HC Deb 14 June 1867 vol 187 cc1886-906
MAJOR ANSON

said, he rose for the purpose of moving the discharge of the Order of the House of the 3rd of May that the Petition of E. Truelove and others do lie on the table. He trusted that his object in bringing forward this Motion would not be misunderstood. He hoped it would not be imagined that he had any intention of trenching on the right of public petition, for such a thing was far from his thoughts. The petition to which his Motion referred was one of a very unusual character. It laid down the doctrine, to a certain extent, that any number of people having a cause of grievance, or imagining that they had one, had a right, if the exercise of moral pressure, and if argument did not succeed, of resorting to arms. That was a doctrine which the House and the country could afford to pass by with a smile. To the prayer of the petition—asking, as it did, for as lenient a punishment as possible for the Fenians—he did not object, though it was a strange prayer to proceed from those who spoke of "the horrors of war," Here the harmlessness of the petition ended. Not content with offering such a prayer, the petitioners must needs dabble in history, and, like all narrow minded and illiberal men, they dealt only with one side of history, and gave it a very false colour. At a moment when, if only in mercy to the poor deluded Fenians themselves, the utmost forbearance ought to have been shown by men of all parties, they raked up the events of hundreds of years ago, and calling up everything they could in the way of Irish grievances they exaggerated it as much as possible. Even had they been satisfied with this, he should have been content with expressing his horror and disgust at men who were thus ready to sympathise with and encourage rebellion. They had, however, gone further; they had reflected on himself and several Members of the House; and they had insulted the army, thereby insulting the country itself. The paragraph of the petition which had induced him to take action in the matter was the following:— Thirdly, your petitioners justly alarmed by their recollection of the atrocities perpetrated by the English troops in Ireland in 1798, as also by their recollection of the conduct of the English army and its officers in India and Jamaica, lastly by the suggestions of the public press and the general tone of the wealthy classes with regard to the suppression of rebellion, pray your honourable House to provide that the utmost moderation and strict adherence to the laws of fair and humane warfare may be inculcated on the army now serving in Ireland. What the rebellion of 1798 had to do with that of 1867, or what the troops employed at that time had to do with the army at the present day, he could not see. This country had since that day made great strides in civilization, and the army, composed as it was of all classes of the people, shared in that advance. Indeed, the Fenians of 1867 compared favourably with the United Irishmen of 1798, for our troops had not been called on to revenge atrocities such as were perpetrated in 1798. There had been no occurrences during the few days the Fenians were in the field like the massacres of Wexford or Scullabogua. But were the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—who presented the petition with so much satisfaction—present, he would ask him, and he would ask those who had signed it, what they would have said had there been actual righting in Ireland, and had the officers encouraged their men by reminding them of the massacre at Wexford Bridge or the burning of a hundred Protestants in a barn at Seullabogua? The language of the petition was such that it would not have been received by any other Legislative Assembly in the world. He therefore called upon the House to reject it. It insinuated that the conduct of our soldiers in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny was such that it was necessary to inculcate on them the necessity of carrying on war according to fair and humane regulations. This was not the first occasion on which the Indian Mutiny had been used as a peg by a clique on which to hang reflections and misrepresentations, he regretted to say that the precedent was first set in 1859 by a Member of the House, who rendered himself for ever infamous by the speech he then made, declining to partake of the hospitality of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, on the ground that he would have to wear epaulettes which had been worn by hangmen and murderers in India, and that he did not wish to do so until they had become somewhat sweetened by time. Remarks in the same tone had since been made on several occasions both in and out of the House by men who wished, for purposes of their own, to slander the British Army. Without entering more minutely into the history of the Indian Mutiny than the petitioners had chosen to do, he averred that no act, no matter however harsh, was performed by our troops at the Mutiny that was not justified by necessity and by the law of self-preservation. These critics were at the time safe at home, and he could quite understand how far beyond their power it was to realize the position in which our forces were placed. No other country would have finished the war under ten times the same amount of bloodshed. They never heard in times of peace of the redeeming points of the British Army; but those who slandered and misrepresented it seized upon isolated cases and applied them to the whole British Army. An anecdote would illustrate the feeling in the army. A general officer who entered a large town told off a guard of men to protect it against plunder. The head men of the town represented to the general that these very men were plundering the place. The general, accompanied by the provost marshal, had the men flogged upon the spot. In the afternoon the whole regiment turned out and cheered the general through, the camp. He did not wish to draw invidious comparisons between the British and any other army; but he had had some experience of the armies of France and America. When those armies were perpetrating, under the plea of necessity, things which no English army would tolerate for a moment, they appealed to remarks made in the House of Commons and in the public prints of England as establishing the commission of atrocities perpetrated by the British Army. Those atrocities he indignantly denied. It was necessary that those remarks should not be accepted by the House of Commons. In accepting petitions founded upon such statements it might he stated, as it had been before, that the House practically admitted the truth of the alleged facts upon which they were founded, and the necessity of inculcating upon the English Army the duty of carrying on war in a fair and humane manner. If these men had any generosity in them they would remember that the British Army had accomplished more, with smaller means and less advantages, than any other army in the world; it had contended against a greater variety of enemies, civilized, semi-civilized, and barbarous, under more disadvantageous circumstances, and in greater varieties of climate, than any other army in the world; it was scattered in smaller detachments, and was kept further from the centres of civilization than any other army in the world; and it was exposed to greater criticism than any other army in the world. While they were invariably sure to hear of its weak points, its good points would seldom or never be heard of, except when it was policy to make much of it. It must be remembered that in order to accomplish all this they were often obliged to have recourse to inadequate means. Many young and inexperienced officers were placed in positions which required an amount of tact and of knowledge of human nature enough to test the highest qualities that could be found in men. They had often to contend with enemies with regard to whom even the wisest and most moderate of mankind would hardly know how to draw the line between a dangerous lenity and too great severity. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, if at all times and on all occasions they did not find that every man who were the British uniform possessed the legal knowledge of a Lord Chief Justice, or the world-wide philanthropy of a British philosopher. He feared he had already detained the House too long. The whole tone of the petition was such as to induce him to believe that the petitioners could only have two objects in view—the one to encourage the Fenians, and to rouse them to fresh efforts of rebellion; the other to insult the British Army in the most cowardly way that lay in their power. He gave them credit for the less dangerous and more cowardly and contemptible motive. He called upon the House, by supporting him, to protest against constant slanders and slights being thrown upon the British Army—above all, to protest against the right of petitioning the House being made the channel of insulting any portion of the community, of lowering the army, and, through the army, the country, in the eyes of the world.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order of the House [3rd May], That the Petition of E. Truelove and others do lie upon the Table be read, and discharged; and that so much of the Appendix to the Twenty-second Report of Public Petitions as comprises a printed copy of the said Petition be cancelled."—(Major Anson,) —instead thereof.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) from the House on this occasion, more particularly as he had had full notice of the present debate. The Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend had been for some time on the Notice Paper, and the hon. Member must have expected a discussion on the present occasion, because he (Mr. B. Cochrane) had had the honour of moving the rejection of the petition at the time the hon. Member for Birmingham presented it. His hon. and gallant Friend dwelt upon the insults to the army contained in the petition. But the question involved greater considerations than those of the army. The British Army did not need to be protected from insult— The blood of Douglas can protect itself. But if hon. Members were aware of the terms in which this petition was couched, he was sure they would be of opinion that it should not be allowed to remain on record. When was the petition presented? It was at the time when the trials were going on of those unhappy men whose lives had been spared by the mercy of their gracious Sovereign. When the hon. Member presented this petition he did not read it with the clearness which would enable the House to judge of it as a whole, or the House would have supported his Motion for its rejection. But he read enough to show its character. The petition, after enumerating the alleged grievances of Ireland, went on to say that— In the consequent apparent hopelessness of a remedy for the evils which press on their country, honourable Irishmen may, however erroneously, feel justified in resorting to force; that, in a word, there is legitimate ground for the chronic discontent of which Fenianism is the expression, and, therefore, palliation for the errors of Fenianism. The petitioners thereupon prayed— That the prisoners taken may be well treated before trial, and judged and sentenced with as much leniency as is consistent with the preservation of order, and that in the punishments awarded there might be none of a degrading nature, as such punishments seem to your petitioners inapplicable to men whose cause and whose offence are alike free from dishonour, however misguided they may be as to the special end they have in view, or as to the means which they have adopted to attain that end. A petition referring in such terms to men on their trial for high treason should never have been presented, and if presented ought never to have been accepted by the House. This was said of men who were on their trial for high treason and for acts which might have led to a general revolt. Last year the hon. Member for Birmingham complained of the attacks that had been made upon him. Having read the speeches of that hon. Member during the recess, and especially those delivered in Ireland—he said now what he would say if the hon. Member were present, that for the miseries and sufferings of those misguided men that hon. Member was in great part responsible. He had said that if Ireland were 1,000 miles away from England the landlords would be exterminated. Was not that an instigation to assassination? In another speech, though he could not quote the exact words, he said that if moral force would not do the people had a right to resort to physical force. The man was responsible who went into a country in such an unhappy state of excitement as Ireland then was, and made such speeches when there. He had followed up those speeches by presenting this petition. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) now asked, was such a petition to be allowed to remain on record?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into the question which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), and thought the House would hardly wish to dwell long upon the petition to which he had alluded. That petition was presented some six weeks ago. The Speaker and the House generally deemed it to be regular. It was a most extraordinary proceeding now to move that the Order for allowing it to lie on the table should be discharged. Whatever opinions might be entertained as to the tenour of that petition, he hoped the House would regard the right of petitioning as sacred, and not suffer it to be interfered with. Neither did he mean to say anything in favour of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who was so able to defend himself, in answer to the attack just made upon him in his absence. As that absence had been remarked upon he might say that he supposed his hon. Friend, like most other people, thought that a Motion for the discharge of the Order in reference to a petition which had been presented six weeks ago could hardly be meant as serious. He wished simply to notice one of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who stated that he was compelled to bring forward this question in order to vindicate the army from slander. He should have thought that a gallant and distinguished officer like the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have deemed it right to speak in the terms he had done of another gallant officer of the army, once a Member of that House, and not less honourable, gallant, and distinguished than himself—namely, General Perronet Thompson. He did not believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have made that attack upon that gallant General had he still been a Member of that House. At any rate he would, in such case, have been called to order for un-Parliamentary language. It was not right to make remarks about an old and distinguished officer for which an apology must have been made to him had he still been a Member of that House. So far from his hon. and gallant Friend, General Thompson, having made himself infamous in the opinion of those who best knew him in consequence of what he had said in regard to the Indian Mutiny, he had thereby only the more endeared himself to them. The gallant General, as an officer of the army, feeling strongly ashamed of much that was then done by the army in India, expressed himself in that hearty and generous manner which was habitual to him. Speaking for his constituents at Bradford, whom his gallant Friend represented at the time, he was sure that, instead of looking on him as infamous on account of the course he took, they only honoured him the more for it. He must therefore express his surprise that the hon. and gallant Member should have made such a charge against such a man, and at such a time.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

