§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I now apply to the Government to give us their account, and such justification as they think they can offer, of the cause and the effect of the murderous acts perpetrated yesterday at Mitchelstown by their armed agents, I put a Question early this morning at the rising of the House; but the Government then, although they are in telegraphic communication with Mitchelstown, appeared to be destitute of any official information. I put a Question again at the Sitting of the House at noon to-day; but the official information had not then arrived. I trust they have now received it. Our information upon the question has been greatly extended since I first inquired this morning. We have read the reports in the public Press; and if anything is beyond doubt in this most sad and terrible affair it is that the outbreak of disorder, the shedding of 222 blood, and the loss of life—the loss of innocent life—have resulted from a wanton attack by an armed body of police upon a body of citizens engaged in the exercise of their undoubted and Constitutional right of public meeting. The fact that a meeting in Mitchelstown was being held was not to anyone a secret. The fact that a meeting would be held was known for many days. The time and place of the meeting were matters of common knowledge. The Government did not prohibit the meeting. The Government claim that they have powers undefinable and unlimited—powers at Common Law to prohibit any meeting. They prohibited a meeting in Ireland a few days ago under these powers which they do not possess by Statute. They prohibited a meeting in Ireland a few days ago, and dispersed that meeting by force of arms. They did not prohibit this meeting at Mitchelstown, the fact of which was notorious a long time in advance. They had magistrates quartered there. These magistrates made no declaration; they gave no indication or offered any hint that the meeting was open on any grounds to objection. The people were not only allowed to assemble at the place of meeting, but they were encouraged to assemble there. I have not in any quarter found that exception has been taken either to the cause of the meeting or to the nature of the proceedings there. I should be glad, therefore, to learn from the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he denies the right of the people to assemble at Mitchelstown yesterday, or if he questions any part of the proceedings which had occurred up to the moment of the attack by the police? The meeting was addressed by several English and Irish Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was present, the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner) was also present, and amongst the Irish Members present were my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor). Why did the police break in upon the meeting? The Chief Secretary thinks it is a smiling matter; but he is the only man in the British Isles who thinks so.
§ DR. TANNERHe will laugh on the other side of his face?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order !
§ MR. SEXTONThey broke in upon the meeting because a police reporter desired to report the speeches. We have had many a meeting in Ireland in recent years, and the Government have reported the speeches; but have they ever on any previous occasion pursued a course so dangerous and so deadly as that they pursued at Mitchelstown? In the days of Mr. Forster, in the clays of Sir George Trevelyan as Chief Secretary, and of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, the course pursued was at least judicious and discreet, and nowhere was there any serious breach of the peace caused by the presence of any reporter. In previous cases the Government, before the meeting was held, applied to the committee, or the local promoters of the meeting, or some public man advertised to speak there, and they applied to him by the Sub-Inspector or the Head Constable to provide accommodation for the Government reporter, and I am not aware of any case in which the accommodation was refused, or that it was inadequate for the purpose. I am aware of many such applications even having been made to me. I have spoken in many counties, and the Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables have applied to me to provide accommodation for the Government reporter, and I have often procured him a chair and table upon the platform, because I have no desire that any words of mine should be uttered without the cognizance of the Government, and I have never known any accommodation applied for for the Government reporter to be refused or to be inadequate. I remember on one occasion in Dublin being called upon by the Superintendent of the Detective Department. It was a troublesome time, and I thought he might have some function to perform appertaining to myself. I asked him when he came into the room what he wanted, and he told me he had been sent by the Government to see if I would guarantee the safety of the Government reporter at the meeting I was advertised to speak at. I replied that I certainly would. The Government accepted that engagement. The Government reporter was accommodated. The meeting began peacefully, and peacefully went on to its conclusion. I want 224 to know why this course was not pursued on the present occasion? Did the Government inquire of any local man—did the Government inquire of any Member of Parliament whether the Government reporter would be accommodated on the platform, or otherwise suitably enabled to report the speeches? If they did not, Sir, and if in the absence of such application they broke with violence into that meeting, the guilt of the bloodshed is on their heads. Did the police take any steps to post their reporter at any suitable place in the vicinity where he could report their speeches? They knew beforehand the day, the hour, and the place of meeting; and did they, before the meeting began, send a body of policemen there in advance with their reporter? They did not. Did they, while the meeting was in progress, content themselves with marching their forces of police to the edge of the meeting and allowing their reporter at the edge of the meeting to report these speeches? Sir, none of these courses was pursued, but a course was pursued which I declare I can reconcile with no other intention than the intention to excite the passions of the people, with the view of provoking them to violence. Sir, what happened? A body of policemen, whilst the meeting was peacefully in progress, and legally engaged for a Constitutional purpose, marched up to the edge of the meeting with a Government reporter in their midst holding up his notebook in his h and, as if he desired to proclaim his errand and excite the people. The police then endeavoured by main force, and without a word of warning, to force their way from the edge to the centre of the meeting. The meeting was closely packed. Had the people a right to be there or not? If they had a right to be there, had the police any right to interfere with them, or to endeavour to force a path through the meeting? The police, unable to proceed through the meeting, retired. I should have thought that at this point someone in authority would have seized the opportunity to intervene. There was a magistrate on the scene—there were officers of all grades—but after the first retirement of the police, when they failed to induce the people to allow the meeting to be broken up, why did not the magistrate, Captain Seagrave, or some officer, come to the verge of the 225 meeting and call upon those on the platform to admit the Government reporter, or provide him with accommodation? No such demand was made, and the police returned a second time, strengthened by the addition of a baton party. The baton party, without a word of warning, proceeded to attack the meeting. They struck the people savagely on the head and shoulders with their batons. Neither in Ireland nor in any other country is it in human nature for men to suffer an unprovoked and mortal attack without retaliation. The people struck back. The police had batons—the people had blackthorns. Well, while the contest lay between blackthorns and batons the blackthorns might be safely expected to hold their own. The police retired—they fled to the barrack. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who was addressing the meeting at the time, adjured the people to be peaceful and patient, and to pursue their proceedings to a close. I am at this point addressing myself especially to the First Lord of the Treasury, who must feel the great and painful responsibility cast upon him. Surely at this point, when the physical conflict had closed, and the police had retired, and before any other stop was taken in the path of violence, a magistrate or some superior officer should have appeared upon the scene. Where was the magistrate? Refreshing himself in the hotel. Where were the officers? I have been unable up to the present to determine. I could understand if the police, having been driven back by the blackthorns in retaliation, returning accompanied by a magistrate or superior officer, and if the riot had not been quelled, reading the Riot Act, and ordering the meeting to disperse, and if, after that reading of the Statute, the meeting had failed to disperse, then I could understand the use of violence. The people would have had warning, and they would have understood the penalty of disobedience. Now comes the most grave and unprecedented part of this terrible occurrence. The police fled to the barracks—some of the people followed part of the way; then all but a few returned to the meeting. The space round the barrack was empty except for the presence of a few people. What did the police do? They rushed to their rifles, they 226 went upstairs, and out of the top window of the barrack they fired upon the few people who were standing within range. All was quiet at this time—the disorder had ceased, the conflict was over. Now, I ask any lawyer, or any other Member of the House, whether the police, having made good their return to the barracks, and having obtained safety in them, were entitled to load their rifles and come to the windows of the barracks and fire out of them? Were they entitled to fire from any other cause except to protect the barracks from instant attack, when provoked at the moment, and in defence of their lives? They were not. There was no case of this sort. That was the only imaginative cause for action such as the police took. Having fired out on the few people who were standing quietly in the space—what did they fire with? They fired with bullets. Nothing has been more familiar to our ears in recent years in this House than that the use of bullets on occasions of this kind had been superseded by the use of buckshot. The late Mr. Forster used to plead that it was the most merciful charge, inasmuch as buckshot did not kill. Why did the police use bullets on this occasion? The action of these constables in firing out of the windows is irreconcilable with an intelligent view of the capacity of officers of peace. They did not fire to maintain order, they did not fire to restore it, they fired to kill. An old man who was standing quietly in the street had his brains scattered upon the highway and fell dead. A young man of 17 who was walking quietly by got a bullet through the forehead, and the poor fellow was seen to stagger a few yards and make the sign of the cross on his forehead, being a Catholic, and fall dead. Several men have been seriously injured, if not mortally wounded. Was there any magistrate in the barracks? There was not? Was there any superior officer? I do not know, but I do know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo rushed to the barracks as soon as possible to endeavour to prevent fatal results, and I see by the newspapers to-day that he was taken in a rude and violent manner and pulled into the barracks. He states that the state of things inside the barracks was one of chaos. Every man seemed to have rushed to his rifle, 227 and of his own impulse simply committed murder. The firing from the windows was not an act of discipline; it was not an act of consideration, of order, but it was an act of retaliation and revenge. Will the Government defend this act on the part of peace officers? We should claim from the Government to know what bullets were fired out of the barracks, upon what order the bullets were fired, and what steps have been taken—24 hours have now elapsed since the occurrence—to identify and bring to justice the constables who committed this act of murder. Nor was that the end of this black page in this horrible occurrence. Surely the law was vindicated sufficiently when the police fired out of the barracks. They did not think so, however. Having fired and wounded and killed, they put down their rifles—they took up their batons, they sallied out of the barracks, they went in force to the square where the meeting was being held, and batoned indiscriminately with furious passion every man and woman they found there; and so completely was their passion taken from under their control, that they rushed into the house of the parish priest and batoned the men and women who had taken refuge there, where surely they might have hoped for sanctuary, and some English ladies, including Miss Manders, of Manchester, had a very narrow escape. I do not know that it is necessary that any English person should be batoned or murdered in order to excite the horror of this country. I fear that if that is required, if English Members of Parliament and English gentlemen and ladies continue to go to Ireland to be present at evictions or public meetings, there is slight probability that they will much longer escape from this horrible brutality. I can discern no trace of the intervention of any superior mind of magisterial action. I can discern no trace of the control of any man corresponding to a commanding officer of the Army. The police appear to have acted upon their own motion. Where was the magistrate all this time? How many magistrates had you? You certainly had one whose name is Captain Seagrave. He was in charge of these armed forces, and the account in the Press this morning is that during the whole of these transactions from the 228 first action of the police, when they tried to wedge through the meeting to the final batoning on the street. Captain Seagrave was in the hotel. Why did Captain Seagrave remain in the hotel, and in his absence who was in command of the forces? Who was responsible for the wanton attack upon the meeting which led to the retaliation and to the action which followed that retaliation, which I consider to be morally and legally acts of murder? This whole affair, this whole terrible catastrophe, is the inevitable result of the language and conduct of the Government. Their speeches here, their action on this occasion, and their conduct in Ireland have taught an evil and a mortal lesson to their subordinates of every grade. There is no official in Ireland, from the Chief in Dublin Castle to the constable in the village, who does not regard the policy and the conduct of the Government as an encouragement to incite him to acts of violence and bloodshed; who does not believe in his heart that the path of violence, trampling upon popular rights, is the path for him of favour and promotion. What have been the manifestations of this spirit? We had the first manifestation in the famous telegram of Captain Plunkett. Captain Plunkett came fresh from an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They had spent an hour together in Dublin Castle, and Captain Plunkett went red hot to the telegraph office and he telegraphed to Youghal, Mallow—"Don't hesitate to shoot the people down." Well, the lesson has improved with time. The hesitation that may have been felt at that date at least appears to have been felt no longer. They did not hesitate to shoot down the people at Mitchelstovvn. A further manifestation of this spirit has been given at the Herbertstown evictions. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) was holding an interview with some friends, the magistrates called out—"Clear away these people there!" The people were standing quietly by. Have the people no right to be present at an eviction? Surely if there is any event which naturally excites the interest of the people, or any event which the people have a right to observe, it is such an event as an eviction. To some it is an offence to cheer, to others to groan.
229 You want to strike the people down. If that is wanted by the Government it cannot be done. There is no law to accomplish such an end. On this occasion, when the people were standing quietly by, the police rushed at them with their batons, and they fled from the violence of the police. At another place a magistrate said to a constable—"Haven't you got a batoning party there. "We have,"—said the constable. "Then go at them like the Davil!" [Cheers.] A military Gentleman opposite cheers—he accepts the infernal comparison, I suppose. It appears, too, that they are going at them like the Devil, and it appears, too, that no other comparison would adequately describe them. I do not think it would be possible to overstate the gravity of the circumstances in Ireland. The Irish people are no more patient than other people—they have schooled themselves to patience, and we have endeavoured to make them patient and forbearing; but I tell the Government that they are going too far. A man who saw this scene of bloodshed yesterday, was heard to say—" You have not heard the last shot." the House will feel that it is easier to begin a conflict of this kind than to end it. You are rousing the passions of the people in Ireland, and every man will feel the force of what I say when I declare that it is easier to rouse those passions than when aroused to check them. You are provoking the people of Ireland wantonly by a reckless invasion of the only elementary right of popular meeting into a state of civil war; and I warn the Government, and I warn all those who have influence with the Government, that if they do not keep in check the brutality of their agents they may try to allay the passions of the people which they have excited when it is too late.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked the Government for information with respect to the recent serious and grave occurrences at Mitchelstown. Twice already has the hon. Gentleman asked for information which we were not in a position to give. But now that he has raised the same question again, I will, of course, be very glad to put him in possession of the principal parts of the information 230 we have received—all the material parts of the information we have received—during the internal. But, Sir, I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman seems to be the last person in the House to whom the information is necessary, for he has given an account of the transaction far more minute and detailed than any I can pretend to lay before the House, and, I am bound to say, different in almost every vital and substantial particular from the accounts that I have received.
§ MR. SEXTONWho are they from?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThey are the accounts the hon. Member asked me to give before—the official accounts that I have received. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has asked me whether this was an illegal meeting, and, if so, why did we not proclaim it? Sir, I do not think it necessary to go into the character of the meeting now. I do not now give any opinion as to the legality of the objects for which the meeting was assembled, nor shall I attempt to decide whether the Government would or would not have been justified in proclaiming it. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government may have a perfect right to proclaim a meeting, and yet may not deem it expedient to do so? The hon. Gentleman should be the last to complain that we did not proclaim it, since he and his Friends are never tired of condemning the action of the Government in proclaiming the meeting at Ennis, If, therefore, there was to be any complaint of the action or want of action of the Government in this matter, we should never have anticipated that it would come either from the hon. Gentleman or his Friends. The hon. Gentleman has described this occurrence as an unprovoked and wanton aggression on the part of the police, he has repeatedly said that it was rightly and properly resisted by the people, and that the unhappy and tragic results which we all deplore were not caused by the police in self-defence, but were the gratuitous action of an inflamed and undisciplined mob. Well, Sir, the account I have received traverses the information of the hon. Gentleman in every one of these particulars. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we have in this case pursued what he describes as the invariable practice of former Governments—namely, whether we have 231 gone to the gentlemen who have called the meeting and asked whether they would guarantee the safety of the Government reporter? I do not know whether that has been the practice of previous Governments. But to lay it down as a canon which no Government should outstep that the very persons to judge of whose conduct the Government are sending a police reporter are to be approached in an attitude of humility, and asked whether they will guarantee the reporter's safety, appears to me to be a most monstrous and unheard of proposition. The hon. Gentleman has given his account, and I have no doubt he fully believes it, of what occurred when the Government reporter, under an escort of police, approached the meeting in order to carry out his instructions and make an adequate report of the speeches to be delivered. But what happened was this. The Government reporter, under the escort of the police, did endeavour to approach the speakers, who were not on a platform, but on some kind of vehicle, which, being movable, he could not have been expected to take up his position beforehand at the place from which the speakers were to address the meeting. While the Government reporter was endeavouring under the escort of the police to get within earshot of the speakers, one of those speakers—an hon. Gentleman a Member of this House—I think the Member for East Tipperary (Mr. Condon)—shouted out to the people—" Close up against the police." That, as far as I can gather, was the signal for an assault upon the police, utterly unprovoked and of the most violent and brutal character. The police were assaulted with stones and with blackthorn sticks; they were broken into disorder by men on horseback; they were thrown out of their formation; there were driven back upon the barracks; they were pursued to the barracks; they were driven inside the barracks, the barrack doors were broken, the barrack windows were broken; and it was in self-defence, in order to protect the party coming in and to protect themselves, that the shots to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded were fired. Now, it appears to me that if that account of the transaction is accurate—and I believe it is accurate—there never was a more wanton or brutal attack made upon the police than on this occasion, and are the 232 Government to say that the police in resisting such a wanton and brutal attack were not justified?
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman deny that the space about the barracks was nearly empty when the police fired upon the people?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe information I have received precludes that supposition altogether. And the severity of this attack may be estimated from the number of police injured. The hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture in dark colours of the sufferings of the wounded and the tragic effects of the fire of the police.
§ MR. SEXTONThe deaths.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere were two deaths. The hon. Member said there were more, but as far as my information goes there were two. Three were wounded and two were killed. The hon. Member has omitted altogether all reference to the injuries inflicted upon the police. [Cries of "There were none."] Fifty-four of the police were hit, 29 were injured—one very seriously and eight severely. Now, Sir, when an attack of that kind is made upon the police, are the police, who are men, to be said to have exceeded their duty when they resort to what should be resorted to only in the last necessity, but which when the last necessity occurs no officer should shrink from using? The hon. Gentleman says that the police on the spot excited the people beyond a point where endurance was possible. If any persons were concerned in exciting the people it appears to me to be those under whose orders processions with bands and banners went out previous to the meeting, and especially those who, when the police were seen approaching, cried out to the mob to close their ranks against the police. The hon. Gentleman says the responsibility for these transactions rests with us. I listened in vain for any justification of that grave accusation. Who is it that has been attempting to inflame the minds of the Irish people? Is it the Government? [Cries of "Yes!"]
§ MR. CLANCYYou have done it for 20 years.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROr is it that band of politicians who describe themselves as the Leaders of the Irish people? I recollect the hon. Gentleman pointing 233 to speeches made by Members of the Government as being in themselves a sufficient ground for justifying such, brutal attacks as were made on the police yesterday. But I recollect a speech made in this House a few days ago, not by a Member of the Government, but by the hon. Member for East Mayo, in which he described over and over again the Government reporter as a Government spy, until you, Mr. Speaker, called him to Order. That is the kind of language which inflames the Irish people; that is the kind of language which moves these unfortunate crowds to attack the police, and in consequence of these attacks to bring on themselves such unhappy and melancholy retribution. The responsibility rests not with us; it rests with you. If hon. Gentlemen who claim to have, and I believe have, influence over their fellow-countrymen, would really exert that influence to keep the people within the law; if they would not content themselves with talking about liberty of speech and Constitutional agitation, and using a few phrases of that kind to throw in the face of the English democracy; if they would use their influence to prevent the Irish people from breaking the law—[Mr. CLANCY: There is no law there]—if they would do all they could to see that law was respected and obeyed, we should never have these melancholy scenes to deplore, and these endless discussions in the House. I believe the information I have given the House, though not so full as I could have desired, is quite accurate; but I shall, no doubt, receive on Monday a full and detailed account of all the proceedings. I have had to depend on the telegraph for information, but I have given the House all the information that I know and that is material. I do not think anything would be gained by prolonging a discussion of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen will be able to raise it again, if they think it necessary, at a later stage of the Bill, when we shall be able to discuss the question with fuller knowledge and more perfect information from the reports we shall then have received. I would therefore deprecate further discussion now. But I may say with full confidence that though we have not complete information, what we do possess tends to show conclusively that the version of the occurrences which the hon. 234 Gentleman has given is wholly erroneous, that the police acted in this matter simply in self-defence, and that they were the subjects of one of the most unprovoked and brutal aggressions on the part of the crowd which even the melancholy history of Irish political meetings can supply.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)said, he thought the majority of hon. Members would from their own reading recognize that the account of the occurrences at Mitchelstown laid before them by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was supported by the correspondents of every newspaper, of whatever shade of politics the newspaper might happen to be.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Bill, and that he has therefore exhausted his right to take part in this debate.