HC Deb 19 May 1887 vol 315 cc611-23

[ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th May], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." 2. "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,830,300, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888.

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

Dr. CLARK (Caithness)

rose to speak, when—

MR. SPEAKER

I would remind the hon. Member that he has already spoken in the debate, and is precluded from taking further part in the discussion before the House.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government for some information as to when they intend to fill the vacancy at present existing in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. I presume I am in Order in going into this matter under the Vote for the Irish Law Courts. It is about six weeks since the Government succeeded in passing a measure which was considered so urgent that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary got up in this House and said it was necessary to pass it without discussion or debate. On that representation, Sir, several blocks which stood against the Bill were withdrawn, and the Government succeeded in passing the measure through this House post-haste, and through "another place," and it is now the law of the land. Seeing that the Bill passed through both Chambers six weeks ago, it is rather surprising that the Government have not availed themselves of the opportunity which the provisions of that Bill offers for filling up the vacancy I have referred to. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary declared, when the Bill was under discussion, that it was quite impossible that the Common Pleas Division could continue to discharge its functions unless this appointment was made; but, in the face of that fact, we have seen six weeks elapse, and yet have heard no hint even of the likelihood of the appointment being made. I would press the Government to give us some information on this subject. I do not think they have treated us fairly. They first induced us to take our blocks off the measure, by representing that the matter was of the utmost urgency, and now that they have had the Bill six weeks, they make not the smallest use of it. I ask them if they will give us some information as to what they mean to do? The Chief Secretary is, as usual, not present; but I would express a hope that some other official representing the Government would be able to give us some information on this point.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

