MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, with regard to the course of Business to-day, he thought that it would, no doubt, be greatly convenient to the House if an arrangement could be made to continue the discussion on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill throughout the entire day. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had a Motion down for 9 o'clock, which, undoubtedly, related to a matter of great interest and importance, one well deserving discussion, but which his hon. Friend would be aware could lead to no immediate practical result—namely, one with regard to a peasant proprietary; and he (Mr. Gladstone) felt some difficulty in appealing to him again, because he had already shown much kindness and deference to the House, and a readiness to alter his arrangements on a former occasion to meet the convenience of the Government. But he would suggest to him that, if he consented to waive the discussion that day, under the circumstances, he would give an additional proof of that deference, and would do still more to secure a kindly hearing for the question when he found himself able to bring it forward. He would also suggest that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition 45 should make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), in reference to the Motion that stood in his name also for that evening, and which related to the murder of Mr. J. W. Honey in Stellaland.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTENo doubt, it would be extremely convenient that the House should proceed this evening with the further consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has on one occasion recently given way, and I do not know whether I may fairly appeal to him again to take the same course today.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the appeal of the Prime Minister placed him in a rather awkward position. That was the second time that he had, with great difficulty, secured a first place for his Motion, and he was now appealed to a second time to withdraw it. The question was one of great interest and importance to a great body of agricultural labourers, who were not in any way represented in the House, and if the Motion was again withdrawn, they would certainly have some right to complain.
§ MR. SPEAKER, interposing: The hon. Member is proceeding beyond the limits of an answer to the Question addressed to him by the Prime Minister. He is debating the matter.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was only pointing out reasons for not withdrawing his Motion. He had not said, however, that he was not going to withdraw it. he was going to say, as one reason why he should not withdraw his Motion, that so much time was occupied in the discussion of foreign affairs, that subjects of this description could not secure adequate attention. At the same time, he was bound to say that the appeal of the Prime Minister placed hint in this position—that if he persevered with his Motion, he would incur the great responsibility of going against the feeling of the House, and of interfering with the wishes of the Government, and that he would probably thereby injure the question by preventing that kindly and patient reception which he hoped it would meet when it came on for discussion. He had, therefore, no alternative but to yield to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did so with a great deal of reluctance, and only on one con- 46 dition—namely, that the Government would really have the night for the purpose for which they asked for it.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that there were then only three hours left in the week for private Members. He gave way last week with great reluctance, and not at all in deference to the Government, but in deference to the personal wishes of the right hon. Baronet who led the Conservative Party. He would make this offer to the Government—that if he had an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion, he would promise not to take up more than 15 minutes of the time of the House, and, no doubt, Ministers, if they were moderate, would be able to compress their replies within the same limit. He did not understand the Leader of the Opposition to do more than make a suggestion to him.
VISCOUNT LYMIINGTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to the advisability of proceeding with, and devoting the whole day to, the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Eye—
§ MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order, and asked the Speaker whether there was any Question before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no Question before the House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped he might be permitted, in thanking his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) for his offer, to express the hope that he would allow it to hold good. He had no control, either by influence or in any other way, over the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who, he thought, was more careful than necessary to disclaim any deference to the Government. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On this Occasion.] He must leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Member and of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote); but there was this to be said on the part of the Government, that he did not think they would be able to take part in any discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member, for the reason that the Papers on the subject to which the Motion referred were, he believed, now on the Table of the House, and would be in the hands of hon. Members in three or four days.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was restrained from making any special appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), because he thought care should be taken not to endeavour to infringe upon the very limited time at the command of private Members. He had expressed his own opinion that it would be for the general convenience of the House if they were able to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. Beyond that he did not think he was justified in going.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would give Notice that he should call attention, at the Evening Sitting of that day, to the circumstances attending the brutal bayonet charge by the police upon the citizens of Wexford, while the latter were waiting outside the Mayor's office to hear the poll declared, whereby many people were injured. He should be bound to bring forward the matter that day, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave him an assurance that he would at once direct an inquiry to be opened into the circumstances under which the charge was made.
§ MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the case stood thus. The events which had taken place were undoubtedly of sufficient gravity to demand very careful investigation on the part of the Government. He had received a considerable number of telegrams on the subject; and he had received a Report, in reference to the proceedings complained of, from the Sub-Inspector present, which had been forwarded to him by the County Inspector. The most important information on the subject, however, was to be obtained from the Resident Magistrate who was in the town during the proceedings; and, until he obtained a Report from that gentleman, he could not come to any final decision in the matter, because he thought it extremely important that no hasty or partial decision should be given. He was afraid, under these circumstances, that he could not give the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) the assurance he asked for, either one way or the other. He wished to know whether he rightly understood that it was the intention of the hon. Member to move his Resolution on the subject that night, in order that he (Mr. Trevelyan) might be able to meet him 48 with such materials as he had at hand?
§ MR. HEALYYes, Sir, I shall. The position in which I stand is this. I will have an opportunity to-night which I may not have again. I have no desire whatever to obtrude the matter upon the attention of the House, if I am assured by the right hon. Gentleman that, as to the initiation of the riot, he will grant an inquiry.
§ MR. TREVELYANIt is utterly impossible I can say so until I get the Resident Magistrate's Report. I think, under those circumstances, the hon. Member will have another opportunity of moving for this inquiry, in case I am unable to grant it straight off. [Cries of "When?"] He will have other opportunities. [Renewed cries of "When?"] It would be grossly unjust, as against the police, to grant an inquiry, which, in itself, expresses blame, until I have the preliminary Reports.
§ MR. HEALYI would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as the bayonet charge took place on Tuesday last, and this is Friday, the police did not send this Report? I should also like to ask when another opportunity will arise if I forego the opportunity I shall have to-night?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Member would repeat his Question on Monday next he should be prepared to give him a full answer.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to know from the Prime Minister how matters stood. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) had agreed, out of deference to the wishes of the House, to postpone his Motion, in order that the Bill referred to might be proceeded with; but he was not willing to give way if the time of the House that evening was to be taken up by the Motions of the two hon. Members who had declined to give way. In such an event, he thought he understood that the Prime Minister would not press him, because there would be no object to serve in withdrawing his Motion on a peasant proprietary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he believed the state of the case to be this. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had made a sort of informal appeal to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), to which that hon. Member had not at present yielded, though he 49 had promised a limit of his observations; and the hon. Member for Wexford—[Mr. HEALY: No; Monaghan]—he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon, he should have said Monaghan, and it was very wrong on his part to have made the mistake—the hon. Member for Monaghan had heard the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) that he would be prepared to give him a distinct answer to his inquiry on Monday. he would not make any appeal—he had no right to make an appeal—but he was in hopes that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member would be inclined to trust to the future for the purpose which he had in view, if he should think it necessary to persevere in it. It was quite plain that the matter could not be adequately disposed of to-night; and he was bound to say that if the hon. Gentleman did not press his Motion to-night, he would have some claim upon the Government to endeavour to give him some assistance as soon as they could. Neither would he venture to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Eye; but he hoped that, under the circumstances of the case, he would perceive the convenience it would be to the House if he would withdraw his Motion. Unless he did so, however, the hon. Member for Ipswich would be entitled to the consideration of the House.