The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-06 00:00:00

pursue. lie felt so-strongly the responsibility of the situation
in which he was placed, that he was most anxious that the
House would agree with him in asking from the Hon. Member
an acquiescence in the decision of the House.
Mr. SHEIL said that the Noble Lord, at the outset of his
declaration, had stated, without being called upon, and by an-
ticipation, or before he was asked any question, that he took
upon himself the responsibility—that he stood as the represen-
tative of the person who alleged the truth of the statement.—
(Loud cries of" No, no.") The Noble Lord had certainly said
that he would take upon himself the responsibility of the state-
ment, that more than one Irish Member had expressed different
opinions of the Irish Coercion Bill in and out of the House;
in other words, that more than one Irish Member had opposed
the Bill, who approved of it, and that this information was
communicated to him by an individual for whom he felt respect;
but he refused to give the name.

Lord PALMERS fON rose to explain his understanding of
the word responsibility, as he understood it to be used by the
Noble Lord, and certainly as it was understood by himself. The
Hon. and Learned Member had called upon the Noble Lord to
give the name of his informant. The Noble Lord did what
every honourable man would on such an occasion—(Hear,
hear)—he refused to give the name; but he took upon himself
the responsibility of the statement having been made.— (Hear,
hear.) But he did not take upon himself the responsiblility of
the correctness of the statement. He merely vouched for the
fact, that the statement had been made, and he felt bound to
take upon himself the responsibility of having said so.—(Hear.)
Mr. SHEIL said that this was a species of diplomacy he did
not understand. He hoped the House would give him leave to
explain his meaning. When the Noble Lord mentioned that
he would not name his informant, he added, that he would take
upon himself the responsibility. Now he (Mr. Shell) charged
the Noble Lord's informant with falsehood, and the Noble Lord
took upon himself the responsibility.—(Loud cries of" No, nol"
and great confusion.)
Lord ALTHORP rose to explain his meaning. He had
stated he had had information that Irish Members who voted
against the Coercion Bill approved of it ; that he would not
give up his informant, and would take upon himself the re-
sponsibility of not doing so.—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.)
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that his impression of the mean-
ing of the word responsibility as used by the Noble Lord, was
just that which was all along affixed to it by the Noble Lord.
He could not have meant it in the conventional sense attri-
buted to it by the Hon. Member for Tipperary. Could any
Irian, either in or out of the House, understand the expressions
of the Noble Lord in any other sense than that in which he
himself had stated he had used them ?—(Hear, hear.) He
called on the House to assert the authority of the Chair, and
not allow the question to be pursued.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel EVANS understood the Noble Lord to have said,
that some Members had spoken differently in private from what
they bad expressed as their opinions in public. Now these
words did not impute a very serious degree of impropriety in
any man, if no further explanation were given of them, or if
~ot in direct contradiction to his public acts.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL coincided with the Speaker, in
thinking that the privileges of debate would be injured if this
question, and such as it, were not kept within the jurisdiction
of the House. He hoped that the House would insist that
both the Noble Lord and the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber should either tacitly or expressly agree—and that in a
manner which could leave no doubt of their meaning—that
they should not carry the question beyond the walls of the
House.

Mr. SHEIL said, that the preliminary intimation came
from the Noble Lord himself, that he would take upon him-
,elf the responsibility, and he (Mr. Sheil) thought it unfair
that he should be called on to take a different view than that
to which he had been invited by the Noble Lord.—(Cries of
" No, no")
The SPEAKER was satisfied that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Tipperary felt differently on this subject from any
other Member in the House.—(Hear.) He had allowed the
subject to be proceeded with, from the conviction that the
orders of the House should be enforced, and that the question,
being once brought before the House, should not be allowed
to be dealt with out of doors. And if he now saw reason to
doubt, if the orders of the House should be observed without
an injunction, he should consider it his duty to impose an in-
junction on either or both Members. He need hardly add,
that if the Hon. Member for Tipperary would not yield to
the decision of the House, he should be restrained by its autho-
rity from doing anything furth'ir in this question but with
its permission.—(Hear.) _ _

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT suggested (as we understood)
that a Committee of two Members, wholly unconnected both
with the Noble Lord and the Hon. Member, should be chosen
to inveAtigate the question.

The SPEAKER did not suggest anything degrading to the
Hon. Member— (Hear, hear)—and after the general feeling
expressed in the House, he could assure the Hon. Member that
the ease, having been brought under the consideration of the
House, ought to be left with its decision ; and he hoped the
Hon. Member would bow to the decision of the House.
Mr. SHEIL (being then generally called for from all sides)
carne forward, and said he hoped the House would see the diffi-
culty of the unhappy situation in which he was placed. The
Noble Lord refused to give the name of the informant, and
took the responsibility upon himself. If he had given the
name, it would be different ; but why invite him (Mr. Sheil)
by taking the responsibility to ask the question ? In conse-
quence of that invitation, he had considered it his duty to ask
the question.—(No, no.) The Noble Lord had gone beyond
the question asked him by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. He had gone out of his way, and beyond the inter-
rogatory, in order to attach to himself this responsibility. The
Noble Lord refused to furnish him with the means of ascer-
taining who his informant was. Why did he do so ? He
would ask what sort of man the Noble Lord's informant was ?
(Hear.) He (Mr. Sheil) had said nothing offensive to the
Noble Lord. He had not told him that he had been a partici-
pator in the calumny. He (Mr. Sheil) sat down when the
Noble Lord took the responsibility on himself.
Mr. E. STANLEY thought the House should insist on both
parties—the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned Member
for Tipperary—giving their word to the House, that nothing
would be done in the matter out of doors.

