§ MR. SYNANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Catholic clergyman of Cleator Moor informed the magistrates some days before the 12th July that a large body of Orangemen were to assemble there on the 12th, armed, and whether he sent a similar communication to the Home Office; whether the large assembly of Orangemen, armed with swords, spears, and revolvers, on the 12th July at Cleator Moor, was a lawful assembly; whether the magistrates ought to have acted on the information they received, or called upon the informant to make sworn informations; whether the magistrates ought to have provided a sufficient force of police and military to deal with said assembly, and disperse it, if necessary; and, whether forty-nine policemen was a sufficient force for that purpose?
§ MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What force, civil and military, could have been made readily available by the magistrates at Cleator Moor on Saturday last for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of life; whether the magistrates and the local police had been aware, for weeks, that a considerable Orange meeting would be held, on the 12th instant, at Cleator Moor, in the midst of an extensive Irish and Catholic population, and whether he will take official notice of the fact that the total force provided in view of such an occasion consisted of only forty-five policemen; and, whether it is understood that the coroner's inquest into the cause of the death of Henry Tamelty will include an examination of the conduct of all persons who used weapons unlawfully on the occasion, and of the statement that a member of the police force in- 1411 cited persons to fire upon the people; and, if not, whether he will cause the institution of a public inquiry on oath as to the questions specified?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWith great respect to my hon. Friend, I must decline, in so grave a matter as this, which must become a matter of judicial inquiry, to give any opinion on the legal bearings of the case. I have not the facts before me, nor have I authority to declare the law on the matter. I am asked, with reference to the magistrates, whether they should have done anything different from what they did? I have not received a full Report, and therefore I cannot pronounce any opinion on their conduct; but on the facts as they are, and as they appear to me, I do not see anything whatever to blame in the conduct of the magistrates. They provided a force adequate to separate the two mobs. One of the parties came with arms; but it is clear that a mob four times more numerous than the Orange party attacked them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThat is true; but the mere fact of men having arms is not in itself a ground for a violent attack. The carrying of arms in this country is not unlawful; and because I am walking along a road carrying a gun under my arm and not using it, that does not justify another man in unlawfully stoning me. I wish, as strongly as anyone, to condemn and deprecate the carrying of arms on these occasions. I have received a letter from the Chief Constable, stating that he is endeavouring to collect all evidence necessary to proceed against the criminals, and to identify all persons implicated in the attack. The letter also contains an absolute contradiction of the statement made that the police had recommended firing.
§ MR. SEXTONWith the view of clearing up one important point, I beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman does he bear in mind the statement of the Chief Constable that the first collision was provoked by one of the armed faction thrusting his flag pole into the face of a Catholic?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe possession of the flag pole would not constitute an armed faction. I have not yet got the full Report. This is a 1412 very grave matter. A man has been murdered. The transaction must necessarily become the subject of a judicial inquiry; and I am sure hon. Members will feel that in a matter of this kind I ought not to be pressed too much for particulars.
§ MR. HEALYThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that a man going armed does not entitle another man to attack him. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that it was not until Tamelty was killed that the unarmed people attacked the armed body?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTAll the facts are in the Report.
§ MR. SYNANWhat is there to prevent the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying whether or not this was a lawful assembly? On Tuesday last the Home Secretary defended—["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is debating the question.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI should like to answer the Question, because it is important. There is no authority which can answer the Question except a Court of Law. I have pointed out the extreme inconvenience that occurs from an opinion upon that subject given by successive Law Officers, and acted upon by successive Secretaries of State for 20 years, having been proved by a decision of a Court of Law to be incorrect. Certainly, after that experience I am not going to lay down the law.
§ MR. O'DONNELLCan the Home Secretary state whether the magistrates were warned that a large body of armed men of the Orange Association intended to demonstrate in the centre of a Catholic population; and, were they warned of the consequence and took no precaution? And will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity also of clearing away a misapprehension, as I trust it is, arising from one of his last answers? He now assorts that the conduct of the Catholic body, being more numerous, was worse than the conduct of the Orangemen. Will he state he had no intention of prejudicing the matter, nor of encouraging further bands of Orangemen to invade Catholic districts with the result of assassination?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI think the House will agree that is not a Question which I ought to answer. I 1413 have endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid awarding the blame between one party and the other. ["No, no!"] I have endeavoured to do so.