said, that as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, he wished to state the rule upon which they acted. The Committee had no power to object to any petition owing to any fault of substance. Any such objection must be taken at the moment of the presentation of the petition; or it was competent for any Member to move, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman now did, the discharge of the Order in regard to it. In the absence of such objection, the petition had to be dealt with by the Committee according to their usual practice, which was to print all important petitions that were not couched in disrespectful language and did not contain attacks on individual character. Tried by these tests, the Committee had no option. The subject matter was important. It related to a rebellion in the country. The petitioners were men known in the ranks of literature and law, and their opinions were such as it was thought desirable to put the House in possession of, provided they did not contravene the rule to which he had referred, After what took place on the presentation; of that petition, the Committee came to no decision upon it until they had made it the subject of lengthened deliberation, They had the advantage of consulting the highest authority in the House upon it. They then came to the unanimous opinion that there was nothing in that petition taking it out of the category of petitions which it was their invariable practice to print. He conceded that it contained statements opposed to the feelings of the great majority of the House; but he asked whether it would not be a serious curtailment of the right of petition, of which the House and the country were always jealous, if on that account they were to reject or refuse to print a petition? He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) would rest satisfied with having called the attention of the House to the subject. He would only say, on the part of the Committee, that they felt they would best discharge their duty by making their Reports the reflex of the various opinions of the country. Having endeavoured to perform that duty with strict impartiality, and with the greatest courtesy to every hon. Member, he thought he might confidently appeal to the House to uphold their decision. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Anson) would not press his Motion, as he might rest satisfied that the reputation of the army was not in any way injured.

