HC Deb 24 May 1887 vol 315 cc1061-70
MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said, he rose to make some observations on a subject which he wished could have been taken up by some Member of greater experience in the House than himself. He referred to the extraordinary situation in which the House found itself placed with regard to the general business of the country. The House had now been sitting four months, and during that time what had taken place? They had passed two clauses of the Coercion Bill for Ireland and the Bill to enable the Duke of Connaught to come home for the purpose of attending Her Majesty's Jubilee Celebrations. He did not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury considered this record of achievements as sufficient to justify the reward he had conferred upon the House in giving a somewhat extended Whitsuntide holiday; but he felt certain that the country at large were looking on with disapproval and with disappointment at the very small results that had attended the first four months of the present Session. He did not blame for a moment the line of conduct pursued by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway; he did not say as to any one of their Amendments that it was not reasonable in itself, or at all events arguable; and there could be no doubt of this—that all their Amendments had been argued with conspicuous ability if not at all times with success in the voting Lobby. But he could not shut his eyes to the fact that any Bill, however small it might be, could be so loaded with Amendments, each in itself reasonable, that the discussion, even the reasonable discussion, of these Amendments might in the aggregate amount to a state of things which would prevent any other business whatever being taken by the House. He did not blame hon. Members from Ireland for doing what they had conceived it to be their duty to do; but he did blame the Government for the position in which the House of Commons was placed. First of all, what was the prime cause of the condition into which they had been led? He insisted upon throwing the responsibility upon the Government, because they had committed themselves to a Bill which, in the view of the Opposition, was absolutely unnecessary and unjustified by the condition of Ireland—a Bill which everybody must have seen was ill-conceived and ill-considered, and which had been ill-defended and obstinately adhered to. The prime cause of the present position of the House was the unfortunate policy of the Government. Then he complained that the Government, having undertaken that policy, had not adopted the only means of carrying it through without injury to the Business of the House. He referred more particularly to the policy and conduct of the Government with reference to the closure, and he would remind the House that the Government had refused to accept the only effective form of closure which was offered to them by the great majority of the Liberal Party. They had insisted on overloading the closure with restrictions which had made it almost inapplicable. They had insisted on retaining the veto of the Chair; they had insisted on the presence of the 200 majority, and they had insisted on introducing considerations with regard to the rights of minorities and the fulness of discussion which were totally irrelevant to the question of the closure as a means of facilitating discussions in that House. The fact was, he supposed, the Government were troubled with the anticipations of a guilty political conscience. They remembered what they had been in the past, and they did not expect always to be in a majority. They had a shrewd suspicion of how the closure would be applied to them when they came to carry out in Opposition their habitual policy. This had foiled the application of the closure, which had bent in their hands. There had never been any closure during the dinner hour, and why? Because the Government could not get the necessary attendance, and because they refused to accept at the hands of the Opposition that absolute majority which alone would enable them to work this instrument, He would not refer to other examples that might be given of the failure of this instrument. This, however, he might allude to—that on several occasions they had been beaten by the application of the closure, because they insisted upon calling in the judgment of the Chair. His further objection to the conduct of the Government in the whole of this matter was that they had not been ashamed to make Party capital out of the situation which they themselves had created. If they were to apply to old maxims in questions of suspected guilt, who was to gain by the perpetuation of the present state of matters in this House, what must be the answer? Who gained by the present condition of this House? It was not the Government alone, but it was the alliance between the Government and the illegitimate Opposition. There was an illegitimate Opposition, which sat on this side of the House and voted with the other, and it was the alliance between the Government and the Opposition, and that alliance only, which gained by the continuation of the present state of things. If the Government were successful in passing through the summer discussing nothing but this Irish Coercion Bill, all the questions would be staved off on which there would be any possibility of dispute between the Government and the Liberal Unionists. He said, moreover, they were attempting to make Party capital out of the present situation by charging the Liberal Party with Obstruction. The secretaries of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), as he knew very well, scattered broadcast over the country insinuations of all kinds against the Liberal Party, until they were checked by questions put to the right hon. Gentleman in that House. For some weeks they had been silent, but apparently, in anticipation of the Whitsuntide Holidays, the secretaries were at it again. Perhaps the House would allow him to read the latest manifesto of one of the right hon. Gentleman's secretaries, which was in answer to a letter from a branch of the Primrose League. Speaking in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the secretary said— I trust that the growing indignation of the country will, even at the eleventh hour, warn those who are leading the minority in the House of the dangerous and unpatriotic course they are pursuing, and remind them that they, equally with Her Majesty's Government, are responsible that the time of Parliament shall not be wasted, and still more that the proceedings of the House shall not be brought into contempt. With the sentiments of that letter he had no fault to find. He was as anxious as any man on the other side of the House that the