§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he rose to object to the Motion, and to repeat the protest which he made last week against what they must term those violent inroads upon the rights of private Members at that early period of the Session. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped hon. Members opposite would allow him to express his opinion. He spoke on behalf of private Members, and he protested against the assumption of their time by the Government. Ho was bound to say that, after the announcement made that morning by the Prime Minister, he could not think hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House could be surprised at the course he was adopting. They had been told by the Prime Minister that their Tuesdays were to be taken for the purpose of proceeding with Resolutions which were not only repugnant and obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, but to a great many hon. Members opposite. But that was not all. The Prime Minister made another statement of great importance, and which afforded them stronger ground for resisting the present proposal. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in answer to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), that he would take advantage of a Motion to be made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) to state whether or not the Government intended to release the "suspects" now in prison in Ireland. He need scarcely point out that the position of the Government was this—that whatever answer they made to that Question, it must lead to a protracted, and, in all probability, an acrimonious debate. If the Government announced their intention of releasing the "suspects"—and there were a great many rumours flying about the Lobbies to that effect—he (Mr. Chaplin) supposed they themselves must be prepared to expect a considerable 1753 debate upon a subject of such great and vast importance as that. He did not place any reliance upon the rumours he had alluded to; he did not believe the Government intended to pursue such a policy; but if, on the other hand, they stated they had no intention of releasing the "suspects," but were prepared to reject altogether the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle, they must be sure that such a declaration would undoubtedly lead to a long and protracted discussion, and one of great importance. He was bound to say that, under those circumstances, he did not think the Government were justified in proposing to take a debate of that nature at an Evening Sitting on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if they did not take Tuesdays, it would be considered by the country that the Government was faltering in its duty. He (Mr. Chaplin) had no doubt they were considered by the country to be faltering in their duty, because they had neglected their elementary duty in Ireland, and that was to give security to life and property in that country. He begged to move the omission of the words "at Two of the clock."
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was in his place, because his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) had omitted to notice what struck him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) the other evening; and that was that, when the question of Morning Sittings on Tuesdays was before the House last Friday, the noble Marquess said that although the Government wished to take last Tuesday, for reasons then stated, the question of Morning Sittings in future would be decided when it arose. That was a very different statement to that made by the Prime Minister at 4 o'clock that day, and lie (Mr. Sclater-Booth) hoped the discrepancy would be explained.
§ MR. HEALYrose for the purpose of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). It would be in the recollection of the House that on this day week the 1754 noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India stated that the Government did not intend to ask for Morning Sittings on all Tuesdays, if occasions of importance arose as to justify the whole of the day being appropriated to private Members. He (Mr. Healy) would remind the noble Marquess that an occasion of extreme importance would arise on Tuesday next, and that it would not be wise or convenient that a debate on the release, or otherwise, of the "suspects" in Ireland should commence at 9 o'clock in the evening, instead of at half-past 4. Of course, it was not intended to resist Morning Sittings on every occasion that the Government should demand them; but Tuesday next was a special occasion. Seeing the importance of the subject involved in the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), a good case had been made out for resisting the present proposal. The question was important under any circumstances; but it was still more important owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated that day that the Government would take the opportunity, on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of making a statement upon their general policy in Ireland. He (Mr. Healy) would put it to the noble Marquess, who at this moment led the House, whether it was wise that the Government should, as a matter of course, ask for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next, seeing that the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) stood first on the Paper for that day? He would remind the noble Marquess that, as far as his recollection went, a sort of pledge was given to the House on Friday last that the Government would not ask for Morning Sittings without due Notice; and certainly it could not be considered that, in as much as it was now 1 o'clock on Saturday morning, due Notice had been given in this instance. It was considered by those who were in the House at the time that due Notice would be given, owing to the form of the Motion. He would ask the noble Marquess if, by the attitude they had assumed, the Government were treating the House in the way it had a right to expect, remembering the tacit understanding arrived at last week, and seeing the importance which attached to the Motion 1755 of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay), and to the statement to be made upon that Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The Irish Members desired discussion, and although they could not expect to go into all the circumstances connected with Ireland, there were various matters connected with the pacification of Ireland which would arise on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, which required serious consideration. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Government would not persist in their Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid the Government must persevere in the proposal now made to the House, and of which due Notice was given more than a week ago. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Healy) that there had been any want of Notice. He stated last Friday that the intention of the Government was to ask the House to grant Morning Sittings on all Tuesdays during the remainder of the Session, and Notice was given at that time. In the subsequent discussion which took place, the noble Earl the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) asked whether due Notice would be given, in order to enable hon. Members who wished to do so to oppose any Morning Sitting being taken; and he (the Marquess of Hartington) stated, on the part of the Government, that they would not take any steps to secure a Morning Sitting for next Tuesday until Thursday in the present week. It was now Saturday morning; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave Notice, when the House was very full indeed, that it was the intention of the Government to ask the House to grant them a Morning Sitting on Tues-ay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had called attention to what he considered a discrepancy between the statement made by him (the Marquess of Hartington) last week and the statement made that evening by the Prime Minister. He (the Marquess of Hartington) ventured to think there was no discrepancy at all. He stated last week that the intention of the Government was to ask the House for a Morning Sitting on every Tuesday in future; and he also stated at that time that, owing to the form in which the House 1756 decided the matter, it was impossible to make any general Motion on the subject; but the point must be determined on each occasion that the Sitting was asked for. He further stated that, if there was an occasion on which the House thought it wise to withhold a Morning Sitting, it would be quite possible for it to do so. The only question was, whether, on Tuesday morning, the whole time should be given to the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay)? The hon. Member who opposed the Motion (Mr. Chaplin) had frankly stated that one of his objections to giving a Morning Sitting was that it would be for the purpose of discussing a measure which he disliked. That might be very natural; but the fact that a particular matter might not be agreeable to one section of the House was hardly a reason against granting a Morning Sitting. The subject must be discussed some time or other, and it was possible that the measure might be made, by discussion, somewhat less objectionable to the hon. Member. At all events, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know how they were to progress with the Business, unless the House would grant some greater facilities. The hon. Member opposed the Motion, and said that, whatever might be the nature of the announcement to be made by the Government, it was sure to lead to discussion, and the time for that discussion would be longer than was possible in a Morning Sitting, and that the discussion would be acrimonious.
