§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that the question he was about to address to the Treasury Bench was one which might more properly be put to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, yet the right hon. Gentleman, not having been in Office at the time to which he was about to refer, was not so well acquainted with the circumstances of the case as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and, as a matter of fact, was not responsible. Indeed, he (Mr. Parnell) might say that neither he nor the late Chief Secretary for Ireland were responsible for the subject of his inquiry, since the latter had practically left Office at the time—that was to say, his health having failed, he did not attend the House, and the duties of his Office consequently devolved on the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question he wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was this. What had become 1382 of the Bill which he promised, last August, he would introduce at the commencement of the Session, for the purpose of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to distribute the Free Police Force every three years, instead of quinquennially? The hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect the circumstance now that he called it to his mind. He would remember that, in consequence of the discussion which took place in Committee upon the Vote for the Irish Constabulary, the Government, through the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman, were induced to promise, in the event of Lord Spencer assenting, that power should be taken to enable Lord Spencer to distribute the men of the Free Force up to the amount they were entitled to by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Parnell) then pointed out that the strength of the Free Force was some 500 or 600 officers and men under the full amount, and that, in consequence of the Free Force not being up to its full strength, the extra police in Ireland were very much swollen in numbers. The arguments used by himself and his hon. Friends produced such an impression on the Irish Government that the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards promised to introduce a non-contentious Bill, which should be passed through Parliament, for the purpose of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to redistribute every three years, instead of five years—that was to say, for the purpose of enabling him to distribute the Free Force at once. He had been expecting all through the Session to see a Notice given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce this non-contentious Bill; but his patience had not been rewarded, for no such Notice had appeared. Therefore, he begged leave to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what had become of this Bill; why he did not give Notice of its introduction; whether he intended to give Notice of its introduction; and whether he could give any explanation of the delay which had taken place? He would be glad to hear the Solicitor General for Ireland on all these points, and he would remind him that he received value in advance for the consideration of this Bill. At a period of the Session when time was of great value to the Government, Irish Members gave up their right to continue the discussion, on the promise of the Prime 1383 Minister that it should be discussed on Report, and that the Report on the said Vote should not be brought on after half-past 11 at night. Of course, the Government yielded to the justice of their claim; but, at the same time, they received a valuable consideration from Irish Members. Having previously given up their right to discuss the Vote in Committee, they afterwards gave up their right to discuss it on Report, in order to allow the Prime Minister to make a statement in regard to foreign affairs. Now, he would just refer to the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, made on the Report of Supply. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that—
When this Vote was under consideration an argument was brought forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in reference to the number of police for Ireland, as fixed by Act of Parliament; and the complaint was made that the free force was not fully distributed among the counties and cities of Ireland, and that, in consequence, a great grievance was imposed on the country. Now, the argument of the hon. Member had since that time been very carefully considered by him (Mr. Walker); and he confessed that it appeared to him that if it was a fact, as had been stated, that the free force of 10,000 men, over and above the ordinary vacancies taken at 5 per cent, was not really distributed, it was a case for favourable consideration; and, consequently, he was prepared to recommend that a communication should be made to the Lord Lieutenant to that effect. It it were found to be the fact that the free force was not fully distributed, the matter could only be remedied by legislation, because there was no means of remedying it, except at the quinquennial redistribution, which would not take place before 1887. If the grievance existed, legislation would be introduced for the purpose, and he would be prepared to introduce a provision, making the redistribution triennial instead of quinquennial, as at present. To give effect to the arrangement, a Supplementary Estimate would be brought forward by the Secretary to the Treasury."—(3 Hansard, [292] 232–3.)Upon that statement it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Vote was allowed to go through, Up to the present time nothing further had been heard about the matter. The understanding was that the Government would have introduced the Bill during the Winter Session of Parliament were it not that they had pledged themselves to the position only to convene the Session for the purpose of passing the Franchise Bill, and that no other Government legislation should be brought forward. Therefore, no steps were 1384 taken during the Winter Session; but since then the new Session had practically recommenced, and he had been waiting to see the hon. and learned Gentleman introduce the Bill, and redeem his promise for the purpose of putting a stop to imposts on the Irish people which they were unable to pay.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he remembered the promise he made. The Bill might have been introduced within the last week; but it had not been brought in owing to the backward state of other Business before the House. He would, however, be prepared to give Notice of it within the next few days, and lay it on the Table of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLWill it be confined to that point, or will other matter be introduced in it?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)I will explain the provisions of the Bill fully when it is laid on the Table of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he should like to be informed upon the point now. He did not wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to enter into the details of the Bill; but when this matter was being discussed last August it was distinctly understood—it was expressed in fact—that the Bill should be a non-contentious Bill. If the Government were going to introduce matter other than the alteration of the redistribution of the police from a quinquennial to a triennial term, he maintained that the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be kept. If other matter, repugnant and odious to him (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends, and which they should feel compelled to oppose, were introduced in the Bill, it would be impossible for the measure to be passed this Session, or, at all events, a very long delay would take place before it was passed; whereas if the Government fulfilled their pledge in its spirit and its letter, and introduced a non-contentious Bill, it would not be blocked on that side of the House, and he should imagine by nobody on the other side of the House, since hon. Gentlemen were under the control of the Leaders on the front Ministerial Bench. This was a matter, in his opinion, which was capable of a plain answer; would the Bill in question 1385 be confined to the single point connected with the alteration of the term from five years to three years; or was it the intention of the Irish Government to take advantage of the promise made to him, to try and force down their throats matters foreign to the particular subject under discussion when the promise was made, matters which were repugnant to them, and which would necessarily compel them to prevent—if it was in their power—the passing of the Bill?
