IRELAND—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD—CIRCULAR BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COUNTY CLARE.

HC Deb 20 April 1882 vol 268 cc988-1028

MR. SEXTON

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on Tuesday last Mr. Clifford Lloyd, special magistrate for Clare, interfered to prevent the erection of huts to shelter a large number of evicted families at Tulla, in that county, although a site for the huts had been secured from the legal possessor of the ground, and although twelve huts had been actually built, and six others were in course of construction; whether Mr. Lloyd declared the building of the huts to be illegal, ordered the builder to leave the place that evening, and told him that if he did not leave he would be arrested; whether, if the facts be as stated, the policy of the Government is to prevent the sheltering of evicted tenants through the sympathy of their neigh bours, aided by benevolent action in their behalf; whether the following circular respecting Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or a circular to the like effect, has been issued by the County Inspector of Constabulary in Clare to the Sub-Inspectors under his command:—

"Ennis,4th March, 1882.

"As there is too good reason for the belief that every possible means will be used to assassinate Mr. C. Lloyd, it behoves the men of this county to be on the alert to prevent it:

"Men proceeding on his escort should be men of great determination, as well as steadiness, and even on suspicion of an attempt should at once use their firearms, to prevent the bare possibility of an attempt on that gentleman's life:

"If men should accidentally commit an error in shooting any person, on suspicion of that person being about to commit murder, I shall exonerate them by coming forward and producing this document:

"H. SMITH,

"1st Co. Inspector;"

whether a similar circular was issued by the County Inspector of Constabulary in Limerick; and, whether both circulars were issued in obedience to instructions from the Inspector General of Constabulary; and, if so, whether the Government were cognizant of these proceedings, and approved of them?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The first part of this Question refers to the prevention of the erection of huts provided for families at Tulla. I received notice of the Question yesterday at Dublin, and telegraphed it on to Mr. Clifford Lloyd for his observations. I have received a telegraphic despatch from him this morning, which I will read, and which, in fact, he wished me to read to the House— The grossest intimidation is being practised by the Land League upon tenants. Fearing death, they are prevented in many instances paying their rents, and under League intimidation and inducement suffer eviction. When evicted, in order to keep a grip of the soil, the Land League built huts on other tenants' lands, who dare not refuse their lands for the purpose, many are glad to do so—(i. e., to give their lands), and the Land League then give permission to the owners to pay their rent to avoid eviction. Money is collected about the county for the huts, no one daring to refuse to contribute. The plea of charity is shallow and untrue. The huts are meant to be and are the standing menace and intimidation to prevent the owner letting his land, and to intimidate any persons from entering it. Any person taking any such farm as tenant or caretaker, would at present, in the counties of Limerick and Clare, be murdered. After grave consideration, and with the view of protecting the lives and property of those within my jurisdiction, I have determined to put the law in force against any persons guilty of such acts of intimidation and lawlessness. As regards the evicted tenants near Tulla, many of them have privately paid their rents, but are not permitted by the Land League to return into their farms, but are forced to consent to occupy the Land League huts. On my individual authority as a magistrate I ordered the police to warn all persons engaged in this lawlessness to at once desist on pain of arrest, and warned an emissary of the Land League in Tulla to leave the county at once, which she did. I am also acting in a similar manner throughout the counties of Limerick and Clare, and am prepared to defend my action in a Court of Law. I yesterday upbraided several tenants, who were in fear of being evicted on Lord Cloncurry's property, for not standing together and defying the Land League's tyranny, sooner than submit to what they were undergoing. Their reply in the presence of other officers was, 'Life is sweet, sir; we should be shot if we did not obey.' With regard to the second part of the Question, as to the protection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, I believe that no instructions have been issued to the police with reference to it; but if the hon. Member will repeat his Question on another day, I will see what information can be obtained from the County Inspector on the subject.

MR. SEXTON

said, he should not repeat the Question, and he would conclude with a Motion. He had the best evidence that this infamous Circular had been issued by the County Inspector of Constabulary in the County of Clare. It had come to him from a member of the Irish Bar, and upon the authority of one of the most respected priests in that county. He would read the Circular to the House—

"Ennis, 4th March, 1882.

"As there is too good reason for the belief that every possible means will be used to assassinate Mr. C. Lloyd, it behoves the men of this county to be on the alert to prevent it."

So far, no one would for a moment question the propriety of the Circular. Let the County Inspector and his men, and the whole of the Constabulary Force, and the whole British Army in Ireland be on the alert to pre- vent it. Let Mr. Clifford Lloyd have an escort before and behind him, and on each flank, and let them use every precaution that human ingenuity could suggest to prevent his assassination. But the Circular went on to say— Men proceeding on his escort should be men of great determination, as well as steadiness; and even on suspicion of an attempt should at once use their firearms, to prevent the bare possibility of an attempt on that gentleman's life. If men should accidentally commit an error in shooting any person, on suspicion of that person being about to commit murder, I shall exonerate them by coming forward and producing this document.

And the Circular was signed "H. Smith, 1st Co. Inspector." Who was H. Smith, first County Inspector? He was a person who was no more fit to be an Archbishop than he was to be an officer of police. He was the person who, at the head of his police force, used the language of a lunatic at Miltown, where he faced an infuriated crowd, and, presenting a revolver at them, cried out—"You cowardly dogs, come on." This was a peace officer who, instead of showing tact and self-command at a crisis, tried to inflame the passions of the people by threats of physical violence which were most likely to produce the state of things which would entitle him to shoot down the people. He had no doubt the Circular was issued; and now what would be the effect of such a document as that going into the hands of the police? Was the life of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in the estimation of the House, or of the Government, or of the law, of greater value than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or of the Viceroy? The Viceroy or the Chief Secretary proceeded through the country with ample guards, no doubt, but not with instructions given to the police which not only surpassed but directly contravened the law of the land. The House knew what was the law of the land. If a man's life was threatened he was entitled, in defence of his life, to wound or kill; or if public officers were placed in charge of any person, and an attack were made upon that person, they were entitled, in defence of his life, to wound or kill. But what an extraordinary travesty of the law was contained in this Circular! It was not required that there should be an attack, or even a threat; but it was left to the absolute discretion of the humblest constable in Clare, with his loaded rifle on his arm, to determine at what moment he should shoot and kill any of Her Majesty's subjects. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had an ample escort by night and by day. Let the House consider the effect of this Circular. A man opening a gate or leaving a field to go on to the highway, or mounting a stile, or jumping over a hedge, or appearing to lounge in a doubtful manner at the corner of a road, if he was seen by any member of the escort was now liable to be shot—nay, was almost certain to be shot, for the danger to a policeman consisted, not in shooting, but in not shooting. The County Inspector was to the policeman the fountain of honour and of faith, and the sole source of promotion. The policeman knew that if he did not fire he would be reproved, and perhaps dismissed; while if he fired and killed a man, he would be exonerated from blame, and would be considered a man of steadiness and determination. He asked if that would not be the result of such a document, and if it was not a monstrous travesty of all law, that, instead of waiting for some overt proof of guilt, every common policeman was allowed to be the judge of a man's intentions. The effect of that document would be that the highways of the county of Clare would be denied to the people, for it would be impossible for a man wishing to regard his life to go on a highway where Mr. Clifford Lloyd might pass. He denounced that Circular, in presence of the House, as a gross, scandalous, and barbarous incitement to murder. He asked, was that one of the resources of civilization? Was the life it was issued to protect so very valuable—so much more valuable than that of the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant? He called for the withdrawal of the Circular, and he asked the Chief Secretary to inquire from the County Inspector whether he issued it. It was a singular evasion of the question that, instead of referring to the man who issued the Circular, he should refer to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The question should not be asked from Mr. Clifford Lloyd, but the official bull-dog who put his revolver in the face of the crowd was the man who should answer it. He repeated that the Irish Party could not suffer such a document as that to remain abroad without demanding its immediate withdrawal. As for Mr. Clifford Lloyd himself, he did not intend to waste many words upon that gentleman. He was that sort of pliant instrument which despotic Governments, in times of confusion, always found ready to their hands. He was by nature, as well as by his present function, a tyrant. He had no regard for age or youth, or respect for sex. He had signalized every day of his career as a magistrate by some act of tyranny and insult. He began by caning the people in the streets of Kilmallock. His next achievement was the arrest of a boy of six or seven years old, and afterwards prosecuted some ladies oh a baseless charge which he was obliged to withdraw in his own Court, not with shame—for shame was impossible to such a nature—but with confusion. Instead of allaying the passions of the people, he had done everything in his power to aggravate disturbance in his district, with the result that it was now one of the most unquiet in the country. Was it any wonder that they found his example imitated in a thousand forms throughout the country? But he knew he was a pet of the Chief Secretary. The year before last the right hon. Gentleman told a Resident Magistrate that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the only honest man amongst them.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I entirely deny that statement.