MR. J. STUART MILL

I rise, not for the purpose of discussing the question raised upon the Motion submitted to us, which I cannot imagine, especially after the opposition made to it by the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, that the House will think of adopting. I rise, moved by a feeling of self-respect, to say that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought it his duty to move that the petition be expelled from the House, he should go further, and move that I be expelled from it, for there is not a single sentiment in the petition which I do not adopt. I will not say that I adhere to every word in it, but to every sentiment in it I most implicitly do, I and I thank my hon. Friend who presented it for having given utterance for once in this House to a feeling which nearly all England and all the world entertain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that utterance I to be an attack on his profession. I have been infinitely more disgusted in reference to the Indian transactions referred to, by the inhuman and ferocious displays of feeling made by unmilitary persons, persons in civil life, who were safe at home, and who, it seems to me, were far more culpable than those who committed excesses under such provocation as there is no denying was I given in the case of India. Even the deeds there done of inhuman and indiscriminate massacre, the seizing of persons in all parts of the country and putting them to I death without trial, and then boasting of it in a manner almost disgraceful to humanity, were by no means confined to the army. I have no doubt that in many cases the habitual discipline of the army, and their professional feelings, prevented them from being guilty of such deeds. I could tell the House of gentlemen who resigned their commissions and left the army because they could not bear the deeds which they not only saw done, but were compelled by their orders to do. ["Name, name!"] I decline to name them, and by naming them to expose them to attacks like those which have been made to-night against a well-known public man, formerly a Member of this House, for the vindication of whom I return my sincerest thanks to the hon. Member for Bradford. With respect to the sentiments contained in the petition relating to the Fenians, I beg to point out that it contains a very decided and strong condemnation of their conduct. All it said was that it was conduct of which men of honour might have been capable. That cannot be denied. It cannot be denied that such men as Wolfe Tone, Emmett, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, however wrongly they may have acted, were the very stuff of which patriot heroes are made. The errors of the Fenians may be more blameable than theirs. Do I exculpate their conduct? Certainly not. It was greatly culpable, because it was contrary to the general interests of society and of their country. Still, errors of this character are not errors which evince a vulgar mind — certainly not a mind likely to be guilty of ordinary crime and vice—rather a mind capable of heroic actions and lofty virtue. Such acts have been committed by the most self-devoted and admirable persons. I know nothing of those particular men which can enable me to judge whether this be the case with them or not; but the conduct by which they have made themselves amenable to the law, and for which they must be punished, does not stamp them as objects of detestation, but rather of pity.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, that if anything were required to justify the present Motion, which he should certainly support, it would be found in the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member. He felt that he was somewhat hampered in this matter, from the circumstance that he was a Member of the Committee on Petitions, and if he had discharged his duty as regularly as he usually tried to do he should have had the opportunity, when the petition came before them, of moving that it be rejected. After what had been said, however, by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee, it was probable such a Motion would have failed. He thought it very important that the opinion should not be entertained by the army that the feelings expressed by two hon. Members was generally shared by the House or by the country. He recollected that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), when he read the petition, told the House that he cordially concurred in the expressions it contained, and now that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had used similar language, he wished to point out—for the question was one on which it was very important there should be no mistake — how very peculiarly, how dangerously even, the petition bore upon the country to which its prayer particularly related. He had joined the army in Ireland immediately after the Clontarf meeting, and was quartered in Tipperary, where the troops were constantly employed in the most harassing duties, such as preventing faction fights, attending fairs, and escorting prisoners. He was therefore in a position to speak from practical experience of the extraordinary good temper and forbearance which the soldiers on every occasion manifested. So great was their forbearance, and so completely was it acknowledged throughout the country, that it was a thing of common occurrence to receive them with cheers when they entered a fair, instead of with hootings, as appeared to be since but too frequently the case. What he wished to impress upon the minds of hon. Members was that if by statements made in that House the people of Ireland were led to believe that a tyrannical disposition towards them prevailed among the soldiery, and that there was a desire on their part rather to injure them than to act as the supporters of law and order, a degree of ill-feeling would be created which it was most undesirable should exist on one side or the other. If the hon. Member for Westminister (Mr. Stuart Mill) had read the evidence — every word of which he had read—taken at the coroner's inquest in the case of the Dungarvan election he would see how very angry the feeling was which prevailed. His acute and, he believed impartial, mind, would be forced to admit that the troops on that occasion had exhibited the most extraordinary forbearance. Consequences followed the outbreak which everybody must deeply deplore, the traces of which would not, he was afraid, be so easily expunged u*s he hoped the present petition would be from the records of the House. The army was not in that position that it need ask for mercy, but it demanded justice. If our soldiers and officers were not supported fairly and frankly in the performance of duties generally difficult, often dangerous — if, especially, they did not see that there was in the House of Commons a determination to stand by them — they might not, in the hour of need, with every desire to do so, be able to render those services we should require at their hands. A feeling might unwittingly have been built up against them which they would not find it easy to combat, and which might bring about most disastrous results. Entertaining those views, he begged to thank his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major Anson) for having brought forward a Motion, which, notwithstanding that he was a Member of the Select Committee on Petition, he would, if it were pressed to a division, cordially support.

