CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS IN BELFAST—REMEDIAL MEASURES.

HC Deb 01 September 1886 vol 308 cc991-1053

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

I beg to move to amend the Address by adding at the end these words— And humbly to represent to Her Majesty that certain circumstances, accountable for the recent outbreak, prolongation, and repeated renewals of riots, raids for plunder, and conflicts with the Forces of the Crown, in Belfast, dictate the necessity for the prompt adoption of special measures for the maintenance of social order there, and that the most imperative and urgent of these measures are, the re-establishment of Her Majesty's authority in the district from which the Constabulary Force has been expelled by the rioters, the limitation of all powers of control over the Forces of the Crown, in times of public emergency, and adjudication upon cases of persons charged with offences against social order, to magistrates directly responsible to Her Majesty' Government, and the increase of the local Constabulary Force to such a strength as may enable it to deal with, any probable contingency, until Parliament, on consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, can proceed to the application of adequate permanent measures for the protection of life and property in certain quarters of Belfast. It has been suggested that the discussion upon this Amendment, which I hope the House will admit has not been conceived and is not expressed in any contentious spirit, might have the effect of provoking fresh outrages and disorder in Belfast. Sir, I am not willing to abandon my Constitutional function and my public right in view of any such suggestion. My constituents for the last three months, off and on, have had their houses wrecked and plundered, and their lives and properties placed in danger; and it certainly is startling to me to find the suggestion that, after three months of a carnival of riot and murder, the Representative of a division of Belfast in this House is to be silent because the tender susceptibilities of the people, who for the last three months have been wrecking houses and breaking heads, would be hurt by a calm and serious debate in this House. However, I do not apprehend at present any fresh outbreak of disorder. The Mayor of Belfast, a friend of the noble Lord the Leader of this House, has, after three months of dallying with riot, at last, the day before yesterday, issued a proclamation declaring that the time had come for the restoration of order. Well, I should have thought that the time had long since come for maintaining law and order. Well, Sir, these riots were conceived, generated, and prosecuted in the interests of the present Government; and the ministers and fuglemen of disorder in Belfast are not likely to embarrass their friends. I, therefore, hold that for patent political reasons there is not any danger that a debate in this House at the present moment on these great and terrible events is likely to result in any recrudescence of disorder. It is also suggested that the debate on this Amendment will anticipate, in some degree, the work of the Commission of Inquiry. I submit that there are features of this question which are of instant urgency; and the House will agree with me, before I have gone much farther, that there are matters with which the Viceregal Commission of In- quiry cannot deal at all, and there are other matters in regard to dealing with which the Viceregal Commission will be too late. The Commission has not yet sat. The inquiry will be prolonged. The Report will have to be carefully considered; and, though the Report of the Belfast Commission of Inquiry may not, like the Reports of other Commissions, require from the noble Lord "immense consideration," it will, I venture to say, at least require extensive study, and the greater part of a year must elapse before any practical proposal, either of a legislative or of an administrative character, can issue out of the proceedings of the inquiry. Now, Sir, so far from waiting a year, there are aspects of this case in Belfast that will not brook one day's delay. I have noticed one of them in my Amendment. I have called on the Government to re establish the authority of Her Majesty in the district from which the Constabulary Force has been expelled by the rioters. Now, an hon. Member on the other side of the House lately told the House that he had come here from the hunting field in order to assure himself that the Queen's writ would run in Ireland. I called the attention of the hon. Member, who has abandoned sport for politics, to this district of Belfast; and I can assure him, with regard to it, that the Queen's writ does not run in Belfast, because, by an arrangement between the Government and the rioters, the Queen's Police have been obliged to run out of it. One of the first acts of the present Government, after their accession to power, was to withdraw altogether the Constabulary Force on the 9th of August from Shank-hill, a district of Belfast which has been undeniably the cradle and nursing place of the riots. I ask the hon. Gentleman who has come from the hunting field not to return until he has taken some steps to assure himself, not merely that the Queen's writ will run in Ireland, but that the Queen's authority will be restored in this district of Belfast. Sir, in this district, I should say, without descending into particulars, the police have been stoned, have been shot, have been imprisoned in their barracks, by a riotous mob, have been beleaguered in their barracks for days and nights together, have been exposed not merely to the violence of the mob, but to their contempt by being placed under the guard of bodies of military, who stood tranquilly and inactively between the rioters and the police, while volleys of stones were being discharged at the windows of the barracks. Now, Sir, the present Government are chiefly concerned for the integrity of the Empire. They strongly condemn the giving up of the Transvaal. That is very far away, very extensive, and very hard to hold; and all that I ask them is to turn their attention to a part of the Empire that is much nearer, to give their care to the part that is much smaller and much more easy to manage, and to put an end to the spectacle that has existed since the 9th of last month by a Proclamation of Her Majesty's Government—that is to say, the spectacle of an independent Republic, outside the sphere of the Constitution, outside the authority of the law, existing for three weeks together in the riotous district of Belfast—a district where, if the law has any function at all at present, that function is accomplished by stealth. The police dare not wear their uniforms. The Government send out detectives to serve the ordinary processes of the law, and these detectives are glad to return with the safety of their lives. And, therefore, my first demand is, that we shall have a clear reply in this debate, whether or not the Government will persist in laying before the people of Ireland and the people of the Empire the evil and pestilent example of yielding to disorder by allowing those who have maintained it for three months together to establish an independent Republic which scarcely acknowledges, so far as I can discover, even the nominal military suzerainty of the Crown. This is an urgent matter. There is no more urgent aspect of the question. I have not heard, Sir, though I have made sedulous inquiries, of any non-Catholic person in Belfast who has been deprived of his work and robbed of his means of living as a consequence of these lamentable riots. I am glad of it. I should regret that any citizen of any creed whatever should be deprived of his means of living by reason of proceedings so despicable as these. But, Sir, I am aware that as a consequence of political eloquence and political intrigue, 600 poor Catholic working men and women of Belfast had been turned from their work as a consequence of these riots, and are at this moment on the point of absolute destitution. They have been insulted at their work. I have heard of a poor Catholic girl, almost alone in a factory, where the workers were of the other creed, who was insulted by having a mock crucifix placed before her on her frame whilst she sat at her work. I am aware, Sir—every reader of the public Press is aware—that these poor Catholic people, by reason of these fiendish passions, excited by politicians for their own ends, have been insulted in the mills and in the factories. I know that bailiffs have been pursued and have had boiling water poured over them. I know that girls have been pursued by—I am sorry to say—people of the same sex and stripped of their clothes in the streets. I know that Sir Edward Harland, the Mayor of Belfast, and a friend of the noble Lord, has allowed every Catholic among the 6,000 persons employed on the Queen's Island to be first insulted and outraged at their work and then turned out of the place altogether. ["No!"] Who says "No?" [Sir JAMES COURT (Armagh, Mid): I do.] I hope the hon. Member will prove it. My inquiries have led me to the conclusion that out of the 6,000 persons employed by Sir Edward Harland at the Queen's Island there were about 28 Catholics, and if you search on the Queen's Island you will find that these 28 Catholics have left. Why should they not leave? After repeated attacks by the masses of the non-Catholic working men on the few Catholics employed there, the outrages culminated one day by a lot of young men seizing an old man, and, after they had kicked him about they poured a bucket of boiling tar over him; and the correspondent of The Times jocosely remarked that after that "he cut a sorry figure." A Belfast paper, friendly to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, described the outrage as "a practical joke by Queen's Islanders," heading it "Tarring a Blacksmith." It wound up a graphic report of the outrage by an expression of wonder that the old man, who had prudently kept away during the height of the riot, should have been so reckless as to attempt to return to his work. Not only had the Catholic working men of the Island been disemployed, but the Corporation, the official concentration of the municipal life of Belfast, had dis- employed 28 Catholic scavengers and carters. No Catholic is ever allowed to reach a higher position than that of scavenger or carter in the employment of that estimable body. As I have said, these outrages, this tarring, this pouring of boiling water, these pursuits through the streets, this whole course of insult, violence, and persecution, had resulted at this date in the disemployment of 600 working men and working women in Belfast, who had been employed in the mills and factories where the majority were of the other creed. Now, Sir, the noble Lord remarked in a recent speech, and I quite agree with him, that these riots have been followed by the arrest of business and industry, from which he feared, he said, the town will suffer for many and many a day. Indeed, I fear it will. The agents of Belfast houses returning from the Provinces are reporting during recent weeks the great falling off in orders, and I am informed that Catholic traders in all parts of Ireland are so filled with pain and indignation at the treatment of these poor innocent, helpless Catholic working people in the town of Belfast, that they have determined to close their orders, and send no more orders to that town. Now, upon the double ground that this question is urgent, I ask the Government, I ask the noble Lord, what they will do—what declarations, what appeals, they will make upon their authority and influence, in the course of this debate, to induce the employers of Belfast to return to their duty towards their Catholic working people, and to save that town of Belfast, the prosperity of which I most sincerely desire, from the disastrous calamity with which it is now threatened? Now, Sir, the destitution of these disemployed working people is so vast and so keen that the Catholic Bishop felt obliged last Sunday to order a collection to be made at the doors of all his churches. But, Sir, the destitution of 600 families, representing 3,000 souls, is not a need that can be met by any act of public beneficence; and I must ask the noble Lord to apply himself in this debate to the case of Sir Edward Harland, and the other Protestant employers in Belfast, to atone, so far as he can, for the mischievous influence he exercised—to restore these poor people to their means of living, and thus save the trade of the town from the resentment at the hands of Catholic traders in other parts of Ireland of which it stands in danger. Now, Sir, these riots were unquestionably of the utmost gravity; but their significance has been much misapprehended. It has been specially misapprehended by the Prime Minister, when he said that the riots indicated an abnormal state of society in Belfast. They only indicated an abnormal state of society in the minds of a few unscrupulous politicians. The Prime Minister was also in error when he pointed at the riots as proof that the community of Ireland lacked a homogeneous and concordant character. Sir, 20 years ago there were great riots in Belfast, and in recent times there were riots at Hyde Park, at Amsterdam, and at Chicago; but I have not heard these riots cited by any casuist as a proof that the people of England, or Holland, or the United States are lacking in that homogeneous and concordant character, which, in the opinion of the author of the phrase, is requisite for the enjoyment of Constitutional freedom and harmonious political action. But, Sir, the riots in Hyde Park, and Amsterdam, and Chicago were promptly and effectually dealt with. They were not conceived by persons in authority as a means of political intrigue; and they were not dangled, and rocked, and nursed into fiendish activity by those to whom the Constitution has confided the preservation of the peace. Another misapprehension I have seen in a leading Tory journal in Belfast, which said that these riots had proved that the men of Ulster could not be cowed, and that the riots have struck a nail into the coffin of Home Rule. If by the "men of Ulster" is meant the rioters, I can only say that never upon any day, from the 4th of June to the 20th of August, was there made at any moment any sincere and intelligent atempt to cow them or even to subdue them. And, with regard to the nail in the coffin of Home Rule, all I have to say is, that in Ireland, at any rate, it is usual to wait for the death before you order the coffin. I can only say that the patient, Home Rule, is getting on as well as could be expected, and that the best doctors expect a speedy recovery. It is absurd, Sir, to endeavour to connect these riots in any special and peculiar sense with the ques- tion of Home Rule at all. Why, before Home Rule was even heard of there were plenty of riots in Belfast. This recent series of riots is the fourth that has taken place in the lifetime of the present generation. I may say that about the time of the previous riots, in 1857, street preaching was common in Belfast; and it provoked such disorder and violence that the magistrates decided if they could to suppress it. They requested the ardent Gospellers to give up street preaching; and all did so except a cleric well known to fame as the Rev. Mr. Hanna. He persisted in his offensive and insulting method of street preaching; but, in order to get rid of the question of obstructing the thoroughfares, he told his admirers who gathered to hear him on Sunday to leave a small space outside the crowd for the convenience of passers-by, and to call that space "the Pope's path." Well, after such a name was given publicly to "the Pope's path," passers-by got very little chance of passing without being hustled and insulted; and the consequence of Mr. Hanna's eloquence was an outbreak of riots, which lasted for a week, which led to the sacking of many houses, and the taking of many lives, and it required an army to put it down. Well, Sir, the Rev. Mr. Hanna is an impenitent sinner. He was not converted to the ways of order by the fact that he was sternly censured by the Commission of 1857. He was a leading figure in the riots of 1864, and he has been a leading figure in the riots of this present year. Punch, in 1857, in a parody on Lord Tennyson's well-known ballad, Oriana, expressed what it believed to be public opinion concerning this distinguished character— The row to you was owing, roaring Hanna. In the month of January this year, at a public meeting in Belfast, the Rev. Dr. Hanna, with all the fanaticism and more than the vigour of youth, appeared in the ripe maturity of his age as the chief inciter to riot. What did he say in January at a public meeting? He said— I have clear and definite knowledge that at this moment seditionists of Ireland are planning to confiscate all the property of the Loyalists, and to distribute it among themselves. [A laugh.] Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Ar- magh (Colonel Saunderson) apprehend that any of us is going to take hold of his estate? There was one prosperous district in the County Tyrone," the rev. gentleman said, "which was occupied by respectable Presbyterian farmers. A branch of the National League sat there on the Sabbath Day, and the subscribers to the National League balloted for the occupation of the farms of these prosperous Presbyterian farmers in succession to their present owners. That was an infamous and and despicable falsehood; it has been by this time admitted to be so. No one would venture at this date to utter such a lie. But it was like the American candidate who accused his opponent of having killed a man, and when he succeeded in the election afterwards, he was asked why he had accused his opponent of having killed a man. He said the corpse was good enough for the election. This story had helped to defeat the late Liberal Government, and to secure the return of the Tory Government at the last Election. It came nearer home. Will the House bear in mind the attack on the shipwrights of the 4th of June? Dr. Hanna, before the event, said— There is a Nationalist rivetter on the Queen's Island, and he is to be the successor of Mr. W. J. Porie, the manager of that magnificent establishment, while Mr. Porie is to be relegated to service in a blacksmith's shop in Connemara; while one Paddy O'Rafferty, who has been picked up in the slums of Belfast, is to succeed Sir Edward Harland as the next Mayor of Belfast. Dr. Hanna—will the House believe it?—so extraordinary is the inversion of the intelligent rules of administration in Ireland—is actually a member of the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. He is one of the two chief clerical firebrands in the North. He is in that respect the rival of Dr. Kane, and the Rev. Dr. Kane and the Rev. Dr. Hanna were the two gentlemen who were foremost in welcoming the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Belfast. On the 22nd of February last the Rev. Dr. Hanna rode to Belfast in the public procession in the carriage with the noble Lord, and the other Rev. Doctor rode in the carriage next behind. Not only in 1857, but in 1864, there were riots. In 1864, in the City of Dublin, the people had a great procession in honour of the inauguration of a statue of O'Connell. Belfast could not allow Dublin to express its mind in peace. I remember the occasion well. I was in Dublin at the time. There was a magnificent spectacle. The day was one of unbroken peace. No angry word was spoken. But certain politicians in Belfast—certain leaders, lay and clerical, to whom the pulpit is more the Orange drum than the drum ecclesiastic—could not be satisfied to let the people of Dublin express their feeling in regard to O'Connell without a counter-demonstration. They set to work to defame the memory of the popular patriot. They did it on the platform and in the Press. On the day of the demonstration in Dublin, an effigy of O'Connell, decked out in every kind of offensive attire, was carried through the town. It was then placed in a coffin, was again carried through the town, followed by strains of mock funereal music; and when the rioters had failed to obtain admission to a cemetery for the purpose of burying it in contempt, they burnt it on one of the bridges, and the ashes were strewn over the river. This exasperated the Catholics; it touched them on the tenderest point next to their religion—their devotion to their country and to the memory of the great man who had served them. The riots broke out; they lasted for a fortnight; houses were wrecked; lives were taken. It required an army of 6,000 men to restore peace and order. One of the notable incidents in the riots of 1864 was that the rivetters and shipwrights of the Queen's Island left their work in a great body, rushed down upon the docks, where there was a large number of Catholics, pushed them into the water, and when they were in the water fired upon them, and fired upon them with fatal consequences. Again in 1872 there were riots. What is the use of saying that Home Rule, and Home Rule alone, produced this disorder in Belfast? Home Rule had not been heard of in 1872. The Catholics held a political meeting. To avoid provocation of disturbance they held it miles outside the town; but there was a procession, and the procession was attacked on the way back to the town. The Catholics defended themselves; riots broke out for the third time in a generation. They lasted for a week. The usual consequences followed. Parts of the city looked as if they had been subjected to a siege, and again the services of 5,000 or 6,000 men were required in order to restore tranquillity. Now, after what I have said, will any hon. Member allege against me that these recent riots could be said to furnish, in any sense worthy of the attention of rational men, an argument against Home Rule? The truth of the matter is that in Belfast, as in every other great town of the world perhaps, but especially in Belfast, there is a permanent force which could be turned out at any time and for any cause in the interests of disorder, if leading men—responsible men in public life—think it consistent with conscience, with duty, and with respectability, to excite that portion of the population. If the cause were not Home Rule, it would be something else. It would be street preaching; it would be a public meeting to pay respect to the memory of a dead patriot; it would be the holding of a political meeting outside the town. It is not Home Rule; it is that there are certain men in public life—the Leaders of Parties—who occasionally, from time to time, seize or make some pretext or other to excite the men over whose minds and passions they have control against the minority of the people of that town. As often as these leading men think it needful or desirable to excite disorder, disorder will be excited; and, whether you pass Home Rule or whether you withhold it, you will have an occasional occurrence of disorder unless you take one or other of two steps. There are only two ways to meet it. The one way is to compel the public inciters to disorder to bear the responsibility of their actions. The other way is to do what was done at Hyde Park, to do what was done at Amsterdam, and to do what was done at Chicago—that is, to bring out the public forces, not for show, but for use; to bring out the public forces, not to subject one branch of them to humiliation and make the other branches stand inactive to be jeered at by the rioters; but, if occasion arises, to use it promptly, to use it decisively, and in the manner in which the police themselves say they would have been used if they had been employed in any other part of Ireland. The police and their officers say, what I most thoroughly believe, that if, without any resort to firearms, they had been allowed to use the baton as they would use it in any ordinary case of riot elsewhere—as it would be used in England or in any other country of the world, or any other town of the Kingdom but Belfast—and if they had been allowed to use the baton against the rioters at the outset, the riots would never have proceeded beyond the second day. I do not mean by this to direct, or even to infer any censure upon the right hon. Gentleman who lately was Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Ironical Ministerial cheers..] Oh, well, you will see in a moment. He provided an extra police force that was amply sufficient for every purpose of maintaining the peace; but that force was held back by its officers. The force was humiliated, was debilitated, and emasculated by the action of the local magistrates, who when they are not Orangemen themselves are for the most part sympathizers with the most violent members of the Orange Order, and who certainly sympathize to the bottom of their hearts with the political purposes of these riots. Well, there is one fact I wish to write firmly and deeply into the minds of the House. Ireland is a country of about 4,000,000 Catholics and 1,000,000 Protestants. The Catholics in all Ireland, except the four North-Eastern counties, in every considerable town in Ireland, except Belfast, are a vast majority. Does anyone allege that in the parts of Ireland, in county or town, where Catholics are in a majority, a Protestant is ever hurt in his person or his property, or is molested in his conscience or in his opinion by reason of his religious belief? If the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) lived beside me in Dublin, or lived in the place where I spent a great part of my life in the wildest part of Munster, where the population is intensely Catholic, his life and property would be as safe, his worship would be as free, and his conscience would be as unmolested as if he lived in the heart of Sandy Row. Why is it that these religious riots only arise where the Catholics are in a minority? Does anyone suggest that while the Catholics, without exception, refrain from these disgraceful excesses where they are in a vast majority, that they burst out in a persecuting spirit where they are in a minority? Belfast is a city of 220,000 inhabitants, of whom only 60,000 are Catholics, and when I place that fact before the House I leave the answer to the question I have put in their hands—namely, whether the Catholics are likely to indulge in courses leading to riot, when they are morally certain to get the worst of it? The answer will suggest itself at once to every fair-minded man. Now I have to ask you when these riots originated? They broke out with the murder of Patrick Boyd on the 4th of June. But they were generated upon an earlier day. I can supply the House with the genesis of these riots, in the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh. He spoke at an Orange demonstration in London on the 25th of March, and he said— Last December I met one of the most distinguished statesmen in this country, who happened to be in Ireland at the time, and told him some of the strength and determination of the Orangmen of Ulster. 'If you ask me (said the gentleman referred to) when the time comes I will come over to Ulster.' The hon. and gallant Gentleman replied that until his Friend did so he would never understand what the Orangemen were and what they meant. Therefore the noble Lord went to Ireland, upon the admission now so cheerfully made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to find out what the Orangemen were and what the Orangemen meant. "That statesman," said the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "was Lord Randolph Churchill." The hon. and gallant Gentleman told the noble Lord the Leader of the House that when his Lordship entered Ulster he would receive such a reception as he never got before, and never may get again. I may, perhaps, say that the noble Lord may wish that he never will get such a reception again in that city—the city of the riots—from 120,000 determined men who had assembled for a double purpose: for the purpose, first, of admiration of the noble Lord; and, for the second purpose, of bringing the conviction to his mind that there was in Ireland a great organized Institution, composed of men determined, at all hazards and costs, to maintain the great principle of loyalty to the Protestant faith on which their Institution was founded. What ails the Protestant faith? Who in the world wants to interfere with it? We can save our souls in our way, and we are quite willing for them to save their souls in their own way. Another speaker at the same meeting was more plain. The Rev. Dr. Potter said— As to the bayonets of the British Army being used against the Loyalists, first of all, let them present the bayonets, and then see what would become of them. This gentleman, a true member of the Church militant, stated that if the bayonets of the Queen's troops should be presented against the Loyalists, as the Arabs had found it easy to twist the bayonets, the Orangemen, with hearts of oak and fibres of steel, could easily manage to wrench them off their muskets. I would ask that the House should have some explanation whether such language as this is consistent with effusive declarations of loyalty, or with the Oath of Allegiance. Now, Sir, the riots were generated in the manner described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on February 22. The noble Lord will never forget it. He went to Belfast fresh from high Office in the State. He had recently been a Member of the Cabinet, a Minister of the Crown. He was still at the moment in the position of a Privy Councillor of the Crown. I suppose the noble Lord has mastered the Constitutional theory that the laws of this Kingdom are made upon the will of the electors of this Kingdom. The noble Lord went to Ireland to oppose the policy of Home Rule. Well, Sir, I hope I do not say too much in saying that the House had a right to expect from him—a man who had recently been a Member of the Ministry; a man who, no doubt, looked forward to being a Member of the Ministry again; a man who was still in the high, responsible position of an Adviser of the Crown—the House might, I say, expect from such a man, even in opposing the policy of Home Rule and in counselling his followers, that he was strictly bound to advise his followers to keep within the limits of Constitutional agitation. It was open to him to advise them to express their views by public resolutions, and to support them by the highest and most ardent language. It was open to him to petition the House, and to tell his followers to use their votes to send to the House men whom they could depend on, to whom they might give their aid in opposing laws of which they disapproved, and in passing laws of which they approved. Before I ask the question of the noble Lord, let me remind the House that he knew as well as any man that some time before a Gentleman, since known as Lord Iddesleigh, had visited that city and made an inflammatory speech. [Cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] I understand the meaning of that laughter. I admit that a burning utterance does not accord well with the character of Lord Iddesleigh as it ordinarily exhibits itself; but there seems to be something in the political atmosphere of Belfast which even the most phlegmatic Saxon could not resist. Lord Iddesleigh made a speech in which he told the Orangemen to prove their earnestness, and not to fire their rifles in the gaiety of their hearts. The body guard which accompanied Lord Iddesleigh, coming back from the place of gathering, made an attack on the Convent of the Sisters of Nazareth. [Cries of "No!"] Well, Sir, I can only say that whatever happened at the Convent when the body guard was coming back, this was one of the effects—the Superioress of the Convent—a foreign lady advanced in years and in very delicate health—died from the shock of the event, and that Lord Iddesleigh, on the following day, in accordance with what would be expected from him, wrote a public letter, deeply regretting the matter and expressing his sympathy. In similar circumstances, Sir, I have not heard that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has written any public letter. The noble Lord was well aware that his Friends in Ulster had, for two or three years before, been sowing broadcast inflammatory incitements to civil war. He knew that a system of war administration had been organized. He knew that lives had been lost in consequence of that policy, and that Lord Spencer—then admired by the noble Lord and his Friends—was obliged to issue proclamations preventing illegal interference by followers of the noble Lord. The noble Lord knew as well as any man in Ireland that he was coming into a political furnace, and notwithstanding this he proceeds forthwith to stir the heat. The moment the noble Lord had touched Irish soil the keynote of strife was struck. Previously an Orange Lodge in Antrim had stated that— Home Rule for Ireland would involve the land in the horrors of a civil war. Another Association had resolved— That owing to our peacefulness and abhorrence of agitation we have been ignored by some English statesmen; but if this be so, if we are compelled, we shall prove to England that her garrison has not degenerated since the days of the Boyne. Then, Sir, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was master of ceremonies to the noble Lord. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: No, no.] Sir, the hon. and gallant Member took it upon himself to describe the purpose and meaning of the visit, for he said— That the noble Lord has come to try and find out if we are ready if necessary to stand by our own cause; and I think that we will show that we are, The hon. and gallant Member and the noble Lord, when the time for the demonstration came, found it convenient to be absent. Then the noble Lord, having received the addresses and having stated, in his opening words, that he could claim kinship with Lord Castlereagh, the architect of the Union, and with the great Duke of Marlborough, used these words never to be forgotten— Oh, gentlemen, you have great privileges in this loyal North; they are privileges which are worth defending, worth demonstrating for; by heavens, gentlemen, it may be these privileges are worth fighting for. Sir, fighting with whom? Fighting in what defence? Will the noble Lord explain? The noble Lord was received by the two chief clerical firebrands of the North—the Rev. Dr. Kane and the Rev. Dr. Hanna—and in view of subsequent events, I wish the House to know that the action of the shipwrights of Sandy How and Shankhill Road on the 4th of June, the public Press has shown to be the cause of the riot and ravage, and also that the names of the Shipwrights' Lodge and the Sandy Row Heroes, are among the Orange Lodges which received the noble Lord. Here are some—the Belfast Invincibles, Sandy Row True Blues, Sandy Row Heroes, the Shankhill Purple Stars, the Shankhill Road Purple Marksmen—I say nothing of their recent displays, the Shankhill Road Heroes, the Duke of Abercorn's Invincibles, and the Duke of Manchester's Invincibles. The address was read by Dr. Kane, and Dr. Kane contributed his quota not to the maintenance of peace, but to put bad feeling between the two classes by reading an address in which he described the Catholic people as "ignorant multitudes, the slaves of a foreign superstition." Now, Sir, the noble Lord immediately on hearing this said it would be the vaguest and crudest of dreams to think that a great metropolis like Belfast, with all its inhabitants, would submit to Parliamentary government. I should like to know, Sir, on what theory the people of Belfast have any right to resist not merely the general will of the people of Ireland, but the general will of Great Britain? In the evening a meeting was held in the Ulster Hall, and the chair was occupied by the noble Lord the Member for North-West Down (Lord Arthur Hill), who said— We are called upon to uphold these liberties which are now threatened. We will do so in the same manner as they did long ago. The Orangemen of Ireland will, to a man, be ready to maintain these liberties. On the same occasion, Dr. Kane described Home Rule as a policy of surrender to the dynamitards and dagger-men and Archbishop Walsh—Archbishop Walsh, the great ecclesiastic and wise publicist who now occupies the See of Dublin! Dr. Kane went on to say— We do not recognize in this Parliament"—that was the Imperial Parliament—"or even in Her Gracious Majesty the Queen, any power to transfer us to the jurisdiction of Irish rebels, any more than to the Grand Turk or King Theebaw. I think, Sir, if any hon. Member presumes to rise in this debate, and endeavours to put into Parliamentary language the theory broached by Dr. Kane that it is the right of any body of men in Belfast to rise in arms against the law passed by this Parliament, and assented to by the Queen, for placing the legal force in the hands of the Irish people, I think any Member broaching that theory here would soon find himself in difficulty with the Chair. Yet the noble Lord having heard from Dr. Kane the doctrine that they recognized no power in that Parliament to pass, or even Her Majesty the Queen to assent to, a certain law, immediately described Dr. Kane as a trusted public leader, and he then went on to deliver a speech, in which he said— I am anxious to ascertain how you propose to face and deal with this crisis, that is, the contingency of Home Rule, and the resources you can reckon upon, and to what length your resistance may go. That was answered by cheers, and a voice—"To the death." A greal deal of uncertainty, the noble Lord said, existed in the public mind in England, adding— You will find things greatly changed since the days of 1848, when the Government served out arms to the Orangemen† Now they will have to find arms for themselves. Statements made to the Imperial Parliament as to the strength and numbers of the Orange Party are received with shouts of derision by Radicals and Parnellites. There is a general misbelief in England as to the amount of resistance the Loyalists can offer to Repeal. The process of resistance to this policy meditated by this combination primarily rests with you—upon you lies this most tremendous responsibility, and to you the issue means everything, honour, religion, and liberty. Aye, and I think after what I have read of 1641"—the noble Lord went back 245 years to find a case for exciting fear and passion—"it means possibly not only all that makes life worth having, but it means even life itself. Sir, is that the conduct of a Constitutional politician? He knew that the policy of Home Rule was about to be submitted to the House of Commons, and he knew that if the House of Commons adopted it, it would have had to be revised in "another place;" and he knew that it would come before the supreme Constitutional tribunal of Great Britain. Every man, and especially every man who has held the Office of Privy Councillor, could not but know all this; and yet he ventured to suggest to these excited men in Belfast, in this historic centre of excitement and riot, that the passing of a certain law by this Parliament meant the loss of honour, of liberty, of religion, and possibly the loss of life. All that he said to them. What was their remedy? He said— It is only by demonstrations the most imposing, by energy the most striking, aye, and by actions the most resounding, that you can rivet the attention of the Democracy of England on any part of public affairs. You are, gentlemen, I believe—and this is one of the things I care to say to you—you are in this great crisis the first line of defence, and the second line of defence; and the question I have to ask you is this—are you the same men as your forefathers were in 1798? Did the noble Lord know what he was saying? Did he know that he was referring to a period when Orange Societies sprang into life out of the massacres? Does he know he referred to the time when Lord Gosport, the Lieutenant of the county of Armagh, declared to the magistrates of that county that the Catholics of the North-East were certain to be attacked on every side, driven from their homes and from that part of the country, and were the victims of lawless banditti? Does he know that he referred to a time when, according to the evidence taken before the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords, the Orange Society and every member of it took the oath of extermination, and that, according to the current records, the oath ran thus— I, A B, do swear that I will be true to the King and the Government, and I will exterminate the Catholics of Ireland so far as in my power lies. [An hon. MEMBER: How do you know that?] How do I know that? It is true that the history of that oath has been disputed; but I know that witnesses testified to its existence, whether they knew it or not, before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords, I think, in 1798; and one Member of the Administration of the Government, who was either a Member of that Committee or was examined before it, and must have known what he spoke about, declared that the Government had no connection with the Orange Society, nor with the oath of extermination. Does the noble Lord know that I refer to a period when there was another Orange oath taken to this effect?— I, A B, swear I will support and defend the King and his heirs so long as he and they support the Protestant ascendancy. Sir, I am sorry to say it, that the whole speech of the noble Lord seems to me to have tended to excite the spirit expressed in the oath of extermination, and that the whole speech seems to have urged the principle embodied in it, because if the speech meant anything it meant this—that so long as this Parliament and the Queen would enact laws agreeable to the Orangemen of Ulster so long the Orangemen of Ulster would be loyal, but that as sure as a law was passed that they considered inconvenient it was their duty to rise in arms. I am bound to say that if that is not the meaning I cannot discover any other meaning of the noble Lord. But that was not enough. The noble Lord felt it necessary to make a more direct appeal to the passions of the Orangemen. He said— There is something very sad in the connection between the local clergy and the local branches of the National League, because from the peculiar practices of the Church of Rome, the most cherished practices, many of the priests who take part in the National League must know beyond a doubt the inseparable connection that exists between crime and the local branches of the League. I think the attack upon the practices of the Catholic Church comes with very bad grace from the noble Lord. What would the Home Secretary say to that? If he thinks of the confessional, as he suggests, it is very strange that the noble Lord should place in such a position as that of Home Secretary in this House a Gentleman who is obliged by his creed to conform with the practice of that faith. I say deliberately, if the noble Lord knew anything whatever, and he can know nothing whatever, of the practice of the Catholic Church, he would know that the confessional is the most powerful agency for the prevention of premeditated crime, for the fulfilment of every possible reparation, and for the punishment of crime the most powerful agency that modern society possesses. The noble Lord also appealed to memories of conflict and strife in Ireland, to memories of repression with impunity by one class and creed. He went back to the penal days, the memory of which turned men's blood. He said— From generation to generation all those memories have been carefully transmitted, and the time is approaching of test and trial for you, a time to say whether all these symbols and forms practised in your Orange Lodges are real living forms, and not idle or meaningless symbols. I presume that the noble Lord will feel it incumbent upon him to explain to the House what he meant by this extraordinary reference. I now come to the final indictment. I should add" said the noble Lord, "that if the struggle should continue and develop, and my calculation should turn out to be wrong, then I am not of the opinion, and never have been of the opinion, that this struggle is likely to remain within the limits of what we are accustomed to look upon as Constitutional action. Any change so portentous as the Repeal of the Union—any change so gigantic—can hardly be accomplished by the mere passing of law. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Lord Randolph Churchill): Hear, hear!] The House will, I think, await with curiosity, and will hear with interest, upon what warrant the noble Lord has taken upon himself to revise the British Constitution. Finally, he said, if Parliament should pass a measure of Home Rule, he did not hesitate to say that there would not be wanting men of position and influence—am I wrong in saying he included himself?—who were willing to cast in their lot with them, whatever it might be, and share their fortunes and their fate. The noble Lord closed with a grotesque parody of Campbell's fine invocation to the men of Munich when he called on those who heard him "to rush to glory and the brave," and bade Ulster "all her banners wave and charge with all her chivalry." But when Ulster, for lack of banners, was charging with stones, the noble Lord was fishing in Norway. The advice of the noble Lord was understood to mean that in the event of the passing of a certain law the Orangemen were to rise in arms against it. More direct incitement, however, was given by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). In the interval between that incitement and the speech of the noble Lord, which lit a fire which, if it has been put out, has been put out in blood—the Kanes and the Hannas, the lay and the clerical leaders, and the Grand Masters made speeches, and the Tory leader writers wrote articles breathing nothing but a spirit of internecine strife and of civil war. The month of May arrived, and the Home Rule policy had come to its trial. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham wrote a letter to Mr. Bolton, the late Member for St. Pancras, in which he said that if the people of Ulster were in earnest in refusing to agree to intrust their fortunes to an Irish Parliament their fellow-subjects in England would not allow them to be coerced into so doing. But 1,250,000 of their fellow-subjects in England have expressed an opposite view already. The meaning I understand to be that they were to prove themselves to be in earnest before the General Election. The noble Lord, if strictly construed, meant that they should rise into arms, after the pasting of the law. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, on the other hand, advised them to rise before. Between the two statesmen the advice they gave was comprehensive. It was not enough to publish the strength of the Orange Army, and issue advertisements for rifles and for drill instructors, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham wanted them to prove that they were in earnest. Now, this statesman wrote another letter to Mr. Sinclair, saying he was to see a growing feeling in Ulster, and that it would have a great influence on ordinary Englishmen, who hardly appreciated the fact that there were two nations in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said— I am convinced that the Loyalists of Ireland will not quietly submit themselves to the control of a Dublin Parliament which they believe would be hostile to their material and religious interests. And, this was the Gentleman who, not very long ago, described the Orangemen of Ulster as follows:— If there is any danger to the peace of Ireland it lies in proceedings of certain sections of the population of Ulster—men of rank and education, who know enough to know better. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, I can hardly blame the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) for his cheer just now, because he has proved not that he knew enough to know better, but so little that he knew worse. Can anyone be surprised after what I have recited at the recent occurrences in Belfast? So far from these riots proving that there is anything abnormal in society in Ireland, or that the Irish people are not of a homogeneous and concordant character—which is an absurd phrase to employ—they prove, in my opinion, that the stimulations which were applied to the people of Belfast would, if applied to any great city or community in the world, produce precisely the same result. The riots I have said broke out on the 3rd of June. On that morning the principal Tory organ in Belfast invited the Loyalists of Belfast to devote the evening and the night of the day of Mr. Gladstone's defeat to a demonstration of delight— Every Loyalist band should parade and discourse the stirring strains of Loyalty. Every hill should blaze with jubilant fire. Every corps in the Army of Ulster, whose disipline might justify it, should fire a feu de joie. The celebration should make an impression on the Empire, and sound the death-knell of Parnellism. What happened after that? On the very morning after the Home Rule Division a great mob went over and assaulted a small body of Catholic workmen in the brickfields; and having driven them away, threw their tools into the river, and making a pile of their hats and clothes, made a fire of them. That was, I suppose, a demonstration by which the Tory Democracy proposed to sound the death-knell of Parnellism. A Belfast paper declared that the ruffianly section of the inhabitants of Belfast were the Catholics, represented by Mr. Sexton— The scum of the Continental gaols, the off-scouring of the French galleys, are," said this paper, "not to be compared to the Nationalists who crowd round Sir. Sexton's Committee room. The ground having been prepared in this manner, a dispute occurred between two workmen at the Alexandra Docks on the 3rd June. The reporter of The Loyal and Patriotic Union says— The June riots arose out of an attack made by the Nationalists on a Protestant workman in Queen's Island. These men were the original aggressors. At a time when the prospect of Home Rule caused strong Party feelings, they told this workman that all his sort (Protestants) would be kicked out as soon as it was passed, and followed it up by assaulting him. To show how unscrupulously the resources of falsehood have been used to produce this crisis, I shall read a few words from the sworn statement of the Catholic workman in question. He says that he and another man were engaged in working on a drain, when he made a suggestion as to how the work should be done. His fellow-workmen said—"You old—, what do you know?" He replied—"If you call me an old—again, I will hit you on the nose." The reply was—"This is what I wanted; I will soon get you out of this." And the man then walked away, although the other explained that he had only threatened to hit him in a joke. The next day the disturbance occurred. My firm opinion is that this incident of the 3rd June was deliberately brought about by this man Blakeley, who insulted his own overseer for the purpose of producing a pretext which could be used to incite the Protestant workmen of Belfast to attack their Catholic fellow-townsmen, and to produce, first of all, an effect on the division in this House; and, secondly, on the General Election. What happened next day? At the dinner hour a body of Protestant workmen, variously estimated at from 500 to 2,000, left the works at Queen's Island, marched to the docks where the navvies were at work, armed with banners, sticks, pieces of iron, nuts, and bolts, the property of the Mayor. Having driven some of the Catholic navvies into the water, they beat the men who remained on shore so terribly that some of them had to be taken to the hospital, and they then threw the missiles at the men who were in the water. A poor boy named Curran, of the age of 16, too sickly to work himself, who had come down with his parent's dinner, was treated in a similar manner. A man made an effort to save him. He was obliged by the missiles which were thrown from the shore to let go the boy and save himself. The evidence of the witnesses before the Coroner was that as often as the boy rose in the water missiles were thrown at him; and when he sank for the last time there were cries from the shore—"There is another Home Ruler gone." The Island men that evening marched home defiantly past the Catholic quarter. The funeral of James Curran was attacked on the Sunday. For three days every incitement was applied to the passions of the Catholic population. I say that, seeing that neither in revenge for the murder of Curran, nor for the attack on the funeral, nor for the attack on the Catholic workmen on the morning after the rejection of the Home Rule Bill, did the Catholics retaliate, that finally and conclusively proves that the Catholic people were determined to keep within the lines of the law and stand on the principles of defence. I challenge scrutiny into every incident of the riots of June and August. ["Oh, oh!"] Have