MR. SEXTON

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my observation.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to make that assertion after the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. SEXTON

Sir, I shall not contest the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I shall only say that the statement was made to me by a clergyman, who declared that he had it from a Resident Magistrate.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is bound to withdraw his observations, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. SEXTON

said, he withdrew his remarks, and only said that much to justify himself. They had an instance of such conduct on Sunday night last, when a policeman in Waterford rushed into a shop where a respectable woman was engaged at the window reading the United Ireland, seized her, threw her down, and, kneeling upon her, searched her in an indecent manner. Such an outrage, if committed in Bulgaria, would well serve to excite the horror of a Mid Lothian audience. But why was so much care taken of the life of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? What care had he taken of the lives of the Irish people that his own life should be considered sacrosanct? He (Mr. Sexton) must assume that Circular to be issued until he found that it was not. These poor tenants would never have been evicted if the Government, with their Land Act, had provided a humane and statesmanlike method of dealing with arrears. These tenants would not have been evicted if the Government had provided a plan by which the action of the Courts could be rapidly brought to bear on the case of the tenants. These tenants could get no satisfaction from their landlords as to arrears, or as to their current rents. And how did the Government treat these defenceless tenants? By the process of the law they were evicted; and when public funds, subscribed by the Irish people and their friends, were applied to the erection of huts to shelter them, Mr. Clifford Lloyd declared the erection of those huts to be illegal, because they had been got up by an illegal association. The Ladies' Land League was not an illegal association, although there was an assertion to that effect. Earl Cowper issued a Proclamation against the National Land League, but not against the Ladies' Land League. He refrained from doing that, and left it to one of those convenient subordinates at Dublin Castle. He would there notice a curious discrepancy between the reason given by Mr. Clifford Lloyd and the reason given by the Attorney General for Ireland for interfering with the erection of these huts.