§ MR. CHAPLINI said it was certain to be long, and probably acrimonious.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he misunderstood the hon. Member; but if it was likely to be acrimonious, then it was desirable that it should be short; and he must protest against the statement of the hon. Member, that the Government had announced their intention to make an important statement with regard to their whole policy in Ireland. His right hon. Friend was asked a Question that evening, and he said it would not be convenient to give an answer to that Question in a form which did not admit of discussion, but that it would be more convenient to answer the Question when a discussion might be had if necessary. They all knew that the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) had 1757 a Motion on the Paper; but, considering the amount of time that they had already devoted to Irish subjects, he did not know why it should be necessary for any of them to speak at any great length. He did not know whether it might not be possible to have a very interesting discussion, the speeches averaging not more than a quarter of an hour in duration. If they were limited to that extent, he did not know that a discussion of that kind would be inadequate to the importance of the question to be raised. He did not think it was necessary to discuss at greater length the general subject of Morning Sittings; and he ventured to think he had shown sufficient reason why they should not depart from that intention.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was very much surprised at the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), for, if there was one thing at the present moment which the country was anxious to hear, it was a statement from the Government with regard to the preservation of peace in Ireland. The course they intended to pursue, and the new measures which they intended to bring in, were matters of great interest and importance to the country; and he was much struck with the statement of the Prime Minister that at 2 o'clock on Tuesday he intended to bring forward the clâture Resolutions, as against any statement with regard to peace and order in Ireland. The country was looking with great anxiety to the statement to be made by the Government; and there was not a man in any part of the House who did not regard with the gravest apprehension the present condition of Ireland. There was nothing which deserved the serious consideration of the House more than that subject; and when he heard from the noble Marquess that there was to be a short statement made on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, and when he knew that the Prime Minister was able to make long statements whenever he liked, he thought it was not treating the House or the country with proper respect when this statement, which was so much expected, was put off from day to day, as it had been, by the Prime Minister. He, therefore, rose to enter his protest against taking the clâture Resolutions on Tuesday at 2 o'clock, when the House ought to 1758 have a statement of far greater importance than the clâture could be to the House or the country.
§ MR. WARTONhoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would not consider his answer as final, and said he made this appeal in obedience to one of the noble Marquess's strongest supporters—the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian). When the first discussion arose about taking last Tuesday for a Morning Sitting:, that hon. Gentleman asked the noble Marquess to consider his unfortunate position; and he (Mr. Warton) was now speaking in the interests of that hon. Member, because, although he (Mr. Warton) himself was opposed to the hon. Member's Motion, and believed he would not be able to carry it through, yet it was fair, as an opponent, to state the position in which the hon. Member would be placed. The Statutes to which the hon. Member's Motion related were laid on the Table of the House on the first day of the Session, and they were then to remain on the Table for three months. That period would expire on Sunday, and therefore next Tuesday was the last occasion on which the hon. Member would be able to bring forward his Motion. When the Prime Minister intimated his intention to take all the Tuesdays for Morning Sittings, an appeal was made, which he had thought was successful, to the Government to reserve next Tuesday for private Members; and he hoped the noble Marquess would well consider that appeal, and spare next Tuesday for private Members.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he must confess that, on a general consideration of this question, he regretted, on the whole, that the Government had not allowed the Business to proceed in the usual way on Tuesday, because, although he fully sympathized with their wish to push the Procedure Resolutions, yet, nevertheless, there was no doubt that the question which was to be brought on next Tuesday was one of such great and pressing and vital interest that nobody could complain if hon. Members opposite desired a full Sitting for its discussion. On the other hand, it seemed to him that the noble Marquess had asked a very fair question—namely, whether it was not the fact that this question, important and vital as it was, could not be discussed in the five 1759 hours of Tuesday's Sitting, if the House chose. The House would meet punctually again at 9 o'clock in the evening, and there was no reason why the debate should not be continued till 2 o'clock or later. They had all had the great misfortune, during the last few years, of often sitting up in the House for Business of much less importance until a much later hour than that. Therefore, if the Government intended to press the point, he should certainly go into the Lobby with them; for he felt that the attention of the House and the country was now fixed on the question of what progress was to be made with the Procedure Rules. He believed that to get those Resolutions settled, and order and decency in debate restored in the House, was the very first condition to a restoration of order in Ireland, which he understood to be the question which the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) was anxious to bring before the House. He believed until that was done it did not much signify what else was done. They must first restore order in the House, and then he believed that the disorder which originated there, and spread from there elsewhere, would be limited. For that reason he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs would not oppose the Government, and that hon. Members representing Irish constituencies would realize that they, objecting, as they did, to the principle of the Coercion Act, would have an opportunity of showing, by not offering anything approaching to what might be called factious opposition to the proposals of the Government, that they desired to do what was right by their own country—namely, to enable the House to get its Business into such a condition that it might be able to discuss fairly and fully questions relating not only to the good of England, but to the good of Ireland, which he believed many of them had sincerely at heart.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) is very sanguine if he imagines that merely by securing a Morning Sitting on Tuesday the Government will be able to make such progress with the Procedure Resolutions as will lead to the desirable results which he has at heart. I regret very much that the Government have deter- 1760 mined to appropriate the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, because it appears to me that, above all things, it is desirable that the present condition of Ireland should be fairly and fully discussed in this House. I am not by any means prepared to say that the Motion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) affords the very best opportunity for initiating such a discussion; but what I do feel is, that such a discussion must take place before long; that it is absolutely demanded by the country, and that it is, in the mind of the country, a matter of far greater importance than the Procedure Resolutions. If, as appears to be probable, the Government think it best to take part of Tuesday for proceeding with those Resolutions, one result will certainly follow. There will be an imperfect discussion on the Motion of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs, and then it will be felt to be necessary, I think, by every Party in this House, that the discussion shall be renewed upon an early occasion, and shall be thoroughly thrashed out and completed. Therefore, the whole of Tuesday evening will probably be wasted, and that simply to enable the Government to make some fancied progress with the Resolutions, with which I do not believe they will really make any progress in the Morning Sitting.