§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the material facts relating to the rioting in Belfast, and the measures adopted for 1484 the restoration of order; what explanation is given of the uninterrupted smashing of windows in North Street last Friday night in presence of a body of police, the wrecking and looting of Connolly's house on Saturday night whilst 150 constables were stationed within a few yards, and the absence of police from the Queen's Island on Monday at the time when many of the Catholic workmen were assaulted, and all of them were expelled, and the fact that such attacks and expulsion were in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a meeting held the previous Saturday having meanwhile become publicly known; what is the number of Catholic workpeople driven out of employment, and how many have been allowed to return to their occupations; how many houses have been attacked and damaged by the rioters; how many soldiers, constables, and workmen and other civilians have suffered physical injury; how many arrests have been effected, and what sentences have been imposed; whether the daily procession from the Queen's Island, through the city, of workmen armed with sticks and bars, throwing iron missiles and stones into the houses of Catholics, will be any longer permitted; and why the police were withdrawn from the route of this procession last Wednesday? In putting this question, I wish to ask whether the piece of iron produced—a long iron bolt with a knob at the end—is not a specimen of the missile used; whether these bolts are not taken in great quantities from the Queen's Island works, and flung about the streets and through the windows of houses occupied by Roman Catholics?
*MR. J. MORLEYYes; I believe that the missile the hon. Member has shown to the House is the kind of thing, together with nuts and rivets, that find their way by some means or another out of the works. In answer to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question, the smashing of windows was not uninterrupted. The police interfered promptly, and succeeded in driving each party to its own quarters. The mischief at Connolly's house—which it is an exaggeration to call wrecking and looting —was done by a running mob who were being pursued by the police. The police put out the fire which it had been 1485 attempted to kindle, and dispersed the mob. If the police had not been both present and active there is every reason to believe that Connolly's-house would have been sacked. As for the absence of police from Queen's Island on Monday morning, the injuries received at the breakfast hour were not of a serious character, and the whole of the affair did not last two minutes. The presence of the police before any overt art had taken place would have been regarded as a demonstration and a provocation, and probably the Protestant workers would have said to the Catholics —"You have brought the police here, and you shall go." Catholics themselves felt that this would have done more harm than good. After what had occurred at the breakfast hour, in case there should be workers in the yard who were afraid to go home, a force of military and police was stationed along the road to afford protection to anyone who might need it. As to the third paragraph, the Government have no means at their disposal for ascertaining how many men were driven from their employment.
§ MR. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are about 900 Catholics usually employed in the Queen's Island works?
*MR. J. MORLEYThe Government, at all events, have no means of ascertaining how many Catholic workers are employed there, nor have they been informed that they have all been driven out. In any case, many workers of both religions absented themselves from work owing to the excitement of the last few days, but undoubtedly a large number of Catholic workers were thrown out of employment owing to compulsion on the part of their Protestant fellow-workers. There were many affrays between women at mills and factories. The police saw some, separated the combatants, and took names; but their policy in the case of these Amazonian squabbles was to disperse and protect, and not to arrest. It is impossible for the Government to insist on the restoration of Catholic workers to their employment. Although a constable was provided for every citizen in Belfast, they could not prevent the Protestant workers from demanding, if so minded, the expulsion of the Catholic or any other of their fellow-workers. We can only see that 1486 protection is afforded, and trust to the energy of public opinion in Belfast and resolute action on the part of employers, neither of which, I am happy to say, have been wanting on this occasion. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that many are understood to have returned to their employment, and we trust that in a few days bitterness will be allayed. In the meantime, any active interference or meddling by the police would be injudicious, and do more harm than good. Three public-houses were attacked, windows broken, and some bottles were stolen, but the police were in time to prevent these attacks becoming more serious. Windows, some of them expensive plate-glass, have been broken in some 20 houses. No case of injury to a soldier has been reported. One constable was seriously injured at Queen's Island. His temple was fractured by a blow from an iron bolt. No cases of serious injury to civilians have been reported. A number have received medical treatment for cuts and bruises. As to arrests, we find it difficult to distinguish precisely between arrests connected with this particular disturbance and general disturbance on account of the excitement, but we are doing our best to have an accurate Return prepared. Meantime, about 45 persons in all have been arrested. A large number are still in custody on remand. Of those already dealt with, some have been imprisoned for one month or two months without the option of a fine, and eight were discharged. As to another paragraph of the question, it is the habit of these workmen at all times to march in bodies from their works to their homes, and while acting in accordance with their usual habit they will not be interfered with; but when a portion of these workmen or their followers break glass or commit assaults with iron bolts and rivets, then it will be the duty of the police to disperse the persons guilty of this riotous conduct and to arrest the ringleaders. This is exactly what happened on Tuesday evening in North Street, when the mob which accompanied the workers became disorderly and dangerous, and consequently was broken up by the police, and 25 arrests made. The police were not, as a matter of fact, withdrawn; but, in the exercise of discretion by those in command, the posting 1487 and disposition both of the troops and police were so varied as to enable them to act with the greatest efficiency. It would, for obvious reasons, be prejudicial to the Public Service to enter into detail as to the measures adopted, in the use of the police and the military, for the restoration of order. I can only assure my hon. Friend that those measures were the best that careful forethought and experience could suggest; that they were devised and ordered with the sternest impartiality; and the plans so arranged have been carried out by the authorities on the spot — Magistrates, military, and police—at once with prudence and with vigour. It is right to add that, though there have been regrettable exhibitions of a violent and unmanly spirit, the local leaders on both sides have made active and honourable efforts in the cause of peace and order, which we may now regard, I hope, as having boon satisfactorily established.
