sion to which I have referred, went on to say "The hon. Member who spoke second in the debate (Mr. O'Connor Power) asks what we, on the Front Ministerial Bench, would have done if this expression had been used respecting us. Well, Sir, . . . . I think I may say what all my Colleagues would have done would have been to take no notice of it. At the same time, I do not say that the course we should have pursued ought to prevent Irish Members from receiving the satisfaction to which they are entitled from my hon. and learned Friend, who has now an opportunity, in a full House, of doing that which is, I think, the privilege, as well as the duty of an English gentleman when he has done wrong I mean frankly to express his regret. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will now make use of this opportunity, . . . . and that we shall be able to extricate the House from the painful necessity of making this a question of Privilege."-(Ibid., 332.) towards us. Mr. Disraeli, on the occa- | by apology, by withdrawal, by explanation, or by frank and manly insistance. I invite the right hon. Gentleman therefore to withdraw, to apologize, or to stand by his words. I will not venture to trespass further upon the House, fearful that I may inadvertently drop some word which may give, or may appear to give, offence. I come here as an Irish Member hating and abhorring crime. I can tell the Front Opposition Bench especially that I have no sympathy with criminals, whether against the moral law or the law of the land. I have had my feelings outraged when I found cases of great criminality overlooked by the Home Secretary within the last few months. I abhor and detest crime. Every murder which takes place in Ireland makes me so unhappy that my greatest wish is to detect it. I have Mr. Lopes explained, expressed regret, such an abhorrence of murder that for and withdrew the language complained days I have not come to the House of. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman ashamed on account of some fearful would follow the advice given by Mr. murder which had been committed in Disraeli to the hon. and learned Mem-Ireland; and yet, because I am an asber for Frome (Mr. Lopes). The language which Mr. Disraeli addressed to Mr. Lopes I now address to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope he will now exercise the privilege as well as the duty of an English gentleman when he has done wrong-a course which will enable his friends to respect him the more-that he will frankly express his regret, and relieve the House from the painful necessity of making this a question of Privilege. I am afraid, however, that my appeal may not prove successful, especially when I remember that this is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has made an appearance in a case of breach of Privilege. A little more than two years ago, he appeared in this House to answer a charge of breach of Privilege brought forward by Sir Stafford Northcote. On that occasion he had charged the Conservative Party with being in alliance with the Irish rebel Party; and upon that occasion he was extricated out of his difficulty by the right hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Government. I commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the language then used by Mr. Gibson, whose absence from this House we all regret, although we, as Irish Members, are proud of his elevation to the Upper House. Mr. Gibson said that such a charge should be met VOL. CCC. [THIRD SERIES.] sailant of Lord Spencer now, I have From that that man's execution I have assailed Lord Spencer in the House on every occasion on which I have thought proper, and I will continue to do so. And yet, because I am an assailant of Lord Spencer, I am to be stigmatized as disloyal to the Crown, and as having a boundless sympathy for criminals and murderers. I would ask the Clerk at the Table to read the words complained of, and then I will afterwards move the Resolution of which I have given Notice. The said Paper was then delivered in, and the paragraph complained of read by the Clerk at the Table. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the expressions in the Speech of the Right honourable John Bright, delivered in the Westminster Palace Hotel on Friday night, the 24th of July, as reported in The Daily News of Saturday, the 25th of July, charging that cer K ain Members who profess to be representa- give, answers which were certainly satistives of Ireland, and who sit in that character factory to the 200 Members who were in the House of Commons, are disloyal to the Crown,' and that they have exhibited a bound-assembled there. It is a natural thing, less sympathy for criminals and murderers,' are in discussing these charges, to ask who a Breach of the Privileges of the House."