HC Deb 22 September 1886 vol 309 cc1270-87
MR. C. LEWIS (Londonderry)

, in rising to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that an official inquiry should be held into the conduct of the resident magistrate and police in the city of Derry on the 6th of July last, when it is alleged that, under the orders of the resident magistrate, an unwarrantable attack was made by the police with staves, upon a number of respectable and orderly people who were assembled on the steps of the Imperial Hotel, Londonderry, on the occasion of the declaration of the poll at the city of Derry election on that day, said, that this Motion had been on the Paper on several occasions, and had stood over from time to time, not from any fault of his, or from any disinclination to bring it forward, but from his desire to give the Government every facility to get through Supply and pass the Appropriation Bill. He was happy to be able to state that the question involved in the Motion did not in the least degree provoke any conflict between the Party of which he was a Member and hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway; it did not involve any sort of Party conflict, although it arose out of an election. No one could be more unwilling to limit in the least degree the authority or damage the prestige of the Royal Irish Constabulary than he, for he knew how important it was for the safety of the public that that authority and prestige should be maintained to the highest possible extent, and he knew perfectly well that nothing could be more disastrous to the maintenance of the public peace in Ireland than that that authority should be subjected to any check or blow. He took the course he had done in consequence of meetings both of the citizens and magistrates of the City of Derry. The election for the City of Derry took place on the 5th of July, and the declaration of the poll on the 6th at noon. Prior to the election a large number of police were imported into the city. He did not complain of that, for he thought that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it was a very proper step. Before the polling day the Mayor and the Resident Magistrate, without any consultation with the Bench of Magistrates generally, issued a Notice, which stated that they had received sworn information to the effect that a procession, with bands and torches was going through Derry on the 5th July, and that this would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and that Notice concluded by saying that the Mayor and the Resident Magistrate prohibited any such procession, and that if it took place it would be dispersed by force. Looking at that Notice from a legal point of view, he had no hesitation in saying that it was a mere brutum fulmen, that it was ultra vires, and that it had no authority or effect. But what he wished to draw particular attention to was that it was a Notice prohibiting a procession with bands. Now, the position of affairs at the declaration of the poll on the 6th July was this. Derry was absolutely quiet through the whole election; there had not been so much as a disturbance in the streets. There were no assaults, no conflicts of any sort or description tending to a breach of the peace. Indeed, he never knew an election more absolutely free from breaches of the peace or riots. The committee-room of his opponent was situated in the same street as his own, but lower down the street. The Court House was above his (Mr. Lewis's) committee-room. The street might thus be considered as divided roughly into three portions. There was a crowd round his opponent's committee-room, and round the Imperial Hotel, where he had his committee-room, there was a crowd of some 1,000 or 1,500 people, but there was no contact between the two crowds. The consequence was that there was an entire absence of any indication of ill-feeling or excitement. As he (Mr. Lewis) came from the Court House to the Imperial Hotel he passed through the crowd, and in the middle of the crowd, in front of the hotel, there was a person with a wind instrument, on which he was playing some favourite air.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

What air?

MR. C. LEWIS

said, he did not know; but the Proclamation of the Mayor, whatever its nature, was directed against a procession with bands, and not against the mere playing of music. Well, the playing went on, filling up the time until the Member appeared. As to what then took place he would rely in the first place, not on his own statement, but on the testimony of the Bishop of Derry, whom everyone would admit to be unimpeachable. In a letter which he wrote shortly afterwards to the papers, the right rev. Prelate said that he was, with a large party of his (Mr. Lewis's) friends, in a room of the Imperial Hotel, the windows of which opened on the balcony, from which the new Member was to address the people. He saw that there was a crowd in front of the hotel, extending some distance above and below. The crowd was a well-conducted assembly. The people cheered now and then, and occasionally groaned. After a short time, the Bishop went on, a band approached, with instruments and flags. This was, perhaps, an infraction of the Order of the magistrates. What occurred between the band and the Resident Magistrate he (the Bishop) could not tell, but after a few seconds he saw the police making for the crowd with swords, truncheons, and guns, striking out right and left. As far as he could see, no resistance was offered, and it was simply a saturnalia of violence. He saw a policeman of Herculean proportions aim a blow with his truncheon at the head of a respectable woman who was trying to escape. Fortunately, the blow missed her. He (the Bishop) then came out on the balcony and denounced the conduct of the police, in the hope that his voice might reach the Resident Magistrate. So far the Bishop. The rest of the story he (Mr. Lewis) must ask the House to take from him. The band turned down into the yard of the Deanery opposite the hotel, and he himself then saw a constable with a drawn sword thrust his sword through the rails of the yard, and endeavour to prick those who were assembled there. So horrified were other members of the Constabulary at this that the man was actually dragged back by a police officer. In consequence of this extraordinary and outrageous proceeding, a number of well-conducted citizens standing on the steps of the Imperial Hotel cried out "Shame!" upon which the Resident Magistrate, who seemed to have lost his head, directed the police to charge them. These people, who were quietly waiting for the Member to return thanks for his election, were wedged in and could not escape, and he himself saw, to his horror, 20 or 30 constables with their bâtons drawn rush at the small crowd and knock many of them on the head. One unfortunate person standing on the steps had his head broken, and as a consequence his life was in danger for a considerable time. That was a plain and unvarnished statement of the whole case. These people were doing nothing but enjoying a fine summer day, and waiting to hear the successful candidate return thanks, when they were set upon in the outrageous manner which he had described by those who were paid to preserve the public peace. The outrage was witnessed by the Bishop and the Dean of Derry, and by five or six magistrates and other independent persons not resident in the city. In the whole course of his life he never saw such horror and excitement. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sligo laughed—

MR. SEXTON

Yes; you made the horror and excitement.

MR. C. LEWIS

said, he had made his statement as a matter of honour and upon the authority of the Bishop of Derry. This was a matter which could not be laughed away in the manner in which hon. Members seemed to desire. The conduct of the police caused the greatest possible excitement in the city, and the magistrate met and passed a resolution asking for a public inquiry by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) declined to institute an inquiry without giving his reasons. A largely-attended meeting of the citizens was next held, at which a resolution was unanimously passed calling upon the Government to institute an inquiry as to the conduct of the authorities in order to insure the punishment of the guilty parties. A change of Government came, and the magistrates again met and asked for an inquiry. The present Chief Secretary replied that he himself would make inquiries into the matter, but that no public inquiry would be ordered. These occurrences took place on the 6th of July, and nobody had yet been called upon to account for the extraordinary and violent conduct of the police. The outrage was not committed by the City Constabulary, but by police brought in from a distance; therefore the offenders could not be identified. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary said he would not consent to an inquiry, but he proclaimed the city under the Arms Act, without the smallest pretence in the world, or in respect of any abuse of arms or conflict between the citizens. The right hon. Gentleman carried out the policy which he foreshadowed when in Office as to the putting into operation of the Arms Act. He said it would be very useful in Ulster. That was the conduct of a right hon. Gentleman seeing fair play between the police and the citizens. Such were the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman; for it turned out that his object in proclaiming Derry, where there had been no outrages, was, as he said, to keep the balance even between North and South. That was to say, because he had had to put the Arms Act in force in the South, therefore he proclaimed Derry in the North. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, it was not more than a week since he made that statement in Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said—"I proclaimed Derry to make matters level." The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Party who would not support coercion under any circumstances. They brought in their Arms Bill, and the first thing they did was to put it into operation against an unoffending city. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say upon what material it was that, in the month of July last, when there had been no outrages and no disturbances in the City of Derry, he advised the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim the city under the Arms Act. He could not help thinking it was a set-off to him for having condemned the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Arms Act. The events which he had stated having happened, there was a distinct refusal by the right hon. Gentleman to hold an inquiry. No doubt, the late Chief Secretary made inquiry from the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Harvey, who played an important part in the disturbances. But did he endeavour to obtain information from any independent person? The events having happened which he had stated to the House, he demanded to know the grounds upon which the Government refused a sworn inquiry. He ventured to say that when a meeting of magistrates called the attention of the Government of the day to the serious conflict that was going on, not between the Orange and Catholic parties, but between the authorized protectors of the citizens and the citizens themselves, it required a very strong case to justify the refusal of the Government to make an inquiry with a view to bringing the guilty parties to justice. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman received a very crushing reply from the Resident Magistrate, who now walked about Derry despised by the citizens. The House would see whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to quote any other witnesses in support of the maintenance of the dignified silence which the Government assumed under the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary was in a totally different position. He had to deal with the difficulty that an inquiry had already been refused. He (Mr. Lewis) maintained that when the House had the testimony of so highly respected a Prelate as the Bishop of Derry, such an occurrence should not be allowed to happen at noonday withou some inquiry being held to ascertain who was responsible. The present Chief Secretary stated, in reply to the resolution of the second meeting of magistrates, that he would make an inquiry into the matter. Was it to be expected that, with all the serious responsibilities which rested upon him, and with all the difficult duties he had to perform, he could go down to Derry and conduct an inquiry on the spot? In the face of all the facts and circumstances, it was a scandalous thing that these most extraordinary occurrences should have gone on without any expression of reprobation on the part of the Government of the day, and that the citizens, after the serious attack that had been made upon them, should be deserted by the Government to whom they were entitled to look for support. Under these circumstances, he ventured to move the Resolution which stood in his name for the purpose of vindicating the rights and privileges of citizenship of the city which he had the honour to represent.

