HC Deb 15 August 1901 vol 99 cc955-77
MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

I desire to call the attention of the House, as a matter of privilege, to a very grave and scandalous libel which was published in an evening London newspaper yesterday with reference to a large body of Members of this House. I propose to ask the clerk at the Table to read the passages of which I complain, but perhaps the more convenient course would be—and it is a course which has been followed on many other occasions—if I, in my own way, state the case and incidentally read the passages, and then I will ask that the clerk shall afterwards formally read them at the Table. In bringing this question to the attention of the House, I shall be very brief indeed, and for two reasons. First of all, the matter of which I complain is so gross and so scandalous in its nature that it will require very few words from me to induce the House to declare it a gross breach of its privileges. In the second place I will be brief because it is a matter which concerns the House of Commons far more than my colleagues or myself or any particular Members of this House. So far as the Irish Members are concerned, they have been accustomed—indeed it has been a necessary part of their fate—for many years to read very strong and very abusive attacks upon themselves, their characters, and their conduct in certain portions of the press of this country. These attacks seem to have suddenly developed under distinguished auspices since the declarations made by distinguished persons at Blenheim. Those attacks have been of a very violent character, but I confess that with regard to ninety-nine hundredths of these attacks I pass them by absolutely with the most utter disregard. But they are nothing to be compared with the attacks made upon Irish Members in the years 1879 and 1880, and they are nothing to be compared with the libels which were published in those days with reference to Irish Nationalists in this House. Years have passed over since then, and the Irish Nationalist representation in this House has not suffered by those attacks. Irish representatives are here to-day, and during the years that have intervened since the period I have alluded to I think everyone will acknowledge that the Irish representatives have been able to impress their influence upon the Acts of Parliament passed in this House. So far as ordinary political attacks such a those which were enunciated at Blenheim are concerned, I pass them by with utter disregard, perfectly confident that in the future, and assured in my own mind it will be found that these attacks will have just as little effect in injuring the power of an independent Nationalist party in this House as the attacks which preceded them during the whole of the time since the Union. The question which I desire to bring before the House of Commons is of an entirely different character. I do not complain in the least of the most violent political attacks, and I do not complain of the rancorous and somewhat vulgar attack which was made by the Colonial Secretary at Blenheim. I do not complain of that attack at all. [An IRISH MEMBER: It is characteristic of him.] We know him, and we know his past connection with Irish politics; and we know perfectly well the value of these attacks, and how little reliance is to be placed upon them even for a day or a month.

