§ MR. WHALLEYproceeded to call at-attention to the recent Roman Catholic riots at Ashton, Rochdale, Stalybridge, Bury, and other places in the county of Lancaster, and at Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stone, Hanley, and other places in the counties of Warwick and Stafford; and to move for a Committee to inquire and report to the House as to the origin and nature of such riots, and what, if any, measures are requisite to secure to persons engaged in the delivery of lectures or speeches on the subject of Protestantism, and to the public, better protection He must, he said, in the first place, express his surprise at the Answer which the Secretary of State for the Home Department returned to him at an earlier period of the evening. The right hon. Gentleman generally met every difficulty in a straightforward and manly manner, and did not, as a rule, seek to make excuses, more or less frivolous, in order to avoid responsibility. To-night, however, he had adopted a course very different to 1086 the one usually pursued by him; and, in answer to his (Mr. Whalley's) Question respecting these riots, he had said that pending legal proceedings he could not reply to it.
§ LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he rose to Order. The House a few minutes ago was engaged in the discussion of a most important subject—namely, coal mines, and the safety of those engaged in them. That subject was not yet disposed of; but the hon. Member for Peterborough had risen, and introduced something upon an entirely different matter, which had nothing whatever to do with mines. It would, therefore, be well to know whether he was in Order or not.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question now before the House is, "That I do leave the Chair," in order to the House going into Committee of Supply. That being so, I have not any power to prevent the hon. Gentleman from pursuing his observations.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had not intended to thrust his Motion before the House; but be was under the impression that the former question had been disposed of. He ventured to express his earnest belief that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Hume Department had, by the casual Answer which he gave to his Question, struck a blow at liberty of speech in this country. What was the position of matters after the Answer which had been made by the Home Secretary. When the local authorities thought that a breach of the peace was about to be committed, they might, in total disregard of liberty of speech, interpose and prevent the delivery of these lectures. Now, it was the fact that Mr. Murphy, one of the lecturers, whose lectures had been disturbed by rioting, only did that which for a considerable time had been done by the opposite party. Dr. Manning had perambulated the country giving lectures, in which he denounced Her Majesty as a heretic, and in which he turned English history altogether topsy-turvy; and monks and friars in full canonicals had gone about from place to place, and had visited the borough with which he was connected, delivering similar lectures. Mr. Murphy was engaged merely to reply to such lectures, and he assumed that he and his colleagues had done nothing to disentitle them to the protection of the law. They were engaged in carrying out what they firmly believed to be 1087 right. But as the matter now stood, wherever Mr. Murphy or his colleagues intended to give lectures, any one who had an objection to such lectures might go to the magistrates and swear an information, and have them stopped. That principle, if carried out, would put an end to the whole system of lectures and public speaking, whenever there were any persons who were disinclined to have such lectures delivered. No doubt Dr. Manning and others, who had travestied our history after their own fashion, would desire that the other side should not be heard in reply. The Roman Catholic who manifested so great a sensitiveness to Orange colour, to the declaration of facts connected with the confessional, and to many other things which had been said, or might be said, had only to go and swear before a magistrate with that remarkable facility for getting all affidavits which was observable on that side, and no lecture would be permitted in exposition of Protestant doctrines, or in reply to the lecture of Dr. Manning. That was the law now laid down by the high authority of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary had said that he would not answer his Question until certain legal proceedings were over; but look what was going on in the meantime. Not only Murphy, but others, had been prevented by the magistrates from lecturing, on the ground that it would disturb the peace of the town. But how was that known? Because both men and women were organized and drilled in their schools for the express purpose of getting up these riots and preventing the lectures. If ever there was an instance in which a Minister of the Crown had—he trusted unintentionally—struck a vital blow at the liberty of speech in this country, it was in the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be ready to take in connection with this matter. In a letter from one of the men who had been delivering lectures in the country, Mr. Houston, a tradesman, of Birkenhead, it was said—
