§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYI regret to have to call the attention of the House to a Breach of Privilege of so serious a character that it is impossible not to take notice of it. I refer to a letter which has been published in a newspaper by Mr. Patrick Egan, treasurer of the Land League, reflecting in very gross and vulgar terms on the conduct and motives of hon. Members of this House as regards the votes they have given on a measure now under discussion. The writer of this letter, who, from his own account, appears to have had a good deal to do with the election of Members of Parliament who were returned to support the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Land League, seems to be of opinion that the time has come that was prophesied by Grattan at the time of the Union, when the Irish people would return to this House, in revenge, some of the greatest scoundrels that ever disgraced a Legislative Assembly.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANI rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Member rise to Order?
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANYes. I wish to ask whether these words should not be taken down? I understood the hon. Member to say that, in his opinion—["No, no!"]—If I am wrong I will be very glad to withdraw; but I understood him to say that, in his opinion, the time alluded to by Mr. Grattan had come, and I wish to know if he meant those words to apply in any sense to hon. Members on this side of the House?
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYIf the hon. and learned Gentleman was a little more attentive to what was being said, and not so anxious to distinguish himself by rising to points of Order so frequently, probably he would conduce 1668 more than he now does to the order of our proceedings. I said it was the writer of the letter who seemed to be of that opinion; and I was going on to say, when I was interrupted, that I did not think, whatever the opinion of that official person of the League may be, the House of Commons would permit anyone to make such reflections upon the conduct of hon. Members in this House as are made in this letter without taking notice of it. The letter is dated from the Hotel Brighton, Paris, 22nd May, and the writer is in the habit of coming into the Lobby of this House, because it appears from an answer to his letter which has been made by an hon. Member that he actually shook his fist in the face of the hon. Gentleman, and threatened him for the action he had taken in this House. I therefore trust that some steps will be taken to protect Members from any possible assault of this kind in future. The letter is to Thomas Brennan, esquire, Dublin.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI rise to Order. I would like to have your ruling, Sir, whether a Question of Privilege can possibly arise on an act committed in a foreign country?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand the hon. Member to be reading, or to be about to read, from a newspaper published in this country.
§ MR. HEALYI rise to Order, Sir. I understand that a matter of Privilege is one which must be brought at once under the cognizance of this House. I understand this letter was published last Wednesday; and I wish to ask whether, several days having intervened between the publication of the letter and the calling attention to Privilege, it is now in Order to raise the question?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, I see no ground at present for intervening between the hon. Member for Galway and the House.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYThis letter was published in The Freeman's Journal on Thursday; it did not reach this House until Friday; and I do not see, therefore, how earlier attention could have been called to it. The letter is as follows:—
§ "Hotel Brighton, 218 Rue do Rivoli,
§ Paris, 22nd May, 1881.
§ "MY DEAR MR. BRENNAN,—Since last advice I have received from our friends of the 'Irish 1669 World,' New York, per cable, the sum of 3,500 francs; from the St. John's Branch Ladies' Irish National Land League, San Francisco—Mrs. J. Grogan, president; Mrs. P. J. Corbett, treasurer—507 50–100 francs, and from Branch No. 8, Parnell Land League, Moutelair, New Jersey—Mr. Hugh Galligher, treasurer—778 10–100 francs. I will advise by wire any further remittances that arrive up to Tuesday. I perceive that on the division on the Land Bill certain Irish Members supposed to belong to the active Party went over to the Government, and prominently amongst them I notice Mr. O'Connor Power and The O'Donoghue. Both of these Gentlemen were Members of the active Party. They attended the meeting at which the policy of the Party was considered, and they voted on the resolution binding the Party to abstain from voting. This being so, they were clearly and unmistakably bound by the resolution passed at the meeting; and I consider that they, and the others who acted in like manner, stand exactly in the position of a blackleg on a racecourse, who, if he wins, will pocket your money, but if he loses will refuse to pay. I consider I am bound to call particular attention to a carpet-bagger, who, after a hard-fought battle by the gallant men of Wicklow, was returned for that county by a majority of seven votes—Mr. M'Coan. This person, who is utterly unknown to the people of Wicklow, had the audacity to say to me a few days ago in the Rouse of Commons that he defied the Land League, and that he could go back to Wicklow and be re-elected in despite of all the influence of the League. I wonder much what honest James Grehan and our other friends in Wicklow will say to this? Of course, Mr. O'Connor Power, The O'Donoghue, Mr. M'Coan, and the rest of the trimmers, will plead their deep regard for the interests of the tenant farmers; but I think the country will plainly see that their motive was a desire to help the present cowardly, hypocritical, priest-hunting, buckshot-distributing Whig Government, now, as ever, base, bloody, and brutal.—Yours sincerely,
§ "PATRICK EGAN.
§ "Thomas Brennan, Esq., I. N. L. League, Dublin."
§ I apprehend that there never was a letter of a more atrocious character reflecting upon the conduct of hon. Members. It is not for me to defend any of these hon. Gentlemen; but I will take leave to say of one of them, with whom I have had the pleasure of sitting for a good many years in this House—I mean the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power)—that whilst he is a Gentleman very advanced in his opinions, he is also known as one who has the courage of his opinions. He is one who has shrunk from the cowardly course of hiding himself in London and pretending to be in Paris, or taking any other course by which he would stimulate poor men to risk their lives and fortunes in a vain struggle with the Executive Government. 1670 I do not wish to make a martyr of this person by bringing him to the Bar of the House; but I trust that you, Sir, will be pleased in your discretion to order that he shall no longer be admitted within the precincts of the House. I will move that this letter be read by the Clerk at the Table, and that it is a gross breach of t e Privileges of this House.
