The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1878-05-12

tion or diehonor before the peasant girl
on his property, and that when his infa
nous advances bad been slighted he bat
carried out his threat of eviction
Mr.. King Harman-Mr. Speaker, beg
| to say that see strangers.
The Speaker-The Hon. mem Der having
taken notice of strangers, am bound tc
| take the course have taken upon aformel
occasion, and to put the question to the
! House whether strangers shall be ordered
to withdraw. AS many as are of that opin
ion say "sye."
There being loud volume of "ayes, y
the Speaker put the negative, to which
! Mr. O'Donneli responded.
The Houee then divided, when the mum
bers were-Ayes, 81, Noes, 10, Majority
As
The Strangers Gallery had been cleared
during the division, but the reporters re-
msined When Mr.. O'Donnell resumed
his address there were cries of "Order,"
"Strangers in the House."
The Speaker then sad-TLe Sergeant
will clear the galleries of strangers.
The 1bate was then resumed in private,
with the exception that the numerous
attendance in the Ladies' Gallery remained
undisturbed, the Ladies' Gallery being
technically "out of the House."
After the strangers had been excluded,
Mr.. O'Donnell read extracts from the
Freeman'S Journal, as the popular daily
paper of Ireland the Londonderry Stand
ard. as a leading Presbyterian organ the
Belfast Morning Ne,rS, an independent
journal and the Irishn,an, the organ of
the Nationalist party, in corroboration of
the statements he had made; all of them,
he said, being unanimous in relating the
same facts "a TO the licentiousness of the
late earl. He condemned assassination
most strongly, bat begged to remind the
House that it was quite possible that the
murder of the Earl of Leltrim vas not an
agrarian offence, but based on motives of
private vengeance, and he protested against
the conduct Of the Government in assum
ing, before investigation, trial, or cOnvic-
tion, that this offence had been committed
as the result of agrarian conspiracy. He,
therefore, objected to the branding of a
whole baropy with the stigma of member
ship of a murderous conspiracy against
the rights Of property, while it stil re-
mained unproven. What were the incen
tives to the act Z The action of the Gov
ernment had given the tone to public
sentiment, and "the murderous tendencies
of the Irish pessantry" were now TIE COM
mon theme of English journals.
Mr.. Parnell, in supporting the motion,
went over the facts of the case, and also
pointed out that there was quite sufficient
ground existing for attributlng the COM
mission of the act to motives of private
vengeance. The whole public opinion of
Ireland decidedly declared in that direction.
Mr.. King HaIman said there were no
proofs of that.
Mr.. Parpell said if the hon. member
doubted the proofs supplied by the leading
Journals of the country be was welcome to
ask for Parliamentary inquiry. For Eis
own part, rs the House very well knew, he
had no power "to Rend for persone, papers,
or records" but the hon. member could
ask for Parliamentary committee if he
wished. The fact was, the conduct of the
late earl was simply admitted on all hands.
He warned the House that the manner in
which Irish tenants were abandoned TO the
worst caprices of men like the late Lord
Leitrim tended to destroy all hope in con-
stitutiousi agitation among the Irish people,
and to lead the wilder spirits to think that
the only way in which Irish public opinion
could ever influence the British Legislature
was VIXEN it winged the bullet of the
assassin. It was terrible and deplor-
able state of affairs, aud be implored the
House to do something to win back the
confidence of the peasantry, and not
wautonly to insult them by assuming the IN
to be guilty of crimes that were utterly
improved, and with regard to which the
probabilities lay all in the other direction.
The proceedings during the remainder of the
private sitting are reported as follows in the
London ObSerrer d:
Mr.. King Harman made a strong complaint
of what he looked on as an upprovoked attack
on the character and actions Of the murdered
earl-ap attack which was unsupported by
any ascertained facts, and ought never to have
been oounteuanced in that House.
DR.. Ward protested against the way, in
which that question had been raised. 1t had
ostensibly been brought forward on oonstitu-
tional grounds but it had taken the form of
an indecent attack upon the dead. Why was
it SO brought on Was it in the interests of
the tenants 1t was notorious that it was
not so, because it was brought on at the most
inconvenient time, when Parliament was GER
tain not to listen to it, and was sure to regard
it as an apology for sssassination. He firmly
believed that this, like many other motions Of
the honorable members for Dungarvan and
Meath, was not for the purpose OF promoting
great Irish questions, for they brought them
injurious, but solely in order to acquire for
themselves notoriety which in this case
looked very like infamy. 1t a sad thing.
indeed, to find that members of Parliament re-
quired to have recourse to the expedient of
endeavorinE to found reputation or apollo
gies for Rssasei n alton.
Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell rose to order.
DE-. Ward said they had seen that night
what almost looked like an apology for assas