§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he wished to call attention to a speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Knox), as reported in The Daily Chronicle of the l5th instant. He would first ask the hon. Member whether this report of his speech at a meeting in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, was to be taken as a substantially correct report of the words which he used. If the report was correct, he should move that the speech constituted a gross libel on the Members of this House, and was a gross abuse of the Privileges of this House.
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)rose to Order. The hon. Member had informed the House that he intended to raise a question of Privilege with regard to a speech reported on Friday last. He submitted that the question ought to have been raised on Friday or on Monday at the latest. Different Speakers had repeatedly ruled that questions of Privilege must be raised instanter or on the earliest possible opportunity. If there was no limit of time, grave inconvenience would often be caused.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Member is right in supposing that the earliest opportunity should be taken for raising a question of Privilege. But I cannot say that the lapse of a few days should prevent the House from considering any charge against, the integrity of its Members in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties as a matter of Privilege. This question, therefore, does not come with the Rule that a matter of Privilege should be raised at once, and the hon. Member is in Order in bringing it before the House. At the same time, I wish to express my regret that the matter was not brought to the notice of the House before to-day.
§ MR. SEXTONasked whether the hon. Member would be entitled to present the matter as one of Privilege?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERIt is entirely for the House to decide, by expressing its opinion, whether it is a question of Privilege.
§ MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he would like to know, as the Rule requiring promptitude did not apply to this particular question, whether the question was entitled to the priority that was accorded to questions of Privilege?
§ MR. BARTLEYMy next duty is to ask that the report may be read at the Table.
THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (Sir R. Palgrave)read the report as follows:—
He was surprised that there had not been more protest against the war in the House of Commons, but one reason he would give was that the Chartered Company had placed their shares most judiciously. [Cheers.] Shares which would sell in the City at an enhanced price had been given to Members in the House of Commons. [Cries of "Name1"] In the case of this Company the register of shareholders was 114 not obtainable; he knew for a fact that several Members had been allotted shares, payable 3s, on allotment, which they could sell next day in the City for £["Shame!"] Before any settlement was arrived at the register of shareholders should be shown to the British public so that they could see where they stood. [Cheers.] Although he only spoke for himself, he believed that the whole of the Irish people would endorse the protest which they were making that evening. [Cheers.]
§ MR. BARTLEYThese words having been read, very little remains to do except to draw the attention of the House to the extreme gravity of this statement.
§ MR. SEXTONPerhaps the hon. Member will allow me for a moment. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. BARTLEYNo. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SEXTONI rise to submit a question of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] I wish to ask whether my hon. Friend is not entitled, before the House proceeds further, to say whether or not he admits the accuracy of the report?
§ MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)The report which has just been read is a short summary of a speech of some considerable length. I am not prepared to say that, viewing it as a summary, it is entirely inaccurate; but hon. Members who have read summaries of their speeches will, I think, admit that, without being entirely inaccurate, they often do not convey completely the arguments and conclusions of a speaker. There is one substantial error in this report to which I will draw attention at once. I did not say that shares had been given to Members of the House of Commons. I expressly stated that I made no imputation of anything except an ordinary commercial transaction. I used those very words:—"Nothing except an ordinary commercial transaction." I said that, after the shares were applied for, they were allotted, and that the same sum was paid when they were allotted to Members of the House of Commons as was paid by any ordinary member of the public. That is the most substantial inaccuracy to which I have to call attention. I feel, however, that I ought to go further and say something more. With reference to the allotment of shares to Members of the House of Commons, I used the phrase 115 "several Members," as stated here, implying a small minority. I confess that if I said—and I am not prepared to say that I may not have not let slip something of the sort—if I said that this was a reason why the House of Commons did not take more action recently on this matter, I admit that I ought not to have said it; and I entirely withdraw it and humbly apologise. I do not know whether I said it, or not; but, if I said it, I entirely withdraw it. In my speech I was making an attack, in no way against the House of Commons, but against the Chartered Company. As far as the Chartered Company is concerned, the venue, if I may use the expression, is elsewhere. As regards this House, the only mischief to which I wished to call attention was the fact that this was a Commercial Company and that Members of the House had, in the ordinary course of commerce, obtained shares in it. I may say that the latter part of that sentence will soon be out of date, inasmuch as the register of shareholders will be thrown open to the public. If I went beyond that, I unreservedly, most amply, and most fully apologise and withdraw.
