SUPPLY.—REPORT.

HC Deb 28 March 1882 vol 268 cc152-211

Resolution [24th March] reported.

Said Resolution read a second time.

MR. MACIVER

, who had a Notice of Motion on the Paper to reduce the sum asked for by £1,500, said, one reason, amongst others, for putting this Notice upon the Paper was that he felt he had received some provocation from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke). But the House had nothing to do with anything that might be regarded as a personal question between the hon. Baronet and himself; and it devolved upon him, upon public grounds, to show some reasons of dissatisfaction with the general proceedings of the Foreign Office sufficient to justify him in putting the Motion on the Paper. There were abundance of such reasons. The hon. Baronet had published letters which appeared in the newspapers; and there was, no doubt, a very general feeling throughout the country that the Government had received certain valuable concessions relating to shipping and goods from the French Government. He should like to know whether the sum asked for by the Foreign Office in this Report of Supply included any payment in respect of recent or present negotiations in regard to French commercial matters?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

No, Sir; none. ["Order!"] I understand the hon. Member to ask a definite question. My answer is in the negative. That sum was voted some weeks ago.

MR. MACIVER

went on to say that he thought he was justified in assuming that there were no negotiations going on at the present moment, or, if there were, that the cost of those negotiations was not included in the present Estimate. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: There are no negotiations.] He should like to ask whether the sum which the Foreign Office asked for included payment for Blue Books which had recently been issued by them; and, if so, he should like to ask, and he thought it but reasonable to do so, whose duty it was to prepare those Blue Books and to revise their contents? He also thought he was entitled to ask, in view of the letters which had appeared in the newspapers and the statements which had appeared in the Press, why it was that that duty should have been neglected, and how it was that the contents of the Blue Books, as a matter of fact, did not correspond with that which Members of the Go- vernment led the public, whether intentionally or otherwise, to believe? If it was a fact that the Government did obtain concessions with regard to bounties upon shipbuilding and on navigation, he asked why were those concessions not shown in the Blue Books, and why did not the Blue Books correspond with that which had been stated? He (Mr. Mac Iver) had examined the Blue Books, and had employed others to do so; and he did not find in them any confirmation whatever of the view that the Government received any concessions whatever from the French Commissioners in regard to bounties on shipping, or any that were worth having in relation to cargo. Under these circumstances, he thought he was perfectly justified in asking these questions. The amount by which he proposed that the Vote should be reduced was precisely equivalent to the salary of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but he was sure that the hon. Baronet himself would believe that there was no one in that House more unwilling than he (Mr. Mac Iver) that any actual reduction should be made in that payment, which he was sure the hon. Baronet very hardly earned. The duties of the hon. Baronet's position were such that, if the Forms of the House permitted him, instead of moving that the salary should be reduced, he would have preferred to move that more money should be paid, and that the hon. Baronet should be properly assisted in the Department in which he held such an important place. He had not the slightest doubt the hon. Baronet did all he could; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) wished he was less overworked and that he was more accurate. And he thought he was not out of Order in calling attention to the general fact that the duties of the Foreign Office were not well performed. He had but a few more words to say, and that was in reference to what he conceived to be the proper duties of private Members in that House in relation to the Foreign Office. He thought that a Member who represented, as he (Mr. Mac Iver) represented, an important commercial constituency—a shipbuilding and a ship-owning constituency—a constituency of a port which, if not the largest, was certainly the second port in the Kingdom, had a right to ask reasonable questions of the Government in regard to commercial negotiations which were under the control of the Foreign Office. He admitted to the fullest extent that the justification of any question which he might have asked, or which he might yet ask, depended altogether upon the reasonableness of such questions. He thought he was justified in asking questions in regard to matters upon which he individually was perfectly well informed, and respecting which he knew beforehand what the reply of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ought to be if he wished to give information to the House of Commons on the subject. When he asked in the future for information, as he had asked for it in the past, it might be upon matters upon which he was perfectly well informed himself, for the purpose of pinning the Government to some statement by which information should be given to hon. Members in the House who were not concerned in shipowning constituencies, and to hon. Members who really lacked information on such subjects. He thought that the Ministerial replies to questions so asked ought to be of a nature to give bonâ fide information to the House and to the public on any subject on which the Government might reasonably and properly be interrogated. The proceedings of the Foreign Office, and especially of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the latter would permit the comparison, reminded him of what Mark Twain, the American humorist, once said. He undertook to deliver a course of lectures, and said he could lecture best upon those subjects which he least understood, because then he should feel less trammelled in anything he might have to say. That was a truthful description of the replies of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (Mr. Mac Iver) moved the reduction of the Vote, not in any serious desire to press that reduction to a division, but simply in order that he might express the hope that the Foreign Office would in the future make a more reasonable use than they had done in the past of the money voted to them, and would take a proper view of the duty, which he ventured to think devolved upon them, of giving accurate information to the House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£3,631,600," in order to insert "£3,630,100,"—(Mr. Mac Iver,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That '£3,631,600' stand part of the said Resolution."

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he only wished to say one or two words, not so much with reference to the protest which had just been made, but to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and also his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke), whether any steps had been taken to secure the execution of the reforms in Turkey stipulated by the Treaty of Berlin? A long time had elapsed without any steps having been taken to carry out these stipulations as far as the Government was concerned. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had told the House more than once that the Government were not able to act alone in this matter, and that they were obliged to invoke the Concert of Europe. But he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) thought that, as all were agreed upon the necessity of these reforms being carried out, Her Majesty's Government could not entirely get rid of their responsibility of taking the initiative simply because there had been a change of Government. The late Government had taken a leading part in the Berlin negotiations, and the Government could not now refuse to take a prominent place in seeing that the terms of that Treaty were fulfilled. His hon. Friend had told him on one or two occasions that there had been no apprehensions of any difficulty arising between Germany and Russia, and he would fully admit that the Government must know best what was going on in official circles; but, judging from what was appearing in the newspapers, he could not but say that there were evidences of the spirit of the people in the two countries which were far more significant than the assurances of Governments, and which seemed to him to give reasons for apprehending a movement of a Pan-Slavonic character which might seriously endanger the peace of Europe. He could not help thinking that if we were to resist this Panslavic inroad, and if we were to maintain the peace of Europe in the East, no course could be better calculated to attain that object than the establishment of autonomies in the East of Europe, and it would be perfectly in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin. On more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had expressed his views in favour of the speedy establishment of autonomies in the Turkish Empire; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that without such changes the confusion in that part of the world was likely to be intensified. He should therefore be glad of some assurance on the point. He was sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, but he presumed he was agreeably engaged in East Cornwall in electioneering; but if he had been in the House he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would have liked to have asked him whether he was prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the recent Constitution granted to Cyprus? and to have put a question as to the late census of the inhabitants of the Island. It was perfectly plain to his mind that the Constitution that had been established ought to have been founded upon fair distribution of power amongst the different nationalities of Cyprus; and he hoped that the Government would, before long, lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the principles on which the institutions had been given, as well as the basis upon which such principles had been arrived at. In the present state of Europe, and with the somewhat alarming accounts given in the newspapers as to the excitement in Germany and Russia, it would be satisfactory to learn the steps adopted by the Government for the maintenance of order in Eastern Europe.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would not be in Order in making any reference to what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) with regard to Cyprus. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), that hon. Gentleman appeared to have moved the reduction of the Vote by the amount of his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) salary for one year; but he could not understand upon what principle he had done so, as it was rather hard that the hon. Member should move the reduction of his salary for a whole year upon a Vote which was only for two months on account. The hon. Member ought to have divided the sum by six and taken the Income Tax off. The references that the hon. Member had made to his geniality had taken away the sting of his remarks; but that geniality could not be expected to continue if, while his official duties remained the same, his income was altogether taken away. Now, he did not think that the details of the negotiations as to the French Commercial Treaty could be very conveniently discussed on the present occasion. As the hon. Member had said, the subject was one in which his constituency and the shipping interest in general were nearly concerned; but the House had never shown any great disposition to follow the remarks of the hon. Member, and he hoped he might suggest, without any disrespect, that some of the hon. Member's observations were more suitable to his constituency than to the House of Commons. The hon. Member apparently had attacked the Foreign Office on the singular ground of his belief in what had been written and published in the newspapers by certain hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was unacquainted with those articles, or with their authors, and did not know to what the hon. Member was referring. The hon. Member had asked whether the money that the Blue Books cost was included in this Vote. It was not, although the responsibility for the preparation of these particular Blue Books rested upon him (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and he was perfectly prepared to accept the responsibility. The hon. Gentleman had also stated, inter alia, that the Blue Books did not confirm the replies given in the House as to the negotiations for the Commercial Treaty, with reference, in particular, to the French shipping bounties and the surtaxe d'entrepôt. The question of the bounties on shipping he thought they had settled together the other day. The hon. Member complained that the Government had made no further representations as to the bounties; but that was not the case. Representations had, as a matter of fact, been made, but without result, as no Tariff Treaty or Treaty dealing with that subject had yet been concluded. With regard to the surtaxe d'entrepôt, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that we did not reap any benefit in connection with it, because reductions had been made under the Belgian Treaty, and we enjoyed these reductions under the "Most Favoured Nation" Clause. With regard to the other portion of the surtaxe d'entrepôt case—namely, that which affected the Canadian trade through England, as contrasted with the Canadian trade through the United States, he had already twice told the hon. Member that we had obtained concessions from the French negotiators; and in the event of a Treaty having been made with France, those concessions would have been carried out. The hon. Gentleman had taken all the sting away from his observations by remarking that the Foreign Office Vote ought rather to be increased than diminished; and, therefore, he thought he could safely leave that question with the House. Passing to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth respecting the necessity of reforms in the Turkish Empire, he could only say that he concurred with him when he asked the Government not to repudiate the initiative in these matters. They did not repudiate the initiative; they had always taken the initiative as regarded the Provinces of European Turkey, and they continued to lead the concerted action of the European Powers at the present. He regretted as much as the hon. Gentleman could regret the slowness with which these matters were progressing; but it was useless to conceal the fact that other Powers did not feel so acutely upon the subject as we did ourselves. With regard to the reforms in the European Provinces, the Government had pressed the Armenian reforms. They had applied greater pressure with regard to these reforms, and they had received very strong assurances from the Turkish Government that the reforms would very shortly be carried out in Armenia. The only step, however, that had been taken up to the present time had been the removal of a few Provincial Governors, whose characters had been reported upon unfavourably, and the appointment of various Sub-Governors. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that the reforms, of course, were greatly to be desired in the interests of Turkey herself, especially at a time when there were feelings abroad such as those to which the hon. Member had alluded; but the Government had no reason at the present time to apprehend any danger of a European war.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not press his Amendment, although, in his (Mr. O'Shea's) opinion, he and other private Members had reason to complain of some of the answers as to foreign affairs given by the hon. Baronet, who had never given the House any real information as to our commercial negotiations with France and Spain. As a rule, the hon. Baronet's replies were terse, and conveyed no meaning whatever. He (Mr. O'Shea) had asked yesterday whether it was true that the Spanish Government had asked our Government to enter into serious commercial negotiations, and had suggested that they should take place at Madrid. The only answer given by the hon. Baronet was that the Spanish Government had asked that negotiations should take place at Madrid, and not a word had been said as to the reply of our Government or the appointment of Commissioners to negotiate. And on many other occasions the very minimum of information had been given by the hon. Baronet, and something always seemed to be kept back, with the air, perhaps, less of a Machiavelli than of a Talleyrand. He wished to know whether the Government intended to enter upon negotiations with the Spanish Government at Madrid; and, if so, whether they would appoint Commissioners?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

, in reply, said, that he had accurately and completely answered the Question as it appeared on the Paper yesterday, but had not entered into matters as to which no inquiry had been made. His hon. Friend did not ask that which he now asked, and he did not know whether his hon. Friend wished him to go further and to say what answer had been given by Her Majesty's Government. However, he might add that instructions on the subject were being drawn up for communication to Her Majesty's Minister in Madrid; but they had not yet been sent.

