§ MR. DILLONSir, I am reluctantly compelled to ask the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes for a personal explanation. I wish to read a letter from Mr. Patrick Egan, of Paris, in reference to a charge of an atrocious character which has been made against him publicly in this House by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and I hope the House will not refuse me the opportunity. The letter is addressed to me, and is as follows:—
The ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech on the Arrears of Kent Bill, is reported to have spoken of Mr. Sheridan as a 'released suspect against whom we have for some time had a fresh warrant, and who, under disguises, has hitherto led operations in the promotion of outrages, going backwards and forwards between Mr. Egan in Paris and the outrage-mongers in the West.' I deny in the strongest and most emphatic manner that there is a shadow of foundation for the atrocious accusation conveyed against me in these words. I challenge Mr. Forster, if he has a particle of proof in sustainment of it, beyond the words of professional suspectors, to produce it. If he cannot do so I call upon him to withdraw the accusation. As regards Mr. Sheridan, he has visited Ireland just once since the League was proclaimed last October, and the object of his visit was shortly this. The funds of the League"——
MR. MACARTNEYMr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Member is entitled to make a personal explanation on behalf of a gentleman who is not a Member of this House?
§ MR. SPEAKERI consider that the observations of the hon. Member are irregular, having regard to the manner in which he proposes to bring the matter before the House. If in the debate on the Bill he should think it propor to cite a letter of that kind the hon. Member would not be out of Order. To interrupt the ordinary Business of the House in this manner is out of Order.
§ MR. DILLONMr. Speaker, I only desire to say that I have already spoken in the debate, and I shall have no further opportunity of taking the course you have suggested. One would have thought that this matter came under the usual courtesy extended to Members in cases requiring personal explanation.
§ MR. SPEAKERI wish to point out that it is not a question of courtesy. It is an irregular proceeding, and if irregular proceedings of this kind were constantly allowed the Business of the House would very much suffer.