The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-08 00:00:00

THE ADDRESS.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Sexton's araeudment to
the Address was resumed by
Mr. Healy, who discussed the cases of Mr. Bolton
and Mr. French, insisting that the course of the
(;overnment in regard to both had been dictated by
fear of the discreditable revelations which they could
make, and he concluded by declaring that the Irish
members ought to miss no opportunity of ignominiously
kicking out a cruel awl hypocritical Government.
Mr. O'Donnell inveighed against the policy of the
Government with respect to the repression of crime in
la eland, and taunted them with conniving at the
acquittal of Messrs. Cornwall and French.
Lord Lymington, while not sympathizing with the
charges of the Irish members, heard with dismay that
the Government intended to reinstate Mr. Bolton, and
insisted that the powers conferred by the Crimes Act
should only be carried out by persons who were above
suspicion.
Mr. Commins repeated the allegations which had been
made as to jury packing, and asked why the Govern-
ment did not try the experiment of arraigning pri-
soners before three judges without a jury.
Mr. Corbet and Mr. O'Kelly spoke in support of the
amendment,
Sir P. O'Brien continued the discussion, and Mr. T. P.
O'Connor protested against the silence of the new Chief
Secretary and other members of the Government.
Sir W. Harcourt, in reply, alluded to the length to
which the debate had been carried, notwithstand-
ing the understanding that had been come to
on the previous night, and failed to see why tho
new Chief Secretary should be called upon for any
explanation as to the past administration of justice in
Ireland. As regarded the alleged manipulation of
juries, he reminded the House that in the debate on the
Maamtrasna trials, no suggestion of jury packing was
made. The Government had made a defence against
the charges brought against them which they deemed
sufficient, and it was for the public outside to judge of
its sufficiency.
After some remarks from Mr. M'Carthy, Mr. J. Red-
mond, Mr. Warton, and Mr. Callan,
Mr. Parnell, alluding to the complaints of the length
of the debate, protested that the right of the Irish
peasant to live free from the fear of persecution under
the judicial system of 1882 was more precious in the
eyes of the Irish members than the pretended extension
of a sham constitutional right. No grievance had sunk
more deeply into the minds of the Irish people than the
practice of packing criminal juries with Protestants,
and their lives and liberties had been seriously en-
dangered thereby. He commented in detail on the
various cases cited in the debate, and on French's letter
he founded a charge against the Goverom.ot of em-

,

•Ji,))ing secret agents to manufacture crime. lit Air.
i'revelyan's administration he said it showed a determi-
natic:n to make the renewal of the Crimes Act certain
and inevitable.

A division was then taken, and the amendment was
negatived by 140 to 34.
_ _ _

Gora next moved his amendment, expressing
regret that the Government had not adequately pro-
tected Mcntsioa from the attacks of the Boer free-
booters. In support of it he analysed the last Blue-
book at some length, quoting numerous passages which
illustrated the apathy and vacillation of the Colonial
office, and contended that the delay in notifying to
the freebooters that they would be expelled from the
I;echuana territory by force if necessary had greatly
increased the difficulties of the settlement. Specially
he blamed the "dilatory Lord Derby" for his supine-
ness, and for his neglect of the pressing advice of his
Lord Haigh Commissioner.
Mr. Ashley, in reply to the arguments of Mr. Gorst,
contended that the Government had complied with all
the demands of Sir Hercules Robinson, and had pro-
vided all the force which he had asked for. He denied
that there had been delay, and could not understand
upon what grounds it was asserted that the Government
had not taken measures for deialing with the freebooters.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach complained that in spite of
the protectorate which had been established the Govern-
ment had failed to carry out their intentions. He also
complained that the Government had not stated what
precise measures were to be taken in the future, and
asked for some further assurance that these freebooters
would be punished, and removed hy force if necessary.
Mr. Chamberlain, dealing with the charge of delay,
dwelt on the difficulties which had hitherto surrounded
the Bechuana question owing to race differences and
aatagonisms in the Cape Colony. But by the delay
which had occurred the unanimous assent of the Cape
Colony had been obtained for the course which the
Government meant to pursue. This he explained to be
that in the event of the negotiations with the Boers,
which the Government was empowered to enter into
with the freebooters on Montsioa's territory not being
successful—as he feared they wodd not be—Sir C.
Warren was distinctly instructed to remove them by
force, and to replace Montsioa in possession of his terd-
tory.
After this Mr. Gorst withdrew his amendment, and
the Address was agreed to. The Report being then
brought up, after the usual formalities, the debate on it
was adjournod.
The House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.