§ MR. JOHN O'CONNELLbegged leave to call the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges, which had been committed by a newspaper, in which he, as a Member of that House, had been accused of having given notice of a Motion in the House, of which he was afterwards so ashamed as to have felt himself compelled to withdraw it. Now, he denied that assertion totally. He trusted he had never done anything either in or out of the House, and he certainly trusted he had never said or done anything in the House, of which he had cause to be ashamed. He had not withdrawn the notice of Motion which he had given under any such feeling. The matter had arisen out of the case of Bryan Seery. He had ascertained that a deputation had waited on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the purpose of praying that that unfortunate man should be put to death. He had then given notice of his intention to move for the names of the persons who had formed that deputation. In giving that notice, he had used very strong expressions, but not stronger than, in his opinion, the case deserved. The Speaker had privately called his attention to the fact, and in a friendly manner had informed him that in such a case the expressions would be not merely his (Mr. J. O'Connell's own); but by allowing them to remain on the Votes, the effect would be, that of pledging the House to the use of those very strong terms. He at once yielded; and, in order not to commit any irregularity, he had altered the words of his Motion. But he did not think the case had been met by the right hon. Baronet opposite, in the explanation he had given the other day. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that the case of Seery had been mentioned only incidentally by the deputation that had waited on the Lord Lieutenant. That was no answer to the 225 charge. ["Order."] He should submit; and as he had given the explanation he desired, he would not found any Motion on the subject.
§ SIR R. H. INGLIScould not understand why the hon. Gentleman should have made the statement, without making also a Motion founded upon it, unless he had reckoned upon a great extension of the indulgence of the Speaker and the indulgence of the House towards him. If the hon. Gentleman had indeed stated his regret at having used the expressions which had been withdrawn, he should have been one of the last to comment upon the matter; but the hon. Gentleman had limited his expression of regret to the fact, that the term "bloodhound deputation" was not in accordance with the usages of the House. If the hon. Gentleman would only say that he regretted having used the expression at all, he would be satisfied; but he had seen the expression "bloodhound deputation," to his great surprise, printed in the Votes, and he found that it had subsequently been expunged, and the notice cancelled. He trusted that for the sake of society, at least, the hon. Gentleman would express his regret for having used such language as frankly as he had expressed his regret for having used it so far as regarded the House itself. Unless the hon. Member did so, he should not be satisfied.
§ MR. J. O'CONNELLhad already expressed his regret for having used the expression. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the duty which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) owed to society; but it was in the discharge of that very duty which he owed society that he had originally used those strong expressions.
§ Subject at an end.