I pass them by, but I feel bound to call the attention of the House to the article in the Globe newspaper, because it is of an entirely different character. The accusation in the Globe of yesterday is an accusation of personal corruption in connection with the private Bill legislation of this House. It is a charge of personal corruption not brought against one Member but against eighty Members of this House. An accusation of that character cannot be tolerated by the House of Commons for a moment if the House is to retain its respect as a national assembly in the eyes of the public, and if the private Bill tribunals, which have been the pride and boast of this Parliament, are to continue to deserve the confidence of the public. Let me now read this article. I will preface my reading of it by saying that it is an article dealing with the Blenheim declarations and dealing with the suggestion in the Blenheim speeches that there ought to be a reduction of the Irish Members. I will not go into that question, because we can fight that matter out when it arises, and it is a question about which I have not the slightest fear or diffidence. This article is headed "Irish Rowdies." I do not pay the slightest attention to a statement of that kind, because I think after the speech of the Colonial Secretary at Blenheim such statements are perfectly natural. I wish to read two or three passages from this article, which is an argument in favour of the reduction of the Irish representation. Here is the first passage which I complain of, and I will only read the particular words which I shall ask the Clerk at the Table to read. The article endeavours to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeas having madesome declaration in support of the Blenheim policy. I did not see any such declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, and probably to this extent it is a libel upon him. The article goes on to say— Mr. Asquith clearly desired to embrace his own colleagues in the dictum. IT is with gratification that the public will recognise in this pronouncement by a man most probably destined to play a large part in the control of his party a clear indication that, for himself, he is at last determined to be done with truckling to the Irish rabble. That he, in common with all the more respectable members of his party, have long held such views in their hearts is a recognised fact. But it required the recent outrageous behaviour of the political mercenaries from the sister isle to wring from him a public admission of his opinions. The article then goes on to say— It is a mistake to suppose that the majority of the Irish party are actuated by any real national aspirations, or that they care in the slightest about the principles they emunciate so loudly. On this side of the St. George's Channel we are so unaccustomed to political corruption that it seldom occurs to us as an explanation of the conduct of our public men. But in Ireland the case is wholly different. The same spirit, the same motives that have made Tammany a synonym for politiea obliquity, have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this. It is, therefore, no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system. Now, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a direct accusation of personal corruption against eighty Members of this House in connection, amongst other things, which I will pass by, the private Bill legislation of this Parliament, and it is this allegation, of personal corruption in connection with private Bill matters which is put forward here as a reason and as an argument for the reduction of Irish representation. I beg the House to bear that point in mind for this reason. This newspaper this morning has published another article upon this subject, and in the article to-day they make the statement that they never intended to allude to a single Member of this House at all. They state that when they speak of political corruption they speak only of people in Ireland, and that they have no desire to point to Irish Members at all. They are guilty of what I must call something very nearly approaching in substance and in spirit a deliberate falsehood. What they state to-day is this. They proceed to quote the paragraph which I have now read—that is the paragraph speaking about Irish private business, which reads— The same spirit, the same motives, that have made Tammany a synonym for political obliquity, have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this. They quote that, but they omit to quote the words which I read at the conclusion, which are— It is therefore no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system. To-day in their article they leave those concluding words of the paragraph out of their quotation, and they go on to say— How could these words be held to constitute a breach of privilege. It is sufficiently obvious that the reference was not to the House of Commons, but to the Nationalist party in Ireland. That is an aggravation of the offence instead of being an apology, and it is a most dishonest falsehood. They have deliberately, in quoting the sentence I have complained of, omitted that portion of the sentence which shows directly that it was concerned with Members of this House—namely, the paragraph in which they say, "Therefore the number of these men ought to be reduced." That is the statement which I complain of. I wish to point out that this is not brought against one man, or even against a whole Committee of this House. It is an accusation of personal corruption against eighty Members of the House of Commons, and I say again that an accusation of that kind inflicts a grievous wound upon the honour of this House, and, even more than that, it inflicts a grievous wound upon representative government in every part of the world, if it is allowed to stand. If that statement be in any sense true, if it be not a libel, then it means that your private Bill tribunals, which have been the pride of this House, are corrupt and not to be trusted, and surely I am justified in saying that this is a matter which concerns the House of Commons and Parliament far more than it concerns my colleagues and myself, or anybody else who is attacked. I will say very little for my own part and on behalf of my colleagues. I leave it now to the House of Commons, and let them do as they like about it.

I have not come here to beg the protection of the House of Commons. I am quite ready to meet, and my colleagues are quite ready to meet, any accusation, not only of political treason, such as we constantly hear made against us, but any accusations that may be made of personal corruption or anything else. We absolutely despise them, and we are quite content to rest confident in the goodwill and confidence of our own people in Ireland. We care very little what is said about us in organs of certain public opinion in England, such as the one from which I have quoted. I am not making any abject appeal for my colleagues or myself. I am simply pointing to a grave scandal affecting this House, and it is for you, who are proud of the traditions of this House, and who love its honour and good name, it is for you to take such action as you may think fit. Before I conclude, I want to deal with two other points. If I chose I might very easily answer this attack by making a counter attack upon this paper and those connected with it. For example, the gentleman who is responsible for this paper is a man who appeared in the police court in London and was bound over to keep the peace for six months for an assault upon the police. [An HON. MEMBER: No, that was his son.] I am not speaking of his son, but of the person himself—Mr. Madge—the gentleman who is responsible for this paper. [An HON. MEMBER: He is the manager.] The manager, then, was bound over to keep the peace for six months for an assault upon the police, and this is the gentleman who heads the article which I have quoted "Irish Rowdies."

