Slike strani
PDF
ePub

to their decision. The fact that public meetings had been held in Wrexham and the district showed the general disappointment which had been felt at the decision of the Committee; and he knew that he could speak for the promoters of the Bill as to the great disappointment which they had felt. It had been moved by the noble Duke that the Bill should be referred to a fresh Committee; and he (Lord Wenlock) could not help thinking that that was the only solution. The old Committee had lost one of its Members by death, and that offered additional facility for the appointment of a fresh Committee. He did not wish to impugn the reasons on which the Members of the Committee acted; but for the promoters and for himself he should feel it very unsatisfactory if the Bill were to go back before the same Committee. They would feel bound to justify their former decision; and if they passed the Bill they would only stultify the opinion they came to before. Therefore, he hoped that their Lordships would support the Motion of the noble Duke. He need hardly say that the British public had the fullest confidence in their Lordships' House; and he could only say that that evidence had been shaken by the manner in which the Committee had arrived at their decision. He appealed to their Lordships' sense of justice, and to the knowledge of the magnitude of the interests involved that they now possessed, and trusted that they would support the Motion of the noble Duke.

with that decision, it seems to me to be establishing a precedent of a very dangerous character, and one which, if we do not take care, may lead to very injurious consequences indeed. And I may say, and I cannot help noticing, that it is unfortunate that the Motion and the support of it comes from parties distinctly interested in the matter. In the instance quoted, and almost the only one in support of it, is that one which is mentioned with regard to the Thames Watermen and Lightermen Bill. In that case, the Motion for a re-committal of the Bill was moved by the then Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Campbell), who had inquired into the case, and he was dissatisfied with the course adopted. His Motion was to refer it back to the Committee, in order to hear further evidence. From what passed in the House, however, in the remarks from the different Members of the Committee, it was thought not to be expedient to refer it back to the same Committee; and it was, therefore, referred back to another Committee. But the question was brought forward before the House in a very different manner from the way in which this question has been introduced, which, in my opinion, is one which requires very careful handling. There is one point to be taken into consideration, and that is the action of the promoters of the Bill. When the Committee said that they were ready to allow the Bill to pass in a certain form, the promoters said that it would be useless for them unless they had the entire provisions of the Bill; and they, therefore, desired to withdraw the Bill. There was practically a withdrawing of the Bill by the promoters themselves; and if the action had been taken upon the withdrawal of the Bill, the Motion for its

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): My Lords, I feel that this is a very difficult question. There is no doubt that it is most important that decisions of Committees of this House should be supported. In this case we have a most distinct statement from the Chairman of the Com-re-committal could not have very well mittee, and by another Member of that Committee, of the manner in which they were satisfied with regard to the decision to which they came; and it is a very difficult matter for us to decide how we are to treat questions of this sort, which are brought forward in the manner in which this question has been put before the House. If because those persons, who are interested in a particular measure, and are dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee, are to come before the House and ask a Bill to be re-committed because they are dissatisfied

Lord Wenlock

been made. The Committee came to the conclusion that, after that statement, it was more desirable not to put the parties to further expense, and then they decided on the terms with which these gentlemen are not satisfied. Upon that a Motion is made for the Bill to be recommitted. There may be an impression in the minds of many a noble Lord that further evidence should have been heard; but whether that was so or not I shall not discuss. I confess, for my own part, taking the manner in which the question has been brought before the House and

the consequences, if this Motion is to be adopted, that persons interested in a measure who are not successful, are to seek to re-commit a Bill by bringing it before the House itself, it is, I think, under these circumstances, that it would be attended with such danger that I shall not be disposed to vote with the noble Duke.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am quite as desirous as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to support a Committee of this House, and I am sensible that a great deal of inconvenience would result to the House if Motions were made by persons interested, merely because they were dissatisfied with the decision of a Committee, or, I will add, by anybody else, who chose to re-open the question by referring the matter back to a Committee. But the very importance of preserving the public respect for, and confidence in, the decisions of the Committees of your Lordships' House makes it equally necessary to attend to any representations which may be made, if by inadvertence-and I do not doubt the very best and most upright intentions there has been a deviation in substance from the rules which, according to the established principles of justice, ought to regulate the proceedings of your Lordships' Committees. Now, the short ground on which it appears to me that an error of that kind has been inadvertently made-and, as I say, I do not doubt with the very best intentions-on this occasion is this. The promoters had opened their case, and when they had produced some evidence in support of their Bill, but with the greater part of their witnesses remaining unexamined, the proceedings were suddenly stopped by the Committee declaring a foregone conclusion, and that, my Lords, not against the whole scheme, but in favour of a certain part of the scheme which, as I recollect, related to some branch railways to connect the lines with the sea, and against those other parts of the scheme which related to other short railways by which the line was to be fed. I think that was a most unfortunate course. It is said in the Paper which has been circulated by the promoters of this scheme, that they had not had any opportunity of producing the greater part-if, indeed, they had produced any part-of the evidence in sup