I not given one? Have I not shown that the incident of the 3rd of June had no connection with religion or politics, that the affair of the 4th of June was a violent and aggravated outrage? I should be able to show, in like manner, that the riots of July sprang out of the Orange anniversary—out of an occasion when the passions of the Orangemen are excited from the platform and from the pulpit; and I could again prove the forbearance of the Catholics by the fact that the Orange celebration and the great procession passed over without an act of interference on the part of a single Catholic. How did the riots of August break out? We have been told that they broke out in an attack upon a Sunday-school procession. I have received a statement of the facts from a committee of Catholic gentlemen composed of magistrates, merchants, and professional men and others. I have tested their statement by all the means of information in my power, and I find it to be perfectly accurate. They say— The 31st July was appointed by the Tory papers as the fit day to celebrate the accession of the Tory Government. The Rev. Hugh Hanna, more widely known as Roaring Hanna, chose it for a school excursion. No one doubted the consequences. Mr. Hanna was for once amenable to reason, and sent the children home quietly after their return, but his Orange boys determined that they would have some amusement. They seized on the band which had accompanied their children at their picnic, and made them march before the mob playing Party tunes. On approaching the Donegall Street Police Station they groaned the police, and one man stoned the police. This was the first attack. When the mob reached the corner of Carrick Hill and Clifton Street they smashed the window of Mr. Kernan's public-house. At this time Colonel Forbes was brutally attacked and severely wounded by the Orange mob. The police were stoned here so severely that they were obliged to charge with the baton. The mob then ran down Stanhope Street to the Old Lodge Road. Here they smashed every window in the public-house of Mr. Stephen M'Kenna, destroyed furniture, and turning on the taps allowed the liquors to run on the floor. It was a terrible wreck. Mr. M'Kenna was struck by a stone on the knee and hurt severely. Again, in the evening, the mob came and smashed the window-shutters, which had been put up after the first wrecking. The public-house of Mr. John Riordan was then wrecked, the taps turned on, and the place plundered. All valuable property was destroyed. Policemen then came up. With difficulty they made some arrests, and were mercilessly stoned. A rush was then made to enter Carrick Hill, a Catholic quarter, and the police were terribly stoned, but managed to keep them back. The mob were like wild beasts. The short and long of the story is this—that from the first of these riots to the last the police were held back by the local magistrates. Firearms were sometimes taken out of their hands, at other times they were forbidden to use their batons; and, without attempting to anticipate any decision that may be come to as to individual deaths or individual constables, I say the constables, as a force, so far from being allowed to maintain peace or restore it, were only allowed to use their rifles, or even their batons, when their own lives had come to be in instant danger. The riots had two features—they consisted either in attacks on the shops of Catholics in a non-Catholic district, or else in attempts to enter a Catholic district in force. What did the Catholics do? When attacks were made on houses in non-Catholic districts the Catholics could do nothing; but when the rioters attempted to enter a Catholic district what the Catholics did was to rush out of their houses, assemble in the street and defend themselves to keep the non-Catholic mob from entering their streets; because, as we know from what happens, if the rioters entered the result would be the wrecking of the houses of Catholics and the sacrificing of their lives. When the police were not on the spot the Catholics took up their own defence, but as soon as the police or soldiers came the Catholics instantly surrendered the work of defence to its proper guardians. I say the Coroner also has embarrassed the operations of the law. The Coroner is one of the oddest functionaries in the world. He said if there had been no police there would have been no killing. As for the verdicts of wilful murder against the police, I say nothing of my own, but I refer to the remarks of counsel before the Commission. He said the Coroner's juries were taken from the Shank-hill district, and were composed partly of rioters themselves, and for the rest of sympathizers with them. At every turn of this miserable and wretched affair the administration of the law has been slandered, hampered, defeated by those who rejoiced in the inception of those riots, by those who regarded those riots as furthering their political ends. The Mayor allowed his men to insult and outrage the Catholics. Usually if a boy stole a paint brush or a piece of iron he would have him in the dock, and would prosecute him vigorously; but those shipwrights by the hundred, leaving their work day after day, were allowed to fill their pockets with bolts, with nuts, with rivets, with solid balls of metal, all made out of the property of Sir Edward Harland, and these missiles, of the value of thousands of pounds—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I should think a large nut is worth a penny or two, and I should think there were hundreds of thousands of them thrown—["Oh, oh!"]—well, in one house in one day there were 23 found. They were allowed to fill their pockets, although Sir Edward Harland had policemen at his gate to protect his property. They were allowed to throw those missiles from the 4th of June to the end of August intermittently through the windows of public-houses owned by Catholics, and at the heads of policemen and their Catholic fellow-townsmen. I do not know whether the Home Secretary thinks the existence of a Sovereign Pontiff in a Southern Peninsula is any reason why missiles should be taken from a shipyard and thrown through the windows of Catholic public-houses. Moreover, if a trade dispute occurs between the Mayor's workmen and himself he locks them out till they come to his terms. Why did he never threaten to lock them out while they were accomplishing their daily march from the Queen's Island to Shankhill Road, crying—"Down with Home Rule, and to h—l with the Pope?" The Inspector General asked Sir Edward Harland to ask his workmen to go home from their work like any other workmen in any other city in the world, or in any other establishment in Belfast. Sir Edward Harland declined to interfere. He, as the head of the borough magistrates, listened to a threat from the Rev. Mr. Kane that unless the police were taken out of the Shankhill district he would take 20,000 Orangemen to turn them out of it. The Government yielded to that threat, and the Shankhill district is now an Independent Republic under the Presidency of Mr. President Kane. The magistrates, with the Mayor at their head, from June to the present month have never lost an opportunity of discrediting the police. At every one of their meetings they have asked for the withdrawal of the strange police. When I hear this talk of strange police, I ask what is the reason of it? It is simply that there is a larger proportion of Catholics in the police of the rest of Ireland than in the local Belfast force; but let the House remember that for many a year gone by those Catholic police had been employed throughout Ireland in evicting Catholics at the suit mostly of Protestant landlords, and although we have often complained of their conduct in this House, not one of us has ever raised the question of religion. The right hon. Gentleman has blamed the late Chief Secretary for Ireland for the course he pursued in regard to these riots, but he did what he could to protect the people of Belfast. He directed that an extra force of police should be sent there. He did not direct that they should be Roman Catholic police. He simply ordered police. The Inspector General of Constabulary, who is a Protestant, selected the men who were to go there. The local Justices of the Peace are Protestants, the local magistrates are Protestants, the very officers of the police are Protestants, and I do not wonder at the indignation felt by these poor Catholic policemen when they think of the services they have rendered, and the language that is now used about them by the people they have served. Listen to what one of them says on the subject. He says— When we were filling arduous duties in the West and South of Ireland; when we had to evict the poor, half-starved peasantry, and put them out on the road side, we were then the white-haired boys of the Government, and a credit to our Queen and our country. Now we are nothing better than Joe Bradys. So says the man who passes us on the Sundays with a flower in his button-hole and his Bible in his hand, and who will turn out the poor old woman from her cottage on the Monday. This outcry of the people of Belfast was at first directed against the strange police from a distance, but it is now directed against the local force. The whole object of this outcry is neither more nor less than for the purpose of getting rid of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and restoring the corrupt and partizan local force of police who existed before the riots of 1864, when the men who are now the borough magistrates were seated on the Town Council, and had the control of the local police which was condemned by the Commission of 1864. The Town Councillors of that day are now borough magistrates, and they are now endeavouring to degrade the Royal Irish Constabulary and to procure the re-establishment of that local police which would follow blindly their instructions in carrying out the wishes of the Protestant majority in Belfast. I say there is no town in the world where you have such a combination of forces against the police as in the town of Belfast, and it is easy to understand how they gave you such verdicts as they returned lately. You had these men—you had the Coroner, you had the Town Council, and three Members of Parliament discouraging the police, degrading the police, and pandering to the mob, using every expedient to embarrass the Government and to defeat the measures taken for the restoration of peace. Given such a state of things as this, the riots in Belfast in June, July, and August, so far from being a matter of surprise, will be seen to be a matter of course. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is not a fact that there are many things on the surface of these riots which explain their origin—whether every public-house owned by a Catholic in the Protestant quarter of Belfast was wrecked but one, and whether many Catholic residents in the Protestant quarter have been forced by violence and threats to give up their homes and go to other parts of the town? I ask him also where one case has been cited of a Protestant house in a Catholic district having been attacked and wrecked or the compulsion of a Protestant to leave a Catholic district? Has anything of that kind occurred within these months? Now, what is the Government going to do? I think the first duty of the Government is to restore order. The late Government were defeated at the Election. The policy of Home Rule is for the moment defeated. A grave responsibility rests on the Government. Many men, many hundreds of men, are wounded, and some are maimed for life; and I think, in the language of the Mayor of Belfast, the time is come when the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel it to be his duty to do what he can to undo some of the mischief he has done. If he cannot do that he might make some effort to mitigate the consequences of his reckless language. I ask him if the Government has made any searches for arms? The people of Belfast were directed by Proclamation last month to give up any arms in their possession. Since then there has been wholesale firing, there have been fusilades maintained all night on two occasions in certain parts of the town, and it is suspected that this firing was maintained by the ammunition of the Government and of the Queen. There are rifle clubs in the town which can obtain supplies of ammunition from the stores of the Queen at the request of their secretaries, and there is no security taken by the Government for the use to which the ammunition should be put or the hands in which the weapons are kept. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) can spare another 24 hours in the study of the affairs of Ireland, or to devote to an excursion to Ireland, he will find something to do in Belfast. Is the Proclamation to give up arms to remain a dead letter? Are the persons ordered to give up arms to be allowed to keep them if they like, or will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant undertake to have a search made for arms in Belfast, and particularly in that quarter where the use or misuse of arms was carried on freely? Will he place in Belfast when the labours of the Commission are concluded a large permanent force, and will he place that force under the command of the local magistrates? Will he place there a man who takes an intelligent view of the work of maintaining public order and who will act upon that view? Will he place the police force under an officer who can realize that the disturbances are due to the attempts of the non-Catholic mobs to enter the Catholic districts? Will he deprive the local magistrates of all share in the command of the police or in their direction? Will he confide the control of public forces in the streets for the maintenance of public order to magistrates responsible to the Government? These are questions to which we would like an answer. It is notorious that the conduct of the local magistrates in the streets of Belfast procured a continuance of these riots by causing police officers on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of June to withdraw the police from the presence of the mob. They caused the police to be sent into their barracks, and they induced the mob to regard themselves as safe from the police. This gave a licence to the rioters. The magistrates of the town of Belfast who pursued this course embarrassed the resident magistrates who were in the town, and in their council room they did all they could to encourage the idea that the Constabulary of Ireland was a force not fit to be employed in the preservation of the peace of the town. What can be more horrible than the language used in the streets of Belfast by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who asked the citizens to form committees to get information about the police and to bring it to him, and he would take care it was used in the right way? He said— There are men in the ranks of the Constabulary who are conspirators and who belong to the Invincible Organization. This is the language used by a Member of this House. If it be true, why did he keep this knowledge in his mind so long? Why did he keep it until now? If it be false, what punishment that this House, or the laws of the land can pass, is adequate to his offence? Sir, on this statement, which has been in no way prolonged, and which has been listened to by the House with an attention I gratefully acknowledge, I have no intention of imputing the origin of the growth of these disturbances to either as a body the Orangemen or the Protestants of Belfast. I do, however, impute them to the advice and the incitements of politicians. If these incitements are renewed the riots will be renewed. If these are not renewed we will hear no more of the riots. The reason why I have not mentioned the name of Protestants or Orangemen in connection with these riots is that I know that there are multitudes of Protestants in Ireland and in this country who look with horror on these detestable riots, and I am willing to believe that there are many Orangemen by whom any resort to these outpourings of civil hate or disturbance would not be countenanced. Sir, I have upon this occasion pursued my object in a public spirit. I think I have pursued it in good faith, and I am confident that most of what I have said, if not all of it, will be adopted by most of the Protestants, and even, I should think, by the great body of the Orangemen of Belfast.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the last paragraph, to add the words—"And humbly tore present to Her Majesty that certain circumstances accountable for the recent outbreak, prolongation, and repeated renewals of riots, raids for plunder, and conflicts with the Forces of the Crown, in Belfast, dictate the necessity for the prompt adoption of special measures for the maintenance of social order there, and that the most imperative and urgent of these measures are, the re-establishment of Her Majesty's authority in the district from which the Constabulary Force has been expelled by the rioters, the limitation of all powers of control over the Forces of the Crown, in times of public emergency, and adjudication upon cases of persons charged with offences against social order, to magistrates directly responsible to Her Majesty's Government, and the increase of the local Constabulary Force to such a strengh as may enable it to deal with any probable con- tingency, until Parliament, on consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, can proceed to the application of adequate permanent measures for the protection of life and property in certain quarters of Belfast."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