I do not care, however, to develop that point, but I just want before I conclude to allude shortly to some of the precedents. There are so many precedents upon this point that I should not be justified in detaining the House by quoting all of them, or indeed many of them. Over and over again it has been laid down that accusations of this kind, and even far less grave than the one I have quoted, have been held to be grave breaches of the privileges of this House. I will only allude to one case, which is the only one I recollect which deals with precisely the same point which I have raised. The very last occasion when an accusation of corruption in connection with the private Bill legislation of this House was made was in the year 1879. In that year the accusation was of a very vague character, and had only reference to certain members of a particular Committee. A Mr. Grissell made a statement to a solicitor in the city of London to the effect that he could influence and control the decisions of a particular private Bill Committee, which was considering, I think, the project of the Tower Bridge. Then the solicitor asked him to put that statement in writing, and he did so, to the effect that he could influence the decision of members of that Committee; manifestly that is a less direct and wholesale charge against corruption as against Members of this House than the one I have read. But what happened? The question was raised in this House, and Mr. Grissell was ordered to attend. At first he fled from this country, and did not appear for some time. Finally he was brought to the bar of the House, and then he was committed for a long period to Newgate.

In connection with the same case a Mr. Ward, who was a solicitor connected with Mr. Grissell, was charged, not with having done this thing himself, but merely with having cognisance of the fact that Mr. Grissell had given this written undertaking that he could influence the members of this Committee. Even that slight and indirect connection with a charge of corruption against certain Members of this House was held to be so grave that Mr. Ward was brought to the bar of the House and also committed to prison. That is the last case in which anybody has ventured to make a charge of corruption against any Member of this House in connection with the private business of this House. I venture to submit respectfully that the case I have brought forward is far more serious. This charge is brought, not against one individual, but against an entire section of eighty Members, who are accused one and all of personal corruption in connection with this business. In the discussion of the case of Mr. Grissell, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, whom old Members of the House will remember, was a very weighty authority on these questions, said— The only reason why I rise is to say that there was once a Committee, of which I was a member, in which something of the same kind occurred. It was now a good many years ago, and the present Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) was the chairman. Something appeared in a newspaper article reflecting upon the character of the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee considered the matter and reported it, and the House directed at once that the publisher of the newspaper in which the article appeared should be called to the bar of the House. If I recollect rightly the man was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and afterwards made a humble apology for what had happened. I quote that to show that in the most recent cases, in fact in all recent cases in which charges of this kind were brought against newspapers or other persons, this House took a grave view of the facts. I know that of recent times it has been the custom where technical breaches of the privileges of this House have taken place to pass resolutions declaring that it is a breach, and then leaving the matter where it stood. I respectfully say that in a matter of this gravity to follow such a course would be quite unprecedented, and I venture respectfully to say quite inconsistent with the honour and dignity of this Assembly. I do not desire to say anything more. Here is a charge of wholesale corruption in connection with your Private Bill legislation levelled against eighty Members of this House. In every case before, when such an accusation was made against even the humblest of your Members, the House has taken serious notice of it. It has not merely declared it a breach of privilege, but it has brought the guilty man to the bar, and either censured or demanded an apology from him. Having placed the facts before the House of Commons, I ask whether a less stringent course will now be pursued, because the men attacked are eighty Irish Members, whom you have brought here against their will.

The Globe newspaper of the 14th August, 1901, was handed in, and the passages complained of were read, as follows—

"IRISH ROWDIES.

Mr. Asquith clearly desired to embrace his own colleagues in the dictum. It is with gratification that the public will recognise in this pronouncement; by a man most probably destined to play a large part in the control of his party, a clear indication that, for himself, he is at last determined to be done with truck ling to the Irish rabble. That he, in common with all the more respectable members of his party, has long held such views in their hearts is a recognised fact. But it required the recent outrageous behaviour of the political mercenaries from the Sister Isle to wring from him a public admission of his opinions.

