HC Deb 15 March 1883 vol 277 cc568-71
MR. J. R. YORKE

I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the hon. Member for Leeds, the Junior Lord of the Treasury, of which I have given him private Notice. He was present yesterday "at the fifth annual meeting of the Hornsey Liberal Association, Northfield Hall, Highgate, Sir Sydney Waterlow, M.P., presiding." He is reported to have made use of the following among other expressions:— In concluding his remarks "—I am reading from the report in The Daily News—"and speaking of Obstruction in the House of Commons, he said it came from a conspiracy of the Tory Party as a whole; and although the House had already benefited by the Forms of Procedure, yet it was perfectly clear that the New Rules that had been framed, although perfectly competent to put down Obstruction from a few men, wore not sufficient to deal with it from a whole Party. I pass over an unimportant passage and come to this— They would not be able to read even the Bankruptcy Bill before Easter, and everybody knew that that was duo to a dangerous and malicious conspiracy on the part of the Tory Party. I wish to ask whether this report which I have read of his speech is substantially correct; and, if so, whether the hon. Member has anything to state to the House with respect to the expressions which he has used?

MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE

The words quoted by the hon. Gentleman are, I admit, substantially correct. I frankly confess that I think the words "malicious conspiracy" are stronger than the occasion required. At the same time, I adhere to my conviction that there is on the other side of the House, for the purpose of obstructing the measures of Her Majesty's Government, a considerable amount of united action.

MR. J. R. YORKE

In consequence of the answer I have received from the hon. Gentleman, I have to take the course which I trusted I should not have been compelled to deem necessary; because I think I may say with perfect truth it has never been my practice to interrupt the proceedings of this House with any untimely interposition on my part, either in the way of moving the adjournment, or by question of Privilege, or any other manner. The only occasion on which I have departed from that practice was when I was urgently solicited by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to do so; and on this occasion, if the hon. Gentleman, instead of endeavouring, as I submit he has, to evade the question, had frankly and unreservedly withdrawn the odious—I say deliberately the odious—and undeserved imputation which he thought proper to make against the Tory Party as a whole, I should not have troubled the House with any interruption of its proceedings by moving any Resolution on the subject of Privilege.

MR. SPEAKER

I understand, from the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member, that he proposes to bring this matter before the House as a question of Privilege. I further understand that the extract from the newspaper which has been read by the hon. Gentleman refers to expressions which have been used by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) outside this House. I am not here to say that there may not be occasions when it may not be fit, and even necessary, to bring before the House expressions which have been used outside of the House by one of its Members; but I think that the House would do well not to make it a common practice to take notice of expressions used outside of the House, and to bring them forward as breaches of Privilege. I am bound to say that if these questions are to be treated as breaches of Privilege the House will set a dangerous precedent. I am aware that occasionally that course has been taken—that is to say, that notice has been taken of expressions which have not been used in the House, but outside the House, by Members of the House; but such occasions have been very rare. There was one such occasion in the year 1875, when a Member, speaking outside of this House of the Irish Party, did speak of that Party in language of a violent personal character. Notice was taken in this House of the expressions which had been used; but the expressions attributed to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) are not of that violent character; and I think, after the withdrawal of the words "malicious conspiracy" by the hon. Member, that the matter should go no further; and, unless I am otherwise instructed by the House, I shall consider it my duty not to treat this matter as a question of breach of Privilege.

MR. J. R. YORKE

With the fullest deference to your ruling, Sir, I may be allowed to ask the hon. Member for Leeds whether he distinctly and unreservedly withdraws the words to which I have called attention.

MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE

I have already stated plainly that I do withdraw the words "malicious conspiracy." I suppose the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.

MR. J. E. YORKE

I will only submit to you, Sir, in extenuation of the course which I have taken, that in the year 1875, with respect to the very matter which you quoted, an hon. Member made use of the expression, with regard to the Irish Party, that they were "a disreputable lot." The hon. Member first explained that he had merely meant that their conduct was not creditable; but, nevertheless, en a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he was called upon to apologize for having used that expression so explained. I mention this in extenuation for my having thought that the expressions of the hon. Gentleman, even after his qualified withdrawal of them, justified me in proceeding with the Motion which I was about to make.