On Thursday, the Government carried their amendment to Sir Charles
Lewis's motion, refusing to treat the Times' article as a breach of Privilege, by 297 votes to 218 (majority, 79). Mr. Gladstone, therefore, rose to move his amendment on the motion of the Solicitor-General, directing an inquiry by a Select Com- mittee into the charge of "wilful falsehood" brought by the Times newspaper against Mr. Dillon. (But surely, as matter of fact, the Times brought a charge of reckless falsehood, but declined to bring a charge of " wilful " falsehood, and did not actually bring it). Mr. Gladstone declared that the Parnellite Party were a minority representing a nation, and that it was most disastrous not to treat such a minority with scrupulous fair- ness. The proposal of the Government would produce the impression that there were two measures of justice, one for the Irish Nationalists, and the other for all other Members of the House. There were five questions before the House,—(1), whether the Times' article was a breach of Privilege ; (2), whether it was desirable to treat it as a breach of Privilege ; (3), whether it was the duty of the Irish Party to go to a Court of Law ; (4), whether a Committee ought to be appointed ; and (5), whether there should be a prosecution. Mr. Gladstone proved without difficulty that the first question answered itself. Of course, an accusation of falsehood in the House,—in other words, of an act (for speaking in the House is an act) calculated to mislead
the House of Commons on matters of grave political importance, —is a breach of Privilege. Over the second point Mr. Gladstone passed very lightly. On the third, he said that the Irish Party
• might fairly be excused for distrusting the British Courts of Justice, though as now constituted be did not distrust them himself; and that a trial in Court would be a slow and doubtful remedy. For the Committee Mr. Gladstone argued strongly, as the only right course for clearing up a subject of this kind -without any penal intention, and be appealed to precedents in its favour. On the fifth point, he condemned a prosecution by the authority of the Crown as both objectionable on principle, and in this case "collusive," and collusive in a very gross way. And he made out successfully enough that there is no precedent for a prosecution by order of the House without any previous allega- tions of an offence.
Previous page