It is a mistake to suppose that the majority of the Irish party are actuated by any real national aspirations, or that they care in the slightest about the principles they enunciate so loudly. On this side of the St. George's Channel we are so unaccustomed to political corruption that it seldom occurs to 'us as an explanation of the conduct of our public men. But in Ireland the case is wholly different. The same spirit, the same motives, that have made Tammany a synonym for political obliquity have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish Private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this. It is, therefore, no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the passages in the article in the Globe newspaper complained of constitute a gross breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. John Redmond.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I do not think anyone can be surprised that the hon. Member who has made this motion should have brought the matter to the notice of the House, but I am sorry that he has used the opportunity of dealing with a question of a breach of privilege for the purpose of making an attack on my right hon. friend near me and myself in respect of matters which have nothing to do with the breach of privilege—matters which are entirely outside the House, and which, I think, he of all men, belonging to the party he does, ought not to have referred to in this connection: because the hon. Gentleman must be aware that whether the language for which we were responsible, and which I do not think either of us desires to withdraw—whether that language was right or wrong, it was bold of a gentleman and of a party who have certainly shown themselves to be possessed of greater resources in the art of violent vituperation, both in the press and elsewhere, than any other section of public men in this country. But, Sir, I pass from that, which was a parenthesis—an unfortunate parenthesis—and I come to a portion of the hon. Member's remarks which was more germane to the motion, and to which the House will, I am sure, listen with much more sympathy. The hon. Gentleman asks the House to affirm that the words read out at the Table constitute a gross breach of the privileges of the House. I am sure, Sir, that if the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has put upon them, and which, I suspect, most persons reading the article would put upon them, be correct, there cannot be the smallest doubt that a breach of the privileges of the House has been committed of a very grave character. The meaning which the hon. Gentleman and most other readers attribute to that article is that it accuses the Irish Members of having been personally responsible for corrupt practices in connection with private Bills. I cannot imagine an accusation more wounding or a more clear breach of our privileges, and I cannot imagine an accusation for which, so far as my knowledge and information extend, there is less substantial foundation. I have been in the sharpest conflict for most years of my political life with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have said a great many things of me which I think were wholly unjustifiable, and I may have said some things of them which may have passed what they might consider the fair limit of political retort; but I have never accused them of pecuniary corruption. I have never heard that accusation levelled against them in connection with the business of the House, and I will not believe that that accusation has the slightest foundation.

I believe we are all agreed that much less than this would have constituted a gross breach of privilege, and we are face to face now, as we have often been before, with the proper course to be pursued in this House. I have always held, and I have given expression to this view so recently, I think, as within the last week or fortnight, that this House can commit no greater folly than to enter into one of these controversies with the press of this country. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to us, in the interest of our own dignity and honour, to enter into such a controversy. The dignity and honour of the House have never been served by any of these conflicts. Nothing has ever come of them of which we have had reason to be proud, and the pages in our history, a glorious history, which relate to the dealings of this House with the press are not those on which we can look back with the greatest feelings of satisfaction. Let me say further in that connection, that the hon. Gentleman appears to think that the operation of having an editor up to the bar and committing him to prison for the remainder of the session would in some way clear our fair fame in the eyes of our countrymen and foreign nations, and that something would be done thereby to remove or diminish the venom of the personal aspersion which has been made on the honour of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it must be obvious to the House that no such happy result can ensue from any exercise of our prerogative in this matter. Of course, if there was a trial before an impartial tribunal, if the editor of the incriminated journal could give his grounds before a judicial tribunal for his accusations, and if those attacked could also state their case, some results such as those desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by all of us would undoubtedly ensue. But merely by our votes to bring a man to the bar of this House, to make him apologise or to send him to prison—that clears nobody of anything. It is an exercise of powers which we possess by our immemorial constitution, but it is not a way of sifting a charge, and anything which does not sift a charge cannot really remove it. We are all subject to attacks—seldom, I admit, as gross as the one of which the hon. Gentleman complains—but very few of us, nobody as far as I am aware on this side of the House, have ever thought it worth while to call into play the inherent powers of this House in order to clear their fair fame. And one reason why they have not thought it worth while is that nothing this House could do would have that desirable result.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that in every case in which an accusation of personal corruption had been made against a Member of this House the course the right hon. Gentleman now donounced had been followed. In the most recent case that course was followed by the advice and on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, in 1879.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That case seems to me to be very different in many particulars.