§ MR. SEXTONWhile accepting the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the general question and also sharing his hopes for the future, I desire to ask how it is that District Inspector Seddal, who charged and dispersed the mob successfully on Tuesday, and who testified in evidence that the mob was the most riotous he had ever seen, and would have constituted a menace to the public peace of any town in the world, has already been removed from his station in Belfast to another district; further, what reply the right hon. Gentleman has sent to a letter addressed to him on Wednesday last by a committee formed in Belfast for the protection of the homes, lives, and properties of Catholics—a letter fearing that the apprehensions expressed in a previous letter had been only too accurately borne out, and in which they ask, as a matter of necessity, that the sole charge of the police shall be in the hands of a capable officer free from local influence and uncontrolled by the Local Authority; and, finally, whether he has observed the proceedings of the Belfast Custody Court on Wednesday last, when a gentleman named McKibbin, a prominent member of the Orange Society, addressed the Court on behalf of the accused, the accused being already professionally represented; whether the Commissioner of Police sat upon the Bench?
§ *COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)I rise to Order. I desire to ask, Sir, whether this is a question arising out of the answer, and, if not, whether it ought not to be put on the Paper in the usual way? If it is a supplementary question, of which private notice has been given, ought it not to be put after all the other questions on the Paper have been answered?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf supplementary questions in any way arise out of the original question of which notice has been given, it is perfectly in Order to put supplementary questions, and not to wait until the end of Question time.
§ MR. SEXTONIs it the case that the Commissioner of Police took his seat on the Bench, and delivered from the Bench a speech in the nature of evidence, after conference with Mr. McKibbin, in which he urged the Adjudicating Magistrates to remand the cases—a course which they declined to take? I have to ask whether the Government will take steps to secure that unauthorised persons shall not interfere with the proceedings of the Courts, and that the Commissioner of Police—who is distrusted, I have shown, by that class of the community most threatened—will, if he gives evidence, be required to do so not in a speech from the Bench, but in the usual way—on oath and in the witness-box?
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTMay I ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the admirable handling of the Belfast Police on a recent occasion when the great mass of the people went into the streets and demonstrated in. favour of the Union?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)I should like to ask one or two supplementary questions. Is it not a fact that, so far from threatening the Custody Court, Mr. McKibbin, who was a very influential resident in the disturbed district, attended the Court in the interests of order and peace, and asked His Worship,
In consideration of the quiet state of the city and the fact that the residents of the Shankhill district had formed themselves into special constables to preserve the peace, to deal leniently with the prisonersand that he was quite prepared to give a guarantee from the inhabitants of the Shankhill district that the peace would 1489 be kept; whether Mr. Commissioner Singleton, the responsible officer in charge of the police, repliedThat he was quite willing to assist Mr. McKibbin and meet him half-way, as he was entitled to the thanks of the entire town for his services upon the Shankhill Road ";whether Mr. Commissioner Singleton further stated thatThere was no doubt the main body of the Islandmen behaved themselves as well last evening as any people coming from their church on Sunday";and whether the disturbance was not due to a small mob of rowdies not under control who followed the workmen; whether the Chief Secretary can confirm the following information which he had just received by telegraph:—Considerable number Catholics frightened out of employment at Island only; but will go back now under protection of the Protestant workers. Catholic paper praises action of Protestant employers. Mischief confined to rowdy boys; all will be well now";and whether it was not a fact that the Roman Catholic; workmen have been escorted and protected by their Protestant neighbours and fellow-workmen; whether the Chief Secretary's attention has been called to a document extensively circulated in Belfast by the Belfast branch of the Irish National Federation in which—in spite of the fact that the Orange Lodge, No. 9, of West Belfast, and the Grand Lodge of Belfast had made every effort to pre-serve order and restore peace—it is stated thatThe Orangemen of Belfast are endeavouring once again to deluge the streets with the blood of sectarian strife";and whether he thinks that, under existing circumstances, such language is calculated to assist the efforts of those "leaders of all parties" who are endeavouring to restore order in the city?
