§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)Sir, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the attack on the people of Ennis on Sunday last by the Police and Military; and the conduct of Colonel Turner and other officers in charge, together with the policy of the Irish Executive, as evinced by these and other proceedings in directing the Police and Military to assault persons taking part in alleged illegal meetings, instead of proceeding against such alleged offenders according to law.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he did not think the Motion would come within the Rule as to a definite matter of urgent public importance unless the hon. Member struck out the reference to "other proceedings."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would assent to the words referred to being omitted.
§ The words "other proceedings" struck out.
§ The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
§ MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
§ MR. PARNELLSir, I regret very much to have to intervene for a short time between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) and the very important and interesting subject which he is to introduce to the notice of the House to-night. But it is one of the misfortunes of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is carrying out his functions, that we are compelled to notice often and frequently his arbitrary proceedings; and although I have always endeavoured that debates on this Irish Question and the action of the Executive should take place at times of as little inconvenience as possible to the Government, and to the House generally, yet we are undoubtedly driven, in view of these occurrences in Ennis, upon the present occasion to take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the attention of the House. Sir, when I read on Monday last of what had happened at Ennis my blood boiled at the horrible result of the barbarity there perpetrated, and it was with difficulty I could restrain myself from taking immediate notice of the attacks on the people; but I abstained from doing so, because I saw it was the right of the Chief Secretary to have ample opportunity of giving any excuses he might have, of his getting the facts of the case together, and of presenting this horrible occurrence, if he could, in a somewhat different light than that in which it has been presented to the public by no less than three different newspaper correspondents. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has not thought proper to take advantage of the various opportunities given him to give a full and satisfactory explanation, I am bound to assume that the right hon. Gentleman has sought refuge almost in silence, because be has no explanation to give. These oc- 1070 currences are now familiar to the House and to the public; but I wish to say, in the first instance, in reference to the statement of the Chief Secretary made a little while ago, in reply to a Question, that proceedings were to be taken to-morrow against the persons charged with stone-throwing at Ennis, that in what I have to say I shall not say anything in reference to the persons charged with throwing stones, or who possibly may have thrown them, and I shall confine myself to the action of the police against these persons who were in the yard, and who could not consequently throw stones from the upper windows of the house, the very and only place about the premises from which it is alleged stones were thrown. Therefore, it will not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman, in any remarks he makes, to say that the matter is sub judice; because the question which is to be sub judice to-morrow is the question of the stone-throwing, according to the right hon. Gentleman; and I have no remark to make, no criticism to make, against the action of the police in reference to persons who threw stones. If the people throw stones, the police or the military are entitled to grapple with and arrest them; but the question is quite different with regard to persons charged with a breach of the law and nothing else, such as taking part in an alleged illegal meeting, where the question of the illegality of the meeting has still to be decided, as well as the question as to whether the meeting was legal at all. Independently of any such investigation the police and military have taken the action of which I complain against those alleged offenders, and it is because of that action I complain, and not of the action of the police against the alleged stone-throwers, that I bring this Motion for the adjournment of the House. It may be said that if any person is aggrieved by the action of the police in Ireland, he has the same remedy as in England—he may take out a summons against the policeman who assaulted him, and that summons would be investigated in a Court in the ordinary manner. But one of the crying injustices in reference to the control of the police in Ireland is that there is no possible way of identifying a police constable who exceeds his duty. The police in Ireland do not, like the English police, wear numbers—they are a 1071 military force, as we well know, and they do not partake of any of those elements of a civil force which belong to the Metropolitan Police. Consequently, persons assaulted by policemen in Ireland have no remedy. In all probability these policemen had been brought from a district 100 miles away into the town for that day, and returned the same night to the place where they came from, and, therefore, there is no chance of injured persons identifying their assailants. So it happens that police brought into contact with people in Ireland have, practically speaking, full immunity against identification if they exceed their duties. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there was stone-throwing—I think he said showers of stones. He said to-day some stones were thrown from the building, in question before the attack was made by the police on the people—before the baton charge was ordered to be made upon the people by the police. He also stated that to the best of his information he does not believe stones were thrown from the yard in question; and, therefore, in what I have to say, I will confine myself to the incidents that took place in the yard—to what was done by the people in the yard and what was done to the people in the yard by the police and soldiers. I shall ask the House to agree with me that because stones were thrown at the police from the top storey of the building was no reason why the people who were in the yard should be attacked and assaulted in the way they were. Even the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, short as it is, that some stones were thrown from the building is not corroborated by any independent account, or by the statements of the three newspaper correspondents who were present from The London Times, The Freeman's Journal, and The Irish Times—a Conservative organ in Dublin—all of whom assert that there was no stone-throwing, that there was no riot or assault committed by the people at all until after the arrests had been made and the building had been cleared, and then the correspondent of The Times admits that one or two stones were thrown. Let us take the description of the occurrence given by the correspondent of The Irish Times first of all. He says, after describing how the meeting had been held— 1072
As the people were going out through the gateway leading from the yard into the lane they found the gateway flung in and policemen taking the names of those who left. One or two reporters declined to give their own names, but gave those of their newspapers. I endeavoured to make my way to Colonel Turner, who was apparently in charge of the mounted soldiers. The 3rd Hussars were drawn up in front of the gateway. I was then close enough to speak to Colonel Turner. There was no hooting or cheering, no missile thrown, and the men were leaving quietly and giving their names to the police, when at the very moment I was about to escape from the gateway Colonel Turner turned in his saddle, and, addressing the officer in charge of the dragoons, said—'Draw your swords and clear them out of that.' Then the police, and afterwards the hussars, charged the people in the archway. The baton charge of the police swept over me, and then I was ridden at by a mounted soldier. I was the only person there wearing a silk hat. With his sword he pierced my hat and just missed my scalp. Wheeling his horse he rode again at me, and, raising my right hand to save myself from the blow, he cleaved one of my fingers to the bone, and striking a back-handed blow disabled my other arm. My brother journalist from Dublin had already gone under the baton charge. The people made no resistance, and four arrests were made.The Freeman's Journal correspondent, Mr. Murray, says—The gate was opened and the police entered the narrow archway, which was the outlet from a rectangular shaped yard in front of the stores, the roadway boundary being on the other side of them. In the roadway was drawn up a troop of the 3rd Hussars, and about 50 men of the Derbyshire Regiment, with a large number of police. Colonel Turner was about three yards from the entrance, and he directed the police to take the names of the people who had been at the meeting. Some of the policemen were engaged doing this, when Colonel Turner ordered the police to draw their batons. The order was executed with savage alacrity, and the police rushed in among the people. I was standing along with some representatives of the Press at the gate, as already stated, within a few feet of Colonel Turner, who was in a state bordering on frenzy, his eyes protruding, and apparently quite beside himself with agitation. The policeman who was in front rushed at me, and dealt me a staggering blow of his baton on the top of my head, which made me reel backwards, the blood flowing profusely down my face. The people were beaten in the most wanton and unmerciful manner, a portion of the police running amuck among the meeting right and left with ferocious savagery. However, not content with this, Colonel Turner ordered the hussars to charge the people, and they instantly made their way into the small yard, with drawn sabres, cutting at the people. Mr. John G. Hill, the representative of The Irish Times, was slashed at by a hussar, who passed his sword through Mr. Hill's hat. He then slashed downwards at him. Mr. Hill raised his hand to shield his face, and received a very severe wound. The soldier took another 1073 try, and succeeded this time in maiming Mr. Hill's other hand. The police continued to strike the people, pursuing them into corners and lofts where they had made their way. In one of the lofts the people barricaded the entrance in order to protect themselves, and the infantry were ordered to dislodge them. While the people were making their way out, nearly everyone bearing traces of wounds, District Inspector Hill called out,—'Well done, boys! Is the fun all over?'Well, Sir, I now come to the report of The London Times' correspondent, Mr. Reeves, who was there also, and in his report wired over, which appeared on Monday, he says—When the people had descended into the yard for the purpose of leaving, a number of constables barred their exit. Considerable confusion was the result of this step, and the noise in the yard reaching the ears of the police and constabulary now massing outside the gate in the lane, Colonel Turner ordered the yard to be cleared by constables carrying staves. The order was executed. The police who had forced the gateway, plied their staves indiscriminately, and sent the people inside running up to the lofts for shelter from their batons. To make matters worse, some of the cavalry rode into the yard, and wounded two Press men, one of whom (Mr Hill,) a reporter to The Irish Times, had the hat cut off his head by a sabre stroke, and the small finger of one of his hands almost severed by a second blow from the trooper. Another man had his skull laid bare by a policeman's baton. The people inside the yard retook possession of the upper rooms in the store, and here, after a scene of imminent danger and great excitement, about 75 persons were subsequently arrested, and the store was cleared……A stone was flung at one of the hussars on patrol duty.Then, according to the London correspondent of The Times, corroborated by the other correspondents on the spot, the showers of stones mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman dwindled down to the fact that one stone was flung at the police when the whole thing was over; and I submit, Sir, that entirely independent of the proceedings against the stone-throwers, we ought to get some explanation from the Government regarding the attack by the police and military on a small enclosed yard of people, who, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, had done nothing at all, had committed no offence except that of taking part in an alleged illegal meeting, who were doing what the police asked them to do—quietly giving their names, making no resistance whatever, and inflicting on these persons, for an alleged offence before its investigation by a proper tribunal, additional 1074 punishment in the shape of serious injuries and nearly loss of life. Under the Coercion Act of last Session, the Executive took powers to