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was to be regretted that the Government had not put at once a stop to this discussion. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated a matter which involved the public faith, not only of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), but of the Prime Minister. Surely such a matter was not to be tampered with lightly. It would be in the recollection of every Member of the Committee that when, at 6 o'clock on a Saturday Sitting last August, it was necessary for the Government to make a statement with regard to Egyptian Finance, the Committee were discussing the Irish Constabulary Vote, and the Irish Members agreed to allow Progress to be reported at that hour—because everybody in the House and in the country was anxious to know what was the result of the Conference of the European Powers which had just concluded its labours. He and his hon. Friends agreed to allow Progress to be reported on the distinct understanding that the Vote would be brought up on Report before 11 o'clock at night. An arrangement, however, was come to between the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, who was always extremely anxious to prevent anything like discussion if matters could be arranged without it, and the Government, the latter agreeing that they would bring in a Bill to reduce the term from five years to three years. That was a square arrangement, and thoroughly understood by every Member of the House and by the Government. It was understood that the Bill should be brought in at the earliest possible moment, and that it should be confined to two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the 1386 Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), both of whom were anxious that the quinquennial term should be reduced to a triennial term, approved of the arrangement—indeed, it was approved on all sides. What was now found? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork asked whether the promise was to be fulfilled, and he could not get an answer. He (Mr. Healy) really did think that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) ought to be able to give, on this point, the most straightforward answer. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were in his place, he would not hesitate for a moment to give an answer. The noble Lord the Member for Flint (Lord Richard Grosvenor), who was now present, thoroughly understood what the arrangement was. Why did he not now get up and state what his impression was? He (Mr. Healy) grieved to have to say it, but his experience was that if he and his hon. Friends ever came to an understanding with a Member of the Irish Government, they were sure to find that the Gentleman they had been dealing with was overruled—in fact, he could do nothing, unless he had a Member of the English Government by his side. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) would bear him out when he said that last year an agreement was come to in order to enable a statement to be made with regard to the Egyptian Conference; that the Irish Members allowed Progress to be reported; that they afterwards allowed the Vote to be taken; and that, subsequently, an arrangement was come to that, if they forewent the discussion on the Report of Supply, the Bill would be introduced to reduce the term from a quinquennial to a triennial one. Now, they asked if the Bill was to be introduced in a non-contentious form, and they could not get a straightforward answer. Was that the way to treat hon. Members? Unquestionably, it was understood that the Bill was to be inoffensive, and that all sides would agree to it. He could not say what the Government wished to put in the Bill; but it did look very evident that an agreement honourably made was now about to be broken by the Government. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for 1387 Ireland to save the time of the House by getting up and saying whether the agreement come to with the Prime Minister was to be kept.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he was not personally aware what the agreement or understanding of last Session was; indeed, he did not know that an agreement had been arrived at. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends seemed to attach considerable importance to the understanding, especially to what they maintained was the fact, that the legislation was to be embodied, in a Bill by itself. ["A consent Bill!"] A consent Bill! There was no such thing as a consent Bill. They never could tell what part of the Bill might give rise to dissent. But he would undertake, at all events, to look into what occurred, and see if any such understanding was expressed. Now they were asked to state what the nature of the Bill was that they contemplated bringing in. It was a most unusual thing to be asked to do that, when the Bill was to be brought in within a day or two. Hon. Members had only to wait until the Bill was introduced; then they would become acquainted with all its provisions. They had been told that it was impossible to get a straightforward answer, and that no bargain could be made by a Member of the Irish Government, unless there was a Member of the English Government by his side. He assured hon. Gentlemen that that was not the case, and he could also assure them that there was no intention of breaking any agreement which had been arrived at. It would, however, be most unusual for the Government to state what the provisions of a Bill which had not been introduced were.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very sorry he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as a satisfactory one. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he did not know, not having been in Office at the time, what the nature of the promise of the Government was. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), who was sitting by the right hon. Gentle- 1388 man's side, did know. Would the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland get up, and state that he (Mr. Parnell) had or had not given a correct account of what took place? He (Mr. Parnell) had stated two things; first of all, that the Government agreed to take into consideration the fact as to whether there was this shortcoming regarding the number of the Free Force; and, secondly, if they found it was so, they would introduce not only a Bill, but a Supplementary Estimate, to remedy the grievance. Now, that was his first statement; and his second statement was that it was expressly stated at the time by the Solicitor General for Ireland that both the Bill and the Estimate were to be non-contentious. He did not ask—indeed, it would have been unfair to expect—the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to answer either of these questions, or to assent to these propositions; but it was not unfair to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, who, at the time, was acting for the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), and who made the promise in question, who took part in the proceeding, and who, in fact, was the Irish Executive, to whom he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends had to look—it was not unfair to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the two statements he (Mr. Parnell) had made formed a true representation of the facts of the case; and whether, if they did, would the Bill be introduced in accordance with those facts? Now, this was a question for plain dealing, and for plain statement. He submitted that without going into the merits of the Bill, of which Notice had not been given, without departing from any of the customs which were usual in discussing Estimates, the Solicitor General for Ireland was bound to answer the question now put to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position to say whether his (Mr. Parnell's) account of the affair was correct or not, and he was also in a position to say whether he would carry out the pledges he made—carry them out in their spirit, and in their letter. The hon. and learned Gentleman might not consider himself a free agent in this matter; but he (Mr. Parnell) asserted that nobody was free to break his word, and that, however subordinate the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman 1389 might be to a higher authority in Ireland, he ought not to allow himself to be placed in a position of refusing to carry out a distinct agreement—an agreement which he must know perfectly well was entered into. In dealing with Irish officials, he (Mr. Parnell) did not know on what they could depend, if they were to be treated in this way. He did not know what they were to depend upon, if they could not depend upon plain declarations, or upon plain assurances, made both in and out of the House, and in this case they had had both in abundance. There was no doubt whatever in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman at the time of the occurrence. Any doubt that had arisen since had arisen in consequence of the action of somebody else besides himself. He believed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been left to himself, he would, as an honourable Irishman, have repeated the intention of fulfilling that which he promised. The engagement and the understanding was a perfectly distinct one, and there could be no doubt whatever as to the merits of the case. He (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends were strongly supported from the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) supported them from the Front Opposition Bench; and that right hon. Gentleman was very much annoyed that, during his absence, they, in consequence of the promise given them by the Solicitor General for Ireland, allowed the Report of the Vote to be taken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) also supported them, and thought they were fools to trust to the Punic promise of the Government. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that they ought not to be put off with the evasion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Either his (Mr. Parnell's) account of the transaction was a correct one, or it was incorrect. If it were incorrect, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to point out in what respect it was incorrect; and he could, if he would, say whether he intended to fulfil his pledge as to the introduction of the Bill.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would certainly carry out to the full, not only what was stated in his promise, 1390 but what was implied. He had not, however, heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) read from Hansard anything relating to the promised Bill being a non-contentious Bill. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh, but you made other statements.] That matter never entered into his mind. He (Mr. Walker) did not say it might not have been the understanding of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork; but the matter certainly never entered his (Mr. Walker's) mind, one way or the other, except as he stated—and his words were very faithfully and carefully reported in Hansard. If what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork had said was implied from his words, he (Mr. Walker) would certainly not withdraw from his words. He would read over the report of the debate in Hansard again; and if he saw that the agreement, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, was either expressed or implied, he should certainly abide by it.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was present on the occasion to which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) referred; and he could say that nothing was more clearly understood than that a Bill would be brought in by the Government applicable to the particular case of the distribution of the Constabulary Force. Whether it was expressed or not, it was certainly understood that the Bill would be brought in for that purpose alone. In his opinion, if the Bill were to be brought in uniting that purpose with another purpose, there would be a deliberate breach of the engagement.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that this conversation illustrated the extreme difficulty he and his hon. Friends found in securing attention to the most reasonable claims they made. If they asked why a claim for compensation was made in the Estimates, they were told that an official had run away; if they asked why the Government resisted the claim of a surgeon for attending upon a landlord, they were told that the official concerned in the matter was dead; if they claimed the performance of a promise made last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) rose at the Table, and, beginning by a statement that he was not in Office, and therefore not responsible at the time the engagement was 1391 made, proceeded to endeavour a second time to put them off on this question by a perfectly hollow plea. That right hon. Gentleman told them to wait until the Bill was brought in, and then they would be able to ascertain its provisions. This was the second time these tactics had been adopted on this question. They were told last Session that if they would allow the Vote to be passed they would see this would happen—that a Bill would be brought in to meet their views. Hon. Gentlemen knew how eager the Government were at the fag-end of the Session to get through their Business, and how ready they were to make promises. What had happened in this case illustrated how easily the Government forgot any consideration they received at the hands of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had asked for plain dealing in this matter, and he certainly had made a very plain and unmistakable statement. The Government certainly undertook to bring in a Bill and a Supplementary Estimate for the distribution of the Police Free Force. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said there was no such thing as a consent Bill, and an abstract proposition of that kind had no real bearing on the case. But the matter was non-contentious. The question was debated by all Parties, and the proposition to settle it by the introduction of the Bill received unanimous assent. He considered the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) amounted to an evasion of the question. It was no use for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say he would carry out his pledge both implied and expressed. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that the pledge had already been broken. The Session had proceeded some length of time, and the Government were bound to introduce it at the outset. They had not made any attempt to lay the Bill before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland could not persuade the Committee he was keeping his pledge if he brought in a Bill which was not limited to matter which was undeniably non-contentious. If he brought in a Bill not limited to the subject specified, he would be grossly violating the spirit of the engagement into which he entered. He (Mr. Sexton) felt 1392 bound to point the moral of this proceeding. It was quite evident that there would be great economy of public time if hon. Members could arrive at understandings such as that which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork thought he arrived at; but he (Mr. Sexton) said—and he said it calmly, and with a desire to impress the reasonableness of what he said on hon. Members—if he and his hon. Friends found that undertakings and understandings solemnly and publicly concluded were broken, and that the violation was attempted to be justified by such flimsy pretexts as had just been expressed from the Table, no such undertakings would be concluded in future; and whenever debate was raised they would be obliged to pursue it until they got an immediate settlement of the subject. If promises made at the Table especially by Members of the Irish Government were broken, no such promises would have any effect on Members; and so, in consequence, the debates in the House would be undoubtedly prolonged far beyond what was really wished and desired.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who had spoken with great severity of the conduct of the Irish Government in this case, had made the charge that Members of that Government had entered into an engagement in which they expressly stipulated that they would introduce a Bill of a non-contentious character; and he added that that was an engagement not only implied but expressed. The hon. Gentleman referred to Hansard as to the expressions of that pledge and read a passage from the volume. Now, if the assertion of the hon. Gentleman be made good there was no need of further discussion; but he (Sir William Harcourt) listened with the greatest care to the passage which was read from Hansard, and he could not find anything in it to justify the assertion of the hon. Gentleman. Now, a promise to bring in a Bill was not a promise with reference to a particular matter; it was not a promise to make the Bill refer exclusively to a particular point and no other. He had often given undertakings in that House to legislate upon a particular matter; but he never had understood, unless there was some 1393 stipulation to that effect, that the Bill must necessarily refer to the one point, and to the one point only. If that was intended by either party, where was the trace of it? It was most unreasonable, in his opinion, to expect that if an undertaking were given to legislate upon a particular point, the Bill introduced should refer only to that point. Such an undertaking would not be a usual undertaking to give. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork would show where what he maintained was expressed, and how it was expressed, there would be no need for the debate. If it were expressed in terms there could not be any further room for discussion; but if it was not expressed in terms, then he (Sir William Harcourt) considered it was perfectly unreasonable to expect that the Bill should relate to the one subject. Such a proposition did not commend itself to common sense or to experience. Unless the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork showed more than he had shown already, there was no foundation whatever for the charge he had made—that the Government were departing, or desired to depart, from their pledge. He (Sir William Harcourt) was a complete stranger to the matter up to this evening; and, from what he had heard, he could not admit that the charge made against the Government had been proved.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, his statement was quite distinct—namely, that both in the House and outside the House it was understood and expressed that the Bill should be a non-contentious Bill, and that the Supplementary Estimate should be a non-contentious Estimate. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Where is it expressed?] He would tell the right hon. Gentleman where it was expressed. It was expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), in a conversation with him (Mr. Parnell), after the hon. and learned Gentleman had received Lord Spencer's consent to the introduction of the Bill for this specific purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman told him (Mr. Parnell), after he had received Lord Spencer's consent, that the Bill would be a non-contentious Bill; that it must be a non-contentious Bill both upon his (Mr. Parnell's) side and on the side of the Government. 1394 The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the Estimate must be non-contentious, because it would be utterly impossible to pass it under any other circumstances. Well, that was the distinct statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) was very sorry to be obliged to refer to a conversation which took place outside the House; but as the Home Secretary had asked him to say where it was expressed he felt obliged to answer him. Now, let him show also from the proceedings in the House how clearly must have been the understanding that the Bill was to be a non-contentious Bill. The Solicitor General for Ireland said—