MR. REARDEN

said, that the reception of the petition might more fairly have been opposed on the occasion of its being presented than that evening, when there were very few Irish Members in attendance. As to the army, there was no part of the British dominions in which it was usually treated with greater cordiality than in Ireland. The grievances of Ireland, he regretted to say, had come in for a very small share of the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had spoken that evening. Yet those grievances bore heavily on the country, and called loudly for redress. Since the Union millions had been spent on the maintenance of a Church which was not that of the Irish people, while the land was every year drained of millions by absentee landlords. The position of Ireland was something like that of a living body placed upon a dissecting table and having its life blood drawn away drop by drop. For such a state of things that House, he regretted to say, did not seem disposed to provide a remedy. Circumstances might arise in Europe which would cause a different feeling to prevail, and which might secure for Ireland that without which she never would or ought to be satisfied—self-government. If this were done the necessity for presenting such petitions as the one now under discussion would be done away with for ever. In giving expression to those sentiments, he wished it to be understood that he was a loyal subject of Her Majesty, and that he had no sympathy with the recent Fenian movement.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that much in the petition in question might perhaps be excused had it emanated from Irishmen, instead of being signed by persons who lived within the sound of Bow Bells, some of whom were known to entertain extreme revolutionary opinions. Among them was one, E. Truelove, a person who he was informed kept a small second-hand book-shop near Temple Bar, containing a large stock of infidel tracts and publications. The petition was made up by persons from Birmingham, Bradford, and similar places. Truelove had been described to him as a Chartist, accompanied by other epithets he had no wish to repeat. The petition was signed by persons of extreme opinions, and was a mere pretence in order to enable them, by a perversion of Parliamentary forms, to enunciate treason in that House. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who presented it, did not venture to appear on the present occasion. He should be extremely surprised if the House justified a proceeding of this kind, by which an hon. Gentleman was enabled to read to the House any sentiments, however treasonable and subversive of the Institutions of the country. There was a well-known rule against any Member reading the contents of a petition he presented; but the hon. Member read, he believed, the whole of this petition. Besides which, even this rule was virtually evaded, when the prayer of a petition was made the vehicle of conveying sentiments like these. It was said that if the petition had been presented by any other but the hon. Member no one would have objected to it. But he was inclined to think, on the contrary, that any person of less influence in the House would have been stopped in reading it. He did not understand the distinction between words spoken in the House and words read from a petition. Some nights ago an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Edwards) imputed a sympathy with Fenianism to Members on the other side of the House, and he was called to order for doing so. Such being the case he did not understand how any Gentleman on the Opposition Benches could be allowed, under the cloak of presenting a petition, to read words setting forth that "honourable Irishmen may, however erroneously, feel justified in resorting to force," and "whose cause and whose offence are alike free from dishonour." He trusted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), who had brought this subject forward, would proceed to a division.

