ORDER—THE HON. MEMBER FOR NEW ROSS. (Hansard, 6 May 1853)

§ MR. SPEAKER
Is the hon. Member for New Ross in his place?

§ Mr. DUFFY
rose and bowed.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have to remind the hon. Member of the proceedings which took place last night. The House was informed by the Chairman of Ways and Means that exception had been taken to certain words spoken by the hon. Member. These words were as follows—"The grossest corruption ever practised in the days of Walpole and the Pelhams has been practised under my own eyes upon Irish Members in this House." I have now to state to the hon. Member that if he has any explanation to make, this is the time to offer it. It is scarcely necessary for me to inform the hon. Member, that this House is always willing to extend a large share of its indulgence to any hon. Member, who, in the heat of debate, has allowed expressions to escape him which are calculated to offend either individual Members of the House, or the House at large. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will now be prepared to offer such an explanation or apology to the House as the House will be satisfied with.

§ MR. DUFFY
I thank you, Sir. I wish in the first instance to set myself right with 1235 the House, and then to give such explanation as I am prepared to offer. In the first place, I desire to recall to the recollection of the House exactly what happened. When I was interrupted in my speech last night, it was not by any call to order, but by a challenge to prove what I stated. If I had been called to order, and the Chairman of the Committee had pronounced me out of order, I should have felt bound at once to set myself right with the Committee, in whatever manner the Committee might have considered sufficient for that purpose. But in answer to a challenge to prove my words, I felt then, and I feel now, it was not reconcilable to my sense of conscience and honour simply to withdraw words the truth of which was questioned. After some debate in which several hon. Members took part, Mr. Bouverie was appealed to, and declared that I was out of order. I was then about to rise immediately to take the course which seemed to me to be necessary under the circumstances—to say, in fact, that I was aware that the rules of debate in this assembly, or any other assembly, must not be violated, and if I had violated them I was sorry for having unconsciously fallen into such a lapse—I was about to take that course, when the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) interposed, and stated that to charge a Minister or a Government with corrupt practices was not a breach of order, but on the contrary, a privilege, and even a duty of a Member of this House. Under these circumstances, I did not feel that I was bound at once, without waiting for some further debate, to take the course I had previously meditated. Afterwards, the possibility of withdrawing the words, was, as it seemed to me, taken away completely by the conduct which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London thought proper to pursue. The noble Lord stated that I had endeavoured, after making the charge, the truth of which was questioned, to hurry away from the subject, and avoid naming the parties. Now, the very reverse was the fact. I appeal with confidence to both sides of the House. I waited several minutes—a very long time under such circumstances—to ascertain the pleasure of the House. I sat down twice and got up again, and I over and over again said, that if the Chairman, speaking for the Committee, and as the only authority I could recognise, wished me to name, I would name. Neither then, or since, or now, or in any manner, have I avoided the responsibility of proving the 1236 allegation which I made. The noble Lord went on to say I could not prove a syllable which I had uttered. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen if, after such a statement, I could withdraw my words, and leave the matter in that position. Would any hon. Member, after it had been stated by a Minister of the Crown that he had made allegations not one word of which he could prove—would any honourable man consent to terminate the dispute by withdrawing the words against which such an imputation had been made? It did not seem to me possible to take that course. After I withdrew, by order of the Chairman, I am informed by some of my hon. Friends, a circumstance occurred on which I wish to offer some explanation. I am told it was imputed to me in the debate which ensued, that I had conveyed, and intended to convey, that money was given to secure the votes of certain of the Irish Members. Now I wish to state that I did not mean to convey that. What I did mean to convey, I will state presently, and very distinctly—but this was not the allegation which I made. What I did mean was this, Sir. I meant that the political profligacy which prevailed in the time of Sir Robert Walpole, and under the Administration of the Duke of Newcastle, when men were induced to abandon the most solemn and circumstantial pledges, and leave behind their reputation and political character for the purpose of attaining place—that profligacy seemed to me to be exceeded by circumstances which had fallen under my own notice since I had been a Member of this House. I meant to charge, Sir, that certain Irish Members had, in point of fact, outrun anything I had ever heard or read of in the discreditable abandonment of notorious and rooted principles, for the purpose—for such is the only way in which I can interpret it, and I think it is the only interpretation it is capable of bearing—for the purpose of their own personal advantage and advancement. If I know what political corruption means, this is political corruption; and, Sir, I repeat now what I have said over and over again in this debate, if it is the wish of the House, I am ready to proceed to specify the individuals whom I mean, and to state what appear to me most cogent facts in sustainment of this allegation. These being my opinions, of course it is quite impossible I can retreat from them. But I wish the House to understand fully this: that if in stating them here—and I have often stated them else- 1237 where, it is no novelty that I am parading for the first time-if, in stating them here, I have violated any rule of the House, it was beside my intention to do so. I had no wish to offend against the rules for the proper management of business here; and it appears on the authority of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, an experienced Member, very doubtful if I have so offended. But if I have, I of course regret it.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
After the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that I interrupted him in such a manner as to prevent his offering the explanations he is now ready to offer—

