HC Deb 02 August 1888 vol 329 cc1251-63
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I wish, Sir, to submit to the House a Question of Privilege. It is with regard to an article in The Times newspaper of to-day, portions of which I deem, and I think that other hon. Members when they hear them read will also deem, to constitute a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. In order that I may found a Motion upon it, I believe that I am right in taking the extract of which I complain up to the Table of the House and asking the Clerk to read it.

MR. SPEAKER

Bring it up.

The said Paper was then delivered in, and the passages complained of read as followeth:— The endeavour to convict the Government of a change of front because Mr. W. H. Smith, in offering Mr. Parnell the alternative of the Special Commission, omitted the words 'and other persons,' though ever since the notice of the introduction of the Bill was placed on the paper those words have been before the House, and the Opposition allowed the Second Reading to pass unchallenged with full knowledge of them, conspicuously failed; but this and other groundless accusations have afforded Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and the rest the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism—we can call it by no other name—on The Times and the persons responsible for its conduct, which we venture to say is absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter, and we are quite surd that public opinion will take the just measure of the men who resort to these weapons. But, for the honour of public life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr. Gladstone as well as Sir William Harcourt entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway. Still more scandalous is it that Mr. Morley should dare to accuse this journal of the 'deepest infamy' on the unsupported testimony, which he has taken no pains to sift, of one of his reckless Irish allies. The stuff which is held to be good enough to furnish forth the speeches of these statesmen with their facts, their arguments, their taunts, and their calumnies would not be listened to by any decent people if it were bawled about the streets by the sort of people who obtain a hearing because they are Members of the House of Commons.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I have asked, Sir, the Clerk to read the whole passage, in order that the House may have an opportunity of seeing what it is. It is, however, upon the following three points that I rely in making the Motion with which I propose to end my observations:—First— This, and other groundless accusations, have afforded Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and the rest, the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism. That is an accusation that the Gentlemen named did yesterday pour out in their speeches a flood of blackguardism. The second passage upon which I rely is this— We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter. That is a charge by innuendo of mendacity against hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. The third passage on which I rely is this— For the honour of public life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr. Gladstone, as well as Sir William Harcourt, entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway. That is to say, that Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, and others, were foul-mouthed in their observations last night. Now, Sir, in 1733, the House of Commons passed, nemine contradicente, the following Resolution:— That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour. Now, I think there is no one here who will contend that the article in The Times is not insulting to certain Members of this House. Sir Erskine May, at page 100 of his book on Parliamentary Practice points out that— Libels upon Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of Privilege, they must concern the character or conduct of Members in that capacity. No one will deny that these charges and allegations in The Times article concern the character and conduct of Members in that capacity. I do not wish, for a moment, to enter into whether these charges and allegations are true or false. This is not the moment for it. These charges are libellous. There can be no question of that, for to constitute a libel, it does not depend upon whether it is true or false. If a libel is true, it may be justified by the assertion that it is true, but it remains a libel, nevertheless. These charges are essentially libellous in their character, and I cannot help thinking that this House ought to take notice of them. The words are strong. I notice sometimes that words used in newspapers are strong. But really there ought to be some limit even in the language which is permitted to that most sacred gospel of the Conservative Party—The Times. I beg to move, Sir, that the newspaper referred to, in its issue of this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the 'Times' newspaper, in its issue of this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I am sorry to say this is not the first time that cases of Breach of Privilege with regard to articles appearing in newspapers have been brought before the House of Commons. There are several precedents to guide us in this matter. I would mention them to the House, and, with the same brevity exercised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I will point out how the House dealt with these cases without going into details, but making a mere general statement. There can, of course, be no doubt that a Breach of Privilege has been committed by the article in question. There is no reason for denying or mitigating the fact. No doubt, of late, some very strong language has been used with regard to The Times in this House under the protection of Privilege; but that would not, of course, affect the question whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed. But on previous occasions, when a Breach of Privilege has been committed—

MR. LABOUCHERE

As a question of Order, would it not be more proper for the right hon. Gentleman to reserve these observations for the second Motion I shall make when this has been carried?

