§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House, that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed advances to the distressed Irish unions, he (Mr. Bright) had made some statements with regard to the difficulty of collecting poor-rates, in the west of Ireland, from persons moving in the upper ranks of society. Among these statements was this one—that he learned, while in the west of Ireland, that an hon. Member of that House, the representative for an Irish county, had made over to a near relative certain goods and chattels, the furniture of a house—that was what he meant—for the purpose of saving them from the seizure of the parties authorised to collect the poor-rates. The authorities on which he made this statement were, he had every reason to believe, competent and well qualified to give correct information. He had not had an opportunity since to communicate with them as he should, of course, hereafter do. But he had had a communication with the hon. Member to whom he had referred, who had laid before him facts, and allowed him to see documents, from which he was bound to believe that that part of the statement which referred to the transfer of any portion of this property to his relative at all, or for any such purpose, was not founded on fact—that, therefore, his informants were either ignorant, or they had misapprehended the facts. He came forward, therefore, without communicating with the gentleman from whom he received the information, relying on the statement of the hon. Member, and anxious, the first moment it lay in his power, to retract that which would detract from any gentleman's character, to make this public statement. The last thing he desired to do was to say anything unnecessarily to offend; and on the occasion in question he had studiously avoided names, and simply brought what 17 he conceived to be a public grievance before the notice of the noble Lord. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this retraction of the statement.
§ MR. H. HERBERTsaid, the hon. Member for Manchester had certainly come forward in a very candid manner to explain that portion of his statement which had reference to an hon. Member of that House. He (Mr. Herbert) was not aware that the hon. Member was about to make the explanation, otherwise he would have read a letter from a gentleman of large property in the district of Ireland alluded to, controverting other portions of the hon. Member's statement. But, at the proper time, when the Bill was again under discussion, he would controvert that statement.