The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HousE OF COMMONS, Oct. 27th, the Speaker
took the chair at four o'clock. Notices of questions
were given to the Under Secretary for India, and to the
Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs by Mr. Hicks and
Mr. Hubbard. The questions refer to government
contracts given to foreign firms for a supply of rails fcr
an Indian railway, and also to the blockade of Formosa
by the French Government.
In answer to Mr. Bourke, Lord Harlington said that
the 'War Office had received a telegram from Lord
Wolseley, almost identical with those published in the
papers, which left but little doubt of Colonel Stewart's
fake; and he added a few words, which were warmly
responded to by the House, expressing the sense enter-
tained by the Government of the gallantry of Colonel
Stewart's conduct, and of the loss which the country
had sustained.

In reply to questions from Sir F. Milner, Mr. Daw-
nay, and others, Mr. Ashley announced that a telegram
had been sent to Sir 11. Robinson directing him to take
all possible means to bring to justice the murderers of
Mr. Bethell, whose names were known.

A motion by Mr. Gladstone, to give precedence to
the Address to-day and to-mprrow, gave rise to an ani-
mated conversation in reference to the Aston riots.
Mr. Chamberlain, asked by Lord G. Hamilton when he
meant to explain his share in them, said he had been
expecting that Lord B. Churchill would have the courage
to repeat in the House the charges which he had made
out of it.

Sir H. Wolff remarked that the right hon. member
bad spoken with his "usual insolence," but on a
reproof from the Speaker he withdrew the expression,
and ultimately Lord B. Churchill, amid much laughter,
said he would do his best "to draw the badger." In
answer to Mr. Healy, Mr. Gladstone said it was not
intended to interfere with the progress of the debate
on the Address, even if it were not finished by
Thursday.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Harrington's amend-
ment to the Address was resumed by Mr. Parnell.
Sir William Harcourt said that at the request of
Lord Spcmcer, who was anxious that the case should be
dealt with exactly on the same principles as if it had
been an English case, he had carefully considered all
the circumstances before the letter was written to the
Archbishop of Tuam, and had come to the conclusion
that there was no ground for interfering with the
courso of the law. 'Was it probable, he asked, that if
any other persons were put on their trial any jury
would believe Casey? And it was impossible to find a
verdict of guilty on his evidence. As to producing the
conft.ssions, that, he asserted, was contrary to the uni-
versal practice of all Governments, founded on the
most solid reasons; and after showing that it was out of
the power of the Government to delegate the function
of advising on the exercise of the prerogative to
shoulder other than those on whom the Constitution
had placed the responsibility, he dwelt on the serious
iLtiary to the administration of justice which would re-
sult from the motion.

Mr. E. Clarke, while recognising the anxious care of
the Home Secretary in the administration of justice,
ridiculed the idea that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
could have been concerned in such a conspiracy as that
which was charged against him. He severely criticised
the remarks made by the judge in passing sentence
upon Myles Joyce in presence of the jury which had to
try the other cases, and protested against the declara-
tions of the two boys being kept from the jury.
Mr. Labouchere, speaking in favour of the amend-
ment, contented that the dying dr-cla.rations of the two
boys had been improperly withheld from the jury, and
lie did not doubt that if similar circumstances had
occurred in England an inquiry would hctve been held.
He suggested that the amendment should be amended
by leaving out the words of general condemnation of
the administration of the law, and confining the amend-
ment to the special case under discussion.

The amendnient having been accepted by Mr. Harring-
ton, Mr. Gregory spoke against it, and was followed by
Mr. W. Redmond, who declaimed against the action of
the Government in refusing a further inquiry. Mr.
Mellor continued the discussion in opposition to the
amendment, and Mr. C. Lewis, speaking on the same
side, considered it highly improper for the House to
countenance an attack upon the Government when
they appeared to be doing all in their power to support
the due administration of justice.
Mr. Mitchell Henry supported the amendment, but
refused to join in any charge against the bona fides of
the Lord-Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary.
Mr. Macfarlane supported the amendment, while Mr.
C. S. Roundell censured in strong language the wicked
recklessness of the charges which had been made
against the Irish Government.
Mr. Gibson, in reviewing the facts reminded the
House that nine out of the ten men accused had in one
form or another acknowledged their guilt, and that the
evidence of the three principal witnesses, given at once,
had never been impunged, and on the whole he could
see no reason for granting an inquiry.
Mr. O'Brien supported the amendment.

Mr. O'Donnell, -speaking in support of the amend-
ment, expressed the determination of the Irish party to
continually harass the Government and its successors
until the subject had been properly and fairly inquired
into.

The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr.
lil'Oarthy.
The House adjourned at hAlf-past twelve o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF CommoNs on Tuesday, Oct. 28th
r.ord Randolph Churchill gave notice that he would
inuve an amendment to the Address censuring Mr
utianiberlain's speeches inciting to interference with
the freedom of discussion and justifying riot and dis-
order.

Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett gave notice of an amendment
coedemning the proposed abandonment of Khartoum.
;Liul Mr. Marriott gave notice of an amendment to the
iteport of the Address founded on the Egyptian papers
just presented.

