HC Deb 18 April 1890 vol 343 cc913-20

On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,

(12.19.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

Before the rising of the House last night I endeavoured to obtain from the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) some explanation with regard to the conduct of the police at the funeral of Mr. Matthew Harris, the late Member for East Galway, and who was well-known to many Members of this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was then unable to give any reply, and he suggested that I should put a question to-day. Adopting his suggestion, I gave notice of a question for to-day, and this afternoon put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He was, however, unable to give me further information about it. He suggested that I should put a further question at the close of question time. At the close of question time he had disappeared behind the Speaker's chair, and, though he came back for a moment, I was unable to get an answer. I think I have some reason to complain of this neglect of duty on the right hon. Gentleman's part. Mr. Harris died on Monday last at Ballinasloe, and the funeral took place yesterday. I should, first, say what was the conduct of the police. The head constable of the place went to the friends of the deceased and put two questions to them. He first asked who was to be the speaker at the funeral? I respectfully submit that he had no right to put that question. He then demanded that a place should be reserved at the side of the grave for a note-taker appointed by the Government. This demand was, in my opinion, very properly resented and refused. I do not see why the sad ceremony of an interment should be ordered and arranged for the purpose of securing special accommodation for an official of the Government. The funeral procession was attended, and, in a moral sense, molested, by the presence of a body of police. Some of the police were in civilian costume, and apparently unarmed; while others were in uniform, and were armed with batons. The police accompanied the procession. They pushed their way into the graveyard, and, when the procession reached the grave, violently forced their way forward until they had taken up a position immediately surrounding the grave, and placed their note-taker at the graveside. To the great indignation of the people of Ballinasloe—an indignation which has been reflected throughout the whole country—they remained in this position until the interment had concluded, and the mourners had dispersed. I ask the cause for this proceeding. Was this done because it was the funeral of an Irish Member? Is it to be understood that even death does not relieve an Irish Member from the attentions of this Government? Mr. Matthew Harris had been tortured by the Government, and their confederates, at a time when he was suffering from the disease which ended in his death. I do not see how the cause of law and order, or the stability of the Constitution, would have suffered if the Government had been content to cease their attentions after his death. Or was it because the funeral was attended by some of the Irish Members? It was attended by a great concourse of people, of all parties and creeds, who united in paying a last tribute of respect to an able and upright man. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was among those who were present. The policy of espionage and pursuit of the Member for North East Cork has reached the point of farcical absurdity. They have abandoned prosecutions against him so often that I should imagine that they would be more anxious to avoid finding fresh cause of prosecution against him, than to go in search of it. Had he not a right to speak at the grave? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could not imagine that my hon. Friend would attempt to discuss either the relations between landlords and tenants, or the policy of the Plan of Campaign, at the grave of Mr. Matthew Harris. The only prosecutions in Ireland on recent occasions have been with respect to these two subjects. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not imagine that my hon. Friend would have been guilty of either of these things at the grave of Mr. Harris. As a matter of fact, the few words spoken by my hon. Friend were simply words of eulogy of the life of his friend, and words his right to speak which the right hon. Gentleman will not deny. That being the ease, I maintain that this intrusion of the police was extremely wanton and uncalled for. I wish to ascertain whether the intrusion was that of the Government, or of some local busybody. If it was, as I infer from what the right hon. Gentleman said, the act of some subordinate, I request the right hon. Gentleman to say by whom, and when, and for what purpose the interference at the funeral took place. Great sacredness attaches to funerals in Ireland, as in all other civilised countries. In Ireland, owing to the sufferings and misfortunes of the country, the feeling is always particularly deep, and deserves to be respected, especially when the occasion is the death of a public man, who loved the people, and whom the people loved for his upright character. I speak, Sir, in the interests of peace. I believe that such interference as that which took place at the funeral of Michael Dwyer, and on the present occasion, although by the patience and forbearance of the people they may pass without conflict and disorder, may possibly lead at some time, as their tendency is to lead, either to the massacre of the people, which the Government care little about, or the massacre of the police. If there is any reason why these intrusions should be continued, let us know what the reason is. If not, let the Government issue an order to the police directing their discontinuance. I am too well-acquainted with the truculence of the Chief Secretary, and the offensive bad taste he displays on these occasions——

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order The hon. Gentleman is exceeding all limits of Parliamentary order and courtesy in debate.

MR. SEXTON

I do not know, Sir, whether you are aware that the Chief Secretary sneered in the most offensive manner.

*MR. SPEAKER

I was looking at the Chief Secretary, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman has a right to infer that because the right hon. Gentleman smiled he was smiling in any offensive sense.

MR. SEXTON

It may have been a smile, or it may have been a sneer. I may have been in error, and I. will say no more about it. I have felt it to be my duty to denounce the interference of the police, which I regard as a wanton provocation of the public temper, as an insult to the representatives of the people, and as an outrage upon the dead.

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

The hon. Member appears to be highly indignant because the Government were not able before 3 o'clock this afternoon to obtain information from the police officials in a remote part of Ireland. The hon. Member has been good enough to interpret some expressions he saw in my face as a sneer against himself or his friends. At that moment, perhaps, I was to blame, but I was not following the purport of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but was replying to an observation of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Madden) on the subject of the debate which occupied the attention of the House up to 12 o'clock to-night on the subject of bi-metallism. The information which, since question time, I have received from the Inspector is not in harmony with the account of the transaction given by the hon. Gentleman. I have said that application was made to be allowed to attend the meeting. ["It was not a meeting"; and Mr. SPEAKER, "Order, Order!"] Well, there were 2,000 people there. The police did not force their way into the churchyard. There were only five or six there besides the one in plain clothes. They asked permission to attend, and received no suggestion that their demand was regarded as an insult. No one objected to their presence; they simply walked with the rest of the crowd of 2,000 persons, and they paid as much respect to the dead as any one present.