time of the House should not be wasted. He was anxious also that the proceedings of the House should not be brought into contempt or ridicule; nor was he going to presume to defend his Leaders. Some hon. Members on the Opposition side were not such slavish followers of Leaders as were hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He left his Leaders to defend themselves. For himself, he said that the charge in the letter against the Liberal Party was one which they repudiated. What he repudiated especially was that any responsibility whatever rested upon them for the present condition of things. The Leader of the House had the power and the responsibility, and if he chose to engage in measures which led to this result—that after four months the House had done next to nothing—then the responsibility of getting them out of that posi- tion rested not upon them but upon him. He wished to make this final charge against the Government—that they were using the state of things they themselves had created not merely as a means of attacking the Liberal Party, but as a means of disparaging this House and of exalting the other House of Parliament. Lord Salisbury could not make a speech without endeavouring to secure Party capital in this way. He was not surprised at anything Lord Salisbury might say. He was not surprised that even Tory Democrats might reveal their real character by such charges as these. They were Tories at heart and Democrats by necessity; but he was surprised that the Leader of that House, who was charged with the maintenance of the honour of the House, could sit silently under charges which were directed against the institution he was bound to protect, and which were based upon a state of things he was chiefly responsible for producing. As a Member of the Liberal Party, as a Member of that House, he declined to permit Her Majesty's Government to walk away with the advantages which they were so disingenuously claiming. He declined to submit patiently to charges which, so far as Members around him were concerned, were entirely unfounded. He insisted that it was the duty of the Government to find a way out of the imbroglio which they themselves had created. This was his practical conclusion. It was the duty of the Government so to manage Parliamentary Business for the rest of the Session that the House of Commons should be able, whether this Bill went on or whether it was dropped, to set itself to the discharge of those tremendous duties which had been imposed upon it, and to the safeguard of the great interests which had been committed to its care.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said, he must congratulate the Leader of the House on having moved the Resolution for Adjournment; it was about the best thing he had done since he had led the House. The adjournment would prevent them from doing a great deal of mischief for a couple of weeks. But still it was a most extraordinary Motion. They had for seven weeks, at the instance of the Government, been doing what was called "promoting law and order" in Ireland. They had been told that the policy of the Government was absolutely essential to keep things quiet in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had told them that they would neglect the most elementary duties of government if they were to defer for a single day to answer the appeal that came to them from Ireland—that things were going from bad to worse in that country, and that society was crumbling into its original atoms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they would be guilty of a great breach of trust if they did not restore the authority of the Queen in Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that there were 850 gentlemen in Ireland suffering from Boycotting. Well, the Bill was brought in for them; it was not brought in to put down crime. They were told at first that it was; but that had gone to the winds, for everyone knew that there was no crime. Even The Times and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) were out of work. But why did the Leader of the House, who had brought in this Bill to relieve the 850 Boycotted gentlemen, move this Resolution? He had had plenty of opportunity to carry out his policy. He had had the whole time of the House. He had had the closure, which he put into force night after night with so much ability and with so much agility. He had had the most loyal support of his Party, and he had had a contingent from the Liberal side. Ha (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not wish to use an offensive expression; but he must say of the latter that they were the most servile supporters any Government had ever had. Having all these advantages, in preventing society from crumbling into atoms in Ireland, what did the Leader of the House do at this time of crisis? He moved that the House do adjourn for a fortnight, and left Ireland to crumble into atoms. Everyone must see that the policy and proceedings of the Government were the very greatest sham. He was glad, however, for two reasons that the Adjournment had been moved—first, it would show to the people that the policy of the Government in regard to this Crimes Bill was a sham; and, secondly, because the Radicals would go to the country, and return, he hoped, in a fortnight like giants refreshed with new wine. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might be sure that they would return with increased determination to give the most persistent opposition in their power to what was the most unjust, unconstitutional, and uncalled-for measure ever introduced into a Legislative Assembly. He knew what was said of thorn in the Tory and other Presses—[An hon. MEMBER: The wine press.]—that they were assisting what was called Obstruction. It was their duty to practise what was called obstruction, but what he called Constitutional opposition. He cared little for the charges made, or for diatribes against them in the Press. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) when he said that it was the duty of an Opposition to oppose; and the worse the policy the more incumbent was it upon them to oppose. What was done the previous night when some of the most important clauses were dropped or postponed was a justification of the opposition given to the Bill? He had the warmest and sincerest admiration for the Irish Members for the course they had taken. He did not see how anyone who valued patriotism or freedom could object to their course. They had before the House a measure which was nothing more nor less than a declaration of war made by the Government of this country on the Irish nation, and the Representatives of the immense majority of the Irish people would be cowards if for a moment they relaxed their opposition to that measure, and Liberal Members would be traitors to all Liberal principles if they did not support them. The House of Commons was a national assembly, and when any locality was attacked the nation would be called upon to come to the rescue of that locality. When the nation sent a majority to carry out a certain policy obstruction could not be justified. But this House of Commons never was sent to carry a Coercion Bill, and that was why he avowedly defended a policy of persistent opposition to that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pathetically said—"Do get on with this Bill. Let this Bill get through, and then we can get on with some very important measures we are anxious to pass." The right hon. Gentleman apparently wished the House to look upon him as a benevolent deity with his pocket bursting with Bills ready to scatter them abroad upon a grateful nation. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman believed in himself, but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not believe a word of what he said about these Bills. The Government were now in the happiest position a Government ever was in. They were getting through the whole Session without doing anything—just the position a Tory Government liked—and making people believe they wanted to do something. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman was giving them a fortnight's holiday, because he believed that time was on their side in fighting this great battle, and that they would come back re-invigorated to give the right hon. Gentleman even more trouble then he had yet had on behalf of a policy which he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) believed to be one of right and justice.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, the defence made by the Irish Attorney General to the case brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) was a most feeble one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a parallel and similarity between the action of the English Lord Chancellor and the Irish Lord Chancellor, whereas anybody who was acquainted with the condition of things in the two countries knew that by no possibility could such a parallel be made out. The Lord Chancellor in Ireland was a Lord Justice at the head of the Executive Government; he was, at all times, one of the chief advisers of the Executive, and actively engaged in carrying on the Executive Government. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was one of the pillars of the Government, and a man on whose advice they leaned. The case on which the Lord Chancellor recently sat was a case in which a section of the people believed that the whole of that transaction was part and parcel of a political policy carried out in consultation with the Irish Attorney General and the Executive officers in Ireland. He had reason to believe that there were good grounds for such an opinion. If that were the case, if the Lord Chancellor was at this moment one of the mainsprings of the Executive Government in Ireland, if he had any sense of decency he would not have taken his seat on the Bench where a case of that kind was to be heard, but would have left the trial to the four other Judges, who were perfectly competent to hear it, and who would have fully manned the Court of Appeal. The English Lord Chancellor was not in the habit of sitting on trials where political considerations were decided. This case of Father Keller had been brought forward in that House time after time, and no notice had been taken of it, but there could now be no doubt that a grave and serious wrong had been done this rev. gentleman. He was arrested in a case which he had nothing to do with, simply because it was suspected he would not answer these questions, and that there would be an opportunity of putting him into prison. The Judge of the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin was so eager to carry out the policy that he did not know how to draw up the warrant, which was incorrectly made out, and subsequently declared to be illegal, after Father Keller had been in gaol for eight weeks. He felt bound to protest against the treatment of the rev. gentleman by the authorities while in gaol. It had been most unnecessarily harsh and severe. He heard the First Lord of the Treasury express from that Bench the previous day his gratification at the release of another clergyman of a different religion, and he stated that all the Members of that House would be gratified to hear of the release of the Rev. Mr. Bell Cox. They were gratified that the gentleman was released from prison, for the Rev. Bell Cox was a good friend of theirs, and of the Irish cause; but was it not a strange thing that no English Minister, no, nor any Irish Minister, had indicated the slightest gratification that an Irish priest had been released? On the contrary, as far as they could gather from the manner of the Ministers, while they rejoiced to see an English clergyman released from prison—although condemned by the tribunals of his own Church—yet, when an Irish priest was released from illegal imprisonment—having been condemned by no tribunal—the Minister of Ireland found no cause of congratulation; but, as far as they could judge from his demeanour, rather the contrary. What was the treatment of the two gentlemen? He abstained from drawing any parallel between the cases until the Rev. Mr. Bell Cox was out of prison, in order that it could not be said that the Irish Members were anxious in any way that the indulgence properly granted to the rev. gentleman should be withdrawn. But now he wished to ask how it was that the Rev. Mr. Bell Cox had two carpeted rooms, and was as comfortable as he would be in his own home, while Father Keller was treated like a pickpocket? He considered that the treatment of Father Keller was calculated, and no doubt intended, to embitter the feelings of the Irish people. He asked that an inquiry should be granted into the whole case, and if necessary some compensation granted to Father Keller for the cruel sufferings to which he had been wrongfully subjected.

Mr. W. REDMOND

rising to address the House——

THE FIRST LORD of the TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. Smith) (Strand, Westminster)

interposed, and appealed to the House to allow the Question to be put now. They must all feel that the Speaker and the officers of the House were greatly in need of some sort of relaxation. He wished to refrain from putting any pressure on hon. Members; but he appealed rather to their good feeling—not with regard to himself or his hon. Friends beside him—to permit the Adjournment to be now taken.

Question put, and agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock till Monday 6th of June.