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has advanced any argument which is at all conclusive on this matter. He said he did not think the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) was a Motion which would adequately raise the general question of policy in Ireland, and I should have been very much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman had been of opinion that it would do so. So far as I recollect that Motion, I doubt whether it is one which the right hon. Gentleman would support. If you want a general discussion and a Motion on the policy of the Government in Ireland, you will not raise such a discussion upon that Motion. That Motion will be discussed as an isolated matter, and if there should be a Motion with reference to the whole condition of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly suppose that a single Morning Sitting would dispose of that 1761 subject. Therefore, neither of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments is addressed to the question of a Morning Sitting. We are not going, and nobody proposes, as I understand, to raise the whole Irish policy on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for the Wigton Burghs, and the matter with which that Motion deals might very well be disposed of on Tuesday evening. We, in the present state of Parliamentary Business, ask the House to support us in getting on with the Business. That is the meaning of this appeal, and we must take the responsibility of asking the House of Commons to allow the Business of the country to be gone on with. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) complained bitterly that the noble Marquess had said that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would make a short speech, and said that if you have an early Sitting the Prime Minister would have an opportunity of making a long speech. I do not think that is a reason for a Morning Sitting. Then the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) said—do not let us have a Morning Sitting, because that might interfere with the Motion of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian)—whom he has taken under his wing for this occasion only. But if we are to do what the country wishes us to do with reference to the Public Business, the Government must ask the House to agree to their proposal. They take the responsibility of making that request, and those who oppose it must take the responsibility of resisting it. That is a very fair and proper issue; and upon that only the House of Commons will be able to decide whether there is any reason for making an exception of this Tuesday over any other Tuesday. I do think that the country, looking at what happened on former Tuesdays during this Session, will not consider that the Government are proposing any very great sacrifice of the time of private Members, of which we hear so much; but with regard to which, when hon. Members have the time, they prefer not to take it, but to take the Government time. That being so, I think we are not unduly encroaching on their manor, or making unjust demands on the House; and I do hope that the House will support the Government.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had told them it was the intention of the Prime Minister to make, on this forthcoming occasion, a speech which would not exceed a quarter of an hour's duration. ["No, no!"] Well, he would say half an hour; at all events, it had been intimated that the speech would be a brief one. Supposing the Prime Minister was able to fulfil his intention and to make a brief speech, no doubt, within the compass of a brief statement, the right hon. Gentleman would be capable of giving the House material for a very long debate—he would be capable of saying enough to make it a matter, he (Mr. Sullivan) would almost say, of necessity, to enter very fully into the matters the right hon. Gentleman had touched on. The Irish Members were bound to claim for themselves a pretty fair amount of time to deal with the topics that would be touched on by the Prime Minister. Not only the Irish Members, but, perhaps, the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, might have a great deal to say with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister. It was all very well for the noble Marquess—a Member of the Government—to say that hon. Members should content themselves with quarter-hour or ten-minute speeches; but it was possible that so materially might they find themselves affected by the Prime Minister's statement, that the Irish Members would not be able to do justice to themselves, or their country, or the matter in hand. Even if 4 o'clock were decided upon as the hour for commencing the Business of the evening, he (Mr. Sullivan) did not suppose they would be able to get to the discussion of this matter for an hour or two hours afterwards; but if they got to it almost immediately the limit of time would be short enough. He only hoped that in the event of their commencing Business at 4 o'clock they might have a fair prospect of being able to give the matter full and adequate discussion. It would not be at all satisfactory to commence the discussion of such an important matter as that at 9 o'clock. They should, at least, be allowed the ordinary time for considering what was looked upon, not only by the people of Ireland, but also by the people of England, with the greatest amount of interest. Let the Prime Minister give them the 1763 day they required, and he would find that he would lose nothing by the transaction.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had laid so much stress on the Government running the clôlure against this debate on the evening in question that those of them who took deep interest in the 1st Resolution being passed were bound to support the Government on this occasion. The Government had stated, on their responsibility, the great necessity there was for making progress with this Resolution; and hon. Members opposite had shown that their objection to the Resolution entered largely into their objection to giving up Tuesday morning. At the same time, as the evening would be short, he trusted that an opportunity would be afforded, by the shortness of the speeches to which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had alluded, for English Members, as well as Irish Members, to take part in the discussion that would occur. It had been too much the custom for these important questions to be made the occasion of a duel, if he might say so, between the Home Rule Party and. the Front Bench, and many had been the times when hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would have liked very much to have supported Her Majesty's Government, and to have stated their views in opposition to views which had been urged by Home Rulers; but the value of time was felt so strongly by them that they refrained, and perhaps in that way it might have appeared, more than once, that Her Majesty's Government were not sufficiently supported by their followers. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been attacked, it had often been a matter for deep regret on the part of a great many hon. Members on that side of the House that, except under the penalty of speaking on a Motion for the adjournment of the House, or of interrupting at Question time, they were unable to support the right hon. Gentleman to the extent to which he had deserved support at the hands of his Party. He (Mr. Goschen) had ventured to say those few words, because he hoped that when the important question of the release of the "suspects" was discussed it would be possible for all sides to take part in the debate. Though it was the fashion for some 1764 hon. Gentlemen opposite to refer to this as a foreign House of Parliament, and though the question might affect only Irish hon. Members, they (the supporters of the Government) knew that their constituents expected them to take part in the consideration of the position of their fellow-subjects in Ireland. Their constituents wished them to join in the discussion not only of what affected England, but of what affected Ireland also; and he believed the time had come when it was necessary that many English Members should take part in such debates as that they were to have on Tuesday. He trusted, therefore, that the advice of the noble Marquess would be followed on Tuesday, and that, by shortness of speeches, it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to hear the opinions of all sides of the House on a question of first-rate importance.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had no doubt everyone had the highest respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Goschen); but the right hon. Gentleman's observations were a most conclusive reason why they should not have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. He had said that there were many hon. Members sitting behind Her Majesty's Government who were anxious to speak in support of their Irish policy, and who had hitherto been unable to do so through want of time. The right hon. Gentleman arrived at the some-what in convenient conclusion that it would be right for those who had hitherto been prevented through want of time from taking part in these debates to take part in the discussion on Tuesday night, if a Morning Sitting were granted. There was one fact with which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) did not seem to be acquainted, and which, to his (Lord George Hamilton's) mind, very materially altered the position of affairs. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) was about, on Tuesday, to make a Motion relating to a certain portion of the Irish Question. The noble Marquess stated that upon that question very short speeches would be made—in fact, he gave the House to understand that the Prime Minister's observations would be confined to about 15 minutes. With all deference to the noble Marquess, he (Lord George Hamilton) very 1765 much doubted that, because it was absolutely impossible for any Minister to say how long he would be on his legs, when he did not know the arguments he would have to answer. But since his right hon. and gallant Friend had put this Notice on the Paper, a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party—the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross)—had put a Notice which would raise the whole Irish Question, because it was to the effect that those persons in prison in Ireland only suspected of a certain class of offences should be released. That Notice could only have been put on the Notice Paper with or without the knowledge of the Government. If it were put down with the knowledge of the Government, it was not fair for them to defer their observations until so late a period of the evening that it would not be possible to thoroughly discuss the matter. If, however, the Notice had been put down without the knowledge of the Government, and represented the views only of a considerable section of the Liberal Party, it was only fair that that section of the Liberal Party should have a proper opportunity of expressing their views. It therefore seemed to him that these circumstances must so change the aspect of affairs that the Government would be able to see their way to the withdrawal of their Motion for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was one of those who would be very glad to hear any English Member who felt inclined to speak on the Irish Question favour them with an expression of his views. He should be especially glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) express his opinions in that House, because he would then be spared the necessity of hearing him give them out, not perhaps in season or in due place. The right hon. Gentleman had favoured a non-political gathering at a dinner he himself (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had attended with an expression of his views, not with standing that most of the company were of an opposite way of thinking to the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman had revenged himself for the privation from speaking he had experienced of late in the House by declaiming, with a greal deal of acrimony, upon the wickedness of the Home 1766 Rule Members, and of the Tory Members who did not help the Government to crush them. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) hoped the Government would give them such an explanation as would save the Irish Members the necessity of entering into any prolonged discussion. While he should vote for giving the whole of Tuesday to the debate, he should not express his views in answer to the statement the Government might make at any great length.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had raised a new question in regard to this debate, having pointed out that there was an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), which would raise the whole Irish Question. Under these circumstances, he wished to say that it was perfectly impossible that they could have the whole question of the state of Ireland—which, as every Member of the House knew, and as the Government would not deny, created great anxiety in this country at that moment—discussed in a three or four hours' debate. It was most important that they should have the whole evening to discuss that question; and, under those circumstances, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) made a point of wishing to get on with the Resolutions, upon which he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped, by the favour of the House, to have an opportunity of saying something when they came before them. He referred to what were called the Procedure Resolutions, but which he looked upon as gagging Resolutions. He believed that every hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House felt very strongly on this question, and that they would only be doing their duty to their constituents by expressing, at the fullest length, their views on the subject. The time might come when they might not have an opportunity, because, when the Resolutions were passed, they would be tongue-tied, and would have no liberty left them. While they retained their liberty, however, they thought they were only doing their duty by giving expression to everything they felt in the matter. There had been a former discussion with regard 1767 to a Tuesday Morning Sitting, the noble Marquess having, on a previous occasion, made a similar appeal. Well, they had a Morning Sitting at that time; and, as regarded that (the Opposition) side of the House, they had faithfully carried out their pledges to the Government in endeavouring to bring the question under discussion to a division. It was talked out, however, by an independent Member, or, at any rate, by one who owed no allegiance to the Opposition—he did not know whether the noble Marquess opposite would claim him as a follower. He referred to the hon. Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan). Under the circumstances, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) submitted that if they had a Morning Sitting on Tuesday they might have the Procedure discussion, with regard to which Members felt very strongly, carried to such a length that the subject would be talked out. He did not think Her Majesty's Government were likely to gain anything by having a Morning Sitting The Prime Minister had stated that his Colleague the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to make a very important statement; and, such being the case, it Seemed to him it would be for the advantage of the Government that the whole question should be discussed at full length. To give an opportunity to the Government to have this matter discussed, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. SEVERNEI beg to second the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter before the House was called on to decide the question. The Prime Minister had deliberately selected Tuesday to make his statement, notwithstanding that several opportunities had been given to him on other occasions for making it. There was no one, either in or out of the House, who denied that the position of Ireland was serious. It was a matter which not only excited the anxiety of Irishmen, but it was idle to deny that in every part of England they looked forward to the statement of the Prime Minister for guidance, and as giving some solution of the present difficulties. 1768 Under circumstances of that character, would the time of the House be in any way saved, he asked, by forcing on a Motion for a Morning Sitting in that way? He must say that he himself, though an Irish Member, had had very slight opportunities in the House of discussing these Irish questions, and he did not think it was right to have to speak on them on Motions for Adjournment. And as the Prime Minister had selected an occasion, every Irish Member who appreciated the condition of his country was bound to take advantage of the opportunity to record his independent opinion. He would ask, therefore, was it fair and right that they should be forced to give a Morning Sitting on Tuesday? There could be nothing more convincing against the proposal than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), which was to the effect that a number of English Members intended to take part in the debate. He would desire to remind the House that the Amendment which had been given Notice by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) was of a wide character, and would be likely to open up a discussion on the condition and present aspect of affairs in Ireland. Would it be, then, desirable that independent Irish Members should, in a crisis such as the present, be prevented from stating their views on the questions likely to arise on such a discussion? It could not be contended that the hon. Member for Bolton could have taken this course without having taken the advice and opinion of the leading Members of his own Party. They had now a very serious question raised in a very serious and critical state of affairs in Ireland, and yet the Government wilfully insisted upon having this Morning Sitting. Looking at all the circumstances, there would be at the disposal of the House only a very short amount of time—if, indeed, any at all—for that discussion upon the state of affairs in Ireland, which on all hands was admitted to be necessary.