MR. O'SHEA

Are negotiators to be sent?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

We do not think it necessary to send special Commissioners, having full confidence in Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid.

Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, that he was anxious to dissociate himself from the sentiments of the hon. Members opposite and below him (Mr. Mac Iver and Mr. O'Shea). He desired to say that, in his opinion, during the last two years no Department of the Government was administered with more conspicuous skill and courtesy than that administered by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mac Iver) at one time would move to reduce the Vote and at another to increase it, on the ground that the pressure of work was so great that the Under Secretary of State had no leisure to acquaint himself with the subjects brought to his notice, and was thereby driven to give inaccurate and untrustworthy information. So far from that being the case, nothing had been more remarkable than the accuracy and conciseness of the answers of the hon. Baronet, except the courtesy which he had always maintained in the face of very strong provocation. The answers of the hon. Baronet were such that any Member of the Government might be proud to imitate. The information given had been trustworthy, and it had been given with a point and decision, and with an extreme urbanity of manner, which had never been more conspicuous than when to-day he replied to those questions which the hon. Member for Birkenhead thought reasonable, but to which many Members would apply a very different term.

MR. MAC IVER

asked to withdraw his Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"] He would only add that if the tone of the hon. Baronet had always been what it had been that day he should never have brought the matter forward.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Members of the Irish Party entertained a profound objection to the method of dealing with public money contemplated by the present Vote. The taking of public money by Votes on Account seemed to be growing into a practice and hardening down into a system; and he could conceive of no system better calculated to make the Government irresponsible, and to withdraw from the House of Commons its chief Constitutional function of criticizing the expenditure of the State. In the course of the summer they might ask for another Vote on Account, and then, as now, they might ask to postpone discussion; and finally, when the Vote for the balance was taken, and when by common consent the occasion had arrived, for Constitutional criticism, the Dog-days would also have arrived, and the House of Commons would not be in a position to give the Vote that criticism which the public interest required. Irish Members, however, were not disposed to interfere between English Members and the Government; and, therefore, the reduction which he meant to move on the Vote should have reference only to items of expenditure for purposes of State in Ireland.

MR. SPEAKER

I must inform the hon. Gentleman that after the Motion which has just been decided upon by this House no further reduction can be moved, because the House has affirmed that the original sum shall stand part of the Resolution. The hon. Member is at liberty to make any observations he pleases in reference to the Votes; but he cannot move its reduction.

MR. SEXTON

Then I will confine myself to observations with reference to Ireland.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

, as a point of Order, wished to ask whether it was not competent for an hon. Member now to move for a reduction of the Vote smaller than that which had been moved by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver)? Would it, for instance, not be competent for the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to move for the reduction of the Vote by £1,200?

MR. SPEAKER

The vote of the House was to this effect—the Question is, "That the sum of £3,631,600 stand part of the proposed Resolution." The House having resolved that in the affirmative, it is obvious that the amount cannot now be reduced.

MR. SEXTON

said, he apprehended at once the force of the right hon. Gentleman's ruling; and he should therefore strictly confine himself to observations on the item for the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and that of Irish Prisons. He might say a great deal with reference to the manner in which the Civil Service in Ireland as regarded the prisons had lately been administered; that from time to time in that House he had felt it his painful duty to expose the manner in which, in the name of the resources of civilization, the instincts of barbarism had been applied with intense gratification; but, at present, he would confine himself to an inquiry into the present condition of the question of the imprisonment of three Members of Parliament in an Irish prison by a Government of which the Chief Secretary for Ireland was the principal responsible Officer in Ireland. He said the present condition, because the condition of the question with regard to these three hon. Gentlemen had within the last few days—he might say within the last few hours—very gravely and materially changed. In the first place, these hon. Gentlemen were not imprisoned in pursuance of any judicial process, any verdict of a jury, or any finding of a Judge. They were imprisoned on what was called "reasonable suspicion" in the mind of an Irish subordinate of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; and if the Government saw any reason to order their release, nothing more was necessary than to instruct the subordinate, and they would be released as a matter of course. Why were these hon. Gentlemen imprisoned? He (Mr. Sexton) was in a position to state the exact words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this point. He said, in a public letter, which was in strict keeping with previous declarations in this House, that the Coercion Act was intended to be used for the purpose of prevention, and not for the purposes of punishment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of preventing what? For the purpose of preventing the illegal acts contemplated by the Coercion Act—namely, acts of violence and intimidation. Passing on to the next point, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the telegram he was about to read accurately represented the facts to which it referred? This telegram was addressed to him (Mr. Sexton) by the hon. Members for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Counties of Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and was dated yesterday, from the prison, Kil-mainham— We have written to the Chief Secretary asking to he permitted to take part in the divi- sion on Mr. Marriott's Amendment, and undertaking to refrain from any action in any other political matter during our absence from prison, and after the division to return to Ireland, and surrender ourselves to the Lord Lieutenant. He (Mr. Sexton) now wished the Prime Minister and the House—he wished the Government and the country to clearly understand that these hon. Gentlemen had not taken this step of their own motion. He most firmly believed that the spirit which had sustained them through weary months of imprisonment would have animated them yet, and kept them silent; but they had made this application in obedience to the unanimous wish of their Colleagues in Parliament. If they had consulted their own feelings, they would have made no application on that or any other subject to the right hon. Gentleman; and it was only in deference to the wishes of others, and in obedience to their sense of duty to their country and to the mandate given by their constituents of the city of Cork and the counties of Tipperary and Roscommon that the application had been made. And why had it been made? Because they were on the eve of a trial of strength the most momentous that had distinguished the Parliamentary history of this century. It would be an idle task to compare the division to be taken on Thursday night with any other division. It would be no ordinary division, but an extraordinary one, perhaps the most extraordinary that had ever been taken in that House, for it was the first step in proceedings which proposed to uproot and shatter the Parliamentary Constitution which had been ton and natural growth of centuries. It proposed not merely to vitally alter the Constitution of that House, but also permanently to limit and restrict the rights of individual Members. Why, it was not merely because the Constitution of the House, as a whole, was threatened by these Resolutions, but also because by virtue of them their right, the most valuable, sacred, and hitherto cherished right of every individual Member—the right of free, unrestricted speech—was about to be taken away. It was for that reason that he claimed, for those three absent Members who were detained in prison, and who had as good a right as he or his Leader had to be heard and to vote on a question that concerned not merely their constituents and country, but their own personal exercise of their political, Constitutional, and Parliamentary rights, the right to decide as freely as any other hon. Members of that House. Having shown, in the first place, the circumstances under which those hon. Gentlemen were imprisoned, and the unquestionable gravity of the occasion when desired to be present, he would proceed to ask briefly what were the terms under which they wished to come to that House? They were imprisoned under suspicion, and, therefore, could not lawfully be punished, but only detained. The only moral reason and the only legal reason why the right hon. Gentleman, upon the authority given him by that House, could have a right to detain his hon. Colleagues was, that he apprehended that their release might lead to incitement to acts of violence or intimidation, or other acts punishable by law, and specified in the Coercion Act. In all the discussions on the subject, he would admit that he never felt that he could completely reply to the argument which might be advanced on the side of the Government. If they released these Gentlemen, what assurance had they that they would not repeat the acts of alleged misconduct of which they were suspected? He might have replied—and it was the only answer he could give—that the imprisonment they had already suffered had probably been long enough for the acts for which they were suspected, even if they had been found guilty; and if they were released and again misconducted themselves, the Government had their Coercion Act, their policemen, their warrants, and their gaols, and could renew the imprisonment and protect society against them; but now he had a different argument. He had the proffered word of honour of these three hon. Gentlemen, and he did not suppose that either of the right hon. Gentlemen or any Member of the House would question for a moment the adequacy of the word of honour of any one of these three hon. Members as a guarantee in respect of his future conduct. What was the demand they made, and what were the terms they offered? They asked to be allowed to come to that House on Thursday evening and exercise, in the most limited and restricted form, their Parliamentary right to vote on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) to the Resolution of the Prime Minister in regard to the 1st Rule of Procedure. They did not ask to be even permitted to speak, but only to vote. In what direction they would vote it was not for him (Mr. Sexton) to say, and the Government were too high-minded to inquire. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had said that if the Government had been willing to release them in order that they might vote on their own side; such conduct would be worthy of the highest reprobation. Perhaps the Government were afraid that their votes might be given on the other side; and even supposing they knew such to be the case, was that a reason why they should, any the less, release them for that purpose? Let him put in brief words the sum total of the engagement in that telegram. The hon. Gentlemen the Members for Cork, Tipperary, and Roscommon, on being released, pledged their word of honour that they would proceed to that House, that in that House they would limit themselves to voting on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton; that, having voted on that Amendment, they would return to Ireland, and all the time vigorously abstain from any political action, and personally tender themselves to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If the Coercion Act was not for punishment but prevention, why would such an offer be refused? On what special pleading could the Chief Secretary for Ireland assert that the prevention which was the object of their imprisonment would be less effectually carried out in that House than in Kilmainham? Nothing more was asked by these hon. Members than was freely granted to prisoners of war. Prisoners of war taken red-handed were released on parole; the sole condition being that during their parole they should not take part in the conflict. What was the conflict in the present case? It was the agitation in Ireland, and the three hon. Members pledged their honour that during the period of their parole they would not take part in that agitation. He trusted he had fully shown that there was no possible conceivable danger to law and order involved in the granting of that demand. He had also, he thought, shown that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was bound by the maxim he had laid down, limiting the purposes of the Coercion Act to prevention, to release these hon. Gentlemen, it being clearly proved to him that there was no danger on their parts of a repetition of illegal practices. There was one further argument on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland was bound by his administration of the Coercion Act to release these Gentlemen for the purpose mentioned. He was bound to say, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, that he had not been slow to grant releases upon parole. One man was released because of something in connection with his shop, and another because of something in connection with his farm; and the cases had been numerous in which the right hon. Gentleman had allowed men to proceed from gaol to their farms to carry out some domestic or business requirement. In no single case had the right hon. Gentleman found the parole broken. The difficulty he (Mr. Sexton) believed was in the opposite direction; because, on at least one occasion, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in regarding the release as permanent, while the "suspect" insisted it had been only temporary. The prisoner returned to the gaol and persisted in his demand to be re-taken into custody. How could the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that inconsistency? When the state of feeling was such in Ireland that men in the humbler ranks of society kept their parole, and returned to prison rather than bring the dimmest constructive stain upon their characters, the evidence was ample to show that the parole of the three hon. Members now in prison was sufficiently guaranteed. Men had been allowed out on parole to till their farms, and had been allowed to go freely through Ireland. Was a private obligation more sacred than a public right? Had a man who merely wanted to till his farm or stock his shop a greater right to release on parole than the men who wanted to come to the House of Commons and to take part in the highest function a subject could perform. He feared the difficulty in the latter case was precisely because these hon. Gentlemen desired to exercise a public right. If they wanted to go to the Mediterranean or to America, or upon a tour of pleasure, or on business, there would be no hesita- tion about granting the parole. It was because they wanted to perform their public duty that they would, he supposed, be refused a parole, for the countenance of the right hon. Gentleman forewarned him of the probable reply. It was because the strongest Government of the 19th century in England apprehended that upon a division from which the greatest events might hang—the existence of the Government, the holding of a General Election, the future force of that Parliament—those three hon. Gentlemen might be found in the Opposition Lobby, that the Government would refuse to them, their victims of suspicion, the common privilege—he would say the right—which the right hon. Gentleman extended to the poor tenant who simply wanted to leave prison that he might sow his crops. Having said so much, he would leave this question to the judgment of the House and of the country. Rather, he would say, to the judgment of the country, because, as the right hon. Baronet opposite remarked, the mechanism of the House was nervous, and speedily responded to the hands of those who so well knew how to use it. In the country there was intelligence, there was honesty, there was a vast and abundant perception of public rights. He would conclude his observations with the remark that, however high might be the pretensions, however moral might be the professions that emanated from the Treasury Bench—and Heaven knew they had abundant moral professions from the Treasury Bench—every man in England, Scotland, and Ireland, however humble was his intelligence, however limited his political knowledge, would know that the great Liberal Government was afraid of their votes upon the first clôture division. When the hon. Gentleman used an Act of suspicion to keep three hon. Members away from their Constitutional right they would know that a Statute obtained by deceptive practices from the House, which gave it, for great purposes of public right and safety, was being used by the Government for the meanest ends and for the most contemptible intrigues of Party.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he desired, before any Members of the Government might state their views on this question, to say a few words. The proposition put forward by the hon. Mem- ber for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was made tinder circumstances without parallel in the history of Parliamentary legislation. In supporting the proposal for the release on parole of the three hon. Members, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would ask—was it possible that any exercise of the prerogative could be so fenced around with safeguards? Could those three hon. Gentlemen afford to break their words of honour before the country by endeavouring while on parole to renew the conduct for which they were arrested? He asked the Government to consider carefully the request that they had made, and not to give a hasty refusal.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to offer a suggestion, as a Member in an independent position, being neither a Member of the Government—thank God—nor a Member of the Irish Party, for which he was equally grateful. He had already suggested that the Prime Minister should pair with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the Home Secretary should pair with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should pair with the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), &c. That suggestion, unhappily, had not met with the approbation of the Government; but he had yet another to make, so anxious was he to assist his kind friends among all Parties in the House. Could not some three of the Irish Members now in the House be held as hostages while the division was going on, and, when the division was over, be detained in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms until the three "suspects" re-entered Kilmainham? He did not see how the Government could refuse, for they already had liberated "suspects" in order that they might attend, the funerals of their relatives; and it was only consistent that these three hon. Members should be liberated for the purpose of enabling them to attend at the funeral of the British Constitution.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had understood that the hon. Members of the political section to which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) belonged intended to arraign the general conduct of the Government upon that occasion. From the course of the observations of the hon. Member, however, and from the silence of those who sat around him, he conceived that he must have been misinformed upon the subject, because, undoubtedly, if there had been a disposition to arraign the general conduct of the Government, he should have desired to have taken his part in its defence, and to have stated what he thought about the course which the hon. Member and his Friends had taken in bringing about the present condition of Ireland. But as that was not the case, and as the Irish Representatives were evidently waiting for some reply from the Government upon this particular subject, he would give one; but he must, however, rely upon them that there was no other subject of debate that afternoon. ["No, no!"]

