New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-14
PRESS AND PARLIAMENT.
.ruE DAILY CHRONICLE AND MIR. T. w
RUSSELL, NJ +.
London. March, 81.

,o Press. II did nevertheless emerge without
d;scredit from the dilemma which Mr. l. w. Russell
.,o...ntcd to il ON Wednesday. Tnc credit, such
.s II was. came from declining the contest The
n,,lv Chronicle" had called Mr. Russell mcr
"m.,v II is the same word for the use Of which,
18th reference TO the Irish Nationalist members,
.,s House voted that The Times" hal been
cnilty of gross and scandalous breach of privi-
loco The Irish Nationalist. 20 whom the word
uas accurately applied, pressed the charge of
rrr,ch of privilege home. Mr. Russell. who is in
M sense u mcrccrary, lett the matter in the hands
Of MFR. Gladstone. his political opponent. / think
Mr. Gladstone took proper view OF the relations
between the Press and the House when he adj
vsed Mr. Russell and the House TO let the acc1-
cation drop, though admittedly untrue and ad-
n,i,tedy offensive.
Nothing can surpass the adroitness Of Mr..
Gladstonc's method in dealing with the case.
II. had TO be just to an opponent, and he was
freely and fully accepting, as the House freely
and fully accepted Mr.. Russes frank denial
He had 10 screen supporter, and that also he
eontrvcd TO do without giving Mr.. Russell much
cause for complaint. He did not think the word
mercenary absolutely and Indcr all circumstances
a word of vituperaton. He thought the Use of it
had been due to a temporary inadvcrtcnce, yet
regretted and condemned it, lie felt sure that
the writer of the article would regret the error
and offence into which he had been betrayed And
so, for the moment, the incident ended
The sequel is the most extraordinary part of the
business. In the first place, the writer of the
article expressed no regret. He contcnted himself
with saying that he did not mean TO convey the
idea that Mr.. Russell received payment for his
work in the cause of Unonism. lie meant
guerilla or franc-tireur. He might just as well
have called Mr. Russell thief, and then, when
challenged, explained that he meant that lie broke
the Seventh Commandment. If the word mcrce-
nary does not imply the idea of hire and wages,
il has no meaning. In the second place. Tile
Chronicle" defends itself by alleging that Mr..
Russell had called the Irish Nationalist mcrce-
naries. There is a difference which may seem
important TO this journal, but will not to others.
II is. as / said above. true of the Irish Nation
alists. and untrue of Mr.. Russell Since the
scrmmage in the House about Lord Wolmer and
"The Times" the true cause of the Natonalists'
wrath has been made clear. They did not object
to the statement that they bad been paid. they
objected to the statement that they had been
paid by the Gladstonan party. They saw no harm
in receiving wages from the Clan-naGacl at
time when the Oan-na-Gael was actively engaged
in outragcs. This is no coniectural statement. 1t
is judicial finding. Lord Hammer and his col
leagues on the Special Commission put upon
record the fact that moro than 100000 has
been paid to the Irish Parliamentary Fund. either
by the Clan-na-Ciacl or by the organizations which
it controlled. They further found and judicially
declared that the Clan-na-Gacl was "a body
lively engaged in promoting the use OF dynamite
for the destruction OF life and property in En-
gland" 50 that the dellcaCy of these gentle
men with reference TO the charge of being mer-
cenaries-or what Mr.. Chant t-lain called kept
a little highstrung
In tie tbird place The Chronicle" adopts
and repeats tho assurance Of its Parliamentary
writer that he meant TO convey no slight on Mr..
Russell when he called him the tirclcss mercenary
of Uniorism. Then. with that air OF virtue
which an offender sometimes thinks it we'll TO
assume this journal remarks that Mr.. Russells
life is spent in the giving Of hard knocks, and
they hardly expected 10 find him oversensitivc
to an occasional blow in return. Mr.. Gladstones
condemnation is ignored, and Mr.. GladstOnes
suggestion that regret should be expressed is put
aside
All this is. I think, discrcditablc 70 "Thc Chron-
icle," but there was, il no excuse, at least some
provocation for its failure 10 offer the apology
which. in this country is expected from everybody
who makes an unjust and offensive accusation.
II is ordained By fate that on such occasions as
these the whole business shall become a Comedy
of Errors The Serreant-at-Arms of the House
saw fit TO write to the editor letter of expostu-
lation upon the conduct of his representative The
letter is as follows:
To the Editor Of THE Daily Chronicle"
Dear Sir As Mr. W. Russell stated In the house this
f;rning that the expression OF which complained
written by member OF YOUR stall having % the
Commons. ft is duty TO ask you II That IS
case the person concerned that his conduct
OF the privilege which has been granted
him. and that serious notice must be taken Of II
II ANYTHING OF the Kind again. remain yours
faithfully HID. ERSKINE. SergeantatArIns
House Of Commons March 80
The Chronicle" retorts with some force that
as the House has not censured either tue paper
or the author of the libel, they fail to discern
the reason for Mr. Erskines communications
There is a reason for 1t which l VIII state pres
entity but it is to be sad III the hrst place. that
the letter has the sanction of the. Speaker
ouestion was asked about it in the House. The
ouestioner was Mr.. Sexton, spokesman for thai
group of strict sticklcrs for propriety, the Irish
Nationalists Tho Speaker made answer that
though he did not take the Initiative in the
matter. the letter was shown TO him by the SER
geant-at:arms. and that he entirely approved OF
it, That covers the technical point There can
be no doubt that the Speaker is technically right
There exists, and perhaps must exist soinc Juris
diction over members Of the Press who arc ad-
mtted to the gallery of the House OF commons
The House, like the French charcoaiman Is mas
ter under its own roof. 1t may admit or cN-
cludc whom it pleasee, and 1t Is extremely
Jealous of its rights and Of its jurisdiction MS
a whole. If it may exclude, it may also admit
under conditions and it is, in one sense, the sole
Judge of what those conditions shall be- VIII
put an extreme case as illustration. Let us
suppose that The Times " writer habitually re-
fered 70 Mr.. Gladstone as that old scoundrei'
or The Daily News writer 10 Mr.. Baliour as an
assassin. Would the most jealous champion OF
the Press maintain that either should be tolerated
But an extreme case is seldom a good lIlustra-
ton. and there is a broader ground Oh which Tue
Speakers view may perhaps be challenged. HE
claim is in effect TO exercise a censorship over
the Press The days are past when any effective
censOrshin eycent that of public opinion ana OF