A large part of the speech of the hon. Member has been taken up by subjects with which I am perfectly ready to admit that the Commission which it is proposed to issue cannot deal. The hon. Member has made very strong charges against my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for having, by their speeches in the past, promoted the unhappy disturbances in Belfast. I leave it to anyone, looking at the terms of the Motion, whether he would have anticipated that the hon. Member would have devoted so large a portion of his speech to that subject. Those speeches were made a long time ago. [Ironical cheers.] I am merely stating a fact as to the speech of my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Belfast, which the hon. Member went through almost sentence by sentence. ["No!"] Well, a very large part of it. He throughout his remarks placed on that speech interpretations and drew inferences which I think were in no respect justified. That speech was made so long ago as February last, and in April the hon. Gentleman placed on the Paper a Notice of censure upon my noble Friend for what he had said. My noble Friend directly challenged him to bring that Notice to the test a division, but the hon. Gentleman never accepted that challenge.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had several times placed the Notice on the Paper and used every effort to bring it on, but the course of Public Business, beyond his control, absolutely prevented it.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

If hon. Gentlemen opposite really desire to have a subject debated they are perfectly well able to secure it. The hon. Gentleman does great injustice to his own powers by attempting the excuse which he has just put forward. No, Sir, that challenge was given by my noble Friend, and yet that Motion never was brought forward in this House. At a later date the subject was alluded to on the third reading of the Arms Bill of the late Government, and my noble Friend made a speech in which he plainly stated his position and opinions with reference to this matter. That speech was criticized in his absence by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and, if I remember aright, there was a subsequent correspondence on the subject. Yet even then the hon. Member never took courage to challenge a Vote of the House upon those charges which he has reiterated to-day against my noble Friend. I deny there is any fair ground whatever for those charges, for the inferences which have been unfairly drawn, and for the interpretation placed on the speech of my noble Friend. I deny that in the action which my noble Friend took there was anything on account of which it would be fair in any degree to charge him with having incited these unhappy disturbances in Belfast. My noble Friend appears to have thought, as a good many others did, that it was necessary and right that those who on this side of the Irish Channel were favourable to the maintenance of the Union should make their determination clearly known to the loyal population in the North of Ireland, and should show them that they were not to be left deserted and betrayed to those whom they considered their enemies. That was what my noble Friend told the people of Belfast. I say he was justified in taking that course, and that the charges which the hon. Member has made against him, ought to have been made, not incidentally on a Motion which apparently has no reference whatever to them in any shape, but on a Motion directly challenging the judgment of the House.

MR. SEXTON

The speeches have borne fruit since.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

If that is the opinion of the hon. Member, why did he not put a Motion of Censure on my noble Friend on the Paper? If he really believes what he now says, why does he put this vague and purposeless Motion, instead? He has not the courage of his convictions. He can make charges, but he does not bring them to the test of proof. I am not going to dwell further on that point. In endeavouring to deal with the statement of the hon. Gentleman on other matters I feel myself in no small difficulty. I confess that, having the responsibility of endeavouring to restore order in Belfast, I feel that my work will be materially increased by much that he has said, and still more by the debate which I fear must follow this Motion. Whatever opinions hon. Members may entertain, I earnestly implore them, as far as possible, to refrain from anything that may provoke or maintain those unfortunate feelings which have prevailed in Belfast. The hon. Member has told the House that these riots were conceived by persons in authority, and were generated and prosecuted in the interests of the present Government. That may be his view; but there is a directly opposite view which is as absolutely unfounded. There is the view, I am sorry to say widely entertained, even by persons in respectable positions among the Protestants of Belfast, that the action that was taken by the late Government with reference to these riot? was directly aimed at their liberties and rights, and that they were, in fact, the victims of what I may almost call a conspiracy as base as that to which the hon. Member has referred. I believe that these charges on either side are equally devoid of truth. I believe the charge against the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Morley), of flooding Belfast with Catholic Constabulary from the South of Ireland in order to put down the loyal population of Belfast, is as far from the truth as the charge the hon. Member has made against the noble Lord. I would earnestly deprecate the expression of this kind of opinion as calculated to do infinite mischief in Belfast, far greater mischief than hon. Members can be aware of. That is not my only difficulty. In accordance with the action of our Predecessors and the general desire, Her Majesty's Government has issued a Commission of Judicial Inquiry. Let me read to the House the terms of that inquiry. They are— To inquire into the origin and circumstances of the said riots and disturbances and the cause of their continuance, the existing local arrangements for the preservation of the peace of the town of Belfast, the magisterial jurisdiction exercised within it, and the amount and constitution and efficiency of the police force usually available there, and the proceedings and action taken by the magistrates, stipendiary and local, and other authorities and the police force, on the occasion of the said riots and disturbances; whether these authorities and the existing police forces are adequate for the future maintenance of order and tranquillity within the town; and whether any and what steps ought to be taken, and whether any and what changes ought to be made in the local magisterial and police jurisdiction arrangements and establishments, with a view to the better preservation of the public peace and the prevention and prompt suppression of riot and disorder. Well, Sir, it seems to me it would be impossible to frame the terms of an inquiry which should be more complete and searching into all the points which the hon. Member has brought before the House. If I were to express an opinion here and now upon the conduct of the magistrates, the conduct of the police, or the arrangements present, past, or future, for maintaining order in Belfast, and if that opinion were to have weight with the Commissioners—as I am sure it would not—it would be making their inquiry a farce. It is for the Commission judicially to ascertain the facts under the powers which I hope Parliament will confer upon them. It is for them to give their opinion on the points submitted to them, and it will be for myself, or whoever maybe representing the Government of Ireland when that Report is made, to consider what should be done in consequence of the Report of the Commission? How can I express any opinion on that subject now? Therefore, Sir, the hon. Gentleman in the statements which he has made to the House, so far as they affect local circumstances or persons in Belfast, has brought forward a subject with which it is quite impossible and would be wrong for me to attempt to deal on the part of the Government. Now, he has stated that in his opinion this Motion will not interfere with the inquiry by this Commission, and he brought forward two points in support of that statement. In the first place, he said that he blamed the present Government very much for the removal of the police from what is called the Shankhill Road district. He stated that the police had been removed from the Shankhill Road district on the 9th of August, and that this, of course, was a great blow at the authority of the Con- stabulary in Belfast. Now, I will endeavour to place before the House precisely what happened in this matter. I was sworn in as Chief Secretary on the 5th of August. My first step was to place myself in communication with the gentleman in Belfast who appeared to me to be constitutionally the proper person for the Irish Government to communicate with on this subject. I thought that the Mayor and the local magistrates of Belfast had not been consulted in this matter by my Predecessors as they ought to have been. And here I would like to say that, in my mind, not only are all the charges which the hon. Gentleman has made against Sir Edward Harland absolutely without foundation, but that the whole population of Belfast, Catholics as well as Protestants, owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Edward Harland for his able and efficient conduct as Mayor of the town at this trying time. I telegraphed to Sir Edward Harland asking him to see me, in order to place me in possession of the views entertained by the local magistrates in the matter. I saw him on the 6th. On that very day the change was made in regard to the position of the Constabulary in the Shankhill Road to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. It could not have been made by Sir Edward Harland, as he was then in Dublin; it was made by those who were then in charge of the force on the spot, the magistrates—I believe mainly the Resident Magistrates—in concert with the General commanding the Forces, and, I think, to no small extent at his instance. Well, now, I do not wish to express an opinion as to whether that action was right or wrong at the time. It was done absolutely without the cognizance of the Government; it was, indeed, not until a few days afterwards that I found it had been done. I confess I regretted it; but I do not wish to attribute the smallest blame to anybody for action taken under very difficult circumstances. Our duty was, as soon as we could, to endeavour gradually and carefully to restore the authority of the police in the Shankhill Road, from which they had been temporarily removed. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a Proclamation of Sir Edward Harland on this very subject, under which arrangements are to be made for the recommencement of duty by the police in the Shankhill Road on this very day. Therefore, I think I have answered the question of the hon. Member on this point. The hon. Member went on to blame the Government because, as he says, the employers of Belfast do not employ Catholic workmen; and yet, even while saying that, he suggested that in retaliation the Catholics in other parts of Ireland are going to "Boycott" Belfast manufactures. It is not my business to interfere between the employers of Belfast and the persons they may choose to employ; but I am pretty well certain, knowing what I do of the capacity for business of the employers, that they are not likely to deprive themselves of the services of capable and skilled workmen on account of their religion. Whatever may have occurred for a short time owing to the outrage upon Catholic workmen to which the hon. Member has alluded, I do not believe that there is any extended relinquishment of work on part of Roman Catholics, or that there is any real ground for the allegation of partiality made against employers by the hon. Member. But the hon. Member told the House that he desired in this matter to compel those in authority to bear the responsibility of their actions. That is precisely what we desire in this and in every other case, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in that part of the work of government in Ireland. He went on to various local matters connected with the origin of these riots, of the oppression of Catholics by Protestants in certain yards, of the death of a Roman Catholic boy—[A Home Rule MEMBER: Murder.]—and of the attack on a Sunday school. In regard to one, at any rate, and the most important of these three events, the hon. Member said that in his belief it was not due to either religious or political feeling. Very well, I am very glad to obtain that testimony from the hon. Gentleman, because I thought from the larger part of his speech he was of opinion that every one of these unfortunate occurrences was due to political or religious feeling.

MR. SEXTON

I was speaking of the occurrence of the 3rd of June, and I said that it had been misrepresented locally to have arisen from the threat that Protestants would not be employed. I find that is not so.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

At any rate, these are precisely the matters which will be properly inquired into, and can only be properly inquired into, by the Commission; and I do not nnderstand what object he proposed to himself by bringing them to-day under the notice of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman, in speaking of Sir Edward Harland, referred to some negligence on the part of the heads of the firm of which he is a member in allowing workmen in their employ to obtain hundreds of thousands of iron nuts for the purpose of assailing the Catholics. I really cannot tell what are the exact circumstances in this matter; but any hon. Member can, if he likes, satisfy himself that it is hardly possible these iron nuts can have been used to anything like the extent alleged by the hon. Member. If hon. Members will look for themselves at a very interesting surgical report which appeared in The Times of yesterday—[Cries of "Oh!"] Well, of course, it is open to hon. Members to question the accuracy of the report; but, as far as I can see, there is nothing whatever of political or religious bias in the writer's mind, and it appears to me to be a purely matter-of-fact report as to the nature of the wounds which he and others treated in hospitals. Hon. Members will find in that report statements from which it appears that hardly any of the wounds, if any, could, in the opinion of the writer, have been inflicted by missiles of the kind. And although, of course, it does not follow that no use was made of such missiles, yet I think it does cast considerable doubt upon the extent of the use of those missiles which the hon. Member has represented. The hon. Member for West Belfast, in the terms of his Motion, and in a less extent perhaps in his speech, strongly protests, as it seems to me, against anything that can be called local government in Belfast. In his speech he alluded to the action of the local magistracy. He actually charged them, although intrusted with the preservation of the peace of Belfast, with having fomented the riots in that town. [Irish Home Rule cheers.] He charged them with having interfered with the efficient discharge of their duty by the Constabulary. [Cheers.] He said that the Coroner of Belfast embarrassed the operations of the law. [Renewed cheers.] But does it not occur to hon. Members who cheer those statements that those charges, if true, throw a very considerable difficulty in the way of allowing to the town of Belfast even its existing powers of local government? They appear to me to object to the Mayor and the Corporation, the magistrates, the Coroner, and all the present institutions for local self-government in Belfast. And yet the hon. Member considers that those occurrences, painted in the light in which he has pictured them, afford no argument against Home Rule. Of course, I do not want to argue that question now; but I confess that for hon. Members who put in the forefront of their creed that Irishmen should be permitted to govern themselves both as a nation and locally, without interference from what is known as "the Castle," it is a very singular request to make that the local magistracy in the most important commercial town in Ireland should be entirely extinguished; that all powers of control over the Forces of the Crown in times of public emergency, and of adjudication upon cases of persons charged with offences against social order, should be conferred upon magistrates directly responsible to the Government—namely, the Castle officials. I would like to see how hon. Members who pursue this debate reconcile their position in this matter with their general opinions as to local government for the whole of Ireland. With reference to two questions put by the hon. Member for Belfast, I should like to repeat what has already been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Constabulary. I think the Royal Irish Constabulary, in performing the difficult and harassing and dangerous duty of endeavouring to maintain public order in Belfast, have, as a force, done their work in an admirable manner. Of course, there may have been instances in which there has been a want of judgment, or, perhaps, of discipline. These, however, are points which will be investigated by the Commission; but, speaking generally, I think it has been wrong that either side in Belfast should have felt suspicion against the Constabulary, or that any person holding a prominent position in that town should have directed abuse against them. The hon. Gentleman asked me whom we were going to place in command of the Constabulary in Belfast pending the completion of this inquiry? I should like, in passing, to say that since I sent the Inspector General of Constabulary to Belfast to re-unite a very divided authority we have reaped the greatest benefit from his action, from the tact he has displayed, and from the judgment and common sense which he has infused into the management of affairs. I wish to express, on the part of the Government, our obligation to the Inspector General for the manner in which he has performed his work. Of course, he cannot remain there long. Practically, he will not remain beyond the time when the police have been restored to their complete duty on the Shankhill Road. Then we shall endeavour to select some efficient officer who will take charge of the force, and will be able to control them judiciously and properly pending the consideration of the Report of the Commission.

