in the present case. We regret exceedingly, I am sure, to hear that the hon. Member for Derby is suffering from ill-health; but surely his condition is not such as to justify or explain the course which he has pursued. The hon. Member for Derby upon three separate occasions had the opportunity of withdrawing the charges which he preferred against my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, and in the most pointed manner he declined to do so. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. E. J. Reed) says, in effect, that the House has entirely acquitted my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth of any and every imputation which has been made against him. Well, that is perfectly true; but that is not sufficient to satisfy a man properly and justly jealous of his own honour. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth is perfectly right in claiming the only means by which these charges against him may be investigated, and either justified or negatived; and I venture to say that the House would be guilty of a gross act of injustice if it refuses the opportunity which he seeks. But I would say one word more. I wish to speak with every possible feeling of deference for the distinguished Assembly of which I have so long had the honour to be a Member; but I cannot help feeling that in the present case the course pursued by the House of Commons has not been a fortunate one. I consider that an hon. Member having risen in his place to prefer charges against another hon. Member in language of the most violent character, and the House having censured such a course, it is scarcely right to allow the Member making the charge to retire without explanation or apology. I say this with every feeling of regret that any action on the part of the House should diminish the high position which it has always maintained; and I regret and feel that the mode in which this House has dealt with this case has been extremely unfortunate. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is impossible to avoid sympathizing with the hon. Member for Plymouth, against whom charges have been made from which it is quite natural he should take an early opportunity of freeing himself. I sympathize not only with him, but also with the other hon. Members who have been alluded to scarcely less pointedly than the hon. Member for Plymouth himself. At the same time, Mr. Bentinck The hon. I must say I sympathize also with the motives which have induced the hon. Member for Plymouth to take the course which he is now taking, in preference to that which I will endeavour to point out, and which I think would have been a more strictly correct and Parliamentary course. I must acknowledge I very much agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that the course which was taken by this House on Thursday last, although marked with great and proper consideration for the hon. Member for Derby, was not, strictly speaking, a technically correct one. Member for Derby apologized to the House in the most ample manner for the language which he had used. He, however, distinctly stated that he withdrew no statement of fact. Thereupon, after a short debate, the Order of the Day relating to him was discharged. I confess I sympathize with the motives which prevented the hon. Members attacked from taking an opportunity which I think, if they had desired, they would have been justified in taking at that moment to vindicate themselves. If the hon. Member for Plymouth had wished the House to consider that it was necessary for his reputation that further notice should be taken of these charges, it would have been competent to him to rise in his place at that time and ask the House, before they absolved the hon. Member for Derby from the consequences of his conduct, to require him either to withdraw or to substantiate the statements he had made. The hon. Member did not take that course. I sympathize with the motives which induced him not to take that course, and not prolong a painful discussion which had been brought about by the conduct of the hon. Member for Derby. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that the course he is now taking is one which is calculated to lead the House into a position of some difficulty. I must say I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) as to the indefiniteness of the terms of the Motion. The hon. Member (Mr. Bates) moves for a Committee to inquire into certain charges which have been made by one hon. Member against another. I really am not aware what these charges are; I am not aware in what form they are to be found. The words of the hon. Member for Derby were not taken down. Is that which is to be inquired into to | ever, the Leader of the House recombe furnished by a newspaper report; or mends the House to take this course, I is the Committee, as indicated by one should be most unwilling to offer oppospeech made this evening, to meet in sition; but I do not think it can be one order to call upon the hon. Member for that can be satisfactory to the House or Derby to substantiate certain charges, to the hon. Member for Plymouth. From and, if he does not come forward, is it the fact of a Committee being appointed to report without taking evidence? I at this period of the Session, it is, of cannot think that would be any satisfac- course, impossible that we can enter into tion to the hon. Member for Plymouth; a minute investigation as to the mode and really, if that is not the course to in which the hon. Member for Plymouth be pursued, I am at a loss to know what conducts his business. If it is merely are the