SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 24 July 1888)

§ Mr. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that there could be no doubt that the aim and object of this Bill was to in quire into certain charges and allegations which had been made against certain Members of Parliament. In these circumstances he objected altogether to the appointment of the proposed Commission, because he believed that it would create a precedent which would be fraught with danger in the future. If this Commission were to be appointed the result would be that, in the heat and passion of Party politics, in the future similar Commissions would be frequently appointed with the object of inquiring into the conduct of hon. Members. The House already possessed an ample disciplinary power over its own Members, and if any hon. Member was charged with conduct affecting the dignity and honour of that Assembly the House ought to exercise its disciplinary power by appointing a Committee of its own to inquire into the matter. As far as he could gather from the practice of the House—as laid down by that eminent authority Sir Erskine May—that was the course which ought to be pursued. Sir Erskine May stated that when any allegation made against any hon. Member had been confirmed by a Court of Law the House might act upon it, but that if it had not been brought before a Court of Law the House ought to investigate the matter for themselves by means of a Committee of their Members, and that they ought not to delegate such inquiry 334 to any other tribunal. This Commission would not have been thought of for a moment unless the action of Members of Parliament had been called into question. Of that fact the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was perfectly aware when he said, in the course of his speech on introducing the Bill, that its acceptance or rejection lay with the hon. Member for Cork. As the Bill stood, however, the inquiry would include everybody, every place, and every date. What were the pleas that had been put forward by the Government against the appointment of a Committee of that House to inquire into these charges and allegations? It was said that hon. Members appointed on the Committee would be biased in their judgments in accordance with their Party views. And yet the Government had pressed upon the hon. Member for Cork that he ought to go before a Middlesex jury, as though the latter would not be equally biased in their minds by their political prejudices with Members of that House. Two precedents had been cited by the Government for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. The first was that which had been appointed to inquire into the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works. But, in his opinion, there was no analogy between the two Commissions. The Metropolitan Board of Works had been created by that House, and it was the guardian of the public money, and there was a Bill actually before the House for its abolition. In such circumstances it was perfectly reasonable that such a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the action of that Body. The next precedent was that of the Commission on the Sheffield outrages. That again was a different case, for it was not known by whom the outrages had been committed, and no names were mentioned in the Instructions to the Commission. Most assuredly no Member of Parliament was supposed to be affected. He could well understand that if, directly after the unfortunate murder of Mr. Burke and Lord Frederick Cavendish, or after the dynamite explosions in London, it had been proposed to appoint such a Commission, no objection would have been raised against that step being taken. They did not, however, do so; and now they made the proposal simply for their own Party purposes. A great deal of clap- 335 trap had been uttered in the course of that debate with regard to juries which would scarcely have any weight with the lowest common jury at the Old Bailey. In private matters, no doubt, juries might be trusted, but it was very doubtful whether they would be fair where their political passions were concerned. They were, however, no worse in that respect, because on the occasion of the trial of Queen Caroline—who was accused of certain acts—all Liberal Peers voted one way, and all the Conservative Peers the other, following strictly their Party lines. Doubtless, if the charges against the hon. Member for Cork were submitted to a Middlesex jury, the result would be that no verdict would be given; because, although the majority of the jurymen might be against the hon. Member, there might be one sane and sound Nationalist upon the jury. If the innuendo against his hon. Friend, that he must be guilty, that he had something to conceal, be fair and legitimate, it surely was applicable to all Members of the House. There was a journal known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite—United Ireland—which had made accusations again and again against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and against other Members of Her Majesty's Government, far more strong than any which had been made by The Times against the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite consider that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was guilty because he refused to bring an action against United Ireland, or did they consider that The Times was a sort of sacred institution; and that if it made an accusation that accusation must be true, but that if another newspaper made an accusation it need not be true, although those accused did not choose to bring any action? Those innuendoes against his hon. Friend for not bringing an action against The Times came with a singularly bad grace from Her Majesty's Government. What had happened in Ireland to those Gentlemen who were bragging about their love of juries? There was an Act passed some time ago called "The Packing Act," to enable the authorities to pack juries in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Peter O'Brien) passed in Ireland by the name of "Peter the Packer." It was 336 notorious that where they found in Ireland a population, nine-tenths of which were Catholics, there was such a disposition to regard any Catholic as necessarily a man whose politics were not sound from the Government point of view that the whole of the juries consisted of Protestants. All this, however, was not enough. The Government had brought in an Act to suppress those very juries which they said were the bulwark of the Constitution. They suppressed the juries because they thought the national feeling was so strong that it would be impossible for them to get a verdict if they were to prosecute. But in London the anti-national feeling was very strong. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always boasting of it; therefore he thought it was hardly surprising that his hon. Friend did not go before a Middlesex jury on this political issue. In fact, he should have lost all respect for his hon. Friend's common sense had he done so. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would submit his honour, good name, and reputation to an Irish jury? No; he would not. It would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman libelled an unfortunate midwife. She brought an action for libel against the right hon. Gentleman; was he ready to submit his case to a jury? Not a bit of it; he pleaded privilege, and ran away.