§ MR. BARTLEYIt will be in the recollection of the House that when I first brought this matter forward I did ask the hon. Member whether the report was accurate. I fully acknowledge the apology he has made to the House; but I think we must see that this matter goes a little further even than that. He has not withdrawn the statement that he knew for a fact that several Members were given shares at a false price—[Cries of "Yes!"]—that they were allotted shares at a certain price which they could sell the next day at a very much larger price, the whole idea and purport of the speech being that this was done for a false and corrupt purpose in order to induce them, in this Mouse, to act differently from what they would otherwise have done. I cannot conceive anything more detrimental to the honour and dignity of this House than that statement.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)Mr. Deputy Speaker —[Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. STOREYI rise to Order. My hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan has absolutely withdrawn the statement —[Cries of "No, no!"]—and apologised for the statement that hon. Members had had shares given them.
§ MR. STOREYNo; I know he does not think he said it.
§ MR. STOREYHe is sure; but, if he did say it, he has withdrawn and apologised for it. [Cries of "Order!."] Since that, the hon. Member has used the phrase as if it was the point in discussion and is proceeding to found an argument upon it. I wish to ask yon, Sir, whether he is in Order in doing that?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERI cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order. He is about to raise a question relating to the Privileges of the House, and it is for the House to say whether he has made out any case.
§ MR. BARTLEYI do not wish in any way to do the hon. Member any injustice. It is not a matter between the hon. Member and myself in any way. It is simply a matter of the dignity and position of the House. If the hon. Member had distinctly withdrawn the statement and said that it was altogether wrong, or that, if he had made it in the heat of the moment, he entirely withdrew it—that would have made all the difference in the circumstances.
§ MR. CONYBEAREHe says he never used the words.
§ MR. BARTLEYWhat is this account in the paper?
§ MR. BARTLEYThe account in the paper, as the hon. Member himself has said, is evidently substantially correct on many points, and it certainly does amount to a very serious breach of Privilege. There are two interjections put in by the reporter—one is "Shame!" and the other "Name!" These two interjections clearly show—and there were nine hon. Members of this House present—that the whole idea and animus of the speech was that there had been a, corrupt intention on the part of hon. Members. 117 Now, Sir, when we look across the water, and see the instance that occurred in Franco in connection with the Panama Canal and other matters—[Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. BARTLEYWhen we look at these things, it certainly does seem to me that this House should take some notice of these grave charges. It is no light matter for an hon. Member to be accused of these things, and if it should ever come to pass that these statements were correct, the whole confidence, stability, and usefulness of this House would surely he undermined. I therefore feel that the matter is so grave and important that I shall still venture to move. If the hon. Member will withdraw absolutely—[Cries of "He has!"] I will revise my Motion; but, inasmuch as he has only said that a, part of the report is not accurate, and that the whole tenour of the report is practically substantial, and as the gravamen of the charge is that there was corrupt inducement to hon. Members, I shall venture to move that the said speech is a gross libel on the Members of this House, and a grave breach of its Privileges.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the said speech is a gross libel upon the Members of this House, and a grave breach of its Privileges.—(Mr. Bartley.)
§ MR. KNOXI have no wish in any wav to let my statement remain equivocal or indefinite. The passage which I say I did not use is the statement that these shares were given to Members of the House. That I absolutely, and without any hesitation, say I did not use. The passage which I say I may have used, but apologise for using, is the imputation that the fact that certain Members hold shares in the Chartered Company was a reason why the House of Commons took no notice.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe hon. Member will withdraw from the House while the question is under discussion.
§ [The hon. Member then withdrew from the House.]
