The Parnellites and the Times.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 203, 2 October 1888, Page 3

The Parnellites and the Times.

London, Aug. 9. In the House of Commons last week Mr Labouchere eaid be desired to submit to the House a question of privilege arising out of the Times newspaper. (Opposition cheers.) The Chief Clerk read the article: “ The endeavour to convict the Government of a change of front because Mr W. H. Smith, in offering Mr Parnell the alternative of the Special Commission, omitted the words * and other persons,’ though ever since the notiee of the introduction of the b'll was placed on the" paper these words have been before the House, and the Opposition allowed the second reading to pass unchallenged, with full knowledge of them, conspicuously failed; but this and other groundless accusations have afforded Mr Parnell, Mr T. Healy, Mr Sexton, Mr T. P. O'Conner, and the rest, the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism "—(Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of “ Oh ” and •• Shame *)—-“ we can call it by no other name—on the Times and the persons responsible for its conduct, which we venture to say is absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter, and we are quite sure that public opinion will take the just measure of the men who resort to these weapons.” (Ministerial cheers.) "But for the honor of pub ic life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr Gladstone, as well as Sir William Harcourt, entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present • " a below the gangway.” (Loud counter cheers.) " Still more that Mr Morley should dare to accuse this journal of the 1 deepest infamy on the unsupported testimony, which he has taken no pains to sift, of one of his reckless — Irish allies. The stuff which is held to be good enough to furnish forth the speeches of these statesmen, with their facts, their arguments, their taunts, and their calumnies, would not be listened to by any decent people if it were bawled about the streets by the sort of people who obtain a heariag because they are members of the House of Commons,” (Cheers and counter cheers.) Mr Labouchere then moved: "That the Times newspaper, in its issue this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of thia House.” (Opposition cheers.) In support of this proposal he relied upon three contentions that the article accused hon. members of that House of having introduced into their speeches " a flood of blackguardism ”— (Ministerial cheers) — The Speaker : Order, order. Mr Laboucherethat hon. members of the Opposition had been guilty of mendacity in that Home ; and that Mr Gladstone, Sir W. Harcourt, Mr Psrnell and others were “foulmouthed " in their observations last night. In 1733 the House of Commons passed item. con. the following resolution : “That the assaulting, insulting, or menancing of any member of this House, or on account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infr ngemeat of the privileges of thia House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and disdemeanour. ” (Hear, hear.) No one would deny that the observations in the article in question were Insulting to certain members in the House. Sir Erskine Msy, in hi- work on Parliamentary procedure said. “Libels on members had also been constantly punished, but to const! utea breach of privilege it must concern the character or conduct of a member of Parliament in that capacity. ” These charges concerned members of Parliament in that capacity (Hear, hear ) As they were essentially libellous, their truth or falsehood was immateri >1 to the present enauiry. Some limit should be drawn even in as language permitted to that most sacred gospel of the Conservative party, the Times, and he hoped the House would take some notice of the matter. (Parnellite cheers.) Mr Gladstone advised that the motion be ' Withdrawn. Mr Labouchere, in intimating his willingness to withdraw his motion, pointed out that the punishment inflicted for breach of privilege such as this appeared from his researches into antiquity to be branding, ' flogging, and putting in the pillory. (Laughter.) He trusted that Mr Walter and bis friends would abate the gross coarseness of their language towards the right hon. gentleman when they found that it was owing to his intervention that they had not been punished as they deserved. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr Sexton expressed his contempt for the Times, and remarked that his experience showed that the proceedings of an Irish member were apparently considered by the House fair matter of scurrilous comment by any blackguard of the press. (Parnellite cheers.) He agreed with the right hon. member for Newcastle that the Times had been guilty of •• the deepest infamy.” He emphatically denied that the conduct of Mr J. Morley was scandalous, as alleged by the Times, because the statement made by the right hon. gentleman was ab-olutely true. He thought the Irish members could afford to be indifferent to charges and insinuations proceeding from the paymasters and accomplices of forgers. (Parnellite cheers,) The motion was subsequently withdr awn.

In reply the Times eaid in effect We are not sorry that Mr Labouchere thought it becoming to’bring before the House as a breach of privilege the plain and direct language used with respect to the conduct both of the of Mr Gladstone and his recent debate. From Mr Labouchere’a rmeery observation that the punishment for a breach of privilege in the days wh-n the House adopted the existing rule was •• flogging, branding, and being put in the pillory,” it may be inferred that he is truly grateful that he is not living in the year of grace 1733. As for Mr Sexton s protea against the use of the word “ blackguardism," it is not worth while to enter into a controversy on the accurate use of language » with him He may entertain the opinion that it was in accordance with the fairness and - decorum of debate for Mr Gladstone to pro-t-j nouuee one of the documents into the authenticity of which a judical inquiry is to be instituted under the Bill a " forged letter for Mr Parnell to speak of onr arti bs aa •• filthy ” and “ lying forthe front Opposition bench to maintain the charge of collusion between the Times and the Government io regard to the suspected, but wholly imaginary, change in the scope of the Bill after Mr w. H. Smith's emphatic assurance that the Bill was adopted by the Government in its present form en'irely on their own Initiative and responsibility ; and for Mr Morley to assert, as he does, on the authority of Mr J. Redmond, that the conductors of the Times have been guilty of the “deepest infamy." But Mr Sexton's opinion affords no measure Of the opinion either of the House of Commons as a body or of the country at large.