MR BRIGHT ANDJPHE PARNELL PARTY ijOHN BRpHT ON THE PAENELL ,;; .V;.. F-A-. ITES.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 5308, 1 October 1885, Page 2

MR BRIGHT ANDJPHE PARNELL PARTY

ijOHN BRpHT ON THE PAENELL ,; ; .V;.. F- A -. ITES.

The House of Commons has- given us an interesting incident (writes the London correspondent of the Argus) in the supposed breach of privilege by Mr John Bright. Mr Bright appeared at the banquet given to Earl Spencer in recognition of his services in Ireland. In speaking to the health of Lord Hartington, --who presided, Mr Bright took occasion to repeat his denunciation of the Parnellites as "rebels," and further to accuse them of having shown a " boundless, sympathy with criminals and murderers." Mr Callan thought it necessary to bring this language under the notice of Parliament, and on Tuesday night the subject was debated for three or four hours. It was proposed to 'convict Mr Bright of a breach of privilege, but the shot mis-car-ried. Mr Callan made his speech, and cited precedents which he held to be con-'' elusive of Mr Bright' s offence. Incident- ' ally he denied being a rebel, and he took the oath of allegiance without' reserve as a good Catholic should. Mr Bright was wildly cheered on rising to reply. He promptly made it clear that he would stand by his words a3 true, though , at the same time he would, apoligise for having used them if the Speaker ruled;' that they were a breach of privilege. And\ then he set to justify himself with a will. / It was not a difficult thing. More than ' once he entrapped the Irishmen to cheer his suggestions, as when -he reiterated that they were rebels, and that if he had inverted the sense of his remarks at the I dinner the public would have called him a "■.f001." Altogether, Mr Bright only made more emphatic the accusations in complaint, and he retired from the House with the obvious sympathy of both parties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unhappy -in following Mr Bright/! Somehow or other-he conveyed the impression that the Irish attacks . upon Earl' Spencer, with which Mr Bright was deal- : ing at the dinner, were of small account, and that Mr Bright should not have used the language he did in regard ,, to the I Irishmen. At the same time he advised the House not to proceed further in the matter before them. This brought up Lord Hartington with a warm protest against the line pursued by the leaders of the House. He asked, with some bitterness, if nothing was to be said of the conduct of the Parnellites to the late Viceroy, and if reproof was only to be given to Mr Bright?, and pressed the point in such fashion -that the Chancellor; of the Exchequer was obliged to interpose with the statement that he resented the attacks off Earl Spencer as much as anybody. Hiving drawn this admission from the Treasury Bench, Lord Hartihgtbn set himself to a bold and generous 'defence of Mr Bright, and made the Parnellites wince by telling them that" men who allowed .themselves such license in dealing • with their opponents ought not, when they were hit in return, to come whining • to the House of Commons for protection. By and by Lord R. Churchill found opportunity of joining in the debate, and to his great surprise was pulled up by the Speaker for making a wholly irrevelanlj attack on Mr Chamberlain. It was cemic to hear the Secretary for India regretting the use of strong language, and quoting for the edification of the House the recent speech of Mr Chamberlain i assail^ ing the Irish Executive as a ; " foreign* Government. This was too. intolerable, and in the opinion of Lord Randolph ought to" be checked, "for "the reason," of course, that it gave'- excuse to other people to speak improperly. ■:MrrChamber-' lain retorted with effect. For the information of the House,' he recalled the fact that Mr H Disraeli had spoken of the liish Government, as an " alien" Government, and saidfthat if. matters of this sort were to occupy the attention in Parliament, not a single speech delivered by Lord R. Churchill wouli pass muster. There was too • much truth in this for denial, and the House roared at the sally. 'Then the debate fell wholly .to; the Parnellities, and after they had roundly abused Mr Bright and Lord., Hartiiigtbn for the space of a couple of hours, Mr Callan professed that his object was gained, and said he was willing to* withdraw the motion. But this the- House would not allow, and a division being taken, some 23 Irishmen went into "the lobby against the combined forces of the . Government and the Opposition, and the, ■ matter dropped, The debate was Jdr structive as showing how rapidly the Parnellities are drifting away from the Liberals, and per contra as displaying their near approach to the Conservative Government. What this means is fully understood, since the Irishmen in their spleen did not hesitate to say that they would have their revenge at the elections.

„ ; -- q_ gJtviaion in the House of Commons >.-'• --Ji^ n Evening of July 29, on Mr Callan's Jmotir to densure John Bright for lan- ;' - Jp used at the Spencer banquet, only a °jsority of Parnellites voted for the mo•■'jon. Most of the Home Rulers, includ- < Jt&g the whips of the party, voted with the jj^lhajority, and the motion \raa orerwhelra- ? ingly lost. Mr Bright, contrary to expectation, made a speech, and it rang with defiance. He said he declined to withdraw a single word, being more than ever convinced that every word was true. The Parnellites,. he said, were utterly disloyal, and compared with them Michael Davitt was honest, except where landlords were concerned. Davitt loyally -refused to enter Parliament because that would involve his taking the oath of allegiance to the Queen, to«whom he does not admit his allegiance. Mr Bright said he would have been aland leaguer himself if freedom had been its object ; but when the League became a band of traitors and assassins, honest men must denounce.it with indignation and abhorrence. Mr Bright made a grand speech, • which compelled cheers from both sides of the. House, the Parnellites alone sitting silent. The applause was finally suppressed by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who seemed inclined to turn before exasperating the Parnellites .too far. The general opinion is that the Tories are injured by this episode. With their aid the Parnellites might have carried the motion of censure, but that aid was refused. Mr, Parnellthen, to emphasise his bitterness, over .the refusal, gave orders that his followers should vote with -the I; Liberals. 'I'