HC Deb 06 August 1881 vol 264 cc1111-32

MR. HEALY, in rising to move— That this House condemns the refusal of the Government to grant an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., and their refusal to notice the threats alleged to have been used by him in dispersing without proclamation a peaceful meeting in Drogheda on the 1st day of January, said, he was obliged to draw attention to the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd owing to the unsatisfactory answer he had received on the subject on Thursday from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. A Correspondence had taken place on the subject, and was published in the Irish papers, and two witnesses had stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had threatened to shoot down the people assembled at public meetings. Mr. Clifford Lloyd then came forward with a denial of the language attributed to him; and the Question he (Mr. Healy) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Thursday was whether, in consequence of the rumours concerning the conduct of this gentleman, the Government thought it desirable, for the purpose of maintaining something like confidence in the administration of justice, to grant an inquiry into the matter, and he got a very curt answer from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government did not think it necessary to grant an inquiry into the facts of the case. He at once rose and gave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply to-day he would call attention to the subject; and, therefore, he was somewhat astonished that the Chief Secretary had not thought it desirable to be in his place. Briefly, the circumstances were as follows:—A Land League meeting had been fixed to be held in Drogheda on the 2nd of January; and the Government, with an acuteness that did them not too much credit, proclaimed the meeting, on the plea that it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and there were always bailiffs and others ever ready to give the required information. It happened that the 2nd of January was a Sunday, and on the Saturday preceding a meeting was appointed to be held at Dundalk. Travelling by rail to the latter place, he (Mr. Healy) was met at Drogheda station by a number of people, who suggested that as the meeting for Sunday at Drogheda was prohibited for that day, it would be a good thing to hold on Saturday. He acceded to this, and an impromptu meeting was held, therefore, in the Drogheda Market Place. It was market day; it was also a Catholic holiday, and thousands of people assembled. The Government, however, were not to be baulked. Telegrams were despatched to Dublin for a troop of dragoons, and to Dundalk for the 200 police who had been sent there to safeguard law and order during the expected meeting. Lo and behold, then, a special train was got out from Dublin at the expense of the taxpayers, into this the police were crammed, and in the middle of his address to the people at Drogheda these 200 police were seen advancing at the double. So great was the haste of these gallant defenders of law and order that great coats, knapsacks, and blankets—what the latter were carried for it was difficult to say—were flung in the mud outside the railway station, and, with bayonets fixed, the force came on at the double, a picturesque military sight. Not the slightest word had been said at the meeting likely to provoke a breach of law and order; the whole proceedings were conducted with that calmness and dignity which usually accompanied Irish meetings. The meeting was presided over by the parish priest, and other Catholic clergymen were in the break that served for a platform. There were at least half a-score of the clergy, and these at all times had been the best preservers of law and order and peace in Ireland. Thus engaged at this harmless meeting, the 200 police appeared, headed by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and whatever presence of mind a man addressing a meeting might have, the sudden advance of 200 men with swords drawn must have a disquieting effect upon a meeting. Dividing into two bodies, the armed force hemmed in the crowd, and there was nothing to do but surrender. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, then addressing the conveners of the meeting, said the gathering was illegal, and he hoped the chairman would not put him to the necessity of dispersing it; but, at the same time, he refused to show any authority for doing so. Of course, with, the fixed bayonets around, the meeting dispersed. Let those who enjoyed the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere, and had to do with Inspector Denning and the peaceful bâtons of the London police, realize the position—the dispersal of a perfectly legal meeting by an armed force, headed by a gentleman not in uniform, who refused to show his authority. The meeting dispersed quietly; they had no weapons, but if they had, he would certainly not have been opposed to trying conclusions with the police, for the people had as good a right there as the police. He was not a believer in the "not a single drop of blood" doctrine; if the people had rights they should be prepared to enforce them. But the people, being unarmed, dispersed, and the break with the chairman and others passed on through the files of police who enfiladed the streets—it was necessary to use military terms in dealing with the operations of the Irish police—and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, for about the tenth time, declared that if they assembled again, he would disperse the meeting by force, and then he read the Riot Act. This was done when there was no more necessity for it than for the Speaker to get up and read the Riot Act in the House; and then Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in the hearing of Father Anderson, of himself, and others in the break, said—"If you assemble again I will fire on you." It was this particular allegation that he asked the Government to make the subject of inquiry. It was first brought forward in a question by the hon. Member for Drogheda, an English Gentleman, whose name was well known, with that of his brother (Mr. Whit worth), who formerly sat as Member for Newry. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been transferred to Kilmallock—perhaps because of the vigour he had displayed at Drogheda, and his conduct at Kilmallock had been very much called in question; and the hon. Member for Drogheda warned the Government that if he was not withdrawn there might be murder. He supposed the people of Kilmallock knew that Mr. Clifford Lloyd wore chain armour, and always walked about with a body guard of over a dozen police. A Scotch gentleman, a former Member of the House, Mr. Boyd Kin-near, wrote to The Daily Newsrespecting the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and then the whole affair of Drogheda was brought up again, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd's regime was described as equally bad as that of the Russian "Third Section." In consequence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct in Kilmallock, he (Mr. Healy) put a question as to whether he was the same gentleman whose conduct at Drogheda he had described, and, in doing so, he stated what was within his personal knowledge, that Mr. Lloyd had threatened that if the meeting re-assembled he would fire on the people. This statement Mr. Lloyd denied in a letter which appeared in The Freeman's Journal, and this letter was followed by testimony in support of the allegation that he did use the threat in the shape of successive letters from the Rev. Mr. Kearney, the Rev. Mr. McKee, and Mr. Francis Yallery, a town councillor, who all heard the language used. Mr. Lloyd met these with another denial, and asserted that, addressing Mr. Dillon and Mr. Healy, he had said—"If you address another meeting here, I shall be forced to arrest you." It should be mentioned that at the time Mr. Lloyd so acted he was not a magistrate of the town, though The Gazette gave an ex post facto legalization of his conduct, and he was actually overriding the authority of the mayor and other magistrates of Drogheda, who had passed a resolution that there was no necessity to interfere with the meeting. This foreign Orangeman came from Monaghan, or wherever he carried on his functions, with his 200 armed men, to disperse a legal meeting by force. The Government wanted to get out of the matter and to hush it up, and that was the reason why they refused to grant the sworn inquiry asked for. There could be no doubt as to the language used by Mr. Lloyd, who had spoken as loudly and as distinctly as though he had been an Egyptian or a Turkish Pasha. He should have thought that the Government would have been only too anxious to have granted this inquiry in order to clear the character of this Governmental paragon, who was one of the Chief Secretary's pets. If Mr. Lloyd was satisfied that he was in the right in the matter, he would look upon such an inquiry as a boon. The Government, however, shrank from any investigation of the facts of the case, cast round Mr. Lloyd the veil of Governmental silence and mystery, and re- fused to permit any inquiry to be held into the brutal conduct of this man. He would have supposed that in the disturbed state of Ireland the Government would have been glad to probe to the bottom every particular source of grievance; but by their refusal they had virtually admitted the entire case of the dissentients. The Government could not expect the people of Kilmallock to submit to the coercion régime, or to have much respect for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, after refusing this inquiry, or that the people of Ireland would expect justice would ever be done until a magistrate was appointed who would act impartially before all classes, and whose conduct, when impugned, could be inquired into. In the circumstances, no other course was left open to the Irish Representatives than to come to that House and ask it to condemn the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued in this matter. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words '' this House condemns the refusal of the Government to grant an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., and their refusal to notice the throats alleged to have been used by him in dispersing without proclamation a peaceful meeting at Drogheda on the 1st day of January,"—(Mr. Healy,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he should not have risen so early in the debate but for the natural observation of the hon. Member for Wexford that he had expected the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have been present. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had been requested to offer an apology to the House for the Chief Secretary's absence, the right hon. Gentleman being obliged to attend a Cabinet meeting, and, therefore, unable to put before the House his own views on the matter. No one could blame the hon. Member for Wexford for bringing forward this Motion with the object of clearing up what had become a point of newspaper controversy—a controversy, he was sorry to say, which had kept alive matters, but which had better have been allowed to die out of mind. The question was not as to Mr. Lloyd's conduct in Kilmallock, but as to a transaction which occurred seven months ago, and the principal allegation was that the magistrate lost his temper on that occasion, and used language of a violent character. Already the question had been dealt with in that House. So far back as the 24th of January a Question was asked by one of the hon. Members for Louth, and since then the matter had been closed, until it was now revived. It was a gentleman named Boyd Kinnear who revived the controversy, and there had been a general rush into the newspapers. Everybody who was familiar with the practical events of life knew that nothing was so difficult as to remember with perfect accuracy, even on the moment, the substance, much less the particulars, of what occurred, or to identify the exact words used, or even the persons who used them. A remarkable instance of this occurred in the House of Commons only yesterday. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) possessed a voice and a mode of expression that would be recognized by anybody who ever heard him. Yet the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who was not now in the House, but who sat in it for a considerable time, and must have been familiar with the voice of the hon. Member for the City of London, wrote a letter to his Colleague in the representation of Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) stating distinctly that he heard the hon. Member for the City of London use the words "Kick him out," which he considered so much a breach of Privilege as to ask the intervention of the House concerning it, and he added that if the House did not take the matter up he would proceed by summons against the Member for the City of London for inciting to a breach of the peace. What was the reply of the hon. Member for the City? He said—"I did not use the language at all." This was a case in which the hon. Member for Northampton, who did not sit in the House, but whose word would be trusted equally as much as that of any other hon. Member, stated what he believed to be the fact, that certain words were used by a person whose voice it was hardly possible for anyone to mistake; yet here they had an illustration of the difficulty which some times arose of determining what actually had taken place when different persons came to give their versions of a particular occurrence. The controversy, therefore, resolved itself into this—Mr. Lloyd stated distinctly that he did not use the language imputed to him, and highly respectable Catholic clergymen said that he did use it. There the controversy remained at present. There was no one in Ireland, much less a magistrate, who was above the law. The law was open, to everybody to appeal to. ["Oh!"] Of course, he did not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with him, especially in a matter of this kind. Nevertheless, he would repeat it was his opinion, at all events, that nobody was above the law. It was open to anybody, when a magistrate acted illegally—and Mr. Clifford Lloyd would have acted illegally if what the hon. Member for Wexford had stated were true—of challenging that conduct through the ordinary channels of the law. The hon. Member stated—though he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not think he meant the House to follow him out to the full—that if the Government did not grant this inquiry no remedy was open to anybody who was illegally treated. He took issue at once on that. No one knew better than the hon. Member that the law was open to all. Therefore, the hon. Member was not correct when he said that if this inquiry was not granted no investigation could take place. To grant the inquiry asked for would be unusual and exceptional, and that was a proceeding to be discouraged. He had no hesitation in avowing that he disliked anything outside the ordinary course of the law. [Ironical cheers.] There was one and only one tribunal before which controversies of law or fact could be properly adjudicated upon, and that was a Court of Law, presided over by a Judge, who was acquainted with the law and who was unswayed by prejudice. He did not mistake the good-natured cheer from below the Gangway. But they would have been hiding their heads in the sand if they had not recognized, as the House had recognized, that exceptional legislation, to which that cheer referred, was necessary to meet exceptional circumstances. That, however, made it more necessary to depart as little as pos- sible from the ordinary law in ordinary cases. But what had occurred?—and about this there was no controversy. Sworn information was laid before his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that the meeting to which the hon. Member for Wexford had referred, and which was contemplated to be held on the 2nd of January, had been convened for the purpose of denouncing an individual whose life would not have been safe if that meeting were allowed to take place. Such was the evidence upon which the Government acted. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would ask hon. Members, when evidence of that kind was laid before the Government, affirmed by competent persons, and when careful inquiries showed there was reason to apprehend these anticipations were well founded, could the Government have acted otherwise than they had done? Suppose an information of that kind was laid before the Government, and that the Government came to the conclusion that the probability was well founded, but did not interfere; and let it further be supposed that violent scenes took place, would anyone venture to exculpate the Government from the charge that they had disregarded the peace of the country? When large bodies of men assembled, even for the most lawful purposes, it was sometimes difficult, nay, even impossible, to keep them within the bounds of peace and order.

MR. HEALY

Has there ever been a riot in Ireland after a public meeting?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

There had not, for this reason—that the Government had never interfered—[Ironical cheers]—he would feel obliged if hon. Members would allow him to finish his sentence—the Government had not interfered except in those cases where such information as that which he had mentioned had been laid before them. The Government did not interfere with meetings unless they had evidence before them that the meeting would be attended with disturbance. On this particular occasion, as he had said, sworn information was laid before the Lord Lieutenant as to the nature and object of the meeting. Upon that sworn evidence the Lord Lieutenant issued his Proclamation, upon the face of which, was shown the reason of the Government interference, and the effect of which was not to make the meeting legal or illegal, but to caution the people that if they took part in a meeting of that kind they would render themselves subject to the consequences of the law. That Proclamation was accordingly widely published. He thought, as well as he could recollect, that it was torn down in many places in Drogheda; but that was beside the matter. Representations were made by those supposed to have influence in Drogheda, to the magistrates, that the meeting would not take place. Another meeting was about to take place near Dundalk, which was only a few miles distance, to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was going, and which was not proclaimed at all. That was an instance of how carefully the Government drew the line of distinction with regard to such meetings. In consequence of the representations to which he had referred, that nothing would take place at Drogheda of a disturbing character, he believed nearly all the police and magistrates were removed from the town. The hon. Member was going down on Saturday, and the meeting was to have taken place in Drogheda on Sunday. Saturday was market day in Drogheda. The town was full with people; there were no police there, and suddenly a large meeting was convened in the very town and in the very place in which the meeting was announced to be held on the following day. It was not going too far to say that anybody would reasonably suppose that that was the meeting of the following day called by anticipation. It was not a casual meeting at all of a fortuitous concourse of people. It was convened by posters sent out, and by bellmen sent round to announce it. In that state of things a large number of people were convened on the spot where the meeting which was to have been hold the following day had been prohibited, in the very neighbourhood where danger was apprehended, and under circumstances precisely similar to those under which the meeting to be held on the following day had been prohibited. Now, it must be remembered that the position of a magistrate in Ireland at all times, and especially in these times, was a most peculiar and a most responsible one. A man filling that office must possess great courage combined with tact, judgment, and temper—he must act not as though he was the master of the people, which he was not, but as the servant of the law, which he was, and he must have nerve enough and knowledge enough to act upon the spur of the moment and upon his own responsibility. In the present case, it was fortunate, as it appeared, that the hon. Member who had brought this matter under the notice of the House was present at the meeting in question, because he had advised the people to disperse quietly, and they had followed his advice. He had heard with regret the hon. Member say that if the people had had weapons in their hands he should have advised them to use them. He thought, however, that the hon. Member did himself an injustice in making that statement, and that he misjudged his own disposition, because he was satisfied that the hon. Member would have thought twice before he gave the people such disastrous advice. The hon. Member was, perhaps, a little over-anxious to show that he had the courage of his opinions; but he did not believe that he would really have incited the people to bloodshed. It happened, however, fortunately, that no collision occurred between the people and the police, and that everything passed off quietly, while the legitimate object of the meeting was attained when it was adjourned to the hotel, where no ill consequences could result from holding it. It was a very different thing to hold a meeting in a building and to hold one out-of-doors, where no control could be exercised over the passions of the multitude. Mr. Lloyd, believing that this out-of-door meeting was a mere anticipation of that which had been prohibited, and that its objects were the same, and were calculated to endanger personal safety, had taken upon himself the responsibility of putting an end to it; and he must confess that, had he been in Mr. Lloyd's place on the occasion, acting on his responsibility as a conservator of the public safety, he should have felt it to be his duty to have required that meeting to disperse. Everything had, fortunately, terminated peaceably, and nothing more would have been heard of it had it not become a subject of newspaper controversy. The witty Canon (Sidney Smith) had said that there were three things which every man thought he could do—farm a small quantity of land, drive a gig, and write a letter to a newspaper. Unfortunately, Mr. Lloyd had thought that he could do the last, and he accordingly addressed a letter to a newspaper, which he had much better have put into the fire, as it had immediately challenged controversy. It was said that Mr. Lloyd's statement was contradicted by the statements of highly respectable Catholic clergymen. Everyone who knew anything about the matter or had any knowledge of Ireland must admit the immense and important influence which the Catholic clergy in Ireland exercised—and often exercised—in the interests of peace and order; and most certainly it would have been very wrong, on the part of Mr. Lloyd or of anybody else, to have said to a Catholic clergyman, or to any other of Her Majesty's subjects—"If you do not disperse I will shoot you down." He was glad to be able to state that Mr. Lloyd most emphatically denied that he had used such language. The hon. Member said that he had heard Mr. Lloyd use language to that effect; but even he could not bind himself to remember the exact words, while two Catholic clergymen undertook to give what they stated to be the identical words. Clergymen, however, were not more infallible in point of memory than anybody else, and it must be remembered that all parties were speaking of what occurred seven months ago, at a moment when great excitement prevailed on all sides. Under all these circumstances, he would ask the hon. Member not to press his Motion; and he asked the House not to weaken the action of justice and the arm of the law in Ireland under trying circumstances of extreme difficulty by unnecessarily casting censure upon those who were called upon to administer justice there. If any wrong had been done to individuals, the ordinary remedies which the law afforded to everyone were open to them.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that for more reasons than one he supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford. He agreed with the Solicitor General for Ireland that nearly seven months had elapsed since the affair occurred in Drogheda; but how many times since had Mr. Clifford Lloyd attempted to tyrannize over the people of Limerick County?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M. JOHNSON)

rose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member should not confine himself to the terms of the Motion before the House, which had only relation to the occurrence at Drogheda.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is in Order.

