§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has taken into consideration the injury that will be done to the honour and dignity of the House of Commons if the assaults committed within the House on Thursday night by Members of the House should pass unpunished; and whether he will move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the facts and report thereon to the House?
§ DR. MACGREGORBefore the question is answered, I wish, as a Scotch Member who had no part in the fray, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this regrettable incident does not belong to the category of events about which "the least said is soonest mended," and whether it is not at all times undesirable to stir up muddy water if it can be avoided?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI think, Sir, reluctantly, I must ask the hon. Member to defer an answer to this question till to-morrow.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I beg, Sir, to ask whether your attention has been called to the following statement made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) in The Pall Mall Gazette of Friday last? After entering into certain details he says— 888
To put a stop to his (Mr. Logan's) aggressive conduct, I immediately seized him by the neck and forcibly ejected him on to the floor of the House.I wish to ask you, Sir, after that statement, whether it is not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should himself give some explanation as to what occurred on Thursday last?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI was under the impression, in reference to this regrettable incident, that to-day something might be said by two hon. Gentlemen which would certainly not tend to aggravate the situation, but which might tend in a pacific direction. I am quite satisfied that what each of them would say would not be regarded by this House as in any way incriminating either hon. Member; that it would be said by each Member in the interests of peace, and would possibly explain misconceptions which arose, unhappily, on one side and on the other. I do not know whether I am justified in expecting either of these hon. Members will say anything, but I may venture humbly to say that I am very anxious the matter should go no further; I hope the House will not permit it to go much further; and I feel that if such a statement of facts were made it might tend to allay irritation, and to meet the sentiment of the House in regard to a subject which it must view with the deepest regret.
§ [At this juncture Ministerialists shouted "Fisher!" and the Opposition called "Logan!" After a pause]—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)said: You have, Sir, invited the two hon. Gentlemen to whom allusion has been made; you have expressed your view that they might not be unwilling to make some statement to the House. I understand from the exclamations on both sides of the House that there appears to be some controversy as to which of these two gentlemen should begin the task of pacification—a task honourable in itself—and I am sure, whatever might have been the arrangement which is supposed to have been made, my hon. Friend will have no hesitation in carrying out the view you have expressed.
§ MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham)Acting, Sir, upon the advice of my right hon. Friend, which I shall always 889 follow, notwithstanding the arrangement which had been come to as to who should commence this task of pacification, I am anxious to commence it at once rather than delay the Business of the House. I desire, first of all, to disclaim the garbled statements which have been made in some of the newspapers as to the letter which I wrote on the night of the scone. I think the hon. Member would have shown a better taste if he had read the whole of that letter which he proposed to bring to the attention of the House. Now, Sir, in expressing my regret, I only want in one or two short sentences to state the circumstances which caused the conduct which is the just subject of complaint by the House. I certainly thought, from the attitude of the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Logan), that he intended to strike myself or Mr. Carson, my colleague. I certainly thought so, otherwise I should not have done what I did. I do not wish to go into any further detail unless the hon. Member does; but I was acting under that apprehension, thinking from his whole demeanour he was going to strike either myself or Mr. Carson, the Member for the University of Dublin. I did forcibly evict him from the scat which he took, not in the ordinary way, but with violence; and although I was not the provoker, but the provoked, I desire, however much I was provoked, to express to you, as the guardian of the dignity and honour of the House, my sincere and genuine regret that any conduct, on my part under any circumstances whatever has in the slightest degree brought this House into discredit with the public—a House to which I am devotedly attached, and in which I hope to find a place for many years; and I am generous enough to say to him that I offer him an apology for having laid my hands upon him. I know it is an offensive thing to do, and however much my feelings may have been aggravated and irritated, I perfectly well know that my conduct was not justifiable. I hope the House will take that expression from me and my regret, and believe that I offer it with the utmost sincerity.