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

I gave no reason; I gave a hypothetical opinion on the statement of the hon. Member.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the Attorney General for Ireland gave a hypothetical opinion, which might be treated as an absolute opinion, considering how the facts stood. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's official zeal sometimes outran his official discretion, and he said Mr. Clifford Lloyd would be entitled to arrest people under the Common Law. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the Attorney General for Ireland would have told him that Mr. Clifford Lloyd would be entitled to arrest people under an uncommon law—namely, the Coercion Act of last year. If Mr. Clifford Lloyd acted on that law, he would ask, why did he not suppress the Ladies' Land League? The Land League had been declared to be illegal by the highest tribunal; but the Ladies' Land League had not. It was by the arrest of individual after individual belonging to the Land League that the Government had endeavoured to put it down. Why had they not proceeded by the same process against the members of the Ladies' Land League? The Attorney General for Ireland had discovered something in the Common Law that no one knew of before. He (Mr. Sexton) asked the attention of the Attorney General for England and the Lord Advocate for Scotland to this—that the Attorney General for Ireland declared that, while the Coercion Act entitled the authorities to arrest anyone who was suspected of having committed an illegal act, the Common Law went much further, for it entitled the Government to arrest and imprison persons, not for anything they had done, but upon the vaguest suspicion of something they might hereafter do. The Common Law rested upon decisions. Would the Attorney General for Ireland name any decision of any Court in any century in England, Ireland, or Scotland, which sanctioned the imprisonment of persons who had been turned out of their homes and left shelterless on the roadside, because they accepted the shelter offered them by their neighbours? That the shelter given to these tenants was legally provided for them could not be disputed. Five of the huts were erected on the land of one man, who had as good a right to have those huts there as the Attorney General for Ireland had to sit on the Treasury Bench. [An hon. MEMBER: A better.] Yes; because his was a permanent right. The other huts had been erected on the land of men who, though not its owners, were its legal possessors. As to the monstrous suggestion that this had been done as part of a system of intimidation by the Land League, he dismissed it as unworthy of attention. There never was an organization which occupied such a grand historic position as the Land League did at that moment. It started with two objects. One was to prevent rack-renting. The Liberal Party said they had achieved that; and therefore they had taken a leaf out of the Land League book. The other object was to make the tenants the owners of the farms. The Tory Party were now taking that leaf out of the book of the Land League. And the Land League occupied this position—that the two great English Parties were at the present moment plagiarists of its policy. He asked the Government to pause, even on the verge of the abyss that was before them. They had gone far enough against the people. Were the poor peasants to be turned out of their homes, and, being left without any means of shelter, to be driven over the precipice of despair? He begged to remind the Government of the story related by Plutarch regarding the Pro-Consul who told the Islanders to whom he had been sent to collect taxes that he had on his side a great God—the God of Force; when the Islanders informed him that they had on their side two Gods—the Gods of Poverty and Despair. He might say that the Gods of Poverty and Despair were on the side of the Irish peasants; and he warned the Government not to employ the God of Force too much. The right hon. Gentleman might say the people could go into the workhouse. They knew the feelings of aversion with which the Irish people regarded the workhouses. The humblest peasant would rather die than accept the charity of a workhouse. But why should they be asked to accept it, seeing that their neighbours had offered them sites for shelters, and that money publicly subscribed by their own countrymen was available to enable them to provide that shelter? What did the action of the Government mean? He would read to the House a document which he received the previous night from Mr. Murphy, Clerk of the Tulla-more Board of Guardians. The Board had, on the 18th instant, the application of Pat Meehan, his wife, and six children, for outdoor relief. Meehan was a carpenter employed by Mr. Kelly, of Dublin, who was the contractor for the erection of wooden huts on the property of Major Molony, of Tullow. Mr. Clifford Lloyd stopped the work, warning the contractor that he was working for an illegal society, and Meehan was left without employment. The Guardians, after considering the case, resolved that the facts be inserted on the minutes, and that a copy thereof be sent by the Clerk to Mr. Sexton, with a request that the matter be brought before Parliament. The Guardians regretted that, under the present Poor Law, they could not grant outdoor relief to the applicants; and as it was probable that many such cases would arise under the present Liberal Ministry, they should be acquainted with the facts. A hundred times had they been told, in tones of deepest solemnity, that the object of the Government was to enable people to earn their living in Ireland. Would they enable Pat Meehan to earn his living? The poor man was in this dilemma—the Government would not let him build his hut, and the Guardians could not grant him outdoor relief—was he to gratify one of the whims of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to enter the workhouse? The Land Act was merely to be worked at the rate of a tortoise, while the sheriff and the bailiff were to proceed with evictions at the speed of the hare, and the people forced from their homes were to be left without shelter. Language could not possibly exaggerate the gravity of the situation. Must it be the final resource of civilization that the Irish peasants should be driven to starve and die in the ditches of their native land? He knew not how to convey to the House his sense of the great gravity and solemnity of the situation; but he felt bound to say that the idea of the Attorney General for Ireland was the least defensible and least rational he had ever heard. He said the people were not to be allowed to build huts lest they might watch their farms. Did the Attorney General for Ireland expect that, in the present state of public feeling, agriculturists would take those farms? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that they must be held by Emergency men. He was not accounting for the feeling which made such things necessary, neither was he defending it. He was simply pointing out the fact; and he wished to know what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman gain, in the interests of law and order, by banishing a few farmers from that particular district, while they left a few hundred others in it? "Would not those who remained hold the same feelings as those who were sent away? Suppose some families were exiled from any particular district by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new reading of the Common Law, and the whim of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, what was to be the distance within which the Common Law would operate? If the evicted tenants went only five miles distant from their farms, would this new reading of the Common Law declare them to be still too near? Must it be 10 or 20 miles—must they leave the country altogether? Who was to be the judge? If those evicted people were allowed to have a roof over their heads and food to eat, and to cherish some hope that they would be restored to their homes, was it not more probable that they would not resort to any act of violence than if they were driven away, and the lowest passions of the Bashi Bazouk vented upon them? If those people were driven away from their own district with feelings like those he had described rankling in their hearts, was it not more than likely that one of them might come back to do harm? He protested in the name of reason, of law, and of public right against the law of the land being travestied and outraged by any Pasha in the County Clare. He told the Government plainly that unless they withdrew this Circular, which was inciting the police to murder the people, and gave an assurance that tenants evicted from their farms through default of the Government would be allowed to live on at least as good conditions as the beasts of the field, he should think it his duty to rise up in that House and apply to the situation brought about by the Government such language as he thought proper. He cared not for the consequences personal to himself. He should be sorry to be forced to tell the people of Ireland what he thought, either of the action they ought to take or of the attitude they ought to preserve with regard to such barbarity. But if that occasion should arrive, he should fling to the winds every consideration except the thought that innocent men, women, and children were being hunted like wolves in the name of the resources of civilization. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Before alluding to this Circular and the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, there are one or two extraneous remarks of the hon. Gentleman which I cannot pass unnoticed. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying that the Proclamation which was issued by the Lord Lieutenant included the Ladies' Land League just as well as any other League. [Mr. HEALY: Why did you not suppress it?] Any public meetings of the Ladies' Land League can be suppressed just in the same way as any meeting of the Land League to which the hon. Member belongs. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) taunts us with the fact that women belonging to the Ladies' Land League have not been arrested as "suspects." Undoubtedly, they have not been arrested. The hon. Member seems to wish to drive us to do so; but our course will be guided by what we consider best for the peace of Ireland, and the taunts and sneers of the hon. Member will have no influence upon our action in the matter. In regard to the hon. Member's remarks on Mr. Clifford Lloyd, I wish to repeat what I said before, that I believe Mr. Clifford Lloyd has stood between hundreds of men, women, and children in Ireland and death, or at least maiming, persecution, and ruin. It is unfair—it is more unfair than even I should have expected, and that is saying a good deal—that charges which have been over and over again disproved should be again repeated, as if there is no doubt about them. Nothing could have been so much disproved as the original charge of caning the people to the full belief of Members of this House, yet the hon. Member for Sligo gets up and repeats it as if it had never been disproved, and states that the same thing happened in Waterford. Again, in regard to County Inspector Smith, the statement about him has been denied by him, and I have given the denial; but the hon. Member repeats the statement as if no denial had ever been made. We come to the Circular itself. I stated in my answer that Mr. Clifford Lloyd said he knew nothing about it, and that if the Question was repeated I would give what information I could about it. I have communicated with both County Inspectors, and I have heard from one and not from the other. The hon. Member might have waited till I was able to give him a complete answer. I have certainly reason to believe that the Inspector for the county of Clare did issue the Circular. I know nothing about the other. As regards the Inspector General of Constabulary, I am sure he knew nothing about it, nor were the Government cognizant of its being issued; but I make this statement—that I think the last two paragraphs of the document ought not to have been issued in the manner in which they were. But when the hon. Member states that people have been endangered by it, I believe nothing of the sort. The Circular is dated the 4th of March. That is some time ago, and no danger followed. If he asks me what its practical effect has been, its practical effect has been to prevent the people from shooting at Mr. Clifford Lloyd. [Mr. SEXTON: The people did not know about the Circular.] I do not know that—these things get out. This is undoubtedly true—that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has made himself obnoxious to the men who commit murder and instigate to murder; that he is hated by them; that there are attempts to assassinate him; that a price has been put upon his head—that is notorious; and that there is a combination and conspiracy to assassinate him; of that there is no doubt, and undoubtedly he ought to be protected. I suppose what was in the mind of the Inspector when he issued this Circular—which I think, and will tell him, he ought not to have issued with these last two paragraphs—was that the cowardly ruffians who would be likely to shoot at Mr. Clifford Lloyd from behind a hedge would not do it if they thought they would be in danger. They would be in very little danger if everybody waited until they were first fired at. That is a risk which a man has to run; and though Mr. Clifford Lloyd would not have allowed that Circular to go out himself, that was a risk which the Inspector, no doubt, thought ought to be provided for. Therefore, with too much zeal probably, he issued the Circular as it stood; but it was undoubtedly true that these murders, which had happened one after another, happened in this way—that those who committed them had no more notion of suffering harm from them than had the men who instigated them to do it. They fired from behind a hedge, and then ran away; and if they thought they would be in danger before they fired, they would be very much more careful about it. But it is a risk that a man ought to run, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is ready to run. In regard to what has been stated about the Land League huts, it is a matter which must be judged of according to the circumstances of each particular case. Generally speaking, I have stated both to the landlords and Constabulary officers and to the representatives of the tenants that it is a perfectly legal matter for huts to be erected in charity to the evicted tenants, but that they may also be erected for purposes of intimidation; and having been in that district myself, and having had the Reports of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and the men who have been intimidated and threatened, I believe it is the fact that the erection of some of these huts lead to, and are merely for the purpose of, intimidation, which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was bound to prevent. The hon. Member gets up and supposes that we have no dangers to contend with in those districts; but they are dangers with regard to which we should be unworthy of the name of officers of Her Majesty's Government if we did not do our best to contend with them, and endeavour to prevent them. The hon. Member conveyed the impression that no one would venture to take a farm from which a tenant had been evicted. [Mr. Sexton: Very unlikely.] But a man has a right to take such a farm. What we know perfectly well to be the case is, that hundreds of people are evicted from farms because they are not allowed to pay their rents. And, under such circumstances, is the Government to stand by and do nothing? Is the Government to stand by and say that whoever may have the courage to take such a farm is not to be protected and supported? The hon. Member seems to ask us to stand by altogether, and let the protection of the law be of no avail; to acknowledge that we have no power to protect that man; and, in fact, to let lawlessness, disorder, and outrage prevail in that country, instead of making the attempt, which we are making, and in which, not with standing all the opposition we experience, we believe we shall succeed—namely, to make the law prevail. The hon. Member alluded to a case to which Mr. Clifford Lloyd had referred, relating to arrears—I suppose he alluded to the case of Lord Cloncurry's tenants. That case, however, has nothing to do with the arrears question; it is scarcely possible, in fact, to find a case so inappropriate. It is one of the many cases in which the tenants—at any rate, some of them—are very sorry that they did not pay their rents; prosperous men, well-off, who have found that because they trusted in the stories that were told them by the emissaries of the Land League as to their being safe, have been evicted.

MR. SEXTON

I never referred to the case of Lord Cloncurry.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Mr. Clifford Lloyd did; and the consequence is they find that they have lost their holdings, which have been sold for a mere song, and, with tears in their eyes, they have lamented it. Mr. Clifford Lloyd practically said to them—"Why were you such fools and cowards?" "Life is sweet," they replied; "we were afraid of being shot" And why were they in danger of being shot? Because of the instigation of the "no rent" policy, which is the curse of them now; and in regard to which Mr. Clifford Lloyd must be protected and saved from planned assassination, because he has more than most others been instrumental in defeating that conspiracy.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, that the speech of the Chief Secretary had given one more proof of the failure of the coercion policy of the Government. Nothing whatever had been accomplished in the way of restoring peace or order by the coercion policy, and it had only tended to bring forward a new kind of agitation in the country. The hon. Member for Sligo had made something by pressing his Motion at once, for he had obtained something like a repudiation of this most extraordinary Circular from the Chief Secretary two or three days sooner than if he had postponed his Question. It was not a very strong or earnest repudiation; but, at the same time, it was a disclaimer of any Ministerial justification for the policy which dictated the Circular. That document, he said, gave a licence to the police which the general of an invading army never did claim for the troops under him. When the Germans invaded France it was ordered that any civilian who took arms against them should be tried and shot if found guilty; but it was never said that a man should be shot in cold blood on mere suspicion that he might take arms against them. As to the Land League huts, the monstrous suggestion was that the neighbours of an evicted tenant should not be allowed to shelter him near the farm from which he had been evicted. A man was not only to be removed from the farm, but he was not to be allowed to remain under shelter in the neighbourhood. This was in the old and bitter sense—in the Scriptural sense—exterminating a nation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of these huts as if they were a line of fortresses. They were huts put up to shelter men, women, and children who had been ruthlessly evicted. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that men were less dangerous when they were unhoused, and had not a roof to cover them, than when they were preserved from the inclemency of the weather? The Prime Minister had talked of "social revolution;" but the Government were by their action bringing about a social convulsion, and were certainly not taking a course which was calculated to restore peace to Ireland. As long as they sanctioned such proceedings, it was impossible to have peace in Ireland. There was no country in the world where such conduct would not stir up the passions of the people.