MR. SEXTON

Will you establish a station on Queen's Island?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

That is a detail upon which it is impossible to express an opinion to-day. Any arrangement, however, would be considered which would tend to maintain order. The hon. Member referred to the question of searching for arms. I must admit that the proclamation of Belfast has not been so successful as I suppose it was expected to be. That has arisen from a defect in the law. It is impossible under the law to make search for arms unless there is reason to suspect that arms are concealed in an individual house. That, I think, was a Proviso of the Act of last Session. I cannot say at this moment how far the Proclamation has been effective; but I am expecting very shortly to obtain a Report upon the matter. I need not say that we shall have then very seriously to consider how far the law is defective, and in what way it ought to be amended. I have attempted to fulfil my promise to steer clear between what I think would be the grave error of expressing any opinion as to the circumstances of those riots; and, on the other hand, to convey such information to the House as to the position of affairs, or as to the action of the Government, as I think the House would be fully entitled to receive. I would only conclude by saying that I cannot conceive anything, to whomsoever blame is due, which could inflict a graver disgrace on a prosperous and intelligent community like Belfast than the continuance or recrudescence of those riots. And I would most earnestly entreat any hon. Member who may think it necessary to prolong the debate to recollect what I have said as to the danger of exciting those unhappy feelings to which the riots are due, and to keep as far as possible within the bounds of moderation, which will be of the greatest assistance to Her Majesty's Government in the responsible and difficult task which they have in hand.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, he was one of those Members who felt very strongly that no real good could arise from the discussion of this question in the House of Commons. Of all tribunals in the world it seemed to him that the House of Commons was the least fitted to try the issue raised by the Belfast disturbances, inasmuch as some hon. Members would hear only the charges made without hearing the defence, whereas others would hear the defence only without hearing the charges. He regretted that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had not chosen to await the Report of the Royal Commission, but had determined to submit their version of the facts to the House. It was, therefore, incumbent upon those like himself, who believed that there were two sides to this story, as to most stories, not to allow public opinion to be prejudiced before the Commission reported. Perhaps he had better say that he was not an Orangeman, and that until the Irish policy of the late Prime Minister united Liberals and Conservatives in Ireland his political action was entirely in opposition to that pursued by the Orange or extreme Protestant Party. In fact, during his recent election campaign one of the chief amusements of hon. Members below the Gangway was in the unearthing of all his opposition to Orangemen during the last 25 years. And, if he was not an Orangeman, neither had he any local connection in Belfast to warp his judgment. He had simply gone to the town to inquire into the facts for himself. He had consulted clergymen, merchants, and others living in the town who had been eye-witnesses of most of the deplorable occurrences, and he had tried, by collecting evidence from perfectly unprejudiced sources, to arrive at something like the truth of the ease, and this was his warrant, and his only warrant, for troubling the House. To understand the recent outbreak the House must first of all remember that the disturbances were spread over three distinct periods, each of them separated from the other by a considerable length of time. First came the June riots, commencing on the 3rd and ending on the 10th of that month. Peace was maintained until the second period of disturbance, which commenced on the 12th of July, and closed on the 13th. The third and most important of the struggles commenced on the 31st of July, and only terminated on the 15th of August. The first point to be determined was, what was the origin of the riots? The case which had been attempted to be established by the hon. Member for West Belfast was that the Orange or Protestant Party in the town had invariably been the aggressors, and that the Catholics had acted throughout in their own defence, while the local magistrates had shown an utter want of capacity and the most shameless Party spirit. He did not believe the statement of the hon. Member, because its correctness was disproved by evidence upon which he placed the greatest reliance. The first disorder arose out of an attack made on the 3rd of June by two Nationalists, or Catholics, named Murphy, upon a Protestant workman named Blakeley, at the Queen's Island. The Home Rule proposals of the late Government were then before Parliament, and feeling ran high all over Ireland. It ran exceptionally high in Belfast. The two Murphys told Blakeley that when the Home Rule Bill passed all his sort would be cleared out of Ireland. Addressed as they were to fiery politicians, and in the midst of that excited community, these were just the words necessary to kindle the flame. Blakeley having retorted in the same vein, he was savagely beaten by the Murphys, and the next day serious trouble commenced. The incident on the Island was talked over throughout Belfast, and on the 4th of June a body of riveters employed on the Island, estimated at 300 by the people of Belfast, but at from 500 to 2,000 by the hon. Member for West Belfast, sallied out and chased a body of Catholic navvies who were at work at the Alexandra Dock. The navvies fled, and some of them took refuge on a raft—amongst them the young lad Curran, to whom reference had been made. The raft capsized. Curran fell into the water, and was drowned. Not one of the riveters was near Curran when this accidental circumstance occurred. Just as he blamed the Murphys for their senseless attack upon Blakeley, so he blamed the highly reprehensible conduct of this battalion of Protestant riveters who made the attack upon the Alexandra Dock navvies. He had no sympathy with lawlessness, whether it was in County Antrim or County Kerry. He, however, wished that some of the indignation which had been expressed by the hon. Member for West Belfast at the conduct of the Protestant riveters upon this occasion had been spared for the outrages which had occurred in other parts of the country. The death of Curran rose out of the lawless action of the riveters, and they were largely responsible for the occurrences that followed. Curran's funeral took place on Sunday, June 6, and was made the occasion of a great political demonstration. The men attending the funeral cheered for Home Rule, cursed the Queen, and many of them had sticks and stones in their hands. A breach of the peace was only prevented with the greatest difficulty; indeed, later on in the day, and after the funeral was over, an attack was made, not by a Protestant mob, but by a mob of another character, on a mill in which the workers were mainly Protestants, although, it being Sunday, there was not a man within its walls. On Tuesday, June 8, business commenced in deadly earnest. The Protestants assembled to celebrate the defeat of the Government of Ireland Bill in the House of Commons. Bonfires were lighted in the Protestant districts, and great jubilation prevailed. This the Catholics resented. Shots were fired at the Protestant demonstrators from a public-house kept by a Catholic named Mrs. O'Haire on the Shankhill Road. This produced violent feeling. The house was attacked. A Protestant named Morrison was wounded by a nephew of Mrs. O'Haire; and on the following day came the action on the part of the police, which, explained however it might be, would always be held as the beginning of the unfortunate feeling towards them on the part of a large section of the population of Belfast, which every right-minded man must deplore. At half-past 5 o'clock on the evening of that day about 1,500 men and boys, who were leaving their work at Coombe's foundry, were mistaken by the police, who were strangers to Belfast, for a riotous mob. The police charged them and drove them back, striking those who resisted on the head with their batons. He made no charge against the police with regard to this matter, their conduct on the occasion being now under investigation by a proper tribunal.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

rose to Order, and asked whether it was not against the Rules of the House for an hon. Member to read his speech?

MR. SPEAKER

It is contrary to the Rules of the House for a Member to read his speech; but he may refer to his notes to refresh his memory.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that was exactly what he was doing. If the charges of malice, Party spirit, and drunkenness which had been made against the Royal Irish Constabulary were substantiated before a proper tribunal it would be impossible to screen them in the matter, and no one would have any desire to do so. He was willing to admit that in this case a mistake was made by the Protestant party on the Shankhill Road. With their feelings influenced already, they felt that the Constabulary, by attacking Coombe's men, were siding with their opponents, and the most serious rioting at once took place, in the course of which O'Haire's house was wrecked and burnt, the "Corner Boys," perhaps, not being unwilling to join in where a liquor shop was to be looted; and the police, 110 strong and well armed, were driven back into their barracks. When the police were safe in their barracks they fired upon the rioters. The officer in, charge—District Inspector Green—swore at the Coroner's inquest that he did his best to restrain the men; that he did not see any necessity to fire; and that he almost went on his knees to entreat them not to fire. He candidly admitted he was unable to restrain his men. As a matter of fact, seven people were killed that evening, including a barmaid, who was shot dead whilst sitting at the two-storey window of the house opposite the police barracks. [A laugh.] If a peasant in Kerry were shot the hon. Member for Kerry expressed his indignation in the loudest manner; but when an inoffensive barmaid, who was a Catholic, was shot the incident appeared to amuse the hon. Member.

MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

said, that he was laughing, not at the incident, but at the phraseology of the hon. Member, who had spoken of a "two-storey window."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

