HC Deb 17 May 1881 vol 261 cc692-4
MR. J. COWEN

said, He wished to ask the Speaker a Question respecting the privileges of an hon. Member of the House. The Speaker had ruled that Mr. Bradlaugh's expulsion—notwithstanding the Resolution that was arrived at on the 26th of April, declaring that he could not take an oath, and notwithstanding also the Resolution based on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that he must be prevented entering the House—could be made, a question of Privilege. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had raised the point, and it had been held that he had a right to do so. Now, Mr. Dillon was a duly qualified Member of the Legislature. He had committed no offence. He had not been put upon his trial; he had not been con- demned: he had simply been arrested on suspicion. He was apprehended, too, while on his way to take his seat in Parliament. What he wanted to know from the Speaker was, whether Mr. Dillon's case stood in the same category as Mr. Bradlaugh's, and could be treated as a question of Privilege? He knew the Speaker had ruled that the essence of Privilege consisted in its urgency; but he begged to remind him that immediately the fact of Mr. Dillon's arrest was made known to the House, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and other Irish Gentlemen started a discussion on the subject, and they only abandoned it when the Government gave an undertaking that there should be an opportunity for debating the whole question. That opportunity had not been afforded; and what he wished to know was, whether the matter could be recurred to in the way that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been recurred to, and be brought up as a question of Privilege?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

With regard to this question of the arrest of Mr. Dillon, the Government has been guilty of a distinct breach of their own promises. On Notice being given by an hon. Member, calling attention to the arrest, the Government declined to give us any opportunity of bringing it forward. ["Order!"] I think I am speaking to the point raised by my hon. Friend—namely, that this remains a question of urgency to us because of the action of the Government, for when we brought the matter forward in an irregular manner the Government challenged us to bring it to the test of a Motion. Yet the very day after that distinct statement of the Government, when my hon. Friend asked for facilities, the Government took advantage of the Forms of the House again. Accordingly, if we have not been able to bring it forward as a matter of urgency, the responsibility is on the Government, not us.

MR. PARNELL

I also wish to ask whether it would not be greatly for the convenience of the House that the Government should afford some opportunity to the Irish Members of discussing the question of the arrests made under the Coercion Act? I certainly regret very much that the question should have been raised in an irregular way, as it was yesterday, and again to- day, but I cannot wonder that this should have happened; and I would ask you for smite expression of opinion as to whether it would not be a desirable step to take, with the view of preventing irregular debates from springing up, which it was natural should spring up in the absence of any means of bringing these very important matters before the House, for the Government to give once for all one day to the Irish Members, for the purpose of bringing up the whole question of the 100 or so arrests made under the Coercion Act?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for the City of Cork has put to me a Question in reference to my opinion upon a matter not now before the House. The hon. Member must be aware that it is not for the Chair to express an opinion except upon points of Order. With regard to the Question of Order put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle, I have to say this—that Mr. Dillon, one of the Members for the county of Tipperary, has been committed to prison for some time under an Act of Parliament passed this Session, and I am asked whether any Motion on that matter would be treated as a question of Privilege? I have no hesitation in saying that any Motion bearing on Mr. Dillon's arrest, seeing that he has been for some time in prison, and that urgency does not apply, could not, according to the practice of the House, be treated as a question of Privilege. Any Motion brought forward on that matter must be brought forward in the ordinary way.