If it were found to be the fact that the free force was not fully distributed the matter could only be remedied by legislation, because there was no means of remedying it except at the quinquennial redistribution, which would not take place before 1887. If the grievance existed legislation would be introduced for the purpose; and he would be prepared to introduce a provision making the redistribution triennial instead of quinquennial, as at present."—(3 Hansard, [292] 232–3.)Then he (Mr. Parnell) said—He thought the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker) was very satisfactory, and he and his Colleagues felt very much indebted to him for his announcement. In the event of its being distinctly ascertained that the free force was not fully distributed at the last quinquennial period of redistribution, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to undertake to empower the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by legislation, to distribute the free force at the first opportunity, and also to make this redistribution retrospective."—(Ibid, 233.Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was at that time Secretary to the Treasury, said—He did not understand his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) to make any statement with regard to the cost of the year."—(Ibid.)The whole of his (Mr. Parnell's) statement with regard, to the immediate introduction and passage of the Bill was accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He asked the Committee, as reasonable men, whether the introduction of the Bill involving not alone this point with regard to the alteration of the term of redistribution of the Free Force, but involving a number of other points which had cropped up since then, and 1395 which neither the Irish Executive nor the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had in their minds at the time, could be regarded as a satisfactory promise then made? The hon. Member for Liskeard knew something about the matter. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the point under consideration was limited, and that the promise which was made was a practical one; and he must see that the statement which had been made was not a satisfactory answer, and not a fulfilment of the pledge which had been given. It was not a fulfilment of the pledge to bring forward this other Bill, which had since entered into the mind of the Irish Executive, dealing with a vast number of other points, besides that which it had originally been intended to deal with. Such a Bill could not be passed immediately; but he had no doubt that a measure dealing simply with the redistribution of the police might easily be passed into law. It could have been passed any week, because it would not have been opposed by anyone; and they all knew that a measure involving other matters affecting the Constabulary in Ireland would be bitterly opposed by the majority of the Irish Members, and that it would not be possible for the Irish Executive to pass it. Probably no Bill would be passed this year. Was that a fulfilment of the pledge of the Government? The Irish taxpayers were, meanwhile, paying this amount of £30,000 a-year. Was that just? The hon. Gentleman lately Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had, when an appeal had been made to him during the time he was in Office, refused to make a reduction, and the injustice accordingly had to go on. Was that injustice to continue? It appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Bill which was to be proposed, and which was to contain other matters, would not pass for many months—perhaps not until the next Parliament; this unjust imposition, therefore, was to go on all this time. Again, he asked, was that the fulfilment of the pledge given to him by the Government—that they were to wait for the Bill, perhaps, until August, perhaps until January or February next, after the new Parliament had assembled? Perhaps the Government might make this measure a clause of the Crimes Act, and call that a fulfilment of their pledge. 1396 The hon. and learned Gentleman who had made the pledge knew perfectly well what he meant at the time. If some higher power than himself compelled the hon. and learned Gentleman to break his word, it was not his (Mr. Parnell's) fault, but the fault of the system. He should certainly do his best to prevent the Government getting this Vote, until he had some more satisfactory assurance as to their intention to redeem their pledge, and to deal—at any rate in a small degree—honourably with the Irish Members.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) had asked—which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought he had no right to do—what was to be imported into this Bill—what other points beyond the redistribution of the police were to be dealt with. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know by what right the hon. Member asked that. He did not suppose that anything of the sort was even contemplated. He had said that he would ascertain what the understanding was which was arrived at at the end of last Session, and would see that nothing was done in the Bill, in the way of introducing new matter, which would conflict with the understanding entered into. He did not know, personally, what the understanding was; but his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Walker) had given his recollection of it. ["No, no!"] Yes, he had given his recollection in general terms. [Mr. SEXTON: Only from Hansard.] His hon. and learned Friend had said more than that. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know what the recollection of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was upon the subject, as he had never spoken to him about it; but he was ready to abide by that hon. Gentleman's recollection. Whatever the understanding was, he could assure hon. Members opposite that nothing had been done which constituted any breach of the pledge which had been given last Session.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) stated that he was under the impression—indeed, he had gone so far as to say that he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had stated—that the Bill which would be introduced would be of a non- 1397 contentious character. Well, that was not at all his (Mr. Walker's) recollection of the understanding; such a thing had never occurred to his mind at all. It had never occurred to him that the pledge given was that a non-contentious, or a consent, Bill should be introduced. So anxious was he to be correct in the statement he made that, when he had addressed the House making the observations the hon. Member had referred to, he had written them out, in order that they might contain everything that he could promise, and the paragraph which was in Hansard's report was from the written statement he had prepared.