charges, and where they are to to inquire into the fate of certain ships, be found, which the Committee is to be I do not think that, without fuller inappointed to investigate. Even if the formation, there can be given such an charges are to be found in a more de- inquiry as would be altogether satisfacfinite shape than they are, it appears tory. I venture, however, to hope that that would be a most inconvenient course. if the Motion for a Committee is perseI do not know there is any precedent, vered in, it will not be impossible to except, perhaps, one, for the course of suggest some terms of Reference more appointing a Committee to inquire into precise than those now before the House. charges against a Member of this House for acts not done in his capacity as a Member of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the case is an exceptional one and the circumstances rare. I do not know that the circumstances are so extremely exceptional. In my opinion, they are not altogether dissimilar from circumstances which have already occurred during the course of this present Session. The House has found itself placed in a position of difficulty already. Questions of Privilege have been raised through statements made, and questions of Privilege have been raised affecting the character of hon. Members through acts not done in their capacity as Members of this House; and I think what has occurred at an earlier period of this Session should induce the House to be rather careful before they proceed to make a precedent in such a matter as this. There was the case of Thirtell Harvey, in which a Committee was appointed to inquire into circumstances affecting his character; and, although I cannot say I am well acquainted with the facts of the case, I believe that in the opinion of some authorities a mistake had been made by the House in going into questions which the Committee went into on that occasion. Now, this is a subject, no doubt, on which it is extremely desirable that the House should come to an unanimous decision if possible, and I have pointed out what I think the inconveniences of the course recommended by the hon. Member and the Government. If, how VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. HUNT: I wish to call the attention of the House to the position in which the hon. Member stands at the present moment. If the accusation and insinuation made by the hon. Member for Derby had been made against my hon. Friend outside the House, my hon. Friend would have had his remedy by an action at law. He might have applied for a criminal information against the utterer of the calumny, or he might have sued for damages. But the charges having been made in this House, the only way in which my hon. Friend can clear himself on the present occasion in this House, and in the absence of retractation, is the one he has adopted, and I think that he is fully justified in the course he has taken. It is asked, what were the charges? Hon. Members and the noble Lord who has just sat down endeavoured to mix up the case against the hon. Member for Plymouth with charges made against other Members who were not named. But what are the facts? The hon. Member for Derby said "he gave Notice of a Question that he would put on Tuesday next to the President of the Board of Trade," and then he mentioned certain ships by name, and the years in which they were lost, and the number of lives that were lost in them, and then he went on to say-"I will ask whether the owner of these particular ships - whether the owner-Edward Bates-is a Member for Parliament, or some other person of the same name." Now, there was a particularity in the charge made against N the hon. Member for Plymouth which | but he was not out of Order by reason was not to be found in the case of a of saying that my hon. Friend the charge made against any other Member Member for Plymouth was the owner of of this House, nor was any other Mem- ships sent to sea in an improper state; ber of this House named. My hon. he would not have been out of Order in Friend has taken every opportunity making such a statement as that. He afforded by the Forms of the House of was called to Order by the Speaker; a setting himself right with the House Motion was made that he should be reand the public, and after his speech the primanded for having used un-Parliaother night, straightforward and manly mentary expressions in making these as it was, it was the bounden duty of charges; and the apology he made had the hon. Member for Derby, whatever reference to the un-Parliamentary chahis health was, to have either retracted racter of the language he used, and had his accusation or have been prepared to nothing to do with the question as to substantiate it. I want to know what is what was the direct statement of fact he the meaning of the Amendment which had made. The hon. Member for Derby has been put into the hands of the by his apology satisfied the House by Speaker by the hon. Member for Car- withdrawing the un-Parliamentary exlisle. He says that this House deems pressions he had used; but at the end of it unnecessary at present to occupy itself it he expressly said he did not withdraw with a special inquiry into the matters any statement of fact. I want to know in dispute between the hon. Member for whether the hon. Member for Pembroke, Derby and the hon. Member for Ply- who appears to represent the hon. Memmouth. What would be the effect of ber for Derby, is now prepared on his carrying such an Amendment? Why, behalf to withdraw and retract the accuit would be in effect that, in the opinion sations made by the hon. Member for of