MR. LEAMY

said, he thought it was quite evident that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman Mr. Clifford Lloyd, like the King, "can do no wrong" in Ireland. They had several times attacked him in that House, and he had always found a very warm defender in the right hon. Gentleman; but there was one question with regard to him put in that House, not by an Irish Member, but by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which the right hon. Gentleman had never answered. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham said that Judge Barry stated at the last Assizes in the county Clare that the outrages which had occurred in that county for the two months prior to the Assizes were twice as numerous as in the corresponding months of the previous year. He would like to have some explanation of that from the Chief Secretary. If, as he said, wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd went there was peace, how came it that the outrages in the county were actually double when he was in it to what they were before he went there? The right hon. Gentleman admitted that this Police Circular was issued. He was under the impression that the ingenuity of Dublin Castle and of the police officials in the matter of Circulars had long since been exhausted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have already stated that at the Castle they knew nothing about this Circular. I never heard anything at all about it until yesterday; but I suspect, from a telegram I have received, that it was issued; but no information to that effect has ever been received by the authorities in Dublin.

MR. LEAMY

said, he was glad of that interruption from the right hon. Gentleman, and he invited the attention of the Radical Party to this fact. The Irish Members had often and often during the debate on the Coercion Bill last year pointed out that the law would be carried into execution, not by the Chief Secretary, but by the police throughout the country. Now they had the facts demonstrated beyond all doubt. If such a Circular had been issued by the Third Section in Russia, the whole English Press would have cried out against it. But here in Ireland, at their very doors, the police issued this infamous Circular, and the Chief Secretary for more than a month knew nothing about it. But the Chief Secretary thought that the last two paragraphs ought not to have been written—the paragraphs in which this Inspector stated that if one of his men shot down an innocent person by mistake he, the Inspector, would exonerate the policeman, setting aside altogether the verdicts of a Coroner's Jury, and the result of magisterial investigation or a trial by jury. With regard to the erection of huts, the question they had to ask was this—and they expected an answer from the Attorney General for Ireland—at what distance from a man's farm did it become illegal to erect a hut? Was it or was it not legal for a farmer, having land of his own, to let a house be built upon it? Did it become illegal to give it to evicted tenants? If that was illegal, under what circumstances did the erection of the hut become illegal? Were they not alone going to suspect the occupant of the house, but also the house itself that was in process of building? Their neighbours were ever the best friends of evicted tenants. If the latter were driven away from their own parishes they would either fail in obtaining assistance, or be subjected to the shame of accepting it from the hands of strangers. He did not suppose there was very much use in bringing the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd before that House. He had, indeed, long ceased to expect any defence of public rights from the occupants of the Benches opposite; but men had lately attempted to say in Ireland that the Chief Secretary was not responsible for these petty tyrannies, but now they had achieved, at any rate, that much good, that they had brought home to the Irish people that not alone did he permit Mr. Clifford Lloyd to act in this way, but that by doing so he was winning the approbation of the right hon. Gentleman. He would only say, in conclusion, that if the Ladies' Land League was to be put down it might become the duty of the Catholic priests, as perhaps the only organization with which the Liberal Government was afraid to deal, to look after evicted tenants, and assist in putting up houses for them. These houses would continue to be put up in spite of anything that Mr. Clifford Lloyd or any of his friends might do. They were threatened with more coercion for Ireland. He would only tell the Ministers that there was no form of coercion which they could devise which had not been tried in Ireland in vain in the attempt to break the national spirit. The Irish people defied coercion. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that they were forgetful of 1798, and the barbarous cruelties that were then practised upon the people of Ireland? He told English Ministers that they might bring in their coercion and they would defy them, as they defied them before. He told them their coercion policy would fail, as they were compelled to admit through the mouth of the Prime Minister it had failed. He told them now if they brought in more coercion it would fail also; it would only serve to strengthen and consolidate the spirit of hatred in Ireland against the rule of foreigners. When they tried coercion in Ireland before they failed, even though the Irish race was then confined within the four seas of Ireland. To-day the Irish were scattered throughout the world, united as they never were united before, and he told them they dare not bring in more coercion.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought the House ought not to be misled by anything that had been said on the other side. There were two classes of evicted tenants in Ireland. There were the tenants who were cruelly and wickedly evicted because they were utterly unable to pay the arrears which had accrued on account of disastrous seasons. Such tenants were evicted in the West of Ireland. He asked, what did the Land League do for them? What huts did they erect for them? None at all. What did they do to show their sympathy for those unfortunate creatures who were evicted on the hill sides of Connemara? Nothing. Perhaps there might be some small sum of money awarded which might or might not have been distributed, and which had given them no effectual relief; but, on the other hand, the Land League huts were erected in places in which they were intended to be nests of insurrection and insubordination. For his part, he thought that any tenants who were evicted under circumstances which they could not help themselves, who were evicted, as they had been in the county Clare and in many other places, from the terrorism of the Land League, which decreed that if they did not obey their behests they should be shot, for these persons huts and shelter should be provided; and, therefore, he could not for one moment justify this Circular of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. But if hon. Gentlemen whose indignation had been so great against persons whom they thought might in future be shot by mistake by the police had shown equal indignation against those who had already murdered their fellow-countrymen it would have come with more grace from them. They had heard a good deal of what might happen if this abominable Circular were acted upon. He called it abominable. In no other country but Ireland would it be possible, in his belief, that an Executive officer could issue it. It should speak to the House trumpet-tongued of what they whose voices were never attended to on that side of the House or the other had always been saying—that the Executive in Ireland, the permanent officials, from the highest to the lowest, had been utterly inefficient, and were utterly unable even to perform the ordinary duties of government. Did not this Circular show of what the permanent officials were made? And there had been other objectionable Circulars of this kind which had been issued and then withdrawn. But that apart, what he rose to protest against was this indignation against the Executive, and this assumption of great benevolence on the part of the Land League, who had utterly neglected the really unprotected and miserable creatures in the West of Ireland who were evicted wholesale, and who were unable to pay that for which they had been evicted. If huts had been erected for these people it would have done credit to hon, Gentlemen opposite and their organization; but nothing was done. These people could not make political capital for this organization; and, therefore, they were left to suffer as poor men, women, and children had suffered, who, if they had been able to reflect glory on the head of that Association who had done so much to ruin the country, would have had their sufferings brought forward often enough in that House.

MR. HEALY,

referring to the blame cast by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) on the Land League for neglecting the smaller tenants in the West of Ireland, explained that the League had only a limited amount of funds at its disposal, and, of course, could not expend more than it possessed. The hon. Member's income for one year would amount to more than the whole of the Land League funds. The Land League, accordingly, was only able to give small donations in each case, proportionate to what they considered the requirements of the case and the exigency of the country demanded. If the Land League was to do what should be done for the tenants of Ireland, in 20 or 30 days the whole of its money would be eaten up. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made an extraordinary statement. He said that, in the first place, Dublin Castle knew nothing about this Circular which was issued on the instructions of the Inspector General to the County Inspector. What he wanted to know was, the Inspector General having given instructions that the Circular was to be issued, was it no part of his duty to see what it was?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, there was no statement in the Question to the effect that the Inspector General knew anything about the Circular.

