§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to draw attention to a Motion which had stood on the Paper in his name for a month in regard to the suspension of his hon. Friend the junior Member for the county of Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). It was to the effect—
That it is not in accordance with the orders and precedents of this House that a Member of this House should be suspended from its service for describing as lying and calumnious statements reflecting on the honour of the same Member.It was not desirable that a Motion of that kind, which might seem to bear on the action of the highest authority in the House, and to dispute the ruling of the highest authority of the House, should remain any longer on the Paper than was absolutely necessary. Therefore, although he could not now take a 863 division or submit his Motion formally, he would, with the permission of the House, bring the matter forward by way of discussion, which would have the effect of finally disposing of it. The circumstances in which the suspension of his hon. Friend took place were of rather a peculiar character. On the 3rd of June last, a Question was asked by the hon. Member for the county of Lei-trim (Mr. Tottenham) with reference to a false report as to firing at a Mr. Daly, near Loughrea, in the county of Galway. The hon. Member for Leitrim, as he was much in the habit of doing, accompanied that Question with reference to the truth of that report, which had turned out to be false, with an innuendo against the organization known as the Irish National Land League, of which several Members of that House were members. The hon. Member asked whether that was not the third murder or attempted murder within the last three weeks in the same locality attributable to the Land League? A point of Order was then raised by the hon. Member for the city of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—namely, "whether a Question mendaciously attributing to the Land League the responsibility—" The hon. Member for the city of Galway was thereupon interrupted by loud cries of "Order! "and by the rising of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to another point of Order. The right hon. Baronet asked whether the word "mendacious" could properly be applied by one Member of the House to another? And the Speaker ruled that if the hon. Member, when he used the word "mendacious," applied it to a Member of the House, he was clearly out of Order, and called upon the hon. Member to withdraw it, and he did withdraw it and substituted the expression "inaccurately." Then the hon. Member for the county of Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), after some further conversation had taken place, rose to another point of Order, and, with a considerable appearance of very natural indignation, asked the Speaker whether it was proper for an hon. Member, in putting Questions in that House, to make, in regard to Gentlemen sitting on those Benches, statements that were "lying and calumnious?" At once there broke forth loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!" The Speaker thereupon said 864 that he was bound to name Mr. O'Kelly, and the Prime Minister made the Motion that Mr. O'Kelly should be suspended from the service of the House during the Sitting, which was carried by a considerable majority. He would presently show that the words used by Mr. O'Kelly had been ruled by two former Speakers—Mr. Denison and Mr. Lefevre—to be not out of Order. The Standing Order under which Mr. O'Kelly was suspended was adopted by the House in pursuance of a recommendation of the Committee on the Business of the House which sat in 1877 to consider the question of Obstruction and the best means of dealing with it. Among the witnesses examined were the then Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) and the Speaker, and their evidence was directed, not to the obstruction of a particular measure by those who were interested in it, but to the question of general obstruction by repeated and long speeches, repetition of arguments, the moving of the adjournment of the House and of Progress, and by other means. It was to meet the case of general obstruction that the Rule was framed; but Mr. O'Kelly had not been guilty of particular or general obstruction of any kind. His hon. Friend was one of the most inoffensive Members of the House, and, so far from obstructing its proceedings, had only addressed the House twice that Session and once only last Session. His suspension did not take place, because he had committed the offence against which clearly the Rule in question was adopted. But even if his hon. Friend had offended against the Rule, he might at least have been warned before the penalty of suspension was inflicted upon him. That, however, was not the case, and he was suspended without having been called to Order or asked to withdraw the expressions he had used, and was so on the ground that the hon. Member for County Galway had used the word" mendacious," and was called to Order for doing so, which fact, it was said, ought to have warned Mr. O'Kelly to be careful of the language he used. He would now come to the precedents to which he had referred. On the 27th of April, 1855, a discussion took place in reference to some charges made by a Member of the House against the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and in