-(Mr. it is that makes them, and what are the Callan.) MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in offering a few observations to the House, I will begin by giving a little information to the hon. Member who has brought forward this Motion. There are Members from Ireland to whom my words apply; but as far as I know he is not one of them. I do not recollect, except on this occasion, and during his speech to-night, when he has made grave and, I think, almost horrible charges against Lord Spencer-I do not recollect, except on this occasion, hearing him say either in this House or that I ever read anything that he has said out of it, that would have justified me in including him in the number of those to whom reference was made in my speech the other night. I only say that for the sake of explaining to the hon. Gentleman that, at any rate, I have not done him, nor have I intended to do him any injustice; and if he has suffered from it I will now relieve his mind by telling him that not for one moment has he ever been in my mind as guilty of the charges that I have brought against some of his countrymen. The hon. Member I presume comes forward to-night in the character of a protector of his countrymen, and I have no objection at all to the question he has raised as to what I said some nights ago, or to the further consideration of it by the House and the country, which it will have, no doubt, from the discussion which is now proceeding. Let us see what was the object of the banquet in which this terrible speech was made. The object was to bring together a large number-I suppose there were nearly 200-of persons there, Members of the two Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of showing the general esteem in which the character of the late Viceroy of Ireland is held, and for the purpose, as it might occur, of meeting some of the charges which had been made against him. The hon. Member, and in fact the House, will know that Lord Spencer in his speech on that occasion did refer to a great many of the serious charges made against him, and gave such answers to them as he was able to charges that are made; because the same complaint, coming from one source, might be very serious, while, coming from another, it might be very trifling. It seemed to me a proper opportunity of entering a little into this question, and I went into it, perhaps, a little deeper, although in much fewer words than those which were used by others who spoke on that occasion. Now, as to the charges that were made against Lord Spencer, what I have heard just now from the hon. Gentleman shocks me; and if I had heard him before that speech I think I should have been obliged to include the hon. Member in what I said. There is no meanness of which any man can be guilty-none which can be attributed to a Governor or Ruler in any position-that has not been constantly imputed to Lord Spencer; and more than that in the Irish Press, and I would not say not even by some Irish Members. It has been stated distinctly, over and over again, that Lord Spencer sent to the gallows men whom he knew to be innocent. If that charge is made, it is impossible to put into words a more grievous charge. The most guilty murderer who has gone to the gallows was not himself, if that be true, more guilty than Lord Spencer. Well, then, these are charges which the hon. Member himself in this House, and no doubt a considerable number in Ireland, and writers in the Irish Press, have brought against the Viceroy, the Representative of the Queen. If that be so, would it be a hard thing to say that such persons as these are disloyal? If Lord Spencer has represented the Queen in the City of Dublin, and as the Viceroy of Ireland, surely, if he has not been guilty of crimes as atrocious as those which have been imputed to him, no man would make such charges unless he was disloyal to the Viceroy and disloyal to the Queen. Now, as to the question of disloyalty, the hon. Member gives me the opportunity of referring to the case which was brought forward two years ago from this Bench by Sir Stafford Northcote. Sir Stafford Northcote evidently did something that he had no heart in at all. The proposition was MR. MARUM: I repudiate it, on behalf of my Party. merely this-and the whole proposition | some others. Well, but Mr. Davitt was quite absurd-Sir Stafford North- says that he will not come into this cote's only charge was that I said that House, because he will not take the when the Tory Party went into the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen; and Lobby they found themselves in alli- there are others-I will not name them, ance that is, acting and voting to- but I have heard of more than onegether for the time-with the Irish highly respectable and honest men in Party. I did not say they had any Ireland, who would be admirable Memspecial contract-nothing of the sort; bers of this House; but they cannot, in but as both went into the same Lobby, conscience, take the Oath of Allegiance, they were, for the time being, in alliance. because they are not loyal to the Throne. When I came to answer Sir Stafford That is one of the charges which I have Northcote, I had the idea that he was brought against some hon. Gentlemen; going to complain of something more- and I think, from the way in which they that his Friends down here (the Irish have received my observations, it is quite Members) were termed by me "the clear that it is a charge they do not rebel Party" in the speech I made at repudiate. I have said, further I Birmingham, and which was called in think it was one of the points to which question. But when I mentioned that the hon. Member referred-that these in the House and spoke of them as the Gentlemen had done what they could rebel Party, did any of them repudiate to obstruct legislation in 1881 and 1882. it? Do they repudiate it now? [Cries Now, I am not about to defend the leof "No!"] On the contrary, they ac- gislation of 1881 and 1882. I think cepted it, and cheered it. that the legislation of 1881 was, unfortunately, a great mistake, though I was myself a Member of the Government that was concerned in it. But, as regards the obstruction, it must be borne in mind that a very large majority of the House of Commons supported those measures; and whether they were wise or foolish measures, at any rate they were believed by the House of Commons to be absolutely necessary, and, therefore, to be wise. Everybody who was in this House at that time knows perfectly