§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any arrests have yet been made in connection with the rioting at Cleator Moor; whether he is aware that several persons declare that they are able to identify the man who fired the shot by which the lad, Tamelty, lost his life; and, whether, if these persons send in their evidence, the police will take precautions for preventing the escape of the person accused? The hon. Member further asked whether the attention of the Home Secretary had been drawn to a statement of the Rev. Father Burchall, one of the Catholic clergymen of Cleator Moor, that the Orange procession, when passing the Catholic place of worship, danced frantically, and played Party tunes, and that this took place while Divine worship was going on in the Catholic church; whether several of 1119 the processionists shook orange lillies in the faces of young girls; and was it a fact, as stated by Father Burchall, that a letter was written to the Home Secretary some days before the procession, stating that there would be danger to the public peace, and calling his special attention to the fact that processions of members of the Church of England, and of the Methodist and other persuasions, had been held in this district without the smallest attempt at a breach of the peace; and, finally, he asked whether, in a case where the Home Office had been forewarned of the intention of large bodies of men to come into a district, armed with revolvers and playing Party tunes, there was no power in the Home Office to prevent a breach of the peace?
§ MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What was the strength of the force assembled by the Government at Cleator Moor on Saturday last; what were the arrangements made by the Government for prevention of conflict and of loss of life; were the swords, spears, and revolvers used entirely by the Orange party, and was any effort made by the police to disarm the Orangemen before they began to use their weapons; have there been more deaths than one; how many persons have been wounded; have any arrests been made; and, will the officers and constables who accompanied the procession be examined as to their ability to identify those who made use of revolvers and other deadly weapons?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe subject of the two Questions is of great importance, and I will ask leave to answer them fully, more particularly with reference to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as to the measures which the Government have taken in this matter. The series of Questions put by the hon. Member for Sligo is founded entirely on a misapprehension of the province of the Executive Government in such matters. In England the Executive Government is not the conservator of the peace. The conservation of the peace is intrusted to the magistrates in the different localities for which they have jurisdiction. They are the conservators of the peace, and the Executive Government and the Secretary of State have no authority to give any orders whatever to the magis 1120 trates in this matter. The Government and the Home Secretary have no authority over the local police either in the counties or in the boroughs; that is a fundamental proposition which seems sometimes not to be understood. So firmly is this principle established in the Constitution that the Secretary of State is not even a magistrate or a conservator of the peace in his Office. That was laid down by Lord Camden in the case of General Warrants. I have no magisterial authority as a conservator of the peace in any county or borough in England, or even in the Metropolis. That being the case, the magistrates who have the knowledge of the state of affairs in a district have the responsibility of dealing with it and the authority to do so. They may, under the Army Regulations, apply directly to the Secretary of State for military aid, in the event of the police force at their disposal not being sufficient. They may also, and they have done so in former days, consult the Secretary of State and ask for advice as to how they should act in difficult circumstances; and, of course, I need not say the Secretary of State is only too happy to place at their disposal any advice which he can give with the help of the Law Officers of the Crown, for in matters of this description there is no question more difficult for the authorities on the spot to deal with than the question of meetings which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. That question is acted upon sometimes by the Government in a method which is now before the House in a Paper which I laid on the Table in 1882 with reference to disturbances connected with the Salvation Army at Basingstoke. In the year 1867 there were Orange riots apprehended at Liverpool. The Home Office was consulted by the local authorities, and this message was sent from the Home Office to the Clerk of the County Justices, Liverpool:—
13th Dec, 1867. Issue proclamation similar to that by the borough; collect county police; ask assistance of borough police; swear in special constables; give notice to military authorities; apply to Orange leaders to stop their meeting and procession; apply to Roman Catholic clergy to dissuade the people; do everything in your power to prevent a collision and broach of the peace; to do this you are justified in preventing meetings and stopping processions; let the people know that they are stopped on these grounds. Magistrates are not to be bound by this, but must exercise their own discretion, de 1121 pending on locality where a meeting is held and numbers attending, force they have at their disposal, and other elements that cannot be known to the Secretary of State. Note.—This telegram was sent after a personal consultation with Sir John Karslake, who attended at the Home Office and settled it.This shows the principle upon which the Home Office acted in 1867 and down to 1882. It was, I think, confirmed by successive Law Officers of the Crown down to 1882. In October, 1881, I wrote a letter founded upon the same principles, and sent it to the Town Clerks and Clerks to the Justices of various places where disturbances were expected in connection with the proceedings of the Salvation Army. The ground upon which we acted seemed to me to be a reasonable ground. It was this—that it is easier to prevent processions from forming than to deal with an excited mob after a collision has occurred. That was the principle on which we advised the magistrates and on which they acted, and with the best effect. It was adopted with the advice of the English and of the Scotch Law Officers of the Crown, and it prevented collisions in a number of cases in Liverpool and Glasgow in connection with Orange processions, and it was also useful in preventing disturbances arising out of the proceedings of the Salvation Army. But unfortunately the doctrine on which