§ MR. E. D. GRAYsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Walker) reminded him very much of the case of Mr. Hamilton, which they were discussing a little time ago. He was not able to contradict what the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared to be the fact, and could only give his impression of what he believed to have been the statement he himself had made to that hon. Member.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)I did not make any such statement myself.
§ MR. PARNELLYou certainly did.
§ MR. E. D. GRAYsaid, he would leave it to the experience of hon. Members to decide upon the value of a statement forced from a person in this way. The understanding was clear and distinct, and it was that the Bill should be acceptable to the Irish Members, and one which there would be no difficulty in passing; and to tell them that a Bill was to be introduced containing a variety of new matter beyond the principle which had been agreed upon, and which was to be of a non-contentious character, could not be called a fulfilment of the undertaking entered into by the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland knew very well that a Bill, such as was now indicated, containing other matter than the one non-contentious principle, would have very little chance of passing; and for him to stand up in that House—which was supposed to be the first Assembly of Gentlemen in Europe—and to declare that what was now proposed was keeping faith with the Irish Members, was one of the most extraordinary proceedings he (Mr. Gray) had ever witnessed in the House.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Committee would not have failed to notice, and would remember what Member of the Treasury Bench it was, who had imparted into the discussion its present tone. The Committee were going on with the discussion in a cool and collected style, until the Home Secretary threw his robustness into the argument. When the Irish Members gave the facts of the understanding entered into between them and the Government, and mentioned the pledge which had been given by the Government, that right hon. Gentleman asked—"Where are the traces of it?" Where are the traces?—the regular Old Bailey business. In future they would have to come down to that level. "Put it in a bond! Let's have it signed, sealed, and delivered!" That was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who, if his promise were questioned at all by the "Irish scum," would answer contemptuously—"My word is my bond." But now it was—"Where are the traces?" [Laughter.] In future, when the right hon. Gentleman made a promise, the Irish Members would ask him—"Where are the traces?" and perhaps the smile upon his face would not then be so pleasant as that which he was now endeavouring to assume. No traces!—there was no discussion. Why was there no discussion? Why, because the Prime Minister told them that if they gave up the matter, and allowed Progress to be reported, the Report of the Constabulary Vote would not be taken after half-past 11 at night. But that pledge was not kept. It was not kept, because the Irish Members had condoned it. Was that phrase sufficiently Old Bailey-like for the right hon. Gentleman? One would think, indeed, that that House was a Crimes Act Court, where they were putting prisoners under the torture, judging from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been conducting himself. Where are the traces? Why, judging from what he (Mr. Healy) knew to have taken place in Irish Courts of Justice within a comparatively recent period, he could confidently assert that on much less distinct evidence than that of the existence of the understanding referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork men had been hanged. "Is it expressed in terms?" It was expressed 1399 in terms; but British honour had come to this—that nothing could be expressed in terms unless it appeared in Hansard—unless it was set down in black and white. He (Mr. Healy) had noticed a most unusual act—a most unusual proceeding—take place on the Treasury Bench. After the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken, another Member of the Government, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), had immediately followed him, a circumstance which, in connection with Irish matters in that House, did not happen once in six months; and it happened in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary having moved up to the Solicitor General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had declared that what appeared in Hansard were not the words he had uttered, but the words which he had subsequently written down for the official record.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)I desire to say——
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTLet him go on!