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the great importance attached to what was to take place on Tuesday was that the Prime Minister himself had deliberately selected it as the occasion for making a statement of vital importance on what must be acknowledged by everybody to be the 1769 most vital question of the day. It would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to confine his statement within very narrow limits. That was not a usual weakness on the part of the Prime Minister. Even if he desired to do so upon so important a question, and to confine himself to the topics raised by the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), the right hon. Gentleman would find himself compelled, by the new Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper, to enter into a much wider field, because, when the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs sat down, the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) was to get up and to move a still wider Amendment. [Cries of "No!" from the Ministerial Benches.] That was certainly the way in which he (Mr. Gibson) read the Amendment, and he hoped to have an opportunity of studying it still more carefully before the hon. Gentleman submitted it to the House. Any hon. Member who read the Amendment and the Motion would see at once that it was altogether impossible for the Prime Minister not to make a statement of supreme importance. The statement must demand important public criticism from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and it would not be giving fair play either to the House or the country to compel the Opposition to deliver a crippled and imperfect criticism upon the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as announced in the speech of the Prime Minister at a late hour of the night, when it was impossible that any remarks they desired to make could be reported. Under those circumstances, he contended that the statement about to be made by the Prime Minister might and would demand prolonged and close criticism and examination; and it might become necessary, therefore, if there was a Morning Sitting, to ask respectfully for an adjournment of Tuesday's debate until the following Thursday.
§ MR. LEAMYwould venture to express a hope that, in the event of the Government insisting upon having a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, and thus throwing over the important statement of the Prime Minister until a late hour, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to accept the Suggestion thrown out by 1770 the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and to adjourn the debate until Thursday. No doubt, there were many English Members among the supporters of the Government who would desire to express their opinions, and he was quite satisfied that most of the Irish Members would desire to express theirs. It was understood that the Government intended to declare their Irish policy; and it was not at all unlikely that many of the Radical Members, who had consented to give exceptional powers to the Irish Executive, might feel themselves called upon to say that they were not prepared to support any further coercive measures which the Government might have determined to take. It was, therefore, most improbable that the debate could be concluded on Tuesday night; and if the Government insisted on taking a Morning Sitting, the House ought to receive some intimation that there would be no opposition to a proposal for the adjournment of the debate.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI trust that the House will not consent to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; and I hope it will be perfectly well understood that, although many hon. Members opposite may take exception to the course now proposed, there is no desire to adopt an obstructive line of policy. The question of having a Morning Sitting has now been fully discussed, and the House is perfectly competent to come to a decision upon it. All I wish to say is, that it is impossible to come to any understanding whether it will be necessary to adjourn the debate on Tuesday or not. No doubt, a discussion may arise which may make it necessary that the debate should be adjourned; and if it be necessary, of course the Government would not oppose the demand. It is impossible, however, to know now whether an adjournment will be desirable or not. I would venture to suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who think that they will not have a fair opportunity for discussion, that it is impossible for them at present to judge whether it will be requisite to discuss the statement which is to be made from these Benches at all or not. It would, therefore, be much more convenient that they should hear the statement before they arrive at any conclusion in regard to it. After they have 1771 heard it, they will have an opportunity, if they consider it necessary, of distinctly expressing their opinion upon the conduct of the Government in the form of a Motion. Full opportunity would, of course, be given for the consideration of such a Motion; but it by no means follows that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be one which will require such a Motion or discussion. As to the question of adjourning the debate on Tuesday, no doubt, if the discussion should be of a nature that would appear to demand discussion, it must be adjourned; but it is perfectly impossible, until the nature of the discussion is better known than at present, to decide now what course it may be desirable to take.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) hardly realizes the gravity of the position. There has been a disposition to minimize the present condition of Ireland and the present state of affairs in that country. ["No!"from the Ministerial Benches.] My right hon. Friend opposite shakes his head; but we are told that a statement of the greatest importance is to be made on Tuesday evening after 9 o'clock, and that, as the House has so frequently discussed Irish affairs, short speeches and a limited discussion will be quite sufficient to dispose of any questions which may arise out of the statement. I venture to think there never was a period in the whole history of the country when the affairs of Ireland were of so grave a character. They do not concern Ireland alone, but the whole of the United Kingdom. In point of fact, they concern the stability of the Empire. We are told that at 9 o'clock on Tuesday evening a short statement is to be made by the Prime Minister; that it will only be necessary to make very brief speeches upon that statement; and that the whole matter may be reasonably disposed of in the short interval between 9 o'clock and midnight. It is not with a view of embarrassing the Government, but with every desire to assist Her Majesty's Ministers in the discharge of their responsible duties in connection with the administration of the affairs of Ireland, and with every desire to afford the greatest possible facilities for the re-establishment of peace, law, and order in Ireland, that we ask for a better opportunity than an Evening Sitting on 1772 Tuesday will give us for the consideration of the statement which the Prime Minister proposes to make. It is scarcely courteous, then, for the noble Marquess to say to the Opposition that, if they are not satisfied with the statement made by the Government, it will be in their option, if they think fit, to give Notice of a Vote of Censure, for the discussion of which, of course, the Government would find an opportunity. I certainly do not believe that that, upon the whole, is the best way of disposing of the time of the House; nor, on the whole, is it the best way of arriving at the object we have in view, not only on this side of the House, but on both sides of the House. We can have but one common object, and that is, by any means in our power, to restore peace, law, order, and tranquillity in Ireland. As I have said, peace, law, order, and tranquillity in Ireland have never been so seriously disturbed and threatened as they are at the present moment. They have never before been so seriously compromised; and everyone who has the slightest feeling of regard for the interests of the country must view with the deepest possible concern the present state of things in Ireland. We are not so much concerned in the Motion of which Notice has been given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) as in the intimation which has been given by the Prime Minister, that on that Motion he proposes to make a statement to the House in regard to the condition of affairs in Ireland. I believe that the whole country is waiting for that statement with the greatest possible interest and anxiety, putting Party questions altogether aside. Our object is to aid, by every means in our power, the efforts of the responsible Government to do what they can to place life and property in Ireland in a position of perfect security. It is out of the question to suppose that considerations of so important a nature can be discussed in the short interval of two or three hours in an Evening Sitting on Tuesday. If, after the discussion has been introduced, and the Prime Minister is afforded the necessary opportunity for making his statement, it is understood that the debate will be adjourned until the Thursday following, then we shall have nothing further to say; but if anything in the 1773 nature of an important statement is to be made by the Prime Minister, then three hours will certainly not be sufficient to enable the House to discuss it satisfactorily.
