PARLIAMENT BILL. (Hansard, 3 August 1911)

§ Mr. ARNOLD WARD
I wish to put a question with regard to a matter affecting the Yeomanry which I addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War the day before yesterday. I thought I had made an arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman by which he would be in his place on behalf of the War Office to answer me to-night. I am very anxious to get a reply. May I ask if there will be an answer to-night?

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank)
In the absence of my right hon. Friend it will be impossible to give a reply this evening, but we will make arrangements for an answer one evening next week.

§ Mr. ARNOLD WARD
Then I will postpone my remarks until a representative of the War Office is present.

§ Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON
I wish to raise a question of some importance in referring to a statement which appears in a letter in to-day's "Daily Express" and "Morning Post," quoting part of a speech by the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. W. A. Redmond), delivered in New Zealand on 5th June, and reported in the "New Zealand Herald." The extract reads:— The King of England had joined the fight against the reactionary gang in the House of Lords, and he had promised that, if need arose, he would create 500 new Peers and swamp the House of Lords to prevent a repetition of the blunder it had made in rejecting the Budget. Not only was the King allied with the party, but his representative in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, was an ardent Home Ruler. Personally I greatly regret that an hon. Member of this House should take advantage of the difficulties of the King at the present moment in order to promote his own political opinions. It may be argued that the hon. Member for East Tyrone, as a Member of this House, is not sufficiently conspicuous to justify one in paying attention to his remarks. I dare say he may be a private Member, but he is now in New Zealand as the accredited evangelist of the most militant party in the State at the present moment. He has gone there as the missionary of the Nationalist party to collect cash, and he has got it.

§ Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN
There's the rub.

§ Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSON
Yes, and lie has apparently got it by degrading the name of the King. The point I would urge is this: that, not in any private capacity, he has gone out representing a party. He bears the name of a well-known and famous English politician. Leaving out of the question the fact that he happens to be the son of the virtual dictator of this country, these phrases of his were not the phrases that an hon. Member of this House should have used even in New Zealand. There is a second point. The hon. Member made the speech two months ago. He makes a bold and a bald statement which could only have been made upon secret information. I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister got the leave of His Majesty the King to give that information to the hon. Member, and if he did not get leave, how can he justify that action?

§ MASTER of ELIBANK
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply in the absence of the Prime Minister. I have not seen the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but I am glad to have this opportunity of giving an emphatic denial to the suggestion that the Prime Minister, or indeed any of His Majesty's Ministers, has communicated to anyone what passed between the Sovereign and himself.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I have not risen for the purpose of making any comment whatever on the speech of the hon. Gentleman, or of attempting to defend a speech which none of us have read—a speech from which a single quotation has been made—the authenticity and truth of which I for one gravely doubt. I have risen for this simple purpose. The hon. Gentleman's object is perfectly plain. It is to convey the suggestion—he has not stated it; I think it would have been more manly if he had—that this speech was made on information supplied to the hon. Member (Mr. W. A. Redmond) by me, and supplied to me by the Government. I desire to say, so far as I am concerned, that no such communication of what passed between the Sovereign and his Ministers was ever made to me.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
It seems to me that the hon. Member has served a very useful purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I do not see that 700 any exception can possibly be taken to the manner in which he brought it before the House. It is all very well for certain hon. Members to find a cause for hilarity in it. The object of bringing it forward, I have no doubt, was that an opportunity might be given to ascertain whether or not there was any foundation for saying that this speech was correctly reported. How does the matter stand? This tour on which the hon. Member is engaged has been very widely reported in the newspapers. Only a short while ago I found a report of it in an evening newspaper. And quite rightly. However humble the position of an hon. Member, he would be quite entitled to have his tour referred to in the papers. But the fact of his being a Member of the House gives him an opportunity of being widely reported, and makes it all the more important that the matter should be brought to the attention of the House. The hon. Member, in order to secure funds for his party, makes a tour. That may be perfectly right, but it is open to the comment that he goes a long distance in order to secure funds. Apparently he has been making use of these statements as the basis of collecting funds for the advancement of the particular views which he and his party hold. The statements he made apparently for the collection are of deep importance, and I am quite certain that it is in his own interest, as well as in the interest of the party with whom he is acting—and, indeed, in the interest of all parties — that the matter should be brought to the attention of the House in order, so far as possible, that those persons most fully acquainted with the facts should either confirm or give an emphatic repudiation of the statement which the hon. Member for East Tyrone has made in the Dominion. I hope a good many Members may feel the importance of this subject. The hon. Member for Huntingdon has done a public service in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. [Laughter.] If there are some hon. Members who feel this to be merely a matter for jeering there are others who take a different view, and who are anxious in the interest of the hon. Member for East Tyrone. [Cheers.] I felt quite sure that that would provoke a considerable cheer. I say that in the interest of the hon. Member for East Tyrone, and of the party with whom he acts, it was important that the matter should be brought to the attention of the House.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
There is one further matter to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member for Waterford rather reflected upon the manliness of the hon. Member for Huntingdon in bringing up this question.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I did rather reflect on the manliness of the hon. Gentleman in making the suggestion rather than the statement that this information was obtained from me, and that it was obtained by me from the Prime Minister. That was the meaning of the hon. Member's speech.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I did not intend to convey that the hon. Gentleman had obtained this information from the Prime Minister. I think it most unlikely that it would have been given him by the Prime Minister. The real point I wish to bring out is that the hon. Member has practically repudiated this report. If the report is false, I think the hon. Member should wire out and state that it is so; otherwise the hon. Member for East Tyrone will be guilty of taking money under false pretences, and I am perfectly certain that is the last thing the Irish Nationalists would wish to do. I do not wish to bring in another name which has been dragged in. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who at present is speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister if he will mention when the guarantees were given.