inflict hard labour as a consequence of sentences by tribunals on persons who took part in illegal meetings; but if you had the desire to get the right to massacre or maim the people who took part in such meetings, you should have taken such power under your Act. The Act of last year did not give you the power to use the forces of the Crown in killing and maiming innocent people, and the House should be careful to see that the Irish Executive does not exceed its powers as it did on the occasion to which I am referring. We have the very vague statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that some stones were thrown from the top of this store. We have it advanced as the only excuse and defence for the attack by the police. I, however, submit it is not an excuse for the attack by the police. It is not an excuse for the action of the police against many different persons in entirely different places. It is not an excuse for permitting Colonel Turner to order the constables to rush pell melt into the yard—into an enclosed yard—and to baton unfortunate people indiscriminately who are doing nothing. It is not an excuse for Colonel Turner to order the hussars with drawn sabres into this enclosed yard, to slash right and left; and it was no excuse for ordering the foot soldiers into the yard with fixed bayonets, when the people were quiet and using no force. I submit that, from your own point of view, Colonel Turner not only exceeded his duty, but behaved with almost incredible barbarity. This gentleman, I believe, is the same gentleman who during the Viceroyalty of Lord Aberdeen was a great Home Ruler. He has soon turned round, and is now equally great on the other side, and I can only suppose he thinks it necessary to purge himself from the taint of Home Rule by actions such as these. I cannot account in any other way for his conduct. It may be said that, being in charge of such a large force, he lost his head on the occasion; but he should not have repeated his conduct so frequently in the direction of which I complain. He might have been excused perhaps from ordering the police in—although it was an intemperate and rash act—to baton 1075 people, but, following that, to order the hussars in with their horses and sabres, and further, to order in the infantry soldiers with their bayonets fixed on their rifles, were most reprehensible acts. In view of the spirit which has been exhibited by a section of the military in Ireland, it is exceedingly dangerous to be employing them in such a manner—to send them indiscriminately among the people, especially into buildings where they cannot possibly be under the control of their officers, and it might have led to considerable loss of life at this meeting. The soldiers are armed men—young, lusty men who are trained to bloodshed and war, and they are not in the position of the Irish constables—they do not understand the feelings of the people—and it is exceedingly dangerous to allow these armed soldiers to get away from the control of their officers and into unarmed crowds. If you persist in this course, all I say is, that the responsibility upon the heads of the Irish Executive and upon the head of the Chief Secretary will be a very great one if there should be loss of life. By all means, put your Coercion Act in force as you have got it. You have seen that imprisonment has no terror for the Irish people. But that is no reason why you should invent new punishments—these infamous attacks and assaults by armed forces of the Crown—this punishment of men by having their lives set upon by soldiers, and having their hats transfixed by the sabres of dragoons. If the right hon. Gentleman wants these powers, let him ask Parliament for them; but, until he has got them, I submit that he is not entitled to use them. If he wishes to proclaim martial law, let him do so, and then the people would know what they have to expect. But let him not take the matter into his own hands; let him not use such officials as Colonel Turner to inflict on large bodies of men additional punishment to those the law provides. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has raised in the course of his speech two different points, which he 1076 intermixed in a way which renders it rather difficult to deal with them. I will, however, take them separately, as I shall thus be able to deal with them more easily. The first point relates to the handling of the police and troops by Colonel Turner on the ocasion of the storming of this warehouse, when unfortunately the reporter of The Irish Times was injured. His larger point was whether the meeting was illegal, and whether, even if illegal, the action of the Executive was justifiable. The hon. Member said that whether the meeting was legal or illegal, the Government ought not to have interfered with it. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] Does the hon. Gentleman deny that he raised the point as to the legality of those meetings?
§ MR. PARNELLI did not raise the question of the legality of the meeting.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI certainly understood the hon. Member to raise the question clearly, but I will take the questions in their order. I entirely differ from the hon. Gentleman with regard to the facts of Sunday's occurrences at Ennis. The hon. Gentleman has relied on the reports of two or three reporters present on the occasion, but the reporters were in the yard and could not possibly be eye-witnesses of what was proceeding outside—namely, the stone-throwing from the upper windows of the building. He has tried to distinguish between the crowd in the yard and those who were not in the yard, but you cannot make that distinction. They formed one body of men collected together for the same illegal purpose. Those in the yard, it is true, were not engaged in stone-throwing, but they were legally, morally, and actually part of the same crowd engaged in the same work. What occurred? Colonel Turner came to this building with his forces. According to the report in The Freeman's Journal a meeting had been held and a resolution had been already passed which of itself constituted the meeting illegal. As soon as Colonel Turner appeared before this building, where this unquestionably illegal meeting took place, stones were hurled at him from the upper windows. Colonel Turner then ordered—as he was bound to do under the circumstances—an assault to be made on the building. The police and military entered the building, and 1077 took into custody a certain number of persons, and these will be prosecuted in the ordinary course to-morrow.
§ MR. PARNELLWould the right hon. Gentleman read the extract from Colonel Turner's report which bears upon this matter of the stone-throwing?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have not the text of the report by me, but in any case I do not think it would be a proper course for me to read any part of the report to the House, as I might then, not unnaturally, be asked to lay the whole of it upon the Table, and this I could not do, as it is a confidential document. Stones were undoubtedly thrown, and a stone struck Colonel Turner's horse and his orderly. As illustrating the views and intentions of the persons engaged in this illegal meeting in this building, I may mention that stones piled up were found in the upper story prepared for a siege. They were not all exhausted in the process of stoning the police. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman express his righteous indignation at the practice of stone-throwing. Colonel Turner would have been failing in his duty if he had not taken immediate and effective steps to put an end to such an outrageous violation of the law. The hon. Member has laid down the theory that public meetings ought never to be stopped, but that, if they are illegal, subsequent prosecutions should be resorted to against those who were present. But that has never been the theory of any Government. It is a course which might occasionally be pursued, but it could not be followed universally, nor is it expedient, for, in many cases, the evils which it is sought to prevent would be past remedy, and the mischief would have been done. This meeting at Ennis was one of a number of illegal meetings which were organized to take place last Sunday, and which necessitated the accumulation of a considerable force in that part of the country. These forces were obliged to disperse by violence illegal assemblies in more than one part of Clare. When we remember what slight injuries were inflicted we must feel convinced that the police and military acted with judgment and control. It is absolutely impossible to have baton charges and so forth, which are necessary to disperse an assembly, without some 1078 injury being inflicted on some members of the crowd. I regret that such injuries are necessary, but I congratulate myself, and I think the House ought to congratulate itself, that, on the whole, these meetings were dispersed in Clare and Kerry with so few injuries and so little suffering caused. In so far as there was suffering, the responsibility rests upon those agitators who, in deliberate defiance of what they knew to be the law, asked their countrymen to engage in illegal transactions.
§ SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)I am not unaccustomed to questions of this kind being raised with regard to occurrences in Ireland, and when I was Chief Secretary I know it was my habit to watch very carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) who raised the question, and to distinguish in that speech between the facts which he stated and which he said required explanation and any political principles which he laid down and with which the Government might differ. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has taken exactly the opposite course. If I may say so with respect, I do not think you, Sir, would have been justified in allowing the adjournment of the House to be moved if all that we were to have was a general peroration about law and order such as we have heard just now; but it was well worth while to have the adjournment of the House moved in order to have two or three specific points of extreme importance placed before the House and answered with greater precision than the right bon. Gentleman could indulge in within the limits of an answer to a Question. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment of the House relied not upon private information, but upon the statements of the reporters of three very leading papers of different politics, and he stated there was a crowd of people in the court-yard of a house whose names were being taken down by the police when they were charged by the police with batons, and that afterwards the hussars were let loose upon them. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is that heavy stones were thrown from the upper windows of the house into the street. That might possibly afford a satisfactory explanation for a 1079 chief magistrate who had lost his head, and who in a great hurry ordered the police to go into the yard in hostile array and clear the yard, and then ascend the stairs. But what explanation was it for sending the Cavalry into the yard? If the police were being brutally assaulted in the yard, that might justify the bringing of the Cavalry into the yard, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not allege that the police were assaulted in the yard. He has absolutely given no explanation whatever for the Cavalry being sent among the people except that they wished to storm the upper stories. That is no explanation at all. It is, I think, a most serious thing to allow Cavalry loose upon a crowd. I am one of those who think that no force should be used except for the purpose to which it is adapted, and that troops should never be used with lethal and deadly weapons except those weapons are necessary. It is just possible that on certain occasions Cavalry may be advantageously used to back upon the people or press them in any desired direction, but on this occasion the Cavalry were told to draw their swords. [Mr. BALFOUR: No.] Well, then, they drew them without orders, for swords were undoubtedly drawn. I think the House has a right to ask for more specific information than has, so far, been given to it, and that, until such information is given, all general expressions about law and order, so far from increasing the respect of the Irish people for law and order and the confidence of England and Scotland that the law is being fairly and properly administered in Ireland, will only tend to diminish those two most wholesome feelings.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know whether I can at present supplement the information which I have given to the House. The right hon. Baronet seems to think that my speech consisted chiefly of peroration.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is not bound to confine himself strictly to facts and not to indulge in rhetoric?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is only entitled to speak by the indulgence of the House, and he will, no doubt, confine himself to the question 1080 on account of which that indulgence was given.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn the first place, I stated that there was stone-throwing of a serious kind, both before and after the assault on the building.