A NATIONALIST MEMBER

It was not so bad.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It did not deal with so many persons. I do not think there is the parallel which the hon. Member supposes between the circumstances of that case and the circumstances of this case. My point is that even in that case nothing was done to clear the fair fame of this House. The fact that this House sent somebody to gaol cleared nobody of an accusation.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the persons who were guilty of publishing a libel were brought to the bar of the House, were censured by the Speaker, and made a humble apology. In spite of that they were imprisoned. Surely bringing a man before the House and forcing him to apologise for his words was something more in the direction of clearing the fair fame of the House than merely passing an empty resolution and doing nothing more.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Remember that the person incriminated in this case says that he never intended it. It is revelant to the question of what would happen when he was brought to the bar to consider that he says he did not mean to bring the accusation which the hon. Gentleman and I agree in thinking was brought. He would say he did not mean it, of course, because he has already said it.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the writer quoted the article, but left out the passage in which the accusation was made.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not defending the interpretation in to-day's article put upon yesterday's article. I only say he says he did not mean what the hon. Gentleman says he did mean. That is strictly relevant to the consideration of what would occur if this Gentle man were brought up to the bar of the House and interrogated by Mr. Speaker. But that is really not quite the point which I trying to make. A mere act or vote of this House would show that this House regards with indignation the course which it condemns, but that is, in the nature of the case, all that it can do. It shows that we consider that a gross breach of privilege has taken place, it shows that the House is not in sympathy with that breach of privi- lege; more than that, in the nature of the case, it cannot show. For my part, I am still of opinion that the House gains nothing by these conflicts with the press, not one of which, so far as I know, has occurred for more than a generation. I have to admit that this case does bring to a head a difficulty which has been felt by myself often before, and by other men who have stood at this box, as to what form modern machinery for preserving our privileges should take in face of modern publicity and modern conditions of life. The only arms at our disposal are as antiquated, really, as the crossbow or the blunderbuss. The only weapons which we use are weapons that were forged in a wholly different state of society, at a time when no proceedings in this House were allowed to be made public, and when no criticism of an action of a Member of Parliament, as a Member of Parliament, was permitted, however true the criticism might be or however light the charge might be that was brought against him. Everything we now do is done in the light of day; every word that we say is reported; the freest criticisms are permitted and encouraged upon the action of parties, upon the action of individuals, upon the action of the House itself, and our only means of protection, in cases where protection is desirable, is this hopelessly antiquated method of bringing the editor, or whoever the offender may be, up to the bar of this House and calling upon him to apologise, and sending him to Newgate or the Clock Tower, not for a term of imprisonment commensurate with his offence, but for a term which is determined by the remaining life of the session.

MR. SWIFT MACNEELL (Donegal, S.)

He could be fined.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that is an even more antiquated method. So far as I am aware, there is no even moderately recent case in which any person has been fined by the action of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: Charles II.] If there be a more recent case than that or not, I would venture to point out that if we have these discussions whenever our privileges are assailed, either in a light manner or a gross manner, by any newspaper, or by private people, I think it is high time that we examined into the matter and considered what steps it behoves the dignity and honour of this House to take in the face of the species of assault which we have had to endure before, and which we shall undoubtedly have to endure in even greater measure as time goes on. Certainly I should myself be perfectly ready to suggest and propose a Select Committee upon this subject, not, of course, this session, but next session, to see whether something cannot be done to introduce order into chaos and to put us into a position of dealing properly, with dignity and on properly ascertained precedents and principles, with cases like this. I personally find myself quite unable to offer any advice to the House except the advice I have steadily offered in other cases where a similar incident has happened, whether the attack has been made upon friends of mine on this bench or upon Gentlemen opposite. That advice is to agree to the resolution that a gross violation of our privileges has been committed, but certainly not to enter into one of those conflicts out of which we cannot hope to come with any increase of that authority and dignity which it should be our first duty to maintain.

*MR. SPEAKER

said the question before the House was whether a breach of privilege had been committed, and until that question had been decided no discussion as to what action the House should take could arise.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