CAPTAIN M'CALMONT (Antrim, E.)

seconded the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that an official inquiry should be held into the conduct of the resident magistrate and police in the city of Derry on the 6th of July last, when it is alleged that, under the orders of the resident magistrate, an unwarrantable attack was made by the police, with staves, upon a number of respectable and orderly people who were assembled on the steps of the Imperial Hotel, Londonderry, on the occasion of the declaration of the poll at the city of Derry election on that day,"—(Mr. Charles Lewis,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said, that not many sentences would be required from him in answering the speech which the hon. Gentleman had made in defence of his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's statement of what happened rested upon the letter written by the Bishop of Derry, and upon the hon. Member's own account of what he saw from the steps of the Imperial Hotel. The hon. Member, however, was not at that moment in a frame of mind, he submitted, which made his testimony of any great or decisive value. The hon. Member was not always distinguished, even in that House, for urbanity, or for happy serenity of demeanour. Upon this occasion the House would judge, from a speech which he delivered, how likely he was to see things without excitement, and as they occurred—

MR. C. LEWIS

That was after the event.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

said, he supposed the events all went on in a very short and rapid space of time, and probably the hon. Member was in one frame of mind from beginning to end of the transaction. The House would judge. The following report of a speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion would illustrate the way in which this champion of the party of law and order thought fit to speak of the agent of law and order. The report stated that— Mr. Lewis spoke under great excitement. He said—'Ladies and gentlemen of Derry—Mr. Harvey, you rascal'—this being the Resident Magistrate—'look at that mob down there (pointing to the Nationalist crowd), look at them, you rascal! Why don't you disperse them? Ladies and gentlemen, I have to thank you, citizens of this city, who for the fifth time have returned me to Parliament, and I now pledge myself, in the face of that man (Mr. Harvey)—I pledge myself that my first act in Parliament will be to expose and reprobate the conduct of that wicked man in the way that he deserves.' (Loud cheers and groans.) The hon. Member went on to say that the representatives of the Government had behaved in a scandalous, criminal, and cowardly manner. A dastardly attempt had been made to assault and butcher"—butcher!—"the citizens of Derry. He only read that report as an illustration of the calm and judicial temper in which the hon. Gentleman had looked on at the transaction.

MR. C. LEWIS

It was after the event I made the speech.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

It was all pretty simultaneous, as a matter of fact. Well, the resolution of the magistrates was sent to the Government, and inquiry was made of the Resident Magistrate himself (Mr. Harvey), and the Government instituted a full investigation. They collected reports from all the officials who took part in the maintenance of order in Derry on that occasion. One or two points of difficulty arose, and they referred those to the Inspector General of Constabulary. They had the whole affair thoroughly investigated. What case was there for a sworn inquiry? Talk of "butchering" the citizens! Who was "butchered?"