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEMr. Deputy Speaker, I have the misfortune to approach this question at a moment's notice, and I speak with the indulgence of the House; but the points that occur to me are these—and, though I am far from saying that the hon. Member opposite committed an error in bringing this report to the notice of the House, I confess that I think he is in danger of making a serious error if he perseveres in the Motion he has made. What are the facts before us? We have before us a passage read from a report in a newspaper; we have before us the fact that the passage does not even purport to be a verbatim report, but is in the nature of a summary, and as such it is extremely difficult—I do not say more than that— for us to deal with. Being in the nature of a summary, the hon. Member for West Cavan has made it the subject of a distinct explanation, and has stated that it is in certain respects, which he proceeds to specify, inaccurate. The hon. Member inculpated has declared the indictment against him to contain matter that is not true; and, at the same time, we are to be called upon to pronounce upon the indictment as a whole, what is true and what is untrue being taken together, and to declare it to be a gross breach of the privileges of the House. That appears to me to be an unparalleled proceeding of a most unfortunate character—a proceeding most mischievous, if drawn into a precedent. Any one of us—any man who sits here—is liable to the same danger of having quoted against him a paragraph of which it is allowed that some parts are inaccurate, and of having a Motion made upon that paragraph, without distinction between the correct and the incorrect. It is the right of every man in this country, and, among others, of Members of the House of Commons, for whom I claim nothing exceptional, to know distinctly when they are censured or condemned upon what they are condemned or censured. That we are not now to know at all. We are to take this in the lump, what is true with what is untrue, and, taking it as n whole, the Motion invites us to declare it a gross breach of the Privileges of the House. In my opinion, that in 119 itself is a sufficient and commanding reason why we should decline to admit the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. I make all allowance for the circumstances under which he has brought it forward, but it is extremely embarrassing to come to a decision on matters of nicety at a moment's notice, and I cannot help still hoping that the hon. Member will not persevere. That would be, in my opinion, the course most satisfactory on the whole. I pass on to the other points touched by the hon. Member for West Cavan. There was, undoubtedly, in the statements when we first heard them matter for the most serious reprehension. What I understood to be the pith of the charge which was ascribed to the hon. Member for West Cavan, but which has now been withdrawn and made the subject of an explicit and very honourable and proper apology, was that there had been, with a view to influencing the conduct of this House, exceptional proceedings between the Company and certain Members of the House. That is a very fair and proper subject for notice as a breach of the Privileges of the House. If that charge had been made, it would have been the absolute duty of the hon. Member for West Cavan to point out the persons whom he made the subject of this grievous imputation; but, instead of that, the hon. Member has told us in the most explicit way that, according to his belief, and according to what he thinks he said—he seems not to be certain about it, but he covers it by his apology—all the proceedings taken by Members of this House with regard to the Chartered Company were taken by them simply as members of the public. I understand that there were no exceptional proceedings whatever in this case. With regard to the dabbling of Members of the House of Commons in these public companies, that is a question of great breadth and great interest. Whether it is wise for Members of the House, as members of the community at large, to hold an interest themselves in financial schemes that are supposed to partake of the nature of bubbles, that is not a matter on which I enter at all, although it is a serious matter. It is not the matter we have before us. Suppose anybody were to say that Members of the House go into these financial speculations and commit acts of imprudence detrimental to the 120 character of the House, that is not a matter that is the subject of a Motion for breach of Privilege. A breach of Privilege consists in an imputation on certain Members of the House that they, conjointly with the company, entered in a transaction under which these Members of the House were to receive some exceptional favour or other, in some shape or other, from the company, out of which favour they can make pecuniary gain. The moment you deprive the proceeding of that exceptional character, what remains? How is it a breach of Privilege to say that these gentlemen—I do not know that there are any, I have not an idea—entered into something in the nature of a financial speculation like the rest of the public? That is a matter with regard to which we have nothing to do, and which, of itself, does not constitute a breach of the Privileges of the House. One other point, and only one, remains. It is that the hon. Member for West Cavan was supposed to have said, and I think is charged in the miscellaneous paragraph that we are invited to adopt as a breach of Privilege with having conveyed in some form or other, that the action of this House was quickened or retarded in consequence of this transaction. That charge, if made, has been entirely and absolutely withdrawn. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] If it has not been withdrawn, then I think that is a point of great importance, and it would be right to call upon the hon. Member for West Cavan to know whether it has been withdrawn or not.