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

was understood to signify that the Irish Members intended to enter upon a general discussion after the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

MR. GLADSTONE

Then, he begged pardon—he must decline to proceed then if there were to be any other subjects of discussion. If there was to be an attack made upon the general policy of the Government, he hoped that he should be allowed to sit down for the present. He had been drawn by the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down to speak on the subject now. He now learnt, after they had sat down, that it was the intention of Irish Members to attack generally the policy of the Government.

MR. CALLAN

hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Carthy) would not be led into a trap. The people in Ireland and Irish Members wished for a clear and distinct declaration from the Government upon this subject, and that nothing should be done to prevent that from being given.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, then he would proceed; but, with the Speaker in the Chair, he would lose his right of speaking again. The hon. Member for Sligo began by observing that he regretted very much that there seemed to be a growing practice of asking the House for Votes on Account for the Civil Service, and said that that was a system dangerous to Parliamentary control. The hon. Member should bear in mind that, so far as that Vote on Account went, it was a matter of absolute necessity, under the arrangement by which the public money was paid. It might be a reason against the arrangement—he (Mr. Gladstone) gave no opinion upon that subject—but as long as the arrangement continued, as long as the law was fulfilled under which balances of money voted were repaid to the Exchequer by the 31st of March, so long as the custom continued of the House meeting in the month of February or the last days of January, so long it was a matter of absolute necessity that there must be a Vote on Account taken about that period of the year. Therefore, it did not form the subject of attack or defence of the general character of Votes on Account. The hon. Member had concluded his speech by an imputation which, he need not say, was in the highest degree offensive. ["Oh, oh!"] The imputation was this—and it was for hon. Gentlemen who heard him to judge whether it was offensive or not—that any reasons or pleas which the Government could advance for declining to accede to this request were mere shams and pretences, and that the whole and sole reason why their request was refused was in order that the Government might avoid the disadvantage of having three additional votes recorded against them on that night. Was it possible to assign to any body of men conduct more disgraceful? If to assign disgraceful conduct were offensive, he must say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman conveyed the imputation with an appearance, a cool assumption of certainty which treated the matter as beyond all doubt or question, and was offensive in the highest degree. He did not intend to reply in a similar spirit, he did not intend to use any words himself in dealing with that comparatively limited, though rather delicate and somewhat important question which could hurt or wound anybody; but he thought it right to record instances of this kind as he went along in the conduct of Parliamentary debates. The hon. Member said that, under the plea of making use of the resources of civilization, Her Majesty's Government were indulging in the instincts of barbarism. That was a much fairer, but still a very serious, charge; while it was one that was perfectly intelligible. It certainly did tempt him (Mr. Gladstone) to widen the field of this debate, and to inquire what instincts of barbarism they were that were now being principally stimulated and indulged in Ireland; and who were the persons by whom those instincts were deliberately stimulated, with the effect of carrying rapine, murder, and mutilation into the houses and dwellings of the families of the innocent people in Ireland as a punishment for the offence of paying rent? That was the inquiry which he was tempted to enter into, and although he believed there was good reason for putting forward the allegation against certain persons with considerable force, yet it was not a matter on which he should enter at the present moment; and he should not have introduced it, but that the phrase was one so remarkable that he could not pass it by. There was another point to which he would refer. The hon. Gentleman called his (Mr. Gladstone's) right hon. Friend near him his subordinate. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to be very well aware of what was the constitution of the British Government, or else he would not have made such a statement. He could not, for a moment, suppose that any Cabinet Minister could be subordinate to the First Lord of the Treasury. Every Cabinet Minister was in that country a responsible Adviser of the Crown. He was not subject in the affairs of his Department to the orders or the injunctions of the First Lord of the Treasury. He was, therefore, not the subordinate of the First Lord of the Treasury, and that difference he noticed in order that the hon. Gentleman might forego that mode of indulging his desire to irritate—but, happily, that had been found impossible—to irritate, if he could, the mind of his right hon. Friend. But, putting aside those matters, let them look at the point before the House. The hon. Gentleman requested that three Members of Parliament who were unhappily detained in Ireland upon suspicion—["Hear, hear!"]—yes, very unhappily detained—[An hon. MEMBER: On suspicion]—very unhappily detained on suspicion. Nobody would ever hear him speak with levity of the serious nature of the case. He never had undervalued it. He never had attempted to gild over the character of any law which set aside the Constitutional privileges with which Members of that House were invested. Those Gentlemen who were unhappily detained upon the responsibility of the Government in gaol in Ireland had made a request to be allowed to come over to this country for the very limited purpose of voting in this House upon one particular division. They disclaimed, he understood, even the privilege of speech; and he might say that—knowing as they did the general experience of that House—he appreciated the enormous sacrifice which must be made by these Gentlemen in such a disclaimer. They offered their parole as a security that they should come here for one purpose, and for one purpose alone, and that, having satisfied that purpose, they should return to their gaols in Ireland; and, moreover, the hon. Gentleman said that they founded themselves upon the allegation that there was an unapproachable gravity in the occasion of Thursday next. The hon. Gentleman's allegation was—first, that there was a perfect security against the misuse of that release upon parole for any purpose forbidden by the Protection of Person and Property Act. To that proposition he entirely subscribed. He had not the least doubt as to the sufficiency of the parole, or as to the faithfulness with which it would be kept. He quite admitted that no direct stimulus would be offered by virtue or by means of it to the passions that were active in Ireland; and, in fact, that no abuse whatever would be made of the licence thus asked. But then hon. Members would, he hoped, concede to him that when an extraordinary Statute of that kind had been passed, those who administered it must be prepared to do so with something like consistency. The hon. Gentleman had impeached the consistency with which the Act had been administered. He stated that various prisoners had been temporarily released—some of them upon what he called domestic occasions, by which he (Mr. Gladstone) imagined he meant to refer to cases of death or sickness in the family, or occasions connected with their private affairs. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not prepared to accede to the correctness of that statement. The hon. Gentleman had given no details to support it. If the hon. Member had details, or called for details in order to support it—

MR. HEALY

, interposing, mentioned the names of Messrs. O'Toole, of Baltinglass, and Reddington, of Maryborough.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was not for him to contradict the hon. Gentleman; but he was not acquainted with the case. But what he was going to say was this—If such cases existed they must be judged upon their own merits, and they were of a totally different character from the case that was now before them. No inference could be drawn from them. If such cases existed—which he was not prepared to admit—they might be right or they might be wrong, and they ought to be repeated or not be repeated accordingly. But he contended that they were totally distinct and different from the case before them. He had admitted that the parole was safe. There was no danger whatever—nay, more, he would admit that even if they came there to speak on the subject he made no doubt they would speak in the spirit of that parole, and that they would not make use of their liberty of speech in that House for the purpose of stimulating to outrage in Ireland. But what he denied was this—that parole on that occasion was better than parole upon any other occasion. He had not the least doubt that if they requested to be released on parole once a week, and once a week to be under an engagement not to contravene the Act by virtue of their liberty for any certain time, and then went back to prison, the security of their parole would be precisely the same. But was he prepared on that account to say that wherever an unexceptional parole was offered, when a proper engagement was made not to make use of temporary freedom for purposes alien to the Act, therefore release should be given? [An hon. MEMBER: Certainly not.] He was much obliged to somebody whom he did not see for supplying the answer he was about to give. He said certainly not. The mere fact that parole was trustworthy was not a sufficient ground for releasing a prisoner under an Act of the kind. Well, but then the hon. Gentleman said there was an unapproachable gravity in the occasion of Thursday, and not only so, but those whom they were asked to release in order that they might come there were to come there as witnesses and judges. But that was not applicable to the occasion of Thursday alone. Every day, every hour, every Member of the House of Commons was not only a witness of what took place, but was a judge of the proceedings of the Government; and, therefore, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was a great deal too wide, and showed that, if once they admitted that because these Gentlemen were witnesses and judges they might be brought there on Thursday next, they should have no plea to stand upon when, upon any other occasion, a request was made that they might come there to take part in Parliamentary Business. The hon. Gentleman said there was an unapproachable gravity on this occasion. Well, he would not contest that proposition; but he would say that, in his opinion, the division which was taken about a couple of weeks ago on the Parliamentary inquiry into the working of the Land Act in Ireland was, in their view, an occasion of gravity quite as unapproachable as that. [Laughter.] It was all very well for those to laugh whose object it was to destroy the Irish Land Act. ["No, no!"] He was speaking of hon. Gentlemen who laughed when he stated that the vote of that House on Parliamentary inquiry into the Land Act was a matter of gravity as great as the one now before them. He said it was very well for those to laugh who sought to impair, to undermine, and to destroy the working of that Act, for they knew that that Act was the one efficient instrument for counteracting their views. But for the Government, who believed that the Land Act was the instrument by which they might hope to do justice to the people, and to save order and property in Ireland, for them a Motion touching an inquiry which, as they thought, went to sap the authority and operation of that Act, such a Motion was a Motion of quite as unapproachable gravity as the division of Thursday next. Well, then, they might say the division of. Thursday next had been declared to be a division involving the fate of the Government; and did they suppose, then, that in the division of March 9th the fate of the Government was not involved? There was just as much reason for those hon. Gentlemen being present on that occasion as on Thursday next. [Laughter.] It was a question upon which those hon. Gentlemen had a far nearer and more immediate right to appear, if a distinction were to be drawn between one Parliamentary question and another.