MR. O'SULLIVAN, continuing, thought he was quite right in alluding to the conduct of Mr. Lloyd, as this was a Motion asking for an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Lloyd as a Government official. Was is not a fact that this gentleman attempted to tyrannize over the people of the County Limerick on several occasions? Anyone who was acquainted with the history of 1798 must be aware that it was the action of such men as Mr. Lloyd that drove the people into revolt; and he had no doubt that if there were ten or a dozen such men scattered over Ireland they would be able to drive the people into revolt and desperation. In Kilmallock he had given both offence and annoyance to the people of that district. On one occasion he had directed the police to summon four respectable ladies who were standing in the street waiting for a lady friend, because, as he said, they had used impertinent language to the police; and the policeman who prosecuted stated that the only impertinent language they had used was that they called him "Lloyd's Pet." Of course, the summons was dismissed. Very shortly after that, Mr. Lloyd summoned a delicate old woman about 70 years of age, and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment, or to give substantial bail, for abusing another woman. When two respectable and substantial bailsmen came before him he refused to accept them; but he accepted them afterwards, after keeping that unfortunate woman a fortnight in gaol. Again, when he saw three or four respectable farmers or shopkeepers standing together in the street he sent his police to disperse them, or to take down their names, as though he were lord and master of the place for the time being. He asked the Government were they going to withhold an inquiry into the conduct of a gentleman guilty of such conduct as that? He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had seen on one occa- sion prisoners taken to the private residence of Mr. Lloyd, and sent to prison after the investigation made there. Though anyone might be mistaken as to words used, he could hardly be mistaken as to an actual fact like that. Why, then, had Mr. Lloyd put the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a false position by allowing him to deny that he had ever convicted men at his private residence? Again, in the case of the poor woman Coleman, it was at first said that she was only one night in prison; but it was afterwards admitted that she was in gaol for 16 nights. In point of fact, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) knew that three of the replies that had been made in that House on behalf of, and on the information of, Mr. Lloyd, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, were not in accordance with the facts. He also knew, as a matter of fact, that he used the Coercion Act for the purpose of personal vindictiveness. He challenged the Solicitor General to show any charge against two men arrested in Kilfinane under the Coercion Act named Daniel Reardon and Francis Allen, except simply and solely that they had refused to supply cars to Mr. Lloyd and the police. He challenged him to show any charge against Andrew Mortel and Edward O'Neill, who had also been arrested, except that they collected money to pay a fine of—3 and costs which Mr. Lloyd had imposed upon two men and a married woman in his private residence. O'Neill and Mortel collected money for the purpose from the shopkeepers of the town, and went to the barracks and paid the fine and costs; and in three days afterwards a warrant was down from the Lord Lieutenant for the arrest of these two men. It was alleged that they had coerced people to subscribe the money; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) was prepared to prove by the statement of the shopkeers who subscribed the money that they had given their subscriptions voluntarily. He got a declaration to that effect from all the subscribers, which he sent to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show that the subscribers were not coerced in any sense of the word. He said that the tyrannical action of Mr. Lloyd was indulged in to gratify his own private vindictiveness, and not to defend or uphold the law. He thought it a very false position for a Liberal Government to occupy if they withheld an inquiry into the conduct of a man who had brought such discredit upon the administration of justice in Ireland.