§ MR. J. K. CROSSremarked, that allusions had been made in the course of the debate to the Amendment of which he had given Notice in the early part of the evening. It was said that he had placed the Amendment on the Paper with the knowledge and at the instance of the Government. All he had to say was that his intentions had been entirely unknown to the Government, and that he had given Notice of the Amendment solely upon his own account. Not only was the Notice given without the knowledge of the Government, but he had given it without consulting more than one, or at most two Members of the House. He had no wish to say a single word upon the merits of the question itself. He apprehended that at the time the House met on Tuesday that matter would be entirely in the hands of the Government; and if the statement which the Prime Minister proposed to make were of such a character as to be acceptable to the majority of the House, it might probably not be necessary that the Amendment of which he (Mr. J. K. Cross) had given Notice should be brought forward at all.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was glad that the Motion had been made for the adjournment of the debate, because, undoubtedly, it had had the effect of eliciting from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) a reply which he did not think would have been made under other circumstances. He confessed that the reply of the noble Marquess was not altogether satisfactory, because, although the noble Marquess made a sort of qualified concession that the debate should be adjourned if the statement of the Prime Minister was not satisfactory, that concession did not altogether get rid of his (Mr. Chaplin's) objection that private Members were deprived of their legitimate opportunities for bringing important questions before the House. He did not know whether his hon. Friend who moved the adjournment of the debate (Mr. R. N. Fowler) proposed to go to a division or not. If he did, he (Mr. Chaplin) should vote with him, because ho wished to record his protest against the course 1774 which the Government were taking. The noble Marquess seemed to think that there was an intention to oppose the proceedings of the Government by moving successive Motions for Adjournment. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not believe there was any intention of the kind; but the noble Marquess must not be surprised, having regard to the manner in which the Government proposed to deprive private Members of their rights, if private Members took measures on their own account to protect their own interests. If the practice now pursued by the Government were persisted in, and if it led to further delay in Public Business, they would be entirely to blame.
§ MR. CALLANpointed out that if the Government accepted the proposal which had been made on that side of the House, and gave up the idea of a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, the discussion consequent on the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to Irish affairs would, in all probability, terminate on Tuesday night; but if not, and the question came on at 9 o'clock at night, as it was probable that the right hon. Gentleman would not rise until after 10 o'clock, and would very likely not sit down until after midnight, there would clearly be no opportunity for discussion on the part of the Opposition. The manœuvre of the Government was evidently to give 48 hours' start in the country to the Ministerial Statement, without affording any opportunity for the comments of hon. Members on that side of the House to reach the public. The effect of that would be that Thursday night also would have to be given up to the discussion of the Irish Question; and so, instead of concluding the debate on Tuesday, the half of that day and the whole of Thursday would be lost.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not disposed to throw any difficulties in the way of Her Majesty' Government. Since he had seen an indication on their part of a desire to treat the Irish Question in a manner in which it ought to have been treated long since he was certainly not inclined to offer any unnecessary opposition. However, he could not but think that the disposal of the public time which was now proposed to the House was not calculated to carry out the intentions of the Government. There 1775 could be no doubt that the question of the release of the "suspects" was one which, until it was settled one way or the other, impeded the progress of every kind of Business in that House. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had put off until Tuesday his definite answer upon that subject, and he also regretted that such an important matter as the Resolutions on Procedure were to be taken before the Irish Question had been dealt with. Those Resolutions raised serious questions in many minds; and although the discussions upon them might be calm, even to dulness, he could not but think that the State of anxiety in which the Government had left the House was not calculated to lead to even a business-like debate upon them next Monday. On the other hand, he believed that a calming and encouraging statement upon Irish affairs would do more towards facilitating the progress of Public Business than anything that could be devised. He thought that the Government had really indulged in a kind of cat-with-the-mouse treatment of the prisoners, their friends, and the Irish people generally; and he could not but express the hope that they would state, one way or another, what was their policy in this matter. The sooner they did so, the better he believed it would be for all parties interested. He repeated that the manner in which this question was kept hanging over was certainly not favourable to the progress of reform of Procedure. Moreover, he did not believe the Government would be gainers in the smallest degree by taking several hours from the discussion of the Irish Question on Tuesday next; and, therefore, in the interest of the Liberal policy as well as of fair play to all Parties in the House, he begged them to devote the whole of that day to its discussion. Although he would not say that there was a deliberate manœuvre to place the Government Statement before the country without comment on the part of the Opposition, there was a strong opinion that the time and circumstances under which they had chosen to make that statement were calculated to give undue advantages to the Ministerial Statement, and give, so to speak, 48 hours' start to it, no matter how much time might be required for the statement of the Opposition. Therefore, he urged upon the 1776 Government the necessity of avoiding even the suspicion of unfairness in this matter. There could be no Ministerial Statement on Tuesday, under the proposed arrangement, until 11 o'clock; and, consequently, there could be no fair criticism of it which could appear in the papers of the following day. That fact would be known through out the country, and would give the appearance of dodging to the Government policy, which he trusted and believed was quite undeserved, so far as this matter was concerned. Notwithstanding that, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that both the Government themselves and the independent Parties in the House would suffer by the proposed arrangement.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the Government were doing what he had known many Governments to do on former occasions. They were trying to save time, and by their way of doing it they were throwing away twice as much as they expected to save. He could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that the result of the Government proposal would be that, instead of the whole of Thursday being devoted to Public Business, it would be taken up entirely by the continued discussion upon the question to be brought before the House on Tuesday. Therefore, he suggested that the Government should appoint the whole of Tuesday for the discussion of the Irish Question, which certainly could not be concluded if it commenced after 9 o'clock in the evening. It was all very well for the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) to allege that a subject of that importance could be discussed at 2 o'clock in the morning; but hon. Members must know very well that no important question could be properly discussed after 1 o'clock in the morning. The probable effect of the Government proposal would be that the whole question would be raised again, and that another day would be wasted. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had expressed his opinion that it was desirable that a number of English Members should take part in the debate on Tuesday night, and that the Irish Members should abstain from doing so. That would certainly be another effect of the Government arrangement, because, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member, a considerable number of 1777 English Members were to speak; and he (Mr. Biggar) could not, therefore, understand how it could be said that Irish Members would have any opportunity of expressing their views. What portion of time would be at the disposal of Irish Members, after the evening had been occupied by speeches from English Members and Members of the Government? The right hon. Member seemed to think that it was more important that hon. Members who knew nothing of the subject should state their opinions, than that those who were thoroughly acquainted with it should do so. It was needless to say that the reverse of this should take place; and, therefore, he appealed to the Government, in their own interest, and in the interest of all Parties, to afford Irish Members every opportunity for the discussion of the present question, by taking the debate at the ordinary time on Tuesday next, with the reasonable expectation that it would be concluded the same evening, and thereby secure the whole of Thursday for Government Business.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 36;Noes 90: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 73.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BIGGARbegged to move that the House do now adjourn. It was now after 2 o'clock, and he thought the best thing to do would be to adjourn.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has addressed the House on the Main Question; therefore, he is not in Order.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, he would second the Motion, and he did so with very great regret. He assured the House that he should be very sorry to second the Motion; but its adoption was advisable in the interest of the Government themselves, and in the interest of economy of time. If the Government would consent to sit at the usual hour on Tuesday—namely, 4 o'clock, they would be able, most likely, to conclude the discussion upon the Irish Question about 2 o'clock the following morning. What was the real position of affairs? The Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman 1778 the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) would certainly give rise to a long debate, and the Prime Minister had told them that he himself was going to make a most important statement. He (Mr. R. Power) supposed that in the whole history of Ireland there never was a time when the people of that country looked forward with more interest and with more anxiety to any statement from any English Minister, and the idea of discussing an Irish difficulty in three or four hours was most ridiculous. If the Government acceded to the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), who had asked that the Members of Parliament who were now detained in Kilmainham should be released, the Irish Members on the Opposition side of the House would, in a few brief speeches, congratulate the Government upon the decision they had arrived at; but he was not quite certain that the Conservative Members would do the same. He believed they would get up, and, in very violent speeches, condemn such a policy. It was all very well to say that the Prime Minister would only take 15 minutes to make his statement as regarded the future policy of the Government towards Ireland. Although he very much doubted whether the Prime Minister could confine himself to 15 minutes, he was persuaded the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would give rise to a very long and protracted debate. If they knew exactly what they were to discuss on Tuesday, they might be able to form an opinion as to the amount of time the debate would occupy; but, at the present moment, they were quite in the dark. They might be asked to discuss the necessity for martial law in Ireland, or the release of the political prisoners, or the continuance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Office; but no matter what they were required to discuss, as long as it related to Ireland it was absurd to suppose that the debate could be of short duration. He was very sorry, indeed, to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) thought that the clôture was a far more important question than the Irish Question. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who had been so successful in solving the Eastern difficulty, would have devoted some of his ability, and some of 1779 his time, to solving the Western difficulty. He was, however, glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express the opinion that English Members ought to interfere in Irish debates. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members intended to interfere in English debates. The idea of an Irish debate, like that which would take place on Tuesday, only lasting three hours, was perfectly ridiculous.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it seemed to him that every speech that was made in the debate to which the House had listened for some time past showed very plainly that the proposal for a Morning Sitting on Tuesday was ill-advised, and was not really likely to facilitate the progress of Business in the House. The House, however, had pronounced, by a very considerable majority, in favour of that Morning Sitting being taken; and, so far as he was concerned, he did not think the present was an occasion in which they should endeavour, by repeated divisions, to prevent the majority from carrying their wishes into effect; therefore, he should take no further part in resisting the Government proposal.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the House of the different position in which they found themselves that night to other occasions in which Morning Sittings had been asked. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said that, inasmuch as the House had decided by a considerable majority, he would execute the characteristic operation of "backing out." When it was proposed to take a Morning Sitting to consider the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire and the Tory Party cared little for the decision of the House. Majority after majority declared they would have a Morning Sitting; but minority after minority obstructed the Government and refused a Morning Sitting. Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, no!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman might not have been present on that occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman said he was not present on that occasion, at least his Party were. Two or three of the right 1780 hon. Gentlemen now sitting near the right hon. Baronet were certainly present, and they cared little as to what the opinion of the House was. But now the Tory Party, after having got up a row as to whether there should be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, found, when it got half-past 2 o'clock, that it would suit their purpose to go to bed; they told the House that as a large majority had decided in favour of a Morning Sitting they would bow their meek heads and go home to sleep. That was not the way in which these things ought to be met. If hon. Gentlemen set out by denouncing the Government as iniquitous for certain proceedings, they ought to be consistent. It seemed somewhat inconsistent to give way because they found themselves in a considerable minority. It was not a question whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire was right, but in a minority, but whether he was in the right. If the right hon. Gentleman was in the right at the onset, he was in the right now, and ought to continue his opposition to the Morning Sitting. He (Mr. Healy) never cared a button whether he was in a minority or majority. He and