it was based was challenged. In a particular case the magistrates ordered that a meeting should not be held, on the ground that information had been sworn that there was danger of a breach of the peace; and the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court declared that the magistrates had no authority to stop a meeting in these circumstances. Consequently, it was not possible to tender the same advice to the magistrates in these matters. We had, therefore, to write to the Rev. E. Husband, of St. Michael's Vicarage, Folkestone, in these terms on the 22nd of January, 1883—With reference to your letter of the 16th instant, in which you comment on the proceedings of the Salvation Army at Folkestone and inquire as to the state of the law with respect to the processions of the Army, I am directed by Secretary Sir William Harcourt to acquaint you that the law has been recently declared by the Courts in the matter of these processions, and that the duty of administering it rests with the local magistrates, who are responsible for the preservation of peace and order within the limits of their jurisdiction. The matter is therefore 1122 one which does not belong to the cognizance of the Secretary of State.Therefore, I say, since that decision the power to stop processions on these grounds seemed to be put an end to, and they could not be prohibited; and then the question arose, what are the magistrates to do? It seemed to have been proved in the case referred to that the magistrates were informed that the meeting was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. I have not the full particulars of the Cleator riots. I have written to the magistrates, and I expect a full account from them. I cannot say that in anything brought to my knowledge the magistrates appear to have failed in their duty. They got together a large body of police for the occasion. [MR. SEXTON: How many?] I gave yesterday all the information I had. They stated that the force was sufficient to separate the parties—that is, after the collision had occurred. The Orange meeting appears to have taken place peaceably and without disturbance; they were on their return to the railway when they were attacked. The collision, as I gather, occupied a very brief time, and the deplorable results were due to the practice of people going to these meetings armed with firearms. If it had been a meeting of two ordinary mobs without these firearms, as far as I can see, it would have been stopped by the police; it was after the firearms were used that matters got beyond control. The magistrates had the Chief Constable there, and it seems to me they had made due preparation. Another part of the Question refers to what will be done hereafter. I have written to the magistrates to urge, although I am sure it was unnecessary, that they and the Chief Constable should make strenuous efforts to bring to justice the parties to this outrage, so that they may be punished as they ought to be. I have written to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who, I am sure, will see that every measure is taken for that purpose. As to any more deaths beyond the one already mentioned, I have no further Report today, except a short one, which does not add anything material to that read yesterday. I have to say, with great regret, that the letter of the Rev. J. Burchall, addressed to myself, by some accident I cannot understand, did not reach me till yesterday. I have written to him 1123 to say that it was from no want of respect on my part that it was not acknowledged sooner.
§ MR. SEXTONWhen was it dated?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTIt was dated the 8th, and must have arrived on the 9th. I deeply regret that any delay should have occurred in its reaching me; but that did not affect the circumstances the least in the world. The Rev. J. Burchall says—
Cleator Moor is a rural town in the neighbourhood of Whitehaven, which has rapidly sprung into existence within a few years owing to the discovery of extensive beds of iron ore in the district. It numbers some 10,000 inhabitants. Of these 5,000 are Roman Catholics, all Irish or of Irish extraction. The presence of such a large proportion of Catholics has hitherto prevented any hostile demonstration on the part of Orangemen on their favourite anniversary, July 12. Those belonging to the different Lodges have hitherto preferred to join with others at some distance in relieving their religious or political feelings. But there has existed for some years a desire to walk over Cleator Moor, to beard, as they say, Catholicism in its stronghold. Up to this fear or prudence has deterred them from attempting to carry out their design. This year, however, placards have been issued for Saturday next, and a hostile demonstration will be made on July 12. It seems to be designed to revive those embittered religious animosities, which we had thought had been happily buried in the past, by the display of insulting banners and the playing of Party tunes—things which would only excite a passing pitying smile in Englishmen, but which seem capable of rousing all the concentrated passions of excitable Irishmen, embittered by centuries of more or less open warfare. As the priest in charge of the mission of Cleator Moor, I cannot view without alarm the excitement that will be caused and the ill-feeling that will be engendered. An attempt, I fear beyond my control, will be certainly made to prevent the design of the Orangemen being carried out now for the first time. I have therefore appeared before the bench of magistrates, and stated I was prepared to make an affidavit that peace would be endangered, that probably bloodshed and murder would be the result, that Orangemen had been advised to come armed, &c. The Clerk of the Court advised them that they were powerless to interfere. I have therefore deemed it my duty to trespass upon your kindness, and appeal to you as Home Secretary, and to direct your attention to what I conceive likely to lead to very serious breaches of the peace and good order, and to request you, if it lies in your power, to prevent this procession over Cleator Moor, which I am sure will be regarded merely as a hostile demonstration, and which will lead to riot and disorder, and probably bloodshed.If I had received that letter, all I could have done would have been to say that I had no power to prevent the meeting. No doubt, it is extremely to be regretted that these processions should take place, 1124 and should give rise to bitterness of feeling, and the conduct which follows; but I have shown that, under the circumstances, neither the magistrates nor I could have done anything to prevent the procession. There has been little experience of the carrying of firearms, at all events, in England; and, therefore, protection by the law has not boon contemplated, as it might have been had such occurrences been common.