What I am about to say, Sir, will be very short, and I hope will conform to your ruling. Perhaps I may be allowed—particularly as for some reason or other my name has been introduced into this scurrilous publication—to associate myself in the most pointed way with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I believe it is the universal opinion on both sides of this House, independent of party, that there is not one shadow or shade of foundation for this allegation of personal corruption made against our colleagues from Ireland. It might almost seem insulting that anyone should make publicly such a declaration, but it is forced upon us by the necessities of the case. Nor can I entertain for a moment as having any serious weight or validity the sort of extenuation or apology which appears to have been put forward at a later date by the writer or publisher of this article, to the effect that it did not mean that which it plainly expresses. Everyone, not only from the point of law, but also from the point of common sense, is deemed to intend language in the sense in which it is conveyed to the intelligence of the reader, and anybody who has read this article must admit that it is a charge, of the most open, definite, and unmistakeable kind, of personal corruption against the body of Members from Ireland. That being so, there really is no dispute whatever about the facts of the case. The question is, Can this House, consistently with its traditions and its universal practice, pass it by without notice? I think it cannot. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most inexpedient for this House to enter into unnecessary controversies on trivial points, which have never resulted in adding either to the dignity of the House or the credit of Parliament. If this were a case which could by any possibility be regarded as of a trivial or trumpery description, I should say it would be entirely unworthy of the dignity of the House to enter into a dispute of that kind, and I should say let us pass it by and take no notice of it. But this case, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, stands in an entirely different category. If there is a case which constitutes a clear and manifest breach of the privileges of this House it is a case in which there is a charge of personal corruption against one Member of this House or a body of its Members. Therefore we must deal with this case on the assumption that we are dealing with as grave a breach of privilege as it is possible for the publisher of a newspaper to be guilty of. That being so, what is the advice which the right hon. Gentleman gives? He says—"Your primitive machinery for dealing with an offender in a case of this kind is so cumbrous and so antiquated that you had better never bring it into operation at all." I agree that the machinery is cumbrous, and that in many cases it is inadequate But if we are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument the law of privi- lege disappears altogether, and disappears because the machinery which happens to be at the disposal of this House is, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman—I daresay it is the opinion of a great many of us—inadequate machinery. But so long as the law exists, and so long as the machinery which enforces it exists, it does appear to me that the House is not justified in departing from all its precedents and treating privilege as it it was absolutely non-existent. And I say the House should never be more reluctant to depart from those precedents than when, as in this case, the attack is directed against a body of Members of this House of whom a large majority are in sharp political antagonism with the Government, but are nevertheless entitled to the comity of the House. On these grounds, without transgressing your ruling, Sir, I trust the House without a dissentient voice will pass the resolution of the hon. Member.

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

said he hardly thought the First Lord of the Treasury had realised what such a charge affecting private Bill business meant. This House was a court of justice; they called it the High Court of Parliament. He had sat for twenty-one years in the House, but had never sat on a private Bill Committee, though he had witnessed what went on there. Counsel appeared and pleaded before the Committee exactly the same as in any other court, and issues of enormous financial magnitude often depended on the vote of a single Member. Whatever charges of political corruption might be brought, the charge was a far graver one when it was a charge of judicial corruption, because if the Irish Members were politically corrupt, that, after all, only affected their own country, but if they were financially and judicially corrupt, it affected Scotland and England and gigantic commercial issues; it affected the whole business of private Bill Committees, railways, banks, and insurance companies, and it affected every class of business matters of which private Bill Committees had cognisance. There were the facts that they were returned for Irish constituencies and that they were poor men, because he supposed that was really the gravamen of the matter; it was known that the Irish party was a poor party, and if under those circumstances the House allowed its judicial tribunals to be impeached, and for it to be said they could do with Parliament what the humblest police magistrate would not tolerate in his own court, what was to become of the House as a court of justice and as the High Court of Parliament? Take the case of any ordinary magistrate, county court judge, or even an Irish judge. The Irish Members had been in sharp conflict for many years with the Irish justiciary, but had any of his friends ever made a charge of corruption against a single magistrate, county court judge, or superior judge in Ireland? Never! Supposing one of them did so was it possible that the judge might say, "I rely upon my ermine; I pass by your accusation with contempt." And yet the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to a matter which did not affect the Irish Members a tithe as much as it affected the House of Commons and English commercial interests, said of a body of men who had been serving on Committees, "This is a matter to pass by with indifference and contempt." The cunning of the article was this, that it referred to Irish private business, when it was notorious that no Irish Member was ever allowed to serve on a Committee on Irish Bills. They served on English, Scotch, and Welsh private Bills, but, except in the case of a Hybrid Committee, when men were put on admittedly as partisans, they were never allowed to serve on Irish private business. Therefore, the charge of corruption, if it lay at all, had no relation to Irish business, but was in relation to Great Britain and its business. There was a time when Grattan said— If you pass the Union, Ireland in a few years will send you scoundrels. He did not think that time had yet come, but it would be in the mouth of any libeller to say that it had come if the First Lord of the Treasury in relation to the High Court of Parliament, to his own Parliament, in relation to his own English affairs with which the Irish Members had no concern, but in regard to which they were bound to erye and act as jurors, would not give hose jurors the same protection which, in the case of the trial at Sligo in the case of a land grabber, the Irish Government was the first to provide in order to vindicate the purity of the jury.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