§ MR. DUFFY
I must he pardoned while I state that I certainly did not say the noble Lord interrupted me. What I did say, was, that after his statement that there was not a word of my observations which could be proved—after an imputation of that kind from a Minister of the Crown, it would not have been becoming in me, as a man of honour, to withdraw the language against which the noble Lord had thrown out such an imputation.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
The hon. Member having alleged that corruption had been practised upon Irish Members of this House by the Government, in a manner that exceeded the corruptions of the time of Walpole and Pelham; and the debate upon that subject having gone on for some time, as to the character of the words used, I was about to state that if I took any part in that debate, I could not do otherwise, believing there was no truth in these imputations, than deny, on the part of the Government, that there was any truth in them, or any foundation for his assertions. Had I not taken that course, it would have been taken -as an admission of their truth. The accusation, or rather the imputation, came, it must be remembered, not from Members of the Government, but from the hon. Member for New Ross; he having made a general statement, I made a general denial. I think I could hardly have done otherwise, without confessing that there was some foundation for his charges. I certainly understood the charges the hon. Member made yesterday evening in a very different manner from what he explains their intended meaning to have been. Now, to prevent any misunderstanding, I wish to be understood that I do not at all mean to imply that the hon. Member did not himself mean yesterday exactly what he has to-day explained 1238 to have been his meaning. All I say is, that what was conveyed to my mind then was, that the corruption he spoke of was the corruption which was practised in the time of Walpole, which everybody who has read history knows to have been corruption of this kind-—that when the Government was likely to be closely pressed in this House on any question, either by gifts of office or by gifts of money, the majority was decided in favour of the Government proposition. It now appears that the charge of the hon. Gentleman is a charge of a very different description. ["No, no!"] Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that money has been given? Then the case is of a different description from those of the days of Walpole. What I understand the hon. Gentleman now to say is, that there have been Members of this House who, having given certain pledges, and having expressed certain opinions in Ireland before the body of the people of Ireland, have accepted office from the Government, and have forfeited their pledges, and have gone counter to their former opinions. I do not think I misrepresent the hon. Gentleman when I say that that is his present statement. Now I do not think there is any case in the time of Walpole that at all answers to that description, because there were not at that time questions in discussion in which declarations were made of a similar nature to what are made in the present day. What the hon. Gentleman now states is, that hon. Members, falling from their pledges, and not acting in accordance with the opinions which they had declared, have either accepted office or ranged themselves on the side of the Government; and that their corruption in doing so is equal to, if not greater than, that witnessed in the time of Walpole. I own it does not appear to me that this imputation is at all of the same character as that which I understood to have been intended last evening. I doubt very much whether it is an imputation which can be called disorderly. It appears to me that this is rather a matter of argument for the House; and that they who either have accepted office, or have supported the present Government without accepting office, will have ample opportunities of defending themselves. My belief is that, instead of having acted from any corrupt motive, they have acted in a way that is highly honourable to them; but that is, I say again, a matter of opinion—a matter for discussion; and I am not the 1239 least afraid, and I do not think they have any reason to be afraid, of any amount or any length of discussion that may take place on the subject. Whatever may have been the statement of the hon. Member himself, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have heard or read that there have been statements made in Ireland, that Members for Ireland have, from corrupt motives, taken up the cause of the Government, have acted with the Government, have voted with the Government, and have even received money for doing so. That gross charge appears now to be abandoned. I think it better always not to carry these proceedings further than necessary, and I see nothing in the statement now made by the hon. Member which ought to induce the House to carry the matter further; and if only those Gentlemen who were offended—justly offended—last night, will meet the matter in this way, I feel quite sure that the House and the country will feel that they are, not only in ability, but in honour and in honesty, equal to any competitor who may present himself.

§ MR. SPEAKER
then put the Question, "That the House do now proceed to the Other Orders of the Day."

§ MR. J. BALL
As I understood the expressions of the hon. Member for New Ross, they were especially directed to the division of Friday last, and I understood him to state that it had been influenced by gross corruption. He now states that those expressions were directed exclusively to transactions which took place four months ago.

§ MR. DUFFY
I beg pardon. I did not mean to connect last night my statement with the division of Friday.

§ MR. J. BALL
I should be the last person to press anything disagreeable. As regards any personal feeling, I can assure him that I entertain not one particle of hostility. In another place, and in another capacity, however, he has made statements of a peculiar description. Still, if what he said last night had no reference to what occurred upon Friday night, I do not feel called upon, either on my own behalf or on that of hon. Members behind me, to continue this discussion.