the course of the discussion Colonel Knox said that there 865 "was not a word of truth" in the charge made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury against General Cunningham. The word used by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon was "lying," a rougher word, but conveying the same meaning as the words "not a word of truth." The hon. Member, however, using those words was not suspended for doing so. He was asked to withdraw them as un-Parliamentary, and he did so. In the course of the same debate Lord Palmerston said that "every Member who heard the charges made must be convinced that they were false and calumnious." The words "lying and calumnious" were used by his hon. Friend; but here were words used by Lord Palmerston which were the equivalent of those words. On that occasion Mr. Otway drew the attention of the Speaker (Mr. Lefevre) to the words "false and calumnious," and what happened? The Speaker on the occasion ruled that the words were not out of Order. But he (Mr. Parnell) had other precedents and more recent ones in the spirit of his contention. In the debate on the Resolution moved by Mr. Disraeli on the 27th July, 1864, Mr. Gathorne Hardy—now Lord Cranbrook—said an hon. Member had used language which did no credit to himself or the Government which he represented; and he pointed out that the words "false and calumnious" had been used. Mr. Denison, who was then Speaker, said there was nothing in those words calling for his interference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Present Prime Minister—intervened in the debate, and although he was present when these words were uttered, said he had not heard the disorderly words, and he agreed with the Speaker that the words "false and calumnious statement" were within Parliamentary limits. Yet it was for using these words that the Prime Minister asked a few weeks since that the Member for Roscommon should be suspended. He (Mr. Parnell) had established that these words were within the right of debate; and, consequently, the motive or reason for condemning his hon. Friend because he used those words was not sufficient. His hon. Friend would have withdrawn the words if he had been asked to do so; but he got no opportunity of withdrawing them, having been immediately subjected to the 866 very summary and stringent ruling of the Chair. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to say that a question of this kind, brought forward without Notice, and imputing an offence of a highly criminal and scandalous character to an organization with which Members of that House were connected, was one very likely to excite angry feelings. Although he was willing to admit that the words of his hon. Friend were stronger than should be used, yet he submitted the hon. Member was entitled to be told that his words were un-Parliamentary. When such precedents had been set and deliberate rulings given them before a Member was suspended for using such words he was entitled to receive warning from the Chair. It was because the Irish Members felt the injustice of that ruling that he (Mr. Parnell) had put this Motion on the Paper, and which he was now precluded from moving; but he was satisfied he had said enough to show the injustice done to his hon. Friend by the suspension on the occasion in question.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I am sorry to say that I must impugn the course of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in a wider sense than merely contesting his argument. I do not quite understand the liberty which he assumes to himself, for he seems on one night to appeal to the Rules of the House for protection, and on another to ruthlessly trample those very same Rules under foot. He knows very well to what I refer, because the facts are recent.
§ MR. PARNELLI submit that the Prime Minister is out of Order in referring to a past matter which has been definitely decided by the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERI cannot see that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are irrelevant.
MR. GLADSTONEWhy, during the whole of the discussion the hon. Member has himself been referring to a past matter which has been definitely decided by the House. But in applying to the Chair he was perfectly consistent, for, as I said before, he appeals to the rules of the House one night, and on another night he not only tramples the Rules under foot, but insults the authorities I object to the proceeding of the hon. Gentleman in this House also. I admit fully that every Member of the House is en- 867 titled to impugn and pronounce censure upon the conduct of the Speaker on grave and sufficient grounds; but if he does this, I contend that he is bound so to do in a manner of which the House may judge and on which it may pronounce a judgment. This the hon. Member has carefully refrained from doing, and the House can only, if it chooses, bandy words without pronouncing a judgment. I should have thought that it was an elementary principle of common sense that charges should not be lightly made against the Speaker of the House. The Chair of this House is not made to have dirt thrown upon it—it is not made to be the subject of loose and random talk such as that in which the hon. Member indulges. But whether such charges are lightly made or not, it is the prime duty of the hon. Member as a Member of this House, when