, who rose amidst cries of "Agreed," said this was a matter that affected every Member of the House. There was a widespread impression, even amongst the educated and professional classes, that Members of private Bill Committees were paid for their services. The gravamen of the charge was corruption in connection with private Bill business, and that, in his judgment, constituted the great importance of dealing severely with those responsible for the article in the Globe.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I [...]ow beg to move "that the Editor of the Globe newspaper attend this House at Three of the clock to-morrow." I have listened with the greatest possible attention and, to some extent, with sympathy, to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. I am the first to admit that the weapons at your command are antiquated and not very effective, and that it would be a wise thing, probably, for this House to inquire into this whole question and see how we could improve our position so as to be able to punish offences of this kind in an adequate fashion. But I cannot agree that you have no means at your disposal—I cannot agree that the bringing of an editor to the bar of this House and compelling him to make a public apology is not some punishment. I do not take the view that it is an adequate punishment, but it is something. I say that this House will stultify itself if, having passed a resolution that this is a gross breach of privilege on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury and so many important Members of this House, it takes no further steps. Admittedly, the offence which has been committed is the most grave breach of privilege which can be devised. I do not want to argue that point over again, but by universal admission it is an offence of the gravest character. I take the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, that it is undignified and ridiculous for the House to invoke the powers attending on breach of privilege in cases of trivial attacks, and I never would dream for a moment in the case of ordinary political attacks, no matter how violent or truculent they might be, of bringing them before the House. But a charge of this kind has always been treated by the House as the most serious offence of all, and I press this on the House of Commons—that even if you cannot inflict what I consider an adequate punishment, you can at any rate show to the world at large that, in passing a resolution of this kind, you are in earnest, and that you are anxious to inflict some sort of punishment on the offender. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife were good enough to give their personal testimony that they did not believe in these accusations. It was not to get these accusations disavowed that I brought the matter forward; but I believe the House of Commons, for its own protection, should take a further step, and that if you stop short now you will lead the public to understand that you pass this resolution with your tongue in your cheek; that you have no serious meaning in passing it. I say that because there is no precedent in all parliamentary history in which a charge of personal corruption of this kind has been made and the House stopped short at a resolution that it was a breach of privilege. The precedents which I have looked up where no further action was taken refer to cases where there was only an indirect charge of corruption against an individual or a small group of individuals; but there is no precedent where a direct charge was made against an individual or small group of individuals. There is no case in the books where there was a charge of personal corruption such as this when the House did not hesitate to go further. I admit that to enter into a conflict with the newspapers is not, under present conditions, likely to be pleasant. I admit our weapons are old, antiquated, and ineffective, but such as they are, they have always been brought into operation where accusations of this kind have been made. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the members of his party not invoking those powers, I take the liberty of reminding him that the very last time when an accusation of personal corruption was brought against Members of this House, Sir Stafford Northcote, who was Leader of the House and Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought it forward, and moved two resolutions—first, that it was a breach of the privilege of Parliament, and, second, that the man guilty of it should be brought to the bar of the House. Eventually the House did make this rusty weapon effective; because the man was sent to prison; he made a most humble apology, and he suffered a good deal, because he was banished from this country for a considerable time in trying to evade the service of the writ of the Speaker. And one of his accomplices against whom the charge only was that he was cognisant of what he was doing was also brought to the bar and sent to prison. I am not moving that the editor of this paper should be sent to prison; probably that would be absurd in view of the fact that if he were to come to the bar to-morrow and were sent to prison he would be released within a day. But it is quite a different thing to bring him here and make him make a public apology. He has been guilty of a gross insult to this House; his article to-day is an aggravation of that offence, and if the House is in earnest, if it really agrees with the Leader of the House that this is a serious case, then the man who committed the, offence ought to be brought to the bar of the House and receive the censure of the Speaker, and be compelled to make a public apology to the House. For those reasons I move this motion that the editor of the paper be brought to the bar of the House at three of the clock to-morrow. I confess that my own feeling would be that if the House stops short now—because in this case the accusation has been made against Irish Members, who because they are Irish Members are unpopular, and who notoriously are a poor party and ought to be most carefully protected by this House—we would create a precedent which is not to be found in the annals of Parliament in the past.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Editor and Publisher of the Globe newspaper do attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow, at Three of the clock."—(Mr. John Redmond.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have not much to add in point of argument to the speech I delivered just now. In its broad outlines it is not less germane to the question now before us. The hon. and learned Member concluded by claiming special consideration from Members for Ireland in the case of an accusation of the kind described, partly because they are in a minority, partly because they are unpopular, and partly because they are poor, and I do not deny that his argument has force. I can only say that the advice I have given to the House is that which I should give with regard to any of my friends if they had been similarly charged, and it is the course I should wish the House to pursue if such a charge should be brought against myself. The broad and general grounds on which I give the advice I have stated, and I still think the House would do well to follow it. But I am too old a parliamentary hand not to know that in taking that view I probably have not the majority of the House with me. So far as I can collect the general opinion of the House, it is that in this case, whatever inconvenience may attend on our procedure, whatever the possible ridicule that may attach to its subsequent stages, nevertheless the offence is so gross, and precedents are so clearlyin its favour, that this action should be taken. I do not think the precedent mentioned is quite on all fours with the present case, and the whole tendency of the last 150 years has been in the direction of not enforcing the privileges of the House, and I believe that is a wise and wholesome tendency. How far we should go, whether we should allow those privileges to cease, whether we should modify our procedure to meet the changed conditions of modern life, these are questions that may very properly be dealt with next session, but though I have given advice I think the House would do well to adopt, and though I do not take the responsibility of advising the House to take a course which I do not think will redound to its credit, I would recommend that no division should be taken, and that we might as well avoid a public exhibition of our differences.