MR. C. LEWIS

I will answer the question—the man who was four days in the infirmary.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Yes; it was reported in the newspapers that the man was given over; it was said that tetanus had set in. When the officers went to the Infirmary, however, they found the gentleman in bed reading the newspaper. A more trumpery affair was never brought under the notice of the House of Commons. The hon. Member tried to harrow their feelings with descriptions of Constabulary officers and constables running their swords into inoffensive and peaceable citizens, and all he could prove in the way of butchery and massacre was that one man went to the infirmary with a bruised head and was out again in a very few days. The conditions under which the action of the police took place were not quite so simple as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose. He made a point of the police being foreigners; but did all his friends in Belfast pay such respect to the Proclamation of their own Mayor, who was not a foreigner, as to warrant the attitude he now took up? The hon. Gentleman said that the Mayor's Proclamation had no legal force. On that point at the moment he was not able to answer the hon. Member; but no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) would say whether the Mayor's Proclamation was legally a compulsory document or not. It was the opinion, at all events, of the magistrates of the town that it was expedient and necessary for the maintenance of law and order that bands and processions should be avoided and suppressed. [Mr. C. LEWIS: Processions of bands.] On this occasion a band made its way out of the Dean's Yard to the front of the Imperial Hotel, and there it began to play "God Save the Queen" and also Party airs. The hon. Member would not deny that that was a very dangerous thing in a town like Londonderry, where, as the poll showed, parties were so equally divided, and where, although order had been preserved, there had been great excitement. It was a very dangerous thing, and, in the opinion of the Mayor, disorder would be likely to follow if bands were allowed to go on playing Party tunes. After carefully considering all the reports, the Lord Chancellor and himself came to the conclusion that the Resident Magistrate and the Constabulary officers used no more force than was necessary, and they did not in fact use any very considerable amount of force. He had not the least wish to impugn the testimony of the Bishop of Derry, although the Bishop, speaking from the Imperial Hotel, used very strong language—he presumed strong language for a Bishop. Comparing the charge made in the Bishop of Derry's letter, and the evidence in support of the resolution of the magistrates, with their own full and elaborate reports, they came to the conclusion that this was a thoroughly trumpery affair, and that to institute any further inquiry would be to give it an importance which was entirely uncalled for. The hon. Member said he would be the last person to wish to bring discredit upon authorities or upon the Irish Constabulary. But he submitted to the hon. Member and the House that for the Executive Government in Dublin to take the serious step of having a sworn inquiry into so trifling and insignificant a business would place the Resident Magistrates and the Constabulary officers in such a position that they would be little disposed to do their duty with energy and vigour. It would be a most fatal thing to institute sworn inquiries without a conviction that there was really strong ground for believing that a serious dereliction of duty had occurred. He and the Irish Executive had no such a belief. The hon. Member had introduced matters which had nothing to do with the Motion he had made. On a former occasion he had fully explained and justified the phrase he had used, which gave such utterly unreasonable offence to some gentlemen of Ulster, and on which the hon. Member had put so unreasonable an interpretation. The remark would bear no such interpretation as that he was determined unnecessarily to proclaim Belfast and Derry, because Cork had been proclaimed. He could not imagine why Derry should be specially insulted by being placed under the same restrictions as Belfast, Dublin, and Cork. In Derry itself the friends of the hon. Gentleman did not always take that line with respect to law and order which he should expect from them. Some remarks on the proclamation of Derry, which were made by The Londonderry Sentinel, would give the House an idea of the difficulties that Governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, had to deal with in the North of Ireland. The purport of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation, as the House knew, was to prohibit the possession of arms without a licence. The organ of law and order said of the Proclamation issued by Her Majesty's authority— Our advice to the people who happen to possess any of these weapons is to keep a firm grip on them, whether they have a licence or not. Let no one part with his rifle or revolver; there is no saying how soon they may be needed; and probably one of the first acts of the new Government will be to rescind the offensive Proclamation that Mr. Morley has so meanly sprung upon the Northern towns. Would the Attorney General for Ireland say whether the Government were going to rescind the Proclamation or not? He thought they would not do anything of the kind; but the extract showed there was, even in the party of law and order, a temper which justified the Executive in dealing with Derry as they would deal with Dublin or Cork. It showed too that upon such an occasion as an election, when excitement was aroused, and when the flame was fanned by such speeches as those of the hon. Member, Derry was not a place where the Executive Government could afford to discourage its own agents, or play fast and loose with its own authority.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