MR. CALLAN

They did not ask to. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was extremely sorry that these practices of laughter and jeering and ridiculing those who were in the performance of a public duty, the cessation of which was not required on any other public ground but that of courtesy and good sense, should be persisted in. They were practices that did not contribute to raise the character of those who indulged in them. He would look at the matter a little more nearly. It was proposed that three hon. Gentlemen should be released from confinement in Ireland, to come and give a vote on Thursday next on the 1st Resolution. But that vote on the 1st Resolution was not to be a conclusive vote. It was not to be a vote which was to determine what should be the contents of the following Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had told them that after that vote had been taken every Amendment on the Paper might be put; and each went, in the view of some, to determine the character and bearing of the Resolution more than the vote that was to be taken on Thursday next. [MR. SEXTON: To determine the course of the Government.] How did the hon. Gentleman know how many votes would determine the course of the Government? Did the hon. Gentleman mean that whenever the Government proposed, as they proposed a few weeks ago, some Resolution or some measure upon which their fate depended, that then, and then only, these three hon. Gentlemen were to be brought over from Ireland? Why, it would, he said, place the House of Commons and the Executive Government in a position nothing short of ridiculous were they to say that three hon. Gentlemen so confined—unhappily and unfortunately from necessity confined in Ireland—["No, no!"] Well, he would not make any further comment. He did not wish to repeat what he just now said. He was only compelled to inflict upon the House the commencing part of the sentence. It would place the House of Commons and the Government in a position nothing less than ridiculous, in connection with this most grave subject, were they to allow that those three hon. Gentlemen were to come over to that House in order to give a particular vote on the first Amendment that came up to the 1st Resolution; and then to say they should take no further part in any decision or in any vote that might come up on other Amendments, or upon the final question of the adoption of the Resolution itself. He hardly thought that hon. Gentlemen could be serious in the contention that they made. He quite understood their being serious in the desire that their three Friends should be free, even for a brief period, to breathe the air of liberty. That he could quite understand, that he could sympathize with; but what be could not understand was that they should gravely state to that House that it would be possible for them to bring these hon. Gentlemen there for the purpose of giving a particular vote—a very important vote, no doubt—and then, with regard to other votes, which might be just as important, or which might be indistinguishable in point of importance by any line of principle from that vote, that they should cancel the privilege, and say they would refuse such an application. That appeared to him so plain that he did not think it was necessary for him to dwell upon it. He had shown it was not the security of the parole. They might have plenty of security of parole from these and from many other prisoners in whose honour they would have perfect confidence—the question was not whether they were witnesses and judges, but whether, because they were witnesses and judges, they ought to be there that day. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; that was a very fair admission, for the proposition really meant that they ought always to be there. That was the meaning of the proposition, and that was a candid admission. Yes; but if that was what they were asking for, they were then asking of the Government to import into the operation of the law a principle which Parliament deliberately and advisedly excluded from it—namely, that a distinction was to be drawn between Members of Parliament who came under the reasonable suspicion described in the Act, and other persons coming under that reasonable suspicion. The Government believed that they would be acting contrary to the spirit of the Act and the intentions of Parliament if they admitted any such distinction. It was only on the latent ground of such distinction that the proposal could for a moment be justified. They could not, in their opinion, separate between the occa- sion for which the request was made and any other occasions. They could not admit that special treatment was to be made applicable to those personages who had brought themselves, as the Government held, within the scope of the law; and, therefore, they were compelled to say to the hon. Gentleman, without making light of his request or the subject he had raised, that it was impossible to comply with the request that he had made.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he had listened with profound regret to the Prime Minister's speech. He must confess that he was one of those who were sanguine enough up to the last moment to hope that this very reasonable request might have been granted by the Government. He should say that he listened with regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, not only because of its substance, but also, in some measure, because of its tone. The right hon. Gentleman had displayed too great subtlety in his argument that, though a parole might be perfectly safe, the Government were not therefore bound to grant a person his liberty. "What rational being wanted convincing of that? What the Irish Members contended was, that this was a most remarkable and exceptional case, that these men had made application to be released on parole, that that application could be safely granted, and that it was only reasonable, and the public duty of the Government, under the special circumstances, to comply with the request. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what distinction could be drawn between this and any other applications? and immediately went on to say that every application ought to be considered on its merits. The Irish Members fully admitted that if this application were granted, the Government would hot, therefore, be bound to grant any other; but the present occasion was a special and momentous one, and for a most important purpose. He was astonished at the right hon. Gentleman saying that if he granted the application in this case he must grant it in every other case. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) showed most clearly that there was a precedent for granting a release on parole to prisoners confined under this Act. It had been done over and over again. Under the present Coercion Act permission had been given to prisoners to attend to their private business, to see a sick relative, or even to attend a funeral; and he asked the House whether any such occasion, however momentous it might be to the individual himself, could be so important as the desire of a man to perform a great public duty to his constituents and to his country? The Prime Minister had denied that this was so important an occasion as they had attempted to make out; and he had declared that he considered the vote given on the 9th March to be much more momentous. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was quite ready to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he did regard the occasion as more important; but he would venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman so regarded the relative importance of the two votes he was the only Member of the House who did anything of the kind. At the very most, the last was a Motion to prevent inquiry into an existing Act of Parliament. It concerned one Act of Parliament only. But the vote of Thursday next would relate to the making of Acts of Parliament for all future time. The Premier did not seem to regard the vote of Thursday as necessarily involving the fate of the Ministers; but he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could not see how it could be otherwise. It could only have one of two results—it must either make the Government victorious, or inflict a substantial defeat upon them. The fate of the Government, therefore, depended upon it. If upon it they got a strong and substantial majority, they could pass the other Resolutions, and entirely alter the Constitution of Parliament. But if they failed in that purpose their whole scheme fell to the ground; and whether they afterwards remained in Office or went out, they were shattered as a Government, and would have no strength whatever either in the House or in the country. If that was so, it was impossible to contend that this was not a serious crisis in the history of the House and of the Constitution, and one upon which every Member of the House should be allowed to record his opinion. What comparison was there between a vote of that kind and a vote on some casual, unimportant question of the ordinary Business of the House? He did not believe the subtle argument of the right hon. Gentleman could convince hon. Members that there was any comparison whatever between them. Every week some man was allowed, for some reason or other, to leave prison on parole. Could the right hon. Gentleman say that the purpose for which each prisoner was so released was more important than the vote of next Thursday? He could not think how the right hon. Gentleman could do so with consistency. All the Government had to do in this case was to exercise that discretion which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already done in the case of other "suspects;" and until he could convince the House and the country that the occasions on which other "suspects" were released were not as important as this he could not consistently refuse the request.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he also regretted that the Government had not consented to the very moderate request made by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). It was very little to ask. The concession could have done no one any harm, and it would have been looked upon in Ireland as a symptom of a return to a more kindly feeling on the part of the Government toward the people. The votes of the three hon. Members in Kilmaiham would not imperil the Ministerial majority on Thursday. The division was not likely to be so close as that; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had allowed them to come there, even for a few hours, the act would have been regarded as an olive branch—a small one, it was true, but still an olive branch—by the people of that disturbed and distracted country. But his (Mr. Cowen's) object in rising was not so much to plead for the release, on parole, of his three hon. Friends, as to remark on an observation made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo, and he censured him very strongly for the language he used, or rather for the imputations conveyed by it. The language itself could not be condemned, as it was both moderate and correct. His hon. Friend had expressed a fear that the request he was preferring would be rejected, because the Government were afraid of the influence that these three votes might have on the pending division. The Prime Minister conceived that that was an imputation on Ministerial honour. He (Mr. Cowen) scarcely saw it in that light himself. He was not squeamish; but he was very far mistaken if he did not hear in that House, daily, remarks much more severe which passed without notice. But whether the observation did or did not wander beyond the legitimate bounds of discussion, he was quite sure that one of the remarks of the Prime Minister had exceeded those bounds; for while censuring the hon. Member for Sligo for imputing improper motives to the Ministry, he broadly and emphatically accused his three Friends, now prisoners in Kilmainham, with having deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly, incited to rapine, murder, and outrage. Now, he (Mr. Cowen) undertook to say, on behalf of those three hon. Gentlemen, that the charge against them was absolutely unfounded. There was not any justification for it. The Land League, with which those hon. Gentlemen were identified, had avowedly and openly advocated "Boycotting"—that was, they had counselled their countrymen to put a social ban upon such of their neighbours as did not act faithfully to the Land League, and in accordance with Land League principles. That course might be wrong, or it might be right, and the practice might be made an instrument for inflicting much cruelty and hardship. He was not defending it, or apologizing for it. It was a weapon that was used constantly in political, social, and private life, with a view to accomplishing given ends. It was a recognized instrument in the hands of English trades unionists. In the event of a strike they "picketted" factories, and "blacklegged" those of their craft who deserted them. If the custom was not only tolerated, but upheld in this country, he failed to see the justice of condemning it so severely when put in requisition by the peasants' trades union in Ireland. He knew there was one code of law and liberty for this country, and another for Ireland; that a man could say things here that he could not say across the Channel; that newspapers could be printed and circulated in England that were confiscated in Ireland; and that meetings could be held here that were there suppressed. The difference was marked and glaring. It was only a legal difference—not a moral one. The use of such terrors could only bring discredit on their organization; they could serve no good cause, and the Land League leaders knew that. They also knew that every crime of the kind was a detriment to them, and a disservice. For the Prime Minister to stand up in Parliament and accuse three hon. Gentlemen of the House with being inciters to, and participants in, such horrible outrages was unjustifiable. If these hon. Members were guilty, either by act or implication, of such proceedings, they should be brought to trial, and no punishment would be too severe for them. To utter the imputation, and refuse to try them, was a much greater breach of the courtesies of debate than anything that was involved in the very mild remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo. As for the request itself, he would have been glad if it had been more comprehensive. Instead of asking that the three Members should be permitted to visit Westminster and vote in one division, he thought a request should have been made for them to attend altogether. According to the Government's own showing, such a demand would have been reasonable. They admitted that the Coercion Act only applied to Ireland, and even more than that, that it only applied to certain districts. The three Members, if released, would remain in London, in the discharge of their duties. They would not go to Ireland, or come within the operation of the Act; and it was fair to ask that they should be allowed to attend to their work as Representatives. The reasonableness of such an application, and the injustice of refusing it, was seen in the fact that there were three Members sitting opposite for whose apprehension warrants had been issued; but they managed to get away from Ireland before they were served, and the consequence was that they could be in Parliament, when, according to the Government's own confession, they were just as guilty as his hon. Friends, Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Kelly, or Mr. Dillon. The desire to have them released, in order that they might look after their Parliamentary duties, therefore, was a moderate and fair one. The Prime Minister had denied that any prisoners had been liberated for the purpose of attending to their business—planting their potatoes, or looking after their shops. Of course he (Mr. Cowen) assumed that the Prime Minister was well informed before he made that statement; but his (Mr. Cowen's) information conflicted entirely with it, and he believed that prisoners on several occasions had been released in such a way. The fact that the release was refused to these three Members went to show that they were treated more harshly than others. He did not wish to drive the case against the Government too hard or too far; but it was quite open to say that the Ministers themselves had contributed as much to the outrages in Ireland as the Land League. They did not mean to do that: they meant to do the very opposite. What, however, had been the effect of their coercion? They had promised to arrest the village ruffians, but instead of that they had arrested the village politicians—the men who acted as a restraint upon the ruffians. Any moral assistance that they otherwise might have obtained from the population in the enforcement of the law had thus, in consequence of the Ministers' own act, been withdrawn. Coercion, indeed, had helped the disorder, and in a sense increased the outrages. It was a very effectual way of silencing a political opponent to lock him up in prison—to lock him up in prison, too, without accusation, without trial, and without affording him an opportunity of either defending or explaining himself; but it was a very cowardly way. It was a course of action that had never been followed in this country since the dark and dismal days of the Stuarts. Amidst all their troubles and disorders, no Representatives of the people had for centuries been arrested in such a highhanded fashion. It had remained for a Government that ostentatiously boasted of its liberality, that pretentiously proclaimed its regard for the principles of nationalities and the rights of struggling peoples, to resort to a practice that brought dishonour upon themselves and humiliation upon their country.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he could not, looking at the right hon. Gentleman the Premier as a governing man, as a statesman responsible for the good government of this country—could not, regarding him in that light, but express his astonishment at the great opportunity he had lost on that occasion. That opportunity would not soon recur, seeing that the division of Thursday next would be exceptionally momentous to the Government and the country. If there was one measure more than another calculated to relieve the painful tension and embarrassment in Ireland, it was the measure which was pressed on the Government that day. With reference to the arguments of the Premier, it was the first time that the securities for the liberties of that House were proposed to be placed at the mercy of the majority, and it was useless for any hon. Gentleman to tell that House that it was not an exceptional occasion. The position of the Government would be vastly improved if the imprisoned Members were permitted to vote on Thursday, for they would then show that they were not afraid of three additional votes, especially if, in addition to permitting the hon. Members to attend that House, they were afterwards to say—"We release you from your parole; but, although we may feel it our duty to re-arrest you if you return to Ireland, we make you a present of your liberty to discharge your duties in this House." If the Government had assumed such a position, although far below the rightful demand of the Irish people, it would be a position on which they could trust themselves to the best feelings and best sentiments of the Irish people; but, unfortunately, the Government had determined, with Shylock, "to stand upon the letter of their bond," and, in consequence, there was not a son of Ireland who would not think night and day of the best means of avenging that treatment on all who supported Her Majesty's Government. They deliberately thrust back the proffered hand of the Irish people, and had thrown down the gauntlet in response to the olive branch that had been tendered to them. By the refusal of the Government they had deliberately renewed that strife in Ireland, and this was but another instance of the inability of the Government to appreciate the situation. They evidently wished, or, perhaps, in spite of their wishes, were fated to blunder blindly into a position from which escape was impossible. One day or other they would have to set free the three Members, blanched with prison life, enfeebled in health, and objects for the commiseration of men who did not agree with them in politics, and which would re-kindle and enflame the resolu- tion of every Irishman throughout the whole world. They might not let them out to-day, or for a month, or six months, or 12 months; but the day would come when, dead or alive, they must let them out, and the chances of death in the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon's) case were weekly increasing. Dead or alive, they must let them out; and, if it were deferred, the day they let them out the beginning of a new era of increased difficulty would arise between the British Administration and the Irish race. The Prime Minister had indignantly repudiated the idea that his decision had been formed with an eye to the main chance; but was it more outrageous and more insulting to he reasonably suspected of wishing to reduce a dangerous minority by three votes than to be well known to have issued a four-lined Whip for one purpose ostensibly, but in reality in order to bring up their Party for another? Was it not notorious that they had endeavoured to do so, and, but for circumstances over which they had no control, would have snatched a division by surprise? Under the clôture, he supposed, such four-lined Whips would not be uncommon. The truth was that the presence of the three imprisoned Irish Members was feared by the Prime Minister, who had shown all the marks of the danger caused by apprehension. The arrest of the Irish Members was futile and without justification, and was made because the Prime Minister had objected to their criticism of the Land Act. He knew that if they lifted a finger they could send 250,000 tenant farmers into the Land Court, who would completely break down its machinery, already hardly pressed by the number of applications to it. The Members had been imprisoned because they criticized the Act, though the Liberal Party had now admitted that every defect that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Party had pointed out in the Land Act were seen to be real blots on the measure. The Government knew very well that they must very soon release these men. Let them not expect kindly feelings, gratitude, or any feeling but the sense that Her Majesty's Government no longer found it safe to refuse the Irish demand, if in a month or in a year they found themselves obliged to allow into the House the men whom they feared to meet upon equal terms that day. He was sincerely sorry, quite apart from any question of Party, at the action of Her Majesty's Government that day. It was, perhaps, explicable on the ground of the slight acquaintance which Her Majesty's Government had with the state of Ireland; but there were larger questions involved in this than the resignation of any particular Government. All the wisest and most philosophic observers of Irish affairs had agreed in regretting that every concession made by the English people came too late. That which would have been accepted at one time with feelings of kindly gratitude was delayed so long that when at last it came it was felt to be insufficient for the altered state of circumstances. There was the question of the possible conciliation of the Irish by the English people; and he said it was a misfortune of England that she seemed to have so few men of the mental and moral courage of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Cowen). He (Mr. O'Donnell) told the majority of the House that one speech such as fell from that hon. Member's lips that day did more to keep alive the hope of ultimate reconciliation in the breasts of the more sanguine of the Irish patriots than all the measures of Coercion at the disposal of the united Front Benches. Beyond that, it would have more influence in Ireland than arguments even in The Irish People or United Ireland. Some years ago, when he (Mr. O'Donnell) thought that English Liberals possessed some true Liberalism, and not merely the Liberalism of Party, he could not have believed that only one man would be found to raise his voice above Party interest. The Government were simply playing into the hands of the Separatist Party, and destroying their own influence in Ireland.