§ MR. HEALY"Let him go on!" Perhaps he would a little longer than some people might care about before they got this thing through. As he had stated, they found a most unusual thing occur on the Treasury Bench. After the Chief Secretary for Ireland had sat down, the Home Secretary had moved up to the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Solicitor General for Ireland had thereupon done what was most unusual in debate in that House, unless an incident had occurred upon which it was necessary to say something while one Member of the Government had been speaking—that was to say, the hon. and learned Gentleman had got up to supplement the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, evidently at the command of the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland thereupon told them that what had appeared in Hansard was not what he had said, but what he had written, and put into it. ["No, no!"] Well, he (Mr. Healy) had understood the hon. 1400 and learned Gentleman to say so. He had understood him to say that he had written down the terms of the arrangement entered into with his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell. On two occasions the Irish Members had made a distinct concession to the Government, when these concessions were of extreme value. The concession made by the Irish Members on one occasion—namely, upon a Saturday, when they had allowed the Egyptian Agreement to be considered, in order that City gentlemen might know what was being done in Egyptian per Cents, was of very special value to the Government. Irish Members allowed the Vote under discussion at the time to be taken at 5 o'clock on the Saturday afternoon, much to the chagrin of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), who said he wanted to discuss the matter. Why had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon found fault with them? Why, because the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had pointed out that, during the Conservative Administration, the cost of the police in Ireland had been many thousands lower than during the Liberal Administration; and the noble Lord's point had struck the right hon. Baronet so forcibly, that he had spoken upon the matter, and intended to return to the charge on the Report stage. When the Report stage came on, however, he found that the Irish Party had allowed the Vote in Supply to be taken at a late hour, in the face of a distinct promise which had been given. The consequence was that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon put a Question in the House. He (Mr. Healy) had asked some of his hon. Friends to look into Hansard to see whether there were "any traces" of that. So annoyed was the right hon. Baronet that he had put a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject. And this was all the Irish Members got for entering into an agreement with the Government in the matter. [Cries of "Shame!"] That Party opposite were a great Government, and the Irish Members were only a small Party. The English were 30,000,000 of men; the Irish only 5,000,000; but the Irish Representatives, however great the disparity of strength, would do their best to obtain in this matter 1401 what was admitted to be justice. The Government knew that if they put the provision they were discussing in the Crimes Act Bill, or that if any arrangements of an obnoxious character were made, the measure would be on the Table, and would be blocked by the Irish Members themselves, or by others. The Government admitted that the Irish people had a grievance in this matter of police, and had given the Irish Members a pledge with regard to it; but the Irish Members were now met by the question—"Where are the traces?" That was the spirit in which the Government treated the Irish Members. They admitted the injustice, but said that unless they could show that the promise was in black and white the injustice should not be properly remedied. So long as he (Mr. Healy) remained in the House he should never forget this. They were told to trust to the good faith and generous spirit of English Gentlemen. Fortunately, as a rule, the Irish Members did not act on that plan; but when, for once, they were soft enough to do so, they were met by the Old Bailey lawyerlike question, by gentlemen who were accustomed to treating with thieves in the dock—"Where are the traces?"
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had introduced an unfortunate method of dealing with these matters. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had made a statement with regard to the arrangement that had been entered into, and what had the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary done? The right hon. Gentleman had been long enough acquainted with the hon. Member for the City of Cork to know that that hon. Member did not use words lightly; and when, therefore, he had said that the Government had promised to bring in a non-contentious Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should have known that he was not speaking without book.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that all he stated was with regard to what the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said in the House. The hon. Member had never for a moment in his speech suggested that it was agreed that a non-contentious Bill was to be brought in, and he (Sir William Harcourt) believed the matter to be entirely new. He believed the hon. Member's 1402 meaning, in the speech he was referring to, did not embrace any reference to an understanding that a non-contentious Bill should be brought in.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman showed himself to have been a very inattentive listener to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had heard the hon. Member say that the understanding was arrived at inside the House and outside the House. There was no one in that House, or in the country, acquainted with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who did not know that nobody was less desirous of violating, in the smallest or remotest degree, anything like an honourable understanding than he was. When the hon. Member had referred to an understanding outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman might have saved him the necessity of making any further references. But the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to taunt his hon. Friend. Looking at the general unwillingness of the Government to have it believed that at any time they entered into understandings with the Irish Members, from the fact of the hon. Member for the City of Cork having mentioned "outside the House," it might have been assumed that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would have allowed the matter to pass without going further. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had absolutely taunted his hon. Friend into making explanations. The hon. Member for the City of Cork came forward with this explanation—that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had stated in the Library that a Bill of a non-contentious character should be brought in. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put it to the Committee whether, as a matter of mere probability, apart from the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the understanding must not have been for the introduction of a non-contentious Bill confined to a single question? The sum in dispute was something like £30,000 a-year, according to the contention of the Irish Members, a great part of which was admitted by Her Majesty's Government, the Irish people were paying £30,000 a-year more than they should pay for police. That was not questioned by the Treasury Bench. Surely, then, the effort 1403 of the Irish Members would be to get their constituents relieved from that burden at the earliest possible moment. It was clear that their course must have been to have prevented the Irish people from being charged with this £30,000 a-year one moment longer than it would take to legislate for the removal of the evil. So far did the Irish Members go that they asked for the measure which was to be brought in to be made retrospective; but it was refused. Surely their effort must have been to have got the burden removed on the 1st of January this year, or as near that date as possible. Was it not as clear as day that that must have been the object the Irish Members had in view? Well, if they wished to get it removed on the first opportunity, it must have been by a Bill brought in as soon as possible; and the only Bill they could have got passed into law with rapidity must have been one of a non-contentious character. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had given a crushing answer to the statement of the Home Secretary, who had asked—"Where are the traces?" What the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been alluding to had been the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and what the Home Secretary had forgotten was exactly what he should have remembered—namely, all the surrounding circumstances. The "traces" were, as had been pointed out, that the Irish Members, who had been giving a most obstinate and most prolonged opposition to the Constabulary Vote, at once ceased their opposition upon the Solicitor General for Ireland making his statement. The Constabulary Vote was one which Irish Members always contested severely and protractedly in that House; and would they have abstained from further opposition to the Vote if they had not thought that they had obtained a valuable consideration from the Government? The attitude of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) had been mentioned. That right hon. Baronet had joined the Irish Members in their opposition to the Constabulary Vote. The opposition to the Vote was growing in the House. It was not confined to the Irish Members. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had 1404 also joined in the denunciation of the swollen Estimates for the police. As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon had joined them also; so that, having obtained this support on the first occasion the Vote came before them, the Irish Members had every reason to believe that if on the second occasion—that was to say, on the Report stage—they had again attacked it, they would have been able to do so in much greater strength. The Irish Members, however, believing that they had obtained a valuable consideration from the Government, had, so to speak, abandoned their allies. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon, on the next day, August 8, said in the House—
It will be in the recollection of the House that, when the Constabulary Vote was taken, the Prime Minister gave a distinct pledge that the Report of it would not be taken after a certain hour—half-past 11. Now, my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) and myself stayed here until half-past 12 o'clock last night, intending, as English Members, to take part in this Irish debate, and, understanding that it would not be taken, we went away. My noble Friend and myself were deprived of an opportunity of discussing the matter, because, as I am informed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland told the Committee that he had made some arrangements with the Irish Members, and so the Report on the Vote came on. But, as I say, my noble Friend and myself, after the distinct utterance of the Prime Minister that it would not be taken after half-past 11—Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!Sir ROBERT PEEL: The Prime Minister distinctly stated so.Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!Sir ROBERT PEEL: Well, I am in the recollection of the House, and I say the Prime Minister distinctly stated that the Report of the Vote would not be taken after half-past 11 o'clock; but I see this morning that it was taken."—(3 Hansard, [292] 276–7.)The right hon. Baronet, having come down to the House to support the Irish Members, no doubt considered himself left in the lurch by them. Did anyone in his senses imagine that the arrangement entered into between the Irish Members and the Government was an arrangement to be interpreted in the light of events that occurred subsequent to that arrangement? So far as the Irish Members could understand, partly from what was said by occupants of the Treasury Bench, and partly from their silence, what the Government meant now to do 1405 was to mix a number of things together in the Bill they were going to introduce, owing to circumstances some of them subsequent to the arrangement for which the Government had got a valuable consideration. It was monstrous that the whole thing should have to be fought over again after the Government had given a pledge.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had proved from Hansard that the arrangement was that the Government should, as soon as possible, legislate on the matter. That they all admitted, and they had no desire to recede from their promise, and he could not understand why this discussion should be now continued. A short time ago, in addressing the Committee, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said that if the understanding was as stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, there would be no desire on the part of the Government to introduce controversial matter into the measure. Was not that enough? Hon. Members opposite, undoubtedly, on that occasion made a concession to the Government; and they seemed to be under the impression that Government promised that this question should be dealt with in a non-contentious way. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was under a different impression. Still, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would go this length—as hon. Members had a strong conviction that the Government made the promise he would act on that supposition, although it was not the supposition he and his hon. and learned Friend had been proceeding upon.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that there was one sentence in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) which the hon. Member for Galway had not quoted. It was the passage in which the right hon. Baronet said—
If the Home Secretary were here, I would ask him what was the meaning of this, as he would call it, 'dirty trick?
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as most conciliatory; but not more than they were entitled to have.