When we have arranged for a lecture, the priests go to the magistrates, who induce the owners of the halls we have engaged to break the contract made with us after it has been signed, the money paid, and the object and character of our lectures fully explained. I have been before the magistrates at Blackburn, Warrington, and Rochdale, and asked them to protect me, and they would give me no answer, though the request was made in the most civil and courteous manner. Our opponents are thereby led to believe that we and our supporters are outlaws, as it were, and eonsequently they make murderous assaults upon 1088 us, and get up riots to frighten the authorities into putting us down. I have been lecturing for seventeen years, and there has never been a riot, or an attempt to riot, at any of my meetings, except when the magistrates—at the bidding of the priests—interfered, at Warrington and Rochdale. We cannot afford to pay for halls, and to have our money kept and our meetings stopped, and we cannot bear the expense of legal proceedings. What is our liberty worth? I fear we shall have to take our stand in the open air, for we will not give up our right to speak.He (Mr. Whalley) entirely concurred with the writer of that letter, and was willing to surrender all he possessed for the purpose of sharing with those persons the dangers and penalties consequent upon the assertion of their right to speak. He wished to mention that he had had nothing to do with these meetings or lectures for more than nine months; but, on the last occasion when he attended one at Birmingham, he was very near being blown up. He afterwards examined the ammunition which had been placed in the meeting for the purpose, and which was fortunately discovered by a policeman. He laid no stress on that; but he wished to show that the people would not give up their right to speak, whatever might be the penalty. It was asked by Mr. Houston and his friends why, if Dr. Livingstone carried arms to protect himself against the African savages, he and his friends should not he permitted to arm themselves with a view to resisting the attacks of the Papists? He would remind the House that two years ago he had asked for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Fenian outbreak; and he now asserted that if his Motion had been acceded to, many lives, enormous cost, and much national degradation would have been spared, and the real nature of the conspiracy would have been fully exposed. That conspiracy was never more thoroughly organized or more ready for action than at the present moment. That statement might be treated with contempt; but he fearlessly made it, and the responsibility of accepting or disregarding it rested upon the Government which, had charge of the interests of the country. Nothing they could do with the Irish Church or with the establishing of a Roman Catholic University could touch Fenianism in the slightest degree. The conspiracy was co extensive with the Roman Catholic population, and coordinate with the doctrines preached from Sunday to Sunday, and the principles taught and believed in by the Roman Catholics. All this he could prove if he had the 1089 opportunity. He had been very reticent upon the subject for the last two years. He might have referred to it upon many occasions, and especially in connection with the Clerkenwell outrage and the attempt to assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh. But the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had now challenged investigation into the causes of the recent riots, and that challenge he was willing to accept. It should be remembered, in fairness, that Mr. Murphy had simply been sent upon the track of Dr. Manning, who had gone forth on a mission organized by monks and friars, and with all their paraphernalia and devices, and with the rhetoric which the country paid so dearly to provide them with. This Roman Catholic mission was undisturbed. At Birmingham, where the Queen was denounced as a heretic, the use of the Town Hall was granted to Doctor Manning, and it was also allowed for the purpose of a Roman Catholic bazaar; but when 2,000 Protestant ratepayers of the place presented a requisition to the Mayor (Mr. Dixon), now one of the hon. Members for Birmingham, asking him to grant the use of it, in order that Mr. Murphy might reply to Dr Manning, not only was the request refused, but the police were sent round to all other suitable places, to warn the managers against letting them to Mr. Murphy. To meet the difficulty thus raised by the authorities, a building was specially erected, and after the roof of it had been twice or thrice pulled down during the night time, they succeeded in making it suitable for the purpose for which it was wanted. On that occasion—it was the first of Mr. Murphy's appearances in Birmingham—the house of the father of a young man who was secretary to a Protestant Association was wrecked before Mr. Murphy had opened his mouth in Birmingham; and before the meeting, or rather service—for it was on a Sunday—had commenced, three men, in what was believed to be a dying state, were brought into the meeting, the victims of the violence inflicted on them by the bands outside. The public, who were afterwards confirmed by the chief superintendent of police, attributed the outrage to the Roman Catholic priests, who adopted the most unusual course of closing their chapels that afternoon, thus setting their people free to employ their energies elsewhere, The representations in the newspapers respecting Mr. Murphy, and attributing to him the 1090 riots, were wholly unfounded. Mr. Murphy had played the part of the lamb, and the wolfish proceedings of the other side were not his fault. It was true that on that occasion, when