The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

TIIE IRISH CRIMES BILL.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, on July 18, on the order
for the third reading of the Criminal Law Amendment
(Ireland) Bill, the Earl of Camperdown commented
upon the change of front which the Gladstonian peers
had executed upon the Irish question. He warmly
supported the bill, and regarded its permanent
character as its beat feature
The Earl of Selborne maintained that the bill was
brought forward under circumstances which made it
necessary for the purpose of vindicating the supremacy
of the law in Ireland, and that its provisions were on
the whole well adapted for the object in view.
Earl Spencer complained that he and his friends
were more bitterly attacked by noble lords with whom
they had formerly acted than they were by their
natural opponents on the other side of the House. He
might have changed his views in regard to Home Rule,
but in had never changed his opinion that it was
essential to maintain law and order in Ireland, and to
eust in the supremacy of the courts of law. Past
experience had, however, shown that it was not
possible to win over the people of Ireland to respect
for law and order by a repetition of the Coercion Acts,
which had in the main failed. The Opposition felt
the responsibility of the present situation, but they
were convinced
.that it was useless to continue re.
pressive measures, which would only irritate afresh the
Irish people.
The Lord Chancellor expressed satisfaction that the
policy of silence had been abandoned by the Opposition,
bu thought their lordships would be disappointed with
the reluctantly-extorted speeches which they had heard.
After some observations by the Duke of Argyle and
Earl Granville, the Marquis of Salisbury insisted that
the Opposition, by their persistent resistance to a
measure which they were powerless to defeat, had
invested the Ministry with the right to ask what was
their alternative policy. He recognised the difficulty
of the task which lay before the Government, but it
was their duty to take the necessary steps for a
successful issue, and whether they failed or succeeded,
they must trust to God the issue.
The bill was read a third time without a division, and
their lordships rose at half-past eight o'clock,

A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
In the noun OF Commorrs, Mr. W. Long having
complained of the use by Dr Tauner of opprobrious
language towards him in the presence of strangers in
the-lobby on Friday evening, Mr. W. H. Smith moved
that in consequence of the disgraceful and insulting
words addressed by him to an hon. member of the
House, Dr. Tanner should be su.pended from the ser-
vice of the House and excluded horn its precincts for
one month. _ _

Mr. Sexton explained that Dr. Tanner's absence was
die to the fact that he hnd a prior engagement of a
public character in Ireland, and urged that the matter
should be postponed until he could be present. He,
therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Parnell declared that he should be among the
first to deprecate the use of such language as was
attributed' to the member for Mid-Cork, but he con-
tended that it was in accordance with all the precedents
and with the generosity which the House had alwiye
shown in dealing with such matters that the hon.
member should be given an opportunity of explaining
his conduct, or if he admitted the justice of the
charge, of making an ample apology.
Mr. Childers having also supported the motion for
adjournment, the Attorney-General pointed wit that
written notice had been given to Dr. Tanner that his
conduct would be brought under the notice of the
House at that sitting, but he was not only not in hie
place, but had made no communication or explanation
whatever to the House.
Mr. Gladstone thought it would be extremely un-
fortunate if in a case in which a haemonious judgment
might possibly be given by the members of the fLuse
a course were taken which would tend to create the
idea that there was a division of opinion. The accusa•
tion against Dr. Tanner was an extremely grave one,
and the circumstances mentioned by the Attorney.
General, if established, might be a very serious aggra-
vat,on of the offence alleged against the hon. member.
It was, therefore, the more important that the House
should know the whole case before it came to a de-
cision, and he advised the Government to assent to the
adjournment.
Mr. W. H. Smith, after this appeal, assented to the
motion for adjournment, which was then agreed to.
At the right hon. gentleman's instance it was ordered
that Dr. Tanner should attend in his place at half-past
four on Thursday.