§ MR.LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)The only reason, Sir, that I did not rise after the question put by my hon. Friend behind me was because I was clearly under the impression when I left the hon. 890 Member for Fulham only a few moments ago that he was to rise in his place first. Had I undertaken to rise first I certainly should have done so. I feel sure that every Member of this House will wish that this very regrettable scene should be closed as quickly as possible. All I can do is to accept from the hon. Member for Fulham in the same spirit in which he tenders if to me his apology for having laid hands upon me. I can assure him, and you, Sir, and the House, that when I crossed the floor on Thursday evening last I had no intention whatever of assaulting anybody. I had only entered the House three minutes before, and I think I may say I was perfectly cool at the time. I looked around in coming down the floor of the House, and I was rather amused, I may say, at what I saw going on opposite. When I crossed to remonstrate with the hon. Member for Fulham for calling me by my name I had no intention whatever of assaulting any one whatever. If my action in crossing the floor of the House did in any way lead to the regrettable scene which followed, I can assure you, Sir, that I deeply regret the part I took, and I apologise most humbly for having done so.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI think we now understand quite plainly that, if there were a, few moments of delay in the commencement of the explanations which we have just heard, those moments of delay were entirely owing to a misapprehension as to the nature of the arrangement which had been made between the two hon. Gentlemen. I must also say in justice to the hon. Member opposite that, in my opinion, in a case where explanations of this character are to be made priority in point of time, so far from being a disadvantage, is an additional honour to the person who shows himself ready to take steps in the interest of peace. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire would have done it had he not been under a misapprehension. Speaking with regard to the events of Thursday night, and replying to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, I have to say that I think there is a widespread sentiment in the House that a formal investigation by a Committee ought to be avoided. We must bear in mind that the accounts of what took place are necessarily confused. What occurred occupied only two or three 891 minutes, and that would hardly permit of any clear or satisfactory explanation of matters which might be introduced. I think we are indebted to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for having placed us in a position where we may consider ourselves as dispensing with any necessity for any such inquiry. We now understand, from the frank statement of the hon. Member opposite, that the action he took was taken under a clear and entire misapprehension, but that misapprehension implies no reproach to the hon. Member. His frank statement of what occurred was couched in terms which leave nothing to be desired. I had a small insignificant concern in the matter personally, as he stated that I, in some sense or other, which he has not explained, was responsible for the unhappy occurrence which took place. If he can relieve my mind on that subject I shall be indebted to him; but if he cannot, I do not intend, in the slightest degree, to press for it. Viewing the explanations of the lamentable occurrences, the frankness and the fulfilment of those explanations and expressions of regret, I think we may regard ourselves as relieved from a serious difficulty; for, in my opinion, there would have been a most serious difficulty if the only choice before us was the instituting of an entangling, invidious, and perhaps, from some points of view, an irritating inquiry. I cannot deny that the action of the hon. Member in crossing the floor of the House in the course of a Division, and taking his seat on the Front Opposition Bench, was one liable to be misconstrued. It has been felt in the House that the proceedings, to use plain language, and without any attempt to award praise or blame, were regarded by the country at large as very seriously detracting from the title of the House of Commons to the respect and confidence of the nation, for the incident was, in fact, regarded, and justly regarded, as nothing less than a disgraceful one. I hope the House will, after the explanations and frank apologies that have been made, consent with one mind and one accord to regard this incident as one definitively closed, not to be revived or re-opened. I perhaps am bold in giving expression to that sentiment; but I think, on the whole, it is best suited to the circumstances, having reference to the character and the credit of the House. We consider it one of 892 those matters which it is best to pass by without formal notice. We feel deeply its serious character; but having dealt with it in a manner which we believe to be on the whole adequate, we trust it will be considered as having reached its close, only remaining in our minds as a warning and a guidance of our conduct upon future occasions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI take the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech as a formal invitation to me and others to express our opinion of the action which the right hon. Gentleman has advised the House to take and our agreement with it. I gladly avail myself of the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman has given to mo to say that I think be was well advised in the interest of the House of Commons in expressing a hope that every party, every man in this House would now, as far as any further notice in this House is concerned, regard the lamentable incident of Thursday night as closed. The right hon. Gentleman has been well advised; he has acted, in fact, with the admirable tact and discretion in all these matters which, I think, distinguish him, and he has most carefully