well how much hon. Members obstructed. They may reconcile it with their duty, and I entirely separate this charge from other charges. I may remark that I am not going to complain of their obstruction. It is quite possible for me to conceive of circumstances in this House in which I myself might be tempted-though I do not think I should have persisted in it so long as they did--to do something in order to prevent a Bill from passing which I thought would be injurious to the country. But that they did obstruct nobody in the House of Commons can doubt. And I believe that the only time in which they allowed a particular clause to pass, which the Government did not want, was when they went out of the House and took up a position in the Gallery in order that the Government might be placed in a minority, and that a clause might be put into the Act which the Government did not want to have put MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I have not the least doubt that many men of the Party would repudiate it. I will take my hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years, the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). I do not believe he is a rebel. But if hon. Members down there are to be taken by their own words, by their own writings, and by their own actions, there are some of them who have a fair claim to the title of rebel. [An Irish MEMBER: We rebel against the English rule, certainly.] The hon. Gentlemen to whom I refer constantly describe this House as a foreign House; and when we sat on the other side-I do not know what would be the term now-they said that we were a foreign Administration. I only bring that forward to strengthen the argument I have used, and to justify my words. But there has been a little incident which happened just now. If report be correct, a very important member of the Irish Party-I mean Mr. Davitt-has been asked to come to this House by one of the constituencies ready to return him. Mr. Davitt, except when a landlord is in question, appears to me to be a particularly honest man. I think that most persons who know him, however much they may disagree with him, still have a certain respect for him that they have not for into it, but which those hon. Gentlemen thought would make the Bill more hateful to their own country. Well, 1 said that Lord Spencer had been assailed-the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) has done a little in that line to-night- and that they had also assailed the Judges. In the speech, as read, the word "Judges" is left out. It comes before the word "men." I said they assailed the Judges; they assailed the Law Officers; and they assailed the juries. They have said over and over again-I do not point to any particular Member here now, but I believe some hon. Members have said it in Ireland; the hon Gentleman has almost said it here to-night; but it has been frequently said in Ireland, and it has been stated in the Irish Press-that Lord Spencer hanged innocent men, knowing them to be innocent. Then, again, they have assailed the Judges, and declared them to be partial and partizans. They have assailed the Law Officers of the Crown, and charged them with packing the juries. And then, finally, they assailed the juries, because, being packed juries, they would easily be rendered corrupt. That is what they have done; but it has all been done on one line-namely, that of sympathy for criminals who were in prison, or men under trial; and I have never heard any emphatic declaration in this House, or out of it, nor have I read, with scarcely any exception, declarations against the criminals, except at the time when the Phoenix Park tragedy took place, and when men even on those -the Irish-Benches were astounded and were cowed by the feeling that then prevailed throughout the whole country. And then they did express what I cannot but believe they really felt-that a great crime had been committed, and that great sorrow had been spread throughout all our people, and throughout Ireland, I hope, not less than throughout England. Suppose, instead of saying what has been read at the Table suppose I had said that the Irish Party, every man of them in the House of Commons, was loyal. Suppose I had said that they were particularly friendly to Great Britain-suppose I had said that they all encouraged and supported the discovery and the punishment of crime suppose I had said that they trusted and supported, so far as they could, the Viceroy in his difficult task Mr. John Bright of governing the country-suppose I had said that they supported the Judges and the Law Officers, and that they had really condemned, in strong and emphatic language continually, all those who committed these great crimes, and offered the spectacle to the country of such criminals-suppose I had said that they had exhibited great grief at the violent and murderous crimes which had been committed in Ireland-suppose I had said exactly the opposite of what I did say, and if that had been read from the Table, what would the House of Commons have said, or the Gentlemen who were present at that dinner table, or the public, or the Irish Members themselves? They would have said that I was a fool, or something worse, for making statements which were absolutely untrue, and they would have laughed me to scorn, and said that I had spoken for the sake of insulting them. Therefore, what I have to say of the speech is this-I will not say that every syllable is accurate, for there are words left out, and where the word "every" comes in with regard to juries it is not accurate; it should be "many" juries, and the word "Judges" requires to be put in. But, with