MR. NEATE

said, he inferred from the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Motion before the House was meant not so much as a censure against the petition as a censure against the hon. Member for Birmingham. The fact of that hon. Member not being in his place constituted a sufficient reason for not pressing the Motion to a division. The petition, like most petitions, outstepped the fair limits of a petition. But it was not unreasonable for people, taking into consideration the excessive severity exhibited on the only two recent occasions when the British Army had to act, remembering also the unexampled severity, as compared with other nations, which this country, however ready to encourage sedition and disaffection in other countries, displayed in dealing with rebellion on its own soil—it was not unreasonable that those who took an interest in humanity, and in the honour of the country, should express a hope that the House would not countenance a repetition of such acts. After the temperate manner in which the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) had put the case before the House he trusted that the Motion would not be pressed to a division.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he could not help rising after hearing the remarks of the hon. Member. It was all very well for that hon. Member and for the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who had remained quietly by their firesides in England, to talk of the atrocities of the British Army in India and Jamaica. In cases of disturbances in this country everyone who knew any-thing about British soldiers was well aware how impossible almost, no matter what provocation they received, it was to get them to act in the manner they were called on to do, so great was the feeling of forbearance on their part. It was too hard that the hon. Member for Westminster, who was himself leader in a persecution—one of the grossest ever perpetrated—against the late Governor Eyre, should accuse British troops of inhumanity. Did the hon. Members who spoke of the brutality of the British troops in India think that they ought to have coolly witnessed the outrages and murders of which so many English women and children were the victims? Hon. Members stated that it was wrong to bring forward the present Motion in the absence of the hon. Member for Birmingham; but that hon. Member was in the constant habit of abusing men behind their backs, and then taking very good care to be absent when they were present to defend themselves. With regard to General Thompson, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward; the Motion now before the House would have held the same language, whether in the presence or absence of General Thompson. He thanked him for the manner in which he had called attention to the subject under consideration. The petitioners alleged that they were Justly alarmed by their recollection of the atrocities perpetrated by the English troops in Ireland in 1798, and also by their recollection of the conduct of the English army and its officers in India and Jamaica. It was evident that the individuals who signed the petition did not know the circumstances of the case, for no men could: have behaved with more consideration than the troops in India and Jamaica. These were gross slanders on the British Army, and he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend had made the remarks he had on the subject. He should certainly divide with him if the Motion were pressed.

MR. DODSON

said, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into any criticism on this petition. He had no wish to vindicate either the spirit by which it was inspired or the terms in which it was expressed. But it seemed to him that they were in danger of travelling much beyond: the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson). Certainly he had no wish to join in the strictures which had been made on the conduct of the British Army in India or elsewhere. Nor did he rise to defend the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, as already observed, was able to take care of himself, and might have been here this evening had he thought proper. He rose for the purpose of asking them seriously to consider, before going to a division, the kind of precedent they might make in reference to petitions presented to the House. Petitions to that House were only rejected on four grounds—first, because they were in some way informal; secondly, because they were disrespectful to the House of Commons or to the other House of Parliament; thirdly, because they violated the rules of the House by referring to debates that had taken place in it; or, fourthly, because they prayed for a grant of money. The petition under consideration, whatever its defects, did not violate any of these rules. Was the House then prepared, at very short notice, to make a fifth rule and impose some further restriction on the right of petition? He did not defend the petition except so far as to say that it was not a violation of the rules of the House, he feared the proposal might by some persons be regarded as a restriction on right of petition, and was of opinion that such a step ought not to be taken without the most careful consideration. He would suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should rest satisfied with having called attention to the petition, and with the feeling he had elicited from a large number of hon. Members in favour of his view, and that he would not proceed to force the House to a division, which would run the risk of being misinterpreted out of doors, and might, perhaps, become the means of establishing a precedent which might prove inconvenient hereafter.

MR. POWELL

said, the House was in a difficulty in being culled upon to discuss a petition which had not been read to the House that night. His first impression was that the petition had been rend, per incuriam, that it ought not to have been received, but on examining it more fully it appeared to him to be a petition which the House could not fairly reject. It was one of an extraordinary character, containing a most peculiar mixture of argument and fact. In the first sentence Fenianism was deprecated, not on the ground that it was erroneous and an evil to the State, but because it was a secret movement; and in the same sentence there was a declaration that it had not been shown that violence was the only means remaining for obtaining the ends proposed, and a suggestion that the ends were legitimate and right. There was another statement that Irishmen might feel justified in resorting to force, however erroneously. He thought it was better and safer for the State that petitioners should approach the House proclaiming their sentiments publicly than that they should form private cabals and the hideous projects of foreign assassins. He did not think Parliament ought by force and vigorous action to set its foot on such enunciations of opinions, however wild and erroneous. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, and would not press his Motion to a division.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Chairman of the Committee on Petitions (Mr. Charles Forster). Having long sat as Chairman of the same Committee, he might say they had always felt it to be their duty not to allow any personal opinion on the subject-matter of a petition to influence their decision as to whether it should be printed. The first question was whether a petition was of sufficient importance to be printed after it had been received in due form, and not found to be open, on subsequent inquiry, to any objection which might have arisen if the petition had been read at the table. The petition had very considerable attention called to it. The question was whether the petition ought to have been printed after being received by the House and no comment made on it.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, he had opposed the reception of the petition.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

