Mr. Plimsoll made, on Thursday, a manly and straightforward apology
for the violence of his language on the Thursday previ- ous. It had not taken him the whole week so generously accorded to him, he said, to perceive that it would be impossible to conduct the government of this great country, and to maintain the dignity of the House, unless its debates were conducted within strict limits. He had exceeded those limits on Thursday last. This being so, patriotism, good-sense, and good-feeling alike demanded that he should withdraw such expressions as had transgressed Parlia- mentary usage, and apologise to the Speaker and the House for using them. This he did frankly, and in no grudging or re- luctant spirit. " I trust, Sir," he added, " that it will not be considered inconsistent with that respect which I feel for and have now expressed to this House, if I add that I do not with- draw any statement of fact." Did that mean that Mr. Plimsoll withdrew, or that he did not withdraw, the assertion that there were Members of that House who had sent "sailors to their death" for the " sake of unhallowed gain?" With the Times, we suppose he withdrew it, since the imputation as to the motive is hardly a statement of fact, but rather an inference of Mr. Plimsoll's.