he makes such charges, to make them in such a manner that the Chair can either be acquitted or condemned. The hon. Member, however, on the contrary, makes these charges against the Chair to-night at a time when he himself tells us the Chair cannot be either acquitted or condemned. The Chair can be made the subject of abuse or of vituperation; but the charges cannot either be met or substantiated. The hon. Member, in the course he has thought fit to pursue, therefore, has entirely mistaken the first elements of his duty as a Member of this House. The hon. Member, who has chosen to give to his censure the character of a lecture to the Chair, seems entirely to forget that the proceeding of the Chair was recognized and adopted by an enormous majority of this House. "Why had not the hon. Gentleman the manliness to say at once that he was impugning the judgment of the House? No doubt, that judgment was founded upon the proceeding of the Chair; but that proceeding was taken up and adopted and made the basis of the judgment of the House. I should have thought it was a well-known principle of our system in this House—and I am astonished that a man with one-tenth part of the discernment of the hon. Member should not have perceived it, and had the hon. Member been guided by a right sense of his duty to the House he would have perceived it—that the judgment of the House stands between himself and the Chair, and protects the Chair from the charges that he 868 has brought against it. Well, Sir, I think I have shown that the proceedings of the hon. Member recoil upon himself, and lead us to pass a sentence of condemnation upon the course he has thought fit to adopt on this occasion. I now turn to a little matter—a very little matter—the argument of the hon. Member. It may, perhaps, be said that I have dealt warmly with this matter; but I feel warmly with regard to it, and it will be a bad day for England, and a bad day for us all, when we cease to feel warmly upon such a subject, which involves the existence of the essential Rules of debate. The hon. Member has put forward two contentions—the first being that the Rule under which the Speaker acted was not intended to apply to the purpose to which you, Sir, applied it, but only to meet a case of persistent Obstruction. With all submission to the hon. Member, I am prepared to maintain that your application of that Rule was strictly justified. The Rule adopted by the House was intended, not only to meet the case of persistent Obstruction, but to insure the decency, the propriety, and the order of the proceedings of this House. The hon. Member says that you, Sir, are armed with a power of noticing, and, in certain cases, of punishing persons whom you may think require such notice or such punishment; but that you are not justified in using that power when it is merely a question of maintaining the decency and propriety of the language used. But what proof, Sir, does the hon. Member give in support of that assertion? That the power with which you are armed sprang out of a certain set of circumstances connected with a system of persistent Obstruction I fully admit—a system which came into existence contemporaneously with the entrance of the hon. Member into this House. The hon. Member quoted the evidence of yourself, Sir, and Mr. Cecil Raikes in support of his proposition. But although that might have been part of the argument used at the time, it did not limit the terms of the measure that was adopted. What are those terms? "Disregarding the authority of the Chair." [Mr. PARNELL: Wilfully disregarding.] Although that may be so, what I contend is, that the limitation applied by the hon. Gentleman is a limitation imported by his private judgment into 869 the Order of the House. I took it on the credit of the hon. Gentleman; but the Standing Order has just been supplied to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair). It is dated the 25th February, 1880, and runs thus—
Whenever any hon. Member shall have been named by the Speaker or by the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House as disregarding the authority of the Chair.Therefore, I say the hon. Gentleman should not supply interpolations of that kind without verifying his ground in the first instance. The meaning of those words is much wider than that which the hon. Member placed upon them—namely, that the Standing Order only referred to cases of persistent Obstruction. But the hon. Member comes finally to this—that the words which were used by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) were covered by the previous ruling of the Chair. I will consider specifically the two words "lying" and "calumnious." I remember a portion of the circumstances cited by the hon. Member—indeed, I took the opportunity of referring to them on a former occasion, and they are now fresh in my mind. I feel, Sir, a debt of gratitude to Mr. Speaker Denison as a very able and excellent Speaker of this House, and who possessed an acuteness of mind and a capacity to deal with difficult questions which I think was not exceeded by any of his Predecessors. On the occasion referred to, Mr. Speaker Denison, on the appeal first of Lord Palmerston and then of myself, declined to exclude the word '' calumnious'' as un-Parliamentary. But, looking at the matter historically, I am not bound to assume that Mr. Speaker Denison was infallible in the matter.