said, he had to thank the hon. Member for the courtesy he had shown in having on different occasions postponed the Motion so as to avoid interfering with the convenience of the Government and of the House. He wished also to state that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have replied to the hon. Member's speech, but he was prevented from being in his place by urgent public business. The Lord Chancellor and himself had assisted the Chief Secretary in the inquiry into this matter, and probably the hon. Member and the House would accept the explanation he had to offer. The House was no doubt aware that the present Government did not come into Office until about a month after these transactions occurred. Their attention was first directed to the matter by the second resolution that was passed by the magistrates of Derry, and in which they called attention to the resolution previously passed requesting the Government to grant a sworn inquiry. That resolution was carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his Colleagues, and the conclusion they arrived at was that a sworn inquiry would not conduce to the public interest. The Chief Secretary, however, expressed his readiness to acquaint himself most fully with the facts of the case. As regarded the advantage or disadvantage of having a public inquiry, there was one point which must be borne in mind—namely, that there could not be a public inquiry on sworn evidence without Parliamentary authority, for the Constabulary Acts only pro- vided for such an inquiry into the acts of individual constables. The only inquiry there could be into a matter of this kind, assuming the circumstances to call for it, would be an inquiry on the spot, without the power of administering an oath, by one or two Special Commissioners; and it seemed to the Government, after comparing the statements made on one side and the other, that it would not advance the public interest to have an inquiry of this character. On considering the statements of officers and officials and statements made by others, he thought this was a right and proper conclusion. Perhaps the House would bear with him while he stated the view the Government took of the matter. He could quite understand that transactions of this kind would excite ill-feeling in the locality. When there was a collision between the police and the people, no matter what the circumstances, there was naturally a strong public feeling excited. Therefore, a great deal of forbearance was required. Those whose duty it was to conduct an inquiry must, as far as possible, discriminate between the allegations on the one side and those on the other. The first thing the attention of the Government was directed to was the action of the Resident Magistrate. He presumed Mr. Lewis would admit that in considering the conduct of the Resident Magistrate they could not overlook his antecedents. He (Mr. Holmes) had the honour to know something of Mr. Harvey for a long time, and up to this transaction he had never heard any charge brought against him, although he had been called upon to perform his duty under the most trying circumstances. Not very long ago Mr. Harvey received in the discharge of his duty a very serious wound, which incapacitated him from work for several months. It was only very recently he had returned to his post. This Resident Magistrate had again and again to act under very trying circumstances, and so far as the Government had been able to ascertain had always performed his duty in a most satisfactory manner; and the Government were satisfied that on the occasion in question he had performed his duty in endeavouring to preserve the peace with discretion and promptitude. In a city like Derry it was obvious that at a time when considerable Party excite- ment prevailed there would be danger in a contested election unless the greatest precautions were taken, and accordingly four or five days before the date fixed for the election a meeting of magistrates was held, and it was determined, with a view of preserving the peace, to issue a Proclamation prohibiting processions and band-playing in the streets of Derry on the day of the election. It was said that there was no legal authority for that Proclamation; but it must be admitted that it was unquestionably the duty of the magistrates to take such steps as they might consider necessary to prevent a breach of the peace; and as in their judgment processions would be likely to lead to collisions between rival parties, it would be in the power of the magistrates, and would, moreover, be their duty, to