§ SIR FREDERICK MILNERI wish to put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade of which I have given him private Notice. I should like to state that I ask the Question in no contentious spirit, but simply on account of the serious mischief that may ensue from the attitude apparently taken by the President of the Board of Trade. What I wish to ask is, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is correctly reported to have used these words when alluding to the disgraceful conduct of the rioters at Birmingham at the time of the visit of the Leader of the Opposition—
This is the man—alluding to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—who is so indignant because the working men of Birmingham took him at his word and pulled off the coping of the wall in order to attend a meeting to which they had been invited, and which the Tory managers were endeavouring, by a transparent fraud, to palm off as a representation of the people of Birmingham;whether he does not think it a gross insult to the working men of Birmingham to accuse them of such disgraceful conduct; whether he does not think that his words practically condone the proceedings of the rioters; and, whether he considers such conduct worthy of a Cabinet Minister?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINMr. Speaker, I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for his courtesy in giving me Notice of this Question, although I only received that Notice a few minutes ago on coming into the House. At the same time, I will make no difficulty whatever in answering the Question. I would remind the hon. Baronet, however, that in the Notice which he has given to me, the last two Questions, which appear to be altogether matter of opinion and discussion, are struck out. I have to say that the extract which he quotes appears to me to be substantially accurate, although it is incomplete; and I regret that the hon. Baronet did not quote the earlier Words of the paragraph from which he 164 has made the extract, and in which I referred to the language of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who, at a meeting in Edinburgh, in 1883, declared that he would never give his assent to the franchise until the labourers showed their earnestness by pulling down railings and by engaging the police and the military.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for a Minister of the Crown to put words into the mouth of a Member of Parliament, which that Member of Parliament never uttered?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the noble Lord repudiates the words, I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will not insist upon them.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI will pledge myself to the House to the substantial accuracy of the words I have quoted.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI deny their accuracy. I never used them.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFSir, I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order!"] You said, Sir, that if the noble Lord repudiated those words, the right hon. Gentleman would doubtless withdraw them. The right hon. Gentleman has, contrary to your ruling, insisted on the accuracy of the words repudiated by the noble Lord. I ask you whether such conduct is in Order?
§ An hon. MEMBER: On the part of a Minister of the Crown, too.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is not a question of Order. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman would, I felt sure, not continue to attribute words to the noble Lord which the noble Lord repudiated.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFBut he did, Sir.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI understood the noble Lord to repudiate the verbal accuracy of the words I have quoted, and as I am speaking from memory, I do not wish to bind myself to the verbal accuracy of the words; but I pledge myself to prove to the House, if it be necessary, by the actual citation of the words reported in all the papers to have been used by the noble Lord at Edinburgh, the substantial accuracy of the statement I have just made. Now, Sir, I go on to the further Question addressed to me by the hon. Baronet. He 165 asks me whether I do not think it is a gross insult to the working men of Birmingham to impute to them that they have been guilty of such disgraceful conduct. I must say that while the proceedings at Birmingham appear to me to be, to some extent, a matter of discussion, I shall be prepared, if the opportunity is afforded to me, to state to the House what I have heard with reference to them from my constituents, some of whom were eye-witnesses of those proceedings. In the meantime, I have to say that I have not accused the working men of Birmingham of disgraceful conduct. I do not think they have been guilty of it. If my information is accurate, the only persons who have been guilty of disgraceful conduct are the roughs who were hired as "chuckers-out" by the Tory Party.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, before the debate on the Address concludes, he will take the opportunity, which he deliberately refused last night, when he was charged with direct complicity in these riots—whether he will take the opportunity of more fully going into the matter, and of giving those who differ from him an opportunity of replying to his statement?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINNothing will give me greater pleasure than to answer any accusations which may be brought in this House either against myself or against my constituents. Last night I did not reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who appeared to me, on that occasion, to be acting as jackal to the noble Lord.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIn the interests of Parliamentary decency, I rise to Order.
§ An hon. MEMBER: Move the adjournment.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order—[Cries of "Oh!"]—a point in regard to which hon. Members opposite appear to be in ignorance—whether it is in Order for a Member of this House to apply to another Member the term "jackal?"
§ MR. SPEAKERI hope the noble Lord will not take the word in a too literal sense. I regarded it as figuratively used, and not, therefore, transgressing any Rule of the House, and I 166 do not think the noble Lord himself can be serious in the matter.
§ SIR STAEFORD NORTHCOTEI cannot help thinking, Sir, that whether the right hon. Gentleman was technically in Order or not, seeing how the expression which he used has been received, that he will venture to withdraw a word which is calculated to give pain, and the use of which, I venture to say, is not in the interests of decent language in this House.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINIn answer to the appeal just made to me, I hope the House will allow me to explain that, of course, I had not the slightest intention of describing the hon. Member for Portsmouth as a jackal otherwise than figuratively. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] My intention was precisely the same as when the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) a short time ago used figurative language with regard to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), whom, if I remember rightly, he described on that occasion as a "bonnet." But if the feelings of the hon. Member for Portsmouth have been hurt, I most willingly withdraw the expression.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman that nothing he can say will affect me in any manner whatever.
§ MR. CALLANMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of peace and order, whether the word "bonnet" or "jackal" is the most discourteous?
§ Mr. SPEAKERdid not reply.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONThe Prime Minister yesterday warned us, in grave and solemn tones, that he was authorized by all his Colleagues to repudiate outrage and violence of every kind. I wish now to ask him—or, if more convenient, I will put the Question again on Monday—if, after the condonation of the President of the Board of Trade of the outrage at Birmingham, he still adheres to that statement?
MR. GLADSTONEI do not wish to appear discourteous, but I would say that I can answer that Question either now, or, after more consideration, on Monday. Unquestionably, I am not going to abandon to-night a statement I made last night.