HC Deb 04 December 1888 vol 331 cc1017-8
MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Oldham)

had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the Marquess of Dufferin, made at Calcutta on Saturday, when he said of the so-called National Congress— The members of the Congress are answerable for the distribution among thousands of ignorant and credulous men of publications animated by a very questionable spirit, and whose manifest intention is to excite the hatred of the people against the public servants of the Crown in India. The principal secretary boasts that he and his friends hold in their hands the keys, not only of popular insurrection, but of military revolt; whether this principal secretary, called by the Native Press "The father of the Congress," and the author of its most seditious pamphlets, is an Englishman named Hume, who was formerly a member of the Bengal Civil Service; whether urgent representations have been made to the Government of India by most of the Native Princes, and by the leaders of the Indian Mahomedans, as to the widespread mischief caused by the revolutionary speeches of delegates to a Congress which aims at destroying the security of English rule in India; and, what steps, in these circumstances, the Indian Government intend to take with regard to further meetings of the Congress?

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

, before the Question was put asked the Speaker, whether the allegation in paragraph 2, that an Englishman named Hume was the author of "seditious pamphlets," and the reference in paragraph 3 to "revolutionary speeches of delegates to a Congress which aims at destroying the security of English rule in India," were not irregular as containing debatable matter?

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the expresions were undoubtedly irregular, and appeared on the Paper through inadvertence. He had sent for the hon. Member who was to put the Question to point out to him the irregularities.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked, whether it would not be more suitable on an occasion of this kind, when objection was taken to a Question, that the Question should be deferred until the next day.

MR. SPEAKER

It was with that object that I sent for the hon. Member.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)

Do I understand that I am to defer answering the Question?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman has not asked it.

Subsequently.

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

desired to make an explanation.

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that the hon. Member could not make any statement on the subject.