MR. HEALY

said, that everything could not be stated at once; but Irish Members were acquainted with that fact as well as of the issue of the Circular itself. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be astonished to hear that they had their sources of information as well as he had his, and that occasionally, perhaps, they were as accurately informed. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's non-acquaintance with the Circular, he ventured to remind him of this extraordinary fact. The Circular was dated the 4th of March. On the 3rd of March the right hon. Gentleman himself was down in Clare, and Inspector Smith accompanied him. Of course, they were obliged to respect any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman; but when the Circular was dated the 4th of March, and when they knew the opinion the right hon. Gentleman had regarding Mr. Clifford Lloyd, he would like to ask—were no instructions given by him, was nothing at all said by Mr. Smith to him on the subject? What power had Mr. County Inspector Smith, a mere subordinate, over life and death?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Do I understand the hon. Member to challenge what I have said? My statement was that I knew nothing about the Circular at that time. Does he say that I did? Does he wish to convey that insinuation in any shape or form?

MR. HEALY

If the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the statement I have made to the House he will have an opportunity of reply, to use the words of Mr. Speaker, "by the indulgence of the House." I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when I interrupted him on a recent occasion he told me that I was importing new manners into the House. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to restrain himself for the two or three minutes during which I shall address the House.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order, because I do not apprehend that it is a question upon which there can be any discussion. The question has been put by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether or not the hon. Member was imputing to him a false statement. ["No!"] That is what I understand. I do not for a moment say that the hon. Member for Wexford was imputing a false state- ment; but I understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked the question whether he did or did not intend to impute such a statement to him, and I think the House is entitled to have an answer to that question.

MR. HEALY

It is quite touching to observe the liveliness with which right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Table support each other. I would remind right hon. Gentlemen that I know my rights in this House as well as they know theirs; but I understand the Chief Secretary for Ireland—

MR. SPEAKER

I would warn the hon. Member that he is bound to accept the disavowal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. HEALY

Perfectly, Mr. Speaker. You have exactly stated the position, Sir. Outside this House we resume our liberty of appreciation; and I will now resume the somewhat broken thread of this somewhat interrupted speech. They were bound to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but there had been nothing imported into the House which obliged them to accept the statements of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He would deny that he was bound to accept Mr. Clifford Lloyd's statement, or Mr. Inspector Smith's denial. He had known Mr. Clifford Lloyd before, and had been the first to bring that gentleman's conduct before the House. He (Mr. Healy) was in the town of Drogheda on the 1st of January, 1881, and, after having dispersed a meeting, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had said to the people—"If you don't disperse quickly I will fire upon you." He (Mr. Healy) had brought that matter before the House, and had obtained the votes of several English hon. Members in support of the Motion which he had then made. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had denied his statement; but he (Mr. Healy) had heard him with his own ears, and, with the unfortunate incident of the town of Drogheda in his mind, he was unable to accept Mr. Clifford Lloyd's denial. What the Irish Members would accept was the evidence of impartial persons; they surely could not be blamed if they hesitated to accept the denials of incriminated parties. Was it not a fact that since Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been placed in Clare and Limerick there had been more murders in that district than in the rest of Ireland in the same time? The fact was that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a firebrand, as had been stated even by Mr. Whitworth, the brother of the hon. Member for Drogheda. Mr. Boyd Kinnear, a well known Scotch writer and lawyer, in his letters in The Daily News, stated that he was down in Kilmallock, attending some of the trials held by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and some of the most scathing condemnations about Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been written by Mr. Kinnear. It was a strange and terrible fact that this Circular rendered a man liable to be shot on mere suspicion. If the Chief Secretary suspected a man he might arrest him; if his subordinates suspected a man they might shoot him. To such a strange pass had things now come in Ireland If such a Circular had been issued to the Zaptiehs and Bashi-Bazouks of Bulgaria, the House would have heard a very different account of it from the Treasury Bench. On the introduction of the Land Act the right hon. Gentleman said— We have now been engaged for two or three weary months with the dreary business of coercion, and we have entered now into the path of conciliation. Was this one of the steps in "the path of conciliation," to shoot persons on suspicion? It was impossible to conciliate the country by such methods. The Government should recollect that they had to deal with to-morrow as well as to-day. The officials of the Government in Ireland might make a desert and call it peace, but Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom; and when engaged in a struggle with some Foreign Power England might feel the effect of the proceedings of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. England's battles in the past had been fought by the arms and hearts of Irishmen; but English recruiting sergeants might find a difficulty in future in finding recruits in Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district. When England was engaged in a deadly struggle with some foreign foe, they would hear addressed from the Treasury Bench to the Irish people, not words of menace, as they did now, but supplications for assistance and support. They had to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Was he determined that the erection of these huts should be put a stop to? He stated that the Ladies' Land League was an illegal association? If so, why was it not proclaimed? He stated that he had not arrested any of them under the Coercion Act; but he sent them to gaol for six months, and they were kept in their cells for 22 hours out of the 24. There was no need for the Coercion Act for arresting women when he had got the law of Edward III. The people of Ireland were being put out by the score and by the hundred in the year following that Act which was to bring peace to the country. They were expelled from their homes mainly because of the arrears which the Chief Secretary treated with so much indifference when he (Mr. Healy) sought to introduce a clause into the Land Act dealing with the question. Now, when the unfortunate people were driven out on the roadside, he would not allow huts to be erected for their shelter. Was it more likely to promote the peace of the country to compel the unfortunate inhabitants of these huts to roam about from farm to farm than to allow them being comfortably housed by the Land League? The Chief Secretary for Ireland thought these people should go to the workhouse. He would probably like to see them once more going by the hundred into the poor-house, or across the Atlantic in the emigrant ship. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to obtain credit for his benevolence, let him allow those unfortunate people to obtain protection from those who were willing to protect them. Not one of them believed Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Nobody who knew him could believe him. The testimony of any man who could consent to become the instrument of the British Government in the way Mr. Clifford Lloyd had done was not worth a moment's credence. He was hated as much in Ireland as Major Sir was in 1798; and so long as he and persons like him were employed to carry out the dirty work which was going on in Ireland in the name of law and order, so long would law and order be despised.