MR. SEXTON

The telegram I have received from Mr. O'Brien states that the police were informed that their presence was regarded as an outrage.

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I can only give the information I have received. As in all such matters, I have no doubt the initiative rests with the Local Authority. If it had rested with the officials of the Castle I should probably have received earlier information than I did. The Local Authorities possibly supposed the funeral would be made the occasion of a political demonstration. In that case I do not see that the presence of the police would be an insult to either the dead or the living. If speeches were made they would have been reported in the daily papers, and there could be no more insult in their being reported by the police than in their being reported by the newspaper reporters. As a matter of fact I have no information on what grounds the police acted. I have no ground for believing that they acted harshly or imprudently or without due discretion. The information I have does not bear out the assertion that there was any violence shown by the police, or that the police had any ground for believing that their presence would be regarded as an insult.

*(12.37.) MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

I venture to appeal to the Attorney General for Ireland, as the Chief Secretary cannot speak again, to give us some assurance that we shall have further investigation into this matter —that a perfectly independent Authority will be sent down to make an investigation into the exact circumstances of the matter. We must all feel it is a perfect outrage that an armed force——

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

They were not armed.

*MR. J. E. ELLIS

They must have been armed.

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

They were the ordinary uniformed police.

*MR. J. E. ELLIS

The right hon. Gentleman cannot be so ignorant of the uniform of his constabulary in Ireland as not to know that they carry their side-arms on every occasion in Ireland. I repeat it is practically an armed force. No one in this House will say that the presence of armed men pressing their way among the mourners at a graveside in England would not be considered an outrage. If such a thing occurred in England a great deal would be heard of it.

(12.40.) MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I really think the Chief Secretary might make some reply to the extremely temperate appeal of the hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary said the police did not know it would be regarded as an insult and outrage that they should be present at the grave. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can make that statement, believing it to be true, because he must know very well that in the case of the funeral of Mr. Michael Dwyer, in Tipperary, the very same thing occurred. Upon that occasion the police forced their way to the place of interment. The greatest indignation at the conduct of the police was felt throughout Tipperary and Ireland, for it was felt that the presence of the police was an outrage and an insult. Such being the circumstances in regard to the funeral of Mr. Dwyer, I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can state, with any degree of accuracy, that the police in Ballinasloe did not believe that their presence at Mr. Harris's funeral would be regarded as an insult and outrage. I must take leave to say that it is the greatest possible proof of the influence for peace and tranquility which is exorcised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, that there was not upon that occasion some violent outburst upon the part of the people. I am quite convinced that if a much-respected public man was borne to the grave in this country and a force of armed men went to the graveside, those in attendance would make some demonstration against the outrage. If the Chief Secretary really understood the feelings of the people of the district in this matter he never would have made the speech he has just delivered. Instead of making light of the matter he would have expressed some sorrow at the occurrence, and given some assurance to the House that the Irish people should be spared the pain and the outrage of seeing insults offered to their leaders when they have passed away.

*(12.43.) MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)

I also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to offer some kind of explanation of this matter. Nothing stirs the people of Ireland more deeply than occurrences like that of which we complain. I cannot describe the effect they have had on me. When I entered the House I thought that perhaps what I had heard as to the demeanour of the Chief Secretary had been exaggerated, but I regret to say that I find it was not; indeed, his demeanour is worse than I supposed. Strong as were my feelings on Irish matters when I came here they are now intensified. I knew Mr. Matthew Harris for many years. He did not occupy that high position which many Members opposite think they occupy, but no man occupied a higher position in the affections of his countrymen than he. He sacrificed all for his country, he devoted all his time and energy for the good of those amongst whom he lived. Although he was persecuted by the Government during his lifetime, I think he might have been allowed to be committed to the earth in peace and quietness. If the Government had an ounce of sense it would be just on occasions such as that in question that they would hold aloof. I really do not know what the Chief Secretary is aiming at. It appears to me that he wishes to drive us to violence.

(12.46.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University

I merely wish to say that I meant no discourtesy to hon. Members opposite in not rising to respond to the appeals made to me. I did not rise, because all the information the Government possesses on this subject has been fully placed before the House by my right hon. Friend.

(12.47.) EARL, COMPTON (Barnsley)

The question addressed to the Attorney General was whether he would not make some further investigation. I would not have spoken if the matter had been taken up in a proper spirit by the Chief Secretary. I feel it is only right we English Members, who are most anxious to do all we can to pacify Ireland in all ways, and, if it is possible, to help even the Chief Secretary in pacifying the country, should every now and then take part in these discussions to show we are in earnest, and also to show that we are of opinion that the Irish people should be allowed to bury their dead without the presence of the police. It is quite natural the Irish Members should take exception to the action of the Government in this matter. They have, in no immoderate manner, brought the matter forward. On the contrary, they have stated their case, with one exception, without temper. I only ask for information, and I think the least the Minister responsible for Ireland can do is to afford it.

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never refused to give further information. On the contrary, I am always glad to give it. If a question is put upon the Paper I will do my best to answer it.

MR. SEXTON

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain on what ground the police thought they had reason to intrude their presence, and will he report the result to the House?

*MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course, I will do my best to give information, if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper; I always do.

House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock, till Monday next.