lebration in
Birmingham. I have looked at the extract from your speech, which
is to be alleged as the _corpus delicti_, with a jealous eye. It
seems well to be prepared for the worst. The points are, I think,
_three_:--1. "Not a few" tories are guilty of determined
obstruction. I cannot conceive it possible that this can be deemed
a breach of privilege. 2. These members are found 'in alliance'
with the Irish party. Alliance is often predicated by those who
disapprove, upon the ground that certain persons have been voting
together. This I think can hardly be a breach of privilege even in
cases where it may be disputable or untrue.

But then: 3. This Irish party are "rebels" whose oath of
allegiance is broken by association with the enemies of the
country. Whether these allegations are true or not, the following
questions arise:--(a) Can they be proved; (b) Are they allegations
which would be allowed in debate? I suppose you would agree with
me that they cannot be proved; and I doubt whether they would be
allowed in debate. The question whether they are a breach of
privilege is for the House; but the Speaker would have to say, if
called upon, whether they were allowable in debate. My impression
is that he would say no; and I think you would not wish to use
elsewhere expressions that you could not repeat in the House of
Commons.

The Speaker has a jotting in his diary which may end this case of a great
man's excess:--

_June 18._--Exciting sitting. Bright's language about Irish rebels.
Certainly his language was very strong and quite inadmissible if
spoken within the House. In conversation with Northcote I
deprecated the taking notice of language outside the House, though
I could not deny that the House, if it thought fit, might regard
the words as a breach of privilege. But Northcote was no doubt
urged by his friends.

Mr. Chamberlain's was a heavier business, and led to much correspondence
and difficult conversation in high places. A little of it, containing
general principles, will probably suffice here:--

_To Sir Henry Ponsonby._

_June 22.--Re_ Chamberlain's speech. I am sorry to say I had not
read the report until I was warned by your letters to Granville
and to Hamilton, for my sight does not allow me to read largely
the small type of newspapers. I have now read it,