ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 24 November 1882)

§ MR. J. E. YORKE
I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, in order to bring on a definite matter of urgent public importance.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is bound to state to the House the definite matter of urgent public importance.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
The definite matter is the conduct of the Government, and in particular the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in reference to a controversy recently at issue between himself and me with regard to the release of the three prisoners from Kilmainham Gaol a few months ago.

§ MR. DILLWYN
I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has a right to refer to a question with reference to which there is already 22 a Notice on the Books? There is a Notice standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for Tuesday next.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understood the hon. Member to say, in the definite statement which he made, that he purposes to discuss the conduct of the Government, and does not propose to deal with the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. I must ask the hon. Member whether he proposes to proceed by asking the leave of the House, and if he be supported by 40 Members?

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
I beg to ask the leave of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Is it your pleasure that Mr. Yorke be now heard?
And there being many voices for and against—

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must now ask whether there are 40 Members prepared to support the Motion?
Whereupon, a large number of Members—not less than 40—rising in their places—

§ MR. SPEAKER
called upon the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire to proceed.

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
I beg to rise to Order. I wish to know whether, in your opinion, Sir, and in the opinion of the House, the question can be raised as to whether this is a matter of urgent public importance?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member, upon his own responsibility, has stated that it is a matter of urgent public importance. I have no authority for contravening that statement.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, he was quite aware that in taking the present course he was incurring a serious responsibility. He had stated that the question was one of urgent public importance, and he hoped to show that it warranted that description. The point between him and the right hon. Gentleman was of a precise and distinct character; and he thought he was not going too far when he said that not merely was the character of a private Member having the courage of his opinions a matter of public importance, but that the character of the Prime Minister for consistency in his statements and conduct was also a matter of urgent public importance. It could not be fairly said that he raised 23 the question by a side-wind, for he had endeavoured to get a Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the release of the three prisoners from Kilmainham, and failed through no fault of his own. In entering upon a subject of this kind it was necessary that he should recapitulate a few of the facts relating to it. The history of the case went back to the 13th of October last year, when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government announced at Guildhall, amid the cheers of the audience, the fact of the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and two of his associates. The captivity of those hon. Members lasted until May of the following year, and during that time the House had no reason to believe that the Government had in any degree changed their minds with regard to the position.

§ MR. DILLWYN
rose to Order. The hon. Member was entering upon a question which had already been discussed in that House under the title of what was called the Kilmainham Treaty. He also wished to point out that a Notice had been given on this subject for next Tuesday week by the hon. Member for Northampton; and he wished to know whether it was competent for the hon. Member to raise any question with regard to a subject in reference to which a Notice of Motion was standing upon the Paper?

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
On that point of Order, Sir, may I ask you a question? The hon. Member for Swansea raises an important point, and one which, unless we have the good fortune to get an authoritative ruling from you, is likely to degenerate into a most serious abuse. The question on which your ruling is asked, Sir, is this—whether it is in the power of an hon. Member in this House to put down on the Notice Paper bogus Motions—["Oh, oh!" and "Order! "]—I say bogus Motions, for the purpose of pro-venting hon. Members from bringing forward bonâ fide Motions? This is a point on which during the last day or two we have had some examples; and it is of the last importance that we should have a judgment from you on the subject, in order that the House may be able to guard itself in future. The Motion to which the hon. Member for Swansea draws your attention is, I 24 would inform you respectfully, a bogus Motion.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I rise to Order, Sir.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot interrupt the noble Lord unless he rises to a point of Order arising out of the noble Lord's observations.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I do rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether I cannot move that the words of the noble Lord be taken down?

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
I second that Motion.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The noble Lord says my Motion is a bogus one, and I hardly think that is a Parliamentary expression. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to withdraw it.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
Certainly not.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Lord Randolph Churchill.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
I should not have used the word, Sir, if it were not within the knowledge of every Member of this House that what I have stated is perfectly correct. In order to point out that the word I used is justified, I will just draw your attention to what has taken place. My hon. Friend (Mr. Yorke) gave Notice of a Motion with respect to the release from prison of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the hon. Member for Northampton, in order to prevent the Motion from coming on after half-past 12, moved an Amendment almost precisely in the terms to which the hon. Member for Swansea now draws your attention. But he did more than that. When the Prime Minister proposed to adjourn the debate on the Rules of Procedure the other night shortly after 12 o'clock, in order to get the Motion of my hon. Friend discussed, the hon. Member for Northampton rose in his place and spoke against the adjournment in such a manner that he very nearly incurred your displeasure, obviously with the view of preventing my hon. Friend bringing forward his Motion. And more, Sir, in order to prevent my hon. Friend having the slightest chance of bringing on his Motion, the hon. Member for Northampton has placed on the Paper for every day on which the House sits, up to December 5, a Notice of Motion relating to the other hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh), which Notice of Motion was 25 highly inconvenient, if not absolutely irregular, and in deference to that he has taken that Notice off the Paper. The means adopted by the hon. Member for Northampton to prevent the subject being discussed being thus characterized, he has now put down two Motions in a substantive form— That this House, being of opinion that it is fully in possession of the facts with regard to the release of Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Kelly, and Mr. Dillon, thinks that no further inquiry into the facts is needed. It is perfectly obvious to the meanest intelligence that the hon. Member never has any intention of bringing forward that Motion, because if he did it would have the very object which he wishes to prevent—of opening debate on this subject. This is obvious. I do not suppose the Rules of the House have ever been so grossly abused before. The hon. Member has put down on the Paper a Notice which he has no intention of bringing forward, which he cannot have any intention of bringing forward, and which is solely for the purpose of stifling discussion——

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I rise to Order, Sir.

§ MR. SPEAKER
It strikes me that the noble Lord is raising an entirely different point of Order from that raised by the hon. Member for Swansea. The hon. Member for Swansea asks me whether the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire was in Order in adverting to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, seeing that that Motion is on the Order Book? I am quite clear on that point. According to the Standing Orders, no doubt, he is not entitled to anticipate the discussion of that Motion. Then the noble Lord says that the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton—using an expression which is scarcely Parliamentary—is a bogus Motion. I wish to say that the Motion which the hon. Member for Northampton has placed upon the Order Book is respectful in its terms, and is, as far as I know, orderly. It is clear, from the observations of the noble Lord, that he thinks that I should strike the Motion from the Order Book; but I have no authority to do so.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
May I rise to a point of Order? It used formerly to be the case that no Motion for Adjournment could be moved 26 on a matter as to which a Motion stood on the Paper of the House. By a Resolution of last week—No. 2—it is provided that— Unless a Member rising in his place shall propose to move the adjournment, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; and I ask whether an hon. Member, under these New Regulations, proposing to move the adjournment for the discussion of a matter of urgent public importance, is to be debarred from doing so by a Motion standing on the Paper for perhaps six months hence?

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
One word, Sir.["Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have explained already that an hon. Member is debarred from discussing, on a Motion for Adjournment, a Motion which stands on the Order Book of the House. That is an established and fundamental rule of debate. With respect to the Resolution lately passed by the House, I apprehend that all that is done by the Resolution was this—that whereas formerly any hon. Member might, if he pleased, move the adjournment of the House, now that privilege or power is restricted under the conditions laid down by the Resolution.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
One word on a point of Order. The noble Lord has used the expression "bogus" as applied to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. Might he call attention to what had occurred within the memory of most Members of that House when the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—[Cries of"Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I said that the expression appeared to me to be scarcely Parliamentary.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
, resuming, said, he had been sufficiently guarded in his observations. He had merely been proceeding to touch on a historical point which he did not think would be contraverted. On the 16th of February the Attorney General for Ireland stated that the imprisoned Members—at any rate, one of them—were steeped to the lips in treason——

§ MR. DILLWYN
I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the hon. Member must not refer to what is commonly known as the Kilmainham Treaty. He again proceeds to do so.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I trust that the hon. Member will observe the ruling of the Chair, that he is not entitled to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, he was not discussing it, but alluding to facts which he believed were not disputed. During the six months ending October, 1881, and the succeeding six months, there was no diminution of outrages. On the contrary, they had to a certain extent increased. Up to the 4th of April the Government had apparently no intention whatever to release the prisoners. On the 2nd of May the Prime Minister announced that he had liberated the prisoners, and also that they had been liberated on the Government's own responsibility, without any negotiation, promise, or arrangement whatsoever. On the other hand, on the 4th of May, the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) said——

DR. CAMERON
I would ask whether, when, under the New Rules, an hon. Member seeks to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, he is not bound to confine himself to the point, which, in this instance, is the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government? I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is permitted to range over a wide variety of questions which would raise much larger questions?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member stated his desire of bringing to the notice of the House the conduct of the Government with regard to this matter, and he is, as I understand it, laying the ground for bringing a charge in reference to that matter against the Government. So far as I have heard what has fallen from the hon. Member, I have no wish to interpose.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, he only wished to go very lightly over this portion of the subject; but it was essential that he should do so in order that his position might be understood. On the 4th of May the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that the release of the prisoners would be the price paid for the diminution of outrages, and would, he believed, tend to the encouragement of crime.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
I rise to Order. I wish to ask if the hon. Mem- 28 her is in Order in quoting from debates in the present Session of Parliament?

§ MR. RITCHIE
My hon. Friend is in possession of the House. Is he not entitled to proceed without interruption from other hon. Members? It lies with you, Sir, to call the hon. Gentleman to Order if he commits any breach of Order.

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member for East Gloucester is quoting from speeches made during the current Session he is not in Order.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, that, in that ease, he would simply refer briefly to the dates and events as they occurred. On May 5 the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government declined to make any statement in reference to the matter. On the 6th, the Phoenix Park murders were committed; on the 11th, the he me Secretary brought in the Coercion Bill; and on the 15th, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government again declined to give any information on the subject. Upon that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) produced a letter, which he read. The late Chief Secretary asked that hon. Gentleman whether he had read the whole of the letter. The answer was that he believed a paragraph had been omitted, and on a document being handed to the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), it was read by the latter hon. Member under protest. This paragraph, it appeared afterwards, had been shown to the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who stated that he had seen it, but he considered it of such little importance that it had escaped his memory, and that he had not mentioned the fact of having seen it to any of his Colleagues. The Arrears of Rent Bill was introduced on the same evening, and it admitted that, in principle and detail, it was founded upon a clause or clauses of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). During the debate the hon. Member for Clare explained the negotiations, or communications, or arrangements—he did not know which word to use, since so many had been employed—with the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade on April the 13th, and also with the late Chief Secretary, who gave an order for the hon. Member to see the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) in Kilmainham Prison. On May 15 the right 29 hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) read a Cabinet Memorandum—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: It was not a Cabinet Memorandum.] Well, it was a Circular or Memorandum which, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had made for his own use, and which he showed to the other Members of the Cabinet. That was a very remarkable document, and there were portions of it which created a great sensation at the time, because allusion was made——

§ MR. DILLWYN
Really, Sir, I must rise to Order. The hon. Member is again referring to the question of which a Notice stands on the Books of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
As I have stated before, I understand the hon. Member to be laying down, so to speak, a foundation for arraigning the conduct of the Government, and I see no reason for interfering.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear with him a short time longer. He was conducting this discussion under considerable difficulty. He was about to say that in the Circular there was an allusion to a certain gentleman of the name of Sheridan, who, it appeared, had been in the habit of visiting Ireland in various disguises for the purpose of promoting outrages, and whom it was proposed to bring back from his refuge in some foreign parts in order to be turned from butcher into gatekeeper, and to be used for the suppression of those outrages which he formerly had been engaged in stimulating. That was the allegation. It was mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster), and no doubt it appeared to him a very serious one, for he expressed his great regret that he had had anything to do with the "negotiations." He would ask the House to mark that word; because, if there was one term which the Prime Minister had repudiated as being applicable to anything that was done it was the word "negotiation." [Mr. Gladstone: Hear, hear!. He was only calling attention to the fact that the Head of the Government and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland gave a totally different account. He would not draw any inference, lest he should be trenching on forbidden ground; he left the House to determine whether the inference to be drawn was satisfactory, 30 and whether something ought not to be done to ascertain the truth in the matter. He would only now say, what struck the public mind mostly at that time was, that every particular in this "intrigue," as some persons termed it, had been withheld by the Government, until it was disclosed by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by others, against the wish of the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE
, interposing, said, he did not admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, the Prime Minister had declined to be the first to communicate to the House any statement with regard to this matter. That there were other matters in which the right hon. Gentleman himself was not included was another point to which reference would have to be made, because the President of the Board of Trade had distinctly said that he had seen what was known as the suppressed paragraph; but since he conceived it to be entirely unimportant, he had forgotten it himself, and had not communicated it to his Colleagues. That was a remarkable fact, which was much dwelt upon at the time, and which he would not recall to the right hon. Gentleman's recollection. Another circumstance to be borne in mind was that the Government allowed the suppressed passage to be omitted from the letter without any comment or protest. As regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that was to be expected, because it appeared that he had not seen it. But it was, he thought, a little remarkable that the memory of the President of the Board of Trade—who had seen it—was so treacherous that he had forgotten entirely the existence of the paragraph. The conditions stated in the letter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been fulfilled. The Arrears of Rent Bill was brought in and the prisoners were released.

§ SIR ARTHUR OTWAY
I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member, in laying the foundation for a charge against the Government, is entitled to base that foundation by discussing a Motion already on the Paper of the house?

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
I submit, Sir, that the hon. Member is entirely within the ruling you have laid down.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
Might I ask, on the point of Order——

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have already stated that, so far as the hon. Member has gone, I have seen no reason to interrupt him.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
remarked, that he quite understood that there were many Members on the Liberal side of the House who would rather that the facts were not plainly stated, because they were very awkward. He called attention to this matter not because he believed the Government had really deceived the House by the expressions they had used. He did not suppose that the most diligent research would discover in any secret chest a document, duly signed, sealed, and delivered, called the "Kilmainham Treaty." But his contention was that, call them by what name they would, there had been communications, understandings, arrangements, negotiations, givings and takings on both sides of these proceedings, which might very properly be designated by the name of a Treaty. The Prime Minister had always denied that there was such a Treaty, and it might be that there was a certain amount of verbal correctness in that statement. But the facts were somewhat different from what the right hon. Gentleman would make them appear, and these facts would be very likely to transpire if a further investigation took place. The matter excited a good deal of attention last summer, and they had often been challenged by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to move for an inquiry. They had been told that, holding the opinions they did, they ought to have moved for an inquiry. The answer to that was that the Government occupied the whole time of the House, and that, without gross abuse of the Rules, they could not bring the subject forward. He had hoped that they would hear no more of that; but on Monday week the controversy as regarded the Autumn Session was resumed. It arose from a casual allusion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) to the Kilmainham Treaty, which he described as a disgraceful transaction. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Disgraceful transactions."] He (Mr. Yorke) was sitting, unfortunately, opposite the Prime Minister, and he confessed that he laughed. If he laughed more than good manners warranted, he begged to offer an apology to the right hon. Gentleman for the 32 personal discourtesy to him. They knew the saying, "Celui qui rit ne pense pas de mal faire." He assured the right hon. Gentleman there was really no malice in that laugh. He simply laughed at the skill with which the noble Lord, after his manner, was throwing a fly over the Treasury Bench, and he laughed also at the manner in which the largest fish on the Treasury Bench rose and gorged that fly. With greater prudence the right hon. Gentleman might have passed it by, for it had already given him some trouble, and would probably give him more. The right hon. Gentleman might have allowed him to enjoy his laugh in the obscurity of the Back Benches—the monotony of which was sometimes more than one could bear—instead of making a dive like a policeman into a jeering crowd, and pulling him out like a little boy by the ear into the fierce light that beat upon the Treasury Bench. He had provided himself with the reports of all the Liberal papers that there might be no mistake as to what passed on the occasion in question. [The hon. Member then read an extract from a newspaper report as to what took place on Monday week.]

§ MR. SPEAKER
intimated that it was not open to the hon. Gentleman to read extracts from the debate which had taken place during the present Session.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
said, it was a great temptation to do so, because the present Motion turned upon what then took place. The Prime Minister had burnt his ships and cut off his retreat. He had told him that those who made imputations without proving them brought disgrace upon themselves. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Then he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give him an opportunity of moving for an inquiry, and since that time he had been unceasing, in season and out of season, in doing everything he could, without violating the Rules of the House, to bring the Motion forward. Although he was not the first person who started the charge, he felt that there was no course open to him but to bring the matter before the House. He accordingly gave Notice of Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the arrangements attending the release of Mr. Parnell and his fellow-Members. It was true that the Motion alluded to the arrangement commonly called the Kilmainham Treaty; 33 but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have assented to the terms of that Notice. That Motion was objected to, and he submitted a colourless Motion to the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) for the approval of the Prime Minister. After two days the noble Lord informed him that the Government would not object to a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon all the circumstances relating to the release of Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. O'Kelly from custody in Kilmainham Prison, in May, 1882. The Prime Minister seemed only partially satisfied, for he said he had his own notion about the terms of the Motion, although he would not oppose it; he also said that he would move the adjournment at an early hour on Monday, to permit it to be brought on. But his zealous henchman (Mr. Labouchere) was not idle on that occasion, and managed with some assistance to prevent the adjournment of the Procedure debate till after half-past 12, when it was no longer possible to bring it on. His (Mr. Yorke's) position with regard to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters was this—he declined to separate the responsibility of the Prime Minister from that of his supporters. Even in this supplementary Session they had had evidence of the manner in which the screw could be turned if it suited the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Question!"] As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) said the other night, the Prime Minister had only to hint a wish, and nine-tenths of his supporters would regard it as law. No doubt, if the Prime Minister had expressed a wish to that effect, the hon. Member for Northampton would have withdrawn his Motion and humbly apologized. The other day, when he asked the Prime Minister whether it was right that his supporters should delay the matter when he had earnestly invited him to make the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman denied that he had "earnestly invited" him to do anything of the kind. But the House would recollect what happened. If the right hon. Gentleman did not earnestly invite him, he must have invited him in joke. All he could say was that he made the joke in so serious a manner that he (Mr. Yorke) did not feel that he had any option but 34 to take the right hon. Gentleman literally at his word and to press on his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman was a very great man. He doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus; and we petty men Walk under his huge logs, and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves. But the right hon. Gentleman had, unfortunately for that side of the House, put many good things out of fashion of late years. There were, however, two things which, thank Heaven! were not yet out of fashion in this country—namely, the love of fair play and straightforward conduct. Like Achilles, the right hon. Gentleman might be described as— Impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer, Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis. He told the right hon. Gentleman, without the smallest disrespect, that no qualities, however great, no position, however high, and no career, however distinguished, would prevent him from incurring the just indignation of his countrymen, if his moral fibre should have been so relaxed by the atmosphere of adulation that surrounded him, that he thought he could depart from engagements openly entered into, and again and again repeated before the House and before the country. He moved the adjournment of the House.

MR. GLADSTONE
I understand very well the hortatory and declamatory portions of the speech of the hon. Member, and I understand that very much better than what I might call the argumentative and historical portions. According to the hon. Member, I am a man who appeals to the majority of this House to support me, whether right or wrong. [MR. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] I am a man who disdains to be bound by right, and says there is no law but force; I am a man who lives in an atmosphere of adulation. Well, I am a man who lives in an atmosphere where, I fully admit, confidence and commendation, far beyond what I deserve, are accorded to me; but the evil moral effect of such confidence and commendation, 35 carried by friendship to excess, is in no small degree counteracted by the character of the charges and accusations which are incessantly poured upon me by men like the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Member who has just spoken. I have disposed so far, perhaps, of the closing sentences of the hon. Member's speech. I think it is quite needless for me to meet them with a denial or to take any further notice of them; and if I be iracundus, as the hon. Gentleman says I am, I can assure him that it requires much sharper weapons and much heavier blows to rouse my anger than any which he has wielded or dealt to-night. The next charge, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman makes is that he cannot distinguish between my supporters and myself. Whatever any supporters of the Government, any person professing Liberal opinions, does or says, I am responsible—that it is my act. That is the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman who comes forward on this occasion, of course after great efforts, to put himself into a judicial frame of mind; because, I presume, he admits that in bringing forward charges importing the deepest disgrace upon persons with whom we sit in this House, we are bound to put ourselves in a judicial frame of mind; and the result of all the hon. Member's efforts in that direction is that he holds that whatever is done by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—in fact, by any Gentleman on this side of the House, perhaps even by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen)—I am responsible for it. The hon. Member appears to know nothing of the relations which subsist between the Leaders of the Liberal Party and their followers. Upon that subject he might innocently be ignorant; but he is as grossly ignorant of what has taken place under his own eyes and within his own hearing in this house. He quotes my hon. Friend—I hope he is in the House—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (MR. G. Russell), and says that that hon. Member stated the other night something to this effect—"That if the judgment of the Prime Minister were announced, nine-tenths of the Members sitting on this side——

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him what I did say.

MR. GLADSTONE
Certainly.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
I stated that, according to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the right hon. Gentleman had only to hint a wish, and nine-tenths of his supporters would regard that wish as law.

MR. GLADSTONE
I understand that was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. But was it meant that the hon. Member for Aylesbury himself regarded my wish as law; or was the declaration satirical and sarcastic like the compliment to myself which the hon. Gentleman opposite introduced into his speech to-night?

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
The declaration appeared to me to be made in all seriousness.

MR. GLADSTONE
I will refer to the matter again by-and-bye, when I have a reference, which I have not with me at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to this credit from me—that undoubtedly, since the question to which he has referred first arose—namely, when the noble Lord opposite spoke of the Kilmainham Treaty, and described it, with his accustomed moderation and good judgment, as a disgraceful transaction—he has made every effort to bring the matter forward. But, Sir, I tell him, that if he had really been in the frame of mind which he appears now to have come into, and if he had consulted the propriety of the case, and those who think with him—the noble Lord, and others beside him who have characterized the release of the hon. Member for Cork City, and the supposed transaction connected with it, as disgraceful transactions—I think they ought to have brought it forward at the time, and moved for an inquiry when these transactions occurred. That is my distinct charge against those who repeatedly made those accusations against the Government and myself, and did not think fit to bring them to the test; and I repeat what I have said with respect to those who make these accusations, and do not seek to bring them to the test at the proper time. Now, the hon. Member makes a reply to that charge, and his reply is that the Government were in possession of the whole time of the House. Of course, the hon. Member does not consciously mean to deviate from what he believes to be exact truth; but he said that from the 2nd of May, 37 when these charges began, to the close of the Summer Sitting, the Government were in possession of all the time of the house; and this is really in such glaring variance with, and contradiction of, all the facts of the case, that I must say that, as a defence of the charge, it is perfectly worthless. And, if it be worthless as a defence of the hon. Gentleman, still more is it worthless as a defence of those who have shown an inclination to support that charge, and who were in a position on the occurrence of the facts—when everything was fresh in the recollection of everyone concerned—to have made a demand for such an inquiry without the smallest difficulty. Therefore, I think the defence of the hon. Member upon that question is entirely without value. The hon. Gentleman has also said he was not surprised that hon. Members on this side of the House felt disinclined to have the facts produced, because, in his judgment, they were awkward facts; but he will do me the justice to believe that I have never said that there were any awkward facts to disclose. I have always said, in the broadest was, that there could not be a more complete fiction than this whole affair of a Kilmainham Treaty; and to that statement I adhere. I have endeavoured to pick out from the recitals of the hon. Member what it is that he means to bring as a charge against me. If he means to bring as a charge against me my conduct with respect to this matter within the last few days, I assert that I have redeemed every engagement that I have entered into; and that I have not—except for the hon. Gentleman I do not suppose it is necessary for me to say this—done underground anything inconsistent with my expressed intentions. So much for my recent conduct. But what is the charge with respect to my past conduct that the hon. Gentleman desires to make? The House has heard him; and what was stated by him that constituted a charge or accusation against me or against the Government? He stated that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had been in possession of certain information with which I was not acquainted. Well, I tell him that that I could not follow. I am not able to verify, or affirm, or contradict that statement; but, anyhow, it is a statement which does not concern myself.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
In what I said I was merely drawing attention to the inconsistent accounts of these transactions given by different Members of the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE
The hon. Member rose to make a charge against me in particular, and I was looking through the chaff of the hon. Member's speech to see whether I could find a grain of wheat in it. I have now noticed some of the chaff, and I am coming to what may be called the single grain of corn that can be found in it. I cannot say to what the hon. Gentleman refers—whether he refers to something known to the President of the Board of Trade and not known to me. There are two things with regard to which I wish to say a word; and perhaps, therefore, I ought to say that there are two grains of corn in the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Gentleman gave me no Notice that he was to raise this question to-day, so that what I say is from recollection, and from reference to a volume of Hansard that has been brought to me with a speech made upon the occasion. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell) has come into the House, I may refer to what was done by him in illustration of the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement. The hon. Member holds me responsible for everything said or done by every hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Russell), I have no doubt, is aware of the complimentary reference made to him in his absence by the hon. Member, who said that the judgment of the Government—perhaps, he said, the wish of the Prime Minister—was law to nine-tenths of the Gentlemen on this side of the House. There was an occurrence which, I think, illustrates the liberty with which the hon. Member for Aylesbury, in the perfectly just exercise of his discretion, of which I do not complain, interprets that law which the hon. Member opposite says depends upon the express wish of the Prime Minister. On the 7th of July there arose a question, which, differing from many persons in this House, I regarded as a very serious question, with respect to a provision in the Prevention of Crime Bill for searching private Houses—a provision which the Lord Lieutenant had expressed his desire to surrender, and which I was extremely 39 anxious, in conformity with that desire of the Lord Lieutenant, to exclude from the Bill. I consequently argued the question against that provision in terms as strong as I could use, and there was no effort that I did not employ to induce the House to take that view of the ease. I appealed to them in the strongest language—indeed, the language I used was such that reference was afterwards made to it with taunts; and it was said that I intimated if my views were not adopted I would resign the Office which I hold. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who said that my word was a law to Members on this side of the House, aware of the language I used, and of the importance I attached to the question, in the exercise of his liberty, spoke upon the other side and told against the Government in the division which ended in my defeat and the defeat of the Government. So much for the justice of the charge of the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
The speech was subsequent to the vote of the hon. Member.

MR. GLADSTONE
Certainly, it was subsequent to that vote; but I tell the hon. Gentleman fairly that that is only one of a number of indications which have been given—and which I hope, on due occasion, always will be given on this side of the Ilonse—of absolute freedom and independence; and I tell the hon. Gentleman that a more ridiculous charge than that every act of every Gentleman sitting on this side of the House is in conformity with the wish of the person who happens to be the Leader of the House never was advanced. What are these two charges—if they be worthy of that name—which can be extracted from the speech of the hon. Gentleman? And here I may observe that I did not rise at once when the hon. Gentleman sat down, because I was desirous of knowing whether there was any hon. Gentleman who had any other charge to make, because I hoped if there were he would have risen and enabled me to meet it. But the charge was this—and it was quite truly and fairly stated by the hon. Gentleman—that on the 2nd of May I declared that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the two other Gentlemen confined with him had been liberated without any negotiation, promise, or engagement whatever. Most true that I did say so, and 40 most true the statement that I made. On the 5th of May I declined, he says, to make a statement. Well, I had made the only statement I could make as distinct from the production of documents. I do not remember the words used, and I do not know whether the hon. Member quoted them accurately; but, undoubtedly, I declined the production of Papers. It might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman, whose standard of public morality is so high, and who has so high a sense of the delicacy and courtesy that ought to govern the conduct of Members in this House, that possibly I might have declined to produce the letter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, from an idea that it would be more proper that the hon. Member for the City of Cork should produce it himself. I thought I would leave to the hon. Member for the City of Cork perfect liberty of judgment to determine whether he would produce it or not.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
There was another letter—the letter that passed between the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary. That was never produced.

MR. GLADSTONE
I believe I was asked to produce that letter, because I had quoted certain words referring, not to the matter and substance of the transaction, but to a collateral point in respect to the relations of the Liberal Party, of which I have said we had no right to take any notice whatever. I tell the noble Lord fairly, with regard to the producing of that letter, that it contains nothing in the world that I would not be perfectly content to have read publicly at Charing Cross. But the precedent of producing a letter passing between two Members of the Government is a precedent which I am not willing to be responsible for establishing, unless it can be shown—and then I would ask that permission which might probably cover the case—that there was some reason for supposing that the letter contained something which was material to the case, and would tend to bring he me some charge against the Government. I am not sure that there was not another document; but, at any rate, there was no document of my own. It appeared to me that it would be most ungenerous on my part towards the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork if, 41 when I was challenged upon that subject for the justification of the Government, I had either cited this letter or said anything which would leave him less than perfectly free to determine whether he would produce the letter or not. I said—" Here we stand upon our own responsibility. Challenge that responsibility if you like. I leave it to the hon. Member for the City of Cork whether he will produce the letter or not." I believe he exercised a very sound discretion in its production. That was the reason I declined to produce the letter. Then the hon. Member has found another charge upon which he dwells. He observes that upon the 2nd of May I said there were no negotiations, or promises, or engagements whatsoever, and that on the 5th of May my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster) regretted that he had anything to do with the negotiations. I believe, Sir—though I have Lad no opportunity of reference—that at the time there was an explanation between us, and that I myself declared that there was nothing which, in my opinion, constituted or even approached the idea of negotiation. My right hon. Friend took a different view. I do not know what my right hon. Friend's meaning was. I do not pretend to get into the interior of men's minds. But my reason for maintaining that there was no negotiation was that while we welcomed all information as to the intentions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork—and I contend that it was our duty not only with regard to him, but with regard to every other person who came within the same category as himself, to catch at every indication that we could obtain of a disposition on their part which would enable us to open the prison doors—while that was our view, and I cannot conceive its being cavilled at or denied—nothing whatever passed between us in the way of negotiation. But the hon. Member for the City of Cork neither asked nor knew anything from us, or from anyone authorized by us, as to any relations with us or on the subject of any political measures we intended to produce, except what he might have gathered from the public journals in common with all the world. I held as a matter of fact, and I told the House of Commons, that there were no negotiations, promises, or en- 42 gagements whatsoever. I must say—it is only an incidental matter—but I can account in some degree for a different use of words by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, and myself. My right hon. Friend, in the explanation which he made on resigning Office, intimated, I think, that he would have sought or obtained further declarations from the hon. Member for the City of Cork; that he thought the hon. Member's declarations were not satisfactory, and that he would have endeavoured—so I interpret him and a letter of his which I have since seen—to bring the hon. Member's declarations to a higher mark.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
asked if the right hon. Gentleman would produce the letter from the right hon. Member for Bradford, to which he had just referred?

MR. GLADSTONE
That letter is not in my possession. It was not addressed to me. It was simply confirmatory of what my right hon. Friend spoke in this House—to exactly the same tenour, and adding nothing. But I can better understand he w, if my right hon. Friend did really contemplate further communication at that time—I do not know that it would have justified any negotiation, unless there was to be some equivalent for the declarations that were to be asked—but still, considering my right hon. Friend's apparent desire for further engagements by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I can conceive that on that account he may have used a word—with the greatest possible respect to my right hon. Friend—a word which I reject and repudiate as totally inapplicable according to all that I know. Now, there are two points in the speech of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire; and I should be much obliged if any hon. Member would prompt my memory while I am on my legs and am in possession of the House.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
The right hon. Gentleman has not touched upon the reason why he will not give me a day for my Motion? That is the main point.

MR. GLADSTONE
I understood the hon. Gentleman to charge me for what I did not well understand, but to charge me for steps—taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton on this side of the House—which he supposes to have been taken with the view of baffling him, and saying I was responsible for those steps.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, in a position to give me a day whenever he chooses. That is perfectly within his power, and I contend that by his action in this matter he has entitled me to expect that he will do so.

MR. GLADSTONE
The hon. Gentleman's contention is that the Government should interrupt the Procedure debates. That is what we will not do, and what I never engaged to do, and never held out any expectation of doing. It appears, then, there are only two charges—first of all, that my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the choice of his own language, used a word which I submit to be inapplicable, and which, so far as my views and my share in this business are concerned, and the views of all my Colleagues, every one of them, so far as I am acquainted, has nothing whatever to justify it; and with respect to the non-production of documents, I have also stated that I should have felt myself exceedingly deficient in the feelings which ought to prevail between one Member and another had I placed the hon. Member for the City of Cork under any sort of coercion or disadvantage with regard to the production of that letter. There are those who seem to think that because we have taken the gravest exception to the conduct, as we viewed it, of the hon. Member for the City of Cork at a former period, therefore we are to treat him as a man convicted on a criminal charge, or in some way or other disparaged and deprived of all right to our courteous attention and the ordinary consideration that prevails between Members of Parliament because of our opinion and impression about his conduct, and because of the steps we, in our responsibility, have taken. That was not my view of the matter at all. I was bound to proceed towards a Member in every matter of courtesy and consideration precisely as I should have done to any Member in this House. I will not go into the speech of the hon. Member, except in regard to one point. He wants a day for the discussion of this matter. Well, if the House of Commons chooses to prolong this Session for the purpose, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise that question. But with respect to the interruption of the important Business of Procedure, which I have steadily declined to interrupt for 44 the sake of the Egyptian Question, for the sake of the Arrears Act, for the sake of every other public question that has been raised, I distinctly and positively decline to interrupt it for the sake of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I assure the House I am not going to detain it more than a few minutes. I am strongly of opinion that there is no public advantage in this Motion made to-day, or in the Motion which the hon. Member has given Notice of; and I would not have risen at all but that I feel it my duty to correct an impression which might be thought—though I do not think it was intended—to be convoyed by the speech of the hon. Member. I understood him to say that a certain letter and Memorandum would not have come before the public had they not been brought forward by others than the Members of the Government.

§ MR. J. R. YORKE
I said that matters were commented on at the time which required explanation. I did not go further than that.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Well, no allusion would have been made by me to the letter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork if it had not been read in the House, and I thought it necessary to correct the mistake; nor would any allusion have been made by me to the conversation I had with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), except that I thought it necessary to correct what I thought was a mistaken account; and in order to show that I really had some grounds for what I stated I produced a Memorandum which I had drawn up at the time, and which I sent to my right hon. Friend. I thought it only due to myself, and I should never have divulged any of these matters unless forced to do so, by hearing them alluded to in the House, as I considered, somewhat incorrectly. Just one other remark. The hon. Member (Mr. Yorke) dwelt a great deal on a difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself as to what passed with regard to the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I must adhere to my opinion that I did not use a wrong term in the matter; but that is not my right hon. Friend's opinion, and I dare say he is quite as likely—and perhaps more likely—to be 45 right than I am. I still think that what I said was the true version of the matter.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he would not discuss the arrangements of what was popularly known as the "Kilmainham Treaty;" but there was one remark of the Prime Minister which deserved an answer from that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke), and those who agreed with him, were in duty bound in the early part of the Session, when the matters in question were fresh in the memory, to have brought them to the test of an inquiry. That was the distinct counter-charge brought against his hon. Friend and his supporters, though at the time when the Treaty was engaging public attention, or immediately afterwards, the House was transacting its Business under the Rules of Urgency, and there was no opportunity whatever for moving for an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with having stated outside the House that which he would not state inside the House; but he had told the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to make the same statement in the House. The charges he had made were serious, so serious as fully to justify the right hon. Gentleman in challenging his hon. Friend to proceed to an inquiry. Indeed, his only wonder was that the right hon. Gentleman, on reading the speeches to which he referred—speeches to which he adhered, and for the very moderation of which he might almost apologize—had not at the time addressed his challenge to those who were in a position to demand an inquiry. Certainly, if he had had the ghost of a notion that an inquiry would be granted, he should have moved for it at the time. As for the charges against the Government, he had stated—to put the matter mildly—that the action of the Government came within a measurable distance of infamy; and he had also ventured to express an opinion that the act was scarcely distinguishable from an act of the grossest political corruption. That was the statement he made, fully accepting whatever responsibility attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a full opportunity for inquiry could have been found during the early part of the Session; but, after all, what op- 46 portunity was there? The Procedure Resolutions, commonly spoken of as the "Gagging Rules," did not then exist. ["Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is bound to confine himself to the subject-matter involved in the Motion. He cannot discuss the Rules.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he was referring to the remark of the Prime Minister—that if any hon. Member had at the time accepted the responsibility, there were those who could have demanded an inquiry. The opportunities for discussion were most meagre during the earlier months of the Session, and it would have been almost useless for anyone to have brought on a Motion for Inquiry unless he had previously obtained the promise of facilities from the Government. The Prime Minister, having now promised to entertain a Motion for Inquiry, said he had afforded the promised facilities by moving the adjournment of the Procedure debate before half-past 12 o'clock. But he w was that act received by his supporters? The moment he had offered to do it, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) rose and gave Notice of opposition. The Motion was altered in its terms so as to obviate the objection of the Prime Minister to the wording of it; and then the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) put down a Motion which effectually prevented the matter being taken as an unopposed Motion, and by means of the Forms of the House had precluded the House of Commons from passing judgment on it. It had been said that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not responsible for the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton; but nobody, of course, alleged that the right hon. Gentleman had asked the hon. Member for Northampton to put down his Motion, or that indirect communications had passed. But it must be recollected that when the Prime Minister expressed his intention to grant facilities, he spoke of doing a day's work before he came to the House and a day's work in watching the discussion of the New Rules, so that he was not prepared to do a third day's work in listening to the debate on the hon. Member's Motion. What did that mean but that he was prepared to adopt, with regard to the sworn Member for Northampton, the policy adopted 47 with reference to the unsworn Member, when the Prime Minister ostentatiously abnegated his functions as Leader of the House and said—" You have got into a mess contrary to my advice, and you must get out of it he w you can? "Then the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked the Prime Minister whether he would use his influence as Loader of the House to secure that the Motion should come on, and would provide a deputy to do his third day's work? He could not think that this was a trivial matter, as if it was of no concern. Distinct charges had been made against Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and into those charges they demanded an inquiry. Did the Government intend to grant that inquiry? If so, it was wholly illusory to tell his hon. Friend that they would move the adjournment of the Procedure debate at a quarter past 12, and then leave their Friends to talk out the Motion. It was equally futile to allege that they were keeping faith with the House of Commons by meeting in this manner the distinct pledge they had given. Those who deserved it were still entitled to ask whether the Government were bonâ fide prepared to facilitate the granting of such an inquiry as that which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
desired to say one word in explanation of the course which he had taken in this matter. He had the case of his own constituents to bring before the House, and, the Prime Minister having declined to give him a day, made the offer to the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire to allow his Motion to come on. Then, without any communication with the Prime Minister, he objected to the granting of any facilities which were denied to himself, accepting the Prime Minister's declaration that the House had been called together for a specific purpose with which the Government could not allow anything to interfere. He admitted that he had spoken on the Motion for Adjournment the other night in order to bring the hon. Member's Motion under the Half-past Twelve Rule. He thought that as his own Motion could not come on another ought not to do so. In the same way he had put down on the Notice Paper fur every evening for the remainder of 48 the Session a number of sound Democratic Motions, with the object of preventing the hon. Member from gaining priority for his Motion. Since, however, the Speaker had declared that those Motions were irregular, he had taken them off the Paper; but he should infinitely prefer to see the house discussing these matters to its going into this absurd species of historical mares'-nesting which was opened up by the Motion of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) seemed to think that he had a monopoly of independence; he did not himself treat the Front Opposition Bench with much respect; and he thought, because the Ministerial Party did treat their Front Bench with respect, therefore they were not independent. Still, the noble Lord would find that he had spoken and voted against the Government twice as often as he had supported them. He regarded this Motion as au insult to the Prime Minister, and maintained that there ought to be a primâ facie case made out for inquiry before it was granted. It was all very well for the Prime Minister, in a moment of generous impulse, to say that he would grant one; but it was a case in which his independent followers should step in and say that they would not have the time of the House wasted and the Prime Minister subjected to these insults.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, if the Motion was an insult to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman was in the extraordinary position of a man who had insulted himself, because the Motion would not have been dreamt of by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) if it had not been passionately solicited by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had now refused, in every possible way, to give the hon. Member facilities for bringing it on. He thought the opinion of the public would be that there was something very dark and mysterious, not altogether very savory, about all the transactions from the extraordinary nervousness which had boon betrayed by the Liberal Party, not so far as the Prime Minister was concerned, because he had conducted himself with extraordinary self-possession. Some people might call it something else. They had abused the Forms of the House, and had 49 resorted to every kind of artifice; they had interrupted his hon. Friends, one after another, in order to prevent the Motion being brought on. He was reminded by those interruptions of a time when seven Irish Members had risen one after another and interrupted the Prime Minister and had been one after another suspended. He found it difficult himself to discern the difference between the action of the Irish Members and the action of those extremely nervous Members of the Liberal Party. There had been another curious point in the matter. The Prime Minister, who generally addressed the House with a great deal of facility, had on the present occasion been only able to address them after having received a great deal of assistance from his Colleagues. A Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman must have been exhausted by running in and out of the House to assist him in the references he thought it necessary to make. The Prime Minister had continually referred to the Home Secretary, although he could not see what assistance the right hon. Gentleman was likely to obtain from that right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GLADSTONE
, interposing, observed that he did not appeal to the Home Secretary.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
accepted the statement of the Prime Minister. He saw a great deal of commotion on the Treasury Bench, and thought the right hon. Gentleman was conferring with the Home Secretary; but probably he was conferring with the noble Marquess. The right hon. Gentleman contrived to speak for 40 minutes or half-an-hour on this subject with a great deal of assistance, and when he sat down the House was not one bit wiser than when he got up; and as for his hon. Friend's Motion, he defied anybody to say whether the right hon. Gentleman wished for this inquiry, or whether he desired to draw back. The Prime Minister said it would require a much sharper blow than his hon. Friend could strike to rouse him to anger; but if the earlier parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were specimens of his geniality and good humour, he would only exclaim—"God preserve us when he is really angry." The place which he now occupied would become a great deal too unpleasant on account of its proxi- 50 mity to the Treasury Bench. He had been referred to as having characterized this Kilmainham Treaty as a disgraceful transaction. Owing to the extraordinary course taken by hon. Members opposite, they could not go into this disgraceful transaction; but, at all events, it was so disgraceful that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary resigned their Offices on account of it. The Prime Minister often talked about his inaccuracy—he thought the right hon. Gentleman said his constitutional inaccuracy—but he was dealing with facts, and one of the originators of this transaction said about it— I was very sorry that I had had anything whatever to do with the negotiation, though all I had to do with it was to get from the hon. Member for the City of Cork a promise not to break the law. I felt that I could have nothing more to do with it. Those were the words of the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who had, moreover, said he would have nothing more to do with it. It must, therefore, have been a disgraceful transaction. The Prime Minister said the inquiry ought to have been asked for at the time. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not present in the House when this subject was originally brought forward. He only wished he had been. If he might venture on a classical allusion, he would say that it reminded him of Paris after the Siege of Troy escaping from Diomedes and being saved by Venus, who had wrapped him in a cloud. In a similar manner, and by some interposition, Providential or otherwise, the Prime Minister had been preserved from his presence in the House on that occasion. At any rate, the country would know that the negotiation, arrangement, convention, treaty, or any other word which the enormous range of the Prime Minister's vocabulary might suit, there was something which had never seen the light of day, and which, so far as the Government were concerned, never would. When the other night the Prime Minister challenged his hon. Friend to move this Motion, the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of a well-known game of cards called "poker." When a player held very bad cards and had no likelihood of winning, he adopted the course of "bluffing." No doubt, it was imagined that his hon. Friend, intimidated by the grand man- 51 ner and the apparently good cards of the Prime Minister, would shrink from pursuing the inquiry. But, fortunately, his hon. Friend had three aces—courage, straightforwardness, and determination —and he met the Prime Minister's challenge boldly, and forced the right hon. Gentleman to show that his hand was an uncommonly bad one, which would not bear the inspection of the public. The Prime Minister and his Colleagues were in the unpleasant position of having challenged an inquiry into a transaction which had caused the resignation of two of their Colleagues, which was surrounded by every element of mystery; and, having challenged that inquiry, they and their supporters had used every artifice to evade it. The judgment of the public would be, after what had taken place that night, that there had been a Kilmainham Treaty, and that it was a disgraceful transaction.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he wished to be precisely accurate. He had stated that when he was speaking he had no communication with the Home Secretary; but he now understood that his right hon. Friend took a volume of Hansard from the noble Marquess and handed it to him.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL
, having been thrust into this discussion, desired to make a brief personal explanation. He would not follow the noble Lord in his references to the adventures of Diomedes and Hoyle's Book of Games, which appeared to be the noble Lord's Parliamentary vade mecum. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire had quoted him as having said, in a recent debate, that for nine-tenths of the Liberal majority the Prime Minister's wish was law. He believed that he did make that observation in a debate, in the course of which the Prime Minister explained that it was a sufficient safeguard for the right of minorities to leave the right of moving the adjournment to the decision of a majority of the House, because, he said, a majority would be sure to give fair play. He was not particular about the form of the phrase, and perhaps it would be better to say that in nine cases out of ten the wish of the Prime Minister was law. While he did not revoke or modify the language which he used, he hoped the Prime Minister would understand that in making that statement he did not wish to cast any reflection on 52 the loyalty that existed among the Liberal Party, nor to imply that the right hon. Gentleman would make a wrong or a tyrannical use of that loyalty, yet occasions arose when Members of the Party felt reluctantly compelled to dissent from him.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
wished to refer to one or two points which appeared to him to be conclusive' in favour of the present Motion for Inquiry. If he ever had any doubt as to the propriety of such an inquiry, it would have been entirely removed by the attitude of the Liberal Party, which appeared to be stricken with panic whenever a suggestion was made that an inquiry should be instituted into the conduct of the Government on any point. The facts which had leaked out in reference to this Kilmainham business were such as to demand inquiry. The "suspects" had been imprisoned, the Government said, for the purposes of vindicating law and order, and of restoring peace and tranquillity in Ireland; but in a-very short time they were released without any explanation, except that that course had been taken in order to restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman now said that those sitting on the Opposition side of the House, if they were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government in the matter, ought to have moved a Vote of Censure upon them at once. What more, however, could they do than they had done? On the very afternoon when the matter became public he had moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of pressing the right hon. Gentleman to give a day to enable the Opposition to move a Vote of Censure upon the Government. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman blamed the Members of the Opposition for not having taken the course he indicated, he must have done so in ignorance or in forgetfulness. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the release of the prisoners had been made without any negotiations between the Government and the prisoners having been entered into previously; but the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster) had repeated that night what he had said on several previous occasions—namely, that there were such negotiations. Surely, if there were no other reason for an inquiry, this strange and extraordinary inconsis- 53 tency between two Members of the Cabinet would call for it. The Prime Minister had stated that night that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) knew absolutely nothing as to the intentions of the Government with regard to future Irish legislation; but he was totally unable to reconcile that statement with the Memorandum drawn up by the late Chief Secretary, in which he referred to the fact of Mr. O'Shea giving him a letter from Mr. Parnell, expressing a hope that its terms might bring about a satisfactory union with the Liberal Party. The late Chief Secretary went on to state in that Memorandum that, having read the letter, he had asked Mr. O'Shea whether that was all that Mr. Parnell was inclined to say; and, on Mr. O'Shea asking him what more he wanted, he said— "It comes to this—upon our doing certain things, he will prevent outrages in Ireland." How, therefore, could the Prime Minister say, in the face of that Memorandum, that no negotiations were entered into with the hon. Member for the City of Cork? There was, moreover, the letter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork itself, and there was other evidence which went to prove most distinctly that the contention of the late Chief Secretary, that there were negotiations between the Government and the prisoners, was right, and that the contention of the Prime Minister, that there were none, was wrong. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in his letter, made a point of one thing more than another, it was this—that there should be a settlement of the Arrears Question. The hon. Member said—"I desire to impress upon you the absolute necessity of a settlement of the Arrears Question." And what had happened? Why, an Arrears Bill had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government framed upon the precise lines indicated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. There were other matters referred to in that letter, such as the admission of the leaseholders to the advantages of the Land Act of 1881, and an alteration in the Tenure Clauses and Purchase Clauses of that Act, with regard to all of which the Government had given qualified undertakings to introduce measures at some future period. All these matters were of a most suspicious character; and the Government, on a matter 54 which they themselves admitted was vital to their character and their reputation, ought not to resist, but should facilitate inquiry, without which the Opposition would never remain satisfied.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
did not know whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to allow this matter to rest with the lame and laboured statement of the Prime Minister: Towards the end of his speech on this subject on a former occasion, the Prime Minister had promised to give a day for the discussion of the subject after the discussion of the Procedure Rules was over. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He had heard the Prime Minister make the statement himself; and, difficult as it was sometimes to understand the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, he was quite clear upon the point. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would not, for this or for any other matter of Business, have the discussion upon the Procedure Resolutions interrupted, but that if the House was disposed to prolong its Sittings for another day, then a Motion on the subject might be made. That, however, was an idle challenge, for what was the use of appointing a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the Government on the last day of the Session, when the next day the Committee would be dissolved by the Prorogation? That challenge, however, had been thrown out so that the Government might be able to go through the country and declare that they were not afraid of an inquiry into the matter. The truth was that the Government were practically backing out of their pledge. For his own part, he believed that there were negotiations between the Government and the Kilmainham prisoners, and that there had been a treaty entered into with them. He regarded that treaty as a disgraceful transaction. He had said that elsewhere, and he intended to say so elsewhere again; and he used the expression now in order that he might not afterwards be taunted with saying that elsewhere which he was afraid to repeat in that House. There were sufficient materials before the House to show that certain action had been taken by the Government, and that certain other action had been taken by the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends, both of which actions were in accordance with the terms of the agree- 55 ment entered into, as indicated by the letter of the latter. It had been shown that an hon. Member of that House had, with the knowledge and with the authority of the Government, passed several hours with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and that he had come as an ambassador from Kilmainham with the formulated terms of an agreement, and that he was authorized to take them back if they were not approved; that they were submitted to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and were circulated throughout the Cabinet, who had power to release the hon. Member for the City of Cork if they thought fit to do so. But they know something more than this. On the day after this interview with the Chief Secretary, the Kilmainham ambassador saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and discussed with him the propriety of omitting the passage relating to the union of the Irish Party with the Liberal Party, and he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better that nothing should be said about that passage. The right hon. Gentleman, who knew that the question of the release of the "suspects" was being discussed by the Cabinet, said nothing of that passage to his Colleagues.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken. The letter itself was placed before the Cabinet.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, that the right hon. Gentleman now said that the whole letter—passage and all—was before the Cabinet. If that were so, they were getting a little deeper into the matter. Then this passage, which promised the support of the Irish Party to the Government, was before the Cabinet when they decided to release the prisoners. In that case, the whole Cabinet must bear the reproach of allowing that letter to be read in that House with that passage deliberately suppressed. The Prime Minister had said that nothing was given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. But something was given— the order of release was given. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for the City of Cork said, in effect—"Let me out, and you shall have my support in the suppression of outrage, and my support of the Liberal Party in future." That was the substance of a passage contained in the 56 letter written by the hon. Member for the City of Cork and brought by his ambassador to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I think it right to point out to the hon. and learned Member that he is now going far beyond the distinct statement which the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire desired to bring under the notice of the House. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire desired to bring under the notice of the House the conduct of the Government with reference to refusing facilities for bringing on this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth is now going into the matter at large.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, he was under the impression that his observations were relevant to the immediate Question before the House, because his charge against the Government was that they were shrinking from the challenge which the Prime Minister himself had given. The House could now understand what sort of challenge it was that the Prime Minister throw down. He challenged the hon. Member to bring forward a Motion. He said— "Move for your inquiry, and we will accept your Motion;" but now he shrank from that challenge. When the Motion for the adjournment of the debate was moved at 10 minutes past 12 one night, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) got up to talk against time, and he admitted to-night that such had been his intention. If the Prime Minister had expressed his wish that the Motion should be brought forward, was it credible that the hon. Member for Northampton and other hon. Members opposite would have opposed the Motion? One word from the Prime Minister would have afforded an opportunity of bringing this matter on, and would have enabled the House to discuss with fulness a subject upon which the country felt very strongly—a transaction which he believed was a disgraceful transaction, and one the full and free discussion of which the Government dared not face.