prohibit such processions. The Proclamation prohibiting processions was accordingly issued, and it seemed to him that the Resident Magistrate would have been neglecting his duty and incurring a very grave responsibility had he not endeavoured to enforce that Proclamation. If he had, under the circumstances, neglected to carry out the Proclamation, he (Mr. Holmes) did not see how it would be possible to justify his conduct. Well, it was announced that a band was going to play in the public thoroughfares, and Mr. Harvey came to the conclusion that the action of the band was a violation of the Proclamation, and he accordingly took measures to prevent the band marching and playing through the streets. An order was given to the police to prevent the band playing in the street; but the police were under the command of their own officers, and the magistrate was not responsible for the manner in which they carried out their duties. In like manner, when the excitement occurred in front of the hotel, Mr. Harvey gave an order to clear the streets; but the order was carried out also by the police under their own officers, and he did not think any charge of illegality or improper conduct could be made out against Mr. Harvey. Resident Magistrates in critical times were in a very trying position. They had to judge for themselves according to the circumstances of each case, and they had to make up their minds at a moment's notice, and therefore some allowance should be made for errors of judgment. But in this case he (Mr. Holmes) did not see any ground whatever for censuring the conduct of Mr. Harvey, who appeared to have acted with great judgment and moderation throughout, and when he considered that the police were using unnecessary violence interfered to restrain them. The Bishop of Derry and the hon. Member who had brought this subject forward alleged that the constables were guilty of unwarrantable violence. Well, Mr. Harvey himself was of opinion that some of the men used their truncheons too freely; and if it were possible to identify them their conduct would certainly be made the subject of inquiry. It had, however, been found impossible to identify them. Besides, a good deal of allowance must be made for men acting under the very trying circumstances in which the police constables were placed when engaged in the endeavour to clear the streets of a hostile crowd; and he was free to confess that though he had himself seen policemen act with what he considered at the time was unnecessary violence, he had, on calmer reflection, come to the conclusion that there were not many men to be found who, under the circumstances, would have acted differently. It should be remembered, in considering a question of this sort, that very often what appeared to lookers-on as very violent, as even unnecessary and brutal violence, was, after all, by no means such a serious affair as it looked. It in reality bore a more serious aspect to lookers-on than to those engaged in it. At all events, such appeared to be the case in respect to the action of the police in Derry. No doubt there was a violent rush of the police, who charged the people, and onlookers might naturally think that terrible injuries were being inflicted upon the crowd. But in such cases as this the only way of ascertaining whether or not the amount of violence really used was too great was to judge by the results. They had to ascertain what injuries had been inflicted upon the people in the crowd. Well, judged in this way the conduct of the police at Derry could not have been so violent as some people alleged. The only serious result of the disturbance was the injury received by one man. This injury was much to be regretted; but fortunately it was only of a temporary character, and the individual who suffered it was able to leave the hospital in four days. Having regard to the fact that there was only one case of anything approaching to serious injury, he was inclined to believe that the violence alleged to have been used was not so great as it appeared to be. The Government had come to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient, inadvisable, and indeed unjust, to pass the least censure upon the Resident Magistrate, or upon the conduct of the police whilst engaged in carrying out the order they received. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he thought it much better now to let the matter drop. The election was over and the excitement was over, and there was no useful purpose to serve in keeping up the discussion.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