He begged pardon; he was not in the House at the time. The petition was brought before the Committee, which was composed of Members from both sides of the House. He had himself taken exception to some parts of it—to the signatures, for instance,—and had asked whether the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would be responsible for the authenticity of the signatures. Members of all parties were ready to admit the general principle that the House should be put in possession of opinions, however distasteful to the majority, so long ns they were respectful to the House, and did not transgress the rules of the House by commenting upon the Crown, the Houses of Parliament, and some other constituted authorities. He regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had thought it his duty to defend the army of this country against the attacks made upon it in this petition. The army did not need defence. Should the House agree to this Motion they would be departing from the rule that no restriction should be placed upon persona petitioning who believed they had a grievance. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and would withdraw his Motion.

MR. WATKIN

said, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) would not press his Motion for two reasons. In the first place, if it succeeded the public might suppose the House had come to the determination not to listen in future to expressions of discontent from any quarter; in the second place, because if the Motion were pressed a fictitious importance would be given to a most contemptible document. The petition, he repeated, was a most contemptible document, and he must express his surprise at any person supposing that the honour of the British Army could be affected by the statements it contained. The honour of the British Army was in the care of the British people, and military men might well afford to treat such attacks as that contained in the petition with the contempt they deserved. He regretted that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) should have thrown the shield of his position over the petition. It was absurd to compare Emmett or Wolfe Tone with those who had presented this document. The terms "Fenian" and "miscreant" were convertible. There was no excuse for those whose late actions had disfigured the history of Ireland. Still, in his opinion, it would be better if the hon. and gallant Member would be content with having elicited from the House a strong opinion upon the petition, and would withdraw his Motion.