this House, there are still matters in Derby. dispute between the two Members-that is to say, that the House, if they passed it, would refuse to admit the truth of the statements made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, and would admit the possibility of the accusations of the hon. Member for Derby being true. I say it would be unsupportable for my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth to sit down under such a Resolution as that. What says the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed)? He gets up to support this, leaving open the question whether the charges are true or not. He says the hon. Member for Derby, by the apology he made, virtually withdrew the charges against the hon. Member for Plymouth. MR. E. J. REED: To the satisfaction of the Prime Minister, I said. MR. HUNT: No, I do not want to know what he did to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister. Did he withdraw the charges, or did he not? MR. E. J. REED: The Prime Minister said he did. MR. HUNT: The hon. Member for Derby was guilty of disorderly conduct by reason of the expressions he used with regard to Members of this House. He used the expressions "villains" and "murderous shipowners." He was out of Order by reason of the terms he used; Mr. Hunt MR. E. J. REED: In reply to that question, I am perfectly prepared to look over the question he puts, and, if I see nothing improper in it, I am prepared to answer. MR. HUNT: I ask the hon. Member whether, on behalf of the hon. Member for Derby, whom he appears to represent, he is prepared to withdraw and retract those expressions and accusations which the hon. Gentleman made? MR. E. J. REED: What accusations? MR. HUNT: The accusations that the hon. Member for Derby made. MR. E. J. REED: What are they? MR. HUNT: Well, the accusations that were made. MR. E. J. REED: I ask, what are they? MR. HUNT: The accusations that the hon. Member for Derby made against the hon. Member for Plymouth with respect to a person named Edward Bates sending six ships to sea in 1874 and 1875 which were lost, and the interrogation whether the hon. Member for Plymouth was the owner of those ships. Language of this kind was also used-"I am determined to unmask the villains who sent these sailors to death." MR. E. J. REED: I am prepared, on the authority of the hon. Member for Derby himself, to affirm the accusations -if he calls them accusations-as to matters of fact, which is all the hon. Member did. MR. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared, on behalf of the hon. Member for Derby, now to retract and withdraw the accusations and insinuations made on the occasion in question? MR. E. J. REED: What are they? MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. If the hon. Gentleman desires to make any explanation he may do so with the consent of the House, so soon as the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech. MR. HUNT: What I want to know is, whether these accusations are withdrawn and retracted, or are they not? I think the hon. Member for Plymouth has a right to know that. The hon. Member for Pembroke concluded by saying that after the explanation of the hon. Member for Plymouth there was no stain on his character. Will the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) withdraw his Amendment? And will the hon. Member for Pembroke propose a Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth, declaring that this House, having heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Plymouth, is of opinion that no stain rests on the hon. Gentleman's character with regard to sending these ships to sea which were lost in 1874 and 1875? If the hon. Gentleman will take that course, and the House will approve it, the honour of the hon. Member for Plymouth will be satisfied, and there will be no occasion to ask for a Committee. MR. E. J. REED: Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question, I have no hesitation whatever in responding to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made in conformity with what I have already stated. I am not aware of any accusations, except such-["Oh, oh!"] If we are not to discuss this subject, we had better adjourn the debate at once. I say that, so far as I know, I am not aware of any accusations, and the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to produce any, except those of two classes, one class of which the hon. Member for Plymouth has himself confirmed-if you please to call them accusations-I mean he has confirmed all the recitals contained in the question of the hon. Member for Derby. With regard to those of the second class, I say that the hon. Member for Derby has withdrawn all those offensive imputations conveyed in that offensive language. ["No, no!"] Very well, I say he has; and in proof of my conviction that I am not misinterpreting his intentions as well as his words, I feel perfectly at liberty to move a Resolution to this effect That, in the opinion of this House, the imputations conveyed against the character of the hon. Member for Plymouth on a certain occasion have not been in any degree substantiated before this House." I think it would be very wrong of the right hon. Gentleman, or of any Member of this House to proceed MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is exceeding the bounds of an explanation. He cannot speak a second time upon the Question before the House. MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Although a humble Member of this House, I hope I may be allowed to put in a word of protest against the mistake the Government are about to commit by