§ MR. PARNELLFrom the building?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes, from the building.
§ MR. PARNELLNot from the yard?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNot so far as I know. Colonel Turner on the occasion of the first stone-throwing ordered an assault upon the house; that the crowd in the house and in the yard was one crowd gathered for one purpose; and that the soldiers were not ordered to charge as the right hon. Gentleman appears to think. I believe it to be true that one or two soldiers, irritated by the stone-throwing, did use the flats of their swords till they were stopped by their officers. That is the sum of the information—very briefly—which has reached me and which I have at my command. It seems to me to be strictly specific and clear, and if there are any further facts to be elicited, they will be elicited at the trial in the Court to-morrow.
§ MR. W. O'BRIEN (Cork Co., N.E.)I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) upon the altered tone, and, I think, the somewhat lowered tone, of his boasts about his exploits in Ireland. I must do him the justice to say his speech appears to savour less of the jubilation of the banquet of last night than of the depression of the morning. He will find—the longer he lives the more he will learn—that the task of dragooning Ireland is not such a simple matter. The whole story of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, rests upon the authority of a story supplied to him by Colonel Turner—the same Colonel Turner who supplied him with the story that the National League in the South-West of Ireland was a thing of the past. I will come in a moment to the value of Colonel Turner's testimony, and to the value of the right hon. Gentleman's own testimony. But now, assuming for one moment even the truth of Colonel Turner's story, I ask any Englishman who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, is this attack upon unarmed people an affair Englishmen will be 1081 proud of? Is it an affair any Englishman with a spark of humanity can listen to without feeling most heartily ashamed of it? Colonel Turner, in his telegram to a Dublin paper—The Irish Times—describes this yard into which these soldiers and Infantry and Hussars and Constabulary charged as "a densely-packed yard." Sir, can anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said in his few perfunctory observations tonight—can anything weaken the force of that admission of Colonel Turner that this was a densely-packed yard, into which that mass of armed men charged with savage ferocity? What possible necessity has the right hon. Gentleman shown for the charge into this yard? What proof has he given of the necessity of it? Here were a lot of men cooped up in the yard as in a closed trap. They were as helpless as, practically speaking, a lot of pigeons in a trap. There was not a firearm among them; and the right hon. Gentleman has not pretended that there was the smallest possibility of their offering one moment's serious resistance to the immense armed forces under Colonel Turner outside the gate waiting for them. What did he want to charge them at all for? I want to know what was Colonel Turner and his force afraid of? Seventy-five men, we hear, submitted to be arrested without any resistance. The right hon. Gentleman has not dared to say one resisted; and if these men could be arrested after this savage violence, why could they not have been arrested as they were leaving the building and their names were being taken? The very same thing happened at Loughrea. We held a meeting of the representatives of all the suppressed branches in Galway. A large force of police was in attendance in the street outside. They did not dare force their way into the place. They took the names of everybody who attended the meeting as they came out, and they went away satisfied, and so did we. I want to know why was not the same thing done at Ennis? As to this story of Colonel Turner's, that these people in the building or in the yard pelted showers of stones at the police, it is absurd and incredible on the face of it. If the police had come up before the meeting was held, or if the police had endeavoured to prevent it, it would be 1082 easy to understand their being attacked; but if there is one thing on which every newspaper man is agreed—and the right hon. Gentleman has not endeavoured to dispute it—it is the concordance of the newspaper testimony on the point that this meeting was all over before any collision at all took place. The people were leaving quietly by one exit, the gate of the yard. They had accomplished their purpose. They had held their meeting without any interruption whatever; and the idea of these men deliberately challenging a collision with this enormous armed force drawn up outside the gate, hemmed in as they were in the yard, without weapons, without the slightest chance of defence or of escape, why Colonel Turner's story, I submit to this House, is an insult to common sense. It is the story of a man who is driven to the wall for an excuse, or a man who imagines when it is a question of attacking and maltreating a defenceless Irish crowd, he, like every Irish official, imagines that no excuse is too preposterous to go down with the men who are ruling Ireland. On the face of it, on the internal evidence, without referring for one moment to the evidence—the crushing evidence—of all independent witnesses, of Conservative journalists and others, I hold the story of this alleged attack by the people who had held their meeting, and whose only interest would be to get themselves out of this cul de sac, is a palpable invention and fabrication, and it is because he feels that, that the attempt is made to bolster up his case by the statement heard to-day, for the first time, of the showers of stones coming from the windows of this building.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have previously made a statement to that effect in answering Questions put a day or two ago.
§ MR. W. O'BRIENI was not present when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement in his answer, but I read it in The Times newspaper—and that is an authority which the right hon. Gentleman will not question—and according to my reading of that answer, his statement was that showers of stones came also from neighbouring houses, which is a totally different thing. Anybody who knows the place, knows his position of to-day is an impossible one, and that it would have been impossible 1083 for showers to come from the windows without the persons in the yard seeing and being cognizant of them. But is it for one moment to be held or tolerated that because stones are thrown from windows of neighbouring places that these cavalry men are to be at liberty to lay about with sabres and bayonets among a perfectly defenceless crowd, who, in the position they were in, in that archway, would have been downright lunatics to have provoked a collision? I hold that the right hon. Gentleman's position to-day is a thoroughly new one, and Colonel Turner knows perfectly well that it is quite indefensible. But I will even admit for a moment that there is some truth in the story that stones were thrown by persons from the windows; but I ask this House to ask themselves "Where are the killed and wounded?" The right hon. Gentleman states now that Colonel Turner's orderly and horse were struck by a stone, and that is the full extent of the catastrophe sustained by this huge armed force on the street and which rushed in through the gate. That is all which is to justify him in hurling this force on a defenceless and unarmed crowd, and it is on the strength of this incident that all this violence and onslaught is perpetrated. If there is any sort of reality in this attack, the Government have a right to be able to produce some evidence that somebody or another has been injured. If this is not forthcoming, let them take care of the lesson that statements like that of the right hon. Gentleman and like those defences which are constantly put forward by him in the House will teach the Irish police that they may perpetrate all sorts of barbarities of this kind with the most perfect impunity. The Irish police officers are paid immense and sumptuous salaries—they have really no risk to endure but the risk they incur on an occasion such as this—men to whom you give deadly weapons to protect themselves with, and men among whom I venture to say there are fewer lives lost and fewer injuries sustained than in any body of railway servants or firemen or any other body of men in the world, and certainly very much less than among Irish Pressmen, who have to perform their duties under circumstances such as this, and who do not grumble nor try to kill any- 1084 one when they are injured. I tell you that the feeling amongst policemen that they are Sovereigns over the people is rife enough already in Ireland. I say the lives of these men are never in danger, and how different did the police act to the soldiers. Last Sunday in Loughrea I saw a soldier struck on the breast with a stone, and he laughed good humouredly and said—"It's a very bad shot." A stone passed near the head of a policeman, though it did not strike him, for he was beside me, and I could see it, and he instantly raised his rifle and took deliberate aim at a person in the direction from which the stone had come. The fact is, this brutality on the part of the police is not for one moment to protect themselves, but simply to strike terror into and to wreak vengeance upon the people because the people have outwitted them, because they have defeated them, and because they have exposed their failure to suppress the local branches of the National League and exposed the falsehood which was attempted to be palmed off upon this House that the National League was crushed. I say whatever wretched story is fished up now about this miserable stone-throwing, I will ask will any man—and I see there are soldiers in this House, and there is at least one sailor—will any brave man or any soldier stand up now and defend the action of the man who gave that cowardly and cruel order to the soldiers and police to dash into the midst of those defenceless people and to hack and slash them with their batons and sabres? For my own part, I deeply regret that apparently these particular soldiers took rather kindly to their orders. I am sorry for it, and I think it is a stain on the profession of a soldier; for I say it cordially that my own experience of soldiers acting in Ireland is very different, and the right hon. Gentleman may yet find that it is rather awkward for him to see in the future regiment set against regiment in opposite camps on these political questions in Ireland. I do not blame the soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman told us this moment that they were restrained by their officers. But what is the fact? They were headed by their officers, and they were marched through the streets of that wretched town of Ennis yelling "Rule Britannia"—[Cheer]—aye, gloating 1085 over the unarmed people; gloating and exulting over them and insulting them. It would have been as brave for them to have sung "Rule Britannia" after a pigeon-shooting match. I am sorry, as I said, for it; but I do not blame the soldiers, for the soldiers were only setting the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy to music. They were just giving a rude rendering in music to the sneers and jibes at the Irish people in which he indulges in this House and out of it. Colonel Turner had on Tuesday the audacity to send a telegram to Dublin expressing his regrets for the misconduct of the military; but he would have been much better employed in apologizing and expressing regret for his own misconduct, for it was he alone who was responsible for the disgraceful and dastardly scene of last Sunday. It was he who sent the Hussars in after the police, and the Infantry after the Hussars, to dash in and attack those unfortunate people; but the secret of this man's brutality and panic on the occasion is not very far to find. It was he alone who provoked this whole series of demonstrations of last Sunday. It was on his authority, I dare say, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary committed himself in this House to that fatal assurance that the National League was a thing of the past. To cover his own incompetency and failure to suppress the local branches of the National League, and the meetings which are held every week in every parish in Clare, and in order to cover his own incompetency, Colonel Turner represented, I dare say, to the right hon. Gentleman—for I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of believing that he had some information as a foundation for his statement—that there were bogus meetings, and he trusted to the power of the local police terrorism to prevent people from giving him the lie in the open daylight. That was Colonel Turner's position. Luckily for us, however, he is a clumsy tactician. While Colonel Turner was getting the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to stand up in this House and say that those meetings reported to be held weekly in Clare were bogus meetings, Colonel Turner was himself giving the lie to himself and the right hon. Gentleman by going about Clare, and threatening to quarter extra 1086 police in every parish from which the newspaper in Dublin published a report of meetings which the right hon. Gentleman asserted never took place. Between Colonel Turner's action in Clare and the right hon. Gentleman's statements in this House on his authority there is a discrepancy which can only be accounted for on the theory that there is a lie somewhere—a shabby and scandalous lie. Because these Sunday meetings brought that question to a test, because Colonel Turner found himself convicted of having uttered a falsehood, an untruth, and a fraud to this House and to the English people, and because he found himself outwitted and defeated in endeavouring even to prevent this very meeting in Ennis—that is why Colonel Turner lost his head. The Nationalist Party have hitherto spared Colonel Turner. He was a Home Ruler of the Home Rulers, if not something more. He was a wretched creature, and the best excuse I ever heard for him was that he had a large family unprovided for, and that his situation was in danger owing to the extent to which he had championed the League and to which he had made public his feelings and views on the Irish Nationalist cause. I presume he was now re-established himself in the confidence of Dublin Castle, for he is now acting in its service with all the zeal of a renegade. He has now taken up his quarters in Clare. This most impartial instrument of the Government, who is supposed to make no distinction, to know no difference between man and man, has taken up his quarters in Clare in the mansion of one of the most detested exponents of cruel and rack-renting landlordism—Mr. Stackpole, of Eden Bay. I will not say anything more about him. [Cries of "Goon."] It is possible that I might go on, and very materially add to the evidences of this gentleman's unfitness for the position assigned to him if there were occasion for doing so, but there is not. If there was ever any suspicion in Dublin Castle—as I believe there was—that Colonel Turner was secretly in favour of the National League, and if that suspicion was strengthened by his ridiculous reports as to the suppression of the organization, his conduct on Sunday has relieved him of the imputation, and is surely sufficient to prove him a worthy servant of the Executive Government in Ireland. I will say no 1087 more about Colonel Turner; I will leave him to his own reflections as a person who was once a soldier and an honourable man. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has challenged us, by his usual policy—I will not say prudence—to hold those meetings of last Sunday, and he has spoken as to the illegality of such gatherings. Now, I do not give any opinion about their legality or their illegality. I assert that there is nothing that we can do, nothing that an Irish Nationalist can say or do at this present moment in Ireland, that may not be made illegal if the right hon. Gentleman sends down an order from Dublin Castle. I, therefore, offer no opinion as to their legality, but I know there is something higher than legality, and that is truth; and I know that the object of these meetings was to establish truth as to a matter of fact, which it is of the greatest possible importance, both to the English and to the Irish people, should be cleared up. And I am here to say that, whatever the legality of Sunday's meetings may be, they have cleared up that matter once and for all; and if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the evidence, and should still consider that the evidence on that point is still incomplete, I can tell him and them that we will go on with these meetings, and we will pile proof until there will be no room for doubt as to the existence and activity and energy of the League, even to the most Archaic Tory mind. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged us. He has pledged his authority in the face of this House to an assertion—which every man, woman, and child in the suppressed districts knows to be deliberately at variance from truth—namely, that the Land League is suppressed in Clare. He would have made political capital for himself by that statement if uncontradicted and unrefuted. It is quite possible that it might have shut up the English people in a fool's paradise about Ireland for many a day, and may have involved many a year of struggle and misery in Ireland, aye of murder and crime, to undo the effect of that untruth. But the Irish people gave their answer to it last Sunday, in the only way open to them by which they could make the truth reach the hearts and ears of the people of England and Scotland—the only way except that which the hon. 1088 and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) seems to prefer, by retiring into secret societies and answering by murder, midnight lodges, and outrages. They delivered their answer last Sunday in open daylight, in the face of most villainous and cowardly police intimidation; and in doing that they exposed themselves to the brutality of men like Colonel Turner. They exposed themselves to 20,000 or 30,000 prosecutions that will follow if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has the courage of his convictions. I say, Sir, it is a most cruel and deplorable thing that the Irish people should be obliged to subject themselves to those risks week after week in order to establish a truth which is as notorious in Ireland as the noon-day sun. It is lamentable, I say, that the English people—and the character of England—should so easily let themselves be made the victim of every ridiculous boast the right hon. Gentleman makes in this House in response to the provocative representations of the London Press. I hope Englishmen will not much longer stand by and allow the Irish people to be subjected to such barbarities of the kind as were enacted on Sunday simply because they are endeavouring to establish the truth. So long as there is a shred of life or liberty left, it will not be the fault of the Irish people if every man in England and Scotland is not made to feel that the right hon. Gentleman's task as coercionist of Ireland is not done, but only beginning; and that when he and his policy exists only in the memory of man, and those wretched barbarities will have vanished into the things of the past, the National League in Ennis and in Ireland will thrive and live, and will yet conquer in Ireland.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)said, he was not quite sure that, as the case now stood, further discussion was likely to lead any further towards a conclusion. He was not at all surprised at the vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. O'Brien) had spoken. He (Mr. John Morley) was sure in all quarters of the House it must be felt during the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the counter statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the 1089 Chief Secretary, that the affair at Ennis on Sunday, whatever might be urged to the contrary, as regarded the rights of parties, was a matter of great importance. They could not wonder that the occurrence in Ireland was felt to be one of importance, and he should be very much surprised if the people in England and Scotland did not also feel the importance of it. He wanted the House to consider the position in which it stood in reference to this matter. The hon. Member for the City of Cork read statements from three newspaper correspondents giving their impression of the events which passed before them on Sunday last, and the Chief Secretary then rose and gave what he (Mr. John Morley) thought the House believed to be a most meagre and perfunctory reply. He wanted to ask him whether he could or could not produce some report from Colonel Turner as to what actually took place. It was quite obvious there was a great deal of contested matter, and that there were statements on one side which had not apparently been brought to Colonel Turner's knowledge, and with which the Chief Secretary did not deal. He was quite aware of the official reserve which guarded communications to the Government, and he was not at all anxious that it should be indiscreetly broken through. He was, however, going to make two requests to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he asked that he should produce to the House some report from his officers and agents which would enable the House to test and measure the version of the occurrence given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The second suggestion he would urge upon him was rather wider than that. The House had heard a great deal of Mitchelstown, and although the Chief Secretary at the beginning of the Session charged them with having forgotten Mitchelstown, he (Mr. John Morley) told him then, and he would tell him again now, that in thinking so he was labouring under a great mistake. What they asked the Chief Secretary to do in regard to Mitchelstown, and which he had not done, he now asked him to do in the case of Ennis. During the time he (Mr. John Morley) was Irish Chief Secretary, there was only one grave trouble in Ireland, and that was in Belfast. Serious rioting took place in Belfast, and some hon. Gentlemen 1090 now sitting behind the Chief Secretary were in no small degree responsible for the events of that time, and they talked of him (Mr. John Morley) as the present Chief Secretary might now complain of being talked about by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. What did he do? He did not stay in London and go to banquets to explain to his political friends that the Irish Question was a huge joke. He went over to Ireland, and within three or four days of the occurrences of which complaint was made, with the ready consent of the Lord Lieutenant, he directed that the House be informed that a Commission of Inquiry should be held. If they were going to have a repetition of these occurrences of Sunday last—and he was afraid from the policy they were pursuing that they were not unlikely going to have them—if the Chief Secretary was going to indulge in these childish and provocative boasts in this House, if this policy was to be pursued, and if these incidents were to recur time after time, he submitted, in the interests of law and order, which they professed to be so anxious for, and to satisfy the public mind in this country, as well as to give the people in Ireland some excuse for believing that the action of the police was impartially and discreetly directed, it could only be done by means of a Commission of Inquiry. The Government had a precedent in the Belfast case, and he asked them to now do in regard to Ennis what they had managed to evade in the case of Mitchelstown.