MR. AGAR-ELLIS

said, that the hon. and gallant Member, by pressing his Motion, would put many Members of the House in a false position. However much they abhorred the statements in the petition, they might be compelled to vote against the Motion as imposing a restriction upon the right of petitioning.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I have no doubt that the verdict of history upon the conduct of the British Army in India will be very different from the opinion respecting it expressed in this petition. That verdict will rank the achievements of our army in India among the most heroic deeds which have been recorded in ancient or modern times. Nor would it be easy in the history of any nation, at any time, to find instances in which the marvellous energy and fertility of resource displayed by our army under such difficult circumstances have been equalled. I am not at all surprised that the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Anson) has brought this matter under the consideration of the House. The hon. and gallant Officer is proud of his profession, and I may be permitted to say that his profession is proud of him. But when we come to consider all the circumstances connected with the presentation of this petition, I think it would be well if, after the almost unanimous expression of opinion of the House as to the character of the petition, the hon. and gallant Officer were to hesitate for a moment before he proceeds with this Motion. Some considerable time has elapsed since the petition was presented. At the time it was presented the highest authority in this House stated most accurately that when it was printed it would be open to any Member to call attention to its character, which was at that time very properly impugned. After that expression of opinion, however, the petition was subjected to the recognised tribunal of the House with respect to these matters. I think we may take a large view of the circumstances, and I cannot help feeling that the House will hesitate a great deal before they declare that any expression of opinion by persons out of the House offered to our consideration shall be suppressed. During the time I have had the honour of sitting in this House petitions have been presented to it containing the most violent expression of opinions—opinions which were opposed to the views I held, and which were entertained by my political friends—petitions which cast aspersions upon the Institutions most dear to us, and which expressed sentiments repugnant to our most cherished convictions. But the House has always considered that the liberty of petitioning should be indulged even to licentiousness rather than that it should be supposed to be in any way restricted. It might, perhaps, have been a better exercise of discretion had the Committee not printed the petition. Much, however, might be said upon both sides of even that question, since it might not, perhaps, be to the credit of the House of Commons if an idea were to get abroad that it shrank from publishing an expression of opinion of which they disapproved. I think that the expressions of opinion contained in this petition are disapproved by the entire body of the House, with very rare exceptions, and that few coincide in the opinions heard to-night from on hon Member (Mr. Stuart Mill) whom we all respect. But looking at all the circumstances, we must consider not whether there may not be some expressions of opinion in this petition which cannot for a moment be justified, which are outrageous in sentiment, and which are erroneous in argument—but whether by the solemn act of the House of Commons rejecting a petition presented to them by persons who, from their education and social position, ought to be of respectable character, we shall not appear to sanction the idea that we are endeavouring to suppress opinions of which we do not approve. Will it not be better to permit the expression of such opinions, however wild, however erroneous, and however painful they may be to the House as a body, or to the individuals of which it is composed, than that it should be for a moment supposed that we shrink from their being made public? I think that, considering all the circumstances of the case—the time that has elapsed since the petition was presented, the decision pronounced by the highest authority of the House acting, in strict conformity with history and precedent, that the petition should be referred to the Committee of Selection, and the decision of that Committee that the petition should be printed—I think under all these circumstances that it should be permitted to vest upon the table. I think that it would not be expedient for us now to take the course recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), though none of us ought to shrink from expressing our opinions as to the petition itself. I am satisfied that the reputation of the British Army will not suffer in the estimation of the country from this unfounded and malevolent criticism. Attacks of this kind will only cause the people to recall to their minds the glorious deeds which have been performed by that army. The rapidity with which events succeed each other may prevent our thinking of the past—even when the past is so recent and so memorable as the Indian Mutiny—as frequently as we ought. But a discussion like that which has occurred to-night will recall to the memory of the people of England the events which then occurred, and with those events will be recalled the unrivalled heroism displayed by our troops throughout that desperate contest. The English Army can afford to treat with the contempt it deserves such a production as this petition, considering the quarter from which it emanates, and the persons on whose behalf it has been presented.

LORD ELCHO

said, that as the forms of the House prevented the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) from replying, he might be permitted to say, on behalf of his hon. and gallant Relative, that it was not through any fault of his that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was absent on that occasion. The hon. Member for Birmingham knew that it was the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring this subject before the House previous to the recent recess. The hon. Member for Birmingham having to attend an American dinner, begged of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Motion, on the ground that he wished to be present when it came on for discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman consented to postpone his Motion, but told the hon. Member that he should bring it on the very first night after the recess. He hoped that under these circumstances the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was likely to say behind people's backs what he would not repeat before their faces—though this was not perhaps a fault so characteristic of him as of some others—would see that it was not owing to any fault of his hon. and gallant Relative that the hon. Member for Birmingham was not in his place. If the hon. Member preferred fishing in Ireland to being in his place in the House, that was not, of course, the fault of his hon. and gallant Relative. No man had a better right to speak upon this question than his hon. and gallant Relative had. His hon. and gallant Relative had served throughout the whole of the Indian Mutiny, and was actively engaged in its suppression from the first shot that was fired before Delhi to the last in Nepaul. He well recollected his hon. and gallant Relative in his letters from India at that time stating how keenly those who, with such fearful odds against them, were endeavouring to rescue our Empire in India from destruction felt what was said about them by certain portions of the press of this country and by others; how keenly they felt what was said in this House; but above all the observations which had been made by an hon. and gallant General (General Thompson), whose position in the army had rendered the injustice more unpalatable than if it had appeared in the most important journals of the country. If the hon. and gallant General had thought it right on that occasion to rise in his place and to refer to the handful of British troops who were struggling to maintain our authority in India as "hangmen and murderers," it was not for the hon. Member to accuse his hon. and gallant Relative of being afraid to say to a man's face what he would say behind his back, because being one of those thus stigmatised in his absence, he complained of the language then employed by the hon. and gallant General. He could not therefore think that his hon. and gallant Relative deserved the censure which he had received at the hands of the hon. Member for Bradford.

MAJOR ANSON

said, that in deference to the opinion of his hon. Friends and of the House, he was ready to withdraw his Amendment. ["No!"]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 11: Majority 32.

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."