those three men were carried past him, dead or dying, Mr. Murphy told the audience that, he would prove that the Roman Catholic priests were cannibals, murderers, and liars; and these expressions had been paraded through the whole country, and had been held sufficient to fix upon him the responsibility for the atrocities committed. Thereupon he (Mr. Whalley) went down to Birmingham, and for the first and last time heard Mr. Murphy, who repeated these words and explained them clearly and distinctly, in a manner that was considered unobjectionable by a Roman Catholic gentleman present, who volunteered his satisfaction; and though he (Mr. Whalley) did not defend them, it was fair to remember that sonic of the mysteries of the Roman Catholic faith might be, in the heat of the moment, represented under the type of cannibalism, and that, according to certain passages in the "Confessional," murder committed for the glory of God and of the Church might be justified; and Mr. Murphy, it was stated, had seen his own father stoned to death at the instigation of the priests, because the family had been converted from Romanism. ["Oh, oh!"] So much as regarded Birmingham. At Wolverhampton the police, he believed, were in a conspiracy with the Roman Catholics, and encouraged the riot there in June last; and in other places the police were not to be relied on for protecting the Protestant lecturers. That was one of the things he would undertake to prove if the Committee for which he asked was granted. More than one Irish priest, disguised as a workman, was among the rioters, hounding them on. The Rev. Dr. Armstrong, a elergyman of high standing, in a letter to him, complained strongly of the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate, who attempted to throw the blame of the riot upon him. No doubt the accounts in the public journals put a very different complexion on these transactions; but the English Press was not free to speak the truth. Orders issued in 1836 by the Roman Catholic hierarchy had controlled the liberty of the Press; and he believed that there was scarcely a newspaper in the Kingdom that could with impunity give full utterance to what might come to its knowledge respecting the proceedings of the Catholics; and 1091 thus the House could not get full information of what transpired. It might be asked what was the use of these meetings? and to such a question he should reply that they were of the greatest use in protecting the people of this country, including the Roman Catholics themselves, against the tyranny of the priests. What he had stated was merely a specimen of what had occurred at all the towns mentioned in his Notice. What was the remedy for this state of things? The remedy that appeared to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) to be the proper one was to get rid of the lecturer; but that was no remedy, because the matter was still smouldering. Lecturers hired a hall, and then informations of apprehended riot were sworn, but no effort was made to prevent the riot; the lecturer was sent away instead. Now nothing was more unworthy of Englishmen invested with local authority than such conduct as this; for they thus placed every town at the mercy of any mob which chose to prevent free discussion, on any given subject, by threats of riot. If a Committee were granted, he should be able to show that the local authorities had wholly neglected their duty by not affording the requisite security to these lecturers. Mr. Murphy and those associated with him had never done anything to disentitle them to the protection which Dr. Manning had received in delivering his lectures. He believed the local authorities had become involved in the vortex of party feeling. The proper step to take, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, was to afford the lecturer protection. The delivery of lectures and exposing the doctrines of the Papacy was the only means of protecting the people against the priesthood. In the time of Elizabeth persons were actually commissioned to go through the country to make known the doctrines of Romanism. To stop such lecturers as Murphy would be to strike a blow against Protestantism. One of the colleagues of Mr. Murphy had been tried for firing off a pistol and wounding a policeman during one of these disturbances, and the jury had found him guilty, but had earnestly recommended him to mercy on the ground that he had acted without any premeditation and under the influence of a feeling of great excitement. The remarks of the Judge who had conducted the trial were still well-remembered in that district, and had given rise to considerable dissatisfaction. The Court of Queen's Bench itself had lately de- 1092 livered a judgment which he knew was challenged by the opinion of a large portion of Westminster Hall. That Court had decided that the book entitled The Confessional Unmasked was an obscene book, and had refused to take into account the intention of the publishers of the work, whose object was the suppression, and not the encouragement, of obscenity. That decision was founded on Lord Campbell's Act, but it was opposed to the ancient maxim of our law, that it was the intention which constituted a crime; and it was received with a murmur in Westminster Hall. He thought that the only way to meet this matter was by the appointment of a Committee, which would decide whether it was not expedient to amend Lord Campbell's Act in respect to such a matter, and to enact that, as in all other cases, the intention should constitute the crime. He thanked the House for having heard him, but would not make any Motion.