MR. SHAW

said, there were two subjects before the House—the question of the Circular and the question of the huts. Three weeks ago he was shown the Circular by an hon. Member to whom it was sent, and he advised him strongly not to ask any Question about it until he had ascertained whether it was genuine, for he could not believe that any man in the position of the County Inspector of Clare would think of issuing such a Circu- lar. He did not think he would have issued the Circular in the first place without consulting his superiors in Dublin; and if those superiors had any fitness at all for their position, he could not imagine that they would allow it to be issued. If documents of this kind were allowed to be issued, he could only say that the fact gave a reason for an immense deal of the confusion that was going on in Ireland. He could not imagine that there was any real head or government of the police in Ireland. The idea of the Inspector of one of the most disturbed counties in Ireland issuing a Circular of that kind without the bidding of his superiors in Dublin Castle was, to say the least of it, the most absurd that he could imagine. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the two last paragraphs were exceedingly improper; but he (Mr. Shaw) had expected the right hon. Gentleman to go much further. Did they intend to leave that Inspector in the county of Clare? He did not want to have him dismissed from the Force, because he might have a family; but if a man of that kind were left in a county like Clare, which was full of difficulty and disturbance, it would be the most injudicious thing in the world, and ought not to be countenanced for a moment by the Government. He thought it would be worth while for the House to inquire how it was that the Irish Police Force was governed or regulated at all. Were officers of this kind throughout the country left entirely to their own discretion as to the issuing of Circulars and the management of the people? The matter was most important for those who lived in Ireland. He knew himself gentlemen in command of the police in Ireland. He was happy to say the remark only applied to a few, who in case of difficulty ought to be locked up, or kept out of the way, for they were most unfit to manage in a case of difficulty. As a general rule, the men in command of the police were men of great judgment and sense, and discharged the duties committed to them with great propriety; but, as he had said, there were some of them, and he believed this man was one, who, on the occasion of any trouble or difficulty, should be locked up themselves. As to the huts, it was well known that they were being erected for the last six or eight months in many parts of Ireland. He never heard be- fore that they were illegal. He maintained that there was not a single case of the building of a hut in any part of Ireland which was not as much a menace as in the county of Clare. He really thought that the Government, before going to this extreme length, should have sent down some independent authority, some proved and experienced man, to inquire into the circumstances, and not have left the matter entirely to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, no matter how valuable a servant of the Government he might be. He would not stop to inquire into the justice or injustice of the evictions; but it was a fact that hundreds of people were driven out on the roadside; and it was a very extreme thing to say that dwellings should not be erected to shelter these people. It was too extreme a step to take without having sent down an independent person to inquire into the circumstances. He could not sit down without asking the Government whether they intended to go on in this way for ever? How long did they intend that this kind of thing should go on—war, absolute war, between the people of Ireland and the forces of the country? A policeman on suspicion might shoot a man. The man, as a matter of course, might shoot the policeman. It was absolutely clear that in Clare and the district surrounding it, there was a war going on, and the Government seemed to take one wrong step after another, in suppressing it. So far as he could judge they might go on in this course for years, and the thing would never come to an end. The crisis required a different policy. It required something stronger and bolder than anything yet done. If the Government were not prepared to take another course than that now being pursued, he believed the state of Ireland would go from bad to worse.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, it was some satisfaction to hear the Circular condemned; but that was not enough. The Circular was a gross violation of the law of the land, and a direct encouragement to violence on the part of the people. If they wanted the people of Ireland to accept the authority of the law, they must respect the law themselves. This County Inspector Smith, charged as he was with functions of the greatest moment, had no right to hold so important a position in the county of Clare after issuing such a Circular. If the right hon. Gentleman would remove County Inspector Smith from a place where he was about to commit such crimes, he would do more to restore law and order than Mr. Smith and Mr. Clifford Lloyd could do. Unless the people saw that a man who did such a thing would be punished, the Government could not expect to see law and order restored. Let not the right hon. Gentleman shrink from doing to the author of this Circular what would be done if such a document were issued in any part of England. He trusted that the building of huts would not be prevented, unless it was proved that there was something illegal in it. It had been said by some that the tenants were not free to pay their rents for fear of being murdered, while others denied it. But one fact was worth a great deal of argument. He could bring forward the case of tenants who, wishing to remit their rents to the landlord, were obliged to go into a town far from their farms in order to evade outrage. [The hon. Gentleman here read a letter from a trader in Cork to the landlord, stating that such-and-such of his tenants asked him to send him a cheque in payment of their rent, and to have a receipt sent back to the writer, so that "Captain Moonlight" might be doubly baffled.] But while these things occurred, they were no excuse for illegality on the part of the Government or their officials. On the contrary, the fact that the people were threatened by illegal associations ought to be a reason why the Government should give no excuse for outrage by any illegality on their part. If they wished to get the law respected the best way to do so was to punish those who failed to respect it.

MR. REDMOND

said, he sincerely trusted that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) would have due effect on the mind of the House, coming as it did from a Gentleman who had never given any assistance to the Land League, and to whom the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland were fond of going for advice. [Mr. CALLAN: No !] That hon. Gentleman had told the Government—what everybody knew would have happened—that their coercion policy in Ireland had been a dismal and melancholy failure. Their repression and their conciliation had been alike halfhearted. If the Government believed not in conciliation, but in repression, their policy ought to be more wholehearted. But if they believed in conciliation then why did they allow these things to go on? The facts elicited with reference to the Police Circular were such as should startle the minds of hon. Members who have been hitherto content to allow Ireland to be governed without too curiously inquiring the methods by which it was done. The worst thing about the Circular was that it was issued without the knowledge of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Irish Executive in Dublin Castle. The fact that such a Circular could be issued by a subordinate official without the knowledge or approval of the Executive in Dublin was the strongest condemnation of the present system of government in Ireland. The people could only conclude from such facts that each petty official was invested with power, not only over liberty, but over life in that country. In dealing with the subject of evictions the Chief Secretary for Ireland had dwelt upon the case of a father having been intimidated by his son from paying his rent; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the majority of the evictions were not evictions of tenants who could pay rents, but who refused to pay. The most remarkable cases of evictions recently were those now being carried out on Lord Cloncurry's estate. Those tenants had offered to pay a fair rent at a reasonable reduction; but, so far from accepting such an arrangement, the landlord had announced that, not only would he not give that reduction, but that he would not permit the tenants to remain on their holdings unless they consented to pay an increased rent in future. The evictions now proceeding in Ireland were, to a large extent, the direct consequence of the course which the Government had pursued. The first time that the question of the arrears of impossible rent came before the House was when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was introduced. What, then, was the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and by the Government? The House was told that, in consequence of partial famine, hundreds and thousands were unable to pay their rents, that they were threatened with eviction, which was tantamount to a sentence of starvation and death; and the right hon. Gentleman stated that he could not consent to be the instrument of carrying out injustice towards those unfortunate people. He now denounced the right hon. Gentleman as having acted dishonestly in that respect. If the right hon. Gentleman had been an honest politician or an honest man he would have taken a different course. [Cries of" Order!" and "Withdraw!"]

MR. GOSCHEN

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member is in Order in using the words—"If the right hon. Gentleman had been an honest politician or an honest man?"

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for New Ross must be quite aware that an observation of that kind is un-Parliamentary, and I call upon him to withdraw it.

MR. REDMOND

I am sorry, Sir, that the Rules of the House militate against telling the truth.[Cries of "Oh! "and "Name him!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has not withdrawn the expression which I declared to be un-Parliamentary.

MR. REDMOND

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of withdrawing the expression; and I would only say this—that I am sorry it is not in my power, within the Rules of Parliament, to make use of the expression. [Cries of"Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I consider the conduct of the hon. Member offensive to this House. I consider his conduct, not only offensive to this House, but also especially offensive to the right hon. Member who has been addressed in the manner in which the hon. Member has addressed him. And I feel bound to Name Mr. Redmond as having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Sir, I have to move, in consequence of the statement which you have just made, that Mr. Redmond be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Redmond be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—[The Marquess of Hartington.)

Mr. SPEAKER

having put the Question, declared that, in his judgment, "The Ayes have it." This not being agreed to, Mr. SPEAKER directed the House to be cleared for a division. Mr. HEALY having offered himself as one of the Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER requested that hon. Gentleman to name a second Teller. Whereupon—

MR. HEALY,

addressing Mr. SPEAKER, sitting and covered, said—I wish to name as my co-Teller, Mr. Redmond, the hon. Member for New Ross. On the point of Order, I would remind you, Sir, that on previous occasions, when an hon. Member has been proposed to be suspended—and I myself last year had twice the honour of being suspended by the decision of the House—on each occasion I took part in the division and voted against the Motion. I submit that an hon. Member who is about to be suspended is equally entitled to tell as to vote. The hon. Member for New Ross is a Member of this House—he has not yet been suspended for the remainder of this day's Sitting—and, in acting as a Teller, he would only be carrying out his function as a Member of this House. The Speaker, I contend, has no power or authority to cut off the hon. Member for New Ross before the House has clothed him with that authority by agreeing to the Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member is not prepared to name a second Teller, I must declare that "The Ayes have it."

MR. HEALY

Well, Sir, if you rule that you must take that course, I will name the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as second Teller.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 12: Majority 195.—(Div. List, No. 66.)

