our duty as a minority-I am referring | cincts of this House; and, if so, perhaps back to a recent occurrence-to tender the right hon. Gentleman would tell us a respectful submission to the Order of what those precincts are? It is simply the House. But the right hon. Gentle- for information that I ask, and not with man will see that it is one thing to re- any intention of opposing the Resoluspectfully support the Order of the tion. House, and another thing to undertake to guide the House by making a Motion. My belief has been all along, and is still, that Mr. Bradlaugh - whether right or wrong in his own mind-is legally entitled to come into this House and take his seat. With that belief it would not be consistent, it would not be becoming, it would not be dignified, and I do not think it ought to be an acceptable service to the House that I, who entertain that belief, should be the person to move that Mr. Bradlaugh should be taken away from this Table, where I think he has come to discharge the duty which the law requires him to discharge. That is the ground, and not any indisposition to interfere with the proceedings of the House, nor any indisposition to assist and support the authority of the Speaker in the Chair, but a very definite conviction that has led me to see that it is clearly wrong on my part to undertake or to endeavour to guide the House; but it leaves me still fully persuaded that it is right and fit that I should respectfully submit to the House, and that I should tender, as far as I may venture to do so, to those who think with me on the general question, a recommendation that they should pursue a similar course.

MR. LABOUCHERE: I have not risen to ask the House to divide against the Resolution. As the Prime Minister has said, this is the logical outcome of the Resolution passed by a majority of the House the other day. It is very evident that we are here to carry on Business, and that it would be impossible to carry it on if Mr. Bradlaugh were to exercise what he considers, and what we consider, his statutory rights, and persistently to come up to that Table to take the Oath. Therefore, I am not going to ask the House to divide against this Resolution; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon to be good enough to explain what is the precise meaning of the Resolution, because I think many Gentlemen here do not quite understand what it is. Is it that Mr. Bradlaugh should be forbidden to enter the pre

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understand that when a Gentleman has been returned as a Member of this House, and from any circumstance is unable to take his seat in the House, or is restrained from doing so-as has been the case in several instances, and among them in that of Baron Rothschild, who was in that position for several yearsthe Gentleman so returned is regarded as an incomplete Member of this House, and as such is entitled to take his seat below the Bar. That has been the practice which has been followed in these cases, and Mr. Bradlaugh has lately followed that example himself, and even remained there during our divisions. It is obvious that Mr. Bradlaugh, remaining in that position, can at any moment, with great ease, enter the body of the House, which he claims to be legally entitled to do, for the purpose of tendering to take the Oath at this Table. I think it impossible that, so long as Mr. Bradlaugh retains that position, it is impossible for the House to have any security that its proceedings will not be interrupted at a moment's notice, and scenes which we all feel, whatever our opinions, to be deplorable may occur. I therefore by the Motion propose that Mr. Bradlaugh shall be excluded from the House-that is to say, that he shall not come within the door that is kept by the doorkeepers, until or unless he shall undertake to the Speaker that he will not disturb the proceedings of the House, in which case I can see no reason why he should not do that which other Gentlemen who have been returned to this House and have not been able to take their seats have done. In that way we shall have security against disturbance in our proceedings without inflicting any hardship on Mr. Bradlaugh other than that which is inflicted upon him by our objection to his taking the Oath.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, until he shall Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms do remove engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House.

prison under the Coercion Act, and un-ready died of this illness. One of his

der a Warrant that he was "reasonably suspected" of acts of violence or intimidation, or inciting to the same, together with the time and places of the offences, what course did the Government take? The hon. and gallant Member (Sir Arthur Hayter), at the direction of the Government, under the half-past 12 Rule, rendered it impossible for me to obtain the information which it was absolutely necessary for me to have in order to make my Motion. We do not know of what all these persons are accused; and I take it I have shown that the Government have not acted candidly in this matter, and are seeking to evade a full and fair inquiry into the subject. During the first reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, the Prime Minister, with a great flourish, said that all these arrests would be open to challenge on the floor of the House. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, when he made that statement, that he had in contemplation that Irish Members desiring information should be obstructed by a paid official of the Government? Many of the gentlemen arrested occupy respectable positions, and are honoured by their neighbours, some of them holding places of trust and responsibility in the local Municipalities and Poor Law Boards for the country. It is a perfect mockery to discuss the imprisonment of these men so long as the Government refuse us information; and I desire to move that the information be given. I think I have shown that I have especial interest in directing the attention of the House to the question of the arrest of my hon. Friend. When the Chief Secretary answered a Question put to him yesterday with regard to the health of my hon. Friend, he had received no official information on the subject; but, of course, the House could not be expected to liberate the hon. Member for Tipperary so as to enable him to continue the course he was pursuing at the time of his arrest. Now, I have had opportunities of becoming acquainted with my hon. Friend's character and constitution, and I know very well that confinement and imprisonment lasting for any time will be absolutely fatal to him. He is a man suffering from an illness which requires constant occupation in the open air to keep him alive. Several members of his family have al