port of those portions of the scheme which the Committee were disposed to reject. I am unable to distinguish this case on any principle which I can understand from the precedent referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster). The only distinction is, that here, before the promoters had had an opportunity of submitting their whole evidence in support of the scheme, the scheme was suddenly rejected; whereas, in the other case, the same thing happened to the opponents. The opponents had called some evidence, after which they were stopped by the Committee, who decided against them. This House thought that was a mistake which required correcting, and not only did this House think so, but the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), who used arguments as strong as those of any other person on that subject, said

"A chief consideration in this matter was

the effect it would produce on the public at large, as to the character of their Lordships' proceedings. It was impossible, after what they had heard from the Members of the Comwithout hearing the counsel for the opponents, and he did not wonder, therefore, that they should have complained."-[3 Hansard, cliii. 1621.]

mittee, to doubt that the Committee had decided

My noble Friend said that the Motion on that occasion was made by the then Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Campbell); but on what principle? Not because he took an interest on the one side or on the other side; but because it was important to preserve the regularity of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and not to have decisions pronounced until the parties were heard. This is what he said

"He regarded this Motion as very similar to what was well known in the Courts of Law

namely, sending back an award to be reconsidered by the arbitrator;

and then he gave his reasons for altering the original form of his Motion, which was to re-commit the Bill to the same Committee. He said

"When he heard one Member of the Committee say that the onus was entirely on the petitioners and another, that his mind was made up, and a third that he had conclusively made up his mind, he (Lord Campbell) was disposed to change his Motion and move

for a new Committee."-[Ibid. 1623.] The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, at the same time, said this—

"After what had fallen from the noble Lords | very greatest danger, to my mind, to who formed the Committee, it would be useless this and all future Governments in Ireagain to refer the Bill back to them, and he land-require some further light thrown therefore should support the appointment of a new Committee."-[Ibid.] upon them than has yet been the case, and cannot be explained away by a simple denial; and the greatest doubts and anxiety exist in England, and the gravest danger may arise in Ireland, if what has been called "the information" placed at the disposal of the Government by the Land League, and "the information placed at the disposal of the Land League by the Government," cannot be more clearly defined than it is at Mr. Gladstone that there has been no present. The country has been told by compact and no terms of compromise; that the Government have given nothing and have received nothing in return; but, at the same time, the infor

I think, under these circumstances, it is no disrespect at all to the Members of the Committee, in the present case, to adopt the same course of proceeding. I think it is not so invidious as to call upon them to hear the case again. Of course, I very much regret to have to take this course; but under the circumstances I see no other way than to recommit this Bill to another Committee. LORD METHUEN: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and

learned Lord (Lord Selborne), and from four or five of your Lordships, I do not think it would be for the public interest

that I should divide the House.

Motion agreed to; Bill re-committed accordingly: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO-
PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-RE-
LEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS

CONFINED UNDER THE ACT.

MOTION FOR PAPERS.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in rising to draw attention to the recent release of "suspects" imprisoned under the Coercion Act, and to move for any Correspondence connected therewith, said: My Lords, I had some time ago a Question upon the Paper relating to this subject; but I withdrew that Question, as I was informed that the Prime Minister had stated, in "another place," that he would take into consideration whether or not he would be able to produce the Correspondence, or some of it; and I thought if further information was likely to be forthcoming, it would be better to wait until that information was before your Lordships' House. But now I am informed that the Prime Minister has refused to produce that Correspondence; and I think both your Lordships and the country require, and it is most desirable, that some further information should be given upon this most serious matter. Indeed, I may say it is positively necessary, because the extraordinary and dangerous disclosures which have been made-disclosures which have been most damaging to the Government, and which are a source of the The Lord Chancellor