that exception, I say that every word of the speech is accurate and true. I say, as I said to 200 of the first gentlemen of England, that every Member of the House of Lords and the House of Commons might accept it as such; and scores of them have told me how entirely they accepted and agreed with every word I uttered. Then comes one other question, and I will have done in a sentence. Supposing all this is true, was it a desirable thing to make that statement on that occasion, and to bring those charges against any Member of this House? Well, I will not contest the point at all. It is for you, Sir, to say whether such a course is a breach of the Privileges of Parliament. I think that it is likely a Rule of that sort may be used on very insufficient basis and ground; but if I said anything on that occasion which is contrary to the Rules of Parliament and the decisions of yourself, Sir, or of previous Speakers, all I can say is that I regret it very much, because no man has a right, in a great Assembly like this, to set up his own opinion against the opinion of the Assembly, and against the opinion of its presiding Officer; and if the House of Commons thinks that observations like mine, and all others of an unpleasant kind against Members of the House, made out of the House, are a breach of the Rules and Privileges of Parliament, I myself shall regret that I have committed myself so far. But, so far as the truth of what I have said is concerned, nothing in the world will induce me to withdraw an atom of it. I was a friend of Ireland in the politics of this country when some of the men whom I have seen on those Benches were in their long clothes. For more than 30 years past I have done all I could to lay before the public, both in Ireland and in England, to lay before Parliament and the country what I believe to be the grievances which that country endures. I have suffered strong attacks from newspapers and from public speakers in both Houses of Parliament on account of the line I have taken in regard to Ireland. I believe the sufferings and the ill-treatment of that country within the last 150 years can scarcely be exaggerated, and my sympathy for it has been as strong as the sympathy of any man on those Benches. And, Sir, if I had seen a combination in Ireland-such as I once advised a meeting of Irish farmers to form-a combination that would deal fairly and justly with all questions affecting that country, which would not be rebellious to this country, which was not concerned in criminal actions, which was not in alliance with the enemies of England beyond the Atlantic, which did not receive money from them, which did not receive, as friends, the criminals they sent over to this country-if I had seen an Irish association which dealt with some regard to moral laws while urging the great justice of the claims of their country, I should have been one of that association, and no word would ever have escaped my lips to lessen the influence of those men in the country which they represent. Sir, I have done; I have only to repeat that if you decide, or if previous Speakers have decided-for I presume you will be guided very much by precedent-that to make charges, such as I have made, against Members of this House, is not to be allowed, and is contrary to the Rules and practice of the House, I submit and express my regret that I said what I did on that occasion. That being so, I must leave it to the House; but, as to regret ing what I have said, nothing can change my opinion, if I know it. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY rose to continue the debate. MR. SPEAKER: As the language attributed to the right hon. Gentleman is now under the consideration of the House the right hon. Gentleman will follow precedent by withdrawing. MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Cannot I stay here, Sir, if I do not vote? MR. SPEAKER: The course generally followed is to withdraw; and the right hon. Gentleman will follow precedent by withdrawing. MR. JOHN BRIGHT then withdrew. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I confess that I, for one, very much regret that the Rules of the House compel the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham to withdraw while the debate is going on, as for many reasons, some of them personal, I should prefer that the right hon. Gentleman were present to listen to the few observations I shall have to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) told me of his intention to bring forward this Motion only after he had already taken steps to put that intention into action. Had I been consulted, and had he asked my advice as to bringing forward the Motion, I would have had no hesitation in recommending the hon. Member to take no notice whatever of the charges made by the right hon. Gentleman. Personally, I am not fond of appealing to the judgment of the House, which I know, in the main, to be hostile, for the vindication of my honour and character, or the honour and character of those Irish Members who act with me. I would much rather leave the decision of the question to a future and a wiser time, when passion and prejudice will not rage quite so strongly as at the present moment. I would say something more. There was a time when a word of censure or a question of my motives from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham would have affected me deeply, and caused me the severest pain. That was in the days so honourable to the right hon. Gentleman, when he showed himself the friend of Ireland, when he was not nearly so severe upon Parties who were opposed to him, and whom he now calls rebels-days when |