MR. J. COWEN

said, he was not aware that the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was to be called in question that day, or he would have provided himself with information respecting the proceedings of that gentleman, which might have helped the House to a decision on the subject. But let them look at the matter as it was put before them by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). What was the pith of the charge? Here was a legal meeting being held in a peaceable town for a peaceable purpose, and in quite a constitutional way. The gentleman was not a magistrate of the town, nor, he believed, of the county; but he dispersed the gathering by a body of armed men, and in dispersing it used language that was calculated to rouse angry passions, if not to excite to a breach of the peace. There was no question as to the facts. The Solicitor General for Ireland, in his very temperate statement, had substantially admitted the accusation, and he had given it as his opionion that the language used was 'objectionable. Now, he (Mr. J. Cowen) wished to ask hon. Gentlemen near him how they would have acted and what they would have said if a meeting held for a like purpose under like conditions had been forcibly dispersed in any English town? He knew it was useless appealing to the Representatives of the Irish Executive in that House; and he knew, too, that appeals to the ordinary followers of the Ministry would be equally futile. But there still must be—and he knew there were—some who had not altogether forgotten the Radical principles they professed, and upon which they had been returned to that House. He asked them to make the case their own and conceive—if in any of their constituencies such action had been taken by a magistrate—what would have been their attitude to the governing authorities. He had an instinctive dislike of personal quarrels, and he regretted that this question should have to hinge in any way upon the character of an official. He dared say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a very honourable man, that according to his lights he was conscientious, and, like the most of them, well-meaning. But he had been a soldier, and he carried the practices of the barrack-yard into politics. He was a strict and unbending martinet. He ordered the people about in even sharper terms than he would have spoken to soldiers upon parade. And when they failed to comply with his orders he did not hesitate to strain the law to punish them. The Solicitor General for Ireland had said that men in authority should use their powers with tact and judgment. He quite agreed with that statement; and it was because Mr. Lloyd did not use his powers with tact and judgment that such incessant complaints were made against him. Ireland was in a disturbed and excited state. The Government had never ceased to proclaim this all the Session. The veriest tyro in administration knew that in ruling a people in such a temper reasonable allowance should be made. The law, it was true, had to be enforced. If there was no law there would be tyranny. But there were different means of enforcing the law. Sometimes it was enforced in such a way as to bring it into contempt. At other times its enforcement earned for the law and the lawmakers respect. In the North of England, during a period of excitement quite as great as now existed in Ireland, Sir Charles Napier was in command of the military forces, and he had under him, as his chief officer, the late Lord Clyde. Notwithstanding the disturbed condition of the populace, there was—through the wisdom and consideration of these judicious commanders—no collision with the authorities. This was set out with great minuteness in the lives of these two distinguished officers, and might be studied with advantage by those charged with the government of Ireland at this moment. The tact and judgment of the two men he had mentioned saved England from bloodshed and serious disorder. There were three qualities required in dealing with the Irish people. These were firmness, justice, and sympathy. The law should be firmly asserted, justice should be impartially administered, and there should be, on the part of its administrators, reasonable regard for the troubles and distress of the people. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had not shown these qualities, and other magistrates in Ireland had been equally deficient. Hence the state of chronic irri- tation that was kept up. He had a strong objection to make anyone a victim—even so unattractive a person as Mr. Lloyd—and he knew it was easy to make a set at a man when popular feeling was against him. But he was bound to say this—that he had been in Ireland sundry times recently, and had had some opportunity of learning the opinion entertained of Mr. Lloyd's administration. He was stating the simple fact when he said that men of all classes in the districts over which that magistrate ruled regarded him as a source of dislike and an incitement to discontent. The hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth)—who certainly had little in common with Gentlemen opposite—knew Mr. Lloyd, and declared that he was nothing short of a firebrand. And yet he was not only now in office, but he was held up as a pattern by the Irish Secretary. It was just this sort of administration that created Irish troubles. Measures devised in that House with the best intentions and conceived with the most beneficent purpose were intrusted for their execution to unsympathetic officials. And these officials fought against them and defeated them. The designs of Parliament were thus rendered inoperative. It was well to recognize the fact that in England there were political and social opinions that permeated all classes—the aristocratic, the trading, and the industrial. If you cut a line through English society you would find opinions mingling freely amongst all these social layers. In Ireland it was different. The ruling caste which constituted the upper strata held certain political, social, or religious opinions. The ordinary people held entirely opposite views. There was no intermingling of classes, and it ought to be the duty of a wise Government to bring the two sections into harmony. It was men like Mr. Clifford Lloyd who prevented that end being attained. He did not wish to do Mr. Lloyd or anyone else any injury; but if the Ministry could give him another office under more congenial conditions, he felt sure the wheels of Irish administration would revolve more smoothly.