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N)said, the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary was precisely of the character that might have been expected. In the case of every circumstance of that kind that had occurred in Ireland of recent years, and especially since the right hon. Gentleman had taken Office, the practice had been to assume everything said by the police and magistrates as true, and to disbelieve every person on the other side. Whose evidence had the right hon. Gentleman presented to the House that evening? Why, the evidence of the very men who were incriminated. The men who had endeavoured to force their way into a peaceable meeting, who afterwards returned, batoned the people without cause, and who, as the final outrage, insisted on firing into a peaceable crowd, although there was no possibility of any attack being made on the place where they were posted. That testimony was opposed to that of every newspaper, whether Whig or Tory, and of every person who had written or spoken on the subject up to the present time. He challenged hon. Gentlemen, opposite to point to a single morning paper in London which gave an account which was not entirely opposed to that of the right hon. Gentleman. The evidence of the persons present was to the same effect, including that of an English lady, Miss Manden, of Wolverhampton, who said she was more than astonished by the interference of the 235 police. At the very moment the meeting was broken up she was listening to Mr. Dillon advising the people to observe a peaceful and patient demeanour. The Chief Secretary could not impose on the English people the story of the incriminated ruffians in Ireland, who had been acting as his agents, against the testimony of all the newspaper correspondents who were at the scene of the massacre, and of the persons, male and female, who were there as independent spectators. The right hon. Gentleman said his information differed in every particular from, that of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Of course it did. If the incriminated persons admitted the accounts given by all the newspapers and the independent persons present they would confess themselves murderers. They could not be expected to agree with those accounts, and he and his Friends rejected the story of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a false account. It was supplied by the persons who ought to be in the dock, if the right hon. Gentleman were an impartial administrator of the law. The spirit of impartiality which the right hon. Gentleman had shown was clearly evidenced by the fact that, having only got telegraphic intelligence of these matters, and having got in the public Press, on the other side, a full account of these transactions, he came to the Table of the House and said he disbelieved the reports in the public Press, and believed implicitly the account of the police. It was nothing new. The agents of the Government in Ireland had interpreted the speeches and the action of the Government in the past in a manner perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, did not anticipate—although on that point there might be two opinions—but they interpreted that action in a spirit which, if it was pursued, would yet lead to further massacres on the part of the police, and perhaps to further retaliation on the part of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the statement of his hon. Friend that in Ireland it had been the practice for Government reporters to ask for permission to take up a position at meetings where they could best discharge their task, and he described that as humiliating. That showed the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman. That showed the spirit of the imperious tyrant, as he ventured to de- 236 scribe him, and the spirit of a man who would not stop at trifles in order to compass his object. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of the Government reporter obtaining proper accommodation, and that the platform was a vehicle which moved about. That was a common occurrence in Ireland, and he had himself had the Government reporter on his carriage taking notes of his speech. When reporters had come to the carriages which were used as platforms at these meetings, they had invariably been accommodated; and then there was no row such as occurred yesterday, when the Government reporter insisted on forcing his way through a crowded and packed meeting—a meeting packed as close as it possibly could be, and through which he could not get without kicking up a row. What right had the Government reporter to try to get through the meeting? He did not understand the Government had any such rights. Everybody had a right to be there. It was a legal meeting. It had not been proclaimed. The Government reporter was in the position of the ordinary citizen. If he wished, no doubt he could have taken up a good position at the meeting—that was the usual practice. The police knew where the meeting was to be held, and stationed themselves near the platform, and the consequence was everything went on peaceably. But yesterday they tried and insisted on forcing their way into that crowded and packed assemblage, to get into which was impossible without creating a row. What right had the reporter or police to break through the meeting? They had no more right than any other ordinary citizens; and, moreover, the reporter could hear just as well as the people on the outside fringe of the meeting. What right had he? He had no right. What cause had he? He had none; and therefore he charged on the agents of the right hon. Gentleman all the ultimate consequences, including the shedding of blood and the loss of life which afterwards ensued. The right hon. Gentleman had not yet made up his case, which would be found, not only on reference to the papers, Tory and Liberal, to borrow his own words, to be different in every essential particular from the truth. He actually described the events of the second encounter as having happened in 237 the first. Nothing happened at all at the first. The policemen came with their reporter, and there was a little pushing in the crowd. That nothing more occurred appears plain from all the accounts of the occurrence, except that the horses which were on the outside of the meeting became restive when the police approached. So impatient was the right hon. Gentleman that he did not even wait to see whether he was right or wrong in that vital matter; he did not hesitate to go up to the Table of the House and profess entire belief in, and give implicit credence to, the reports of the incriminated parties—the police. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to notice one part—tbe most important part—of his hon. Friend's speech. Under whose orders were the shots fired? Where was the magistrate? A distinct charge was made by the hon. Member for West Belfast, on the strength of the statements published in the London papers, that that magistrate was in the hotel the whole time, and, if he (Mr. Clancy) was not mistaking the man, he charged him with drinking in that hotel. He made that statement on the supposition that he was the same man of whom he had read that he had already been in a lunatic asylum on account of his excessive drinking. If that was the man the thing became much more serious. He regarded it as a very suspicious circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman sat down without noticing that very important part of the speech of the hon. Member. And what did the House think of the term in which he described that firing in the course of which two men's brains were knocked out and one man was shot through the heart—he called that by the nice name of "retribution." That was a pretty word for a responsible Minister of the Crown to use. The spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to go to his work, and consequently induced his agents to go to their work, was a spirit of revenge. If such a spirit as that was rampant in the Government it would produce terrible consequences in Ireland. It was not a spirit which even the English people would tolerate, and the English people would learn that that spirit was not only acted upon in Ireland, but shamelessly and openly avowed in the House of Commons. They hold the 238 Government to be responsible in this matter, and they held that the men who kept them in Office were equally responsible. They held that every Member who supported the Government in this policy of blood was personally responsible also. In this category they ought never to fail to include the Liberal Unionist section of that House, without whose aid the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to maintain his present position for 24 hours. The House might be certain that it had not heard the last of this matter. He could only express an ernest hope that, taking human nature to be what it was, the consequences of this policy would not be what might naturally be expected to follow from it in a population not yet degraded to the level of slaves. He trusted such dreadful consequences would not occur in Ireland, and if they did, the responsibility would entirely rest on the Chief Secretary.
§ SIR EDWARD REED (Cardiff)said, he thought it would not be altogether proper that no one who customarily sat on the Front Opposition Bench should rise and join in the protest of the Irish Nationalist Members. He did not think, however, that he should have risen if anything like a moderate or a proper speech had been delivered by the Chief Secretary; but he considered that the spirit in which that speech was delivered and received, was fraught with future disorder, misery, and agitation, not only in Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it were to be supposed that a public meeting which was peaceably proceeding to discuss a political subject, might be roughly broken into by a posse of police on any pretext whatever, and that when the people, excited and irritated by this conduct of the police, defended themselves, they were to be fallen foul of, cudgelled, bludgeoned, batoned, and shot—if this were so, the Government were challenging a state of things which would receive a response from this country. He could speak with assurance of his own constituents; he knew the feeling of the people of Cardiff, because they had had some little experience of this sort of conduct on the part of the police at the last General Election. Speaking with knowledge of his own constituents, he could say there was a profound determination to recent 239 in future the improper interference of the police. He should have thought that any Minister of any Government would at least have included in a speech made in the present condition of things, some language calculated to allay public excitement rather than to stir it up, and intensify it, as the Chief Secretary had by his speech. Perhaps he might be allowed to call attention to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that had been referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not to be wondered at that the police had acted as they did, although, according to all accounts, they were the first disturbers. [Loud cries of "No!" from the Ministerial side.] There could not be the shadow of a doubt about that. He had taken the trouble to read the accounts, and the conclusion he had drawn from the descriptions given by the correspondents of the London newspapers was, that the police were the first to break in on a body of peaceable citizens. [Renewed cries of "No!"] About 20 policemen, in trying to force their way through the crowd, were the first to produce this disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman said it was no wonder that the police, having been attacked in return for this disturbance and disorder, should go to their barracks, bring out their rifles, and shoot the people down.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I stated more than once that the firing of the police was done in self-defence.
§ SIR EDWARD REEDremarked that what the right hon. Gentleman said was, that it was not to be wondered at that the police should go to their barracks and fire on the people. That was the essence and the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
§ A Home Rule MEMBER: "Retribution."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said in self-defence.