§ MR. PARNELLMay I ask—["Order, order.!"]—whether—["Chair!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThis is the ordinary course. The first step to be taken is that the statement complained of should be read by the Clerk of the House.
§ The Clerk of the House then read the statement referred to.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYThen, Sir, I beg now to move—
That the Letter published in the 'Freeman's Journal' of the 26th May, signed Patrick Egan, is a breach of the Privileges of this House.
§ MR. M'COANIt is with some reluctance that I rise to second the Motion that has just been made—a reluctance arising, in the first place, from my own opinion of the insignificance of the incident embodied in the letter; and, secondly, because I have given myself the personal satisfaction of replying in The Freeman's Journal. So far as Mr. Egan is concerned, I do not think he is much in my debt; but inasmuch as the letter of which complaint has now been made to the House is not an attack simply upon my personal position or character, but reflects upon the character, and is an insult to other Members of this House, I do not think I do more than discharge my duty in formally seconding the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Letter published in the 'Freeman's Journal' of the 26th May, signed Patrick Egan, is a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
§ MR. PARNELLI think the hon. Member who has brought forward this question has not exactly foreseen the consequences of the adoption of the Motion brought before the House. It appears to me that if the House adopts the Motion it would be tantamount to a declaration that the editor and persons connected with The Freeman's Journal have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege by the publication of the letter referred to as being signed by "Patrick 1671 Egan." I am speaking now without any communication with Mr. Egan, and entirely without an authority from him; but, of course, the House has no evidence before it—["Oh!"]—it has no legal evidence as to who the letter was written by; the only evidence in the possession of the House is that The Freeman's Journal of the date named contained such a letter. Of course, if the House considers it desirable to treat the publication of such a letter as a Breach of Privilege I shall not object for my own part; but I will only say that upon other occasions when Irish Members have brought forward much more libellous matter published by English newspapers against Irish Members the House has always refused to treat it as a Breach of Privilege, and has either passed on to the Order of Business or set the question aside in some indirect fashion. But, of course, if the hon. Member wishes to bring the editor of The Freeman to the Bar for publishing the letter, I am sure he will not evade the responsibility involved in such publication; and when my friend Mr. Egan is attacked by a direct Motion I am quite sure that he also will duly meet his responsibilities.
§ MR. CALLANI am sorry the hon. Member for Galway has brought this matter forward, instead of giving private Notice to Irish Members. I may say that I am certainly most impartial upon this matter. I have no sympathy with either party. If the hon. Member for Galway had consulted with his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, he would have been asked not to bring this matter forward, for the hon. Member for Mayo, I am sure, would not object to the use of what might be harsh language; but I remember in this House, not more than two years ago, when we assembled for a great national purpose—to vote Supplies for the Afghan War—the Leader of the Party to which I then belonged—yes, a Member respected by every part of this House, Mr. Isaac Butt—was termed "a traitor," because he would not—he could not—obstruct the Imperial Business. The hon. Member who so charged him was the hon. Member for Mayo, who should not have been a party to the bringing forward this matter by the hon. Member for Galway. As to the letter which has been read, it was an illustration of the saying that when friends fall out they 1672 become the bitterest enemies. I remember when Mr. Patrick Egan and the hon. Member for Mayo were fraternal brothers, and I must say they were Arcades ambo.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERWhile I sincerely offer my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, who has drawn the attention of the House to this subject, I sufficiently sympathize with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to enable me to say that I do not require any Resolution of this House in vindication either of my public or personal character. I regret as much as anyone that it should be necessary to call the attention of the House to a question of this kind; and I should be very reluctant to fetter, in the slightest degree, legitimate public criticism. If the letter of Mr. Patrick Egan were not an official document, stamped with the official sanction of an organization which is presided over by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and of which many of my hon. Colleagues who are now sitting close to me are members of the Executive Body, I, too, should have considered that the reply which I have had an opportunity of sending to the denunciation of Mr. Egan would have been the most fitting answer that document should call for. But it is clear to everybody that a letter of that character could not have found its way into the office of The Freeman's Journal without some help from the Executive of the Land League; and I must express my disappointment that since the hon. Member for the City of Cork thought proper to interfere in this debate, he did not think proper to so far sympathize with the position of a Member of his own political Party in this House, and a Colleague of many years, to either reprobate, or, at least, disavow the sentiments contained in that letter of his official colleague. I have already shown, Sir, by my action with reference to the measure of Land Reform introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and to which this letter refers, that I am not to be terrified by the resolutions of the Land League. It was, therefore, quite unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member for Galway to make this Motion for my protection; but I am perfectly sure it was imperatively necessary that he should make it for the protection of some of my Colleagues. This is only a small part of 1673 the terrorism which has been practised, and which, as far as I can gather from the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, it is intended shall be continued, towards Gentlemen who dare to differ from the decrees of the Irish National Land League. The word has gone round, Sir, from persons high in authority in that organization, that every man who dares to support any measure introduced by the Government shall be branded as a "place hunter;" and when anyone reflects upon the painful character of the relations which have subsisted for a long time between the English Government and the Irish nation—between the Irish nation and this House—I am sure he will readily recognize how artful and how dangerous an accusation of that sort is. I have been for a longer period a Member of this House than the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or many of his Colleagues who are members of the Executive of the Land League. I am speaking in the presence of Ministers of the Crown and of ex-Ministers of the Crown; I am speaking in the presence of a crowded House; and I say I challenge any Member of this Assembly to dare to assert that my vote or action has ever been compromised by mercenary considerations. Nay, more, I regret to be obliged to add that gentlemen who are engaged in bringing these accusations against their countrymen are themselves gentlemen who have within less than 12 months repeatedly applied to me to use my influence to obtain for them situations under Her jesty's Government. ["Name, name!"] The hon. Member for the City of Cork asks for name. I shall give it him. I shall give the name of a paid official of the Land League, who sends this telegram from the executive offices of the League in Dublin—