*MR. J. MORLEYI submit that the questions which the hon. Member has just put to me are, if I may venture to say so without offence, rather an abuse of the purposes of a question. I mean that, put in such form, they are clearly not questions designed for the purpose of getting information from a Minister, hut for giving information. [Cries of" What about Sexton?"]
§ MR. SEXTONMine were facts.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERMr. Speaker, on a point of Order I should be glad to know whether I am in Order in asking for information on definite points, all of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Kerry; and whether I am not in Order in asking for information in a case in which one of my constituents has been evidently attacked by name?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member was not out of Order. One would, of course, wish to reduce supplementary questions to the narrowest possible bounds, but the questions asked by the hon. Member arose out of the questions put by the hon. Member For North Kerry.
*MR. J. MORLEYI did not hear in any part of the interrogatories of the hon. Member for West Belfast questions to which I can answer "Yes" or "No." The telegram to which he referred relating to the restoration of Catholics to employment under the protection of their Protestant fellow-workers states, I believe, the truth. At one point the Protestant workmen did undoubtedly protect their Catholic fellow-workmen. In answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Kerry, I have to say that Mr. Seddall is a most meritorious officer, whoso services during this disturbance have been very valuable. Therefore, any change that has been made in his position is for police reasons only, and certainly is not of a penal character. As to the letter sent to me from the Catholic Bishop of Belfast and other gentlemen, I may say that that letter was a long document containing four principal allegations of fact. I am making inquiries now into these allegations, and from the information which I have received as yet I believe that three out of the four allegations are without foundation. As for charges of partiality and incompetency against the police, I need make no inquiry, but can give a most distinct and categorical denial to all assertions or suggestions of that kind. The plans which were made by the police were made; by men of the greatest experience with perfect foresight and absolute impartiality, and I think that result, comparing with what has happened on this occasion with what has happened, 1491 unfortunately, on some previous occasions in Belfast, shows that the police and the authorities are not open to the charges which are implied or made against them in the letter which has been referred to. With reference to the alleged occurrence in the Belfast Custody Court, I cannot give an answer before I have made further inquiry. Mr. Singleton, who is a Town Commissioner, is also a Magistrate, and, therefore, has a right to sit upon the Bench. I have communicated with him, and at a later date, if my hon. Friend cares to resume the subject, I shall be willing to answer him.
§ MR. SEXTONI know that Mr. Singleton is a Magistrate; but if this Magistrate wished to give evidence, he should have given it in the witness-box upon oath, and should not have made a speech from the Bench.
§ Subsequently,
§ MR. SEXTONIn consequence of the positive and categorical character of the denial which the right hon. Gentleman has thought proper to give to certain statements submitted to him by the Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, and to the fact that the denial rests on statements made to him by Commissioner Singleton, will the right hon. Gentleman rest content with being the mouthpiece of that denial, or will he allow the Catholic Bishop of Belfast or other persons concerned any opportunity of bringing their statements to the test of formal and precise inquiry?
*MR. J. MORLEYI shall state in my reply what is the tenour of the denial made to the four allegations. I will invite the Roman Catholic Bishop to favour me with any further observations he may wish to make. I have no particular desire to be made the mouthpiece of one set of individuals as against another set, but I have confidence in the information which is given to me by the officials in Belfast. As far as I can see, Mr. Singleton has performed a very difficult part with great tact, great prudence, and great dexterity.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation?