly and wantonly insulted, the onus of defence was upon the insulted Members, and that was the position assumed by the Leader of the House towards the Irish Party, and he asked his countrymen in Ireland and the United States to regard that position. There could be no doubt that the right hon. Member had intended to brand the Irish Members with the grossest charge at the disposal of his vituperative capacity. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Conservative Party, in dealing with the matter, although the whole stigma of the charge was in the insult offered to the Irish Members, passed over the subject, and fixed upon the innocent word "alliance" as the only matter which touched his susceptibilities. There was no atom or shade of difference in moral responsibility between those three Gentlemen, and as a specimen of a statesman he could commend any one of the three to his countrymen in Ireland and America. He denied that the Irish people in America were the enemies of England except in so far as England was the enemy of Ireland. With every movement for popular liberty and progress in England, as well as in Ireland, the Irish people in America were prepared to sympathize, and from the day that English misgovernment in Ireland ceased he was certain that there would be no more friendly and no more well-disposd section of the population of the United States than they would be. The insults of the right hon. Member 835 for Birmingham deserved nothing but contempt from the Irish Party, and the position taken up both by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, in their deliberate adoption of these insults, was simply worthy of the same contempt at Irish hands which was the due of the original insulter. He trusted that it would not be considered anywhere, except in this House, consonant with the character of an hon. Member to reply to dishonourable insults, wantonly made, utterly unprovoked, and only made because the insulter was a Member of the dominant nation, and could command the cowardly sympathies of a majority of his kind.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had been unable to discover which was the less creditable—the conduct of the Prime Minister, in endorsing the charge of disloyalty and breach of the Oath of Allegiance against the Irish Members, or that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham in the characteristic way in which he had endeavoured to get out of the difficulty. It had hitherto been the practice in that House that when a Member made a charge against another Member, and was challenged with respect to it, he rose and either withdrew the charge or proved that it was true. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had the instincts of race, and had done neither the one thing nor the other. He was thus left in a very discreditable position. There was an old story told—it might be of an ancestor of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham—of a man who was displeased with his dog because the animal was not obedient to his orders; and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman was displeased with the Irish Members because they had not been obedient to his orders. "I will neither beat thee, nor will I kill thee," said the man to his dog, "But I will give thee a bad name—halloo, mad dog!" and the dog was killed by the crowd. "Now," said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham of the Irish Members, "I will give you a bad name; you are rebels who have broken the Oath of Allegiance by associating with the enemies of England," and the Prime Minister had joined in hallooing "mad dog!" For they ought to bear in mind that, as far as the Prime Minister could do so, 836 he had endorsed the charge that there was a rebel Party in the House who had broken the Oath of Allegiance by association with the enemies of England, and that was nothing less than a charge of perjury, because the Irish Members had taken the Oath. The Irish Members regarded that charge as a very serious one, for they did not view the Oath in the same light as a certain protégé of the Prime Minister—as containing simply meaningless words—hut they attached great sanctity to it. The attitude assumed by the Premier in this matter was one that tended to lower the morality of the House, and to put Irish Members on their mettle. It also showed them the little justice they had to expect from the present Government.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: — Ayes 117; Noes 151: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 139.)