T. P. Quinn, Land League Offices, Dublin, to John O'Connor Power, M.P., January 20. Mr. Monaghan"—who is, by the way, a Very prominent member of the Land League in Ballinrobe, County Mayo—"telegraphs you requesting influence on behalf of Mr. Daly"—Mr. P. J. B. Daly is a well-known solicitor in Mayo, who has been recently employed in defending the oppressed tenant farmers, and hired for that purpose by the Land League—"solicitor, Ballinrobe, who seeks Crown Prosecutorship for Mayo. Comply with Monaghan's request, by me reasked, and both shall remember, and doubtless one day will repay you. I will write you to-night.Here are gentlemen, members of an 1674 organization—one of them at present a paid secretary in the office of the Land League in Dublin—who try to induce me to do what I have never done in reference to Government patronage in my constituency or anywhere else in Ireland—who endeavour to seduce me from my invariable rule not to interfere in Government patronage by the promise of political support on some future day. I have felt it necessary that I should, in a manner in which the whole country should be a witness of my acts, repudiate the insinuation that has been levelled against me. I do not appeal merely to the English Members of this House, but I appeal to the most intimate friends and associates of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when I say to-day that they know very well I am not capable of being influenced by such considerations as the treasurer of the Land League has thought proper to attribute to me. Unfortunately, Irish politics are in this position—that it requires greater courage to support a Government when they are right than to oppose them when they are wrong. I have supported them by voting in favour of the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, because I believed I was right, and because I had a mandate from my constituency, legally and legitimately conveyed to me at a public meeting in the country. I am very much embarrassed at being under the necessity of making this statement to the House; but when not only the courtesies of Party warfare, but the obligations of political comradeship—aye, and truth itself—have been sacrificed to gratify an insane ambition, I humbly think that the hour has come for a man who can be neither bribed nor terrified to record his protest in the light of day.
THE O'DONOGHUEI am also one of the Members alluded to in the letter which has been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway. Perhaps I may likewise be allowed to say a few words. I was sorry when I heard such a letter had been written, and I was sorry when I read it, because I saw it must lead to dissension, and that it would impose upon me the necessity of protesting against the imputations cast upon me by that letter. From the moment I heard the speech of the Prime Minister I felt there was little doubt that I would support the second reading of the Land 1675 Law (Ireland) Bill. I read it many times over in conjunction with a gentleman of the highest ability, character, and patriotism, and I came to the conclusion that I was bound by every consideration of duty to support that measure. Sir, I believe that a more thorough measure was never introduced into Parliament. ["Question!"] Sir, it is the Question. I believe that a more thorough measure was never introduced into Parliament; and I have no doubt it will be carried through by the Government and the Liberal Party unflinchingly, and without allowing its main provisions to be impaired. Whatever differences I may have with the Government on matters of general Irish policy, I am resolved to co-operate with them loyally to carry this measure, as if those differences did not exist, or had never existed. I cannot claim to be more docile or tractable than other Members; but I believe that I am as willing to hear what has to be said on the other side of the question as any other Gentleman, and to yield when I find reason against me. Long as I have been in the House I have never allowed—and I never intend to allow—myself to be carried on one side whilst my convictions are on the other.
MR. GLADSTONESir, it appears to me that there are two matters which have come into our view on the present occasion. One is the Motion made by my hon. Friend, with respect to which, considering it nakedly in its terms, I apprehend there can be no doubt it is a proposition which must be affirmed—that is to say, that the letter which has been read is a breach of the Privileges of this House. I am not speaking now of the authorship of that letter; but the matter of the letter attaches to it that character. At the same time, I greatly doubt whether we ought not to endeavour to persuade my hon. Friend not to persist in the Motion that he has made. And for this reason. He himself has said that he thinks there is no advantage in enabling a person to aspire to the character of a martyr by calling him to the Bar of the House; and he suggests in lieu of that that you, Sir, in your official capacity, should order that this gentleman be debarred from entering the precincts of the House. I quite concur with my hon. Friend in thinking that we should not do well to 1676 invest this gentleman, whoever he may be, with any sort of glory by bringing him to the Bar; but, on the other hand, I think that to put in motion the machinery of this House, and the authority and dignity of the Chair, for the purpose of debarring from entering the precincts of the House a gentleman who has no title to be there—except such as is possessed by every one of the 4,000,000 people of this Metropolis and by the 34,000,000 people of this Realm—would be an operation too great, too serious, for the end at which it aims; and, consequently, I should hope that my hon. Friend will not put in movement such machinery for a purpose apparently so trivial. But, besides the Motion before us, there is the discussion which has arisen upon it, and to that I confess I attach no inconsiderable significance. In the first place, in the position I have the honour to hold in this House, I think it is only fair that I should render my testimony as to the Gentlemen whose characters have been impugned. One of them has sat here for a very short time; the others have sat here for a considerable time. One of them has, I think, sat