MR. GOSCHEN

No; because the precedents which I will mention to the House will show that in these cases the House did not accept the Motion that a Breach of Privilege had been committed, and passed to the next Business of the day. I am sure the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) will remember the cases, and I know that he has often advised the House to be extremely careful in this matter of proceeding against newspapers, and has used his influence in having such Motions as this either withdrawn or indirectly negatived by the acceptance of a Motion to proceed to the next Business of the Day. There are two comparatively recent cases which I have been able to look up in the few available moments I have had. On the 15th April, 1878, Mr. O'Donnell moved that an article in The Globe newspaper was a breach of the Privileges of the House. An Amendment was proposed to pass to the next Business on the Paper, and that was carried without a Division. On the 23rd February, 1880, Mr. O'Donnell brought forward a similar Motion in regard to articles in The World, Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph, and Pall Mall Gazette. Sir Stafford North-cote moved an Amendment, which was seconded by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), to pass to the Orders of the Day, and that was accepted and carried without a Division. I think the House will feel the extreme delicacy of proceeding in these matters, and I would submit that, while we cannot deny that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, we should follow these two precedents and proceed to the Order of the Day. [Cries of "Move!"] Well, I do not move. It is for the House to decide, and I should like to know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who will, I feel sure, deal with this matter with entire impartiality. [Cries of "Move!"]

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not move?

MR. GOSCHEN

As a matter of fact, I did not move; but I beg now to move, Sir, "That the House do now proceed to the Business of the day."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I rise to second that Motion. I think that we should proceed in these matters with great reluctance, and if my hon. Friend had consulted me, I should have ventured to dissuade him from taking the course he has. The precedents which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman appear to me to be founded on a rule of prudence. Breach of Privilege is a very wide net, and it would be very undesirable that notice should be taken in this House of all cases in which hon. Members are unfairly criticized. Breach of Privilege is not exactly to be defined. It is rather to be held in the air to be exercised on proper occasions when, in the opinion of the House, a fit case for its exercise occurs. To put this weapon unduly in force is to invite a combat upon unequal terms wheresoever and by whomsoever carried on. Though, in the present case, my opinion of the language in the article now brought under the attention of the House is not very different from that of my hon. Friend, I do not think there is any duty or policy which should induce us to treat it as an exception to the general rule of prudence acted upon in former cases. My hon. Friend referred to the Resolution passed by this House in 1733. I say quite frankly that I am not prepared to be bound by the usage of the House on matters of Privilege in 1733. The right of the nation to know the proceedings of Parliament was not then recognized. Now that right is established, and opinions are therefore naturally formed in regard to these proceedings. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary that there should be freedom of comment. That freedom of comment may, of course, be occasionally abused; but I do not think it is becoming the dignity of the House to notice that abuse of it. It is infinitely better and more dignified in this House to stand on the general reasonableness of its proceedings if we can, and if we have not that basis of reasonableness, we have no basis at all. I would therefore say that in accordance with the precedents that have been mentioned, and not only as a matter of precedent, but upon general grounds, we would do well to take no notice of this subject. I am, it appears, one of the persons honoured by reference to the observations I yesterday submitted to the House; but I am quite ready to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would also venture to respectfully request my hon. Friend not to press the Motion which he has made.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not think it was quite fair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as a Gentleman having a perfectly impartial and independent mind upon this subject; for the right hon. Gentleman is himself accused in this article, and, under those circumstances, he has got up not with an impartial mind, but with a desire to return good for evil. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those who are termed "foul mouthed" by The Times. He has urged me not to press this Motion. I will not press it under the circumstances; but I will just point out that in my researches into antiquity, I find that the punishment for the offence which has been committed is branding, flogging, and being put in pillory one and all. I hope that Mr. Walter and his friends will henceforth abate the coarseness of their language towards the right hon. Gentleman, when they find that it is owing to his intervention that they are not punished as they deserved to be by this House.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the House do pass to the Public Business of the Day.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.") Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