avoided any reference to any of the questions in connection with this incident which might be regarded as of a controversial character. The right hon. Gentleman has not touched either on the general circumstances which produced the state of tension and difficulty in the House or on the special incidents which led up to the deplorable scene which is the occasion of the present Debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman acted quite rightly in the matter, and nothing is to be gained by bringing forward in this House controversies which could not be determined either by debate in this House or by investigation before a Committee. I am firmly of opinion, whatever the result of a Committee might have been, or whatever might have been the outcome of a formal Debate, it could not have been a final settlement of this question, but must rather have been the aggravation of all the embittered feelings which might naturally be supposed to arise out of such incidents as we are considering. I am convinced that there is but one opinion in this House as to the character of those proceedings themselves. I believe we 893 shall have to look back over our long Parliamentary history for a period of something near 200 years—I think more than 200 years—before we can find any scene of a similar character; and when I reflect on the bitterness of the Party struggle which has marked those 200 years, when I cast my eye back over the incidents of Parliamentary history which threatened, not merely the supremacy of Parties in this House, but the lives and the property of Ministers concerned in the Party fights of those days, and when I reflect on what bitterness of Party conflict that involves, I certainly feel that if they were able to carry on the business of the country and debate questions which the country has at heart without ever lapsing from the tone of debate and argument to which we are accustomed in order to adopt ruder and coarser methods of procedure, we, at all events, ought not to be behindhand in following the example which our forefathers set. I not only hope, but I firmly believe, that if we have to look back for more than 200 years in order to find a precedent for Thursday night's proceeding, we may look forward to more than 200 years before that precedent is repeated. I give expression to my sincerest convictions when I say that the series of incidents which arose before Members were aware of them, and which led to the scene of Thursday night, must have so imprinted themselves on the mind of every man who witnessed them, or who was near enough to get an impression of what occurred, that nothing we can say by any form of Resolution it is in our power to pass can increase the inherent force of the lesson thus administered. The right hon. Gentleman has well said that the country has received a shock from the conduct of the House of Commons. I think that we all feel that the honour of this House is not merely a matter personal to ourselves, and in which we as Members can engage; but the very future of the country depends on our upholding its great character as a deliberative Assembly — a character which has hitherto been the admiration of the civilised world, and which, in spite of the lapse of Thursday night, will, I trust, long continue to be so.
§ * MR. J. M'CARTHY (Longford, N.)MR. Speaker, I am extremely glad to hear the language of severe and stern condemnation with which the right hon. Gentle- 894 man the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have spoken of this disgraceful scene of Thursday night. I should hope that that language, assisted by whatever you, MR. Speaker, may think fit to say, will avoid the necessity of any proposal for a formal Resolution to be passed by this House in condemnation of that scene. The Prime Minister expressed a wish that the House should with one accord regard this horrible incident as closed, and should be inclined to refer to it no more. I should be only too glad if I and the friends who act with me could absolutely and at the moment make part of that one accord. But I cannot fail to remember that in the majority of the papers of this country that whole scandal, that whole riot, was ascribed to the action of the Irish Nationalist Members. In journal after journal it was called an Irish riot and an Irish row. It was said to have begun with the Irish Members, to have been carried on by Irish Members, and to have been forced upon this House by the intemperate disposition and outrageous conduct of Irish Nationalist Members. Now, I speak on the spur of the moment, without consultation with many of my friends, but I do not think we could allow that incident to close without some declaration formed and guided by some authority, that the Irish Members had nothing whatever to do in the first instance with the scenes which took place on the floor of this House. I will say more, that no Irish Member—I speak now of the Irish Nationalist Members, and do not refer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)—took part in that scene, and in that struggle, unless he were forced to an act of self-defence, or went into the struggle with the earnest purpose of acting as a peacemaker, and preventing unworthy brawling in the House. Now, I must say that some of the attacks made upon the Irish Members in certain newspapers seem to me not only calumnies, but I must add deliberate calumnies brought up with the deliberate and express purpose of casting discredit on the Irish Party, on the Bill which was then before the House for discussion, on the Irish people, and on the Irish cause, and I shall be glad to hear some expression of opinion from an authoritative source in this House 895 to emphasize the fact that there is no truth in the statement that the riot was got up or carried on by Irish Nationalist Members. If nothing of the kind be done, I do not know that it might not be the duty of my Colleagues and myself to press for some inquiry or some formal Resolution which shall free us from any share in the shame of having taken part in the riot of Thursday evening.
§ * SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (MR. J. Chamberlain), I hope it will not be considered presumption in me if I express, on the part of those Members who act with my right hon. Friend, our full concurrence in what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I will not question the right of the hon. Member for North Longford to make observations in exculpation of his hon. Friends. But I make no further comment on his sayings, for I am certain that this is not the proper time for any of us to be condemning each other. We cannot recall the sad scene of Thursday night; all we can do is to endeavour to make our countrymen forget it. We must feel that a stain on the honour of this House is not only a stain upon our honour; it is a stain on our country, and an injury to the greatest traditions of this House. I trust that there will be a feeling among us all that it would be unwise to endeavour to make capital out of this transaction. It is to be hoped that the scene will be closed, and that even some good may be drawn from it. Let us feel, and show, if we can, greater consideration to the political feelings of each other. I would, if I may, acknowledge on the part of those Members with whom I am associated, that from those who sit around us we have received the greatest possible consideration, and we, a minority as we are, feel that oftentimes we might come unwittingly into conflict with them. I do not think they have shown the slightest feeling of hostility towards us; and if I may venture to make a suggestion to those who have spoken now through the voice of the hon. Member for North Longford, I would say that were a little more consideration shown to political opponents in this House—a little less of interruption of Debate — there would not be any probability of a repetition of the scene of 896 Thursday night. We may hope, therefore, that what occurred then will cause for the future greater acknowledgment of freedom in matters of opinion in this House and thus prevent a repetition of the scene—a scene that can never be forgotten and the occurrence of which must always be deplored.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe Prime Minister has asked me to say a few words, or I should not have ventured again to obtrude myself on the notice of the House. From the first, I may own, I have been very unwilling indeed either that a Committee should be resorted to or that any further notice should be taken of the regrettable incident of Thursday. But I have this to say: that I feel, if I may venture to say so, that the Prime Minister exercised a wise discretion and judgment in stating —as the whole House, I think, feels—that it was necessary to mark in some exceptional manner the feeling of this House at what took place on Thursday night. It was due not only to the outraged feeling of the House, but to the indignation which ran through the country, as it is not too much to say—it was due that the Leaders of the House should have done what they have done to-night, marked from four different quarters of the House the feeling that they entertained of what took place. I have only to add that I believe the great security against the repetition of such scenes as took place is for us not only collectively to feel that we are the House of Commons, but to feel individually that we are each one the guardian of its honour and its dignity, and that we do resent, as I am sure we shall resent, every infringement of the better traditions of the House as a personal injury and affront. I hope I may be allowed to say, after what has fallen from the Prime Minister, from the Leader of the Opposition, and from gentlemen representing other sections of opinion in this House—I hope the House may be content to lot the matter rest, as I am, not only within the walls of this House, but outside. We have thus marked our sense of what took place, and we shall, I believe, take the best steps we can to avoid the recurrence of any disturbance in the future.
§ [The discussion then terminated.]