§ SIR EDWARD REEDThe right hon. Gentleman did not say in self-defence. [Murmurs on the Ministerial side.] Then no should like to know where the word "retribution" came in.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should not be in Order if I were to rehearse the whole of my speech; but I can tell the hon. Gentleman with the utmost confi- 240 dence that the word retribution did not come in the connection in which he supposes it to have come.
§ SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, he would not be slow to accept any disclaimer of that kind, for his feeling in this matter was one of profound grief and regret that anything should have happened to intensify the antagonism of the people towards the Government in any part of the United Kingdom. He would retreat from his position if he had in the slightest degree overcharged the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But he must say he thought that if the history of this country had proved anything at all it had proved in the first place the right of the people to assemble in public meeting for the peaceable discussion of public questions; and, secondly, that it had established that it was the duty and the obligation of the Government to use every influence in their power to deter their servants from firing at the people and using force and violence against them. Politicians had laid down the argument that resort to force against a public meeting was the last resort under any circumstances. He did not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with any prejudice against him. On the contrary, he had the intensest sympathy for him in the arduous and exacting duties he had to perform, considering that the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents had not well qualified him to deal with thorn. But he must say that the whole effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on his mind was this: If the people of Ireland, assembling in public meeting, would not submit to have bodies of police pushing them aside and breaking in among them arbitrarily to escort a reporter, or for any other purpose, and if they were not quiet under that treatment, and would not submit to be cudgelled and batoned by the police after a quarrel had happened, then not only would the Government justify the police in shooting the people down, but they would do that which every such speech from the Treasury Bench did—encourage and incite the police to violence. He thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been flavoured with some indication of impartiality. He knew how much truth there was in the allegation that the information he had given was contradicted by the Press accounts.
241 To do the hon. Member for West Belfast justice, he had drawn his account from the papers, and not from any secret information that could not he tested; but this House knew that the information of the right hon. Gentleman was tainted in its very source. [Cries of "No!"] Was there a single Member of the House who doubted that the information given by the right hon. Gentleman had emanated from incriminated parties? Where else could the right hon. Gentle man get his information from? It must be from the official source, and the official source was tainted. What they ought to expect, and what they must claim if they were not to lose their national rights, was that a Minister should speak not on the authority of a party or a section, but he should speak to the country on a matter of this kind with great reserve, and lose no opportunity of testing in other ways the information supplied him. When he rose in his place he should not represent the views of prejudiced and interested parties; he should submit his information to those tests which it was in the power of the Government to apply, and which it was the duty of the Government to apply. He did not like to criticize the language of the right hon. Gentleman, which was always scholarly and nearly always correct, but he did not understand one passionate remark in which the right hon. Gentleman asked—Were the police doing less than their duty when they rushed to the barracks, took their rifles, and fired? It must have been a slip of the tongue; he must have meant more than their duty. No one would suspect them of having done less than their duty. The right hon. Gentleman failed altogether to do what he ought to have done, and what he must do if this country was to remain quiet. The people of England would not submit to have their fellow subjects batoned and massacred, and he thought it was only due to the Government to let them know that in matters of this kind they would not only have to encounter the opposition of 86 Irish Members, but also of a great political Party in this country. Let the House imagine the case which he had himself experienced. He was parsing from his hotel at Cardiff to the club, not 100 yards away, and in total ignorance of any disturbance, when he found himself 242 confronted by a body of gigantic policemen. One had a truncheon raised to smite him down to the ground, and it was only in consequence of two friends coming forward and shouting out who he was that he was saved from a brutal and violent attack. The function of the police was to arrest criminals and keep down crime, not to bludgeon people and fire into crowds indiscriminately. He had no desire to prolong this debate, but he had risen to add his protest to that of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway against the tone and spirit of the Chief Secretary's reply.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)said, the Chief Secretary had alluded to the attitude of humility with which it would be necessary for the police to approach the promoters of meetings in Ireland. Why was it that in the past the meetings in Ireland had passed over in peace and quietness? It was because this attitude of humility was used by the police—it was because the promoters of the meeting were approached by the police in a respectful manner, and because the promoters of these meetings gave that protection to the police reporters which was needed, and which enabled the meetings to pass off quietly. He would point out to the House that there was attached to this permission and protection of the reporter one condition, and that was, that there should be no police at any of the meetings, but that condition which was laid down by Mr. Forster in the House had been outraged and violated by the Police Authorities, who, after this permission had been granted to the reporters, still invaded the meetings by the directions of the Government whose Representatives sat on the Bench opposite. A change had occurred in the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but he would ask the Chief Secretary whether he was satisfied with the result of the change of policy? When these meetings passed over peacefully, the Irish members took the protection of the reporters into their own hands, with the result that the people exercised their undoubted right of free speech and public meeting without endangering the public peace of the country. The Chief Secretary had alluded to the fact that one of their Colleagues told the people to close their ranks, but in his garbled report the right hon. Gentleman tailed to say 243 that it was on the second occasion this expression was used. It was properly used, and if he had been there he would have used it himself and asked the people to close their ranks against the police reporter, who was naturally looked upon as a spy and informer. The Chief Secretary also said the police fired in self-defence. Then whom did they shoot? Did they shoot the men who attacked them? No, because they had retired to the meeting, but they shot an old man who was round the corner and formed no part or parcel of the meeting, and a youth who was passing by and who also formed no part of the meeting. These were the men who were injured and killed by that system of organized ruffianism, the Irish police. The Chief Secretary said there was no provocation given by the police. Had the right hon. Gentleman read the fair reports in the London papers which described how the police batoned the horses that surrounded the meeting, and caused the first commotion, and how they assaulted the people without the Riot Act being read? Had the right hon. Gentlemen even read the impartial reports in those London papers which were the indicators of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials in Ireland were doing their best to provoke the people, and upon him the responsibility must rest. He knew what it was to see drunken Inspectors come out of their hotels and take charge of this organized system of ruffianism, and he knew what it was to see drunken police magistrates in Ireland, with the lives of the people in their hands. He had seen at Mallow station people brutally batoned by police in charge of a drunken Sub-Inspector, whilst another Resident Magistrate, Mr. Butler, protested against the action of this man; and had it not been for the humane and intelligent exercise of authority on that occasion by Mr. Butler, the man to whom he alluded would, in his drunken attitude, and in command of this organized ruffianism, have shed the blood of the people. Contrast the suppression of the Ennis meeting last Sunday with the action of the authorities at Mitchelstown—contrast the action of the English gentleman and soldier, Colonel Turner, with the action of the friends of the Irish landlords, the Irish Sub-Inspector, and the 244 Resident Magistrate. He attributed to the peaceful result of the Ennis meeting the fact that there were two English gentlemen present, one in command of Her Majesty's forces, and the other on the side of the people. When the Government left the maintenance of peace and order in the hands of drunken Inspectors and prejudiced Resident Magistrates they created all these difficulties and troubles which surrounded and which would eventually overthrow them. He had said before that his constituents were concerned in this matter. They were the men of magnificent Tipperary, who struck a blow yesterday for the liberties of the people. He was not the first to use the expression "magnificent Tipperary." That expression was first used, by an English General who once contended in a famous field in India, when two regiments of Tipperary men marched through 30,000 Sepoys, and saved his honour and the character of the English Army. He was proud of the conduct of his constituents. They struck a blow for the right of public meeting and the Constitutional liberties of the people, and he called upon the people of England to defend them in their brave action. He knew he should not be disappointed in relying on the English people. He had been up and down this country lately, and he did not misjudge the spirit of the people when he said they were jealous of their Constitution and. of the privileges that were being frittered away by the Government now in Office. He appealed to the people of England to stand by the men who wore assaulted yesterday, and to show their self-sacrifice and friendship in defending the liberties of British citizenship.
