§ MR. LONGsaid, he had to ask the indulgence of the House while he made a personal explanation. He very much regretted, especially after the interruption they had already had to the Land Bill that day, to interpose between that Bill and the House. But he should not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and he was quite sure the House would extend to him the kind indulgence which it always did extend 531 to Members who desired to make explanations about anything said in a previous debate. Perhaps he might remind the House that on the 16th of June, in the course of Committee on the Irish Land Bill, he made a statement with regard to the management of his estates by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). In taking this somewhat unusual course, he had been animated by the feeling that it was right first of all to vindicate himself in the eyes of the House for the statement which he had made; and, secondly, he desired particularly that the House should thoroughly understand the information upon which he made those statements. In that statement which he made to the House there were two errors. One of them was an error which he committed at the time from accident, and it was an error of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork took full advantage. When he (Mr. Long) told the House that he quoted the county in which the property was as Wicklow, instead of Carlow, he thought the House would agree that the mistake was not of great importance, seeing that the two counties were only divided by a small river, and that the property and residence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the property and residence of his (Mr. Long's) own relations—the two people concerned in the question—were in Wicklow and Carlow both. He stated also that the rents on this estate had been raised to an average of 70 per cent over Griffith's valuation. That he had not an opportunity of proving at the moment; but he now held in his hand a copy of the Landed Estates Court rental, and a full copy of the rents showing that previous to the sale in 1873 the rents were fixed at 75 per cent above the Government valuation, and also showing that the average he quoted was the correct one. He next came to the more important error which was made in the statement which he had the honour to make to the House, and that was not an error made through any fault of his own; but was contained in other information which was given to him of a very accurate nature. He said that his property was solely the property of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork met that statement with a deliberate denial, and he confessed that that denial 532 startled him considerably. After investigating the matter, though he thought he did investigate it before, but after going again fully into it, he found that the property in question belonged to the younger brother of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The facts were very brief—
§ MR. PARNELLsaid he rose to Order. The hon. Member commenced by saying he was going to make a personal explanation, and ho now announced that he had discovered that the property in question belonged to his (Mr. Parnell's) younger brother. He submitted that if the hon. Member had any accusation to make against his (Mr. Parnell's) younger brother with regard to the management of his property, the hon. Member was not entitled to do so under cover of a personal explanation. The proper course, he submitted, for the hon. Member to take in such circumstances—his brother not being absent from, but not even a Member of, that House—would be to give Notice of his intention in order that the person accused might, if he so desired, put his version of the case before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for the City of Cork seems to have assumed that the hon. Member who is in possession of the House is about to make some attack on his younger brother. I have no reason to suppose that that is so; and, at all events, until such attack is made, it will not be for me to interfere.
§ MR. FINIGANrose, amid loud cries of "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member for Ennis rises to Order, the House no doubt will hear him; but he is not entitled to interrupt the hon. Member who is in possession of the House.
§ MR. LONG, resuming, said, he would set at rest the suspicions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He had no intention of calling in question the manner in which the younger brother of the hon. Member managed his property, and had only alluded to him in order to express, in as strong terms as possible, the regret he felt that the information furnished to him should have induced him to say anything which was not absolutely correct, or to have mentioned the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when he ought to have mentioned that of his brother. The mis- 533 take of his (Mr. Long's) informant had arisen from the fact that when the property was revalued the elder accompanied the younger brother in his visit to the tenants when the increased rent was demanded, and the neighbours not unnaturally concluded that the elder brother was the owner of the estate. In reference to the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he had never sold any landed property in the counties of Wicklow or Carlow, he would venture to read to the House the following letter, a copy of which had been supplied to him:—
§ "Avondale, Rathdrum, September 16, 1874.
§ "Dear Sir,—If Mr. Dick is desirous of purchasing lots 29 and 30 (Ballinagilty and Blindennis) of my brother's estate in Carlow, of which I have been declared the purchaser, I should be glad to learn what price he is prepared to give for these lots before I conclude negotiations for the sale of them to another party.
§ "I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
§ "CHARLES S. PARNELL."
§ His (Mr. Long's) relative declined to buy these two lots, which, as he understood, were now the property of Major Newton; and probably the hon. Member for the City of Cork would like to say whether that gentleman bought the property or had it presented to him. He apologized to the House and to the hon. Member for having been led into any error, however slight, and he was willing to submit the information upon which he had furnished his statement to any Member of the House who might desire to see it.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member had attempted to make an attack upon his younger brother with reference to the management of his property. It was no part of his business to defend his brother's management of his property. If the hon. Member repeated the charge, and vouched again for its correctness, that the rents of the property belonging to his younger brother were raised 70 per cent, he submitted it was, so far as it went, an attack upon his younger brother. Let him explain to the House that the two lots of land referred to in the letter read by the hon. Member belonged to himself, so nominally that he had forgotten about the circumstances, for they only nominally belonged to him for a few weeks. At the sale in 1878, the solicitor acting 534 for his brother asked him to bid for the two lots. He did bid for the two lots, and they were knocked down to him. His brother asked him to write the letter referred to and to transfer the property to this gentleman, who, he believed, subsequently became owner. His (Mr. Parnell's) ownership was entirely nominal, and only lasted a few weeks. He had no concern whatever with the management, and he thought the hon. Member might have mentioned that the lots in question were not connected with any charge of rent raising. He repeated what he said before, that he never sold any property in Wicklow with the exception of these two lots of which he became nominal owner under the circumstances he had stated. He did not wish to put himself forward as a good landlord, for poor Irish landlords were not usually the best landlords, and he did not happen to be a rich man; but he had never raised the rent of a tenant 70 or any other per cent.