§ MR. SEXTONHe did withdraw.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIf the House is charged with having its proceedings retarded or affected in any way by pecuniary transactions between the Chartered Company and certain of its Members, that is a very fair ground to bring before the House. I believe, and I am confirmed by my hon. Friends who sit near me, and who are more capable of judging of the matter than I am, that that charge has been explicitly withdrawn. If that statement has been withdrawn, and the hon. Member's apology reduces what he said to the limits of a statement that Members of the House had, like other members of the community at large, entered into this commercial speculation, then I submit that the speech of the hon. Member for 121 Islington is swept away, and that he may consistently and honourably withdraw. I cannot help reverting to that which I first said and say that, whatever we may do, for Heaven's sake let us proceed, in a criminatory matter, upon grounds clear and explicit, and do not let us consent to adopt a mixed report, partly true and partly false, without taking the trouble to disentangle the truth from the falsehood in a report; and make that report in the lump a subject for a vote of censure on one of our number. I cannot describe to the House what I think of the injustice—I do not believe it is intended—and of the prospective danger of such a course as that. I trust that the question that remains in doubt will be effectually cleared up, and, in any case, even if there are to be proceedings on this matter, I entreat the House not to accept a paragraph like this as the ground of an indictment not affecting person or property, but affecting honour or character against one of its own Members.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURLike the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, of course I have not had any time to consider and weigh the various facts brought before us by my hon. Friend behind mo and by the hon. Member for West Cavan. But I must confess that the conclusion I have been able to arrive at during the few minutes allowed to me has not been absolutely identical with that which has commended itself to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I will explain to the House why. The right hon. Gentleman has treated this question throughout as if it were primarily and in its essence an accusation brought by one Member of the House against another Member of the House. He has appealed to us—I need hardly say we all respond to that appeal—to take no course in this matter by which any injustice might be done to the incriminated or accused Member. We all must agree to that. Let us, in Heaven's name, be careful that if blame is to be allotted—and evidently blame must be allotted somewhere, as I shall show directly—it shall not be placed on the wrong shoulders, and that no injustice shall be done to the hon. Member. But there is a question of even greater magnitude raised by my hon. Friend behind me, and that is, not whether the hon. 122 Member for West Cavan is right or wrong in what he has or has not said—
§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKERIn accordance with the Rule, the hon. Member must withdraw till the question is decided by the House.
§ [The hon. Member again retired.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROn the question of Order, I do not desire by my speech to interrupt any explanation which the hon. Gentleman has to give.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf it is desired to put further questions to the hon. Member, how is he to know what he is called upon to answer unless he is allowed to remain? How is he to be made aware of what the House desires him to state?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI am partly responsible in this matter, because I said the hon. Member was stated to have charged the House with having the course of its proceedings affected by these pecuniary transactions, and stated, in my belief, as well as I could hear what fell from the hon. Member, that that charge, if made, had been explicitly withdrawn. That was a point on which there seemed to be a difference of opinion, as to matters of fact, among gentlemen opposite, and therefore we hope the hon. Member will clear the matter up.
§ MR. SEXTONThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition having so considerately agreed to the interruption of his speech for the purpose of obtaining an answer, may I move that my hon. Friend be sent for and asked whether he withdraws any aspersion upon the House?
§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKERIs it your pleasure that the hon. Member should be recalled. Let the hon. Member be recalled.
§ [The Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms went in search of Mr. Knox, and immediately returned with the hon. Member.]
§ MR. SEXTONMay I inform my hon. Friend that the question to which the House desires an answer is, whether he unequivocally and unreservedly withdraws, if he uttered, any aspersion against the Members of the House of Commons?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn order that the hon. Gentleman may not have the trouble of speaking twice, may I put to him a question with regard to his statement on a point which appears to me to be in doubt? In the newspaper report these words occur—
He knew for a fact that several Members had been allotted shares payable 3s. on allotment, which they could sell next day in the City for £4.I should like to ask whether he said that, and whether, if he said it, he withdraws it?
§ MR. KNOXThat is the distinct statement which I did make and did not withdraw. I said that that was a fact, and I still believe it to be a fact—in fact, I know it to be a fact. I cannot, therefore, honourably withdraw it. What I did withdraw was, any inference from that statement that Members of this House bad been influenced in their public conduct as Members of this House by what they received. I may also repeat now what I said at the time. During my speech an interrupter did say "Bribery." I thereupon said—"No; I make no accusation of bribery." I said it was an ordinary commercial transaction. I used these words at the time—
The money which was paid on allotment was the same sum that was paid by anybody else.The actual statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read I could not withdraw. The inference from it I apologise for.