here for a very considerable time; and I know of no title that any man possesses to say one word reflecting on the Parliamentary character or conduct of any of the three. I am quite sure, with respect especially to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who has been particularly attacked, that it was needless for him to challenge any man to cast imputations upon him, as he did in the strength of conscious innocence; because, so far as I am acquainted with the sentiments of this House—and I think I know the sentiments of a very large, and, perhaps, preponderating number of Members—the very last thing they would think of doing, either at this moment or at previous periods, when the hon. Member may have been taking a political course different from ourselves—that one of them would dream of would be to raise the slightest question as to his motives, or to throw the slightest doubt upon his honour. Another personage has, however, appeared upon the scene—namely, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the case stands thus:—We have before us a letter of the matter of which—whatever its importance may be—of the matter of which I imagine that almost, if not quite, 1677 every man in this House is of opinion that it is in a high degree libellous, scurrilous, and discreditable to the person who wrote it. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member for the City of Cork rises, and he describes the gentleman whose name appears at the close of this letter as his friend. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] What course does he take in respect to the matter of the letter? He does not avow it, and he does not condemn it. But the measure that he takes is a measure to endeavour to throw the House off the scent as to the person who is really in question. "Do not, I entreat you," he says, "bring into accusation the proprietors or the writers of The Freeman's Journal," and he sets them forth as the victims whom the hon. Member for Galway has in view. Now, although I have had no communication with the hon. Member for Galway, I venture to say that these are not the persons he has in view. The summoning of the editor, or proprietor, or printer of The Freeman's Journal to the Bar would, I apprehend, be, if this were a matter which ought properly to be pursued, only a formal step on the road of detection of the real offender, and the real offender in this case is the gentleman whom the hon. Member for Cork has described as his friend and has tried to screen from our view. What I mean is The hon. Member for Cork says that we have no evidence as to the authorship of this letter—no evidence at all. We know that it was published in Dublin on Thursday in last week; we know that Mr. Egan exists; we trust that he is well; we think it probable that he has read this letter as published in The Freeman's Journal. And if Mr. Egan, being in existence, and being in the possession of sound mind, and in possession of his health, and having read that letter, thinks that the appearance of that letter with his name at the foot of it does not call upon him for some disavowal, then, Sir—I am not speaking now of legal evidence, which I do not want, because I do not wish to proceed in the matter. [Mr. PARNELL: Proceed, proceed.] I think we have the strongest moral evidence that the letter was written by Mr. Egan. But Mr. Egan is not to be regarded as an individual, but as a powerful and prominent officer of an organization; and that organization is the organization of 1678 which the hon. Member for the City of Cork is the centre and the soul. And this House has a right to know from the hon. Member for Cork whether he thinks this is the manner in which it becomes him and his agent to describe the Parliamentary proceedings of his Colleagues. I think he will feel the force of this appeal. He will be aware that they, and aware that we, have a right to know whether it is by means like these—by terrorism like this, as it has been justly called—I might, perhaps, say by terrorism of a kind not unlikely in certain circumstances and in certain places to be followed up by other measures—whether it is thus that the hon. Member seeks to establish peace, order, and liberty in Ireland? Sir, the writer of that letter, be he who he may, is a man in whose mouth every profession of a regard for liberty is a mockery and a delusion. And there could be no greater misfortune for Ireland than that the cause of her people should be disgraced by having its support and its propagation confided to such men.
§ MR. HEALY,having referred to the avidity with which denunciations directed against Irish Members were listened to, said, it was exceedingly remarkable that though there was no collusion between the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Mayo, the hon. Member for Mayo should have so conveniently in his pocket the proofs of guilt of certain Members connected with the Land League. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, said, he had got more.] If the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway were carried, and Mr. Egan should be excluded from the precincts of that House, he could only say that Mr. Egan, on the very first opportunity, would be found coming into that House in a representative character; and he, for one, if only to prove how utterly such sentiments as those which had proceeded from the hon. Member for Galway were discredited in Ireland, he, for one, would be willing to give way for him. He felt sure, no matter with what satisfaction such an arrangement might be regarded in that House, that that satisfaction would be nothing to the satisfaction which the constituency which he had the honour to represent would feel in having as a Representative a man so upright, a man who had spent so much of his time and of his money in the cause of Ireland as 1679 Mr. Patrick Egan. He himself might have brought under the Speaker's notice a more gross and calumnious attack made on himself and other Trish Members, not in an Irish but in an English newspaper; but he had refrained from doing so, though he was called an Obstructive, because the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was before the House; and he regretted that the hon. Member for Galway, who professed to be more in favour of that measure, had not taken the same course. He would read to the House four lines from that newspaper.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONasked whether, on a Motion that a certain article in a newspaper was a Breach of Privilege, it was in Order for a Member to rise in his place and read other newspaper articles which he thought were injurious to him, but with respect to which he proposed to make no Motion to the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Wexford had a right to speak on the Question before the House.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONwished to make himself understood before the hon. Member for Wexford proceeded to castigate him. Was the hon. Member in Order in reading an extract that had nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House, and upon which he founded no Motion?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Wexford was about to quote from a newspaper when the hon. Member for Frome interrupted him.