MR. GLADSTONESir, the hon. Member is so carried away by his own feelings in this matter that he is totally unable to comprehend my meaning. I am dealing with an historical review. It is one thing to be compelled to submit to the authority of the Speaker at the moment, and it is another to look back to the annals of history. Though you may be bound to accept the ruling at the moment, there is nothing to prevent you impeaching that ruling at a future time. If I am cast by what I 870 deem to be an unjust verdict, I must submit to it for the time, though afterwards I may condemn it. I do not hesitate, therefore, to say that with regard to the use of the word "calumnious "I should have felt under a great obligation to you, Sir, if you had re versed the decision of Mr. Speaker Denison, because it appears to me that the word. "calumnious" inevitably and essentially involves the imputation of motive. I hope the one result of the present discussion will be to enable us to put an end to the Parliamentary use of that word. I come now to the most vital part of the argument of the hon. Member, in which it appears to me that his reasoning entirely breaks down. The hon. Member argues that the word "lying" is also covered by the previous ruling of the Chair. The speech, however, to which the hon. Member refers in support of his contention does not contain the word "lying," but merely asserts that the statement in question had not a word of truth in it. Such an expression as the latter may be discourteous; but it does not necessarily imply that the Member who makes it is uttering an untruth to his knowledge; but the use of the word "lying" imputes that the Member knows that he is telling and intends to tell a lie. One word upon the case itself. The word '' mendacious'' had been used by another Member, and there had been an appeal to the Chair, and immediately after the word "mendacious" had been used, censured, and withdrawn, another Member described the statement to which the word "mendacious" had been applied as "lying and calumnious." I say, in the first place, that the expression "lying and calumnious "was not merely a repetition, but it was a heavy aggravation of that which had been just before declared to be offensive, and acknowledged as offensive and withdrawn. And this is what the hon. Member for the City of Cork rises to cover and defend to the extent of saying that it ought to have been treated tenderly. He has instructed us as to what the Speaker ought to do, and says hon. Members should be guided by him in the course which they should adopt. You, Sir, have very frequently given warnings to Members as to the evil way in which they were walking before resorting to an exercise of your authority. You have done this 871 with a patience that is astonishing—with a patience, let me tell you, that sometimes make Members impatient—and then I am to be told that because of this patience, by which you are even spoiling Members of this House—if I may make such a charge—when a great outrage is committed, when most violent language is used, and used by a person who must have known it was a very great aggravation, the matter should be taken up by an hon. Gentleman who occupied about an hour of the time of this House in contending that you came down too rapidly upon an innocent and valuable Member. [" Oh! "] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member. Let him listen to his own Leader. The hon. Member for the City of Cork urged the special claims of the hon. Member for Roscommon because he was innocent and valuable. I deny that because he is innocent and valuable he is to be allowed to violate the Rules of this House, the rules of common courtesy, and the rules which I do not hesitate to say ought to influence gentlemen in private life. I hold that the arguments of the hon. Member have not been maintained, that the discussion is ill-timed and ill-chosen, and that by this manner of impugning the Chair by a censure directed against a tribunal of the highest authority, a tribunal untainted with the least suspicion of partiality, when he knows that no issue can be taken, and no verdict of conviction or acquittal pronounced, the hon. Member does no credit to himself or to those with whom he acts.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the charge against members of the Land League on the occasion in question was that they were participes crimines in a murder committed in a particular district. Members of the Land League had a right to repel that charge with indignation. The Prime Minister, with an animation of manner which he had so much at his command when Party purposes demanded his warmth, had justified the conduct of the Speaker; but that was not the course he took yesterday when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster supported a Re-solution which virtually condemned the conduct of the Speaker. On the contrary, the Prime Minister sat in complacent silence. The style of reply which had now become stereotyped in the case of Questions put by Irish Members to Members of the Government 872 ought to be given up. There were precedents for the use of the word "mendacious" in that House. One of the Predecessors of the Speaker had decided that it was not un-Parliamentary for one Member to say of another Member that he had made a mendacious statement. The word "calumnious" was an epithet, as the Prime Minister justly observed, which imputed motives; yet that epithet was actually allowed to pass by two Predecessors of the present Speaker, and its use was not discouraged on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Nothing could be more dangerous than that the Irish Members should have any just reason to suspect that they were treated with a severity which was not extended to other Members of the House. [" Oh! "] He was not asserting that that was now the case. The rights of majorities were always safe; and he thought it was the duty of the Chair to be the guardian and protector of any Party in the House, however small it might be numerically, which was likely to be unfairly dealt with in the chances and struggles of political warfare.