§ MASTER of ELIBANK
I would ask the Noble Lord to wait until Monday.

§ Mr. HOHLER
The matter which has been raised is one of great importance. I fully expected that the hon. Member for Waterford would rise to deny that he had anything to do with the communication made by the hon. Member for East Tyrone. What we really want to know is—When were the guarantees given? What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. Is it or is it not a fact that these guarantees had been given before the hon. Member for East Tyrone made his speech. That is the point. It would have been much more interesting if the hon. Member for Waterford, instead of rising to answer a point not put, had told us that in fact he knew nothing of those guarantees at that date. That would indeed have been interesting. I do not suppose the Prime Minister did it himself, but we know there 702 are means of communication between the Irish party and the Government not known to us. We fully appreciate that the hon. Member has for a long time dictated the policy of the Prime Minister. The Prime-Minister has been a tool in his hands—a most pliant one. The point is not whether the hon. Member communicated to the hon. Member for East Tyrone or whether the Prime Minister communicated to the hon. Member for Waterford, but had the guarantees been given at that time? Will any hon. Member on the Treasury Bench get up and deny that is a fact? If he will not, the conclusion is obvious, and we need not look far. The leakage, whether from the hon. Member for Waterford or from the hon. Member for East Tyrone, seems to have been common property of the Irish Nationalists, and yet the whole farce and fraud of our debating the Parliament Bill was continued in this House for over a month, when the Prime Minister was making the communication of knowledge to the Irish party and denying it to us and denying it to the Second Chamber; and I venture to-think that that is a piece of hollowness and sham which reflects discredit on the Minister responsible for it.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has just repeated a statement which I have denied to him. According to the ordinary rules of courtesy and Debate in this House, when an hon. Member denies a statement of that kind his denial will be accepted. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was that a communication was made to the Irish party from the Government with reference to the granting of the guarantees. I have denied that, and I ask you whether the hon. Member ought not to accept my denial.

Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member for Waterford is quite right. It has always been the custom in this House when an hon. Member makes a statement that the rest of the House should accept that statement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chatham will follow the usual course.

§ Mr. HOHLER
Undoubtedly, with the greatest possible pleasure. I understood the statement of the hon. Member for Waterford was that he had not made the communication to the hon. Member for East Tyrone, nor had the Prime Minister conveyed the communication to the hon. Member for Waterford.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
I did not say the Prime Minister; I said the Government.

§ Mr. HOHLER
At any rate the strong point is that somehow the fact was known to the hon. Member for East Tyrone, and no doubt the country will form its own conclusion. We are not in the least afraid of the country, but we do think that there is matter for an apology, and for regret that the hon. Member for East Tyrone, in the speech which he has made, has ventured to use the name of His Majesty in the disgraceful and discreditable way in which he has done.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I desire to call attention to a most serious question, and one which has a very important and serious aspect. I wish to discuss the question of the pollution of rivers. It has a most important bearing on this discussion. Take the River Aire, which flows through the West Riding of Yorkshire, pure from the mountains. It passes through village after village, and town after town, until it becomes a large volume of water, but, unfortunately, it also becomes muddier and muddier. It flows past the end of my garden—and I should be happy to invite any hon. Gentleman who is interested in the subject to see it—and there it seems to be as black as ink. I am sorry I have so limited a time in which to discuss the question, but I would point out that this is pure water when it starts to flow from the mountains, and until it reaches a spot where it disappears underground for about a mile, but when it reappears it becomes a mighty river of ink. I desire to draw the attention of the House to this most serious problem.