his hon. Friends were so used to finding themselves in a minority that it did not matter much to them how they were situated. Passing from that point, however, he must remind the House of the inconvenience they suffered from discussing these questions in the absence of the authorities who were competent to deal with them. They were dealing with a number of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who had got instructions to get a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next. They knew there was an important Irish question down for consideration on that day, and they would be glad to know what the decision of the Government was going to be. If they knew the decision was going to be in the direction which many hon. Members desired, there would be no objection on the part of those hon. Gentlemen to grant a Morning Sitting, because they would know they would not occupy more than an hour with any remarks they would have to make on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay). But they were altogether in the dark, and because they were in the dark they were obliged to resist 1781 the proposal to take a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. The most straightforward course for the Government to have adopted would have been to have announced earlier what their action was going to be with respect to the "suspects." If they had told the House that day, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), what their intention was, they would not now he wrangling about a Morning Sitting. He had no objection, on principle, to the Government having a Morning Sitting; but he did object that on special occasions, such as next Tuesday, the day should be whittled away by the Government scooping out the most material part of it. The Prime Minister himself was absent, and the right hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench had not power to deal with the question; therefore, there was to be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. He was sure that if the Prime Minister, who, as regarded the convenience and time of the House, had an open mind, were present, he would see the force of the observations which had been addressed to the Government during this debate, and would yield to the wishes of a large number of hon. Members.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that when the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) talked of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) "backing out" after the Tories had got up a row, he must remind the hon. Member of how the discussion arose. As an Amendment to the Motion made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), he (Mr. Chaplin) took the liberty of moving that the words "Two o'clock" should be omitted; and he stated at the time that he did so in order to have an opportunity of recording his protest against the course which was being adopted by the Government. During the debate he also stated that there was no intention whatever on the part of hon. Gentlemen sitting in that quarter of the House to prolong the discussion. He had no desire to engage in a fight with the large battalions he saw sitting opposite; but he had taken part in the division, and was satisfied with having entered his protest against the action of the Government in the matter.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not have arisen at that time, were it not for the observations which had fallen 1782 from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman had informed them that out of the few hours which the Government proposed to place at the disposal of the House for the discussion of the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) a large number of English Members wished to occupy some time; that a considerable number of English Members wished to take part in the debate; and he asked if it was possible to suppose that a considerable number of English Members could intervene in the debate without uttering a great deal of contentious matter, and giving rise to a great deal of exasperation on that side of the House? If the Prime Minister made a conciliatory speech—a speech which would be in some degree satisfactory to the Irish Members—it would inevitably be unsatisfactory to the Conservative Members. If, however, the speech was pleasing to Conservative Members, it would, unquestionably, be displeasing to Irish Members. However that might be, it was impossible to suppose that a considerable number of English Members could intervene without giving the Irish Members occasion, which they could not resist, to reply to them. If English Members attacked the Irish Members, if they attacked the "suspects," if they attempted to traduce the Irish National Land League, it would be the business of the Representatives of Ireland to reply, and, of course, they would discharge their duty. It was entirely ridiculous to suppose that the debate on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) would only last three or four hours; therefore, the Government would act wisely in giving them more time.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the question could be put in a very narrow compass. That day the Prime Minister said he would make a statement on Irish affairs on Tuesday next. That statement, whatever it might be, would be of great importance; but, in the interval between now and then, he (Mr. Sexton) confessed he was unwilling to draw the House into a sustained contest on a collateral issue. He did not know what the statement might be; he hoped it might be of such a character as to call 1783 for no reply from his hon. Friends and himself. Let the Evening Sitting on Tuesday be sufficient or insufficient, he confessed he was willing to abide by the decision then arrived at. He understood the noble Marquess to entitle him to infer that if a large number of Members found it imperative on them to speak on the question the Government would not oppose an adjournment until Thursday for the purpose of concluding the debate. On that understanding, he should be disposed not to quarrel with the arrangement made. If the speech of the Prime Minister were satisfactory to the Irish Members, they would not be under the necessity of entering into a debate at all; and, therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) the desirability of withdrawing his Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, however anxious he might be that this controversy should terminate, he should be unwilling it should terminate under any misapprehension; and there were two misapprehensions he thought it his duty to correct. It had been altogether erroneously assumed throughout the discussion that the Prime Minister had announced an intention of making a general statement with regard to Irish affairs on Tuesday next. All his right hon. Friend said, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), was that he thought it would be more convenient to answer the Question put to him by that hon. Gentleman on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), because that Motion would give an opportunity, if necessary, of debate. His right hon. Friend never said that it was his intention on Tuesday to make any general statement with regard to Irish affairs. The other misapprehension was that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had given any undertaking that the debate would, if it was thought desirable, be adjourned from Tuesday until Thursday. What he said was that it was utterly impossible, until the debate had taken place, for them to come to any decision as to an adjournment. Of course, if it was the desire of a large portion of the House that the debate should be adjourned, the Government would not offer any unreasonable opposition; but 1784 he had never said—indeed, it was not within his power to say—that the debate should be adjourned until Thursday. He did not know what the arrangement of the Business for next week would be, and it was quite out of his power to give any undertaking as to an adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the appeal made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and after the explanation of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee deferred till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.