§ MR. SEXTON, who had given Notice that he would call attention to the Press reports of the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant at Tullamore, on Monday, the 6th instant, 1062 which appeared in the Dublin daily papers of the following day, and to the letter of Mr. Henry Egan, Chairman of the Tullamore Town Commissioners, which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 13th instant, with reference to the presence of soldiers and the presence and conduct of members of the police force at the meeting addressed by the Chief Secretary at Tullamore; also to call attention to the fact that the same report of his speech appeared in all the papers; that it was supplied to each of them by the same person, free of charge; and that the person who acted as reporter to the right honourable Gentleman on the occasion in question was in the habit of acting officially for the Irish Executive; and move—
That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable that official reporters should be employed to report the political speeches of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Constabulary forces of the Crown should be employed to intimidate the public, and prevent any expression of public opinion at the Chief Secretary's meetings in Ireland,said, although he was shut out by the Rules of the House from taking the sense of the House as to the Motion which was down on the Paper in his name, he was very glad to have the opportunity of bringing the subject before the House. He did so for two reasons. In the first place, the Motion had a personal bearing upon one who held the very distinguished position of a Minister of the Crown; and he thought hon. Members would agree with him that the sooner the Motion was disposed of the better. In the second place, the Easter Recess was close at hand, and as the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be tempted, during the Easter Recess, to repeat the proceedings in which he lately indulged in Ireland, he thought it would be for the public interest to ascertain as soon as possible under what conditions he proposed to repeat them. The question he concerned himself with was the method which the right hon. Gentleman took for bringing the substance of the speech which he delivered at Tullamore before the public. He need scarcely point out that when any person of the eminence of the right hon. Gentleman—a Minister of the Crown responsible for the affairs of Ireland—took upon himself at a time of great excitement and great tension of feeling to address public audiences in 1063 the country, it was of great importance that able and impartial Pressmen should be present to act as witnesses for the public, and note the demeanour of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had no right, by the agency of an official reporter, to manufacture public opinion. Now, there were three daily papers in Dublin. There was The Freeman's Journal, The Irish Times, and The Daily Express; and the invariable custom on the part of any public body or any public man who had public proceedings in contemplation was to inform those journals of his purpose. The right hon. Gentleman did not inform The Freeman's Journal or any member of its staff. The Freeman's Journal was the popular organ in Ireland. It was the organ to which the representatives of the public habitually resorted for information. Neither did he send information to The Daily Express, a very ably-conducted journal, the organ of what was called in the House the regular Opposition, and known as the Tory Party in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman confined it to a member of the staff of a third-rate newspaper in Ireland—The Irish Times. It was a newspaper of undefined politics, but at present was a supporter of the agrarian policy of the right hon. Gentleman. There was upon the staff of The Irish Times a gentleman named Murray. He wished it to be understood that against Mr. Murray he had not a single word to say. He believed him to be a gentleman of amiable disposition and affable manner; but Mr. Murray was practically—that was to say, in the financial sense of the word—an official reporter in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman declared himself to be ignorant of the fact that Mr. Murray had been a reporter of the State Trials in 1880. He (Mr. Sexton) had occasion to be present at the State Trials, and he could testify that Mr. Murray was present from day to day in charge of the official reporting. Furthermore, he was aware that Mr. Murray habitually received from the Government in Ireland commissions to make official reports, which were very lucrative. He wished to impress upon the House that it was a matter of common knowledge in Dublin that Mr. Murray, who was the gentleman selected by the right hon. Gentleman to report his speech at Tullamore, was repeatedly and continually employed by the Execu- 1064 tive upon lucrative official business. The right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed to deliver his speech, avoided giving notice to The Freeman's Journal or The Daily Express, and sent for a member of the staff of The Irish Times. Mr. Murray, therefore, had reason to be grateful to the Government, and to feel that gratitude which was supposed to spring from a lively sense of favours to come. When he did that, the right hon. Gentleman must have known that he was inviting a gentleman who was prepared to play a friendly part towards him. The right hon. Gentleman said there were three reporters present. No doubt, the local reporters were present. The report produced by Mr. Murray gave them abundant reason to think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed a very wise discretion in selecting him. He did not wish to make any charge of bad faith against Mr. Murray, but simply to say that he was so bound by ties of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to put the most favourable gloss on the whole proceedings. The report of the speech was headed "The Chief Secretary on the State of Ireland;" and it had as a second heading, in large type, "Favourable reception by the people at Tullamore." The introduction to the report stated—Mr. Forster was listened to, not only with deep attention, but respectful silence, there being scarcely an interruption, and some of the sentiments being cheered.So spoke the official reporter. There was a system of comment by parenthesis, the use of which was well understood by accomplished members of the Press, and indeed by members of the Press who were not accomplished, and that consisted in throwing in a "hear, hear," and "applause," "cheers," and "laughter," at such points of a speech as either in imagination or in fact might have provoked these demonstrations of feeling from the audience; and they found that Mr. Murray had justified the choice which had been made of him by the liberality with which he had thrown in these parenthetical comments in his report. It was a practice not entirely unknown to Gentlemen occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman, to overlook their speeches and to revise them. Perhaps Mr. Murray felt an interest in seeing the right hon. Gentleman had the advantage 1065 of his co-operation and assistance in this way. At any rate, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had credit in the report two or three times of "hear, hear," twice for "applause," occasion ally f or "laughter," which might or might not have been complimentary, and three times for "cheers." The speech ended with a "round of cheers." The whole thing, in fact, looked very much as if the right hon. Gentleman had been the idol of the people and had gone down to Tullamore to be borne on the shoulders of the people, and to meet with a surging demonstration of welcome. Then there were other points in this report of an interesting character. When the right hon. Gentleman told his audience why he had gone down, the report said—"A Voice: We admire your pluck." He (Mr. Sexton) was quite unable to see where the pluck appeared in the whole transaction. The right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by official subordinates of every degree, and it did not require the courage of a Bayard to pop one's head out of a hotel window and address a small crowd collected outside in a little town where there were not only police magistrates in the room, but also in the streets; and perhaps if The Freeman's Journal and The Daily Express had been invited to attend, and if one of the able gentlemen who composed the staff of these journals had been in the window looking on and listening to what had been said, they might have been able to learn who it was said—" We admire your pluck." Was it a citizen, a constable, or a soldier?—[Mr. BIGGAR,: Or a detective?]—or, as the hon. Member for Cavan suggested, was it a detective? These gentlemen, he believed, were also in attendance on the scene. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I deny it entirely.] He (Mr. Sexton') fancied the voice came from one of the soldiers who were drawn to the meeting, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, with the laudable desire of drinking at the fountain of his eloquence. The right hon. Gentleman also said—"I know I may say many things you dislike." Then a voice was reported to have said, "Very few." He would leave the House to judge whether such an observation as this was likely to have been made by an ordinary member of the public. The report conveyed the idea that the right hon. Gentleman was met with a great 1066 demonstration of popular support, and that his observations were met with shouts of enthusiastic approval; that "hear, hear," "applause," "cheers," and "laughter" punctuated his speech as it would do, say, in the House of Commons. But the whole thing was worthy of Baron Munchausen or of The Arabian Nights. It did great credit to the right hon. Gentleman's penetration in not giving notice to the other papers, and in taking down only one reporter, who was in the pay of the Executive. But was that the way the affairs of the country were to be conducted? But he had not done yet with Mr. Murray. Between The Irish 'Times and The Freeman's Journal there was the greatest commercial rivalry, and they were always very glad to have a special report or piece of news to keep it for their own paper. What did Mr. Murray do with his special and exclusive report? He appeared at night at The Freeman's Journal office and offered this report for nothing. Why did Mr. Murray make himself the agent for distributing this cooked report? Why did he give it to his rival The Freeman's Journal and to The Daily Express and to The Irish Times, and also telegraph it to all the papers in England? And who paid for the telegrams? The English papers all got the report for nothing. Out of what fund did the money come? The whole thing was to him a mystery beyond the power of calculation, and he could only account for it by the fact of Government influence being brought to bear on The Irish Times. Where did the money come from to pay for those telegrams? Did it come out of the public funds? If not, why did Mr. Murray display such extraordinary energy, and how were the managers of The Irish Times persuaded to so far forego their natural jealousy of The Freeman's Journal as to offer a copy of the speech to that journal unasked? If the reporters of The