remarked that it would complete the ghastly character of the incident to mention that at the time of the occurrence another riot was taking place in another part of Belfast in which 40 houses of Protestants were wrecked. On June 10 the police, in firing in York Street, wounded 40 people, and with that circumstance the first period of the rioting came to a close. This deadly business simply arose out of a want of toleration on the part of the residuum on both sides. Catholics were buoyed up with the belief that Home Rule was at hand, and when their idol was shattered and broken they could stand it no longer, and they burst out in the way he had said. They claimed and exercised the right to light bonfires on the occasion of Mr. Sexton's triumph. They refused to allow the Protestants the same liberty when the Home Rule Bill was rejected. The second outburst of rioting commenced on the 12th of July, and it was brought about by the publication in The Belfast Morning News of an incendiary article informing Catholics that St. Peter's Catholic Church would be attacked. There was not a word of truth in that article, and the only attack made was by the Catholics upon an Orange band, which was proceeding to take part in the opening of an Orange hall. In the encounter on the 12th of July a private soldier and a head constable were shot by Protestant rioters. Here there was no doubt whatever as to the Party at fault. The hon. Member for West Belfast pointed out that these riots took place only where the Catholics were in a minority. If, however, the Protestant minority in Dublin were as pugnacious as the Catho- lie minority in Belfast there would be riots in Dublin every week. As long as the law of the land allowed bands in Dublin and Cork to march through the streets carrying any flag in the world but that of Great Britain, and playing any but loyal tunes, and took no note of the Protestant minority who were offended at these things, it was not possible for that House to put down Protestant bands and processions in Belfast, when the only offences were the carrying of the Union Jack and the playing of "Rule Britannia." Well, the second attack at Belfast was due to the attack made on the band in Grosvenor Street and to the article in The Belfast Morning News. A third outbreak, and the most serious, lasting from the 31st of July to the 15th of August, was due to a very simple series of facts. It was the habit of the ministers of the churches in Belfast to take the children attending their Sunday schools into the country. On Saturday, the 31st of July, the annual excursion of the children of St. Enoch's Church was timed to come. Owing to the disturbed state of the town, Dr. Hanna, the minister of that church, had postponed the excursion for three weeks at the request of the authorities. It had always been the habit of these children to walk through Belfast in procession with bands of music and banners. At the request of the authorities, however, Dr. Hanna resolved not to have any such display on the 31st of July. Yet this was the man who had been described to-day as fomenting riots. Well, the children enjoyed their day in the country, and were met at the railway station by their friends and relatives. The children and the teachers went home without falling into procession. Two bands had accompanied them on the excursion. One of them got safely off; but after the children had disappeared some persons obliged the second band to play. A savage attack was made upon this band in a Catholic district called Carrick Hill. From that day forward rioting of a serious character went on. Indeed, from the 31st of July to the 15th of August Belfast might be said to be practically in a state of siege. On one occasion the police took refuge in a public-house (M'Kenna's), and fired upon the people in a way that he hoped they would be able to defend before the Royal Commission. He believed that it would be found that the Islandmen incident roused bad feeling; that the attack on the navvies at the Alexandra Dock precipitated matters; and that the mistake of the police with regard to the foundry-men brought things to a crisis. That being so, he desired to say a few words as to the police and the local magistrates. In regard to the police it would be idle to attempt to conceal the feelings which existed in Belfast among all classes of Protestants. He was not able to join in any general laudation of the Royal Irish Constabulary as a Police Force. That they were a respectable body of men went without saying, and nobody would deny that they had performed eminent services to the State. But as a Police Force they were a conspicuous failure. They had none of the instincts of policemen, but all the instincts of a military force. He believed that 500 men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police armed simply with their batons would have made an end of these Belfast disturbances. The grave charges against the police must be thoroughly probed by the Royal Commission. But, after all, constables were simply men; and if they brought hundreds or thousands of them into a big town like Belfast, and made no accommodation for them, took no trouble to provide them with food, and they had the free run of the public-houses, they would have no doubt that a policeman with a rifle in his hand, under such circumstances, was a most dangerous animal to let loose on society. The House should also remember that they had lived through 12 months of grave political excitement. Their minds had been impressed with the idea that they were about to change their masters. Rightly or wrongly, they saw in the advent to power of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) the beginning of the end, and he had not the slightest doubt that many of these men believed a change was at hand. With this 12 months' experience some of these men might be excused if they lost their heads; but they would recover them now, and were likely to find on which side their bread was buttered. What was the charge made against the local magistrates? It was that they had been actuated by Party spirit, and had fomented the riots. He appealed to those Members around him who were engaged in commerce whether they could conceive that a body of men largely engaged in commerce in the town, and in manufactures, deliberately fomented disturbances which would retard that commerce and practically ruin it? Such a suggestion carried its own condemnation. He believed that when the whole details came out it would be found that they were trying honestly and strictly to do their duty. They might have made mistakes. He believed they had, but it was not everybody who could keep his head in a row. Hon. Members below the Gangway could not. It would not be possible to sustain the charge before the Royal Commission. He would like to caution the House as to some statements that had been made. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) had said with regard to a recent trial that the jury was composed entirely of Orangemen. He happened to know, as a fact, that there was not a single Orangeman on it. There was one Catholic upon it. When the cause of the riots was fully investigated, the House would find that neither respectable Orangemen nor respectable Catholics had had anything to do with them. They would find that the riots were due to the residuum of Belfast. When he heard charges made against the Orangemen—not being an Orangeman himself —he could say that when they came to fight they would fight in another way. The Orangemen of Ulster and Belfast did not make up the noble army of cattle-maimers and "Moonlighters." Even the Belfast "Corner Boys" had proved unmistakably that they could stand like men in front of an armed Constabulary; they did not hide behind hedges to fire at innocent, unarmed victims. The Belfast Orangemen did not make up the criminal classes, or the illiterate of their polling-booths. They were the skilled artizans of the town, who had nothing to do with the fighting except when they were attacked. The riots were got up by the residuum of the population, under the mistaken idea as to the action of the police. As the debate had served the purpose of an attack upon the noble Lord the Leader of the House, he might draw this conclusion as to the connection between the two, and say to those hon. Members who had ridiculed and scorned the idea of Orangemen fighting under any circumstances—that perhaps the "Corner Boys" of Belfast had been anxious to demonstrate the fact that they could do so if occasion arose.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, they had just listened to the speech of a Gentleman who started in life by abusing the Orangemen, and who now, in order to be able to crawl into that House, had turned his coat and displayed the newborn zeal of a recent convert. The hon. Member was standing as an out-and-out Gladstonite within the year, and now he stood up in that House as an apologist of the Tory Government. He did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of a speech in which he had merely conveyed to the House in a loud voice documents which were published in The Times the other day signed by Mr. Patten as the paid agent of the Orangemen of Belfast. There were but two observations in the utterance worth notice. Glowing references had been made to the valour of the "Corner Boys" of Belfast. He would not enter into the questionable moral of such an interpretation of Orange rowdyism; but he would put before them one reason why such valour against the police was displayed. A bitter experience of privileges had deceived the Orangemen. They had been led by a long and bitter experience to believe that the Orange personality was far too sacred to be fired upon; that it was their privilege to stone the police; and that it was the duty of the magistrates of Belfast to order the police to retire before the rioters. He was glad to know that although this system had been carried on to an extent which had perpetuated the riots and disgraced the administration of justice in Belfast, the "Corner Boys" had received a lesson which might make them less valorous on future occasions. The result, however, had been that the Press of this country had been deluged with expressions of fiery indignation because the police dared to defend their lives, and to reply with their batons or rifles to the paving stones which were hurled at them. The hon. Member had quoted the evidence of Inspector Green, but omitted that portion of it in which the witness reluctantly said he believed the lives of the police were in imminent danger when they fired. Afterwards it turned out that Green had been more than once cen- sured by his superiors for refusing to fire on Protestant mobs when the police were in imminent danger of their lives. If justice had been done, he would have been dismissed from the force as being a sympathizer with the Orangemen. The hon. Member had drawn a comparison between that somewhat mixed person the Protestant farmer, "Corner Boy" rowdies of Belfast, and the cattle maimers and Moonlighters of Kerry. He would remark that this was a comparison between wanton shooting from behind a stone wall and the shooting of the miserable peasant from behind a ditch in an open field. With reference to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was willing to admit that if a conciliatory manner and a frank and gentlemanly demeanour could remove the difficulties in the way of governing Ireland and of dealing with the Irish Representatives in that House, the present Chief Secretary would be the man to do it; but the difficulties were of such a character that conciliatory manners and silken remedies would not be sufficient to remove them. The hon. Member for West Belfast had been twitted by the right hon. Gentleman for not proceeding with his proposed Motion of Censure against the Leader of the House on a former occasion; but he (Mr. Dillon), apart from the solid justification offered by the hon. Member himself, had to say that had that course been pursued the Chief Secretary must have known that, owing to the then condition of Parties, the discussion would have been comparatively fruitless. It had been the firm conviction of the Irish Members that the language used by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was of such a character that it would produce effects which would make them both regret they ever used it. The prophecies which he and his Friends made at the time, when they told the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman that the Orangemen of Ulster could put but one interpretation on such language, had proved perfectly correct. The Chief Secretary had asked what could be done pending the result of the labours of the Commission by the opponents of the Government? Everyone knew that the Report of that Commission could not be practically acted upon for a very long time. In the meantime surely there were several questions of pressing urgency which required to be dealt with. First of all, there was the Shankhill Road district; secondly, the absence of means taken by the employers of labour in Belfast to prevent persecution within their works; thirdly, the conduct of the Mayor; and fourthly, and most important of all, the conduct of the borough magistrates. To none of these points, except perhaps the first, had the Chief Secretary given a satisfactory reply. Whenever the Government were dealing with the South of Ireland they did not wait for the Report of a Commission, but at once despatched a gallant officer to take over the administration; and he was entitled to ask that, pending the Report of the Commission, measures should be taken for protecting the Catholics in Belfast. When the Chief Secretary went to Ireland during the riots his action was prompt and, as far as it went, satisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned that when he was in Dublin, and after he had sent down the head of the Constabulary to take charge of Belfast, he received a telegram from that official—of which he (Mr. Dillon) had a copy—to the effect that magistrates should instantly be sent who would not prevent the police from defending their lives in Belfast, and who were not acquainted with people in the town.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

I cannot charge my memory with the precise words of the telegram, or whatever it may have been, that was sent to me by the Inspector General of Constabulary on his arrival in Belfast; and I do not understand how the hon. Member became possessed of a copy of it; but, so far as I can recollect it, the purport of the telegram was a request that more magistrates—military magistrates—should be sent down. I do not remember anything being said to the disparagement of the borough magistrates.

MR. DILLON

(amid cries of "Read!" from the Ministerial Benches) said, he had read the telegram. [An hon. MEMBER: Where did he get it?] [An Irish MEMBER: What is that to you?] He got a copy of the telegram. He accepted fully any statement the Chief Secretary made; but, at the same time, he contended that the right hon. Gentleman's statement strongly bore out his version of the telegram. There were plenty of magistrates in Belfast, and it was perfectly manifest that they were not doing their duty, or it would not have been necessary to send down other magistrates, and military magistrates. The Chief Secretary had acknowledged in his speech—and a very remarkable admission it was—that the evacuation of the Shankhill Road district was carried out without consulting the Executive authority in Dublin, and without the knowledge of the Dublin Castle authority. A more extraordinary movement than that he could not conceive. It was even kept secret from the authorities of Dublin. The Chief Secretary said it was done by consent of the officers in command of the police at Belfast; but why was that consent given? The truth was that the Irish Constabulary in the North had been brought to the very verge of revolt, and that if this system had been carried further the Government would have been face to face with a revolt of the whole of the Irish Constabulary. The police officers gave their consent to the evacuation, because they knew that their men could not be trusted to allow themselves to be made targets for the paving-stones of Belfast without attempting to defend themselves. That pointed to a condition of things in which no Catholic could feel safe unless the Government placed in command of the police an officer who would have supreme control over them pending the permanent changes which were admitted on all hands to be necessary for the security of the town. Let the House contrast the kind of justice administered in the South of Ireland with that in the North. In the South of Ireland a special officer was sent down with special powers, and without any previous inquiry at all to put down "Moonlighters" and to protect the landlords, whereas there was no protection for the Catholic people of Belfast. If this conduct were continued they would confirm the feeling in Ireland that there was one justice in the North and another in the South. The Chief Secretary had referred to a certain surgical report made by a doctor sent down by the Loyal Patriotic Union, or some other society of that sort. That gentleman put his name to a statement that would not increase his reputation. He said he was of opinion that none of the wounds he examined could have been inflicted by missiles taken from the yard of the Mayor of Belfast. [The hon. Gentleman produced a box containing a number of iron bolts and other missiles which he said were picked up on the "battle field."] Resuming, he contended that they must have come from the yard of the Mayor. Some of the weapons were of a most deadly character, and in close quarters were more deadly than firearms. The Chief Secretary had referred to the fact of the Irish Party finding fault with Local Authorities. The House should bear in mind that the Corporation of Belfast was elected by 5,000 men, who were nearly all Protestants, out of a population of 225,000. Was it, then, to be wondered at that they objected to such local government, which was simply a mixture of Dublin Castle and Belfast Orangeism, and which resulted in a system of police which had been condemned by Royal Commission, and which placed itself at the disposal of the rioters? There was nothing which was more likely to increase the difficulties to which the Chief Secretary had alluded than the distinction between the administration of the law in Belfast and in other parts of the country. Some of the Belfast rioters who were arrested were taken red-handed by the police. They had kept up for hours a siege of the police barracks, a thing unheard of in this country and in the South of Ireland. What, he asked, would be done were these things done in Kerry? Well, some of these men, taken red-handed by the police in Belfast, were brought before a Belfast Bench of Magistrates, and what were the sentences? The sentences have been a parody of public justice, and were calculated to inflame the passions of the people. A sentence of 20s. fine or 10 days was passed for hunting the police off Belfast streets and besieging them in their barracks. They knew how differently crimes of a very moderate character were punishable in the South. He knew a man personally who was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for throwing stones at an old man from behind a hedge, and when no serious injury was inflicted. And he said that no man in that House and no man in England could stand up and say that they could expect from the people of Ireland confidence in the justice of English law when such cases of distinction in administration were seen. So long as such sentences as those in the Belfast cases continued they could not expect any other impression to be carried to the minds of the rioters of Belfast than that they were regarded with sympathy. The Chief Secretary ought to remove from the minds of the people of the North that there was one kind of justice for them and another for the men in Kerry. The fact had been alluded to that he had himself opposed the renewal of the Arms Act; but one of his chief reasons for doing so was the belief that it would not be used when it was most needed, and that it would not be administered impartially. That belief had been justified by the fact that firearms had been freely used in Belfast, although that town was in a proclaimed district. Those arms had been used, not only against Her Majesty's police, but also against Her Majesty's soldiers. Dr. Hanna and Dr. Kane had advised the Protestants not to give up a single rifle, and the Town Council of Belfast had described the Proclamation as insulting to the population of Belfast, and recommended the people to disobey it. Where there was one rifle in the South there were 10 in Ulster; and although the use made of them in the South was an improper one, it was insignificant in comparison to what was the case in Ulster. If this system was to continue, he did not envy the Chief Secretary his task. The Irish Party were watching with eager curiosity whether an honest attempt would be made to disarm the people of every district of Ulster which had been proclaimed. If they did not, the Government would lay themselves under the burden of the grievous charge that they were not attempting to do what they always pretended to do in Ireland, to sail on an even keel, but were making themselves the tool of an ascendancy. He wished to say one or two words now about the Rev. Hugh Hanna, who, so long as 20 years ago, had been before the public as a political firebrand and an exciter of sectarian hate. In the midst of the riots, when the streets of Belfast were dyed with blood, the Rev. H. Hanna preached a sermon in which he said that the riots were undoubtedly to be regretted, but they had served a useful purpose. He noticed that the leaders of the Orangemen, in speaking of the riots, adopted a double tone. They began by stating that no Orangemen had anything to do with them; but towards the conclusion of their speeches they said, "Let England beware. These riots have demonstrated what stuff is in the Orangemen of Ulster." But if the Orangemen had taken no part in the riots, how could the riots have demonstrated the stuff of which the Orangemen were made? The Rev. H. Hanna, in concluding his sermon, launched out into a denunciation of "Morley's murderers." Irish Members had often been taken to task for denunciation of the police; but he defied anyone to show that they had ever gone into a district where the police were being shot down, and made use of the most inflammatory language, calculated to excite mobs to continue to shoot down the police. The language of Irish Members was used in that House, and generally when the occurrences to which they referred were at an end. Had he or any of the Irish National Leaders used such language in similar circumstances they would have been placed in the dock. Had anything been done; had the Government even spoken in condemnation of the language of the Rev. H. Hanna? The Chief Secretary was bound to take notice of it in that House.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I referred to no individual. I did not think it necessary; but I distinctly and strongly condemned any such language.

