HC Deb 30 March 1893 vol 10 cc1507-10
MR. SEXTON

Mr. Speaker, I have to submit to you a question with reference to a letter addressed yesterday by the Serjeant-at-Arms of this House to the editor of The Daily Chronicle, and published in that paper to-day. The letter is in these terms:— The Editor of The Daily Chronicle. Dear Sir,—As Mr. T. W. Russell stated in the House this morning that the expression of which he complained was written by a member of your staff having access to the House of Commons, it is my duty to ask you, if that is the case, to warn the person concerned that his conduct has been an abuse of the privilege which has been granted to him, and that very serious notice must be taken of it if anything of the kind occurs again.—I remain, yours faithfully, H. D. ERSKINE, Serjeant-at-Arms. House of Commons, March 29. Sir, the first question I venture to respectfully submit to you is whether the Serjeant-at-Arms in this matter has acted upon his own initiative or under your direction? In the second place, I wish to ask you, having regard to the fact that the leader writers of The Times newspaper have special rights of access to this House, whether any letter has been addressed, or will be addressed, by the Serjeant-at-Arms to the editor of The Timesin reference to language recently used in that journal, and which the House, by a unanimous vote, has adjudged to be a breach of privilege, the language in The Chronicle not having been so condemned? And, finally, I have to ask, in view of the fact that Mr. T. W. Russell, on Thursday last, in a public speech used these words— If Mr. Gladstone was likely to be defeated, he would only have to appeal for a Vote of Confidence to his 80 Irish mercenaries, what is the nature of the authority which entitled the Serjeant-at-Arms of this House to threaten with penalties a. journalist for the use of language not more untrue, and certainly much less offensive, than the language used immediately before by the complaining Member himself, not in regard to an individual Member, but in regard to 80 Members of this House?

MR. SPEAKER

I have seen the letter of the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Serjeant-at-Arms brought me the letter, of which I entirely approve. But perhaps I may state to the House that the letter was never intended to be published. It was a private and a friendly letter to the editor, and was, I am given to understand, marked "private." That very much alters the case. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that the Press has a very keen sense of its responsibilities as well as of its rights. There are gentlemen who are allowed the privilege of admission into the Lobby. In this case the objection was not against the word "mercenary," but against a description of some supposed personal characteristic of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone. I must say that such words were grossly offensive. I think the Serjeant-at-Arms did his duty in writing a private and friendly letter to the editor expressing the hope that the remarks of the member of his staff would be couched in more decent language than they were on this occasion. The letter was shown to me before it was sent out, but I did not take the initiative as the hon. Gentleman says. But I entirely approve, and I am willing to share any responsibility that attaches to the letter. With reference to The Times case, the House came to the conclusion that the words used amounted to a breach of privilege. In the case of The Daily Chronicle referred to yesterday, the House did not come to a similar Resolution in consequence of the attitude of the hon. Member who brought the matter before the House, and the condemnation expressed by the Prime Minister, with the terms of which, I understand, the hon. Member was entirely satisfied. It is possible to distinguish between the two cases. As to the third question, I am sorry to say I do not know what reference was made to 80 paid mercenaries. This is the first time I have heard of it.

MR. SEXTON

My point was that the complaining Member had himself before, in a public speech, described 80 Members of this House as 80 Irish mercenaries, and I ask whether he can be allowed with impunity to use such language when less offensive language used towards himself entitles the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten journalists as he has done in the letter I have read?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I beg to say that I used no such language regarding any Members of this House.

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

It is in The Times.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what I did say. I attended a meeting against the Home Rule Bill, in the parish of Marylebone, on last Thursday night, and a very short account—some 20 or 30 lines of what I said—appeared in The Times I certainly spoke for an hour, and no one can say that any speech of one hour can be adequately reported in 20 or 30 lines. I was arguing on the 9th clause of the Home Rule Bill, and, assuming that the Bill had passed, and an entirely new state of affairs had arisen, I pointed out that 80 Irish Members might be brought in here to defeat or to pass Bills in opposition to the will of English Members. Some one called out "mercenaries," and I said that if such a state of affairs was brought about, the word "mercenaries" might be properly applied. I was called upon to withdraw the expression and I declined to do so. Now, I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the expression had j no reference to this House. My argument was a purely hypothetical argument.

MR. SEXTON

I am now satisfied to leave the matter to the judgment and appreciation of the House.