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, he considered the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as absolutely unsatisfactory. It was a most serious thing that Cavalry should be ordered to charge upon people under any circumstances whatever, but for Cavalry to be ordered to charge against unarmed people in a courtyard demanded the most ample discussion. It was miraculous that so little damage was done under the circumstances. It was a really important fact for the House to remember that the statement of facts presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was based on the reports of every single newspaper correspondent on the spot at the time. These newspaper correspondents all united in saying that no missile was thrown before the charge was ordered, 1091 and if their statement was true a more infamous act was never done by a magistrate than the sending by Colonel Turner of horse and foot soldiers into the yard. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if they accepted it as true, was most preposterous on the face of it, and could not hold water for a single moment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that preparations were made by the crowd in the building to stand a siege by the military and police, and that it had been piled up with stones for that purpose, and that as soon as Colonel Turner appeared with the military they were received with stones from the top window of the building; but in support of that statement the right hon. Gentleman was not able to allege one single scratch as evidence. Could any hon. Member believe that the people were so eager to withstand the police as to take a small building, and deliberately barring the door, seek to defend it without any arms against a force of 250 armed men? He know his countrymen very well, and, while he was not in the habit of calling them cowards, yet nothing had occurred in recent years which would justify the idea that the Irish people were such idiots as to believe that unarmed they could defend a small place against 250 armed men. They know, from past experience at Mitchelstown and other places, when a policeman got so much as a cut on his little finger, the police were ready to say that they had been generally struck with stones, but when not one of the police had complained, they were forced to the conclusion that no man last Sunday on the side of the forces of the Crown was even struck. The statement that stones were thrown before the police went into the yard was also preposterous. Now, look at the behaviour on the other side. Two of the newspaper correspondents represented Unionist organs, and one a Nationalist journal, and they all corroborated each other. He would point out that the Government had received no report of an official of the Crown which could be compared with the statements made by the hon. Member for Cork, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was forced to take as his authority Colonel Turner, the very man whose conduct was impugned. He asked if it was to be laid down as an accepted principle of the House that 1092 when charges of the most serious kind were made on the faith of independent testimony against officials of the Crown in Ireland, the accusers were to be met with only the sort of denial of those officials the House had just listened to, to be sneered at, and to have absolutely no satisfaction given to the people? This was a most serious state of affair, and the effect of it would be to induce the people to resist the officers of the law. He asked hon. Members if they realized what would be the result of such proceedings? When the people at Mitchelstown resisted the officers of the law, and hunted them into their barracks, everything they complained of was remedied by the Government. During the Mitchelstown debate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his lofty and most sneering style, said it was a most intolerable thing that the officers of the law in Ireland should have to ask the promoters of meetings for accommodation for a Government reporter at Nationalist meetings. What was then so described had been systematically done ever since that date. Why, he (Mr. Dillon), at a meeting he attended last Sunday—and for which he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was after issuing a warrant for his arrest—he was approached by the officers of the police and asked would he protect the police reporter; and he said—"Most certainly I will;" and there were several present. The lesson the Government were teaching the Irish people was that if they successfully resisted the officers of the law they would be listened to; but if they did not they would be ridden down by Hussars, bayoneted by foot soldiers, and then arrested and handcuffed together. He warned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that his sneers and after-dinner speeches would not carry on the Government of Ireland, although they might do for the Tory Party. The right hon. Gentleman was now entering upon a course which was widening and making more unbridgeable the chasm which separated the officers of the law and the people of Ireland, who had lost all confidence in the administration of the law, and had ceased to regard the police as their friends. If this brutal system were carried on the Government would in- 1093 evitably increase the feeling. He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was bound, if he had any adequate idea of his responsibility in the Office he now held, to meet the Irish Party on two or three points. He was bound to explain whether the police, when they went into the yard, were resisted by the people, whether any attempt was made by the people to resist arrest or to refuse to give their names; and if the police were not resisted he was bound to say why horse soldiers were sent into a confined space like that with the most terrible risk. He had not answered those questions, and had made a futile effort to explain away the statement of the newspaper correspondents that Colonel Turner's words to the soldiers were—"Draw your swords and clear them out of the yard." He wished to refer to the responsibility which was taken by a magistrate. Suppose the police drew their sabres without any excuse, and the people threw a stone which struck the soldiers, could such an operation be carried out without much bloodshed or a tremendous and serious loss of life? The importance of this question they must keep in their minds—not what did occur, but what might have occurred. It proved how peaceable the people must have been that such a military operation was carried through without serious loss of life. It was partly with a view to prevent, if possible, the repetition of such proceedings that they brought this matter before the House. In his opinion these proceedings on the part of Colonel Turner ought to result in his being removed from the County of Clare. The hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) said it was of great importance that Colonel Turner, forgetful of every consideration of decency and what was becoming to his office, had taken his course and had taken up his quarters and was living at the expense of the chief land agent in Clare. He who was there to do justice between all classes was seen to be riding about the county of Clare in Dick Stackpoole's carriage and obeying his orders instead of those of the Government. He had in the last month turned the police into soldiers—into liveried servants of Stackpoole. That was an outrage which was liable to provoke violence and resistance to the law. In the whole district in which he was placed, 1094 what peasant of Clare could believe that he had to deal with an impartial administration of the law under such circumstances? He (Mr. Dillon) would make an earnest appeal to the hon. Members of the House whether they considered it was fair or just to the people of Ireland that this officer should be allowed to carry on such operations, and to lead to such tremendous risks of loss of life as Colonel Turner did at Ennis on last Sunday, and to remain at the same time the guest of one of the chief land agents in Clara? Colonel Turner was a most obnoxious and unpopular man.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)Sir, I should not have taken up the time of the House even for a few minutes if the Rule of the House allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to reply to the remarks that have been made by hon. Members. Now, with reference to the speech and the remarks addressed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), I would ask does he seriously mean to contend for a moment that the occurrences at Belfast to which he referred have the slightest resemblance to, or can afford in any way a precedent regarding what has taken place at Ennis? We know that for days riot had been going on at Belfast which were attended with loss of life.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYI said that for three days the riots had been going on after the Commission had been issued.
§ MR. MADDENI am quite aware that after the Commission there was rioting; but the rioting had been going on for days and days before; but does the right hon. Gentleman mean to contend that what had taken place for three days before the Commission was directed to Belfast had the slightest resemblance to the occurrences in the yard at Ennis? With reference to the suggestion which has been made that the report which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has received upon the subject of the occurrences of last Sunday should be read, it would involve the consequence of its being laid on the Table of the House. It is the fact that during the tenure of Office of the right hon. 1095 Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) there were collisions between the police and the people which led to injury and sometimes to loss of life; and the Government will see what precedent exists in relation to those occurrences for taking the course which is suggested. Now, Sir, I certainly do think that anybody who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), and who drew a mental picture of the occurrences in the yard at Ennis, will find it was one compared with which the reality would fall very far short. The hon. Member speaks of barbarity, of savagery, and of the military hacking and slashing with sabres. Now, if that be the impression on the mind of the hon. Member, I certainly would be disposed to put a question which he put in reference to the stone throwing, and say, "Where is your list of killed and wounded?"
§ MR. W. O'BRIENThey took very good care to conceal the wounds from the police.
