HC Deb 11 July 1893 vol 14 cc1276-81
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared, on behalf of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to explain on what grounds His Excellency, during the course of a recent visit to Cork, received an address from the Corporation of that city from which every expression of loyalty to the Sovereign had been excluded by a direct vote, and which made demands for the release of the dynamite prisoners and the restoration of the evicted tenants, whereas, on His Excellency's accession to Office last year, he declined to receive addresses offering him a loyal and hearty welcome as the Representative of the Sovereign from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Methodist Conference, on the ground that the addresses contained political allusions; and whether he is aware that the sole political allusions contained in these addresses were paragraphs referring to the attachment of the Bodies in question to the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland as it now exists?

MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)

I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared, on behalf of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to explain on what grounds His Excellency, during the course of a recent visit to Limerick, received an address from the Corporation of that city advocating Home Rule and an amnesty for all political prisoners?

MR. J. MORLEY

As I understand, the position of the Lord Lieutenant was this: The Lord Lieutenant refused the two addresses mentioned in the hon. Member's question on the ground that, though purporting to be addresses of welcome to him as the Representative of the Sovereign and in no other capacity, they contained matter of immediate Party controversy. During his recent tour His Excellency took the earliest opportunity—I think it was at Mullingar—of deprecating the introduction of references to matters of immediate Party controversy, and his request was, with one or two not very significant exceptions, duly observed. The form in which the address of the Cork Corporation was submitted was marked by omissions which the Lord Lieutenant regretted; but the subjects raised in it—namely, the works at Haulbowline, the evicted tenants, the abolition of the extra Police Tax, and questions of amnesty, were all such as fell within the province of the Executive Government, and the Lord Lieutenant, therefore, did not feel that he would be justified in refusing to receive the address.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered some parts of my question. I put the question specifically whether His Excellency had received an address from the Cork Corporation in which every expression of loyalty to the Sovereign, whose Representative he is, had been absolutely voted out of the address by a vote of the Corporation of 18 to 13. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Lord Lieutenant regretted some omissions. I desire to ask him whether His Excellency expressed any regret? As regards the two addresses refused in Dublin, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the substance of the two allusions called political on that occasion were as follows—

MR. SEXTON

I rise to Order. I beg to ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member, without notice, to put to a Minister a question as to the accuracy of some addresses presented by Public Bodies sometime ago of which he can know nothing?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The right hon. Gentleman has stated—

MR. SPEAKER

I see nothing irregular in the course the hon. Member has taken.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the two paragraphs to which the Lord Lieutenant objected from the Methodist Conference and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce were as follows:— To your immediate predecessor in the office of Viceroy—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is apparently referring to something which took place on the accession to Office of the present Government?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

That is referred to in my question. I asked a question with respect to these two addresses. The right hon. Gentleman has answered that the addresses were refused because they referred to Party politics. I now desire to ask whether Party politics consisted in the following statements:— To your immediate predecessor in Office as Viceroy we have felt it our duty to declare our conviction that the maintenance of the legislative union now existing between Great Britain and Ireland is essential to the prosperity of the trade and commerce of Ireland. We earnestly hope the Government will continue to administer the law with that impartiality and firmness which are needed to preserve to the people a sense of security and freedom in the exercise of their lawful occupations. I now ask whether the address containing these two paragraphs were declined by His Excellency; and whether the Lord Lieutenant accepted an address without demur, without protest, or without any expression of regret, from which every scrap of loyalty had been voted out by the Cork Corporation by 18 to 13?

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the question of amnesty, although it may not be a question of controversy between the Ministerialists and the Opposition, is a. Party question, and how he can reconcile the fact that the Lord Lieutenant would accept an address in which this question of amnesty was discussed while he refused an address in which the question of Home Rule was discussed?

MR. J. MORLEY

I take it that it would he impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to refuse to receive a Petition for the amnesty of political prisoners.

MR. GOSCHEN

Was if a Petition?

MR. J. MORLEY

It was not a Petition I admit; but I infer the fact that, as nobody would assert that His Excellency ought not to receive a Petition for the release of the dynamite prisoners as head of the Executive Government in Ireland, he cannot be precluded from receiving an address in which the wishes of those addressing him on that subject are mentioned. As to the Dublin addresses, it is rather late in the day to raise this question. In my own opinion, whatever that may be worth—and I do not know whether the hon. Member is in Order in asking an opinion—it is clear that the address which the hon. Member has read contains a polemical reference to two topics of immediate Party controversy—namely, the Home Rule policy and the policy of dropping the Crimes Act. I submit that His Excellency in refusing any address of welcome to him as the Representative of the Sovereign containing such allusions, was absolutely right. As to the various questions put to me by the hon. Member, who says that all expressions of loyalty had been carefully deleted from the Cork address—although this is not strictly accurate—what is true is that some gentlemen in the Cork Corporation moved to insert a paragraph expressive of the welcome they extended To the Lord Lieutenant as the Representative of our gracious Majesty the Queen, and we take this opportunity of expressing our devoted loyalty to her Throne and person. It is quite true that the majority of the Cork Corporation did not think it necessary. [Ironical laughter] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. For my own part, I regret that the paragraph was not put in; but to say that, because that paragraph was not found by the Lord Lieutenant in the address, therefore he ought to have thrown the address overboard, touching as it did on other topics which affect the Executive Government, is a pro- position which I, for one, entirely repudiate.

MR. GOSCHEN

I think the importance of the question will justify me in asking a further question. It is: Would not the loyal minority, or their Representatives, be justified in putting a question to the Executive Government with regard to the maintenance of any clause in the Criminal Law which they thought essential to the protection of life and property in Ireland, and would not that be precisely analogous to a Petition; and whether an address containing such a Petition would not fall within the category of cases the right hon. Gentleman has laid down?

MR. SPEAKER

I hardly think this is the occasion to enter into questions which may properly form the subject of an address to His Excellency. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be putting a rather argumentative question.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to tell us whether the Lord Lieutenant knew of the proceedings in the Cork Corporation before he received the address.

MR. J. MORLEY

I omitted to mention it because I really did not know.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

It is very important.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to ask whether it is not the right of the subject to offer, and the duty of the Viceroy to receive, an appeal to the clemency of the Crown? As the question of loyalty to the Sovereign has been raised to the prejudice of the Irish people, I beg to ask whether the enthusiastic welcome given to His Excellency in every part of Ireland has not given the most conclusive evidence of a spirit of loyalty to the Sovereign ever known in the history of that country?

MR. GOSCHEN

I rise to Order.

MR. SPEAKER

I must give the same answer as I did just now. I think it is not in Order to go beyond the immediate point raised in the question.

MR. DISRAELI

Did the Lord Lieutenant receive an address at Water-ford, and did he, in reply, promise that certain reforms which were asked for should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities? What were the reforms in question?

MR. J. MORLEY

I have not seen the address, and so cannot answer. I think it could hardly have been presented before yesterday.

MR. DISRAELI

It was on Saturday.