§ [Mr. KNOX again withdrew from the House.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhen I was, I think very properly, interrupted in the middle of my observations, I was saying that we had a much more important question to decide than the exact statements made in the speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan, and the exact amount by which he receded from these statements. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we ought not to adopt a paragraph wholesale, a paragraph which was avowedly a summary, and which, like most summaries, must be but au imperfect representation of the speech originally made. The deduction from such a doctrine would be that this House never could make a complaint against any speech not reported verbatim. I 124 admit with the right hon. Gentleman that gentlemen whose speeches are misreported, and into which some false idea is conveyed, cannot be made responsible for the acts of a newspaper reporter who did not consult them and for whose action they are not answerable. But, at the same time, what I venture to lay before the House is this, that not necessarily by the Member for Cavan, but either by the Member for Cavan or by The Daily Chronicle, there has been one of the most serious accusations brought against this House as a whole—I will say the most serious accusation—I have known during the whole of my Parliamentary life. We cannot dismiss that summarily and ride off upon the question how far a particular Member, whose speech was purported to be reported, was responsible for these words. The words have been published, they have been circulated, and until to-day they have never been contradicted. They had been circulated nominally upon the authority of the hon. Member for Cavan, and I cannot agree that because the hon. Member has been misreported in some particulars, and because be has unequivocally withdrawn in other particulars, and because therefore the House may have no desire to visit any pains and penalties on that hon. Gentleman—certainly I have no desire to do so—because all these things may be true, nevertheless it occurs to me to be obvious on the face of it that we must record our view that this statement, be the newspaper responsible for it or be the Member for West Cavan responsible for it, is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has not unnaturally endeavoured to make this a question in which the conduct of the Member for West Cavan figures as the chief incident. I am always ready, and we are all ready, to accept a full and frank apology from any Member who has been betrayed, as we all may be betrayed in a rash moment, to give expression to views which on calmer reflection we think proper to withdraw. I only regret that the Member for West Cavan has not taken earlier action, and explained that he never meant to make any imputation upon this House. As regards the actual explanation and apology of the hon. Member, though I do not blame him, it is rather unfortunate that he thinks it 125 necessary still to adhere to the statement that he knew for a fact that Members had been allotted shares which they could on the next day sell at a profit of £3 17s.
§ MR. SEXTONLike all other members of the public.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt was inevitable that every man who heard the hon. Member and every man who read the statement in the paper must have drawn the conclusion that Members of this House had been induced by pecuniary considerations to give a vote which, without those pecuniary considerations, they would not have given. I do not desire, and I do not think my hon. Friend desires by the Motion he has made, to direct the censure of this House against a gentleman who has shown every desire to withdraw the statement, but the statement has been made, and it has been in circulation for three or four days, and has never been contradicted. When we consider how important it is to our credit with the country that no stain of a pecuniary kind, no suspicion even of the possibility of our being animated by pecuniary motives, should rest upon us, we should not be well advised on the present occasion if we contented ourselves with the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman. I should therefore recommend the House to accept fully and frankly the apology of the hon. Gentleman and to pronounce no censure upon him, but to say that the words reported in such and such a newspaper are an unquestionable breach of the Privileges of this House.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take, and against whom he proposes to proceed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think it is necessary.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIt is necessary, after you have moved that a thing is a, breach of the Privileges of the House, to proceed further. It is certainly not dignified, if after having given that vote you cannot proceed further. I entirely agree with the right lion. Gentleman that a graver charge than this could not be made. It is the first duty of the House to resent such a charge. But what is the charge before the House? The hon. Member who has been ordered to leave the House has not withdrawn his statement of the fact as to the sale 126 of these shares, and what he said with reference to that part of the subject was what might have been said of anybody else in the country; but what I understand he has apologised for is in his having made a statement which should lead to the inference which cast, an imputation of corruption on the House of Commons. Such an imputation would be highly improper, but I understand that the hon. Member has apologised and withdrawn the statement. If you go to a question of breach of Privilege, what more can you get than that? As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he does not propose to take any further measures. What more can be obtained than the disavowal of the hon. Member for Cavan? I am as solicitous as the right hon. Gentleman can be to take any and every measure which is necessary to vindicate the reputation of the House of Commons against imputations which I agree with him are the very gravest and most heinous which can be brought against this Chamber. But the only question is whether we can gain anything by such a Motion as that which has been made, and whether, in demanding and receiving that disavowal and apology from the lion. Member, the House ought not to be satisfied.