sisters died this year of the same complaint from which my hon. Friend is suffering; and all his friends and his medical advisers know well that if the imprisonment of John Dillon is long continued it will result in his death, imprisonment crippling him in such a manner as will lead to his death within a short period. I now ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to keep John Dillon in prison until he dies? I ask him to enable us to show that he does not deserve imprisonment; and, for my part, I believe the House would recognize that fact, and would recognize that he was not deserving of the punishment of death which, practically, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant proposes to inflict upon him. I would ask the Government to re-consider the position they have taken up with regard to their refusal to give information as to the particulars of these cases. I do not want information from them where it is impossible to give it. I do not want information from them where they have not got it to give, or where the giving of it would inflict any wrong or injury upon any other person, or would be prejudicial to the administration of the law or this Act. But I submit that where the Government have no other reason than the mere fact that the House of Commons refused in this Act to direct them to give information, it is perfectly competent for them to consider each case in itself and, where no public wrong would accrue, to give such information as we ask for. I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move that this House do now adjourn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.". (Mr. Parnell.)

MR. GLADSTONE: It is my duty steadily to decline to enter upon the course to which the hon. Member invites us for reasons which appear to me perfectly clear and perfectly unquestionable. Parliament has thought fit, after long and full consideration, to intrust the Executive Government with powers of a character beyond the ordinary rules of the Constitution, for the purpose of preserving peace and order in Ireland; and Parliament has therein proceeded on the supposition that, under the peculiar cir

hon. Gentleman is placed? No; nothing of the kind. We had, even so late as yesterday, upon the Notice Paper a Motion which, however incorrect in the allegations which it made, was perfectly legitimate as to the mode in which it proposed to raise the question of Mr. Dillon's arrest. It was a Motion as follows:

tional

"That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Irish Executive in arbitrarily arresting a Member of this House without reasonable ground, and in proclaiming a state of siege in Dublin, is an abuse of the excepcoupled with the conduct of the Executive in powers conferred by Parliament; and, affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions, is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland, and to mar any possible

good results from the remedial proposals of the

Government."

cumstances of the case, it is desirable that the Executive Government should have those powers upon grounds apart from those on which they would or might be prepared to challenge the conduct of the parties who are brought to justice. They have established an exceptional method of procedure, to be exercised upon the discretion of the Executive Government. After a discussion upon the Amendment to the Bill which was proposed on the part of those who resisted the measure, that in every Warrant for the arrest of anyone under the Bill should be specified particulars analogous to those for which the hon. Member now calls, Parliament distinctly rejected that Amendment. I am not sure whether it was not tried more than once; but the deliberate judgment of Parliament was that the information should not be given. Were that information In this particular case of the hon. Memto be given, the effect would be that the ber for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), the hon. whole of these cases would be liable to Member for Longford (Mr. Justin be vaguely and generally discussed in M'Carthy) had given Notice of a Mothis House, and the House would be- tion, and no doubt he would in his come partners in the responsibility which speech have stated the specific grounds Parliament requires the Government to on which he would have founded the assume whole and undivided. For that charge which he embodied in his Notice reason it was that the Government did of Motion. The Executive Government not think it right that occasions when would then have been put on its trial; the House might be exhausted, with but and it would have been the right and few Members in attendance, should be the duty of the hon. Member for the made use of for the purpose of making City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and those Motions with a view to the production who thought with him to place the of this information, as I may call it, Executive Government on its trial in wholesale. But the ground that we relation to matters of this kind. The took during the discussion was a differ- Executive Government would have taken ent ground. What we said was this- no step, whether by blocking the Notice "Our conduct on each and all of these of Motion or otherwise, to evade it; but occasions will be liable to be challenged. would immediately have challenged the Where you think you have cause to judgment of the House. But as to think that our proceedings are open to vague discussions ending in Motions for question, there will be nothing to pre- adjournment, when hon. Gentlemen vent you from raising the question in without any responsibility can say what this House. When, instead of a mere they please, the Government will decline discussion at large upon the merits of to allow false issues to be raised, and to a case, you are prepared to make a abandon the position in which Parliacharge against the Executive Government has placed them by intrusting ment, then the Executive Government will be prepared to meet you upon that charge.' But the hon. Gentleman does not make a charge against the Executive Government. He makes a speech upon the subject, but does not embody in a Motion the allegations which he travels over in his speech, and he concludes with a Motion that the House do now adjourn. Is that course necessary owing to the position in which the

Mr. Gladstone

them with exceptional powers for the maintenance of the law for the protection of life and property in Ireland. I have now stated distinctly the path in which we are prepared to walk; but in the path opened to us by the hon. Member for the City of Cork we decline to walk, for it would be a cowardly attempt on our part to divide our responsibility with the House, and to shift a portion from ourselves on to the shoulders of