sanctioning a Committee of Inquiry. I must confess that I have a feeling of sympathy with the hon. Member for Plymouth, and I feel that if the hon. Member demands this Committee he is. almost entitled to it; but I think that if Her Majesty's Government and Members of this House go into a judicial investigation of this sort without any idea of the data before them, or any knowledge of what they are doing, they will not only find themselves in a great difficulty, but they will be embarking on an inquiry which would last six months. What did the hon. Member for Derby, in his intemperate attack, say? He said six ships were lost, and that they belonged to Mr. Bates, and then he proceeded to use violent language, which I will not repeat. He is called upon to apologize. He does so in this way-"I withdraw everything I said which could be offensive, except the facts." Now, what were the facts? The only residuum of facts are the facts that Mr. Bates, a Member of this House, owned six ships that went to the bottom. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for Plymouth has acknowledged that to be the fact, and has given us a satisfactory explanation of what the cause has been. What could this Committee do, unless it is to pass a MR. SPEAKER: The House must first of all dispose of one Amendment. After that the words can be added. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no stain rests upon the character of the honourable Member for Plymouth in consequence of the statements made in this House by the honourable Member for Derby on the 22nd of this instant July,”— (Mr. E. J. Reed,) Vote of Censure on the hon. Member | ing words:" or on that of any other for Derby? and I suppose, from the Member of this House. feeling displayed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), that that is what is meant. Are you to have an inquiry like a Board of Trade inquiry, with nautical assessors, into the case of every one of these six ships to find out the cause of its loss? Let any hon. Gentleman look at the difficulties-the technical difficulties-in the way-the gathering of evidence scattered all over the world, which would require to be brought together. Do you think that such a Committee could possibly report before we meet again next February? If this is a Committee to pass a Vote of Censure on the hon. Member for Derby for his want of taste in not coming forward and saying "I retract," although there is nothing to inquire into; if it is nothing but that, you will get into a most horrible difficulty, and you will find us at the end of a week not knowing what to say, or what to do. SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Of course I only proposed my Amendment to get at the opinion of the House on this Committee. It is far from my wish to set my opinion against that of the House, although I still maintain my own opinion that a Committee will be an unsatisfactory affair. Seeing what is the general opinion of the House, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Some one said it would be wrong to leave the charges hanging over the head of the hon. Member for Plymouth. I put the words "at present" into my Amendment in order that it might be open to move for a Committee if the charges were renewed. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. E. J. REED: After what has passed, I hope the House will support this Motion as an Amendment which I now move "That, in the opinion of this House, no stain rests upon the character of the hon. Member for Plymouth in consequence of the statements made in this House by the hon. Member for Derby." MR. HUNT: Will you add the date? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Thursday, the 22nd of July. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will move an Amendment to that. I move to amend the Amendment, by inserting, after the word "Plymouth," the follow Mr. Evelyn Ashley instead thereof. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot tell how my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth may look upon this proposal, and we ought to very much consider the mode in which it has struck him; but, for my own part, taking it at very short notice, and connecting what has been moved with the unanimous expression of opinion elicited from all parts of the House, I think my hon. Friend would not be doing any wrong to his own honour in accepting it. At the same time, I think this is one of those matters in which, as has been well said, every man must be the guardian of his own honour; and if my hon. Friend is of opinion that he still desires a more formal inquiry, or that he desires time for the consideration of the proposal, I should certainly desire to consult and meet his wishes. But I again repeat that, looking at the course of the discussion, at the unanimous expressions of feeling which have been elicited, and at the fact that no kind of excuse has been offered for the language of the hon. Member for Derby, except that very peculiar excuse of the state of his health and the excitement under which he was labouring, which makes it more difficult to deal with this charge than if it had been brought forward under other circumstances, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth will not be doing himself any wrong, and that there can be no misconception as to his motives, if he were to accept the proposal which is now made. If he does accept it, it must not be understood that my hon. Friend, in so acting, shrinks, in the slightest degree, from that which he himself would preferthe most searching and full inquiry into the whole of these transactions. That |