said, it must be admitted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, if he had erred in this matter at all, had erred on the side of civility. He had never in his experience known an Attorney General who was so civil towards a man who had revolted against the law and did his best to provoke a riot. He (Mr. Sexton) could not help thinking that if anyone on that side of the House—any Nationalist—had delivered excited speeches, and endeavoured to provoke the people to riot, and then had the immeasurable audacity to rise in his place in that House and denounce the administration of the law, which, despite his efforts, had succeeded in maintaining the peace, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words would have partaken more of the forcible than the feeble strain. Some reference had been made to the Protestant Bishop of Derry. He had no desire to detract from the merits that might belong to him; but if, instead of being the Protestant Bishop of Derry, he had been a Catholic priest, say, named Fahy, and if instead of using language calculated to incite to breaches of the peace he had endeavoured to help some poor people in Ireland to retain possession of their holdings there; instead of being eulogized in that House, he would have been called upon to find sureties for his good behaviour under a Statute passed 500 years ago for the better management of rogues and vagabonds. Well, he would leave the Bishop of Derry to obtain whatever satisfaction he could from the contemplation of his own conduct in this matter. The hon. Member for Derry thought fit to rebuke the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for inattention, and the right hon. Gentleman met the rebuke by walking out of the House.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

I was summoned to a Cabinet Council.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought no Cabinet Council could have been so important as to have taken him away from the House when the hon. Member was impeaching the conduct of a magistrate. It was, however, creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, as a respectable man, not to wish to be mixed up with the conduct of the hon. Member for Derry on the 6th of July. The hon. Member himself had not, indeed, been in any great hurry to justify his character or conduct. This affair took place on the 6th of July. The House met for Business on the 19th of August, and there had been many opportunities for discussion which the hon. Member had not taken advantage of. He might have used his opportunity in the debate on the Address. He put down a Motion against the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair; but he let the opportunity go by. He put a Motion against the Constabulary Votes; but he let the opportunity go by. He put a Motion against the reading of the Appropriation Bill; but he postponed that until the last day was reached; and then he put the Motion in such a form that it was impossible for him to divide the House upon it. He left hon.Memberstojudge for themselves whether the hon. Member for Derry might have held the sneaking hope that he might, in the long run, have been deprived of any opportunity of vindicating his character at all. Those Members of the House who knew anything of the city of Derry knew that the readiest means of getting up a riot was to employ a band to go into the streets and play certain Party tunes. "Croppies Lie Down," "We'll Kick the Pope Before Us," or some such conciliatory tune, could be warranted to get up a riot in five minutes. Well, the city of Derry had been noted for riots and breaches of the peace, and the hon. Member had been equally noted as being the principal figure in providing incitements to riot in that city. On the 6th of July there was a contested Election, and the hon. Member's counsel declared that "the men of Derry would wade up to their necks in blood" rather than that a Parnellite should be returned. The Mayor of Derry was a friend of the hon. Member, and on the election day there appeared to have been going on a process which was known in America as "counting in" a candidate. The Mayor, in accordance with that process, "counted in" the hon. Member by a majority of 103. Well, wind having been got of what was going on, that count was called in question. A second count was then made, with the result of a tie. Of course, that was not satisfactory to the Mayor or the hon. Member, and a third count was instituted, when the hon. Member was "counted in" by a majority of three. The result of all this manœuvring was indescribable excitement in the city. It was generally felt that the Mayor had been playing fast and loose with the voting papers, and the excitement under the circumstances was natural. Under these circumstances the Proclamation prohibiting the appearance of bands of music in the streets was absolutely necessary if the peace was to be preserved. Anyone who knew Derry—who was not, like the hon. Member, a foreigner, but who was a native of Ireland—would know that the inevitable result of bringing a band into the street under such circumstances of excitement to play Party tunes must create a riot. But those peculiar people, the so-called loyal administrators of the law, who obeyed the law so long only as it ministered to their own Party and private passions, the magistrates of the city, Messrs. Pollock and Wilde, denounced the Proclamation, and organized a band to go into the streets and play music in defiance of it. The hon. Member said there was no impact between the rival crowds; but there was no impact because there were bodies of soldiers and police between them. Well, the band went into the street, and the Resident Magistrate went and told the band to disperse, when the two magistrates named came up to him and abused him in the presence of the excited crowd. Then came the scene upon the steps of the hotel, where the hon. Member for Derry was shouting and gesticulating violently, and these guardians of the law were shaking their fists at the police, and crying out "Morley's murderers." Had it not been for a happy inspiration of his (Mr. Sexton's) friend Mr. James O'Doherty, who at this juncture called to the Nationalists to follow him to the League Rooms, the result would probably have been very serious. When this excitement was high, the hon. Member for Derry went to a window and delivered the speech which had to-day been recited by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne. He (Mr. Sexton) had before challenged him across the floor of the House for having called the stipendiary magistrate a scoundrel and a rascal. He denied it; but that was only a further proof of the audacity of the hon. Member. The report read by the right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member came to the window, and, shaking his finger, called out—"Harvey, you rascal, why do you not disperse the mob below?" He wondered how the hon. Member could come and impeach the administrator of the law, or that he could ask that an official inquiry should be held. Well, an official inquiry would presently be held; but it would be as to whether the hon. Member was really the Member for Derry at all. The only inquiry which, in his opinion, would meet the requirements of the case, would be one in which a Judge or a magistrate should be on the Bench and the hon. Member for Derry in the dock. He found the general impression amongst impartial persons to be that if on that day the hon. Member had got knocked on the head by a bâton, or pricked through the rails to a moderate extent, he would have got what he richly deserved.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 237; No 1: Majority 236.—(Div. List, No. 46.)

Main Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," again proposed.