The hon. Gentleman seems excessively anxious to know what is going to be done under a Bill which has not yet received the Royal Assent, and which, therefore, is not yet law.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Six weeks ago I was refused by the Government a single night's discussion of this Bill, on their assurance that it made all the difference of a cataclysm of a Parliamentary character in the ordinary conduct of debate whether the Bill was taken on a Thursday or a Friday. The Government could not wait for the Bill one day; they were in a terrible hurry; the people of Ireland were gasping for the appointment of a new Judge. The measure has passed the House of Lords, and there would have been no difficulty in getting the Royal Assent to it; indeed, since the Bill passed both Houses we have several times seen Black Rod walk up to this Table. The anxiety of the Government to appoint a new Judge is so slight that, notwithstanding the extraordinary pressure they put upon us to pass the Bill, now that they have got it they have not taken the smallest trouble to get the Royal Assent to it. I quite appreciate the object of the delay on the part of the Government, and I must say it is a high compliment you pay to the Law Officer who has been extremely vilified by The Times. You have not given the Bill the Royal Assent, in order that, for the present, you may not lose the services of the Attorney General for Ireland. If at first you had said frankly what you meant to do, the position would have been a reasonable one to take up; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told us that the Bill was so necessary that you could not wait a single day for it, and we had it on his assurance that some very frightful thing would happen if the Bill did not pass at once. "Unless you pass this Bill," he said, "we shall be obliged to fill up the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas." Such pressure did the Government put on the House that the third reading of the measure was allowed to be taken on the same night that the Committee stage was disposed of. The Bill went up to the House of Lords at once, and it passed there ever so long ago. The Government have been keeping it up their sleeve, so to speak, ever since. This shows their precious way of doing business. They find their Irish Attorney General so extremely useful here that they run not allow him to be made a Judge. I only hope that when they can spare him, and when he retires to the Bench, he will be found as useful a Judge as he has been an Attorney General. But it was not my intention in rising to discuss that subject; I desired to call attention to a different matter altogether. I rise to refer to the action of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the Ulster meeting. Things in Ireland have been brought to this pass—that when a certain class of people determine to hold a public meeting, and a placard is issued by someone announcing a counter meeting, then the first meeting is not to be held. I would ask Members of the Orange Party whether that is reasonable? I put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) whether, when the Orange Party hold their meetings in Dublin, at the Rotunda, in splendid style, with all their regalia, they are never interfered with at all? We do not dream of interfering with them—in fact, they rather amuse us. They build their Orange Hall in Dublin next to the Palace of the Catholic Archbishop, and no one objects to their mummery. We consider them harmless, and their meetings never give rise to anything in the slightest degree in the nature of a panic. But what is the last act of the Government in regard to freedom of public meeting in Ireland? [An hon. MEMBER: Speak up!] An hon. Member says "Speak up!" I always use my natural voice in speaking, and I have always succeeded in making myself heard. I think if hon. Gentlemen opposite would stop their conversation, no one would have any difficulty in hearing me. Her Majesty's Government, when it suits their purpose, are fond of appealing to the example of Lord Spencer. They refer to his course of action as a precedent. Well, in Lord Spencer's time, there was a meeting held in Dungannon in no degree differing from that which is now proclaimed. I travelled down to it with the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman). We sat in the same train, and in the same carriage, and the only thing he said disrespectful to me was that I smoked cigars as long as his arm. Seeing that I do not smoke at all, I think that was rather hard. He also said he was sorry Her Majesty's Government had lent me their protection to prevent the Orangemen breaking my head. Well, what happened on the occasion of that meeting? Why, what happened shows how completely the peace can be preserved in Dungannon. I went into the gathering with nothing but a stick in my hand, and the Rev. Roaring Kane shouted out—"There is So-and-so; show him how you can cheer for the Queen;" and they showed me how they could cheer for the Queen by raising their shillelaghs in the air, and directing them at my head. There was a troop of dragoons present, fortunately, so that notwithstanding the excitement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and of the Rev. Roaring Kane, nothing serious took place. The Under Secretary declared, on that occasion, that he was extremely sorry that the "protection," as he called it, of the Queen's troops had been given to me—in other words, he was extremely sorry that I had not been killed by his Orange friends. But I did not feel in the least aggrieved by the expressions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is a military man, and we must take these things from him with certain qualifications. But what I want to point out is, that at a meeting at Dungannon similar to that which has been proclaimed, Lord Spencer was able to keep the peace, notwithstanding the incitement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and others like him. This incitement went on to an enormous extent at that time, and yet without breaking the peace. A lot of Tories came over to Ireland especially, and addressed a meeting of the Orange Party in the Rotunda—a meeting presided over by the Orange Grand Master. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was there, and he heard the incitements addressed to the Orangemen of Ulster to break up our meetings and break our heads. He sat and listened to his present Attorney General for Ireland, when he declared that the blood of Giffen was on the head of Lord Spencer; he heard the Under Secretary for Ireland tell the people to keep the cartridge in the rifle, and use other expressions of the same kind. And yet, notwithstanding these meetings of Orangemen, and notwithstanding the death of a man which occurred through the riotous proceedings of the mob, who broke the windows of the convent in which the Lady lay sick—a circumstance which was so inconvenient to the Tory Party at the time, that Sir Stafford North cote had to write a letter regretting its occurrence—Earl Spencer was able to keep order in Ulster. The noble Earl could allow meetings to take place and yet keep order, and that not with standing the Orange Party were led on by Sir Stafford North cote, by the First Lord of the Treasury, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. [Cries of "Divide!"] Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who cries "Divide!"—[An hon. MEMBER: Not gallant.] Then I will say nothing about him. Though these incitements were addressed to the Orange Party by Gentlemen so distinguished, and though the Orange Party were roused to fury by those incitements, and by the fact that the Franchise Act was being passed by Her Majesty's Government—for they knew it would give us a majority of the Ulster Representation—notwithstanding all that, I say, Lord Spencer preserved the peace so thoroughly that, with the sole exception of the lad Giffen, who was brought 100 miles, and paid 2s. 6d., in order to attend a meeting in a county and a district he did not belong to, no one suffered injury. That was the state of things under Lord Spencer; but what is the state of things now? A Protestant Association, called The Protestant Home Rule Association, which has no connection with the National League, a modest, hum-drum Association, not in any way associated with "conspirators" like ourselves—an Association led by Mr. Shillington, Mr. Thomas Dixon, and other gentlemen who are Northern Presbyterians, in a quiet, family manner, amongst kith and kin and fellow-Pres- byterians, propose to hold a meeting to protest against the policy of the Government. Now, I must say that whatever we have had to say about Lord Spencer, we never complained that he did not allow us to talk against his policy. But now, when a body of men threaten to hold counter demonstrations, Her Majesty's Government say that we shall not hold our meetings, because the Orange Party will not keep the peace. This is exactly the case of the Salvation Army and the Skeleton Army riots, which were the subject of a decision in the Courts of Law. The Skeleton Army said that the Salvationists should not be allowed to parade in one of your English towns. [Interruption.] I would advise the hon. Member opposite to take some soda water.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman is not hero to keep order. That is my duty.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I quite recognize that that is your duty, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that I was betrayed into making the remark I did by the disorder on the other side of the House. The Government must, I think, recognize that the case with which we are dealing is governed by the law as it was laid down in the case of the Sitting bourne riots, when the Skeleton Army endeavoured to break up a meeting or procession of the Salvation Army. The Skeleton Army said that they would not allow a procession of the Salvation Army to take place. A sworn information that a breach of the peace was likely to take place was then laid before the magistrates by some of the people of the town, and the magistrates proclaimed the meetings of both the Skeleton and the Salvation Armies. The Salvationists, however, persisted in holding their meeting, in spite of the proclamation of the magistrates, and the case was then taken to the Court of Queen's Bench, which decided that they had a right to do so. That Court said, that if a man were walking peacefully down Oxford Street, and another man said that he would not allow him to do so, that would not entitle the magistrates, or the Government, to say that they would not allow either of them to walk down Oxford Street. Now that is exactly the case of the disturbances in Ulster. The Protestant Home Rulers said—"We will hold meetings, and will protest against the policy of the Government." Thereupon, the Orange Party threaten a counter demonstration, and the Government say—"We will not allow either meeting." Now I contend that the Government are not entitled to take that course, but that they are bound to give protection to lawful meetings. They are, in point of law, as much bound to do that as they are bound to protect a process-server. They are bound to protect every man in the exercise of his lawful rights, whether he is a process-server or not. The Protestant Home Rulers of Ulster have as much right to have their rights regarded and protected in the North of Ireland as the landlords and these process-servers have in the South of Ireland. If the Government say that they cannot allow the Home Rule meetings in Ulster, because they will lead to disorder, then they are bound to put down process-serving and evictions in the South, because those things lead to disorder. But the fact that they do so does not prevent evictions taking place; and then, as to them, the Government say that they will protect every man in the exercise of his legal rights; and so evictions are not only allowed to be carried out, but are protected. I think that in regard to this matter, the Government might learn a lesson from what has just happened in Canada. In spite of threatened turbulence, the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) has been allowed to hold meetings in Canada, though the Governor General was keenly opposed to him. A meeting was even allowed to be held in Toronto, although there the majority of the inhabitants were said to be adverse to the views of the hon. Member. Yet in Ireland, where you have 35,000 troops, and an unlimited force of all kinds, you say you will not allow these meetings. [A cry of "Divide!" and "Order!"] I appeal, Sir, for your protection against these disorderly interruptions from the other side of the House

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The interruptions of the hon. And learned Gentleman are most un-Parliamentary. A single cry of "Order" or "Divide" is not disorderly. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself gives rise to these interruptions.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I was not aware that there was only a single cry of "Order." I thought there were several cries of "Divide." If I am out of Order, it is for you, and not for Gentlemen opposite to call me to Order. I say, and I repeat it, that in Ireland we have as much right to hold these meetings—and every man and every Party have the same right to hold them—as the landlords have to carry out their evictions. These rights depend on the common law of the country, and the Government have no right to prevent their exercise. Let me tell the Government what will come to pass if these meetings are disallowed. If one set of people, holding a particular political opinion, are allowed to say that people of another political opinion shall not hold their meetings, you will go from politics to religion. And what will happen if the people in the South of Ireland say to the Protestants in that part of the country—"We will make a protest against your celebrations. We will get up such a manifestation of force as will threaten a breach of the peace, and we will then appeal to the Government to put a stop to both demonstrations." Such a thing would strike at the root of civil government in the country. The Orangemen of Dublin now meet in peace and order, and no one endeavours to interfere with them. Under existing circumstances, you can meet indoors or out-of-doors, as you please. An Orange meeting was called only the other day, and, although it was countermanded, that was no fault of ours; if it had been held in public, it would not have been interfered with. I call on the Government to make a distinct declaration of their intentions in this matter. If they intend to suppress meetings simply because other people get up counter demonstrations, all I can say is that these counter demonstrations will then be justified by all people who consider the first meetings obnoxious to their opinions. The Government is taking a course absolutely fatal to public peace and public liberty, when they say they will protect the landlords in the exercise of their rights, but will not protect other people in the exercise of their rights. We say that our civil rights are at least equal to, if they are not paramount, to those of the other class; and we call on the Government to say that they will protect the right of public meeting, al- though they might have, as Sir George Trevelyan said the other day, that he had to get a small army on one occasion of 1,000 men to do it. Otherwise you will justify the assertion that your Government is a Government in the interests of the Orange organization: and if the Orange organization is allowed to say that they will put down all meetings obnoxious to them, or will prevent them being held, then it is clear that that organization will become the de facto Government of the country.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The hon. and learned Member has praised Lord Spencer for the course he took in regard to public meetings; but Lord Spencer never countenanced the doctrine that he has laid down to-night. The hon. and learned Member has laid down the doctrine that it is the duty of the Executive to allow any meeting or any number of meetings, not with standing—

MR. T. M. HEALY

No; I said that the Government are bound to allow the original meeting to be held.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

He may have drawn that conclusion; but the proposition from which he drew it was very much wider, because he said that it was at Common Law the right of everyone to hold a meeting when and where he wished. Then, in that case, it is the right of the Orangemen to hold their meeting at the same time and place as the Home Rule meeting. I contest the whole proposition; but at present I only wish to point out that, if the proposition be true, neither Lord Spencer's theory nor his practice bore it out. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that whatever he and his Friends had to complain of Lord Spencer, they never complained that he interfered with liberty of speech. But Lord Spencer proclaimed no fewer than nine Nationalist demonstrations on the ground that Orange demonstrations were about to be held at the same place and at the same time. Then the hon. and Member alluded to the meeting which was not suppressed by Lord Spencer at Dungannon. he said that the circumstances were the same as they are to-day; and therefore we should not have proclaimed the meeting to-day. I do not recollect all the circumstances of the meeting at Dungannon in 1884; but the circum- stances of the meeting to-day, as reported to me, were certainly not precisely similar. For I understand that the day fixed for the meeting was also a Roman Catholic holiday, a market day, and a hiring day—all circumstances which would naturally create a situation unfavourable to keeping of the peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a Common Law right to hold meetings, and he asked me to give a pledge that the Government would protect the exercise of that right. It is, however, impossible for mo, by any pledge given in this House, to place any restriction on the Government beyond that which Lord Spencer was willing to place on himself. As to that, I will road a short sentence from a letter which Lord Spencer caused to be written in 1884. In that letter it was said— His Excellency cannot allow any interference with the discretion he reserves to himself, of deciding whether a meeting shall, or shall not, be allowed to take place. I repeat this declaration of Lord Spencer on the part of the Government. But I will, at the same time, say that the Government will not allow—it is not their intention to allow—bogus meetings to be called for the sole purpose of interfering with meetings that are otherwise legal. I will only further remind the House that neither this Government, nor any Government, ever proposed to interfere with indoor meetings on behalf of any opinions. It is free to everyone to hold meetings anywhere and everywhere under cover. But there are circumstances, and there are times and occasions, when a meeting held in the open air is a direct provocation to a breach of the peace. The local magistrates are bound, under the Common Law to prevent that, and the Government will certainly back them up.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that at the time Lord Spencer proclaimed the Nationalist meetings to which he has referred, he had a Statute which gave him power to limit the Common Law right of meeting. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the magistrates have a right to prevent these meetings; but he did not tell the House under what conditions that discretion can be exercised. I say that the right to disperse a meeting only arises when there has been illegality or an actual broach of the peace. It has been laid down in the most distinct manner by the Courts of this country, that there is no right to prevent a meeting on the score of apprehension. If there is illegality—if the notice convening the meeting declares it to be for advocating something illegal—there may be a right to prohibit that meeting. But if the meeting is called for a primâ facie legal object, I say there is no discretion on the part of the magistrates to disperse this meeting unless there is actual illegality committed, or there is a breach of the peace. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has called to his assistance the Common Law of England which he has—I am sure unconsciously—stated in the most imperfect manner.

THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN) (Dublin, College Green)

Lord Spencer, I may remind the House, took different courses when meetings were called in the North of Ireland. At first he proclaimed Nationalist demonstrations on the ground that they were illegal, and led to a breach of the peace. Subsequently, he took the course of protecting both Nationalist and Orange demonstrations. In order to do that, he found it necessary on some occasions to send a small army to the scene of operations. On one occasion on which I was present, an Orangeman named Giffen was resisting the efforts of the military to preserve the peace, and while doing so, he received the wound from the effects of which he afterwards died. Nevertheless his death was stigmatized more than once by the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland as an act of foul and deliberate murder by Her Majesty's troops. Again and again, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has stigmatized that act in those terms. Subsequently, Lord Spencer came to a wiser determination, and adopted a much better course. That was to declare, that whichever meeting was called first in any locality, he would allow that meeting to be held, and would not allow a counter demonstration at the same place on the same day. I have not the date of that letter or proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant; but I think it will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that Lord Spencer did take that course, which was a wise and a proper course, and led to the preservation of peace and order in the North of Ireland. That is the course the Government should take; for if they carry out the plan of suppressing meetings because counter demonstrations are threatened, they will throw into the hands of the Orange Society in the North of Ireland the power of suppressing the right of public meeting in that part of the country. If the Government adhere to their present policy, then if a Nationalist demonstration were called, the Orangemen would only have to send out a placard calling a meeting at the same place, on the same day, and then the Government would come to their aid, and would prohibit the original meeting. I desire to call the attention of the House to the undeniable fact, that the ultimate course adopted by Lord Spencer was to say that whatever meeting—Nationalist, Orange, or Home Rule—was first called for a particular day and place, he would allow it to be held, would protect it, and would not allow a counter demonstration at the same time and place. That is the course the Government should adopt, instead of playing into the hands of the Orange Party, by suppressing a meeting in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions on the mere issue of an Orange placard.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think that this discussion may now terminate. It has now lasted nearly three quarters of an hour, and it is now nearly 2 o'clock. Hon. Members opposite have had an opportunity of making their statement, to which a full answer has been given. I therefore now claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 95: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 164.)

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 79: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 165.)