HC Deb 19 May 1887 vol 315 cc522-4
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I gave him Notice yesterday, but which I was not in my place to ask. The Question is this—Whether the Government have proclaimed the anti-coercion meeting at Dungannon; and, if so, on what grounds; and perhaps the Chief Secretary would take this opportunity of stating to the House, as he promised to do, what the policy of the Government in Ireland is to be in reference to anti-coercion meetings?

THE CHIEF SECERTARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

With re- gard to the meeting at Dungannon, it has been proclaimed. The ground for the Proclamation is that, in the opinion of those responsible for the peace of the district, the meeting could not be held without endangering the public safety. The reasons for that opinion will not surprise hon. Gentlemen, and it is that party feeling runs very high in the district. It was found that even if the second meeting were prohibited, the chance of disturbance would have been very great, as those who had intended to hold, the second meeting would have attended the first meeting, with the probable result of great disturbance and loss of life. Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that the local magistrates did their duty in proclaiming both meetings.

MR. DILLON

The Chief Secretary promised, the other day, that the whole of this subject would be taken into the serious consideration of the Government; and I would ask him a further Question on this matter—Whether, in the first place, it is not now the deliberate and avowed policy in the Province of Ulster to call rival meetings in every instance where an anti-coercion meeting is called; whether, Sir, that policy was not previously adopted and put down by force by Earl Spencer; and, whether the Irish Government will not follow the policy adopted by Earl Spencer under precisely similar circumstances?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Government propose to take any measures they think desirable and necessary to pro-serve the public peace; but I am perfectly ready to give a pledge that I will do what I can to frustrate any intention on the part of any party, whatever that party may be, in Ireland, to stop the right of public meeting by calling bogus meetings at the same place and on the same day.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I am very thankful to hear this declaration by the Chief Secretary. Will he show us that he means it in this very case at Dungannon by permitting the first meeting?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not asking a Question.

MR. STOREY

Excuse me, I am asking a Question.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is arguing the Question.

MR. STOREY

I will ask this Question. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the case of Dungannon, or in the next similar case, allow the first meeting and prohibit the second, and put down the men who interfere with the first?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir; in any case similar to Dungannon I should act exactly as I have acted in that case. Hon. Gentlemen must allow me to follow the example of Earl Spencer in reserving full discretion to the Government. I have stated the general lines of policy that we shall pursue; and I think hon. Gentlemen must allow me to act on my own judgment.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the very Dungannon meeting in 1884 Earl Spencer allowed the Nationalist meeting to be held, although a rival meeting was held and addressed by Colonel King - Harman, who expressed his regret that the Nationalist meeting was protected and allowed to be held by Earl Spencer? I wish to ask him whether the Orange meeting attended by Colonel King-Harman, and the Nationalist meeting addressed by myself and others, went off without any breach of the peace whatever?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to know what happened in 1884, and will give me Notice of the Question, either I or the Under Secretary will answer it. With regard to the inference he draws from the statement he makes, Ia must inform him that each case must be considered on its own merits; and the fact that a certain policy was right in 1884 is no proof, or even a presumption, that it is right in 1887.