MR. ASQULTH

I think the right hon. Gentleman does well to yield, even against his own judgment, to what is, I am certain, the preponderating opinion of both sides of the House. I desire to say on behalf of my friends here, in the first place, that in our view it is undesirable that the House should pass a resolution declaring that a breach of privilege has been committed and then do nothing-more. Such an academic declaration of breach of privilege is a mere brutum fulmen, whereas if the offence is sufficiently grave the House should be prepared to take the logical and consequential action. Next, as regards this particular case, I do not at all agree that because of the rising of the House this summoning of the offender to the bar to give an apology and to receive the admonition of the Speaker is an idle-ceremony; it is in some sense a punishment of the offence and it may be an effective deterrent against repetition.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

With great diffidence I wish to point out that there is the possibility of the House being placed in a very embarrassing position to-morrow. If the editor makes an apology, that will be all very well, but suppose instead of doing that he should make a highly impertinent speech from the bar, what will the House do then? [Cries of "Oh! Oh!"] It seems to me the House would be placed in a position of difficulty. At an earlier-period of the session the House might reply with a term of imprisonment, but to-morrow the House would be absolutely helpless. [Cries of "No, no," "You can fine him."] By the law of the land any order of the House for imprisonment comes to an end with the prorogation. ["Fine."] I do not know that the House can have recourse to earlier forms of punishment as applicable, but I find that the House has formerly taken a course dignified and exceedingly effective, and which, I think, would meet the present case, by directing a prosecution for libel. There is a precedent, not a very recent one, for the House has generally adopted the other alternative, but in 1701 there is the record of the House having directed the Attorney General to prosecute William Fuller, who was convicted on a charge of having accused Members of receiving money as bribes from France.† This, it appears to me, would be a much more effective remedy for what, no doubt, is a gross and seditious libel, calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt, and impugning the probity of its Members. I therefore suggest that a prosecution should be directed, not troubling the editor to appear at the bar. ["Oh! oh!"]

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

May I be permitted in a very words few to point out that what the noble Lord has said is hardly germane to the discussion. If the editor should to-morrow refuse to apologise, and should insult the House, it will then be for the House to consider what course should be taken. It is absurd and a waste of time to discuss what the House would proceed to do in a very unlikely eventuality. What we now have to do is to pursue the course pointed out by precedents; what we would do should the editor prove contumacious can be discussed to-morrow.

Question put, and agreed to.