PERSONAL EXPLANATION. (Hansard, 6 March 1911)

§ Mr. HENRY TERRELL
I crave the indulgence of the House whilst I make an explanation on a matter which affects my honour as a Member of this House. In the course of the Debate on Thursday last I quoted a passage from the "Daily News," stating that the Lords broke up the Conference, and that the fact must be driven home while it is fresh in the public mind. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) who followed me in the Debate referred to my quotation in these terms. [Quoting from OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1911, cols. 613, 614.] In regard to the second point made by the hon. Member that the position had been directly or indirectly misrepresented in the country, I was most surprised that an hon Member occupying his position, especially professionally, should have begun to quote from a paper giving us the name of the paper without telling us that the paper was actually using a quotation from a paper on his own side. Mr. H. Terrell: Will the hon. Member kindly tell me what quotation. Mr. A. Henderson: The hon. Member quoted from the 'Daily News,' and I wish to suggest that the quotation was included in an article in the 'Daily News' calling attention to what had been said by the 'Daily Mail' and commenting upon it. I have here the "Daily News," from which I was quoting, which I had not then in my hand. It is in an article which, from beginning to end, does not refer to the "Daily Mail," which does not mention any paper at all, and which does not in any way 835 whatever purport to be making a quotation. As far as anyone reading that statement in the article in the "Daily News" would gather, that was an original statement made by the "Daily News," and was not intended to be or represented to be in any sense of the word a quotation. I thereupon further interrupted the hon. Member and said:— The passage I quoted from the 'Daily News' does not purport in any sense to be a quotation from the "Daily Mail.' Mr. A. Henderson: The hon. Member distinctly said that the 'Daily News' charged the Lords with breaking-up the Conference. I think I am in the recollection of the House in that statement. Hon. Members on this side of the House threw over the challenge that that was a statement from the 'Daily Mail Now I hold, when it first appeared in the 'Daily Mail,' and when it was being quoted in the leading article columns of the 'Daily News,' that the hon. Member ought not to have thrown the statement to us from the 'Daily News,' but from where it first originated—namely, in the columns of the 'Daily Mail.' Mr. H. Terrell: I quoted from the 'Daily News' what appeared in the 'Daily News' as a part of the article of the 'Daily News,' and not as a quotation; and so far as I know—and I may be wrong, as I do not read the 'Daily Mail—it never appeared in the 'Daily Mail.' Some of my hon. Friends called on the hon. Member to withdraw, but he declined. He said:— When I have got anything to withdraw I will willingly withdraw it, but I again repeat that the statement appeared in the first case in the 'Daily Mail' the morning after the Conference was publicly known to have failed to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that the statement ought to have been traced to its source before it was quoted in this House. I am the more surprised that the hon. Member quotes it when he admits he does not read the 'Daily News,' and did not read the article. Mr. H. Terrell: I did not say I did not read the article I read the article in question from beginning to end in the 'Daily News,' not in the 'Daily Mail.' The charge against me is a deliberate charge of attempting to deceive the House by quoting from the "Daily News" what was manifestly and what I must have known to have been merely quoted in the "Daily News" from the "Daily Mail." The hon. Member distinctly says that; he says:— I wish to suggest that the quotation was included in an article in the 'Daily News' calling attention to what, had been said by the 'Daily Mail' and commenting upon it. I have pointed out that this article does not call attention to anything in the "Daily Mail," and does not comment upon it in any way whatever. I think that this is a very serious imputation to make upon any Member of this House. I have since gone through the "Daily Mail" and tried to find out whence the hon. Member suggested it came, and the only passage—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—which can possibly be said in any way to 836 refer to this matter is the following in the "Daily Mail" of 11th November:— The position taken up by an influential section of Unionist Peers who had not been members of the Conference was this: 'If we are to be deprived of our powers let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference.' Hon. Members will see that what appeared in the "Daily News" is by no stretch of the imagination a quotation from that statement. I feel that the hon. Member was not justified in suggesting and stating that I had either intentionally, or purposely, or wrongfully in any way whatever sought to deceive this House by misquoting. I thank the House for permitting me to make this explanation. I hope I have satisfied the House that, so far as I am concerned, I quoted correctly from the "Daily News," and that I had no reason whatever to suppose, as the fact is not, that it was in any sense a quotation from the "Daily Mail."

§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
I think that those hon. Members who heard the little dialogue between the hon. Member and myself the other evening will acquit me of having said anything approaching a charge of deceiving the House. I thought it was an inaccurate statement—a statement calculated to leave an altogether wrong impression upon those who listened to the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member has not quoted the full point to which we on this side of the House took exception. In the course of his speech the hon. Member said:— Another method was adopted for the purpose of getting votes for this Bill. The moment an election became certain, the people were told by the Radical press that the Lords broke up the Conference, and that the fact must be driven home while it is fresh in the public mind.

§ Mr. HENRY TERRELL
Go on.

§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
I did not interrupt the hon. Member. The point we took exception to was that the hon. Member should charge the Radical Press with something which was stated deliberately in another paper four days earlier than the "Daily News," from which he was quoting. The hon. Member was quoting from the issue of November 15th, and this is what appeared in the "Daily Mail" of November 11th:— History of the Conference. Why it failed. That is in substantial type at the top of the column. I do not know whether the hon. Member and his friends would like me to read the whole article. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I daresay they would if they thought it would take 837 up sufficient time of the House. "Why it Failed,"—and here is the answer given:— If we— This is dealing with the Lords; it has already been quoted without the headline: If we are not to be deprived of our powers, let it be done by the constituencies, and not by any Conference. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said that?"] The "Daily Mail." I am reading from the "Daily Mail." I am reading an article giving the reason why the Conference failed. Then it goes on to say:— Their opposition to the Joint Committee curried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce this decision to Mr. Asquith. On the following day, 12th November—my hon. Friend opposite did not find it until 15th November—in the issue of the "Daily News" we had direct quotations from the article I have just read. It says here:— In inner Ministerial circles the utmost importance is attached to a remarkable passage in the 'Daily Mail' of yesterday. It is there stated that Mr. Balfour, by consent of the Conference, submitted the proposals of the Conference to his more intimate colleagues in his last ministry. This is what followed. Then the "Daily News" quoted practically the full passage I have just read from the article in the "Daily Mail." Without wishing to say that the hon. Member wished to deceive the House, the point that we took exception to on this