Mr. SPEAKER

then directed Mr. REDMOND to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

As, Sir, the Question "That this House do now adjourn" is again before us, I wish to say a single word, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the view taken by a large number of Gentlemen on this side of the House who have not taken any part in the discussion. As we understand, a Question has been addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with regard to this Circular. He has informed the House that he was not aware, until his attention was called to it, that such a Circular had been issued, and he has expressed dissatisfaction with the phraseology of the last two sentences of that Circular, which he has reason to believe has been issued. I presume that, that being the case, the Government will take such steps as they may think proper in the matter; but I am anxious that it should be clearly understood that the House, while trusting the Government will take all proper steps in that matter, fully supports the Government in those measures they may find to be necessary, in the present critical state of Ireland, for the preservation of law and order. I wish also strongly to impress upon the Government that there is no disposition whatever, either in this country or in Ireland, to weaken the hands of those who are charged with a very difficult duty; and I would further express my own personal hope, as well as the desire of others, that nothing which has passed or may be said shall be allowed to have the effect of discouraging or weakening the efforts of those gallant men—the Constabulary of Ireland, who, performing their duty under circumstances of great trial, require to be supported. Moreover, I need hardly say that I think nothing that has passed will give, or can be twisted into giving, any impression that there will be any less care taken to protect Mr. Clifford Lloyd in the discharge of his duties, which, as far as we understand, he is performing with great courage.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he rose for the purpose of supporting, in the fewest possible words, the views taken by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw). He had nothing to say with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to which they had just listened; but he wished to contrast briefly the demand which was made upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland by the hon. Member for the County of Cork with that which was made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). It was unnecessary to follow the hon. Member for Sligo into the variety of subjects upon which he entered; but he wished to endorse most fully the criticisms of the hon. Member upon this Constabulary Circular. All the hon. Member for Sligo asked was that if the Circular were found to be authentic, it should be withdrawn by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not ask for the withdrawal of the Inspector of Police, nor did the hon. Member for Longford. He wished to make an observation as a somewhat indirect reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not right that the public should imagine that because they condemned the issue of this Circular they also condemned energetic action on the part of those responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland. He, as the Representative of an Irish county, was as anxious for the preservation of law and order in Ireland as the English Gentlemen who so warmly endorsed the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. But the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was perfectly justified in calling attention to this Circular. When the Chief Secretary for Ireland was questioned about the document, he pleaded for more time to make inquiries, although in possession of the fact that the Circular had been issued. That was not candid treatment of the House. They had had some experience of the manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland threw his protection over officials of this description doing imprudent or illegal acts. He alluded to the case of the Chief Inspector of the town of Ballina. Although not in the habit of "bullyragging," as they would say in Ireland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, yet, when he found an official in Ireland setting an example of violation of the law, he felt that it was more necessary to deal with him than with an ordinary citizen, because an official was looked upon by the general population as setting them an example of strict and careful observance of the law. In the case of this Sub-Inspector, he had issued a Circular of an atrocious character, which was distinctly an incentive to violence on the part of the people, and they called for a withdrawal of that Circular. It must not be thought that they objected to proper and legitimate means being taken to enforce the law. On the contrary, it was necessary that the primary duties of civilization and govern- ment should be discharged by someone; and in the presence of a great popular movement, those upon whom these arduous duties fell would, from time to time, make themselves unpopular even by a legitimate discharge of their duties. But, so far from promoting the peace of the country by extra legal measures, they were simply playing into the hands of those who kept Ireland in a state of perpetual disturbance. The hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), whom he regretted to say had incurred the penalties of the House, though in a manner in which he could not endorse his action, made a statement in the course of his speech which ought to be corrected. He said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in the habit of consulting the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) in matters of Irish policy. He had also been reputed to share the distinguished honour of the political confidence of the right hon. Gentleman. He was able to say on behalf of the hon. Member for Cork County, as well as for himself, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not thought either of them worthy of being consulted. Nor, indeed, had the right hon. Gentleman taken into confidence a single Representative from Ireland with regard to his Irish policy. He was talking lately to a Gentleman who represented a very large constituency in Ireland, who was returned to the House of Commons as an avowed supporter of the Liberal Government, and he had asked him if he did not think the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a very arduous and critical one, first of all because the Irish Tory Members were opposed to him, and he would not get much sympathy from them, and the Members of the active Party were also opposed to him, while even those he ruled among did not rally round him? He had added that he supposed the moderate Home Rulers possessed his confidence, and that as the right hon. Gentleman was not an Irishman and was not acquainted with Irish institutions, he took the trouble of asking them how the Government in Ireland should be carried on. His hon. Friend told him that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had never asked him a single question about the government of Ireland since he had taken his seat on the Front Government Bench. If the right hon. Gentleman had any doubt about that he would be very happy to tell him who the hon. Member was. It was this supercilious conduct in reference to the opinions of Irish Members which had arrayed against the right hon. Gentleman all classes of the Irish Representatives. He was just reminded that another Irish Liberal Member, a staunch supporter of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), had, during the Recess, issued a manifesto to the Irish people in which he too complained that the Chief Secretary took no means to ascertain for himself what were the opinions of the Irish Liberal Members. As there were several Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House, he should be glad if any of them could contradict that statement; but it was not likely they would, because by doing so they would assume a share of responsibility for the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. As soon as the land agitation had reached national proportions, he felt that a revolution was approaching, and his attitude was shaped by his recollection of what had happened in other countries on the occurrence of great popular re-actions to overthrow systems opposed to the well-being of those countries. A revolution was going on in Ireland—there could be no doubt about that; and though it might be made by the Land League, it was not provoked by the Land League. The men who provoked revolutions usually belonged to one class, and the men who made them to another; but very often those revolutions were carried beyond the bounds of reason and justice, and, unfortunately, they saw countries deluged in the blood of their best and bravest; and he said to Her Majesty's Government, and to his hon. Friends, were they going to stain the modern history of Ireland with the blood of tenant and landlord? Were they going to keep up the heart burnings and antipathies that had raged between the two classes in the country for years? It would be the highest duty of Irish Representatives to prevent such terrible results if they could. Responsibility for the condition of Ireland was not confined to the Government or to the official class; they were all responsible. No Irish Member who forgot the terrible responsibility which rested upon the whole body in times like these could claim to be a patriot. Feeling that responsibility, he was in favour of the just, but firm and unswerving administration of the law, and of the swift punishment, with all the legal forms of justice, of the perpetrators of crime and outrage. But justice could not be served or peace promoted by allowing any portion of the official class to set examples of illegality and terrorism. For these reasons he joined his hon. Friend the Member for Cork in expressing a hope that Her Majesty's Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—who, he believed, was anxious to do his duty to Ireland, though he also begged leave to say that he did not know how—would become alive to the duties they had to perform, and that the English Parliament would ultimately discover that there was no way of settling the Irish question but by overturning the present system of Irish administration, vitiated as it was by traditions of the past which Englishmen were ashamed of, and which Irishmen remembered only with feelings of inextinguishable hatred.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Sir, I think this discussion is wandering somewhat far from the starting-point; and unless some attempt is made to recall it to its original purpose, the inconvenience, which is already great, of raising irregular discussions in this way will be much aggravated. The question which we began to discuss was, I conceive, the Question which was raised on the Paper by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—namely, regarding the conduct of certain County Inspectors in the issue of a Circular, which was quoted. But the question which we have now begun to discuss is the general condition of Ireland, the policy of this country towards Ireland during a great number of years, and, more especially, the conduct of the Chief Secretary in consulting, or otherwise, certain Members representing Irish constituencies. I cannot help thinking that if the discussion is to be protracted, it ought, at all events, to be confined to the original questions raised. The hon. Member who has just sat down has charged my right hon. Friend with some want of candour in the answer he has given the House; but I think that the charge is al together unfounded. My right hon. Friend telegraphed for information to enable him to answer the Question; he has not received complete information. He has received a telegraphic reply from one County Inspector which led him to believe that a Circular like that quoted from had been issued; but from the other County Inspectors he had received no reply at all, and he was altogether without any statement which these County Inspectors might desire to furnish in explanation of their action. In these circumstances I think my right hon. Friend was justified in asking the hon. Member to defer his Question until he was in a position to give an answer with full knowledge. But when the Question was further pressed, my right hon. Friend did not feel justified in keeping back the fact that he had reason to believe that such a Circular had been issued in one county; but he was perfectly justified in previously asking for more time, in order that all the facts might be laid before the House. With reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I quite agree with him that not one word ought to be said—and I do not think one word has been said by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—which can, in the slightest degree, lead anyone in Ireland to suppose that the Government are in the least indifferent to the charge laid upon the Constabulary to protect the magistrates in the discharge of their duty. We are aware of the great responsibility which rests upon the Constabulary, upon whom devolves the protection of magistrates, who avowedly occupy a dangerous position, and who discharge their duties, as we believe, honestly and fearlessly. No doubt, a great responsibility rests upon the Constabulary charged with the protection of these magistrates, and it would be far from the intention of anyone to utter a word which could hamper them in doing anything which is necessary. My right hon. Friend has said that he is unable to justify a portion of the Circular alleged to have been issued. It is a painful duty to utter one word which would seem to show a want of confidence or approval as regards men placed in such a difficult position. We have a right to call upon them to display courage and zeal; but we have also the right to demand from them the exercise of discretion. But until my right hon. Friend has received a full explanation from these gentlemen, it would be unfair to them, and it would not be fair to the House, to ask him to pass an opinion on their conduct. I trust, in these circumstances, that this discussion, already unnecessarily prolonged, may be allowed to close.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there were two questions which he wished to ask, respecting which he heard nothing from the noble Lord. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Mayo(Mr. O'Connor Power) with regard to his observations upon the desirability of visiting strong official displeasure upon the author of this Circular; but he would like to know from someone on the Government Benches whether any assurance would be given that the constables would be informed in future that no Circulars were to be issued until they had been submitted to the authorities in Dublin; and next, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd and others would be instructed that the huts might be allowed to be erected? He had expected to hear that the erection of them had been forbidden, because of some new reading of the Coercion Act; but they had been told that it was not done under the Coercion Act or under Statute Law, but that it was in accordance with the Common Law of this country. As he understood it, the Common Law was derived from the dictation of text writers and from the decision of Judges. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would be good enough to explain what text writer or what Judge had laid it down as the Common Law of England, Ireland, and Scotland, that when a person was evicted from his own farm, and his neighbour, on a freehold, erected a shelter for him, that any Executive officer of this Realm might interfere and forbid the building of his hut?

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he had great hesitation in recommending any Member to take a course contrary to that which he seemed inclined to follow; but he would venture respectfully to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) the desirability of withdrawing his Motion after the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. He would have been glad if the Government could at once have declared their intention to withdraw Inspector Smith from Clare and repudiate his Circular; but the noble Lord had stated that the Ministers were not completely informed as to the issuing of the Circular, and that before taking any steps respecting it, they desired to have some further information. The request was a reasonable one, and after the dis- cussion that had taken place a few days' delay would not do any disservice to the cause which the hon. Member for Sligo had so ably pleaded. He could repeat the Question on a subsequent occasion, and, if necessary, renew the debate. He was conscious that hon. Members viewed these oft-recurring Irish discussions with something like despair. The subject overshadowed everything else. It was the last thing they seriously debated before the Recess, and it was the first thing after their reassembling. It confronted them at every turn—at Question time and at Adjournment. There were more Notices of Motion and Bills on the Order Book of the House respecting Ireland than on any other three or four topics. There was no aspect of the question that the eye could survey with satisfaction, or that the mind could dwell upon with hope. In the interest of the country, of the House, and of the Government, it was imperative that the policy of the Ministry should be re-cast, and a new departure taken. No doubt, they had acted on information they possessed; but that information, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo had said, was purely official. They had collected their knowledge from one class of the community alone, and that the governing class, or, rather, Castle. They had neither contact nor sympathy with the Representatives of Irish popular opinion. From this defective knowledge they had made an incorrect diagnosis of the disease, and, in consequence of that error, their remedies had not succeeded. Coercion had failed, hopelessly failed, and deservedly failed. And the Land Act had not succeeded. They had treated a great democratic and social uprising as an ordinary agitation. They accused the hon. Gentlemen opposite of having created the movement. The reverse was the fact—the movement had created the hon. Gentlemen. They were the outcome and spokesmen of it. A year's experience had only gone to show that the remedial policy of the Ministry had not ensured a remedy, and their repressive policy had brought greater disorder. For their own interest the Government were bound to give immediate consideration to the subject, with a view of dealing with it under fresh conditions and in a different spirit to that which had hitherto characterized them. He did not wish to detain the House; but be- fore sitting down he was anxious to say one word about the Chief Secretary for Ireland. No one had spoken more sharply against the policy that the right hon. Gentleman had pursued than he had done. He had condemned it from, the first. Before it was adopted he had warned the House repeatedly as to the disastrous consequences that would flow from it. But, while he condemned the procedure of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as bitterly and as strongly as any man could do, he could not join with those who imputed to him unworthy motives. It was quite easy to disagree with a man and still respect his integrity. He disagreed with the Chief Secretary for Ireland far enough; but he would have no hand in the set that seemed to be made at him personally. The policy that the Chief Secretary for Ireland carried out was the policy of the Government and the policy of the Party. If he went, the Government should go; and if the Government went, the Party should go. Any credit that was due to the Administration for success would be shared alike, and any discredit that attached to them for failure should be participated in by them all. They were all Coercionists, and the right hon. Gentleman had simply been their instrument and agent. It would be shabby to single him out for sacrifice. This attempt to throw the odium of a false and fatal course on one Member would only recoil on the Party as a whole if pushed to a conclusion. He hoped, after the engagement of the Government that they would get further information and submit it to the House, that his hon. Friend would allow the Motion to be withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

said, the high respect he had for the character and conduct of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), and the value he attached to the frank admission of the noble Marquess respecting County Inspector Smith, led him to respond to the appeal that had been made to him to withdraw the Motion. He must say, however, that it had not been proved that by any law these people should be kept from inhabiting these huts. He therefore thought they should have some assurance that these people should be allowed to inhabit the huts, as there would be more danger in sending them away than in allowing them to remain.

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

said, he would not have risen to take part in the protracted debate, but that so many Questions had been put to him by hon. Members that he rose to give his reasons for the opinion he expressed on a previous occasion. That opinion was, that if it was found that the tenants in question were building huts for the purpose of watching the farm, and of doing mischief to persons taking the farm, or preventing them from taking the farm, that would be an offence against the Common Law, as any lawyer in the House was perfectly well aware.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had exercised a wise discretion, although he did not agree with all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). There was always a victim when a mistake had been made, and he hoped a victim would be made of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because he believed that the right hon. Gentleman deserved it. He had set himself directly to oppose the popular voice of Ireland. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said that in no other country than Ireland could such an abominable Circular have been issued. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) spoke of it as an atrocious Circular; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not said one word in condemnation of it. Was that fit and proper conduct for the Chief Secretary for Ireland? Was that the manner in which a responsible Officer of the Crown was to obtain the support of the Irish people in the maintenance of law and order? He had given an un candid answer to the Question. The Question was whether a Circular had been issued by the County Inspector of Ennis, and no other, officer was implicated. That debate would never have arisen if the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given a candid answer. He told them that he had had admission of the Circular, but had not said one word in condemnation of it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland took credit for the issue of the Circular, for he said that the practical effect of it was to prevent the shooting of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The idea of a Chief Secretary for Ireland getting up in that House and admitting that till he saw that Circular yesterday he knew nothing about it. The hon. Member for Cork had advised the locking up of the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. He would advise the Government to lock up the Chief Secretary for Ireland if they wished to have peace and contentment in Ireland. He was far more mischievous than the Inspectors or the Sub-Inspectors. If they locked him up there might be some chance of law and order in Ireland. What was the Government of Ireland? Five gentlemen governed it. There was Mr. Burke, the Under Secretary, who was Castle clerk from his youth; Mr. Hillier, the Inspector General, who, when in a subordinate position, had more than one inquiry with regard to his conduct; and Mr. Anderson, a mongrel lawyer, half-attorney, half-barrister, who usurped very much the duties of an Attorney General; and then they had the two men who really did the business in Ireland, who made the machine run—two sound Conservatives—namely, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Kay. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that charges had been brought against Mr. Lloyd which had been disproved; but would he tell him (Mr. Callan) when there had been a chance of proving them? He was sorry that the Premier was not there; but probably, with the caution which distinguished him on some occasions, he had stayed away, knowing the direction the discussion would take. He hoped the discussion would have its effect on the country, and that that would be the last occasion on which they would see the Chief Secretary in the official position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. As long as he remained in that Office no Irish Member would put any trust in the administration of Irish affairs. ["Oh, oh!"] Had the Chief Secretary for Ireland conciliated a single person in the country? He hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would never honour them with his presence in Ireland again.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had further considered the matter, and was prepared to state what he proposed to do. He would put down a Question for Monday concerning the huts, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have the interval for considering whether these people should be allowed to wander about through the district or inhabit the huts. He begged to withdraw the Motion.