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYadmitted that the words "calumnious and lying" were somewhat too strong for fair Parliamentary discussion; and he confessed that he did not particularly admire even that sort of invective which an eminent authority had pronounced to be "an ornament of debate." He thought that on the 3rd of June both the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) and the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had offended against the unwritten law of Parliament. But the latter Gentleman, it should be remembered, was a prominent member of the Executive of the Land League, a body which the hon. Member for Leitrim had charged with inciting to murder. In the heat, naturally excited by disgust at so odious and calumnious a charge, it was not surprising that any hon. Member should have lost his temper, although it was also perfectly fair that the Chair should have interfered to prevent the use of such strong epithets as "lying and calumnious." With every respect, however, for the Speaker, he thought the Chair might well have interposed to prevent the application of such an abominable charge as that brought by the hon. Member for Leitrim against the 873 Executive of the Land League. He could not refrain from protesting against the theory, which had. lately been encouraged by Her Majesty's Ministers, that the Members of the House were the bondsmen of the Chair—that the Speaker was the master, the dictator, and the law-giver of the House, and that in questioning anything which he said or did they were offending against the law and order of Parliament. Such a notion was, to quote the language of the Prime Minister, a gigantic innovation in the history of this, country.
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTsaid, reference had been made to something which took place in the House yesterday; and it had been sought to make it appear that he especially, and some others, had called in question the action of the Speaker yesterday, and had, in fact, given some support to a Motion which was intended to censure the Speaker. Both of those things were entirely inaccurate. In the observations which he made yesterday he said distinctly that the Speaker had no option; that he was only carrying out the instruction of the House, given in a certain Resolution passed some months ago. It was a Resolution which he had voted against, and which he was going to say was one of the most foolish Resolutions, but that that term would not be respectful to the House. It was, however, he thought, one of the most unhappy Resolutions which had been come to in his time. The Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton yesterday had not the intention of censuring the Speaker. That hon. Member, and the seven or eight other Gentlemen who had voted with him, voted in condemnation of the general proceedings of the House on the question in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. No Member of the House had the slightest intention of censuring the Speaker. What had been done was most unhappy; but it was not to be attributed to the Chair, but to the course which the House itself had taken, and many of the Irish Members sitting opposite had supported the policy which had led to the unfortunate transaction of yesterday. It seemed to him that the whole discussion was beside the question, because it was not a question of precedent at all. What had happened was this. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) put a Question which was not a very friendly one to the Irish 874 Members who sat opposite. The Speaker himself said that had he previously seen the words of the Question he should have objected to them. However, the Question was put, and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) characterized it as "mendacious." The Speaker called the hon. Member to Order, and the word was withdrawn. Almost immediately afterwards the hon. Member for Roscommon rose in his place, and there was this excuse for him, that he seemed to labour under the influence of passion that was not simulated. [" Hear, hear!"] Well, he had seen a great deal of passion lately which was simulated. The hon. Member, with feeling which was not simulated, said that a certain statement was calumnious and lying. The Speaker thereupon called him to Order. [Mr. HEALY: No, no!] What, then, was the state of the case? The hon. Member for Galway had withdrawn words he had used as un-Parliamentary, and almost immediately afterwards another Member, sitting behind him, got up and uttered words in a fierce manner, even far more un-Parliamentary than the words which had been withdrawn. The Speaker immediately rose, and, in accordance with the Standing Order, declared that the hon. Member for Roscommon was disregarding the authority of the Chair, because he had risen and spoken words far more blameable than those the Speaker had just been condemning. It was not, then, a case of precedent. It was a case of violent disregard of the authority of the Chair; and, therefore, the Speaker was not only within his right, but within his duty—he was sorry to say—when he found it necessary to take the step he did. He must say that he thought at the time the language of the hon. Member for Roscommon