§ MR. HEALY,after the reproof just addressed to the hon. Member for Frome, would let him severely alone. He would now read the extract to which he had alluded from a newspaper which he would not advertise by naming it. That paper said that of course Mr. Healy was put up by Mr. Parnell to oppose the Vote of Thanks to Sir Frederick Roberts and the troops engaged with him in the Afghan War; that if that young man was left to himself he would make a very good Member of Parliament; but, unfortunately, he was not only elected as a follower of Mr. Parnell, but also as an employé of that person, and if he did not obey orders the connection would terminate and the salary would cease. If he had brought that matter before the House he would not have received the sympathetic and cordial cheers which 1680 had been given to the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member below Lint, but he would have been rebuked for wasting the time of the House, and delaying an important measure. The statements made in the paper to which he had just referred were as untrue as many others which appeared in English newspapers about the Irish Members; and he would advise the hon. Member for Galway and those who acted with him to show some of the patience with which the Irish Members on his side bore the attacks directed against them.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYI would ask the permission of the House to withdraw my Motion—["No, no!"]—after the noble vindication of the rights and privileges of Members of this House which that Motion has evoked from the Prime Minister, and which I trust will be a lesson to hon. Members, both as regards their conduct towards their fellow-Members and also as regards those with whom they associate themselves. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
§ MR. A. SULLIVANsaid, he did not intend to interfere in a scene which to him was exceedingly painful, and one which he regretted should at all have occupied the attention of the House; but the Prime Minister alluded just now to the fact that the hon. Member for Cork City claimed Mr. Egan as a personal friend; and he (Mr. Sullivan) confessed at a moment when such obloquy and denunciation were hurled at the head of a gentleman whom he had long called a friend, it would ill become him to refrain from saying that he shared with the hon. Member for Cork the privilege of calling Mr. Patrick Egan his friend. One might honestly differ from a friend, and one's friend might often say and do things which one might regret. He read with sincere sorrow the letter of his friend Mr. Egan, for the sake of one passage contained in it. He had long known his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. O'Connor Power), and nothing within his knowledge or belief would ever induce him to sympathize with a charge reflecting upon his personal honour. He deplored that letter; but he complained of the Motion before the House, which must not be withdrawn. The hon. Member must not be allowed to make an empty parade. He knew that in attacking Mr. Egan amid screams of applause he was attacking Mr. Egan in a 1681 place where he could not be heard. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Egan is well represented in this House.] Besides, Mr. Egan's letter had been replied to in Ireland in language which he could not trust himself to describe in that House. The hon. Member for Galway had raised a scene which he knew well the enemies of Ireland would gloat over, which he know was calculated to hold Ireland up to ridicule, and which he knew every honest Irishman would deplore. Mr. Egan, owing to the infamous system which prevailed in Ireland now, was driven from his home. There was neither justice nor law in Ireland at present, when men were dragged from their beds, and every protection which men should have in a free land was denied. Mr. Egan had a large mercantile business in the City of Dublin, and in that city he had borne for years a spotless reputation as a merchant and a man of business. He seized that opportunity to claim Mr. Egan as his friend, and he should hardly be deterred from that course because the hon. Member for Galway came there in his last Parliament to have it out with the people of Ireland by exhibiting their Representatives engaged in a discreditable quarrel of this kind. The hon. Member for the County of Galway had been no party to these charges whatever. He was in no way touched by the accusation. Let him go through with his discreditable work. Let him not fire his blank cartridge and then run away. Let him bring the publisher and Mr. Egan before the Bar; and the House would find that Mr. Egan was as honourable a man as the Member for Galway ever associated with inside or outside the House.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, it has more than once been my lot to take part in proceedings when letters or articles in the newspapers have been challenged as Breaches of Privilege in this House; and the general inclination of my mind, and my general course, has been to dissuade the House, as far as possible, from taking notice in a serious manner of imputations such as those that are cast upon the House, or its Members, in public newspapers. If this had been an ordinary case of that sort, I should entirely have agreed with those who think that that course should be pursued on the present occasion. But, Sir, I think that it is utterly impossible to 1682 shut our eyes to the fact that this is not an isolated letter which, is written and can be regarded as an isolated transaction. We cannot ignore the fact that the letter must be taken in connection with the proceedings of the body from which it is asserted the letter emanated. It is impossible to close our eyes to the fact that there is a system of terrorism, which is applied in the most unscrupulous manner, and of which this letter may be, and appears to be, an example. And that being the case, I think this House has no option but this—that it is bound to protect, as far as it can, its Members from attacks of the kind which are aimed at hon. Members, and calculated to disparage, if possible, the honesty of their votes and proceedings. The hon. Members who have spoken in this debate may very safely leave their characters in the hands of those who have witnessed their conduct in this House. I can add nothing to what has been said by the Prime Minister on that subject. But I do think it is a case in which, the charge having been made, not by Mr. Egan as an individual, but as the representative—the treasurer—of the Land League, and his action having been taken of and not disavowed in this House, and the challenge, therefore, having been put with all that weight and authority, it seems to me that it is quite impossible for us to do otherwise than give a vote which, undoubtedly, is that which the House will be bound to give if the Motion of the hon. Member is put. I should myself, under other circumstances, have joined in the request to the hon. Member to do that which he says he is willing to do—to withdraw his Motion, and leave the matter upon what has been said; but we are told that that course will not be allowed. We shall be challenged to vote, and I think it would be well for the hon. Member not to attempt to withdraw, but to take a vote on his Motion.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTNo doubt, the declaration made by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan) makes it impossible that the Motion should be withdrawn; and I think, under these circumstances, it will be advantageous that we should see who are the Members of this House who approve of this letter, and who declare it to be not an improper letter, and not a Breach of the Privileges of this House. 1683 Every man who votes against the Motion is a man who approves this letter. ["No!"] The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) shakes his head. Has he dared to say whether he approves this letter or disapproves? He is in a position in which he dare not say one or the other. He will not undertake in this House to say he approves it, and he dare not say out-of-doors that he disapproves it. That is the explanation of the position of the hon. Member for Cork City with reference to this disgraceful, this scandalous, this discreditable this scandalous, this discreditable document. How is this production headed? This letter is headed thus in The Freeman's. Journal—
The following letter from Mr. Patrick Egan, Paris, treasurer of the Irish National Land League, was intended to be read at the meeting, of the Land League yesterday, but it arrived too late.It is an official missive—an address to the Irish Land League. I challenge the hon. Member for Cork City to get up and deny that it was not sent as an official letter from the Irish Land League to The Freeman's Journal. Will he dare get up and justify this letter in the face of the House? If he does not, then I venture to say there is no man in England, Scotland, or Ireland, who will not say that the letter signed "P. Egan," and the spirit and sentiment it expresses, are the sentiments of the hon. Member for Cork City. It is his policy, his spirit, his actions, which are expressed in every line of that letter. The hon. Member for Cork City and those who follow him will vote their approbation of this letter, and they will say that it is not a Breach of the Privileges of this House; but I believe that a great and overwhelming majority of the Representatives of the people of the three countries—the Gentlemen who are Members of the House of Commons—will affirm the Motion which has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, and declare that language of this description is scandalous, and a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwished to point out that the debate was rather drifting away from the Question which was before the House. They were getting into a discussion upon the conduct and character of the hon. Member for Cork, and that was not the Question before them. No one in that House would be suspected of sympa- 1684 thizing with the astonishingly gross language used with regard to this question. He deprecated putting the whole machinery of the House in motion, because if they agreed to the Resolution they would have to take further steps in the matter. He asked the House to remember the conflict which they had last Session.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that he needed not to express his hearty concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend. He thought the best course to pursue was that the Motion should be negatived, and that they should proceed with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. He would point out that if the Motion were carried, it would be absolutely necessary that the publishers and printers of The Freeman should be summoned to the Bar of the House, in order to get at the writer. That would come on after to-morrow or Thursday; then the discussion would follow. But another question might arise, as the letter was written from a foreign country, and hardly came within the jurisdiction of the House. There was no doubt that the hon. Member for Galway would have withdrawn his Motion if it had not been for the speech of the Home Secretary, who always came forward on these occasions as the Bombastes Furioso of debate denouncing everybody right and left. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues would regret that he had ever made that extraordinary speech. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman saw an opportunity of making an attack upon any Member of the House, he could not resist it. If the Land Bill of the Government was obstructed and did not make progress, they would have nobody to blame but themselves and the foolish and stupid advice of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI think, Sir—
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI rise to Order, Sir. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman, having risen to a point of Order, is entitled to be heard.
§ Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTnot rising again,
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he disapproved entirely of the letter of Mr. Egan, and thought it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Mayo and his Friends to ask the House to say 1685 that the allegations contained in the letter complained of were unjustifiable. But they were asking that the House should declare that the letter was a Breach of Privilege. There was no doubt that, technically, the letter was a Breach of the Privileges of the House. But he could not help thinking that the suggestion of the Prime Minister was better than that of the Home Secretary. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, or the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan), would desire to press the matter to a division. There was another reason why he thought that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that was that the hon. Member for Mayo himself had written a reply to Mr. Egan, and the reply was so strong that the hon. Member himself ought to be considered to have debarred himself from asking the House to interfere. He would read part of the letter to the House. The hon. Member said—
In my opinion, the real blackleg is the cad who bolts with the stakes; the real coward is he who keeps out of the fight which he himself has provoked, and who, skulking either in London or in Paris, tries to hide his own poltroonery by impugning the courage of others.He (Mr. Labouchere) was not concerned to defend Mr. Egan, but, unquestionably, those observations meant that Mr. Egan was a thief and a coward; and as the hon. Member for Mayo had answered in such very strong language the accusation which was made against him by Mr. Egan, he thought that the matter should now come to an end.
§ MR. BIGGARmight be allowed to make one or two observations on this occasion, as he was joint treasurer of the Land League with his friend Mr. Egan. He did not say that he approved of what Mr. Egan said in his letter, because he was not present when it was written; but, at the same time, he might say that he thought Members of Parliament would do well not to be so exceedingly sensitive as they were. He had seen many attacks upon Members of Parliament, and he had seen very few Members of Parliament rush into print to defend themselves. He had seen still fewer who came to that House and asked to be protected from charges which were brought against them by writers in newspapers. He would, therefore, be disposed to say that the 1686 Motion was simply a very carefully rehearsed artifice got up between the hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Mayo, to attack in a covert, he would not say underhand way, his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City. That was the real animus which was at the bottom of the simulated innocence of the hon. Member for Mayo. The hon. Member for Mayo insinuated in Isis speech that certain Members of the Irish Party had asked him to use his influence to get situations from the Government; but when called upon for names, he produced a telegram from an obscure paid clerk of the Land League, asking him to use his influence to get a situation for an attorney who was paid to defend a few members of the Land League in a local Court, and who, probably, was himself a member of the Land League, or a subscriber to its principles. The lion. Member for Galway had, in his opinion, made a mistake in defending the conduct of the hon. Member for Mayo, which he did not think was that of a man of high honour.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, before the House proceeded to a division, he wished to ask a question for his own guidance as well as that of the House. He saw in the valuable book upon the practice of this House, by Sir Erskine May, that the Member making the complaint must be prepared to name the printer and publisher of the paper in which the statement appeared. There was no allegation here that either the printer or publisher of The Freeman had any malice in publishing the letter; and in case it was declared a Breach of Privilege of the House—as it undoubtedly was—he wanted to know what was the course of procedure to be adopted? He thought when hon. Members who objected to the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway were made aware that the result of their action would be to cause great inconvenience to the printer and publisher of the paper, who were the innocent parties in the transaction, they would probably allow the Motion to be withdrawn. He, therefore, wished to know what would be the result if the letter was declared a Breach of Privilege?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn the event of the Motion before the House being carried, it would be for the House to say what 1687 steps, if any, should be taken with regard to that Motion. The matter is one entirely for the determination of the House. Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
§ MR. PARNELLNo. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Am I entitled to address you upon this Question, Mr. Speaker?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI wish to ask a question. If this Motion be adopted by the House, will not the House be obliged to take further steps in the matter?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the noble Lord, I have to say that it is a matter entirely for the determination of the House.
§ MR. HEALYThe hon. Member for Cork City has already spoken on the Question of Privilege; but the Question now before the House is that the Motion be withdrawn, and, therefore, I apprehend, he is entitled to speak upon that Question.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Motion before the House is the same, and the hon. Member for Cork City, having spoken once, is not entitled to speak again.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. PARNELLI now wish to ask the hon. Member for Galway County what steps he proposes to take, having brought a Motion before the House declaring that the letter published in The Freeman's Journal of the 26th May is a breach of the Privileges of the House, and the House having adopted that Motion?