§ MR. SEXTONThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very detailed reply; but he has not touched the most important paragraph in my Question — namely, whether the swords, spears, and revolvers were used entirely by the Orange Party; and was any effort made by the police to prevent them bringing those weapons into use? To bring the matter to a practical issue, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, considering that there are two sets of statements put forth—one, that witnesses can identify the man who shot the unfortunate youth; and another, that witnesses can identify a member of the Police Force who suggested to the men to fire upon the crowd—whether the proceedings to be taken by the Government will include a public inquiry on oath into all the circumstances of the case, so as not only to secure the punishment of those who broke the law, but also to ascertain the exact measure of responsibility incurred by the local officials and police?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTCertainly; that is the duty of the magistrates. An inquest is going on now, in which, I hope, all the circumstances will be brought out. But if there should be any attempt to keep back anything necessary for the vindication of the law, the hon. Member may rely on it that the Government will use every effort to bring the offenders to justice. As to the other Question, I have no information except that which I read yesterday, to the effect that the only persons armed were the Orange Party. I have told the hon. Member that I have written to the magistrates to request that they will send me a full and accurate Report of the whole of this transaction.
§ MR. DAWSONAs a great deal depends upon this letter of the Rev. Mr. Burchall, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it was received at the Home Office before the 12th?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI have no doubt that the letter of Mr. Burchall arrived in London in due course; but I cannot agree with the hon. Member in thinking that anything depends on it. The whole of the information was laid before the magistrates.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that if he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly, what he stated came to this—that though the authorities were certain that a meeting was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, they had no power to prevent it. Would the Government allow the law to remain in that state, or were they prepared to alter it, so as to empower the authorities to prevent a meeting in such circumstances?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the case to which he had referred was determined in June, 1882. The marginal note stated that the appellants assembled with others for a lawful purpose and with no intention of carrying it out unlawfully, but with the knowledge that their assembly would be opposed, and with good reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would be committed by those who opposed it. The Court said—
What has happened here is that an unlawful organization has assumed to itself the right to prevent the appellants and others from lawfully assembling together, and the finding of the Justices amounts to this—that a man may be convicted for doing a lawful act if he knows that his doing it may cause another to do an unlawful act. There is no authority for such a proposition.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not understood his Question. He asked whether he recognized the fact that the law was not in a satisfactory state, when there was no power vested in any competent authority to enable them, when information was laid before them, that a certain meeting was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, to prevent it; and whether, if that was the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to bring in a Bill giving the necessary powers to the authorities?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI am not prepared to answer the right hon. Gentleman on that point. What I should have to do is to introduce a Bill to negative the proposition laid down by the Court, and to provide that a man may not take part in a lawful act be 1126 cause other people might commit an unlawful act.
MR. GORSTI would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the fact that men assembled, armed with swords, spears, and revolvers, did not constitute an unlawful assembly?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTYes, Sir; but it was not known that they would come armed.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLOh, yes; it was stated in the affidavit.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI think not. The affidavit only said that the Orangemen had been advised to come armed. That is quite a different thing from saying that they would actually come armed.
§ MR. GRAYasked whether he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to convey that if he had communicated his views to the local justices as to the propriety of taking steps to prevent armed men from assembling, that no action would have followed?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTIf I had communicated with the magistrates I should have felt it my duty to send the same letter as I addressed to the Vicar of Folkestone in reference to the Salvation Army. I should have said—
That the law has been recently declared by the Courts in the matter of these processions, and that the duty of administering it rests with the local magistrates, who are responsible for the preservation of peace and order within the limits of their jurisdiction. The matter is therefore one which does not belong to the cognizance of the Secretary of State.
§ MR. DAWSONWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Salvation Army carried spears, swords, and revolvers?
§ [No reply.]