MR. NORTHCOTEI am sorry, Sir, to interpose between the House and the further consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee; but I hope the House will allow me to say a word on a matter personal to myself. I am 858 never disposed to attach too much importance to words which fall from an hon. Member in the heat of debate; but I find yesterday, in my absence, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), as reported in The Standard, said that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) was the representative of a Company connected with Minnesota, and, therefore, represented a number of swindlers. [Mr. BIGGAR: I never said that.] If the hon. Member disclaims the use of the words, I have nothing more to say; but, according to the report in The Standard, it would appear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member was entitled to say that any Member of the House was the representative of swindlers? The Chairman replied that he had not heard those words; but that, if they were employed, they were certainly out of Order; and the hon. Member for Cavan thereupon withdrew the charge to a certain extent as regards myself, saying that I was an unsuspecting Gentleman, who would not wilfully do an unworthy thing; but that anyone knew that a scheme which came from the United States would not be perfectly sound. I do not know why the hon. Member should manifest such a feeling against schemes coming from the United States, unless, possibly, the subscriptions to the Land League may have recently decreased. If the hon. Member had simply confined himself to calling me a swindler, knowing the hon. Gentleman's predilection for strong language, I should have then left the matter entirely unnoticed. But, Sir, I feel with respect to the gentlemen with whom I am connected in this matter that their character deserves some defence at my hands, because they are gentlemen as honourable and honest as the hon. Member for Cavan himself. The hon. Member would not have ventured to say what he has said if he were not protected by his Parliamentary privilege. I will merely mention the names of one or two of the gentlemen of whom the hon. Member has said that they were dishonest ex necessitate. One of them is the son of a gentleman well known to many hon. Members of this House, Sir John Rose, ex-Finance Minister of Canada, a gentleman of high honour and integrity. Another is Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, who is a personal con- 859 nection of a member of the firm of Glyn, Mills, Currie, and Co.—a tolerably well-known house, and who has long been the head of a large and important house in the City. The President of the Company has been for many years President of the Bank of Montreal, and is a near connection of mine by marriage, and a gentleman of the highest and most stainless honour. Of the other Members of the Company I will merely say that they are gentlemen against whose character not one word was breathed in the Dominion when the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was under discussion. I am, therefore, entitled to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw or to substantiate the charges which he has made. I should like to say one single word as to why I have alluded to my personal connection with the Company. As a young Member of the House, and as the Representative of an English constituency, I would otherwise not have intruded on the discussion of the Irish Land Bill; and I think it only respectful to the Committee to state why, having some knowledge of the country the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had referred to, I ventured to address it. I do not wish to say anything personally offensive to the hon. Member for Cavan, or to do anything more than clear the character of my associates. I venture, with some confidence, to leave my own character in the hands of the House.
§ MR. BIGGARI really, Mr. Speaker, do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do. If I have said anything un-Parliamentary with respect to him, I shall be very glad to apologize; but, so far from making any personal attack, I distinctly said I did not mean to do so. The report of my remarks which has been referred to as appearing in The Standard was only a summary of what I really did say, or was supposed to say. It certainly did not convey a correct idea of what I intended to say, or of what I believe I did say. I was careful in my opening remarks to say, with regard to these American Companies, that the fact that the hon. Gentleman had acknowledged in his speech that he was personally interested in them proved his thorough honesty and guilelessness, and that he did not, intend to mislead the Committee. I was particularly careful not to make any charge against the hon. Gentleman. I neither did so, nor 860 did I intend to do so. But the hon. Gentleman now asks me to do a thing of an entirely different nature, and to disavow an expression of opinion which I have used with regard to parties whom the hon. Gentleman knows, and of whom I confess I know nothing. I think, Mr. Speaker, I was justified in saying what I did. It is notorious that the great bulk of the promoters of public Companies in this City are simply adventurers. ["Oh, oh!"] That is my opinion, and I think I was thoroughly justified in saying that the fact that a Company was promoted in London for the purpose of land-jobbing in Canada proved that its original promoters, whoever they were—and I have not yet been told who they were—were persons of a dishonest character. I simply intended to convey the idea, and I think I was justified in doing so, that the hon. Member for Exeter is the dupe of designing persons, who used his name and high character for the purpose of promoting their dishonest ends.
§ Afterwards—
MR. GLADSTONEI cannot help referring, Sir, to that which occurred a moment ago, and I think I may be justified in saying a word or two in regard to the explanation, if it is to be so termed, of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I own I was for a moment perplexed by it, and said to myself, What does this mean? What is it intended to imply? What is the idea of the hon. Member of the privileges of Parliament? And does the hon. Member, who offers an explanation of that kind, think that it can either give any satisfaction to those who are the subjects of it, or that it can by any possibility be regarded as anything but a serious aggravation of the original offence? As I understand the hon. Member, he placed before us prominently two propositions or points. One is that, in his opinion, the promoters of public Companies in this City are generally dishonest. That is a proposition with regard to which I need not say that it may be reasonable or unreasonable, it may be charitable or uncharitable, but from its great breadth and scope, it is hardly capable of being understood as offensive to any particular individual personally. Sweeping charges are sometimes made 861 against this House; but if they are made against the entire House, we do not feel warranted in treating them as personal imputations on ourselves individually. But, unfortunately, if I understood the matter rightly, the hon. Member did not stop at that point. He went further, and said of one of the Companies—that with which the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote) is connected—that of itself it nearly amounted to a demonstration that those who promoted it were dishonest persons, and it appears that in a former discussion he had applied to them an epithet stronger still. Undoubtedly, that declaration of the hon. Member for Cavan, in my judgment—and I wish to look at it dispassionately—does fix upon the character of the hon. Member for Exeter and of those honourable gentlemen a stigma of the most serious kind. What are the facts as they appear upon the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan himself? The principal fact is that the hon. Member has stated that about those gentlemen he knows nothing. Now, Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I ask is it for the honour of the House—and as a matter deeply concerning the honour of the House, I do not ask it to arrive at a precipitate decision, but I wish to make some impression on the mind of the hon. Member for Cavan himself—I say, is it for the character or honour of the House that it should be permitted to an hon. Member within its walls to stigmatize as dishonest persons gentlemen outside these walls of whom the person so stigmatizing them is obliged at the same time to confess that personally he has no knowledge whatever of them? My opinion, which I think must be that of a majority of those who hear me, is that an Assembly which allows such things to be deliberately stated and persistently adhered to is not sufficiently careful of its own character and reputation, and exposes itself to the possible reproach that it allows its privileges—privileges granted to it and possessed by it solely for purposes of public utility—to be made the vehicles of gross injustice, which might, perhaps, be deserving a much more severe name, as far as the character of the House is concerned.
MR. NORTHCOTEAfter the generous language of the Prime Minister, I feel that my object is entirely achieved. I simply brought the matter forward in 862 the interest of my friends, and I am completely satisfied with their vindication. I hope the matter will not proceed further.