§ MR. MADDENThen, if they took care to conceal the wounds from the police, I ask the House to judge of the correctness of the picture which has been drawn. I do not think the House will be much impressed by a statement of that kind. Has anyone been seriously injured? Is there anybody in hospital or infirmary as the result of the operation which was found to be necessary for clearing this yard? I think that affords a very fair test that the operation was done with reasonable care and caution, and the result has been that no proof has been given that anybody has been seriously injured. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment of the House (Mr. Parnell) has said he would not inquire into the legality or the illegality of the meeting. I will follow his example, but I ask the House for a moment to realize the position. There was a house, and a yard to that house. That yard, according to the statement read by the hon. Member, was closely packed with people. This house contained a still unexhausted store of ammunition consisting of large stones. The people in the house and in the houses opposite went on throwing stones at the military and the police as they passed by. So far as regards the illegal meeting that might possibly have been dealt 1096 with in the manner suggested by hon. Members opposite by taking the names of those present. But as regards the serious danger of stone throwing, that had to be put a stop to, and it could not be done without clearing the yard. Then what was to be done? Orders were given to clear the building, and if that was not done, the military and police would have been actually at the mercy of the persons who had the control of these largo stones. You could not do it without clearing the yard. Now, Sir, as to the statement that there was a charge of cavalry—that is not the fact. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated what occurred. The use of sabres—the backs of sabres—was resorted to under circumstances of great provocation; but the officers at once put a stop to it, and it was discontinued. With reference to these occurrences, I can hardly add to the statements which were laid before the House by the Chief Secretary; but I submit that the authorities dealt prudently and effectively with a very serious state of things.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)Although I am not satisfied with the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, I shall endeavour to deal with it so as to make the best of it, and to extract from it as much good as I can—from motives which I am sure in part actuated my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—that we are especially desirous on the present occasion to bring this discussion to a close in order to go forward with the very important question appointed for the regular business of the evening. I must notice two things, at any rate, in the speech we have just heard, because I think, if our fears are reasonable, even if further inquiry be made by the Government, that inquiry will be approached, if judged by the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, with an inadequate sense of the importance and gravity of the matters we are discussing. It is quite plain, after hearing that statement, that the subject we are debating is exceedingly important, and that for the due examination of it the circumstances are perfectly incomplete. The due examination of precedents is of great importance; but the allegations are so grave and the contradictions so serious 1097 that it is the absolute duty of the Government and of the House to prosecute the matter until we can really have full and authentic information of the occurrences on this unfortunate occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was an occasion of much less magnitude and moment than the occurrences at Belfast, into which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle granted a public inquiry. In one sense it is so, because I believe there had been only the loss of a single life at Belfast at the time when the public inquiry was granted. [Murmurs of dissent from the, Ministerial side.] I am not quite certain, but I believe there was only one single life lost. Certainly the proceedings were taken at the beginning, and not after a long series of proceedings. But there is another point of view to be considered. This is a question much graver even than the riots at Belfast. The riots at Belfast were disturbances between two opposing parties, with respect to whom the object was to ascertain who was to blame, but there was no imputation on the public authority of any kind. But here, setting aside the stone-throwing, and setting aside the simple illegality of the meeting, which is also a distinct question, it is the public authorities, and the public authorities alone, that stand arraigned. That appears to me to give an exceedingly grave character to the present proceedings. Again, the hon. and learned Member said, with regard to the charging of the Cavalry, that it was necessary to obtain access to the house—and I perfectly agree as to the propriety of obtaining it, even by force if necessary, but not as to the necessity of sending troops into the yard. Was it a rational proceeding to send a body of Cavalry into a yard with regard to which we have it from Colonel Turner himself that it was densely packed? Then the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Cavalry did not charge; but he is aware that on this matter accounts differ, and we ought to have the matter cleared up. In his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no charge of Cavalry, but that one or two of the men unfortunately made use of their weapons under extreme provocation. Now, Sir, what was this extreme provocation? Was it stone-throwing? If there had been 1098 violent stone throwing on the level, I might understand some hasty proceedings on the part of the Cavalry; but because there had been stone-throwing outside the yard, therefore the Solicitor General says that there was extreme provocation, which went far to justify and excuse the men, and to account for the use of their weapons by the Cavalry soldiers within the yard against a body of men who had taken no part in the stone-throwing. I must express a hope that the Government will not go into the consideration of a further inquiry with a disposition to minimize the importance of these transactions. It is a question in which the conduct of the public authorities is concerned in the gravest manner. If, as we hope may be the case, the reports which the authorities have given are proved to be true, we shall be considerably consoled. But, if the statements which the hon. Member for Cork has made on the concurrent and consistent testimony of three reporters of important public journals, who did not write from the same political point of view, be substantiated, then it certainly appears to me, without having consulted any legal authority upon the question, that in that case the conduct of the Public Authorities at Ennis will be open to the charge not simply of a want of humanity, prudence, or policy, but of gross illegality similar to that which disgraced the conduct of the Constabulary at Mitchelstown. I hope that the allegations of the newspaper correspondents will be disproved; but they have been made with a degree of responsibility, and even authority, from the concurrence of so many witnesses, which gives to them an exceeding gravity when the importance of the allegations themselves is considered. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to suppose that there is a disposition on the part of my right hon. Friend near me to press for the production of a confidential Report which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he was not prepared to lay upon the Table. I will only say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he had no such desire whatever. What we want is to get to the bottom of the facts. The hon. and learned Member has promised that the Government will seriously consider what further steps, if 1099 any, they will take for the purpose of elucidating the whole matter. That being so—
§ MR. MADDENAs a matter of fact the statement which I made was not what the right hon. Gentleman supposes. In reference to the suggestion as regards the Report, I said we would examine the precedents which had occurred, and see what can be done as to making public the Report. My promise was not of such a general character as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEPerhaps, Sir, it was my extreme desire to put a favourable interpretation on his words, and to avoid a Division, that made me construe too liberally the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but still there was, at any rate, a disposition to consider whether information should be produced which has not yet been laid before us, and of which we know nothing but fragments conveyed to us across the Table. I could not pledge myself to be contented with the production of documents of such a kind. What I would press on the Government is this—that we are bound in duty to get to the bottom of this case. I do not now say how we are to do so, but we are bound to ascertain and elucidate the case. It is far too grave a matter to be treated as trivial, and it ought on no account to be hushed up. I hope that the Government will give us its aid in this matter, and, as in the Belfast Riots, so in this case they will themselves become the primary agents in the investigation. It is not merely a question of harshness, severity, or imprudence, but a possible charge of illegality, and that is a matter with regard to which I think we have a right to ask that the Government shall give us their aid in instituting a most efficient inquiry. As to the production of documents, for the moment I wait for the opinion of the Government on that subject. Something they have promised us; let us wait for that, and let us take no hostile measure at the present moment; let us refrain even from the formal manifestation of dissatisfaction by dividing the House on the question of the Adjournment. But I think it right to give notice that should the information given to us by the Government be anything short of a full and satisfactory elucidation of the 1100 entire matter, the Government must not suppose that this matter has terminated or that it can terminate at the point where it now stands. It will be matter of solemn and sacred obligation with us to prosecute it further, and to learn the real merits of the case in justice alike to the welfare of the people of Ireland and to the honour of the Government, which is deeply involved in this matter.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)said, this was a matter of extreme seriousness to the Irish Party, and they were extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the statement he had made. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had said there was no charge alleged; but he (Mr. Healy) thought a charge of Cavalry was enough. Then, as to the charge of illegality, he (Mr. Healy) was extremely cautious not to do anything illegal; but the Government could easily hire men for £2 or £3 a-week to say that he had been guilty of an illegality. Was it not a reasonable thing, when a Ministerial statement was made which admitted of only one effective mode of disproof—namely, the assembly of the organization that was declared to be a thing of the past, and to have been wiped out of existence—that that assembly should be called together. The League assembled in its peaceful multitudes, and it did so in order to prove whether the Chief Secretary's statement was true or false. A Minister had made a statement that was overwhelmingly absurd—he would not say false, for that would not be allowed—and the League had taken the only means in their power to prove that it was untrue. Of course, they were aware that it was in the power of the Chief Secretary to put their lives in peril, and to take their liberties away in so doing. They were told that it was hard to argue with the master of many legions, but it was harder still to argue with the master of many Resident Magistrates. He would put it to the House whether it was fair of the Chief Secretary to make the statement he did, and then, when they tried to disprove it, subject them to the risk of being murdered? The Chief Secretary could have prevented it all by holding his tongue. He (Mr. Balfour) said that the Nationalists had brought what occurred on themselves; but he (Mr. Healy) retorted that the Chief Secretary brought it on 1101 them. It was his folly and foolish braggart statement that had brought about what had occurred. The National League simply arranged for a plebiscite or poll of the people on Sunday to prove that the Ministerial statement was false. They took the only means in their power. He (Mr. Healy) had himself no great fault to find with the police, so far as they came under his notice on Sunday last. He was at Kanturk, and there the police were not commanded by cadets who were appointed solely on account of their blue blood. They were commanded by what the University cadets called a "ranker"—that was, a man who had risen from the ranks; a man of the people like themselves. County Inspector Carey, the man in question, acted with much judgment, and no great harm was done. Those who assembled there did so with no idea whatever of resisting the police, for they were not such fools. They assembled, so to speak, to take a poll merely on the statement of the Chief Secretary. The moment they were asked to disperse, they were moved more easily than a mob in Regent Street or Charing Cross would be. They knew the police were armed with powder and ball, and therefore there was no idea of resistance. With regard to the use of the bayonets and the Cavalry charge he regretted that Colonel Turner, with whom at one time he (Mr. Healy) was on friendly terms, when an aide-de-camp to Lord Aberdeen, should have been mixed up in such a matter in the initial stage of a massacre in fact. The Government refused inquiry. The Chief Secretary in his speech the previous evening, with that curious intellectual side in his character so characteristic of him, said that he felt great interest in Ireland. Well, he (Mr. Balfour) was an object of interest to Irishmen, although they could not say that they had any great affection for or doted on him.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member is not now discussing a matter of urgent public importance. The merits of the Chief Secretary have nothing to do with the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY(continuing) said, the Chief Secretary, with that remarkable way of twisting statements that was so peculiar to him, was in direct conflict with the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland as to the legality 1102 of the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had put the legality or illegality of these meetings at issue. The Solicitor General for Ireland admitted that his (Mr. Healy's) hon. Friend had done nothing of the kind. But the Chief Secretary, knowing that their legality or illegality must be decided to-morrow by one of his own magistrates, gave them what was known in London slang as "a friendly lead." All over Ireland those who read the Chief Secretary's words, and where they would pass current for good law, it would be taken that the meetings were illegal. The 84 Resident Magistrates would take it as good sound Saxonian learning, and they would all decide that the meetings were illegal. The right hon. Gentleman would have been better advised if he had abstained from giving the magistrates that advice as his official opinion. He wished to allude now to a matter which had in it the germs of future mischief, and that was to the objectionable singing of "Rule Britannia" by the military. He did not object to the song being sung by the British Army, even until they were hoarse, and he believed that after dinner the British Army was very fond of singing it. That was not objectionable even to the majority of Irish ears, and he had no objection to a ballad the words of which he was wholly unacquainted with. It was the same with the majority of his countrymen, so that it was impossible the song could have any offensiveness to them. It all depended upon the sense and the circumstances under which the song was sung at Ennis, apparently with the sanction of Colonel Turner. There was a song formerly sung is Ireland, called "Croppies lie down," and it was intended to be objectionable to a particular part of the community; and if the soldiers sang "Rule Britannia" for the same purpose of offending the people, and showed that such was their intention by their gestures and demeanour, that was quite a different matter. They sang the song at Ennis on Sunday when marching through the streets while the people were at worship, and a second time after the arrest of the 75 prisoners, and, as he said, with the deliberate purpose of offending the people. He saw the Secretary of State for War in his place, and he wished to make an appeal 1103 to him. The Army was very popular in Ireland, and, undoubtedly the people liked the soldiers, who gave them very little trouble. There were, however, English and Irish regiments, and he was sorry to see, in this morning's newspapers, that there had been a row between English and Irish regiments. Once you began this sort of thing you did not know where it would end, and it was a characteristic of Irishmen that whenever they thought an insult was offered to their country, were it even so far as the North Pole, it was felt and resented by the Irish race always. Officers then should not begin to lead off the chorus. He would commend to the right hon. Gentleman and the House the wisdom of acting with a little common sense in the matter. It was in the interests of prudence and policy that he recommended the Government to use some little wisdom in dealing with Ireland. The people of Ireland at the present had their ears and their hearts open in sympathy with the English people, and whilst they reciprocated every kindness they resented every insult. In all these matters, whether it was Ennis or Mitchelstown, they should grant an inquiry and let the people see that justice was absolutely impartial, and that whether the malefactor was Colonel Turner or John Smith, he would be liable to equal punishment. It was because they did not show the Irish people that there was that equal justice that they hated and detested the present régime.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn order, Sir, to prevent any misconception with regard to the statements made on behalf of the Government, I think it right to explain. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken appear to think that we have promised to lay the results of an inquiry on the Table of the House That, however, is not the case, and it is just as well to have the thing quite clear. What we have promised is to consider whether the statement referred to can with propriety be laid on the Table of the House, and to consider that question in the light of what has previously been done in the cases of collisions of a more serious character between the people and the police in Ireland.
§ SIR GEORGE TREVELYANI only wish to say, Sir, that a very important 1104 precedent occurred when I was Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that was the death of a young man who was killed at Dromore in consequence of a meeting held there. In that case the facts were put before the House and the country, first before the country in the newspapers, and afterwards before the House very plainly in a long debate. My impression is that an inquiry was refused with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman who then sat on this Bench, and I remember especially that amongst others Viscount Cross decidedly applauded the refusal of an inquiry, because there was no doubt about the facts on either side. If that is a precedent on which reliance is to be placed, I do not think it is a proper one. If any desire had been shown on these Benches for an inquiry on that occasion, I think it would have been granted.
§ MR. DE COBAIN (Belfast, E.)said, in the case of the Belfast riots a Royal Commission was not granted until after a number of lives had been lost, nor were the disturbances in Belfast occasioned by malefactors, but were largely owing to the action of the police themselves and their attitude towards one section of the people.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I do not think the hon. Gentleman is keeping to a definite matter of urgent public importance.
§ MR. DE COBAINsaid, he could bear personal testimony that in the case of the Belfast riots the action of the police was utterly and palpably—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman is out of Order in discussing the Belfast riots.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYI may say that my authority as to what I have said is to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission.