§ MAJOR BANES (West Ham, S.)said, that it was unworthy of the House, which prided itself upon being a deliberative Assembly, to continue this discussion, for it must be admitted that at present the House had not sufficient information as to the facts to pass judgment on what had occurred. Hon. Members opposite might take a certain view of the matter, but they all knew the excitability of their nature. Objection had been taken to the Chief Secretary's statement; but the right hon. Gentleman had been forced to make a statement, and had given the House the best he could. He had admitted that the 245 statement was not as full as he could wish, and they must wait, as sensible men should wait, for further information. The Members on the Ministerial side of the House deplored this lamentable affair; but they must pause before they passed a decisive judgment upon it. It was said by hon. Members opposite that no fault could be found with the meeting, that it was quiet and peaceable, and that the odium of the disturbance rested on a small body of police- To any common sense man that did not seem convincing, especially as these so-called peaceable men came to the meeting armed with blackthorns, and carried with them missiles and weapons. The country would judge—[Home Rule cheers]—as it would judge of the attitude of hon. Members opposite that day. [Ministerial cheers and interruption.] He could well understand the hon. Members opposite did not want the true facts of the case to be known. [Renewed interruption.] Hold hard. He begged pardon of hon. Members; but he contended that the people of Great Britain would not form their judgment entirely on the allegations of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At the present moment, however, the House had not sufficient information to profitably discuss the matter. The English constituencies were sympathetic in this matter; but before they gave their decision they would insist on hearing both sides of the question.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)remarked that hon. Members behind him had had far more experience of public meetings than the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite—he did not even know his name.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. CONYBEAREI will withdraw that remark.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order ! I did not ask the hon. Member to withdraw anything; I only ask him to be courteous to other Members of the House.
§ MR. CONYBEARE, resuming, said, they had so far the facts before them that they had reports in every newspaper in the country, which were much more impartial than the statement which the Chief Secretary had been able to lay before the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary had appealed to the English and Scotch people for support. That appeal would be answered.
246 The people of this country and of Scotland would not stand by and see their Irish fellow subjects dragooned, shot down, and massacred, as they were yesterday. This was not an illegal meeting. He would not admit that a Proclamation could make a meeting illegal, but there was not even a Proclamation. There was no reading of the Riot Act. It was nonsense to ask them to believe that there was any question of self-defence when the police fired. How could the police have fired only in self-defence when all the evidence proved they went into their barracks and fired from the top stories? The magistrate it appeared was enjoying himself in an hotel, instead of taking command and doing the duty for which he was paid. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to believe that all the independent accounts of the newspapers from one and to the other were inaccurate, and that the official reports furnished to him by persons incriminated were the only true versions of the case. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), it appeared, was speaking when 30 policemen made their way through and attacked the people with their batons. Was there, he asked, any danger of such things as this last summer? No; because of the peaceful policy which was organized by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. He supposed the Government would shield the offenders in this case in the same way that they had already declined to prosecute a policeman for murder. The newspaper accounts affirmed that the police produced commotion by using their batons upon horses, and that statement was not denied. No answer was given to the question why the Riot Act was not read before the police fired. It was no justification of violence to say that Members of the House had described police reporters as "spies." The responsibility for this affair rested upon the Government, who had disturbed the comparative peace of Ireland, and on Lord Salisbury, who had described the Irish people as "Hottentots." The people of this country would not allow the Government to continue this course of tyranny and. massacre by the Bashi-Bazouks of the Constabulary. The Government were living in a fools' paradise, and they had better wake up out of it. The people of this country would not stand by and see 247 he right of public meeting put down in Ireland. He challenged any Ministerial Member to address a public meeting of his constituents—not a packed meeting—and to justify the conduct of the police and of the Government in this matter. Let any hon. Member opposite address a mass meeting, say in the streets of Bradford, and he would soon find what would be the effect of the discontinuance of the right of public meeting. He warned the Government that unless they took steps at once to keep in order their Bashi-Bazouks in Ireland it would be worse for them.
§ MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)felt it his duty to enter his solemn protest against the speeches from the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for West Ham (Major Banes) asked them as a deliberative Assembly to keep their judgment in suspense; but how could they do that in the teeth of the impassioned statement which was made by the Chief Secretary? It was full of bitter feeling towards hon. Members below the Gangway, heaping upon them contumely and contempt and holding them up to all Europe as being guilty in this matter because they came to this House to vindicate the first right of their constituents. It would not be right for Members of the Opposition to abstain from protesting against the way in which the Chief Magistrate for Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman might be called, spoke and acted with regard to the administration of the law in the country whose interests were committed to his hands. The right hon. Gentleman had absolved the police for breaking into the crowd in the first instance with the reporter. What right had the police to break into the crowd? He had charged the hon. Member who called out "Close up against the police," as being guilty of the whole transaction by making that statement at the very beginning; but had not any man in such a situation the right to turn round upon his supporters and the public and say, "Close up?" He maintained that it was an abuse of the law of this country to break in upon a peaceable assembly, and then to charge upon the man who, addressing the assembly, called out "Close up," the responsibility of this dire transaction. Worst of all was the Chief Secretary's attempt to 248 justify the action of the police in shooting from their barracks. Had it come to this, that no abuse could be resisted in any assembly while the Government vindicated the conduct of policemen in their barracks, unattacked, firing upon the mob?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no objection to hon. Members giving their own version of what occurred; but if the hon. Member is representing my speech, I give his representation of it a most emphatic contradiction. I said the police fired from the barracks in self-defence.
§ MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that there was any crowd there, and if there was not, what need was there to fire in self-defence? He could not conceive, if the tenfold statements which had come to this City were correct, that there was anything to warrant the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He implored the independent supporters of the Government not to sanction these transactions. Depend upon it, we were beginning a career which would mark a serious epoch in our national history. If these things could be done when this House was sitting, what would be done when Members were dispersed? In vindication of the right of public meeting a higher tribunal would be appealed to, and he would say to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, in the name of hundreds of absent Members and of millions of their fellow countrymen, that there would not be wanting men to stand by their side in this great trial, and though English and Scotch Members would know that they were supporting their own right of public meeting in their own country, it would not be from any selfish motive alone that they would champion the Irish cause; but in that spirit of brotherhood and love of justice which prompted them on that and all such occasions to fly to the help of the weak and the oppressed.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)I desire to say but few words at the close of this debate in respect to some of the arguments which have fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because, as everyone knows, the whole of this important matter will be discussed very fully on Monday next. With the materials before us we cannot discuss the ques- 249 tion now with the fulness with which we shall be able to discuss it on Monday. One of the first considerations I have to invite the attention of the House to has been lost sight of by most hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, and that is, what were the circumstances under which this meeting was held? Yesterday, an hon. Member of this House (Mr. W. O'Brien) was summoned to stand his trial at Mitchels-town with a person of the name of Mandeville. The Resident Magistrates were in attendance there to try him and dispose of the case, and that was the day and that was the place which was selected for a demonstration composed of men coming in from all the adjoining counties, amounting altogether to between 3,000 and 4,000 men, with bands and banners, and accompanied by every circumstance calculated to influence and affect the judgment of the judicial tribunal and the witnesses to be examined. What would have been the effect of that demonstration within the hearing of the Court House if the trial had been one by jury? [Cries of "Question !"] This demonstration was composed not only of foot men who were armed with blackthorns, but of what had been most correctly described as peasant cavalry. Under the circumstances there was a considerable force of police in Mitchels-town to preserve order and to see that no violation of the law took place. Having regard to the circumstances under which the meeting was held, it was the duty of the Government to see that a note was taken of the speeches which were to be delivered. Now, beyond doubt, it is the law of the land—and I say so in order to correct what appears to be a misapprehension on the part of some speakers—that if there is a meeting held which the Government believe is likely to be attended with circumstances of illegality, and that speeches will be made which would incite to violation of the law, it is the duty of the Government to see that the speeches are reported, and anyone resisting the official Government reporter in the attempt to take a note is engaged in the resistance of the law. Is it to be said, for one moment, that if a seditious or illegal meeting is to be held, it is entirely at the discretion of the parties holding the meeting whether they will allow a report to be taken or not?
250 [Cries of "No!"] According to hon. Gentlemen opposite the police can be resisted if they attempt to force their way into the meeting. [An hon. MEMBER: Not at all.] The police on this occasion did, in the exercise of their duty, attempt to make their way to the waggonette from which the speeches were to be made. They were resisted. The peasant cavalry, by the motion of their horses, disordered the discipline of the police. [Cries of "No, no!"] The police were attacked, and I am surprised hon. Members who have referred to the reports in the London newspapers this morning have forgotten to mention that in some of the papers it is said that the police wore mercilessly assailed, kicked, beaten, and stoned. In one paper I have seen it said they flew for their lives. They were a small force of 50 or 60 men, and were confronted by 3,000 or 4,000 people. The made their way to their barracks, chased and stoned. It is reported as an amusing incident that one policeman's helmet was kicked up and down like a football. The police made their way to the barracks disordered and routed, and when they arrived there they had to turn round and fire upon the people in self-defence. I think it will be found, when the full reports come in, that some of the police were actually struggling behind, and that it was necessary for the actual protection of the force that this course should be taken. One hon. Member has stated to-night that it was an unfortanate circumstance that an old man and a young man should have lost their lives. Yes; it is a very sad thing in these outbursts of violence that innocent persons are sometimes the sufferers, but it is not unlikely, as hon. Gentlemen who have studied the history of Belfast riots know, that when the police are defending themselves shots may sometimes reach those who are really innocent. At Belfast innocent men, and even women, were shot, but I do not think any allegation was made that these persons lost their lives owing to misconduct on the part of the police. The police defended themselves, and the unfortunate persons who lost their lives may not have been the most guilty. I think that hon. Members will see that many of the observations which have been made to-night are most unjust. Last night Questions were addressed to the Government as to 251 what was the official information that we had received from Mitchelstown, and it was stated that we had not got the official report of the circumstances, but that the moment we received it we would submit it to the House; and now we are told that the necessarily imperfect telegraphic summary which was read by the Chief Secretary to the House was not worth hearing, because it comes from a tainted source. Why did they ask us to get official information at all? May I ask why it should come from a tainted source? Why are we told it comes from an incriminated quarter? Are the police any more on their trial in this matter than anybody else? [Interruption from a Home Rule Member.s] The conduct of the police in this case—[Renewed Interruption—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I must ask the hen. Gentleman not to interrupt so constantly, or else I shall have to take further notice of his conduct.
§ MR. GIBSONThe conduct of the police has been denounced without their having an opportunity of being heard. The only statements which the House has heard against them were statements which have been made by hon. Members. The Government, however, rely, and I think they are entitled to rely, and that the facts will show they are entitled to rely, on the statement communicated by my right hon. Friend, which appears to be marked with the stamp of truth. Why is it hon. Members on the reports of newspapers denounce the police as Bashi-Bazouks and as being unworthy of the name of Christian men at all? The statements in this morning's newspapers, when they come to be examined carefully, will be found not very different from the statement made by my right hon. Friend. They show that there was a severe and prolonged attack by a very superior and apparently organized force upon a comparatively insignificant body of police. What were the forces brought upon that field? On the one side were 3,000 men, a great number of them armed with blackthorns, and a peasant cavalry who proceeded to break up the order of the police. On the other side were about 50 policemen to whom, in the discharge of their boundon duty, in a few moments resistance was offered. You find them flying for their lives, their helmets 252 knocked off, the men kicked, stoned, and beaten with the sticks which were in the possession of the crowd. All the facts of the case will be necessarily more fully in our possession on Monday than at present, and I have no doubt that all the circumstances will be very fully discussed, and on the Motion which we are told will be made by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) a very considerable debate will take place. I will, therefore, suggest that this discussion, which has now gone on for a considerable time, may now with advantage be allowed to close. No doubt many hon. Gentlemen would like to be heard on the question, because they feel a great interest in the matter, and may think they will not have another opportunity of speaking. What good will be obtained by discussing the question on imperfect information? The arguments have been well placed on the one side by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and the police have been adequately denounced. On the other side of the House we have stated our views as clearly and simply as we could without exaggerating the facts on the material we have received. Our information is from the County Inspector on the spot. There is no doubt that when the discussion takes place all hon. Members will have a very full opportunity of going through the circumstances of this occurrence, which has resulted in a loss of life, which every one, no matter in what part of the House he sits, must most sincerely deplore.
§ MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)said, he was sorry to have hoard from the Treasury Benches a few moments ago so romantic a defence of what he considered to be a very illegal act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had given them a, very coloured and picturesque account of how these occurrences took place in Mitcholstown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rested his justification of the action of the police on the necessity of getting a report of the speeches, but he had not explained to them why it was necessary to take this report in any particular part of the crowd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed entirely to understand that this police reporter could have taken his report just as well on the edge of this crowd as he could 253 in the middle of it—in fact he could have taken it a great deal better on the edge than in the middle Therefore there was in the first place no absolute necessity for the police forcing their way into the crowd. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveniently mixed up the events of the day. So far as their information went, and the information they were now relying on was the independent information which appeard in the Press generally, there were three stages in these proceedings in Mitchelstown. There was first the advance of 20 police with the police reporter. Now, anyone who was in the habit of attending meetings in Ireland knew it was utterly unnecessary to send 20 policemen with the Government reporter. He had never seen 20, but he had often seen three or four who were sent to protect the reporter from being pushed whilst he was in the middle of the crowd. There was no necessity for sending these 20 policemen, but that was only the initial stage of the proceedings. When these men came into the crowd they forced their way in and there was no riot. But these 20 policemen retired from the field and came back reinforced, and that was the time this fighting arose which so shocked the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They had undoubted testimony that this fighting began with the action of the reinforced body of police attacking the people, and that was the essential point of the whole case. These men made no peaceful effort to report the meeting. They did not pretend they could not have reported it without this appeal to violence, which resulted in the collision between the crowd and police. The police then retired to the barracks. They had the further effort on the part of the Ministry to create the impression that the people who formed the mass of the meeting pursued the police and attacked them in the barracks. All the information which the Irish Members had received contradicted that statement. There was no such movement of the people on the barracks. The police were allowed to retire into the barracks, and the fact that a few policemen retiring before such a mob were all of them able to get back into the barracks was a proof that they was not pursued by the mob. Therefore they had come to this position—that when the firing began from the 254 police barracks the mass of the people were listening to the speeches at some distance from the police barracks. There was no collection of men of such force or of such importance near the barracks as could by any possibility have placed the lives or even the persons of the policemen in danger. They could not have been in the slightest danger from the attacks of the few persons who might have advanced to the barracks. Therefore there was no legal justification in the action of the police. But all the Gentlemen who had spoken from the Ministerial Bench had also skimmed over another most important point, and that was that from the beginning to the end of these proceedings they missed the presence of any commanding officer whatever. What were these magistrates for? Who were in command of these armed policemen? If these men were left to run loose among the people and use their deadly arms without control they ceased to be soldiers and police, and became brigands. He said the action of these men was rather the action of brigands than the action of peace officers in defence of order. The fact that some of the police were injured had nothing to do with the question at issue. The question at issue was how this trouble arose. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said when the people attacked the police the police defended themselves. If men went into a fight they must expect to be hurt; but the fact that they had escaped without serious injury was a contradiction of the highly-coloured statements of both the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, because if the crowd had been of the nature which it was represented—if there had been any organized attempt or intention to hurt or injure the police—it would be impossible for those men to have got off as they had got off. But the point after all, and the essential point, upon which this discussion turned, was what right had these men to attack the meeting in the beginning? That was the point to which the Government had to address themselves to justify their conduct in Ireland. He warned the Government that if the spirit which was displayed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland spread among the subordinate officials, in Ire- 255 land, they would find, and properly find, that they would not be allowed to commit these outrages with impunity.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, he did not rise to prolong the debate, but to ask a question upon a point which had been left ambiguous by the Attorney General for Ireland. He wished to ask him whether he contended that a police reporter had any right of interference at a meeting different from that of a reporter of a newspaper; and whether, if that were so, the right depended upon Statute or upon Common Law?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that he did not know whether he was quite in Order in answering the question, or whether the hon. and learned Member was in Order in asking it; but his view of the law was that if the Government had reason to believe that the meeting was a meeting which would be attended with disorder and breach of the peace or illegality, they were bound, if they thought that speeches were to be made at that meeting which might require the notice of the law, to have a reporter present, and that that reporter was entitled to be admitted, and persons who resisted the reporter were guilty of a violation of the law. He would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the fact that this meeting was held in the public streets of a town.
§ MR. HUNTERWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any authority for that opinion?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to speak twice.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)said, he had once had the curiosity to read a very celebrated pamphlet called Killing no Murder. It was written, he understood, by a celebrated man, Oliver Cromwell, the Protector of Great Britain. It appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted the argument of that pamphlet in his defence of law in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that at the meeting there was great difficulty in getting the police reporter through the crowd, and that it was in consequence of the opposition offered by the people that the police batoned the people, and that it was by these circumstances that the lamentable occurrences were brought 256 about. The speakers always, or nearly always, spoke from waggonettes. He had again and again listened at meetings, and if he had the necessary stenographic power he could certainly from the bottom of the street have easily reported speeches. He mentioned this to show that there was no necessity for the note-takers to push up through the crowd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a great number of people there. Well, if there was a great number of people there, they would be incensed by the shorthand reporter pushing into the centre of the crowd. But was it the object that the meeting should pass off peacefully? Distinctly not, because they heard that the first commencement of the attack was in consequence of the police batoning horses. They knew perfectly well that if they batoned horses they would sway in one way or the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said they upset the order and ranks of the police. The people probably tried to prevent the horses going on one side, and thus upset the ranks of the police on the other. That was the more natural outcome of the circumstances, and the police should have borne it with good temper. But it did not appear to be the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated three times that the people were armed with blackthorns in profusion; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that in Ireland the commonest thing in the world was to go about with a blackthorn. He (Dr. Tanner) came down to the House every afternoon with a blackthorn, although he did not consider that he went about armed with a blackthorn. It was one of the commonest sticks for walking purposes in those districts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have known that those peasant cavalry, as he called them, came from the counties of Limerick and Tipperary. Why should they not travel such a long distance by horses when they had them? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning was that they came there to attack the armed forces of the Crown, but he (Dr. Tanner) said that was not the case. He should like to know whether in this instance the police note-taker had applied for admission to the waggonette? He had attended numerous meetings, and where such application was made it had always been acceded to. The action 257 of the police in firing on the people from the upstairs windows was, in the first place, unnecessary; and, secondly, disorderly. They had such proceedings backed up by responsible Ministers in the House. They knew that the outcome of such speeches as had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland when such laws existed in Ireland as at present was sure to be violence. After the meeting at Ennis the people of Ireland had been taunted with cowardice by the newspapers of this country. Now the hounds of the law had been sated with bloodshed, and let the huntsman cheer them on in their bloody course.
§ MR. NOLAN (Louth, N.)said, he desired to read an extract from the accounts of the proceedings which appeared in one of the London papers of that morning, which would remind the House of the real facts of the case after the garbled account that had come from the Treasury Bench.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "garbled."
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman charged the Chief Secretary for Ireland with supplying garbled accounts to this House, and I must ask him to withdraw the word "garbled."
§ MR. SPEAKERthe expression could have no meaning if the hon. Gentleman did not apply it to any Member of the House.
§ MR. NOLANsaid, he might not have made himself understood. What he intended to convey was that accounts supplied by officials to the Government were garbled. The account which he wished to read stated that the people who assembled in the square were perfectly peaceable and orderly until the police attacked them wantonly and cruelly with their batons, and that had the police not interfered no disorder whatever would have occurred. This account, short as it was, would appeal eloquently to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and would convey what he was convinced would turn out to be a truthful account of what occurred. That was written by the hon. 258 Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner). It was of the utmost importance that statements communicated to this House should be correct and impartial. The language of the Chief Secretary that afternoon would be an incitement to the police, who read their newspapers every day, and who were greatly influenced by the tone of their masters. When, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian's policy was before Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle was Chief Secretary, the attitude of the police towards the people and the leaders of the people became exceedingly mild. The worst enemy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland could not wish to take a word away from, or to add to, his speech. He, however, regretted to find that none of those who had spoken from the Government Benches had expressed any regret at the circumstances that had occurred. There was one thing which ought to go home to the minds of the British people, and make them more keenly sensible of the terrible nature of this deplorable event, and that was that one of the unfortunate men who were killed was not a rioter, but was discharged home from the British Army after, perhaps, serving Her Majesty in various parts of the world, and on his return to Ireland he was shot down by the very men who were paid by the taxpayers of this country for the protection of life and property.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 25: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 476.)
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.