Before the Motion is withdrawn I desire to offer a few words to the House. As for the references of The Times to myself, I do not care what it says, and I should not have thought of troubling the House on this occasion, for I regard its utterances with immeasurable contempt. In the second place, I know well, from experience, that the proceedings of Irish Members in this House are regarded by a considerable section of the House as fair matter for scurrilous attacks by any blackguard of the Press. Irish Members, of whom I am one, are accused of blackguardism in the performance of their duties in this House. I only wish to say that whatever they have said and done has been under the notice and control of either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not know that I have come much into conflict with the Chair; but I do remember that on one occasion when I was forced to call an hon. Member a liar to his face, you, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the provocation I received, did not consider that I exceeded the limits of my right. The article read at the Table declares that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) is scandalous, because he said that the conduct of The Times had been infamous. Now, what were the facts of the case? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), on the day after the Phœnix Park murders, addressed a public meeting at Manchester. He put himself in communication with the police, and learned that the rumour of Lord Spencer's assassination was false, but that, as regarded Lord Frederick Cavendish, it was true. He therefore referred to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish only, because he knew of no other murder. On the following day, The Times commented upon the fact that my hon. Friend did not refer to the murder of Mr. Burke, and conveyed in the plainest terms that, if he did not actually approve of the murder, he was willing to condone it. My hon. Friend wrote a letter to The Times explaining the matter; but The Times, from that day to this, has refused to print that letter. The hon. Member subsequently repeated his explanation in a speech in this House; but The Times, in reporting his speech, cut out the passages explaining the matter.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that the House is now considering the subject of Privilege in connection with The Times article of this day.

MR. SEXTON

The Times article of to-day accuses the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne of scandalous conduct in charging it with the deepest infamy on the unsupported testimony, which he had taken no pains to verify, of his reckless Irish allies. I am endeavouring to show that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not scandalous, but was justifiable. I maintain that the statements of the right hon. Gentleman did not rest on unsupported testimony, but were proved by notorious facts. The Times refused to insert the letter of my hon. Friend, and, as I have said, cut out of his speech in this House his explanation in reference to the matter. Will it be observed that that speech having been delivered in May, 1882, and my hon. Friend having written a letter to The Times to explain the whole matter, the hon. and learned Attorney General the other day, in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," absolutely drew the attention of the jury to the passage contained in The Times in which it attacked my hon. Friend. I hold in my hand the third and revised edition of Parnellism and Crime, and let me turn to one passage there relating to the conduct of my hon. Friend.

MR. SPEAKER

That is not the question before the House. The question is whether the words in The Times' issue of this day constitute a Breach of Privilege. The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to former articles, because the question is simply whether the words contained in the article to-day constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House.

MR. SEXTON

Surely, the word scandalous applied to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne is a Breach of Privilege. I was endeavouring to show that the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken on unsupported testimony.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I rise to Order. I submit, that the words in The Times being admitted to be a Breach of Privilege, it is immaterial whether they are justified by the facts or not, and, therefore, it is out of Order for the hon. Member to discuss them and endeavour to prove that they are not in accordance with the facts.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

As you, Sir, were not in the Chair yesterday afternoon, I may perhaps be allowed to say that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was referring to what took place in Committee, and to the speech made by my hon. and learnen Friend the Member for North Wexford. I submit that the hon. Member was entitled to show that the remark which he thought it his duty to make was justified.

MR. SPEAKER

The truth of this matter has nothing to do with the question whether the language of The Times was proper to be used towards Members of the House, and whether the use of improper language constitutes a Breach of Privilege. The truth and justice of the language used is not the question before the House.

MR. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Is not the question before the House the propriety of proceeding to the Business of the day?

MR. SEXTON

The libel upon my hon. and learned Friend was inserted in The Times on the 8th of May, 1882— On the 7th," said The Times, "Mr. J. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He condemned the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish; but it is significant that he made no reference to the murder of Mr. Burke. It is enough for me to say that the hon. and learned Attorney General read the remarks to the jury on the conduct of Mr. Redmond without any explanation. But we despise insinuations proceeding from the paymasters and accomplices of forgers. I will not detain the House further with the infamous suggestion directed against my hon. Friend six years ago, the explanation of which has been suppressed, but I will only ask who were the blackguards?

MR. J. E. REDMOND (Wexford, N.)