MR. LEAMY

said, the Solicitor General for Ireland had admitted that if Mr. Lloyd had used the language attributed to him at Drogheda he would have acted in a most illegal and improper manner, and that the parties aggrieved could have gone to the ordinary tribunals for a remedy. But if the Government were not satisfied with ordinary tribunals, why should the people have to go to ordinary tribunals when the ordinary law was suspended, when the liberties of the people were taken away by informers, and the affairs of the people were put into the hands of magistrates in whom they had no confidence? Now, Mr. Lloyd was not above suspicion. On the contrary, there was a direct charge against him that he had used language which, as the Solicitor General for Ireland had said, no person should have used. Why, then, did not the Government institute an inquiry whether that language had been used? If Mr. Lloyd did use that language he was unfit to be a magistrate. He was lately sent into a district where he could have no sympathy with the people, and it was manifest that he had created the feeling of irritation which prevailed in that locality at present. His ton. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) properly observed that a dozen Clifford Lloyds would produce a revolt in Ireland. He should have no objection to see a dozen Clifford Lloyds in Ireland, because it would open the eyes of the Irish people to the character of the men placed over them, and show them that the worst enemy to Irish freedom was a Whig Government which pretended to be Liberal.

MR. WARTON

said, he hoped the debate would not be continued, as the House had met on an unusual day for the purpose of making progress with the Estimates. He did not think that anyone could have given a more conciliatory answer than that given by the Solicitor General for Ireland, and he thought it would have been a very graceful act on the part of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) if he had said he did not wish to press the matter further. The debate would be duly reported in the Irish papers, and that was one reason why the Home Rule Members wished to continue it. The Solicitor General for Ireland a short time ago took objection to the Amendment on a point of Order; but the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that the hon. Member for Wexford was not technically out of Order. At first sight, the Amendment appeared to be directed only to what took place on the 1st of January; but a careful reading of the Amendment would show that it asked for an inquiry into the general conduct of Mr. Lloyd. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) about firmness, justice, and sympathy, he would only say, while agreeing in the necessity for firmness and justice, how on earth could Mr. Lloyd have sympathy with a people who were excited against him as the people of his district seemed to have been?

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he thought it was unfair to insinuate that Irish Members brought forward this question solely to get their speeches reported in the newspapers. [Mr. WARTON: I did not say solely.] It was a fundamental rule in that House that Grievance should come before Supply. As long as they had their Irish Friends in the House, it was natural that they should bring forward the grievances of Ireland. He thought in this instance what was at least a very strong case for inquiry had been made out. They had, first of all, had the statements of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). In addition to them, they had the corroborative and independent testimony of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). It was a serious thing that these charges should be brought against a man in a responsible position, and it seemed to him that they ought to be inquired into. They had spent a great part of the Session in the endeavour to send a message of peace to Ireland; but there could be no message of peace that was not one of justice—that was the only foundation, of peace in any community—and there were, in his opinion, good grounds for asking whether or not justice had been done in this case. He should be glad to see the discussion brought to a close, so that the House might get into Committee; but, at the same time, he hoped the Government would agree, even at the last moment, to order an inquiry into the subject now before the House. There could be no harm in inquiry.

MR. CALLAN

said, he happened to be connected with the district referred to in the Amendment, and he was sorry to say that the observation of the Solicitor General for Ireland that any statement made seven months after the date referred to could not be very reliable was more disingenuous than usual. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that the letter of the Catholic clergyman was written the next day, when there could be no such defect of memory as he suggested. He (Mr. Callan) had interviewed the magistrates, and he was assured by them that the description of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was correct—that he was "a political firebrand." It was, therefore, a great mistake to send this firebrand further South among inflammable material. It was said that Mr. Lloyd denied using the language but several magistrates and two Catholic clergymen affirmed that he had used the words. Why should there not be a sworn inquiry? If Mr. Lloyd escaped, the clergymen and magistrates would be covered with confusion. He thought the question would be best raised on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, and he hoped the Motion would not now be pressed.

MR. REDMOND

said, they had no reason to regret the absence of the Chief Secretary, because nothing could be in better taste than the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, which was in marked contrast with that they usually experienced from the Chief Secretary; but, at the same time, he did not concur in the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. He thought, however, if speeches were delivered in a similar tone on Irish questions, there would be fewer scenes in that House. He must also express his gratification at seeing the Motion receive the support of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). As to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; he asked English Members simply to look at the performances of that person in Kilmallock and decide whether or not he was a firebrand. He believed the Coercion Act had been passed under false pretences.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Question before the House.