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYSir, I trust the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene) will forgive me if for a time I am carried away from the subject he brought so ably before the House by the very numerous charges which the hon. Member who has just sat down brought against myself and various other persons. The hon. Member has concluded without moving for a Committee of Inquiry; but he brought under the notice of the House a very extraordinary collection of accusations. He first accused me of having stated in this House, on the occasion of a Question addressed to me a few nights ago, what certainly I never did state. Then he accused various authorities throughout the country of conniving at illegality; he charged a stipendiary magistrate with not doing his duty; and he concluded by extending this latter charge to the Court of Queen's Bench. [Mr. WHALLEY: No !] As I understood it, this Committee was to inquire into a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench; which, of course, is not a question for a Committee or for this House, but one for a higher tribunal.
§ MR. WHALLEYWhat I stated was that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench with respect to a recent Act of Parliament was a proper subject for inquiry, in order that this House should consider whether that Act ought to be continued.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYThe hon. Member said that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had caused—I think a 1093 "shudder" was his expression, in Westminster Hall. [Mr. WHALLEY: No; a murmur.] Very well; a "murmur," which if it implied anything, implied that the Bar thought the decision was a wrung one, But if that were the opinion of lawyers, the proper mode of dealing with the decision would be to bring it before a higher tribunal. When an hon. Gentleman makes so many extravagant charges as have been put forward by the hon. Member for Peter borough, though some part of his subject might be worthy of consideration if brought forward in another form, the effect of those charges is to throw doubt upon every part of the statement. Indeed, one allegation made by the hon. Member was so strong and so offensive to many Members of this House that I almost expected you, Sir, would feel bound to interpose, on the ground that his language was un-Parliamentary. I think that language was beyond the bounds of what should be used either in this House or out of it. The hon. Member said that Fenianism was co-extensive with Roman Catholicism—that in every case Roman Catholicity was tainted with Fenianism. Now, differing in religions matters as widely from the professors of the Roman Catholic faith ns the hon. Gentleman can do, and being, I trust, as strongly attached to my religion as he is. I must still say that, in my opinion, that charge is an unfounded one. In my official capacity, I have had much to do with the measures taken by the authorities in consequence of the Fenian conspiracy, and I must say that, in my dealings with Roman Catholics, I have found in the great majority of them a loyal attachment to the Throne, and an absence of any desire to further the interests of Feniainsm. The hon. Gentleman said that, on a former occasion, the Government would give him no answer, because legal proceedings were pending. I am in the recollection of the House when I assert that my statement on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member was that it was not the intention of the Government to originate an inquiry while legal proceedings were pending, because we thought it probable that dining those proceedings the facts to the elucidation of which an inquiry would be directed, if one were to be made, would be better elicited in a Court of Justice, on oath, than through an examination conducted by a Commissioner sent down for the special purpose of such an inquiry. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's 1094 Question—namely, as to whether the Government intended to make any better provision in favour of the persons to whom he referred—I stated that that was entirely for the local authorities every one, so long as he did not commit a breach of the peace, being entitled to the protection of the law. As regards controversy, no one would protect its freedom in religion and polities more thoroughly than I would do so, I think every man baa a right to put forward his own creed, and to support it with such arguments as he may think proper; but I do not think it advisable to put forth inflammatory placards containing language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace—language insulting, and, no doubt, in many instances, meant to be insulting, to people professing other creeds. But in connection with this case that question was not brought before me, for it could not properly be brought before me. If a stipendiary magistrate does not receive informations which the parties tendering them think he ought to receive, their course is to go to the Court of Queen's Bench and apply to it for a mandamus to compel him to take those informations—this course has recently been adopted in the case of ex-Governor Eyre; but parties have no right to come to this House and complain that a stipendiary magistrate has refused to receive informations. Then the hon. Gentleman complains that there has been a breach of contract on the part of persons who had engaged to let places for lectures to be delivered in, and he follows that up