was a passionate expression, which possibly, in a quieter mood, he would not have made, and he was sorry the hon. Member did not rise immediately and withdraw it. [Mr. HEALY: He had no opportunity.] It was clear that the authority of the Chair had been disregarded; and the Speaker was not only within his right, but within his duty, in taking the steps he had adopted. If the hon. Member had withdrawn the words, the necessity for the Speaker taking those steps might have been avoided; but as to the propriety, legality, 875 and consistency of those steps, he thought there could be no doubt whatever. He thought that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, notwithstanding some rough experience which he had had in that House, would admit to his own conscience that the Speaker had been entirely free from blame, and that he could not hope for either that Assembly, or the visionary Assembly to which he was looking forward, to be presided over by a Speaker that was more distinguished for impartiality and a wish to do justice to every side than was the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he desired to state the reason which had actuated him in putting the Question, to which reference had been made, upon the Paper. There had been three or four murders committed within a very few weeks in districts governed by the Land League, and the perpetration of one of those murders was known at the time it took place, or within an hour afterwards, at a village five miles from the place where it occurred. The prisoners who were arrested on a charge of having committed some of those murders were furnished with counsel and food by the Council of the Land League. It was, therefore, a justifiable conclusion to arrive at that the Land League were at the bottom of those occurrences. His conviction was as strong now as it was then that the Land League were directly responsible for those murders, and for the outrages which had disgraced Ireland for the last 12 months.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that the hon. Member for Leitrim might as well say that the Government of Ireland were responsible for those murders, as to say that the Land League were responsible for them. With respect to the question under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken admitted the whole case when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had not had an opportunity of withdrawing the words he had used. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: What I said was that I regretted he had not withdrawn them.] His hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common (Mr. O'Kelly) had not an opportunity of doing so; and he was not, in fact, asked to withdraw them. In his (Mr. Healy's) opinion, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman strengthened the 876 position of the Irish Members; for it appeared to him to be an admission that the hon. Member had been suspended without being afforded an opportunity of withdrawing his statement. Having referred to former debates, it appeared that because one hon. Member used an expression not so strong as others that had already been allowed, therefore he was to be suspended. This was on the principle that, because Solomon was a wise man, because someone else was a strong man, therefore someone else played the harp. It was astonishing to him to notice the way in which Irish affairs were treated by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. A charge of murder being made against Members sitting near him was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as being not particularly friendly; but the same right hon. Gentleman used the most delicate and silken words when referring to anything that might be alleged against Members sitting on his own side of the House. As far as he and those who sat near him were personally concerned, they had become so inured to this sort of thing that they took no notice of anything that proceeded from the Treasury Bench, and were simply amused at the means by which they were tried to be enmeshed. When the Prime Minister got up that evening, there were few Members in the House; but the Liberal Whip soon procured an audience to witness the mechanical passion of the right hon. Gentleman, and to hear him work himself up to that pitch of wrath with which the House was so familiar. It would have been more in consonance with the view of the Irish Members if they could have taken a vote of the House upon this matter; but, that being impossible, they had been compelled to content themselves with calling attention to the matter.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Leitrim had declared that the Land League was a "murderous organization," which the hon. Member for Galway had declared to be a "mendacious" statement. The Speaker having ruled that "mendacious" was an un-Parliamentary expression, the hon. Member for Galway withdrew it, whereupon the hon. Member for Roscommon asked whether there was to be no protection against "lying and calumnious" state- 877 ments. The use of those words by no means imputed to the hon. Member for Leitrim that he was knowingly stating that which was false. Speaking as a journalist, and as one accustomed to write the English language, he maintained that there was no journalist who did not know the vast difference between saying that a statement was a lying and calumnious statement, and saying that a statement had been made mendaciously by any man. In the one case you said a man was a liar, in the other that he had made a lying statement, and you threw on him the onus of showing how that statement got into his paper.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.