MR. BRAND

said, he had to complain of the waste of time caused by the Irish Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) thought it would be better if the three Members now in Kilmainham were released. But, he (Mr. Brand) should like to ask, was there any indication of a better spirit on the part of those three hon. Gentlemen? The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) said that there was more chance of conciliation in a speech like that of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Cowen) than all the powers of coercion possessed by the Government. He challenged the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and asked him whether he, or any single Member of the Party who were Members of the Land League, had ever, by word or deed, or by any sign, denounced the outrages and horrors prevalent in Ireland?

MR. O'DONNELL

Yes; every one of them.

MR. BRAND

said, he distinctly remembered a challenge of this character being addressed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in the House, and on that occasion the hon. Member said he was not prepared to express to the House any disapproval of it.

MR. HEALY

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. ["Order, order!"]

MR. BRAND

, proceeding, said, the Land Leaguers had issued manifestoes more than once. Had they ever issued one to the Irish people advising them to abstain from these outrages?

MR. HEALY

Yes. ["Order!"]

MR. O'DONNELL

My hon. Friend will reply in due course.

MR. BRAND

said, he had watched their proceedings for some time, and had never yet heard of one instance in which hon. Gentlemen opposite had exercised the power they possessed of pacifying their country. He could only say that if the Leaders of the Party had done that, there would be many men on his (Mr. Brand's) side of the House who would make the same sort of speech as the hon. Member for Newcastle, and urge the Government to release these men from imprisonment on suspicion. He felt a sense of indignation at the proceedings of that day. What had been done that day was a waste of time, and was only a repetition of similar proceedings in that House, which had been carried on by a small minority who were determined to exercise their powers in such a way as to make the position intolerable. Over and over again, since the Session began, hon. Members came to the House and considered themselves lucky if they got home by 4 o'clock in the morning, because of the conduct of a small minority. The condition of things had now arrived to be almost a national scandal; and yet there was, he regretted to say, a tendency on the part of some hon. Members of the House to ignore the gravity of the occasion, when the Government were introducing re- medies which would put a stop to these discreditable proceedings. Under the circumstances, the truth should be told in this matter; and the truth was that the Members of the Land League, whether in or out of that House, who had signed the "no rent" manifesto, were distinctly responsible for the anarchy and disorder now existing in Ireland. No Party had violated their feelings so much as the Liberal Party had done—at least, some of them—in consenting to the passing of the Irish Land Bill; and yet the only answer to their efforts from hon. Gentlemen opposite was a constant endeavour to thwart and obstruct it in every possible way. He contended that if they wanted to show their good faith to the House and the country, and to show the sincerity of their wish to have their Friends liberated from prison, a very simple course was open to them if they chose to take it. The House should disabuse its mind of all superstition in regard to Rules of Procedure and good government in Ireland. So long as there were Representatives in that House whose object was to disintegrate the Empire, they must have Rules to keep them in order; and if Parliament desired peace, order, and liberty in Ireland they must have a strong and capable Government. It was impossible to have a strong and capable Government, if their action was crippled and hampered as that of the present Administration was by perpetual Obstruction. Locking up men on suspicion merely, and without trial, was, in his opinion, contrary to the principles and liberty of the Constitution. It had failed, or at the best it was but milk-and-water coercion. His firm conviction was that crime might be more effectually dealt with by other means than imprisonment without trial. What Parliament should do was to fight these men in Ireland with their gloves off, and to punish those who were guilty of these crimes and outrages. His opinion was that if the Administration only had the time of the House, means would soon be found not to put men in prison without trial, but means to punish the guilty and to relieve the peaceful and orderly inhabitants from the burden of the grievous terrorism under which they were now suffering.

MR. HEALY

said, he felt bound to contest the assertion that there had been great wasting of time in the consideration of the Estimates. He was afraid that many of the statements of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) were very inaccurate. That hon. Member had challenged them to say why they had never denounced outrages in Ireland. He would answer the hon. Gentleman by showing that they had strongly denounced outrages; and lest the hon. Member should be inclined to distrust his (Mr. Healy's) assurance, he would reply to him out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman, upon the memorable occasion on which he introduced the Coercion Bill, said, speaking of the decrease of outrages— The improvement at first was only slight; hut the outrages are now becoming smaller in number every day. And why are they diminishing? I believe there are two reasons for it. One is, that the gentlemen at the head of the Land League are using every power they possess to put a stop to outrages."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1230.]

MR. BRAND

Was that before or after the issue of the "no rent" manifesto?

MR. HEALY

said, he would deal with that interposition. The right hon. Gentleman made the statement just quoted on January 24th, 1881, and the "no rent" manifesto was issued in October of the same year. The original statement of the hon. Member for Stroud was an absolute allegation that at no period had the leaders of the Land League denounced outrages, and he had never attempted to confine it to any space of time, either before or after the issue of the manifesto. In answer to the hon. Member, he (Mr. Healy) would give two proofs to the contrary, one before the issue and one after. The first was an extract from a circular memorandum of instructions issued by the League in December, 1880, to the organizers and secretaries of branches. He might inform the hon. Member that the writer was Michael Davitt, and that within one month afterwards Mr. Davitt found himself within Portland Prison, which was no great encouragement to others to take a similar course. Having noticed that they could not believe the numerous reports of outrages upon dumb animals which appeared in the landlord newspapers, and declined to believe that any member of the Land League organization would be guilty of participating in the few cases that had been authenticated, Mr. Davitt used language of condemnation which, probably, the hon. Member for Stroud could not make stronger— No injustice in the power of Irish landlordism to perpetrate upon our people can justify in the least degree the unfeeling brutality which inflicts injuries or sufferings upon homeless and defenceless animals in return for wrongs done by man. He supposed it was for penning this circular that Michael Davitt was arrested. The hon. Member for Stroud wanted a denunciation of outrages subsequent to the "no rent" manifesto. If he (Mr. Healy) might intrude a personal matter upon the House, he would inform the hon. Member that since his return from America he had been writing a series of articles in an English newspaper, and if hon. Members opposite would turn to the pages of The Newcastle Chronicle—[Laughter.] He was not aware that The Newcastle Chronicle was not as respectable as the organ of the hon. Member for Northampton. [Mr. BRAND: Are those anonymous articles, or signed?] They were not anonymous; and he might tell the hon. Member also that the portion in which he denounced outrages in the strongest terms was quoted in the London Echo, an organ which might find favour in the eyes of those who discredited The Newcastle Chronicle. He believed that at the present moment those articles were being published in The Freeman's Journal. When the hon. Member for Stroud challenged him to stand up and say whether he had denounced outrages, he refused to do so. They would never find an Irishman consenting to be dragged on by the tail in answer to the call of any Englishman for Party purposes. They had their own standard of speech, their own standard of conduct, and they were, he was happy to say, in no way influenced by English opinion. They despised English opinion, and when he was asked by any Englishman to stand up and make a statement, because he (John Bull) desired it, and thought he ought to do so, he (Mr. Healy) begged respectfully to tell John Bull, "Mind your own business." It was for them to choose their own way and their own time for denouncing outrages. Furthermore, he wished to ask the hon. Mem- ber for Stroud, did Englishmen think they could dance upon Irishmen, and walk over Irishmen, and slap Irishmen in the face without getting a blow in return? That day was past, and if the "no rent" manifesto had produced anarchy and outrage, it was those who put the authors and the leaders of the Land League in prison who made that manifesto necessary, and who were responsible for the crime and outrage in Ireland. Was the theory of the hon. Member for Stroud this—that no matter what outrage was committed on the liberty of Irishmen they were to sit quietly under the rod of the chastiser? He declined to accept such a theory, even though it had been promulgated by that new prophet of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Stroud. He had dealt sufficiently with the hon. Member, and, perhaps, had accorded more notice to his observations than they deserved. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had charged the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) with having applied the word "subordinate" to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in an offensive sense; but if the Chief Secretary for Ireland were not a subordinate Member of the Government, why did the Prime Minister make himself the mouthpiece of the Irish Government on this question, instead of allowing the Minister of the Crown, responsible for affairs in Ireland, to answer for himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, while chastising others for offensive language, did not abstain from using it himself. Having first discharged himself of offensive language, the right hon. Gentleman said that in the remainder of his speech he would use no words calculated to hurt anyone. The right hon. Gentleman did not scruple to say that the hon. Members for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) were responsible for the rapine, murder, and mutilation going on in Ireland, and he made that statement while he said he would say nothing calculated to offend anyone. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, might remember that he himself was at one time publicly charged with being a member of an organization which might have been justly charged with rapine, murder, and mutilation. It had been publicly stated that the right hon. Gentleman had been a contributor to the funds of the Carbonari in Italy, by whom serious outrages had been inflicted. [Laughter.] He (Mr. Healy) was not the author of the statement, and he assumed no responsibility for it. The statement had been made in the House, and outside, that the right hon. Gentleman subscribed to the funds of those friends of Italy, who were known at one time as Mazzinists, and at another as Carbonaris. If the constructive theory put forward by the Premier were to be pursued, was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland not morally responsible for all the crimes and outrages by his friends, the gentlemen of Italy, to whom he subscribed money? Hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches had almost wholly devoted their speeches to the outrages in Ireland, because they had no arguments to advance against the liberation on parole of the hon. Members for the City of Cork, Tipperary, and Roscommon. He congratulated those hon. Members opposite upon the ingenuity they had displayed; but would remind them that they wandered very wide of the question before the House, which was the desirability of liberating on parole three imprisoned Members of that House. He had followed that speech of the Prime Minister in vain to perceive any argument against the liberation of those hon. Gentlemen, except these—First, that the division likely to occur on Thursday next was not one of supreme importance; and, second, that if these hon. Gentlemen were released for that division, they might make similar applications once every week; and, finally, that the division in reference to the Lords' Committee was of as great importance, and one upon which those hon. Gentlemen might as properly have been released. With regard to the last argument, the Prime Minister might have perceived a very important distinction, which was this—In the division upon the Lords' Committee, his hon. Friends made no application for leave to vote. In the division to take place on Thursday next, they had asked leave to vote. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know sufficiently the character of those three hon. Gentlemen to perceive that they were not likely to make applications either to him or his subordinates of their own motion, nor were the Irish Party likely to imagine every week that occasions of importance were likely to arise to justify them, as reasonable men, in expecting that the Government would favourably entertain such applications, though they did think that upon this occasion the application would be successful. It was undeniable that the approaching division was without parallel. Suppose their application were now granted, and that the Government should find they abused their parole, what would prevent the Prime Minister using his Coercion Act to send these hon. Gentlemen back to the Lord Lieutenant's purview, and the Government would have the moral support of the country and the House of Commons in refusing those applications once a week which he appeared to dread? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government must be prepared to administer the Coercion Act with consistency. That was exactly their claim. They claimed that when Dick, Tom, and Harry had been released on parole to sow their potatoes or attend their shops, Charles Stewart Parnell, the Leader of the Irish race, and his Colleagues, ought at least to be allowed to attend at the House of Commons in order to record their votes on so vital a question. He was sorry to say they were not likely to get the consistency which the Prime Minister seemed to admire so much. Perhaps the discriminating Members on the Liberal Benches would discover the consistency of the Government. At present it appeared to him very microscopic. The Prime Minister ignored the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had frequently, in two penny-halfpenny cases in some County Court, released "suspects" on parole. But that having been done by the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Party demanded that the three imprisoned hon. Members be permitted to record their votes on an occasion of extreme gravity. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister resented, with noble indignation, the allegation that the Government was influenced by the consideration that three votes were in-involved. He (Mr. Healy) made the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues a present of that indignation, and, using a phrase which the Liberal Party had imported into political life, and which was likely to be associated with the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some time to come, he would say the Government might be "reasonably sus- pected" of entertaining that consideration when they refused to release the three hon. Members. Of course, such a "reasonable suspicion" could not have the status of one of the right hon. Gentleman's "reasonable suspicions." The one was supported by an Act of Parliament, and the other had only common sense at its back. Any way, far stronger grounds existed for that "reasonable suspicion" than for the "reasonable suspicion" on which those hon. Members had been deprived of liberty. The Government, according to the right hon. Gentleman, would be placed in a ridiculous position if they acceded to this request. He (Mr. Healy), however, feared the Government would be placed in a worse position by refusing it. Ridicule they might withstand; but scorn and hatred, if they aroused it, would count in future times for something. The Government should remember that— The patient watch and vigil long Of him who treasures up a wrong was a more powerful thing than any ridiculous position they might occupy. It might be that the votes of the three hon. Gentlemen in prison would decide the fate of the clôture and turn the right hon. Gentleman's Government out of power, and then they would be absolved from all liability in the matter. But the right hon. Gentleman, counting on a mechanical majority, and believing his Government would retain Office, refused this request lest he might be in a ridiculous position. Let the right hon. Gentleman take care lest he might find himself not to be in any position at all. The division had yet to take place, and they could not yet know its result. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not be so sensitive about having to occupy a ridiculous position. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said it would be against the spirit of the Act to release these three hon. Gentlemen. They had heard a great deal about the spirit of the Act. The only spirit he could perceive about it was the spirit of malignity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland claimed the Coercion Act to have as its object to imprison village ruffians and dissolute scoundrels, and to put under lock and key men who committed midnight outrages, and he assured the House that it would be used only as a means of prevention. If that was the spirit in which it was obtained, where was the consistency on which the Prime Minister prided himself? The spirit of 1881 was prevention—the spirit of 1882 was punishment and deprivation of Constitutional privileges; and as years rolled on, they would find the Government assuming new spirits and inventing new stories to justify them in their downward course. He confessed it was with reluctance that he, as a Member of the Irish Party, consented to the Resolution asking his hon. Friends to request the Government to release them on parole. He was not in favour of asking the British Government for anything. He was in favour of making them give all that could be forced out of them by the Irish people. He knew that in making the application their Friends would be placing themselves in a position in which they would be refused; but his voice was overborne by the superior consideration which should influence them on occasions like this, and he assented to the Resolution. Perhaps it was as well that the application had been made; perhaps it was as well that the last shred of the garment of decency which might be supposed to surround the Government in this coercion business should be thrown aside; but, for his part, he regretted that any such application should be made to those who were without a shred of feeling in the uses to which they put the Act, and without an idea, except that of tyrants, with regard to those whom they had in their power.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that in the course of the tenure of his present Office he had had many attacks made upon him, both within and without the House; but that was the first occasion on which he had been called a Carbonaro. He was bound to say that the charge of being a Carbonaro was about as true and as false as most of the charges made against him. [Mr. HEALY: I did not make the charge.] He understood the hon. Member to have made the charge. With regard to the application made on behalf of the three Members of Parliament confined in Ireland, the debate had wandered somewhat from the Motion; but the last speaker had brought it back to the original question—the proposed release of the three Members. It was not for him to repeat the arguments of the Prime Minister, with which he agreed; but a particular appeal was made to him to give the reasons why, having released some of the "suspects," he could not release the three Members, and he now wished to state those reasons. Hon. Members opposite had somewhat exaggerated the grounds upon which the release of private individuals under the Coercion Act had been made. He would at once admit that in that, as in other matters, he had tried to administer the Act with as little suffering to, and as little reasonable cause of complaint by, individuals as was compatible with due regard to their safe custody. In cases of domestic affliction, and when relations were on the point of death, he had consented to liberate prisoners; but he believed the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was not quite fair in his interpretation of the grounds on which certain persons had been released, for he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not recollect that any prisoners had been released on such grounds as that of attending to the stocking of their farms, and so forth.

MR. SEXTON

Mr. O'Toole was allowed out.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would look into the case of O'Toole.