by another complaint directed against the Government—namely, that we do not interfere to enforce the performance of private contracts. The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that it is the duty of the Government lo enforce civil contracts—there are Courts of Law open for that purpose. Really I am anxious that this discussion should close. I do not think it would be of advantage to the House that a discussion so commenced should be continued. I do nut think that tire speech of the hon. Member was of such a character ns to lay the foundation for a useful discussion. I believe that however strong the feelings of some hon. Gentlemen may be on certain of the topics introduced by the hon. Gentleman, they will be of opinion that a speech in which such extraordinary charges have been brought against every one from the highest to the lowest is not one on which it would be well to raise a debate on those topics.
1095 With regard to the very important subject in which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's (Mr. Greene) has taken such a zealous interest, and of which he has spared no pains to make himself thoroughly master, I can assure the House that it has received our earnest consideration; but it is absolutely impossible for me to undertake legislation on the matter this Session. My hon. Friend who assists me at the Home Office with such assiduity and zeal received deputations on the subject from time to time when I was too much engaged with other duties to permit of my doing so. I had hoped to take steps with a view to legislate before this; but other events have so disorganized the Session that I have not been able to do so. The point of inspection is one that will require very careful consideration. I think it may be desirable to increase the number of inspectors to a certain extent, but if this be done it must be done with great care. Though an addition to the number of inspectors would increase the patronage of the Home Office, it would at the same time impose upon it a troublesome duty. The suggestion for the appointment of sub-inspectors was negatived by the Committee after careful inquiry. The matter will need a very delicate handling; because there is the danger of too much inspection, which would make owners less sensible of the responsibility which properly attaches to them, and would render the workpeople even less careful than they are at present. I believe there will be other opportunities of discussing this subject during the present Session, because I perceive that my right hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce) has this evening given Notice that he proposes to call attention to it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Vivian) is to bring under the notice of the House a proposition for dividing mines into compartments. This would involve considerable expense to owners; but it is a proposition well deserving that consideration which I am sure it will receive when treated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire. As I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall present, I shall say a word with respect to that class of mines in which he is particularly interested. There had been a Commission on those mines. Questions had arisen as to the health of the people employed in them; but still greater difficulties were experienced as to how they should he dealt with. Those mines are 1096 not worked like coal mines. You do not get large galleries, as you do in coal mines, but you have to follow the ore into small places—in fact, wherever you can find it—nnd great difficulties in the way of ventilation have arisen in consequence. On that subject I have been requested by Lord Kinnaird to see whether some scientific provisions could not be introduced by which the mines might be worked with greater safety. But there are questions of expenses in this case as well as in the other; it is difficult to work the mines at a profit, and the wages of miners are lower than at any former period, and there would be great risk in any rash interference. But I do assure the House that the subject is under consideration, and that if we should have an opportunity we shall be ready to deal with it in a fair and reasonable manner.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he had never risen in that House with more reluctance than upon this occasion, and he felt extreme regret at being forced to join in a discussion which was so unworthy in its tone; and, indeed, if he was not unwilling to use language which might not be of a Parliamentary character, he would describe the manner, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) in much stronger words. What was the course taken by the hon. Gentleman after scattering broad-cast around him, for upwards of an hour, observations and charges which were not only unjustifiable, but wholly unfounded. After demanding apparently with earnestness an inquiry into those charges which he had the temerity to make, he had shrunk from moving his Resolution for the appointment of a Committee, under the pretence of which only he could have attempted to occupy the attention of the House.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman charged him with having shrunk from an inquiry, whereas, as he had already explained, he had relied on the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) to second his Motion.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Peterborough was out of Order. He was not explaining, but repeating a statement which he had previously made.
§ MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he had no other desire than to state accurately what had taken place. He doubtless did so in warm language, as he felt that such proceedings should be put a stop to. The hon. Member had taken the liberty of using his name 1097 more than once recently in his erratic observations, and he (Mr. O'Beirne) desired to set himself right with the House, and out-of-doors, as he did not believe it was of advantage to be in any manner connected with or appealed to, by the hon. Member. He (Mr. O'Beirne) was satisfied the House would sympathize with him if he had spoken severely, as it demanded more than ordinary patience for a Roman Catholic Member, or indeed any other Member of the House to listen to such a speech as had been just delivered by the hon. Member for Peterborough, which was, as he had said, utterly unjustifiable. But with the permission of the House he (Mr. O'Beirne) would proceed to make the explanation, for which purpose only he had risen. The circumstances were these, and they had been be frequently alluded to by the hon. Member, and in a shape so well calculated to mislead the House and the public, that he (Mr. O'Beirne) desired simply to refresh the memory of hon. Members by repeating on the authority of Hansard, what really did take place. In the month of May, 1866, when he was very little experienced in this House, and was unaccustomed to the singular wanderings of the hon. Member, he was startled by a charge made by him, that the war then unhappily prevailing in New Zealand, had originated in a conspiracy got up and encouraged by the Roman Catholic priests. He (Mr. O'Beirne), with the ill-timed zeal of a now and inexperienced Member, felt such a charge acutely, and challenged the hon. Member to move for a Committee and to prove his charge if he could. Other hon. Members, Friends of his (Mr. O'Beirne's), more accustomed to the eccentricities of the hon. Member for Peterborough, only laughed at such folly; but he (Mr. O'Beirne) charged him with uttering language which must have been, as he then described it, "the fruit of a fevered brain." The hon. Member did upon a later occasion move for a Committee; when, after a long and continuous expression of disapprobation from the House, and an attempt to count the House out, upon an appeal from the Chair—a course most unusual and seldom called for—the hon. Member yielded to the marked expression of disapprobation on the part of the House, and resumed his seat. The hon. Member had since then frequently remarked upon the fact, that he (Mr. O'Beirne) did not support him in seeking for that inquiry. That was perfectly true, He (Mr. O'Beirne) had, however, in nothing 1098 that had ever fallen from him, justified the hon. Member in supposing he could have any support on any subject from him, and his frequent allusions and appeals to him (Mr. O'Beirne) were as groundless, and as unfounded, as were the wild and incoherent statements upon which he had sought to obtain an inquiry upon this occasion. He hoped, although perhaps, against hope, that there would now be an end of this sort of irritating and highly unsatisfactory mode of proceeding.
§ MR. BAZLEYthanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his very judicious and temperate reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). He regretted that he had no influence with the hon. Member. If he had he would have used it for the purpose of inducing the hon. Member to withdraw his sanction from these proceedings which, in the manufacturing districts, were endangering the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, and imperilling a great amount of property. It was but an act of justice to state that when himself a large employer of labour many of his workpeople were Irish, and that they showed the same fidelity as others, while with regard to the care for the labouring class shown by the ministers of all denominations, the Roman Catholic clergy were a" devoted as any. He feared that serious disasters would ensue unless measures were taken for the preservation of order and for the suppression of exciting topics.