§ MR. DE COBAINI am well aware he founds his remarks on what is called the Report of the Royal Commission, but that Commission was very unsatisfactory.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, that questions of this kind placed him in greater difficulty than any other questions which came before the House. He had, however, experienced no difficulty in deciding in his own mind as to the necessity for an inquiry into the Belfast riots, because many lives were lost, hundreds of people injured, and 1105 thousands of pounds worth of property destroyed. Neither would he have had any difficulty as to the Mitchelstown affair, but in this case he asked what was to be inquired into. Was it the legality of the meeting? If so, then he submitted the case was one for a Court of Law, and not for the House of Commons. Was it the fact of the meeting itself? They had before them reports from three different newspapers, and the case was practically this—that one reporter was assaulted and injured, and there was no record of a single man who had gone to hospital or who appeared to be injured by police or soldiers.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that the reporters mentioned that people bore marks of the batons of the constables.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, if in this case men had been killed or seriously injured he would have voted with hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of a public inquiry. As to sending Cavalry into the yard, he was not sure that the use of Cavalry under circumstances like these was not better than the use of other force. He could quite understand that a body of horse soldiers dispersed a crowd much better than a body of policemen. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked what more terrific responsibilty could there be than that of ordering the soldiers to enter the yard. There was only one responsibility more terrific, and that was convening the people in such circumstances. Under these circumstances he should have to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork if he pressed it to a Division.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe Government, without binding themselves as to form, have said they will take care that we shall be placed in possession of full and authentic information of the whole merits of this case. I now understand the Government to limit that statement, and that they by no means intend to convey to us that they will assist us in the examination of the case. In the circumstances I feel bound to withdraw the recommendation I made that no Division should be taken.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 249: Majority 70.
1109| AYES. | |
| Abraham, W. (Glam.) | Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. |
| Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.) | Gladstone, H. J. |
| Gourley, E. T. | |
| Acland, A. H. D. | Graham, R. C. |
| Acland, C. T. D. | Grey, Sir E. |
| Allison, R. A. | Gully, W. C. |
| Anderson, C. H. | Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A. |
| Asher, A. | |
| Asquith, H. H. | Harrington, E. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harris, M. |
| Austin, J. | Hayden, L. P. |
| Balfour, rt. hon. J. B. | Hayne, C. Seale- |
| Barbour, W. B. | Healy, T. M. |
| Barran, J. | Howell, G. |
| Barry, J. | Illingworth, A. |
| Biggar, J. G. | Jacoby, J. A. |
| Bradlaugh, C. | James, hon. W. H. |
| Broadhurst, H. | Joicey, J. |
| Bruce, hon. R. P. | Kennedy, E. J. |
| Brunner, J. T. | Kenny, C. S. |
| Buchanan, T. R. | Labouchere, H. |
| Buxton, S. C. | Lalor, R. |
| Byrne, G. M. | Lawson, Sir W. |
| Cameron, C. | Lawson, H. L. W. |
| Cameron, J. M. | Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. |
| Campbell, H. | |
| Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H. | Lewis, T. P. |
| Lyell, L. | |
| Carew, J. L. | Macdonald, W. A. |
| Causton, R. K. | MacInnes, M, |
| Channing, F. A. | Mac Neill, J. G. S. |
| Childers, right hon. H. C. E. | M'Arthur, W. A. |
| M'Donald, P. | |
| Clancy, J. J. | M'Donald, Dr. R. |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. | M'Ewan, W. |
| Cobb, H. P. | M'Lagan, P. |
| Colman, J. J. | Mahony, P. |
| Conway, M. | Maitland, W. F. |
| Conybeare, C. A. V. | Mappin, Sir F. T. |
| Cossham, H. | Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E. |
| Cox, J. R. | |
| Cozens-Hardy, H. H. | Menzies, R. S. |
| Craig, J. | Montagu, S. |
| Craven, J. | Morgan, right hon. G. O. |
| Crawford, D. | |
| Cremer, W. R. | Morgan, O. V. |
| Crilly, D. | Morley, rt. hon. J. |
| Crossley, E. | Morley, A. |
| Davies, W. | Mundella, right hon. A. J. |
| Deasy, J. | |
| Dillon, J. | Murphy, W. M. |
| Dillwyn, L. L. | Neville, R. |
| Dodds, J. | Nolan, Colonel J. P. |
| Duff, R. W. | Nolan, J. |
| Ellis, J. | O'Brien, J. F. X. |
| Ellis, J. E. | O'Brien, P. J. |
| Ellis, T. E. | O'Brien, W. |
| Esslemont, P. | O'Connor, A. |
| Farquharson, Dr. R. | O'Connor, J. |
| Fenwick, C. | O'Connor, T. P. |
| Finucane, J. | O'Kelly, J. |
| Firth, J. F. B. | Paulton, J. M. |
| Flower, C. | Pease, Sir J. W. |
| Flynn, J. C. | Pickersgill, E. H. |
| Forster, Sir C. | Picton, J. A. |
| Fry, T. | Playfair, right hon. Sir L. |
| Fuller, G. P. | |
| Gardner, H. | Plowden, Sir W. C. |
| Gaskell, C. G. Milnes- | Power, P. J. |
| Gill, T. P. | Price, T. P. |
| Priestley, B. | Sutherland, A. |
| Pyne, J. D. | Swinburne, Sir J. |
| Randell, D. | Thomas, A. |
| Redmond, W. H. K. | Thomas, D. A. |
| Reed, Sir E. J. | Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O. |
| Roberts, J. | |
| Roberts, J. B. | Tuite, J. |
| Roe, T. | Waddy, S. D. |
| Rowlands, J. | Wallace, R. |
| Rowlands, W. B. | Watt, H. |
| Rowntree, J. | Wayman, T. |
| Samuelson, G. B. | Whitbread, S. |
| Sheehan, J. D. | Will, J. S. |
| Sheehy, D. | Williams, A. J. |
| Simon, Sir J. | Williamson, S. |
| Slagg, J. | Wilson, C. H. |
| Smith, S. | Wilson, H. J. |
| Spencer, hon. C. R. | Wilson, I. |
| Stack, J. | Winterbotham, A. B. |
| Stanhope, hon. P. J. | Woodall, W. |
| Stansfeld, rt. hon. J. | Woodhead, J. |
| Stevenson, F. S. | Wright, C. |
| Stevenson, J. C. | |
| Stewart, H. | TELLERS. |
| Stuart, J. | Parnell, C. S. |
| Sullivan, D. | Reid, R. T. |
| Summers, W. |
| NOES. | |
| Addison, J. E. W. | Brookfield, A. M. |
| Agg-Gardner, J. T. | Brown, A. H. |
| Ainslie, W. G. | Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B. |
| Aird, J. | |
| Allsopp, hon. G. | Burghley, Lord |
| Ambrose, W. | Caine, W. S. |
| Amherst, W. A. T. | Caldwell, J. |
| Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L. | Campbell, Sir A. |
| Campbell, J. A. | |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Campbell, R. F. F. |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, E. | Carmarthen, Marq. of |
| Baden-Powell, Sir G. S. | Cavendish, Lord E. |
| Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. | |
| Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. | Chamberlain, R. |
| Banes, Major G. E. | Chaplin, right hon. H. |
| Barnes, A. | Charrington, S. |
| Barry, A. H. Smith- | Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S. |
| Bartley, G. C. T. | |
| Barttelot, Sir W. B. | Clarke, Sir E. G. |
| Bates, Sir E. | Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N. |
| Baumann, A. A. | |
| Bazley-White, J. | Coddington, W. |
| Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks- | Coghill, D. H. |
| Collings, J. | |
| Beadel, W. J. | Colomb, Capt. J. C. R. |
| Beaumont, H. F. | Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E. |
| Beckett, W. | |
| Bentinck, W. G. C. | Cooke, C. W. R. |
| Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer | Corbett, A. C. |
| Corbett, J. | |
| Bethell, Commander G. R. | Cotton, Capt. E. T. D. |
| Cross, H. S. | |
| Bickford-Smith, W. | Crossman, Gen. Sir W. |
| Bigwood, J. | Cubitt, right hon. G. |
| Birkbeck, Sir E. | Curzon, Viscount |
| Blundell, Colonel H. B. H. | Curzon, hon. G. N. |
| Dalrymple, Sir C. | |
| Bolitho, T. B. | Davenport, H. T. |
| Bond, G. H. | De Cobain, E. S. W. |
| Bonsor, H. C. O. | De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P |
| Boord, T. W. | De Worms, Baron H. |
| Borthwick, Sir A. | Dimsdale, Baron R. |
| Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. | Dixon, G. |
| Dixon-Hartland, F. D |
| Dorington, Sir J. E. | Hill, A. S. |
| Duncombe, A. | Hoare, E. B. |
| Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H. | Hoare, S. |
| Hobhouse, H. | |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Holloway, G. |
| Edwards-Moss, T. C. | Hornby, W. H. |
| Egerton, hon. A. de T. | Houldsworth, Sir W. H. |
| Elliot, hon. A. R. D. | Howard, J. |
| Elliot, hon. H. F. H. | Hozier, J. H. C. |
| Elton, C. I. | Hubbard, hon. E. |
| Ewart, Sir W. | Hughes, Colonel E. |
| Ewing, Sir A. O. | Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C. |
| Farquharson, H. R. | |
| Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J. | Hunt, F. S. |
| Hunter, Sir W. G. | |
| Fellowes, A. E. | Isaacs, L. H. |
| Fergusson, right hon. Sir J. | Isaacson, F. W. |
| Jackson, W. L. | |
| Field, Admiral E. | James, rt. hon. Sir H. |
| Finlay, R. B. | Jennings, L. J. |
| Fisher, W. H. | Kelly, J. R. |
| Fitzgerald, R. U. P. | Kennaway, Sir J. H. |
| Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W. | Kenrick, W. |
| Ker, R. W. B. | |
| Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W. | Kerans, F. H. |
| Kimber, H. | |
| Folkestone, right hon. Viscount | King, H. S. |
| Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T. | |
| Fowler, Sir R. N. | |
| Fulton, J. F. | Knowles, L. |
| Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E. | Lafone, A. |
| Laurie, Colonel R. P. | |
| Gedge, S. | Lawrance, J. C. |
| Gent-Davis, R. | Lawrence, W. F. |
| Gilliat, J. S. | Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T. | Lees, E. |
| Leighton, S. | |
| Gorst, Sir J. E. | Lethbridge, Sir R. |
| Goschen, right hon. G. J. | Lewisham, right hon. Viscount |
| Granby, Marquess of | Llewellyn, E. H. |
| Gray, C. W. | Long, W. H. |
| Green, Sir E. | Lowther, hon. W. |
| Grimston, Viscount | Lowther, J. W. |
| Gunter, Colonel R. | Macartney, W. G. E. |
| Gurdon, R. T. | Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A. |
| Hall, A. W. | |
| Hall, C. | Mackintosh, C. F. |
| Halsey, T. F. | Maclean, F. W. |
| Hambro, Col. C. J. T. | Maclure, J. W. |
| Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F. | M'Calmont, Captain J. |
| Madden, D. H. | |
| Hamilton, Lord C. J. | Mallock, R. |
| Hamilton, Col. C. E. | Maple, J. B. |
| Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B. | Marriott, right hon. W. T. |
| Hanbury, R. W. | Matthews, right hon. H. |
| Hankey, F. A. | |
| Hardcastle, E. | Mattinson, M. W. |
| Hardcastle, F. | Maxwell, Sir H. E. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Mayne, Admiral R. C. |
| Milvain, T. | |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M. | More, R. J. |
| Moss, R. | |
| Heath, A. R. | Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R. |
| Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards- | |
| Mowbray, R. G. C. | |
| Heaton, J. H. | Mulholland, H. L. |
| Honeage, right hon. E. | Newark, Viscount |
| Herbert, hon. S. | Noble, W. |
| Hill, right hon. Lord A. W. | Norris, E. S. |
| Northcote, hon. Sir H. S. | |
| Hill, Colonel E. S. |
| Norton, R. | Stanley, E. J. |
| Parker, hon. F. | Stewart, M. J. |
| Pelly, Sir L. | Talbot, J. G. |
| Penton, Captain F. T. | Temple, Sir R. |
| Plunket, right hon. D. R. | Tomlinson, W. E. M. |
| Townsend, F. | |
| Pomfret, W. P. | Vincent, C. E. H. |
| Price, Captain G. E. | Waring, Colonel T. |
| Quilter, W. C. | Watson, J. |
| Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. | Webster, Sir R. E. |
| Rankin, J. | West, Colonel W. C. |
| Ridley, Sir M. W. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Ritchie, right hon. C. T. | Whitley, E. |
| Whitmore, C. A. | |
| Robertson, J. P. B. | Williams, J. Powell- |
| Rollit, Sir A. K. | Wilson, Sir S. |
| Round, J. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Royden, T. B. | Wood, N. |
| Russell, Sir G. | Wortley, C. B. Stuart- |
| Russell, T. W. | Wright, H. S. |
| Salt, T. | Wroughton, P |
| Seller, A. C. | Yerburgh, R. A. |
| Seton-Karr, H. | Young, C. E. B. |
| Sinclair, W. P. | |
| Smith, rt. hon. W. H. | |
| Smith, A. | TELLERS. |
| Spencer, J. E. | Douglas, A. Akers- |
| Stanhope, rt. hon. E. | Walrond, Col. W. H. |