The SPEAKER said, that if the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
Nan thought he meant to place him in a worse situation than
he :would any other Hon. Member under similar circumstances.
he did ;,"4111 an injustice. The reason Why he was averse, if it
could be avoid; to the House coming to any fixed resolution
on the subject was, that those Hon. Members who did not take
part in the proceedings that evening, as well as those who did,
might think that every personal quarrel that occurred between
Hon. Members ought to be brought before the House for its
decision.—(Hear.) He (the Speaker) was sure the Hon. and
Learned Member for Tipperary would not better his position
by refusing to comply with the wish expressed, that he would
pledge himself not to take any proceedings in the matter out of
the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he was cer-
tain, would, on cool calculation, see the reasonableness of the
view which he (the Speaker) took of the question; If he did
not make the suggested pledge voluntarily, the House must do
its duty, however reluctantly.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the House did not wish to place
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in any unfavourable position
by the concession it suggested to him to make ; neither did
it place him in any unfavourable position. It was necessary to
separate the public from the private part of the question.
He conceived that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had no
Tight to construe the language made use of by the Noble
lord into a personal afil•ont.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and
Learil'ed Gentleman had asked the Noble Lord—not as a pri-
vate individual, but in his capacity as Minister—whether he
was the party referred to as having made use of the language
in question rebtive to the Bill for the suppression of disturb-
ances in Ireland, ,and the Noble Lord answered that he was
the party referred to, The Noble Lord said he would not give
up the name of his informant, but was es
rponsible for the fact
of such communication having been made to him. Surely it
could never be pretended that the Noble Lord meant, by the
language he employed, that he was to make himself personally
responsible for the statement.—(Hear, hear.) On his (Sir R.
Peel's) honour, he thought that the construction which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's sensitiveness led him to put
upon the Noble Lord's language was 'not warranted.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would
be making no dishonourable concession to the House, either
as a man or as a Member of that House, by voluntarily de-
claring that he would take no further steps in the matter.
Mr. SHEIL felt himself in a very peculiar and unpleasant
position. The Noble Lord said he believed in the accuracy of
the information.—(Hear, hear, hear, from the Irish Members.)
He said that he would not give up the name of his informant,
but would vouch for the truth of the communication.—(Cries
of " No, no.") The Noble Lord had made a gratuitous statement
when he expressed his belief in the truth of the communica-
Aso made to him.
Mr, STANLEY had not communicated either directly or
ind"redly with his Noble Friend on the subject ; but if he
might ctercise his own judgment on the matter, the Noble
ford coulu never have meant, by the language he made use of,
an thin offensfv-, to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The
g
question which the 17!)n. and Learned Gentleman put to his
Noble Friend was, whether he (Mr. Shell) was the individual
meant. The Noble Lord said he leas one of the parties ; that
he had received a communication to that effect, but would not
give up the name of his informant, but would take the re
on the face
-
sponsibility on himself. There was ne individual
of the earth more incapable of giving peragnal offence than
his Noble Friend. With all the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man's sensibility, as a Member of that House, and as a man
of honour, he thought there could be nothing dishonourable
in following the course which had been tuggest.ed to him.—

(Hear, hear.)
Lord ALTHORP said that all he meant by the terms he
lidd employed simply was, that he vouched for the respecta-
bility a his informant, but that he would not give up the
name of that informant. He disclaimed all wish to give
offence hi making such statement; but if any Hon. Gentle-
man did take offence at his words, he (Lord Althorp) would
not shrink from what he had said.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel LEITH 41ArY thought that a more injurious course
to himself than thalihich the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was pursuing coutd-not be pursued.—(Hear, hear.) To endea- I
your to fix on the personal character of the Noble Lord, when
he only spoke in his capacity of Minister, appeared to him (Col.
Leith Hay) to be conduct unworthy of any Member of that
House. As a private individual, he (Col. Leith Hay) had also
had a similar communication made to him respecting the con-
duct of certain Irish Members relative to the Bill for the Sup-
pression of Disturbances in Ireland, but he would also refuse
to give up the name of his informant. He would tell the Hon.
and Learned Member that, if he wished it, he (Col. Leith Hay)
Would also take the responsibility on himself.—(Hear, hear.)
ir ritit>,TClS OUBPETT thought that nothing that had