I wish, Sir, to claim your indulgence and the indulgence of the House while I speak one or two sentences in reference to a matter which affects me personally. I hold now, in my hand, the proof of the statement which I made yesterday. Yesterday I stated the circumstances under which I made the speech to a public meeting at Manchester, and I said that The Times had publicly accused me of sympathizing with the murder of Mr. Burke, because in that speech I did not mention his name. [Cries of "Question!"] If you tell me it is not the Question, I will sit down, and I will ask leave to make a personal explanation. I made that statement yesterday; but I find that the statement I made went further than the fact. What The Times did was this, it made the statement the next day that I had made no reference whatever to the murder of Mr. Burke. A couple of days afterwards the hon. Member for Derry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) told me that comment had been made by Members of the House on my silence in presence of that implied charge. In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Derry City, I wrote a letter to The Times, stating that I had no more idea than the child unborn, at the time I made the speech, that Mr. Burke had, unfortunately, been murdered. The Times did not publish that letter. On May 18, 1882, I alluded to the subject in the House, as reported in Hansard. I said— That it was difficult for the Irish Members to insure the proper representation of their words and actions before the public might be seen from the fact that for his speech at Manchester, immediately after the lamentable outrage in the Phœnix Park, he had been attacked in the London Press for having mentioned Lord Frederick Cavendish and omitted Mr. Burke, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the delivery of the speech he was unaware that Mr. Burke had been assassinated. A letter which he wrote to The Times newspaper explaining this was not inserted in that journal, although it was one of the London papers that took the matter up."—(3 Hansard, [269] 998.) The Times omitted the whole of that passage from the report of my speech. The matter had then passed from my memory until the early part of last year, until the articles entitled Parnellism and Crime appeared, when I found the statement in them— The same day"— that is the day after the murder— Mr. J. E. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He, too, condemned the Chief Secretary's murder. But it is a point of high significance, noted at the time, that at this meeting no reference whatever was made to the murder of Mr. Burke. These words are quoted from The Times of May 8, 1882. In a subsequent page of the same pamphlet is this passage— Mr. Finarty headed the demonstration at Turner Hall. The latter had recently expressed his sorrow that the London explosions were not more successful. He now threw his side light on the murders in the Phœnix Park. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) died because he was in bad company—was with Thomas H. Burke, the Fouche of Ireland. The day after the murders, Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P., deplored as we have seen, the Chief Secretary's end. He, too, said nothing as regarded Burke. When I read these articles in Parnellism and Crime, I wrote a letter to a London journal, stating the facts and challenging The Times to explain why they had publisned this calumnious statement. That letter duly appeared on the 15th of March, and then The Times replied in a way that was little else than saying that I was telling a lie. They said that— Mr. J. E. Redmond's so-called explanation of his silence about the murder of Mr. Burke was merely an assertion that on Sunday afternoon in Manchester, he knew nothing of the double nature of the crime committed on Saturday night with which the whole country was ringing. Such an assertion hardly required comment. This is the end of my miserable story, miserable for everybody concerned except me. The hon. and learned Attorney General, I am sure, knowing nothing of my explanation, and acting on instructions, insisted after contention with Mr. Ruegg, the counsel for Mr. O'Donnell, in putting before the jury the whole of these scandalous imputations upon me. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who has been foully assailed because it is said he accepted my statement without sifting it, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind. What the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday was—that if my statements were true, they covered The Times with infamy; but he went on to say that probably I might have omitted something in my statement. If I did omit anything in that statement, I have tried to supply the omission. I have nothing further to say than that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be satisfied by the proofs that I have given, and the statements I have made, of the truth of the statements I have made day by day with dates, and chapter, and verse, and I am sure that the public will not be slow to draw the right inference with regard to the repeated accusations which have been made against me by The Times, after the conductors of that paper knew them to be false, nor will they be slow to sympathize with the hon. and learned Attorney General at having found himself, as counsel for The Times, in the position of repeating against me the calumnies which those who instructed him knew to be false.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

After hearing what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I am, as he supposed I should be, entirely and fully satisfied, and now I am in a position to alter what I said yesterday. What I said yesterday was—and it is not worth while in this case to notice remarks in editorial articles—with regard to the conduct of The Times strictly conditional. Four times in the course of my remarks I said—"If this is proved, The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy." I have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and I now withdraw that qualification, and say that The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

While I think that the House is justified in taking no further notice of this matter, and while I fully endorse the action of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, I think that the House has some reason to complain that the reports in Hansard's Debates are largely taken from The Times, which we now know in every case in reporting the speeches of Irish Members acts like a literary Thug.

MR. SPEAKER

Do I understand the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes, Sir; I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

On this side of the House, it was expected that the hon. and learned Attorney General would take the opportunity which has been offered him of withdrawing a statement which he must now know was a calumny, and which he could not justify. [Cries of "Answer!"]

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member now withdraw the Motion?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to