Freeman's Journal and The Daily Express had gone down the public would have seen the real character of the reception accorded to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman up to the present had shown a great disinclination to give any information on the matter. He did not know that Mr. Murray reported the State Trials in 1880. In fact, he did not know that police and soldiers were present at the meeting. He could only say that, for a person who lived in an atmosphere 1067 of polities, in this sophisticated age, the right hon. Gentleman must be a masterpiece of innocence. Fortunately, however, a few days ago he (Mr. Sexton) had received a letter from Mr. Henry Egan, of Tullamore. Mr. Egan was a gentleman of the highest character and position, and by his actions and the whole tenour of his life he had earned and retained the best esteem of his follow-townsmen. It was true that he had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act; but that was of little consequence, as there was no man in Ireland of any influence with the people who had not shared that fate. This gentleman, the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, the principal civic person in the place, was drawn more by curiosity than by sympathy, he should imagine, into the streets to see and hear the wonderful man who could throw everybody into prison of his mere will and pleasure; and this was Mr. Egan's account of the proceedings—There was a small crowd of about 200 persons there, a very large proportion of whom were landlords and officials, together with all the small Tory fry of the town. There were a number of policemen and some soldiers. The presence of the parish priest in another window of the hotel secured the Chief Secretary for Ireland a respectful hearing. I had the hardihood to cry out, 'The suspects should be released,' when a policeman and a soldier placed themselves on each side of me. They said if I did not conduct myself I should he put back again, meaning that I should be re-arrested. The police-constable's name was Allan.Such was Mr. Egan's story. Could English Members realize the reprehensible character of this conduct, occurring in the case of the chief civil person in the town, who had simply made an observation. He would remind the House of what had occurred towards the end of last year. This same man, Allan, and two other policemen, for no earthly reason, ordered two inoffensive young men named Cowen and Ryan to be beaten by the police at Newtown, in the King's County; that one of them was still in a precarious state. Yet this truculent bully was one of the policemen in plain clothes who, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, lent an appearance of popular assent to the proceedings by threatening the principal person in the town. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the stage manager or fugleman he had at Tullamore to direct the little comedy which 1068 was enacted there. Having laid before the House what he believed to be an honest account of the transaction, he should be glad to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland out of what fund Mr. Murray was compensated, and how The Irish Times was prevailed on to communicate the report to The Freeman? He would also be glad to know whether on future occasions the right hon. Gentleman, when he proposed to address public meetings in Ireland, would invite the public Press to attend? The right hon. Gentleman confessed with excessive frankness that if he had informed the people of his intended speech he would not have obtained a hearing. If it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman in order to make speeches in Ireland to steal a march on the people and to communicate the fact only to an official reporter, he thought the political capital to be made henceforth out of such demonstrations must be very little indeed. He could only say that the political capital made out of the speech at Tullamore was obtained, he would not say by false pretences, but by an ingenious device, and he hoped they had seen the last of such measures.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not intend to detain the House more than a few moments, on account of the very important Business before them; but he could not allow those remarks to go without reply, though he had already, by anticipation, made some answer to them. He must again repeat that two charges had been made against him—first, that he had provided in some way or other police or soldiers to overawe the audience at his meeting at Tullamore; and that he had taken means to provide a garbled report of the proceedings. As regarded the first charge, he would again say that he expressed his wish to the authorities of Tullamore that they should take no precautions whatever, to allow the crowd to deal with his speech as they pleased, and practically he believed that was done. The statement that there were police and soldiers present in large numbers he denied. He did not see them himself, and, from the information he had obtained, he did not believe it to be true. An officer and one or two soldiers came there through curiosity, and they were the only military he saw. There was no special force of police drafted into the town, and there 1069 were no detectives employed. There were three policemen on duty in the town, and he believed one or two of them came out of curiosity to hear his speech. What happened in the case of Mr. Egan was this. The sub-inspector considered he was interrupting, and asked him not to do so; and afterwards his brother came and took him away. So much for the charge of overawing. He had not revised the report of his speech. It was not a prepared speech—that was, he did not use any notes. As far as his recollection went, and that of others, including his son, it was a completely accurate report; and if it had not been, the correspondents of the Dublin journals who were present would have been glad of the opportunity of pointing out the inaccuracies. As regarded the demeanour of the crowd, the hon. Gentleman did not fairly describe the report. The hon. Member said the report ended with rounds of cheers; but it did not contain that statement at all. The report ended by stating that there was applause, and there was applause. [Mr. SEXTON: It ends with cheers.] He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought it ended with applause. He did not think there were rounds of cheers; but he was heard with respectful attention, and he thought there was some cheering at the end. The hon. Member asked why he did not send word to all the papers in Dublin. He had two reasons for not doing so. In the first place, he was not at all sure that he would make the speech; but he did think it was possible that he would say something, and he sent to The Irish Times telling them so, and stating that if they thought it worth their while they might send down a reporter, and they did so. He would tell the hon. Member why he did not send word to any other paper. He was perfectly prepared to meet the crowd at Tullamore; but he did not wish to give the friends of the hon. Member in Dublin an opportunity of sending down persons to organize opposition to him. The hon. Member said he used sensational language; but he did not think he could use simpler language in describing the outrage on the poor man Moroney, who had been murdered in Clare. What did he read in The Nation or Weekly News since? One of these papers said this thing must not go on. That was to say, the Chief Secretary for Ireland must not 1070 be allowed to speak again. He thought if he had given information to the other newspapers that that would be so, and as he desired to be heard he did not give the information. The pith of the matter was this. After the descriptions which had been given of him, and the speeches made about him right and left throughout Ireland—after the way he had been held up to the people, hon. Members thought it would be impossible for him to be heard with respectful attention in any of the prescribed districts or in a town where it unfortunately had been necessary to arrest some persons. It only proved what he believed would have happened if he or anybody else went to address these people, and enable them to see the other side of the question, which they had never seen at the meetings held in Ireland—that, notwithstanding the endeavours of the hon. Member and his Friends, the Irish people would give him a hearing. If he had given information of his intention, there would have been a very great effort made to prevent his being heard. He had been charged with desiring to make political capital. There was no political capital in the matter. Having seen the outrages which were committed in particular districts, and the terrorism which existed, he believed that what was required was that the people who were opposed to this terrorism should unite to prevent it; and he advised them to do so. The hon. Member, no doubt, disliked his making that statement. He also made a statement showing the terrible results of this system of intimidation, and he thought the audience seemed to agree with him that it ought to be put down. Why did the hon. Member complain of him for making those statements? He could not imagine why that speech in Tullamore had excited so much irritation. What he wanted to do, if he got the chance—and he was not then sure that he would get the chance—was to address an Irish audience, to let them hear the other side of the question, which they had not been in the habit of hearing. They knew the newspapers these people read, and they knew the sort of speeches they generally heard. The hon. Member spoke of letting out the "suspects" before he (Mr. W. E. Forster) attempted to address the people. That was really too much, when they remembered that for 1071 a long period he had been attacked right and left throughout the country as no public man was ever attacked before, and that never for a moment had the Government made use of any of its powers to prevent those speeches. He was determined to go amongst the people and speak to them, and see how he would be received. He was not loudly cheered, but he was received with respectful attention. One person in the crowd spoke of his pluck. He did not consider he showed any pluck, for the only danger he apprehended was the danger of not being heard. No doubt, it was very disappointing to the hon. Member that he should have been received in that way; but the hon. Member would have been serving his own interests better had he on this occasion concealed his irritation.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made a brilliant effort on behalf of Ireland in bringing forward this matter and dealing with it as he had done. He himself shared in the wide surprise that followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary at Tullamore; and he felt humiliated that an Irish audience in an Irish town afforded such a reception to the Representative of the present Government, and so endorsed its policy. The report was not bâna fide—it did not accurately describe the conduct at the meeting. Had it described the meeting, it must have shown that the proceedings were organized by the right hon. Gentleman himself. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: No, no!] Though the hon. Member for Galway cried "No, no!" he believed the right hon. Gentleman hid his movements from everyone except those who would give a specially coloured report of it.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI wish to say that I merely sent word to The Irish Times to send down a good reporter. I had nothing to do with selecting the reporter. I also ought to state that I did not revise the report, as the hon. Member for Sligo suggested. I have not paid a penny for it. The Government has not paid a penny for it. I suppose the reporter was paid by the paper.