MR. REDMOND

said, he desired to allude to the Coercion Act because Mr. Clifford Lloyd was engaged in administering it, and he thought he was entitled to refer to the exceptional state of things which existed in Ireland under the Act. Hon. Members opposite, he was of opinion, were induced to support the Government in passing the Coercion Act by the belief that it would be worked in a careful, impartial, and just spirit. If Mr. Clifford Lloyd was allowed to administer that Act, there was no question that injustice would be perpetrated in Ireland such as hon. Gentlemen who voted in favour of the Act never anticipated. The Radical Members who brought into existence this state of affairs by the support they gave to the Government were responsible for the administration of the Act, and therefore they should insist upon the Government seeing that the reins of power were not placed in the hands of men against whom the people had, rightly or wrongly, formed the opinion that they were partial and unjust. If the Government believed the men they had appointed to work the Act were impartial and honest, let them go into the charges which had been made, and prove them to be baseless. With regard to the message of peace to Ireland, he thought it was utterly absurd for hon. Members to talk and delude the Government by making them believe that the Land Bill would be a message of peace to Ireland so long as conduct of this kind was allowed to proceed. If this conduct continued, it must be by men like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who created disturbances instead of quelling them. The first thing the Government ought to do was to establish the principle of justice in Ireland, and re-establish the principle of liberty; and until that was done, it was entirely absurd to think that anything in the shape of a message of peace would be seen in the Land Bill, or any other measure the House might pass.

MR. O'KELLY

remarked, that the Solicitor General for Ireland recommended the people to appeal to the law if they felt aggrieved. He had some experience of appealing to the law in a case similar to this. But he found that, instead of having to deal with a magistrate upon a plain and simple issue, he had to face the British Government. He had in his hand the defence filed in the action he instituted against Mr. Harvey, R.M., for assault, and he found it was prepared by Mr. Anderson, the Crown Solicitor, and printed at the expense of the British taxpayer. Instead of replying to the simple question his action raised, the document contained a long political indictment, which, in fact, was substantially the same as that preferred against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and others at the State trials in Dublin. It was, therefore, absurd to talk of appealing to the law when they had to fight the British Government. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to a meeting at which some Orangemen appeared, when—

MR. SPEAKER

I fail to see the connection between the matter now being discussed and the conduct of Mr. Lloyd, which is the subject of the Amendment before the House.

MR. O'KELLY

said, he thought he was within his right and within Order in replying to the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Government never interfered with these meetings except upon sworn information. Of course, if he was passing beyond his right—

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member is replying to some observations of the Solicitor General for Ireland, I have no wish to interfere.

MR. O'KELLY

said, it was, no doubt, true that the Government never interfered with a meeting except on sworn information; but that statement, if accepted literally, would convey a very wrong impression to the House. The great point was, what steps would the Government take to examine into the validity of the sworn informations? There was a meeting to have been held in County Fermanagh a short time since, and, upon its becoming known, the magistrates of the district in which the meeting was to be held, who were also landlords and land agents, got two or three of their understrappers to get a bill printed to the Orangemen of the county, and the meeting was consequently stopped. The Orangemen had no intention of interfering with the meeting at the time of the issuing of the bill by the men who appealed to Dublin Castle to suppress the meeting. The magistrates who appealed to Dublin Castle to suppress the meeting he had referred to were aware of the origin of the placard issued to the Orangemen. They knew the men who had caused this placard to be posted, and they were perfectly well aware that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Orangemen to come into collision with the people who attended the meeting; yet they walked down and absolutely dispersed the meeting by force, without the slightest justification. There was not the slightest cause to apprehend any disturbance. Now, that was one of the difficulties they had to deal with in Ireland. If the House did not interfere to prevent the Government acting upon these sworn informations until they had ascertained the accuracy of them, the right of public meeting in Ireland would be gone. He hoped the House would assent to the reasonable Motion of the hon. Member for Wexford, for he could not imagine a doubt existing in the mind of anyone that Mr. Lloyd was a dangerous, violent, and excitable man, whose presence in the South was certain to lead to mischief. As to Mr. Harvey, he was, perhaps, worse than Mr. Lloyd.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

wished to mention that Mr. Harvey was defending himself in an action for assault by the hon. Member at his own expense and through his own solicitors.

MR. BYRNE

was of opinion that, inasmuch as these charges against Mr. Lloyd had been made and supported, the Government, if they were jealous of their reputation and the honour of their officials, should be fair and straightforward, and allow the investigation asked for by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford to take place. The hon. Member's proposal was a very reasonable one. This was not a small matter, but a very serious affair, for Mr. Lloyd had the lives and liberties of a large number of people under his control.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked if the Solicitor General for Ireland really meant to refuse the assurance desired by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and other hon. Gentlemen?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, it was not in his power to give such an. assurance; but he had distinctly pointed out the course open to hon. Gentlemen.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 18: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 359.)