§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that the Rifle Volunteers, under the command of Major Ratcliff, had 174 been ordered to be in readiness to assist the Military in the suppression of the recent Riots at Birmingham, and if so, under what authority; and whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that a proper occasion for their being employed?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he had not been aware of the circumstances until his attention had been called to them by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was therefore unable to answer the first part of the Question, Assuming that statement to be true, he was not aware under what authority the arrangement had been made. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it was not, in his opinion, an occasion in which it was proper to call out the Volunteers. If such a course had been taken—and he was not then aware whether it had or had not—it was one which had not his approval. He would, however, institute inquiries on the subject.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to a reply he was reported to have given to a Question put to him by the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) on the preceding day, as to whether certain words imputed to a lecturer named Murphy should not be considered to disentitle him to the protection of the law. He had also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the words in question have not in point of fact been used at a public lecture in that sense and with the object alleged, and that Mr. Murphy, at a public meeting in Birmingham on Monday evening, had given such explanation thereof as was satisfactory to that meeting, which meeting included many Roman Catholics, one of whom made a speech in reply, in which he stated that nothing Mr. Murphy had said, could justify the conduct of his co-religionists?
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYSir, the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) asked me privately yesterday whether I had any objection to answer a question respecting the Birmingham riots, and I expressed my readiness to give the House all the information in my possession. I stated, accordingly, that I had received a communication from the Mayor reporting that at that time all was quiet. Being further asked whether my opinion had been requested as to there being any grounds for taking criminal proceedings upon certain expressions used 175 by Murphy, I said that it had, and that, in my opinion, there were no grounds for proceeding criminally upon those words. I added that I regarded the expressions as worthy of the strongest condemnation, and that I did not wonder at their having created excitement, because they seemed to me only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers. I said nothing with respect to their being legally regarded as the cause of the riots. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) now asks me whether I think the use of such words could justify the rioters, or deprive the lecturer of the right to protection. I do not think that he is deprived; I do not think that anything I have said could justify the inference that he is to be deprived of the right of protection in a place built by him and others for the purposes of these lectures, because the words were not criminal words in themselves, or words that could be legally taken notice of. I am not in the least aware of those other facts alluded to by the hon. Member for Peterborough, except that I understood from the papers sent to me that these words were used at a public meeting, at which the hon. Member was present. It was stated that the meeting was held at eight o'clock in the evening; that a Mr. Armstrong took the chair; that the hon. Member for Peterborough made a speech; that he was followed by Mr. Murphy; and that in the course of his speech Mr. Murphy said he had been taken to task for saying that the priests of Rome were murderers, cannibals, pickpockets, and liars. He said he repeated that statement, and should be prepared to prove it on the following evening. This was on Monday night, and I did not observe that the hon. Member for Peterborough took any notice, or asked for any explanation of those words.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he trusted he might be allowed to state that the report which the right hon. Gentleman had read of what took place on Monday night was not correct—or, at least, was not complete. He was not prepared to say—["Oh!"] Perhaps the House would allow him, in order to make his statement, to move the adjournment of the debate. ["No!"] He was anxious to be quite accurate, and the report was correct so far as it went, but it was not complete. Mr. Murphy at the meeting explained what he had said in regard to the epithets referred to, of which he (Mr. Whalley) disapproved as much as any man. They were not words 176 used at a public meeting, but were addressed by Mr. Murphy to some of his friends, who gathered around him. Mr. Murphy afterwards made some explanation of the matter, not one word of which was included in the report upon which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to rely. The result of his explanation was, that a Roman Catholic who came upon the platform, and who replied to some of the remarks of Mr. Murphy on other subjects, declared his opinion that nothing Mr. Murphy had said justified his co-religionists in the conduct they had pursued.