' PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. T U E SDAY'S proceedings in the House of Commons
with reference to the Mullingar Union are of more importance than at the first glance might appear. The particular incident which called forth the Resolution of Mr. Patrick O'Brien is quite simple. In the debate on the question as to whether the Irish clergy shall be per- mitted to become eligible for election under the Irish Local Government Bill, Mr. J. P. Hayden, one of Mr. Redmond's followers, and therefore, of eourse, anti-clerical in his sympathies, strongly urged that the clergy should not be declared eligible on grounds which are quite obvious. Thereupon the Mullingar Board of Guardians rose in its wrath, denounced Mr. Hayden, and declared practically that he should be financially ruined through the boycott of his journal, the Westmeath Examiner, which circulates in that part. The manifest determination of the Mullingar Guardians was to intimidate Mr. Hayden for speaking out his mind in the House of Commons on a matter of public importance on which he held strong views; and still further, it was a breach of the privileges of the House, as declared in the Resolution which the House, after a short debate, passed. Mr. Healy and Mr. Dillon, who so largely depend for support on the clerical influence, were both silent; but Mr. Davitt, we observe, added his voice to those of the Redmond section in denunciation of this clerical interference with Parliamentary freedom.
We have said that the importance of this incident travels far beyond the mere local case of Irish clericalism, for it involves the whole question as to whether Members of Parliament shall be tongue-tied. Historically, the House of Commons, as a sort of Court of general inquiry, has always claimed for its Members an absolute freedom of speech, as complete a freedom as a witness has in a Court of Law. Utterances which are libels else- where are no libels in the House of Commons ; they are statements made, or assumed to be made, in the public interest, and he who makes them cannot be punished by the ordinary forms of civil or criminal process. The House of Commons in insisting on this immunity for its Members has perhaps braided better than it knew ; at any rate, it has laid down lines which seem to us to be of vital importance, and which must be preserved at all costs. Parliamentary privilege must be maintained in all its ample fullness, or we shall be liable to public evils compared with which any possibility of malicious Parliamentary utterance must be regarded as a very minor evil. We do not by any means ignore the injury which may possibly ,be done by the statements made by any person in the House of Commons. Such statements go forth to the world, they reach everybody, they may inflict very real injury on the person or persons to whom they refer, and it may be difficult to counteract the effect they produce on the public mind. Why should an innocent man be condemned to public obloquy, it may `lc asked, merely because the erroneous statement about him was made in the House of Commons instead of in the columns of a daily newspaper ?
We do not say the question is an absolutely easy one to determine, but the reason which compels us to declare in the strongest way for the maintenance of Parliamentary privilege is plain. It is really the best way of protecting public interests. The obscure bigots of the Mullingar Board of Guardians may insinuate and denounce ; but those who ask for liberty of speech as the dearest of human right!, have the satisfaction of knowing that over the local, body hovers tbe gigantic shadow of the, High, Court of Parliament, which stands ready to protect in, dividuals or communities from any local oppression. So that it ie clear that, even from the personal point of view, from the point of view of the civic rights of the in- dividual, the maintenance of Parliamentary privilege is f high value, But 'When let pass 'Prot* this limited phere to the wider region of general public interests;.tbe, ne of this privilege will become instantly of even' ter. importance. It cannot be doubted that the most sinister, as it is the most vital, fact in modern politics is the close relation between legislative bodies and great moneyed corporations. We have not ex- perienced so deeply the dangers of this relation as have the people in other countries, thanks largely to our Free- trade principles, which have succeeded, among other supreme benefits, in reducing the possible privileges which Parliament can confer on any private capitalist under- taking. But no thoughtful person could read all the evi- dence submitted, say, to the South African Committee of the House of Commons, or to the Petroleum Committee, whose labours are just concluded, without seeing the immense dangers of secret pressure being brought to bear by wealthy corporations on Members upon whose votes their pecuniary interests are dependent. In the United States it is an open secret that bodies like the Sugar Trust do bring such influence to bear on legislators ; and it has been proved that the great Standard Oil corpora- tion exerted a very pernicious influence over the Members of two State Legislatures. The danger is, therefore, a. real one, and it is chiefly our Free-trade methods which prevent it from assuming serious proportions here.
Now, the chief barrier (apart from Free-trade) against any incoming flood of corruption is publicity ; and the great arena of publicity is the House of Commons. If any blow were struck at Parliamentary privilege, it is not the innocent man who would be saved from attack. So long as any Member of Parliament can freely utter in his place in the House any criticism on acts or methods which would be libellous outside, we may feel that at least all has been done that can be done, to protect the larger public interests from the more insidious invasion of corruption. Mere individuals without money and power cannot fight wealthy bodies which are deter- mined to crush all criticism of their methods ; therefore as an individual the poor Member of Parliament (and we must make up our minds to a large increase of such in the future) could do nothing, but as a Member he could expose terrorism or bribery without fear of penal conse- quences. Is not that a right which is worth preserving F We think it is. But, of course, it will be said that,. while no immediate revenge could happen to such a. Member, his re-election could be made difficult by the moneyed power that might be brought to bear against him. That is in some degree true, but we think, on the whole, that the slightest sign of an attack made by wealthy men or by an oppressive combination of poorer men, on an honest representative who had clearly done his duty would be far more likely to make than to mar his political fortunes. Even in the United States it is significant that the man who is " suspect " is constantly being hurled from power, while the honest politician who defies the money influence is elected again and again.. The " masses " may be somewhat venal in their pro- clivities, but there is a degree of venality which they will not tolerate, and they will be apt to stand by a man who resists and exposes flagrant corruption.
But, it may be asked, if full Parliamentary privilego is conceded, what shall we say of the risk of wholesale and unfounded accusations which may be made by privileged persons ? We do not deny the danger, but we think it is a comparatively slight one when placed in the scale with the very real dangers that would be incurred by the absence of Parliamentary privilege. Members of Parliament may be immune from legal process, but they cannot be exempted from the judgment of their colleagues and the public. An ever-vigilant eye is on them, an atmosphere of moral judgment environs them closely, and they are not likely to make statements which they are not. in a position to prove. 'If one-tenth part of the assertions one hears freely 'made in the lobbies and smoking-rooms of the House of Commons were openly made in the House itself, all other business would be suspended. But it is not made, and it never will be. All Members, we think, feel, in-a greater or less degree, a sense of the historic dignity and great traditions of the House, and they 'know that privileged statements which would 'be legally chal- lenged outside may only be made' under 'very strong provocation and for purposes of Urgent public import- ance. The danger, therefore, is, we think, more theoretical than practical ; while the opposing' danger of having rio ready means whereby to drag into the searchlight of Parliamentary debate .doubtful and tortuous methods.- is serious and practical in the highest degree.
Previous page
