HC Deb 01 May 1907 vol 173 cc896-8
VISCOUNT TURNOUR

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of asking you to permit me to make a personal explanation. Last Monday I addressed a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant in these words — To ask the right hon. Gentleman to what hon. Members he referred when he stated that there were men in the House of Commons who made it their business at Question time day after day to ask Questions, not for the purpose of gaining information, but to malign and misrepresent the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said that— The words were a condensation of what he actually said, which was that, as Questions were constantly put to him which evidently added nothing to the information of the persons asking them or of the police, who were responsible for the peace of Ireland, or to his information, it would seem that the only object in putting them was to create a false impression in England of the real state of things in Ireland. The Question which I put was based upon the following report in The Times newspaper— There are found, I am sorry to say, in the-ranks of Irishmen themselves, men in the House of Commons who make it their business day after day during the time of Questions to fix like carrion crows upon the one or two places in Ireland where there is this ground for disturbance and to ask questions relative thereto, not for the purpose of gaining information, for they have all the information already, not for the purpose of calling the attention of the police to these places, for the policeknow ten times more than they do, not for the purpose of calling my attention to these places, because I know them perfectly well and think of them day and night. No, their sole object is to malign and misrepresent their native country in the eyes of the English people, who have not the opportunities which I enjoy of knowing the true facts of the case, and who cannot of their own knowledge know how confined and limited are these areas of disorder. This verbatim report in The Times is borne out by the following newspapers: — the Yorkshire Observer—

MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)

I rise to order, Sir. Is the hon. Member in order in making his proposed apology.

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

This is a personal explanation.

MR. BELLOC

I only rose to call attention to this point because the hon. Member says that this statement is borne out by another vebatim report.

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The noble Lord will be in order if he confines himself to the accusation and his personal explanation.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish my sentence it is possible that he might have understood my object. The right hon. Gentleman stated at the time, in reply to my Questions, that this report was a condensed report. As the version given of his speech by the right hon. Gentleman differed entirely from The Times report, I, in accordance with the custom of the House, tendered an apology to the right hon. Gentleman because The Times report must be false. Since then I have read the other verbatim reports of the same speech, and I can no longer describe The Times report as false. I apologise to The Times newspaper. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's version of his speech was incorrect; I offer no explanation; but apparently some one has blundered.

MR. BIRRELL

I am sorry that any speech of mine should have occasioned the waste of time and the attention that has been given to it. I should like, however, to remind the noble Lord that when I spoke of a condensed report I was not referring to The Times, because I had not then, nor have I now, seen the report of the speech in The Times. My speech was delivered at a meeting on Friday, and next day I was in the north of England, and, being more pleasantly engaged, I did not see The Times on that day, and I do not propose to see it now. The condensation I referred to was that which appeared in the question of the noble Lord, and that obviously was a very condensed report. Speaking from memory, and having no means of correcting my recollection, for I spoke entirely without notes, I gave the House what I believe I did say—at all events, what I hope I said. To the best of my recollection what I said was that I racked my brains to discover some motive which was prompting these hon. Members in continuing to put to me these Questions; and then I added that it seemed to me as if they could have no other motive except what I proceeded to say. I will not quarrel with the reporter. One reporter —the reporter of the Bradford Observer—seemed to me to have given a very accurate and verbatim report, though I agree that he did not give the phrase the turn I intended to give it myself; and therefore, it is very likely, not being a master of speech like the noble Lord—

VISCOUNT TURNOUR

A cheap jest.

MR. BIRRELL

It is not a jest at all. I can only say, therefore, and I am willing to say, that I am very sorry if I used language that seemed to impute improper motives to hon. Members sitting in that part of the House.

MR. T. L. CORBETT

It was insulting.

MR. BIRRELL

Well, I can only express my regret for having used it.