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYThis Motion having been carried unanimously by the House, I must take ample time to consider.
§ MR. PARNELLOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to know whether, in the event of the hon. Member not taking advantage of this opportunity to ask the House to take further action in this matter, he will not lose his right to do so at any future, time?
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to know whether an opportunity was not going to be given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork to answer the questions which the Home secretary had called upon him, as a gentleman, to answer?
§ MR. NEWDEGATErose to speak.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the House that there is no Question before the House at present. The hon. Member for the City of Cork asks me whether, in the event of the hon. Member for Galway not taking advantage of this opportunity to ask the House to take further action, he would not lose his right of precedence in the matter? I apprehend that if the matter is postponed now, and no action is taken upon it, he will lose his right to ask the House to do so at any future time.
§ MR. PARNELLI will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, now ask the hon. Member whether he intends to take any further action?
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYdid not reply.
§ MR. PARNELLTo put myself in Order, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with a Motion. Nobody can say that we have desired to hinder or impede the hon. Member for Galway County in bringing this question under the notice of the House, although I regret exceedingly that the hon. Member should have been guilty of an action almost unprecedented in this House, by bringing forward a question which concerns a gentleman outside this House, and which concerns other Gentlemen inside this House, when he knew perfectly well that the gentleman whom he was attacking could not necessarily have appealed in his own defence. But having proceeded so far, it shows the want of bona fides of his whole proceedings when he refuses to ask the House to take the steps which his Motion naturally points to. Now, I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Member to proceed with this matter. If he does not, he will show that this Motion has been brought forward, not for the purpose so much of vindicating the reputation of two or three Members of this House, as for the purpose of attacking an absent individual under circumstances which would prevent that individual from having the right to reply. I think it is almost the first time that a person not a Member of this House has been attacked in the House, and has not been allowed the opportunity of reply, and yet that is precisely what the hon. Member for the County Galway thinks fit to do. It is evident, from the conduct of the Treasury Bench, that the importance they attach to the Motion of the hon. Mem- 1689 ber for Galway was not so much from his assumed desire to vindicate the character of Members of this House, but that they might, by a one-sided blow, attack the Irish Land League. They have shown the importance they attach to the organization and Mr. Egan, its treasurer, by endeavouring to connect his action in writing that letter with the Irish Land League, of which he is the acknowledged treasurer. I will only say for myself that Mr. Egan wrote that letter without any previous consultation with me, and, so far as I know, without any previous consultation with any of the members of the Executive of the Irish Land League. I do not say this in order to admit that the letter was so heinous in its terms, or to judge the letter in any way, but merely as a matter of fact, which I am entitled to state, as the Land League has been assailed, when we are told that this letter, being written by Mr. Egan from Paris, is necessarily the action of the Land League. The first intimation I received of this letter was in seeing it in The Freeman's Journal, and there is not the slightest foundation for connecting this letter with the Irish Land League. I do not propose to criticize the letter, nor express any opinion on it in the slightest degree. I say I may have wished that the letter had not been written, or I may not have wished that it had not been written. But I do not propose here to go into a question which is a question between Irishmen, and not a question between Englishmen. I believe we shall always be able to settle our own disputes amongst ourselves; and I regret to see the hon. Member for Mayo occupying, for the first time in this House, what I conceive to be a humiliating position when he is appealing to the protection of Englishmen against his brother Irishmen. The tone of the speech of the hon. Member delivered on that occasion gave me very great pain, because I cannot help feeling that in the action which he took—
§ MR. SPEAKERI wish to point out to the hon. Member that the question lately debated has been concluded. He has now risen in his place, and said he will conclude with a Motion; but he is not entitled to allude to what has already taken place in the House on a former debate. I must call upon him to refrain from doing so.
§ MR. PARNELLI will not refer to the debate which has just concluded; but I will point out that by the course which the hon. Member for the County of Galway has taken in refusing to proceed with this matter to its legitimate conclusion, we are deprived of the only opportunity that could be afforded us to answer the untruthful and unfounded allegations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. ["Order!"] The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENI rise to make one observation.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member applied the term "untruthful" to any Member of this House, I must call upon him to withdraw it.
§ MR. PARNELLraised his hat.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw, without hesitation, the expression which he has used.
§ MR. PARNELLI took off my hat to signify that I withdrew it.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENI merely, Sir, rose to make one statement. I heard the hon. Member for Mayo during the whole of his long speech, and he did not in any sentence throw himself upon the protection of Englishmen.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for the City of Cork has committed the irregular act of addressing the House without concluding with a Motion. [Mr. PARNELL was understood to intimate that he had moved a Resolution.] I will now call upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had distinctly heard the hon. Member for the City of Cork move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he also distinctly heard the Motion made, and so did hon. Members near who were not of the Irish. Party.
§ MR. HEALYasked Mr. Speaker whether, it having been signified to him that the Motion was made, it should not now be put?
§ MR. SPEAKERI have called upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERwas bound to say, though he had no sympathy with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that he distinctly heard him move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf that be so, with the indulgence of the House, I must recall the instructions I have given to the Clerk, and put the following Question:—"That this House do now adjourn."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was of opinion that the House should look for guidance to its Leaders. The position which the House had taken up was, it seemed to him, a difficult one, for it left the person inculpated by the Motion no opportunity of explaining or vindicating his conduct.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have already stated to the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he was not at liberty to debate a matter which had been already decided by the House, and I must make the same observation to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Irish Members had received some impressions from the debate which would not be lost upon them. They had often, full of a burning sense of the brutal and ruffianly arrests under the Coercion Act, come down to that House determined to have these things debated; but his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had declined to be any party to the proceeding, on the ground that it would obstruct the Business of the Government. But what had they seen that night? When an hon. Member opposite rose to make an attack upon Irish Members, the Prime Minister not only had no word of censure for him, although the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was upon the Paper for discussion, but gave him a patient and sympathetic hearing. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when next the Irish Members had grievances to ventilate, would remember how the Prime Minister countenanced attempts to bring Irish affairs into disrepute, and would avail himself of his right to move the adjournment whenever it suited him.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should support the Motion fur Adjournment, because it seemed to him the House was placed in an unprecedented position, being asked to pass by without further notice a matter which it had expressly declared to be a Breach of Privilege.
