§ 19. Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary whether the hon. Member for Pontefract was present at a meeting of His Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland, and that, after an ineffectual protest was made against his interference, he took part in the discussion of certain matters arising out of the Dublin riots and in a discussion upon whether a prosecution should be instituted by the Crown against James Larkin; and by whose authority the hon. Member was present on that occasion?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am sorry to have to inform the hon. and learned Member that he has been made the victim of a hoax. The hon. Member for Pontefract was never present at any meeting of the Privy Council in Ireland, nor did lie ever seek to attend the meetings of an august body of whose existence he tells me he was unaware.
§ Mr. HORNEROn a point of Order. Arising out of the answer, having regard to the fact that I gave notice to the hon. Member for Pontefract before I put this question down and that I have never had a reply from him, am I not at liberty to ask the hon. Member whether he was present when the prosecution of James Larkin was discussed between Lord Aberdeen and the learned Attorney-General for Ireland; whether others were present at the same time; whether all those others present were members of the Privy Council; whether the discussion took place in Dublin Castle; and what part the hon. Member took in it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERLife in this House is bad enough already, but if every hon. Member had to answer for every other Member as to where he was on a particular occasion, it would be even worse.
§ Mr. HORNERI beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow or on Monday.
§ Mr. MOOREWould it be in order for the hon. Member for Pontefract to make a personal explanation now, considering the way in which his name has been introduced?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt certainly would be out of order to make any personal explanation now. [An HON. MEMBER: "He ought to know it."]