MR. HEALY

Mr. O'Toole.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

But there was no encouragement to administer the Act with as much consideration as possible, when it was found that every possible advantage was taken of a case to make out illustrations and precedents for using the Act as regarded cases of a totally different nature in a way which Parliament never intended it should be used. That was the way, if it were possible, to compel a harsh administration of the Act; but he did not suppose that was the object aimed at by hon. Members, and, if it was, they would not succeed. The distinction was very manifest between releasing men who could with safety be released upon private grounds and men whose release was claimed on public grounds. It would be impossible for the Government, without bringing themselves into ridicule, to admit that Members of Parliament should be allowed to attend to their duties in the House of Commons in a particular case without allowing them to do so in all cases; and it would also put them in the position of being unable to give a reason for refusing a release in one case or granting it in another. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) put the matter into legitimate form, when he said that the question was—Why do not you allow these Gentlemen to come to Parliament and act as Members of Parliament? But the question was fully debated last year, and the House decided, by an overwhelming majority, that they would not take that view; and he must say that, in his opinion, if the House had taken that view it would have been giving an immunity to Members of Parliament which would have been unjust to the other subjects of the Crown. The hon. Member for Wexford asked why the Government brought in the question of crime and outrage in connection with the proposed release of the Members? They had so far this reason—that if it were not for crime and outrage, these hon. Gentlemen would not be in prison. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) challenged hon. Members opposite to say why they did not try to stop crime and outrage in Ireland. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not think the reply of the hon. Member for Wexford to that challenge was satisfactory. The hon. Member alluded to some remarks made by him (Mr. W. E. Forster) last year, and to some letters he had not seen which had appeared in The Newcastle Chronicle; but had the hon. Member written any letters to his own constituents advising them against outrages? [Mr. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask me the question?] It would be more to the purpose that it should be known whether the hon. Member addressed such a letter to his own constituents, warning them against crime and outrage, and telling them how all Irishmen were disgraced by their occurrence. Allusion had been made to his statement, that at one time outrages were diminishing; but if the context had been given, the statement would have borne a rather different interpretation. He gave the reason for the diminution, and it was that the Leaders of the movement were trying to discourage them after the bringing in of the Protection Act; and, whether he said so or not, he thought what a pity it was that they had not done so before. And why did he think they were doing it then? Because they had some hope that they might prevent the Protection Act being passed. ["Oh!"] And, un- fortunately, when it was passed, the efforts at discouragement were not persisted in. During the course of last year these outrages were constantly happening, and no resolute effort was made by the Leaders of the Land League to stop them. An occasional remark might be made; but, on the other hand, words were spoken and written which no one having a knowledge of the Irish people and of human nature could doubt would lead to the commission of outrages. Then came the "no rent" manifesto, and its publication over Ireland. But its track had been marked by letters of blood. Take the outrages that had lately happened. Almost all of them were outrages on men who disobeyed the "no rent" manifesto, and who paid their rent, or because it was thought they would do so, and the men who committed these outrages very reasonably supposed that they were carrying out the advice of those who issued and circulated that manifesto. The hon. Member for Wexford said outrages might have followed the "no rent" manifesto; but he says also—"If you slap an Irishman in the face you must expect a blow in return." Yes; but a blow to whom? Not to the Government. ["Yes!"] But the blow was given to poor men—as, for instance, the man he saw lying in his death agony from the injuries he had received. The blow was given to hardworking, honest men, who were torn from their beds, maimed, or killed. That was the way an hon. Member would wish his countrymen to act.

MR. CALLAN

rose to Order. He wished to ask whether that was not an imputation of the most atrocious character made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland against Members of that House, and such that ought not to be permitted? He moved that the right ton. Gentleman's words be taken down.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had appealed to him whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order; he then proposed that the right hon. Gentleman's words be taken down. The hon. Member was too late, after his first appeal, to move that the right hon. Gentleman's words should be taken down. The hon. Member could not propose two courses to the House. At the same time, he (the Speaker) was bound to say that he had heard nothing fall from the right hon. Gentleman which was not in Order.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that not unfrequently it had been his painful duty, as the Representative of the Government in Ireland, to try to bring home to hon. Members opposite the effect of their influence upon sections of the people in Ireland, and it was no uncommon thing for some hon. Member to jump up and interrupt him, and to call him to Order. But the Speaker had declared that such attempts were not well-founded. The hon. Member, no doubt, rightly believed in the courage of his countrymen; but what he had said in that House was an extraordinary exemplification of the way in which he would exhort them to use their courage—that was, to return the "slap in the face"—by which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) supposed he meant the arrest of his Friends by the Government—with blows; blows not to the Government, but to those who might be honest enough to disobey the commands of the Land League.

MR. HEALY

said, he had never said so.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon if he misinterpreted him; but he was in the recollection of the House.

MR. HEALY

said, he had never given such advice; he had said that was the explanation of the outrages.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

That might be so. But he believed the hon. Member had added, "what else could they expect but a slap in the face from the Government?" And when that was spoken of, they knew what must follow. Why, a blow back—a return blow—a blow which was not merely a blow to the cause of law and order, but a blow to the poor, hard-working Irishman who wished to do his duty. What happened in Tipperary two or three days ago? A band of men, at night, about 15 or 20—he was uninformed as to their number—attacked the house of a farmer, an isolated house, took a crowbar, and tried to break down the door, evidently with the intention of murdering the man who lived there. Why? Because he had disobeyed the "no rent" manifesto. Then the hon. Member said, "the Irish people would not tamely kiss the rod." They did not want them to kiss any rod. They asked them not to commit outrage and murder, and not to incite to such crimes, and they would prevent them from committing them, if possible. Even if in doing so it was their painful duty to keep three Members of Parliament in Kilmainham on an important division, they would do it. The hon. Member had alluded to some letters he had written and to his visit to America. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was glad he had done so. When the hon. Member was speaking in America—if he might judge from the reports he seen, and which he had every reason to believe were faithful reports, as they had appeared in papers in the hon. Member's own interest—he spoke with entire freedom. He always spoke as freely in that House as in Ireland; but in America the hon. Member had spoken almost more freely than he spoke either in that House or in Ireland. Perhaps he would get up and deny that he ever used the words; but most certainly in United Ireland he was reported, in one of the speeches he had given in America, as saying, speaking of the "no rent" manifesto, "that the farmers would not dare to take the farm of an evicted tenant." [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] "Hear, hear!" That was the meaning, then, of the "no rent" manifesto. Hon. Members would excuse him if he spoke with some degree of earnestness in the matter. He had been blamed—and perhaps with some justice, as holding the Office he did—for not having been in the House to answer every Question put on the Paper. Why had he not been in the House? Because he had higher duties to perform in Ireland—to try and restore peace and order there, despite the "no rent" manifesto, and despite the men who had issued it—duties which were to try to make impossible that fear to take a farm whose former tenant had been evicted, of which the hon. Member had spoken. The hon. Member for Stroud had said that the Protection Act had failed, but he gave no reason for that statement. But he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not allow such a remark to pass unnoticed. The Protection Act, certainly, had not succeeded to the extent they had hoped, because the remittances from America had been too constant, and those hon. Gentlemen whose efforts naturally and inevitably led to those outrages were too persistent. They might have underrated the power with which they had to con- tend. To some extent he acknowledged it was the case, for they did not fully estimate the motives and feelings of the men with whom they had to contend in carrying on the movement. It had been often said that the Act had been passed for the purpose of arresting the "village ruffians," and that they had not done so. He acknowledged that at the time of the discussions on the Bill he thought that was the class of men they should mainly have to contend with. He did not expect that anyone not a village ruffian would have pursued the course that had been taken, that men of influence and position would act as they had done. Certainly, as he had said, the Protection Act had not succeeded to the extent which some of them hoped it would suceed; but it had done much, and that was what he wanted his hon. Friend to bear in mind. Had it not been for the Protection Act, the law of the land would have been displaced by the unwritten law. It was only just passed in time to prevent that. The hon. Gentlemen now in Kilmainham, with hon. Members opposite, would really have been the Law Administrators in Ireland. They would have fixed what rent should be paid, and what trade should be carried on, and what men should take advantage of the Land Act. That had been prevented. The Protection Act had prevented that. Again, the Protection Act bad to some extent struck down that weapon, that pike, which was so eloquently described as being more powerful to aid those who would assert the unwritten law against the written law than any weapon in all the power of the Government. Without the Protection Act the Government could not have struck down that. One other thing had been done. There were, no doubt, secret societies in Ireland, and societies whose object was murder, and who had much to do with the outrages which had been committed. He did not mean that the arrest of a man under the Protection Act was the punishment that ought to be given to a man who was implicated in murder; but, as he said before, their object was prevention, not punishment. They had stopped murders in some districts—they had stopped them, for instance, in Loughrea, by arresting large numbers of the people, who, if they had been at large, would have continued those mur- ders; and he thought the number of them had, in consequence, been less than it otherwise would have been. He admitted the Government had not entirely succeeded. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who had been his Predecessor, had asked whether the Government still saw signs of improvement in Ireland? Well, he had only just returned from Ireland, and he might give the House his honest opinion as to its condition. He would admit that the state of things was still terrible; the Government was still in desperate conflict with the powers of lawlessness, with a conspiracy against law and order, with the men who maimed and murdered, and those who were reckless whether they fomented crime or not; but, to some extent, he saw hope. The "no rent" manifesto had failed. Rents, in spite of it, had been paid, and were being paid, to a larger extent in Ireland than before, and that, he thought, was an important sign of improvement. Why did he say that that was a sign of improvement? Not merely because of the individual cases, but because it was a conquest of law and order, a defeat of that conspiracy which would put the unwritten law in place of the law of the land, and which would determine whether rent should be paid or not. The "no rent" manifesto, though it had been followed by outrages, though it had succeeded, as he believed to have been the case, in causing many a murder and many a mutilation, had not succeeded in depriving the landlords of their rents. The pith of one of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Healy's) remarks was "Mind your own business." That motto he (Mr. W. E. Forster) took home to himself. As Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he was as responsible for the maintenance of law and order as any man could be, and he meant to stop outrages; that was his business—the business which he had been requested to mind, and, let him say, that was the business of that House also. The signs of improvement in the future might be much greater than at this moment; but it might turn out, in order to maintain law and order, and to stop those murders which were a disgrace to their country and to humanity, that some stronger measures even yet would have to be resorted to. And if the House was con- vinced of the necessity, it would mind its own business, and resort to them. He could only say that if the Government saw the necessity of such an application they would not hesitate to make it.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, in the speech that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had just delivered, and in other speeches, the charge had been again and again laid against the Irish Members that they had not condemned crime and outrage in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen who cheered that statement proved their ignorance of the facts by doing so. He believed there was no Irish Member in that House who had taken part in the Land League agitation who had not denounced outrages thoroughly and earnestly. He was a witness to that fact in his own person, and he could also affirm the same of others. He bad denounced from Irish platforms the perpetrators of crime and outrages, and had never failed to do so, unless when that work had been done by the preceding speakers. He had the honour also to be a journalist, and in the journal which he owned and edited, he had written articles, not one, but several articles, in strong and earnest repudiation of crime and outrage. What was, therefore, the honesty of hon. Members opposite who, knowing nothing about the matter, dared to give them the contradiction implied in their ironical cheers? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had laid great stress on the statement said to have been made in America, that no man dare take a farm from which another had been evicted for the nonpayment of an unjust rent; but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would point out that before the "no rent" manifesto was issued the same thing had been said both in Irish newspapers and on Irish platforms over and over again, and no exception was taken to it by the constituted authorities in that country. The meaning of that phrase had more than once been explained in the fullest and clearest manner by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who said he wished to substitute for the old methods of dealing with people who offended against their neighbours in that way the new and comparatively harmless system of simply shunning them, turning away from them when meeting them in the street, and having no communication with them. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) was present with the hon. Member for the City of Cork on the platform at Ennis when he gave that advice in a memorable speech often quoted in that House, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could scarcely have forgotten. That course was advised as being not illegal, not immoral, and not beyond the rights of everyone. No man was bound to speak to another, nor was a man bound to have dealings with another whom he believed to be base and disloyal. ["Oh, oh!"] Now, would such advice be an incitement to murder and mutilation? [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: Yes.] Then the hon. Member for Galway was not accessible to reason. It was to be noticed that in all the speeches that had been made from the Government side of the House there was one important fact left entirely out fo view. How did it happen that the right hon. Gentleman never once alluded to harsh landlordism, unjust eviction, and constantly-increasing unfair rents during that debate? It was these evictions that were the real parents of crime and outrage in Ireland. Harsh landlordism and unjust evictions led to crimes and outrages in Ireland before ever the Land League was founded. He contended that so important a factor in the production of crime and outrage in Ireland as these rent-raisings and evictions should not have been kept out of view by any man speaking on the subject and wishing to deal fairly with it. The resources of English civilization had been contrasted with Irish barbarism by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; but no one had noticed the now fulfilled prediction of the Irish Members that barbarism would result from the Coercion Act. As for the release of the three imprisoned Members, he asked the Prime Minister only to be consistent, and to remember that other prisoners had been released on parole. It was true that these hon. Members had not asked to be set free on a former occasion; but that was no reason, except to the Prime Minister, why they should not be released now. The right hon. Gentleman, if he believed in such an argument, might as well reply to the man who wanted a few days of liberty in order to sow his potatoes, that he had made no application three weeks before to attend to his cabbages. He saw in the Government's refusal of this small request the old historic spirit of England against the Irish people. He saw in it the result of the old spirit of tyranny and cruelty under which the Irish people for generations had been suffering. Did the right hon. Gentleman think he was sending a message of peace to Ireland that night? He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) believed that the refusal would sting the Irish people very deeply, and would give a shock to the sentiments of all well-disposed people in the country. Since the time when three Irishmen were executed on the gallows at Manchester, he remembered no act of the British Government which should create in Ireland such a feeling of intense indignation and exasperation, which would be felt from one end of the country to another, as the curt and churlish and ungenerous refusal of this small favour by the Prime Minister that night. The Government was unable to rise even to the small height of that little occasion, and preferred to stand in that uncompromising attitute of hostility to the Irish people; and assuredly now or hereafter they would have their reward for it.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he most earnestly protested against the sanction which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had just given to the practice of "Boycotting." In fact, he thought the justification put forward by the hon. Member of the advice given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a matter which ought not to be passed over by the House. Civilized and Christian society was dependent on the mutual association of mankind for support and comfort, and for anyone in the position of a Member of Parliament to advise poor ignorant men to shun one of their fellows who had paid his rent, and make his life a hell upon earth, was most reprehensible. He knew of no advice that could be given by a Christian more wicked than that advice given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. In consequence of it, many unfortunate men and their families had been reduced to starvation in isolated country districts in consequence of their neighbours refusing to sell them the necessaries of life. Could the hon. Member for Westmeath justify such conduct in the face of the House of Commons? [Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN: Yes.] Did his conscience justify it? [A laugh.] Did the hon. Member who laughed justify it? [Mr. BIGGAR: Yes.] Let him give such advice in this country, and the law would soon stop it. [Mr. BIGGAR: Trades unions do.] It was illegal. The practice of picketing, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had referred, was illegal and had been punished repeatedly. He wondered that the hon. Member could possibly speak of it without reprobation. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had spoken thus strongly because of the advice that had been given, and he would continue on all occasions to denounce the "no rent" manifesto and the cruel practice of "Boycotting." If more hon. Members were to do likewise, perhaps they would produce some effect upon the hardened consciences of those who gave the advice.