Answering questions from Mr. Hubbard and Mr.
Ashmead-Bartlett as to the blockade of Formosa, Lord
E. Fitzmaurice intimated that the Foreign Office was
in communication with the French Government, and
in reply to Mr. S. Leighton, Mr. Ashley said that com-
munications were going on between Sir C. Warren, the
War Office, and the Colonial authorities as to the mili-
tary force to be employed on his mission.
Lord Hartington, in reply to a question put by the
Lord Mayor, said the Government had received no in-
formation of the fall of Khartoum.

The adjourned debate on the Address mad the amend-
ment relating to the Maamtrasna case was resumed by
Mr. M'Carthy, who argued for a reopening of the in-
quiry.

Mi. Gladstone denied that there was any analogy
between this and the Kilmartin case, and, arguing
energetically against the motion, he pointed out that
it involved a censure on Lord Spencer, to whose services
and reputation he paid a glowing tribute, which was
eceived with noisy dissents from the Irish members.
As to Lord Spencer, there was no man, continued the
right hon. gentleman, who enjoyed in the same singular
degree the respect, the confidence, and the affection of
the community; and when those who brought this
case before the House of Commons indulged in such
reckless and sweeping charges as had been made
against the noble lord and those who surrounded him,
they spoke to the House in a foreign tongue. When
such ~rave and tremendous charges were brought
forward, with all the authority attaching to statements
made in Parliament, he held that particular persons
ought to be held bound to prove them. With regard
to the grounds on which a reopening of the
case was urged, he contended that if the
House of Commons was to retry judicial cases,
not merely on account of errors committed by the
Crown, but on account of errors alleged to have been
committed by those to whom the persons charged bad
entiusted their uefence, there would be an end to the
settled administration of justice. Having referred to
the fact that the case had been tried by three juries, all
of whom came to the same conclusion, and that the)
accused were convicted upon the evidence of three wit-
nesses, whose evidence, consistent and unimpeached,
received both positive and negative corroboration, the
right hon. gentleman characterised the motion before
the House as most objectionable and most inefficient.
He protested against the institution of a Court of
Criminal Appeal for a single case, and especially against
instituting a court inferior in its means of action and
its powers of investigating the truth to the tribunal
which it was sought to override.
Mr. T. P. O'Connor characterised the speech of the
Prime Minister as the feeblest which he had ever heard
from him, and argued warmly for an inquiry.
Id r. Hopwood spoke in support of the Irish Govern-
ment, and Sir J. lll•lienna contended that the case re-
quired revision. .

Mr. Thompson and Sir E. "Wilmot also supported the
amendment, the latter referring to cases which had
happened in England in which a miscarriage of justice
had occurred.

Mr. Bulwer, on the other side, denied that by the
rules of law the so-called dying declarations could have
been used at the trials. - - -

Mr. C. Russell, while declining to join in the whole-
sale charges against Lord Spencer and the Irish Execu-
tive, coutessed that having been originally convinced of
the complete accuracy of the verdict, he had been pain-
fully and step by step driven to entertain doubts of the
, guilt of Myles Joyce and the men now in prison. He
was of opinion, therefore, that there ought to be an
, inquiry. As to the possibility of inquiry, he saw no
difficulty about it; if there was a will a way would soon
be found; and he suggested various modes in which
the Government might take action to satisfy the con-
science of the country.
The Attorney-General, after pointing out the inherent
, difficulties of such a question, deprecated the sweeping
, charge which had been made against the Irish Execu-
tive, and argued generally in support of the course
which had been pursued. Alluding to the plea of guilty
put in by the five prisoners he asked why, if they were
not present at the scene of the murder, they did not
say v, hete they ware at the time. Ikplying to inquiries
which had been addressed to him during the debate as
1 to the duty of counsel engaged in criminal cases, he
remarked that it was the general duty of prosecuting
, counsel to see that justice was done, but he agreed sub-
' stantially frith the theory that counsel for the prosecution
shculd bring out all facts. At the same time he contended
that that duty must be left to the discretion of counsel,
In reference to the dying declarations of the boys,
he pointed out that the statements made by them
had been made to the constables, and were repeated by
them when giving evidence at the coroner's inquest,
and were, in fact, known to the prisoners' counsel. He
denied that the counsel for the prosecution had acted
improperly, and having eulogised the action taken by
the Attorney-General for Ireland, he assured the House
that in similar circumstances he should have acted in
exactly the same way.
The O'Gorman Mahon repudiated all sympathy with
the attacks on Lord Spencer, but regretted that Lord
Elartington's promise of a full inquiry had not been
carried out.
After some observations from Mr. Callan the House
-dlviddd; and the amendment was negatived by 219
to 43.

_
Oa the motion of Sir H. Holland, the debate on the
Achitess was further adjourned.
The House adjourned at twenty minutes to one
o'clock.

The stoeltholde-rs of tri% International Navigation
Company confirms the news of the purchase by the
evinpany of the four steamers composing the American
L; u e between Philadelphia and Liverpool,