MR. GLADSTONEMr. Speaker, on former occasions attempts have been made to prosecute Breaches of Privilege, which attempts have subsequently been found likely to lead to inconvenience; and the House has, on the whole, thought it prudent to retrace its steps. I apprehend we are perfectly free—indeed, we have it on your authority—to act at this present moment according to prudence. We had to pass an opinion on a document. We have not entered on the question of the excuses the writer of that document may have to produce. The writer has the option, if he thinks fit, of vindicating himself before the public. We were entitled to pass an opinion on the document before us. It cannot be surprising that I, who urged upon the hon. Member for Galway County not to proceed with the Motion which he desired to withdraw, but was prevented from withdrawing, should respectfully recommend to the House that we should not proceed any further, as we distinctly understand that there is no technical and formal obligation, and certainly no moral obligation whatever to that effect. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) says that I, who am continually urging the necessity of proceeding with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, gave, not only a patient and careful, sympathetic hearing to the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway. Now, I am bound to say I did not give it a sympathetic hearing at all. After I heard the discussion upon it, I thought matter of great importance was raised in that discussion which I was compelled to notice; but I must own that the feeling with which I heard my hon. Friend rise to make this Motion was the feeling which in my mind is invariable when I see that some of the few precious hours that we have at our disposal are about to be wasted, and that I regretted the subject was over introduced.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Galway would accept the rebuke, which the Prime Minister had just given him for having caused time waste of two hours and a-half which might have been devoted to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. He wished now to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to state what opportunity he proposed to give the Irish Members of discussing the Vote of Censure upon Ministers which they had placed upon the Journals 1693 of the House, and the 10,000 or 15,000 impending evictions, which were a far more serious matter than the dispute between the hon. Member for Mayo and Mr. Egan. Would the right hon. Gentleman give such an opportunity? The right hon. Gentleman made no sign, and it was now his duty to tell him that the Irish Members would make the opportunity they desired. As for the subject of that evening's debate, the Irish people would form their own estimate of a Government which, under cover of a defence of the hon. Member for Mayo, permitted a most dangerous attack to be made upon the hon. Member for Cork and the Land League. The Home Secretary, in particular, seemed to take pleasure in baiting the hon. Member for Cork, so as to make him use expressions which might be turned against him. It was most unfair to take advantage of a personal quarrel between individuals to vilify the Land League. Why, it might be asked, did not hon. Members connected with the Land League join in that discussion? The reason was that they did not wish to wash dirty linen in public, and that they were aware nothing could be more gratifying to the House than the ignoble spectacle of Irishmen quarrelling among themselves. He would recommend the hon. Member for Galway, who was so solicitous of the honour of Irish Members, to go to Galway and hear what his constituents had to say to him instead of setting such store upon the opinion of a prejudiced English House of Commons. With regard to this letter, the form of it was very inelegant, nor was that of the hon. Member for Mayo much better.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is adverting to a debate which is concluded. He is not at liberty to do that.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI was not adverting to that, but to a letter which I wish to bring before this House. The hon. Member has used the expression "these white-livered filibusters of the tongue have no fight in them."
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORThe hon. Member approves of that language. He may be a high judge of literary style; but if, having used that language, he comes here in formâ pauper is—
MR. O'CONNOR POWERThat is not true. I deny it. You heard the 1694 opening sentence of my speech in which I disclaimed any appeal to the House.
§ MR. CALLANThe hon. Member for Mayo has applied the expression "That is not true" to what was said by the hon. Member for Galway, and I rise to call your attention to that observation.
§ MR. HEALYI understand that the words "That is not true" are not unusual, and I can bear testimony to your having already permitted that expression to be used. It is not two months ago that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant used it.
§ MR. SPEAKERThese interruptions on points of Order are very often themselves disorderly. If I had heard any such expression coming from the lips of the hon. Member when he was addressing the House I should have interposed.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the words were not used by the hon. Member who was addressing the House, but by the hon. Member for Mayo, and were heard by a number of hon. Members sitting near.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf any hon. Member made an observation of that kind it was a very disorderly proceeding.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member had asked him distinctly to state the truth, and that he most certainly intended to do. The hon. Member had been accused, he would not say where, of a breach of Party loyalty, and the hon. Member had been guilty of want of Party loyalty, because the hon. Member had no right to go into a Party and not abide by the decision of the majority of the Party. Attempts had been made to damage the Land League through the quarrel between the hon. Member for Mayo and Mr. Patrick Egan. That matter, however, had nothing to do with the Land League. He had watched with great interest the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary, because the right hon. Gentleman was a master of Party tactics, and he could have told exactly what the right hon. Gentleman would have said.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was alluding to a former debate, and he must caution him that he was out of Order.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORapologized, and said, it was not easy to keep within the four corners of a Motion for the adjournment of a debate when he wanted 1695 to get outside them. He thought that it would give the Home Secretary a capital opportunity for backing up the Irish Executive in suppressing the Land League when an Irish Member got up and complained of the terrorism exercised over him.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he thought they might well seize hold of this tranquil moment to proceed to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. Somehow or other, something was at most sure to happen every night to mar the harmony with which some of them would like to discuss that Bill. They had now, perhaps, wasted sufficient time, and might think a little of the condition of Ireland.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.