mation received was sufficient to induce Her Majesty's Government to entirely reverse all their former policy, to make them sacrifice their Chief Secretary, and also to bring in a Bill amending an Act which was of late so sacred in their eyes that they absolutely passed a Vote of Censure on your Lordships' House for having appointed a Committee to inquire into its administration. What are the disclosures which I have referred to ? The first of them was caused by Mr. Parnell reading a letter in "another place," originally written by him and addressed to Mr. O'Shea for the purpose of being laid before the Cabinet. Mr. Parnell read that letter with a view of clearing himself before the people of Ireland, and he omitted or suppressed the most important paragraph in that letter, because it would, if it had been read, have had exactly the contrary effect, for it would have proved that he was prepared, upon certain terms, to place his services at the disposal of the Government. The Members of the Cabinet who sat by and heard that letter read must have been well aware that the most important paragraph was omitted, a paragraph so important that it caused Mr. Gladstone to write a letter to Mr. Forster upon it, saying that it would not be right for him to accept Parliamentary support from the Land League, at any rate, at the present time; but not one of them thought fit to rise in his place and draw attention to the omission which had been made; and unless Mr. Forster had produced a full copy of the letter, feeling that his

Government, if such a promise was given, provided there were no promises given in return by the Government; and, therefore, I think it seems clear that though this one of his stipulations was complied with, it was complied with in such a manner as to leave the impression upon Mr. Forster's mind that it was impossible, as a man of honour, that he could accept it, or remain in the Government that did accept it. Again, another of the stipulations made by Mr. Forster, by which he could have continued in his position as Chief Secretary and opened the prison doors, was that further powers should be granted by Parliament for the prevention of crime in Ireland; and this was referred to by the noble Earl the Leader of your Lordships' House (Earl Granville), when he stated, in a touching speech which he delivered when a heavy and deep sorrow cast a gloom over this country, in moving the adjournment of your Lordships' House, in consequence of those awful murders in the Phoenix Park, that a Bill for strengthening the administration of justice in Ireland had been before the Cabinet during the week previous to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, and that with a few finishing touches it would be introduced in the week following. I would now ask the noble Earl, whether the Bill he then alluded to is the same Bill, or anything like the same Bill-the Bill for the Prevention of Crime, which, I am told, will shortly come before your Lordships' House, because, if that Bill is the same, surely it would be amply sufficient and strong enough to fulfil all the expressed wishes of Mr. Forster, and, therefore, to allow him to retain his position in the Government and still be able to

honour was imperilled, no one would have had any idea of the overtures made by Mr. Parnell to the Government; and it is not difficult to understand why the Government thought it better not to correct that omission. I do not wish to say anything to which Members of the Cabinet may take exception; but, at the same time, I think it very extraordinary that they should have sat by and allowed the letter to be read with that most important paragraph omitted. But Mr. Forster laid down three stipulations, upon any one of which, if it had been fulfilled, he said he would have been prepared to remain in the Government, and yet to allow the "suspects" to be released. The first of these stipulations was, that a promise should be given by the Land League Leaders that they would obey the law, without any promise being given in return on the part of the Government. The second was, that Parliament should be prepared to grant further powers for the prevention of crime in Ireland. And the third was, that Ireland should have assumed such a tranquil condition that the suspects" could be released without danger. In my former Question I alluded to the "negotiations" which have taken place, and which, I believe, resulted in what has been called out-of-doors the "Treaty of Kilmainham ;” but I believe Her Majesty's Government have the greatest objection to call them negotiations. My reason for using that word was that I thought, and still think, it must be clear that negotiations did take place, as Mr. Forster, who conducted part of those negotiations, having had most to do with them at the beginning, called them by that name when he said, upon hearing that Mr. Sheridan was to be employed-set the "suspects" free. Therefore, if "I was very sorry I had had anything whata promise was given by Mr. Parnell ever to do with the negotiation, although all I without any promise on the part of the had to to with it was to try to get from the hon. Government in return, and a Bill, such Member for the City of Cork a promise not to as I have described, had been prepared break the law. I felt I would have nothing with Mr. Forster's knowledge and sancmore to do with it.”—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 791.]tion, two out of the three stipulations laid I ask your Lordships, if that promise was given, as Mr. Forster says it was, without a corresponding promise in return on the part of the Government, in the shape of what Mr. Forster called blackmail, what was his reason for leaving the Government, because he distinctly stated that he would have agreed to the "suspects" being released, and would have still remained in the

down by Mr. Forster had been fulfilled;
and I cannot understand, if that was the
case, why Mr. Forster should have re-
signed, as he stated that, if one alone of
those conditions had been fulfilled, he
would have been able to retain his posi-
tion in the Government.
We must,
therefore, suppose-and it is the only
reason I can see-that Mr. Forster was
under the impression—and who could be

to carry out the programme which Mr. Parnell laid down for them, and we want to know whether they can? I do not think, judging from the speeches which Mr. Brennan delivered on the 2nd of June, and which Mr. Davitt delivered in Ireland, that we can say that they, at any rate, are prepared to carry out the programme, or are ready to coalesce with the Government in the forwarding of Liberal principles. Mr. Dillon, in a speech which the Prime Minister described as "heart-breaking "—although, if there was no compact, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should have expected Mr. Dillon to make a speech in any other terms than those he had used so often before-Mr. Dillon de

a better judge?-that a compact had been arrived at, which, he believed, would tend to the encouragement of crime, and would seriously weaken the power of this and all other Governments in Ireland, with which, as an honourable man, he could have nothing to do, or countenance by remaining in the Government. That, as far as I can make out, is the only explanation of Mr. Forster's leaving the Cabinet. But it seems that further communications had taken place between the Government and the Land League-communications of a character which would make it appear to the mind of any unprejudiced person, not in the secrets of the Cabinet, that the Government were prepared to make use of what Mr. Forster called the "outrage-clared that he was not at all disposed to mongers of the Land League for the purpose of putting down outrages in Ireland; or what is the meaning of the remarkable passage in the minute taken down by Mr. Forster after his conversation with Mr. O'Shea, which minute he forwarded to the Cabinet, with his own remarks relating to the operations of Mr. Sheridan in Ireland, and which was to this effect

[ocr errors]

"That the conspiracy which had been used to get up Boycotting' and outrages would now be used to put them down?"

[ocr errors]

Mr. Forster goes on to say

"I said to Mr. O'Shea, it comes to this-that upon our doing certain things he (Mr. Parnell) will help us to prevent outrages."

denounce these outrages. Mr. Parnell, certainly, the next day, made a moderate speech, and attempted to explain away some of the remarks made by Mr. Dillon; but, at the same time, he led the House to believe that he had had no communication with that Gentleman; therefore, I do not see how Mr. Parnell could have known better what was in Mr. Dillon's mind than Mr. Dillon him

self. Of course, we have the statement of the Prime Minister that there was no compact and no compromise; and that is sufficient proof that, whatever had been the result of the negotiations, at any rate, in his mind it did not amount to what he understands as the meaning of the word "compact." But what we want to know is, what did it amount to? There is not the slightest doubt that it has produced the greatest and most marked difference in the policy of the Government, and some difference also in "To make use of exertions, strenuously and the policy of Mr. Parnell, as shown by unremittingly, to put down outrages and intimi-a former speech of his upon the second dation of all kinds, and to co-operate cordially reading of the Bill to which I have refor the future with the Liberal Party in for-ferred before as being shortly about to warding Liberal principles ?"

The question, then, which I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government is, have the stipulations contained in Mr. Parnell's letter been fulfilled, and are the Land League in a position

Mr. Gladstone stated that he acted on the information he had received; and, so far as the information is before your Lordships', according to the minute which was circulated among the Cabinet, which is all we know about it, the information he received was to the effect that if he would do certain things the Land League would do certain other things. Well, the Prime Minister has done most of the things specified; but we are not aware that the Leaders of the Land League have either the will or the power

The Marquess of Waterford

come before your Lordships' House, in which, though differing from the Government-as from his position in Ireland he was bound to do-about the necessity for such legislation, he yet spoke of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for Ireland, who had lately said that he (Mr. Parnell) was steeped to the lips in treason, in such admiring, and almost affectionate terms that it would lead one to believe he was soon about to join them, and become one of the most ardent supporters of the Government; but how this difference has been brought about

« PrejšnjaNaprej »