MR. DILLON

said, he had been placed on trial for language used by him, and he appealed to any Member of that House to say whether his language could be compared with that of the Rev. H. Hanna? Such difference of treatment destroyed all confidence in the impartiality of the Administration. The right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech, which contrasted so favourably in its tone with the speeches of other Members of the Government, that there was not the shadow of foundation for the charge that the original incentives to the riots were to be found in the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the letters of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman must have made that statement in ignorance of the past history of Ireland. Any man who appealed to the Protestants of Ulster to show that they were men like their ancestors in 1798 could not use language more calculated to let loose the passions which desolated that Province at that unhappy time, and the consequences of which remained to this day. On the morrow of the battle of the Diamond a campaign of extermination was entered upon, which for cruelty, wholesale persecution, and ruthless savagery was unparalleled in the annals of civilization. Every Catholic in the county of Armagh was doomed to absolute extermination. They had it on the evidence of Viscount Gosport. Six thousand Catholic families were driven from their homes. The practice was to give notice to the unfortunate Catholics in this way—"To hell or Connaught, or you know your fate." ["Question!"] It was the question. He was pointing out the deeds these Orangemen were invited to repeat in order to demonstrate to the people of England that they were like their fathers in 1798. If after the warning the Catholics did not go, within 24 hours they had their houses burnt over their heads by the "Peep-o'-Day Boys." Those were acts which any humane man would wish to throw a veil over. It was the endeavour of the Irish Members to make the people of Ulster forget 1641 and 1798. While the Land League existed in that Province for five years there were no riots. But the result of the noble Lord's visit had been to revive memories which led to deeds similar to what had been done in past days. If liberty was to be denied to the people of Irelend on account of the Belfast riots, all he could say was that that was a position which no Government could long continue to maintain, because it amounted to saying that they looked forward to the perpetuation of hatred and Party struggle which had disgraced Ulster, and which it was the highest object of the lives of the Irish Members to put an end to.

MR. EWART (Belfast, N.)

said, the hon. Member for West Belfast appeared in a new character that night. There could be no doubt—and hon. Members on both sides of the House must agree to it—that Ireland for years had been in a most deplorable state. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently described it as one "disgraced by midnight outrages and daylight assassinations," and referred to those murders of undefended women and noble men; and they had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that the "idea of a certain section of Irishmen was to march through rapine and murder to the dismemberment of the Empire." In late years the state of Ireland had been worse than ever. They had the institution of "Boycotting" prevailing throughout the land. It was a horrible system, inaugurated by the hon. Member for Cork in a well-known speech, in which he advised his countrymen to shun those with whom they disagreed in the market, to shun them in the street, and to shun them in the chapel, and it prevented him from exercising his individual liberty. In addition to that miserable and wretched system prevailing in Ireland they had the horrible system of the maiming of cattle. He had been an admirer of the speeches of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton); but during the whole time that he had listened to or read them he had never heard one word in condemnation of the dreadful state of affairs that had so long existed. Now, however, when the people of the North of Ireland were provoked into acts which he would not defend, the hon. Member came out as the apostle of peace and order. He only hoped that the reformation of the hon. Gentleman would continue, and that he would use even greater efforts in the cause of law and order. He (Mr. Ewart) hoped, also, that he would use his influence in the West of Ireland and other parts, and also with his Colleagues, in order to bring about a better state of things.

MR. SEXTON

I have done it.

MR. EWART

said, he was glad to hear it. The hon. Member, however, in the very long speech that he had made, seemed to have been troubled with a singularly defective memory in reference to the Belfast riots. He was not sure that he did not go back as far as 1841, but he certainly went back to 1864 and 1867; and he led the House to suppose that what occurred at that time was an unprovoked ebullition on the part of the Protestants of Belfast. He (Mr. Ewart), however, begged to remind the House that, at the time the hon. Member referred to, the country was convulsed by an agitation for the Repeal of the Union. The people of Belfast were filled with apprehension; and the Daniel O'Connell Ceremony and the agitation for the Repeal of the Union, had caused intense excitement, and led to serious collisions. He was not going into any statement in defence of the recent riots in Belfast, nor did he wish to minimize them. He deplored them as much as any man could do. He regretted that a town noted for its loyalty on all occasions, and especially so on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to the North of Ireland a short time ago, should have injured its fair fame by the recent proceedings. However, although he could by no means defend those proceedings, he might recall to the House that the state of the public mind of Belfast was wrought up to a feverish state, and was in a most susceptible condition. He would not follow the example of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and go into what he considered the state of affairs with regard to the origin of the riots there. He bowed with all deference to the desire of the Chief Secretary, and recognized at once that that might be a subject of a contentious nature, and to be avoided in view of the judicial inquiry about to take place. His hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone had given his version of the affair, in which he agreed in the main. He (Mr. Ewart) would not venture to say more than this—that the public mind was in a very excited state, and that there was very great agitation amongst all Parties. The excitement was due to the Home Rule debates, and to the threats of the Nationalist Party as to what would take place when the Bill came into operation. There had been a great deal of trouble caused by indiscreet people on both sides. He did not blame one side much more than the other. The statement of hon. Members, that 600 Catholic families had been discharged from their employment by Protestants, was greatly exaggerated. He (Mr. Ewart) did not believe that a single Roman Catholic was discharged, though numbers of them, as well as of Protestants, left their employment. He had heard complaints of that sort in connection with an interest with which he had something to do; but he was given to understand that there was nothing to prevent those people going back to their work. He was happy to say that most of them had gone back to their work, and he hoped would remain at it. Indeed, he believed it was a fact that the whole of the Catholics had returned to their work in the case referred to. Many Catholics had never left their work, and he trusted that there would be no further differences. With regard to the attack that had been made in that House upon Orangemen, he would remind hon. Members that the Orange Order fully recognized the principle of civil and religious liberty. He (Mr. Ewart) was not an Orangeman himself; but he asserted that civil and religious liberty was the leading principle of the Orange Body. They had fought for that great principle in Ireland; they succeeded in establishing the principle, and they were determined to maintain it. It was not the conduct of Orangemen that was at the root of all this evil in Belfast. It was the dislike of a certain portion of the community to all loyalty. The hon. Gentleman had stated that this was not a religious question; he was glad to hear him say so, for it was not really a question of religion, but a question of loyalty. Protestants fully recognized the right of their Catholic countrymen to religious liberty; but, unfortunately, many of the Catholics were disloyal, and they lost no opportunity of showing that disloyalty. They showed disloyal emblems, such as the harp without a crown. They indulged in disloyal music; and those kind of things were calculated to stir up the feelings of Ulstermen. The Protestants were loyal because they were taught to fear God and honour the Queen; they were loyal from a sense of duty, and they were loyal from interest; they saw that where loyalty prevailed there was prosperity and contentment; on the other hand, that where disloyalty prevailed there was discontent and distress; for want of confidence trade languished, and one branch after another—shipbuilding, for instance—disappeared; and they naturally argued that the same result would follow if Home Rule were carried—in fact, that they would lose their occupations, and that in the North of Ireland they would have grass growing on the streets, as it was in the disloyal parts of the country. It had been said in the course of the debate that the Protestants of Ulster were of a persecuting nature; and a similar statement had been attributed also to Earl Spencer. He must say that both charges were entirely against the facts of the case. It was directly the reverse. In a great part of Ireland, unfortunately, religious liberty was only a name. Protestants had to keep quiet, and if they did not they suffered for it. [Cries of "No, no!"] He (Mr. Ewart) spoke from what he knew, and from what every Member knew who had any information on the subject. He hoped that the Commission would sit and report to the House of Commons, and that they would be able to find out some means by which they could cause the law to be respected in Ireland. For years the law had not been a terror to evil-doers; but the evil-doers had been a terror to the law-abiding, and to those who wished to do well. He hoped that a better state of things might soon arise, and that the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the industrial condition of Ireland might be able to give some suggestions that would enable the Government to do something for Ireland, and that all Irishmen might unite for the common good.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Dublin, College Green)

, as a Member for one of the divisions of Dublin, said, that if the peace were preserved in Dublin it was because the Catholic majority was not excited by clerical firebrands, as the Protestant majority of Belfast was. Happily they had nobody in Dublin to compare with the Rev. Mr. Hanna or the Rev. Mr. Kane. What was the moral of the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)? Was it that when the Protestants were in a minority, as in Dublin, they were peaceful and law-abiding; but when they were in a majority, as in Belfast, riot and disturbance, and plunder and murder took place? That was the inference to be drawn from the hon. Member's speech; but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) refused to accept that view. The disturbances in Belfast were not due to Protestantism; they were inconsistent with its spirit; they were the outcome of a local sore, which, owing to the action of the lay and clerical emissaries of evil and mischief, was not permitted to heal; they were of annual occurrence, and they ought to be looked at in a broader light than that in which they had been considered. They had the key of the whole situation when they looked back and saw that for many a long weary year these unfortunate occurrences were taking place where the Orange organizations prevailed, and nowhere else. In Belfast and Londonderry Orange bands played such tunes as "We'll kick the Pope before us," "Croppies lie down," and "The Protestant Boys," tunes which were specially selected to annoy Catholics. Happily nothing of the kind was done in Dublin by the Catholics. Again, in the North, English loyal tunes were made Party tunes, and were so played as to give offence to Nationalists. It was not to be expected that Nationalists should display the national flags, which were to them the symbols of misrule. They were floated and flaunted by the Ascendancy Party, who had their heels upon the necks of the majority of the Irish people; and these things had inevitably tended to make the emblems of this country very unwelcome and unpleasant to the Irish people. What was wanted was not so much an inquiry into the origin of the recent riots, but that the House of Commons should desire that some steps should be taken that would end these occurrences, and do away with the recurrence of these disgraceful and shameful scenes. To the tune of "God save the Queen," the police were stoned and houses were wrecked, and a man would carry off a bottle of stolen whisky singing "Rule Britannia." The number of killed and injured in the recent riots was probably far greater than was indicated by the newspaper records, because there were sufferers whose cases had not been published. It was possible the "butcher's bill" would amount to 1,000 wounded and killed. The cause of these lamentable occurrences was not the trumpery incidents to which their origin was now attributed. They were due, as he had said, to the incitement of lay and clerical firebrands; and the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had incurred a serious responsibility in lighting the fires of race and religious animosity. How would the noble Lord look in the face of those who had been made orphans by his incendiary harangues? Could anything be more barbarous than to keep up by annual celebrations the memory of an internecine war? Was it wise, patriotic, or Christian to re-open these wounds every year? The question now was not who started the last riots, but what was the cause we had them from year to year, and how could we arrange to put an end to them? The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no mere idle, thoughtless youth. He had proved himself a man of prevision. When he visited Ireland to stir up the population of the North to resist the legislation of the late Prime Minister he must have known what he was about, and what would probably be the result of his incendiary speeches. From the Leader of a small Party of five men he had become the Leader of the House of Commons. This was the goal which he had so long striven to reach; he had laid his plans to attain this object, and he had at last achieved it. How had he achieved it? By foresight and, if he might use the phrase without offence, by audacity. He had been the means of kicking some men upstairs and others downstairs; but the House could not acquit him of the charge of going over to Ireland to deliver inflammatory speeches for Party ends. It was, in his opinion, the most shameful business that any politician had been engaged in, either connected with Ireland or England. Then, how were the police spoken of? Was it conducive to loyalty and law and order to denounce the police in Belfast as "liveried scoundrels?" This phrase was applied to the police by one of the hon. Members for Belfast. Another hon. Member called them "assassins" and "Morley's murderers;" and the chief organs of the Tory Party in Ireland not only denounced them as assassins, but as cowards, and as men who were capable of shooting from a safe shelter women and children in the streets. The Orange rioters in Belfast had been described as the "residuum" and as "Corner Boys;" but when engaged in work which was considered less objectionable by their sympathizers they were described as everything that was brave and noble. It was the desire of the Catholic and Nationalist people of Ireland that there should be no more of these shameful scenes in the North, or in any other part of Ireland. They were not in favour of arguing political or religious questions with iron rivets. They desired to promote peace and goodwill among the various Parties in the country. He claimed for the Nationalists of Ireland that for many years they had been doing their best to conciliate the small but extreme faction of Orangemen in Ireland, to allay their apprehensions, to remove their prejudices, and to do all they could to live in peace, harmony, and friendship. But this state of things could never be brought about so long as English statesmen and Irish clergymen addressed cruel and shameful incitements to these misguided and unfortunate people, and by such means not only brought disgrace on the name of Protestant, but on the name of Irishmen.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. P. McDonald,)—put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.