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)I should like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to consider for a moment this point before they proceed to a decision on the question. It is no longer a question between the House and the Member for West Cavan. The hon. Gentleman denies the worst part of the report, and, as to the second part, he has apologised and withdrawn any imputation against the House. Therefore, as far as the Member for West Cavan is concerned, the matter may be said to be closed. But there remain the printed words in the newspaper, and the publication of these words, quite independently of the alleged authorship of the words, is no doubt a technical breach of the Privileges of the House. If we are forced to vote upon this matter the majority of the House will probably vote that it is not a breach of Privilege, although they must all know that it is a breach of Privilege, and, of course, it is very desirable that that should not occur. On former occasions, 127 when questions of this kind arose, a suggestion was made to get rid of the whole matter by moving the Previous Question. I am prepared to make such a Motion now. I would submit to the hon. Member for Islington that as against the newspaper he is not forced at once to make a Motion. The blunder may have been a perfectly honest one on the part of the reporter with which the editor may not be disposed to sympathise, and the matter may be brought up again if necessary. We ought not to do anything which would imperil the force and power of this House in respect to breaches of Privilege.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he saw no objection to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Bodmin that the Motion should be disposed of by means of the Previous Question. He desired to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that his ingenious argument that the newspaper was responsible would scarcely apply to the Motion before the Chair. The Motion did not declare that any report of the speech was a breach of Privilege of the House. The speech complained of was not a speech of the editor of The Daily Chronicle or of any member of his Staff, but it was the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan. It was now universally admitted that the question between his hon. Friend and the House was at an end, because his lion. Friend had stated that the shares were allotted to Members of the House on the same terms as to the rest of the public, and that there was no discrimination in dealing with Members of Parliament and the public, but he suggested that hon. Members ought not to concern themselves with these quasi-political undertakings with which they had to deal as Representatives of the people. He was bound to say that he agreed with his hon. Friend in that, and was sure the majority of the House, and the majority of the country, would also agree with him. However, as he had said, the matter between his hon. Friend and the House was at an end. With regard to the newspaper it was quite a different question. The reporter who attended the meeting was instructed, no doubt, when he got to the office to give an abstract report. No one denied that that abstract was given in good faith, and therefore the attempt to transfer the 128 matter from his hon. Friend, who had absolutely disposed of the complaint against him, to the editor of The Daily Chronicle and his staff, who were absolutely innocent of any guilty intention was a matter that would not hear a moment's examination. The essence of a breach of Privilege was malice. No one suggested that the reporter or the editor acted from malice, and he contended that the House would best assert its own dignity by adopting the Previous Question.
MR. DALZIEL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,stated that in the first leading article after the speech in question was delivered the editor of The Daily Chronicle in clear and emphatic language disclaimed all association whatever with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cavan, and accepted no responsibility for them.
§ MR. J. BURNS (Battersea)said, he did not intend to take any part in the discussion, but wished to put to the First Lord of the Treasury a question which he thought ought to be answered in connection with this matter—whether, considering the mistrust and degradation of the representative character and honour of both Houses of Parliament that were daily occurring from Members of both Houses identifying themselves with company-promoting, the Government would take early steps to make the acceptance of office in connection with companies a compulsory vacation of the seat of the Peer or commoner accepting such office?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAfter the definite statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that the newspaper expressly repudiated any responsibility for the speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan; and considering that the hon. Member himself has apologised, I venture to advise my hon. Friend that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bodmin as to the Previous Question might be adopted.
§ MR. J. BURNSI persist in my question.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)I beg to move the Previous Question.
§ Resolved, That the Question be not now put.