§ MR. DAWSONthought the Irish people would perceive that the respectful silence which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about was due to the action 1072 of the police. He congratulated the hon. Member for Sligo upon having dissipated this delusion which was sought to be practised upon the Irish people. They would now see how the thing was got up, and how the police acted, and kept that respectful silence, and got those vociferous cheers from an audience in. this remote town. The whole thing would now be exposed. The right hon. Gentleman said the police were not there, that they did not interfere, that it was not their duty to do so. But it was his (Mr. Dawson's) duty to bring under the notice of this House how the police went into a municipal house in Ireland, and threatened members of the corporation as to what would be the consequences of the free expression of their opinions. It was part and parcel of their duty to do this; and if they could do this under the ordinary condition of things, how much better could they perform their duty when the Chief of the Executive, their paymaster, was the subject of their attention? The right hon. Gentleman said he drew his conclusions from the fact that the people were themselves ready to give him their respectful attention. But the right hon. Gentleman was on the horns of a dilemma. He had said there were no police present, and yet he had a quiet, decorous meeting. Let him withdraw the police from the disturbed districts, let him remove his police, his detectives, and the military, and he would not have that commotion which they were creating in Ireland in every way that they had dared to do. During his last absence from the House the Attorney General for Ireland, with that fairness which characterized him, gave a categorical denial to his statement that a policeman informed him that he could not address a meeting in the town of Carlow, which he represented, unless he promised not to attack the Prime Minister or the Land Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he referred to the sub-inspector, who denied having made any statement of the kind; but he (Mr. Dawson) had not alleged anything against the sub-inspector. It was the head constable who made the statement to which he referred. There was a yawning, gaping gulf which separated the people from their rights and privileges and their constitutional power. There was no doubt something had been done by the Government, for when he 1073 went to Limerick the other day he saw an abundance of papers brought in containing the right hon. Gentleman's speech, marked with bracketed headings, and sent there for gratuitous distribution. Who, he asked, would go about publishing such papers in Limerick for nothing? He knew the firm which published them was not established for gratuitous workmanship.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERMy son had them printed and circulated at his own expense.
§ MR. DAWSONThe right hon. Gentleman now admitted that he not only had a special reporter, but that after his speech was delivered his son had it printed and circulated throughout the country at his own expense. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] It was then perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman, from the beginning to the end, lost no opportunity of taking the advantage; that was quite evident from the Tullamore speech and the preparation of it, and the paper in which it was reported; but it was a blessing to England that she might understand from Irish people that the utterances from which he expected so great a return had been scattered to the winds, and the hon. Member for Sligo had done well in dispelling the illusion, and so palpably exposing it to the public gaze.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANremarked, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that certain Dublin newspapers had said that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to receive a hearing: but what those papers really said was, that as long as the Leaders of the Irish people who were capable of arguing the other side of the question were kept in prison and had their mouths closed the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be heard. That view of the case was perfectly sound and right. Those papers counselled the people not to offer the right hon. Gentleman the slightest insult or incivility, but to refuse to listen to him. He stood by that advice to the Irish people, and repeated it from his place in Parliament. The Irish people were quite willing to hear both sides, and when the Land League meetings were allowed to be held it was open for the Chief Secretary and his friends to have appeared on their platform and to have expressed their views there. But they had refused to do that, and preferred to put 1074 their opponents in prison. Their letters were stopped, and their conversations prevented by the prison warders, so that they were effectually gagged, and it was under that condition, of things that the right hon. Gentleman appeared before an Irish audience, and spoke of Irish affairs, of outrages, and the Land Act. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wished to show fair play, let him now try to argue out the question with them. Let him go to any part of Ireland, taking with him any of the imprisoned gentlemen or any of the Irish Members who were free to speak in the House but not elsewhere, and they would guarantee the perfect safety of the right hon. Gentleman and that he should not be subjected to insult. That, he considered, was a fair offer, and it was a fair, lawful, and legitimate advice for an Irish Member or an Irish newspaper to give to the Irish people.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was unwilling to interpose before the Estimates came on; but though silence might be golden, under many circumstances silence might be carried too far. And unless there was some answer to the remarks which had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite by one who still claimed to be an Irish Member, much injury might result. He would like to ask the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) how he would undertake to guarantee the safety of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? He had made very great professions in that respect; but they had the fact that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland went to a country district there, unprepared and without anybody knowing, and assembled around him the real inhabitants of the town and district—a disturbed district—he was received with perfect courtesy, typical of the Irish character. Well, then, what were the relations of the hon. Gentleman with those who would put the life of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in jeopardy? He wanted that question answered. It was a disgraceful thing to state to this House that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or anybody else, would want protection when he visited a town in Ireland, and it was no compliment to the Irish people. But the House and the country would see at once that the well-meant attempt of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to come in contact with the Irish people 1075 themselves was the cause of this irritation amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not mean for one instant to say that the people whom the Chief Secretary for Ireland addressed sympathized with his policy or the policy of the Government. On the contrary, they hated it; and they would have no better state of things till this wretched policy was reversed. As long as they had 600 men locked up—some of whom were guilty, but many of whom were undoubtedly innocent—at the will of one man, it was nonsense to talk of peace between the two countries; but when the Chief Secretary for Ireland went amongst the people where the most disorder had taken place, and endeavoured, in an honest, straightforward manner, to meet them face to face, and to tell them what he had got to say, they received him—as he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would be bound to say the Irish people would always do, and as they would receive anybody else who came to speak to them in a bold, honest and straightforward manner—with respect and courtesy. Had it not been the boast of the hon. Gentleman and of Irish Representatives that ever since the time of Sir John Davis, of all the people in the world those who loved fair play and justice were the Celtic Irish race? That was said by him; but the hon. Members seemed to regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not howled at and prevented from speaking. Was there anything in his speech which they objected to? Was there anything immoral in it? What he said was the opinion every honest man ought to express—namely, to denounce outrage and crime, He said the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to be circulated through Ireland, from one end of it to the other; and he was exceedingly glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had caused a considerable number of copies to be distributed. He had had experience himself of Irish meetings, and it was perfectly true that the Land League would not now allow him to go into any of the towns to address his own constituents; but he would add this, that he met Mr. Parnell on the platform at Galway before the General Election, and combated to his face, in the midst of an audience that was enthusiastic in his favour, the doctrines which Mr. Parnell had put for- 1076 ward, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was heard with perfect respect and fair play. Further than that, when at Loughrea, he also stood on the same platform with Mr. Michael Davitt, who came unknown to him, and he, to Mr. Davitt's face, combated the views he put forward; and again he was received with perfect respect and fair play. He knew now he could not go. The Land League would take good care that stones and dirt would be used to prevent the people from hearing the other side of the question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland must have felt great difficulty in making his address, because he was obliged to speak in the open air; and that was a chronic difficulty in Ireland—they had no halls in which to speak, but had to do so from open platforms, where their voices could not reach the people, and where, in the outskirts, the well-known tactics of the opposing side could be easily carried out, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman or any other gentleman from being heard. He said this, while he protested against and opposed, as he did and had done throughout, this policy of arbitrary arrest. He welcomed from the bottom of his heart the attempt on the part of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to come into contact with the people. If he would go