MR. DALY

said, that, while claiming to be as conscientious as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), he was prepared most earnestly to maintain that "Boycotting" pure and simple, as it was laid down by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and not exercised for the gratification of malice and the avenging of private quarrels, was perfectly fair and justifiable under the circumstances now existing in Ireland. Why, as regarded England, before the institution of the ballot any man who voted against his landlord was "Boycotted." With all his respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he (Mr. Daly) was greatly disappointed at the disingenuous way in which the Prime Minister had met some of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He would almost infer from some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government intended imprisoning other Members of Parliament, and did not want to create any precedent by releasing those already confined to vote. Those hon. Members had been spoken of as witnesses and judges—perhaps, if they were released, they might become the executioners of the Government. The Prime Minister described the Land Act as an efficient means of preserving peace in Ireland, and taunted the Irish Members with not supporting it. He (Mr. Daly), in return, charged the Government with being responsible for the crime and outrage which had been taking place in Ireland. The Estimates before them supported the charge. He found that they required only £96,000 for the working of the Land Act, notwithstanding that tenants in arrears were beseeching for admission to the Land Courts, and denied it because of insufficient facilities, while the landlords were allowed to put them out of their homesteads. But an excess sum of £140,000 was on that occasion asked for the Constabulary, or, in other words, for the landlord interests. When the excitement caused by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had died away, he thought that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite would see that many of the crimes, the commission of which he (Mr. Daly) deplored as much as any man, had arisen from the imbecility of the Irish Administration.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he had heard with very great regret the decision the Government had come to on the question under notice. He thought the condition of Ireland was so critical, and the whole situation was so complicated, that the Government ought to have grasped eagerly at such an offer as was made by the three hon. Gentlemen to come forth from their prison on parole. The Government ought to take that offer, unless they were prepared to bring them to trial. Indeed, they ought to go further, and to invite those hon. Members not merely to come there on Thursday night to register their votes, but to attend to their Parliamentary duties throughout the remainder of the Session, accepting the parole which they offered. While saying that, he need hardly say he had no sympathy with the policy of those hon. Gentlemen, or with the "no rent" manifesto which, indeed, he had denounced, together with the outrages connected with it, in every possible way. But he believed that these hon. Members would be less dangerous in the House of Commons in the discharge of their duties than in Kilmainham, and that their release would remove a great deal of the irritation at present prevalent among the lower classes of Ireland on account of their arrest. He was sorry to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite speak in slighting tones of the consequences which bad undoubtedly followed from the "no rent" manifesto. As long as he had a seat in that House he should always raise his voice against the crime, misery, and misfortune which had followed from the propagation of that disgraceful document. Another point which hon. Members opposite glossed over very gracefully was the question of "Boycotting." They were told it was no harm to tell people not to deal with a man. Was it no harm to order people not to deal with him under pain of burning, mutilation, and perhaps death? Nothing could exceed the extraordinary tyranny practised under the system. At that very moment a gentleman in Tipperary was "Boycotted" because he gave a site for a police barrack to the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Was it a crime to support the authorities? He certainly did not understand these new doctrines; he did not understand why the law should not be maintained without peril, and he regarded it as the duty of every citizen to help to do it. This gentleman in Tipperary was a kind neighbour, a good landlord, and had not even asked for his rents; and merely because he gave the site of a police barrack where a barrack had previously existed, he was "Boycotted," his land was kept idle, and he had no one even to attend to his horse in the stable. Could there be anything more tyrannical than a system under which notices were posted on the walls telling men, under pain of death, not to work for such and such a person, and where even an unfortunate woman was threatened that if she did not leave her employment her mother would be burnt in her bed? In her case, however, he was glad to say the menace had failed, for she had not yet left her employment, and did not mean to do so. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly), for whom he had a sincere respect, and who, being an urban Member, did not know what was going on in the country, should give the weight of his character in recommending a practice which was most demoralizing and misleading to the people.

MR. GORST

said, he had paid the utmost attention to the arguments urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to show that it was impossible for the Government to grant the request to allow those three Irish Members to record their votes on Thursday. The only reason for the refusal, however, which he could understand was, that the three votes, if given, were likely to be given against the Government. If, as they had been often told, the Coercion Act was intended for prevention and not for punishment, he should have thought that the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that no harm would be done in Ireland and no ill would be produced on the population of that country by those three Members coming to the House, would have been a sufficient reason for giving them leave to come. He, however, rose chiefly to call attention to the very grave statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of making vague announcements of changes in Irish policy in casual speeches. They never understood those statements when they were first made, they always required subsequent explanation; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he admitted the present Irish policy of the Government to have failed. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No; I did not.] The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it had failed to restore peace and order in Ireland; and if he had not done so, and an opportunity were given for discussing the question, there would be no difficulty in showing that the policy of the Government had absolutely failed to restore peace and peace in that country. But he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, in view of the comparative failure of his past measures, he was preparing some new and more severe policy; that there were some measures of a more stringent character in the background which he shadowed out in rather a mysterious manner, and which would be shortly introduced.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

(interposing): The hon. and learned Member must not suppose, because I have not an opportunity of making any lengthened remarks, that I admit the correctness of his statement.

MR. GORST

said, that he was quite accustomed to that sort of thing. ["Oh, oh!"] The Irish policy of the Government was always announced to the House in a piecemeal way. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that there was to be some change in their policy. The present measures of coercion had entirely failed to restore order in Ireland. The Assizes just concluded showed that the amount of crime now was double what it was in all the various districts last year; in almost every case the juries failed to convict; and, therefore, there must be some new departure on the part of the Government. They could not go on holding Office and refrain from taking some fresh step or other in order to ameliorate the present state of things in Ireland. He, therefore, wished to know whether the announcement of the new Irish policy would be made to the House in a distinct and formal manner, so that they might be able to understand and discuss the measures of the Government?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he thought it was understood the other night, although he was not then present, that the Report of Supply would be taken to-day, and he hoped that, as they were now near the hour for closing the debate, the House would be allowed to take that step. It would be altogether inconvenient at the present moment to enter into the large question to which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had adverted, and which might, no doubt, be fairly raised upon some of the language that had been used by the Government. In a matter of such very great importance he thought the responsibility of the Government ought to be left as unfettered as possible, and he should be sorry if anything interfered to prevent the debate being brought to a close.

MR. BIGGAR

(who rose amid great interruption) said, he did not intend to talk the Motion out; but he felt bound to take some notice of the language of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) with respect to "Boycotting." He (Mr. Biggar) did not see why such attacks should be made on Irishmen for that practice, seeing that it was in use in every part of the world. Moreover, it could be defended from its analogy with what had recently occurred at a particular Club, the Reform Club, in London. A number of its members, among whom were many Members of Parliament, had refused to hold any personal communication with gentlemen of whose opinions they disapproved, and, therefore, they had "Boycotted" them to the extent of their power by voting against their admission to the Club. As to the imprisoned Members, the proceedings of the Government that afternoon were such as they had consistently followed when the question of the treatment of political prisoners was under discussion. They had attempted to raise a false issue. But the real question at the present moment was, whether certain hon. Members should have an opportunity of voting against the Government on Thursday next? The Government were making special efforts to get up their Supporters, and they ought not to hinder their opponents from voting.

Resolution agreed to.

It being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Siting.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.