oftener, and if he had gone more into the towns since he had been in Office—if he had gone from place to place, instead of remaining at the Castle at Dublin, listening to what was told him by centralized officials, the right hon. Gentleman would not have pursued the policy he had pursued; and until that policy was reversed, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not believe they would have any peace or good understanding between the two countries. But, in the name of the Irish people, in the name of fair play, he protested against this attempt to minimize the effect of this honest, straightforward desire to come into contact with the people. In many places where the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was read, and where it would be read on the Saturday night in the weekly papers, people would say—"He is not so bad as we supposed. He is very ignorant of us; but he wants to do what is right. If he will come a little more amongst us he will learn something more than he knows now. He will see that his policy will not 1077 stand, that we are made with the same feelings and of the same flesh and blood as himself, and that we are entitled to equal rights with any other of Her Majesty's subjects.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORquite agreed with the hon. Member for Gal-way with regard to the importance of the speech of the Chief Secretary, and would be glad to see it disseminated throughout Ireland, for he considered it a very useful and very important speech. So far from having any objection to it, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had made it. He was glad that the reports of the speech, for which the right hon. Gentleman had paid, were perfectly accurate.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI did not pay for the reports of the speech at all. I have contradicted that statement over and over again. Neither the Government nor I paid for them.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that he had caused them to be disseminated at his own expense.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERYes; but I did not pay for the report.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, at any rate the report was accurate. The right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech at Tullamore that it was with the earnest desire that God might save Ireland that he thanked them for having heard him. But while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking the cries, which, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had said, "punctuated" the whole speech, were—"What, about the prisoners?" "Let out the 'suspects.'" The right hon. Gentleman avoided taking any notice of those cries until the end, and then he said—
You ask me about the 'suspects.' As soon as I can fairly say that outrages have ceased in Ireland, and that men are not ruined, are not maimed, are not murdered for doing their duty, for doing what they have a legal right to do, the 'suspects' will he released.He asked the House to consider the full significance of those words. They contained a very important declaration, because they, in effect, amounted to this, that the Irish Members of Parliament now in prison, and a very large proportion of others, were detained no longer as "suspects" but simply as hostages. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not liberate them 1078 until the outrages had ceased. He did not say that he would liberate them as soon as he had ceased reasonably to suspect them of inciting to outrage. The outrages might have been caused by men in the pay of the Government, who were detected committing perjury in open Court, and yet the "suspects" would not be liberated.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERThe hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said, or misunderstood my meaning. As soon as outrages cease there will be no occasion, of course, for the Coercion Act continuing. I never meant to say, and never said, that if I believed I had arrested any man under a mistaken idea or unreasonable suspicion he would not be released. I made no such statement at all.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he had read from a report which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted to be accurate. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Read again.] The words were these—
As soon as I can fairly say that outrages have ceased in Ireland, and that men are not ruined, are not maimed, are not murdered for doing their duty, for doing what they have a legal right to do, the 'suspects' will be released.He contended that the admission amounted to a complete abandonment of the previous position of the Government. For, first of all, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government required a Coercion Act to arrest the "village ruffians." But the right hon. Gentleman had arrested a number of men who were not village ruffians, and had nothing to do with outrages. He arrested them on reasonable suspicion, he said. Now he was detaining them because outrages continued, and not because they were connected with outrages. These men were to be detained, not for punishment nor for crimes that had been committed, or that they were reasonably suspected of having committed, but that might possibly be committed hereafter by persons over whom they had no control. He repeated, then, that these men were detained as hostages, not as "suspects." He trusted that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be disseminated throughout the country, and that the people of Ireland would understand the significance of the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman.