HC Deb 09 June 1898 vol 58 cc1191-221
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the rioting which has taken place in the streets of Belfast on Monday and Tuesday last, and the inadequacy of the arrangements made by the city authorities and by the Executive Government for preserving the peace and protecting property;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,

MR. SPEAKER

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places. Not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—

Motion made, and Question proposed— That this House do now adjourn.

MR. DILLON

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is felt in all parts of the House that we could not rest satisfied with the information that has been given us by the Chief Secretary in reply to questions which have been asked. We have already heard from the Chief Secretary that 103 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were injured on Monday night on the Shankhill Road, and that on Tuesday night other policemen were seriously injured. I do not intend to enter into controversy on the merits of party processions in Ulster, for whether such are organised to celebrate the battle of Antrim or the battle of the Boyne they have nothing to do with the present question. The procession to which reference has been made in questions to-night was one organised by the Nationalists of Belfast to celebrate the battle of Antrim, on June 6th, 1798, and the magistrates of Belfast, having all the circumstances before them two or three weeks before June 6th, laid down for the procession a certain route, which the Nationalist Committee promptly accepted. After they had made that arrangement, and about four days before the date of the procession, the magistrates, in consequence, we are informed, of threats which had been made in the interval, hurriedly assembled, and, being informed by the City Commissioner of Police, Mr. Moriarty, that he could not be answerable for the preservation of peace if the procession followed the route laid down, altered the arrangement, confining the procession entirely to the Catholic quarter of the city. In the interests of peace, the Nationalist Committee, although they were of opinion that they had not been treated fairly, and that the magistrates were acting exceedingly unwisely, consented even at the last moment to accept the new arrangements. The Nationalists protested against the change as a concession to a spirit of intolerance, and as being very likely to defeat the very object the magistrates had in view, and the events which have taken place since have fully justified the opinion which had been formed by the Nationalist Committee. The first point I want to direct the attention of the Government to is that for a fortnight or three weeks the magistrates were aware that threats were being made by the firebrands of the Orange party that disturbances would be caused if the Nationalist procession were allowed to go through any part of Belfast. They decided—and most properly decided—that the procession should be allowed to proceed. The magistrates recognised that if they prohibited the Nationalist procession they would be bound, in common justice, to prohibit the 12th of July procession. I presume that there are only two alternative policies possible for any Government, or any body of men responsible for law and order in Ulster—namely, to prohibit all party processions, or to allow processions on both sides, and to let everyone whom it may concern, be he Nationalist or Orangeman, know that the processions must be allowed to take place, and must not be made an occasion for a breach of the peace. The policy of prohibiting processions has been advocated, and has been tried, but after being tried has been deliberately abandoned by the Government of Ireland, and abandoned mainly in consequence of the persistent protests of the Orange Party. I heartily sympathise with the Orangemen in their protest, and I think the policy now adopted by the Government is the correct policy—the policy, that is, of allowing each side to have their demonstrations, and of insisting, in theory, at any rate, that the pence must be preserved. What was the action of the magistrates of Belfast with all this knowledge before them? Remember that on the very eye of the procession—four days before the procession took place—the City Commissioner of Police attended the meeting of the magistrates, and told them he would not answer for the peace of the city if the route laid down by the magistrates themselves were followed by the procession. In spite of that fact, and in spite of their long experience of the character of the Belfast mob, they did not apply for a single extra policeman to help in the preservation of the peace of the city. If I rightly interpret the answer of the Chief Secretary, there was, at the very outset of these proceedings, sent through the city of Belfast full notice to the mob that the magistrates had given way before them, and had altered, under threats of violence, the arrangements which they had come to for the carrying out of tins procession, because the Commissioner or Police had told the magistrates Hint he would not be answerable for the peace of the city. Sir, I say that policy is a fatal policy, and that it is directly responsible for all that has occurred since. I now come to the incidents of the procession. I was myself with the procession from the moment it started from Smithfield Market for the place of meeting until its return, and I drove among the processionists in the town after all the banners had passed, so that I am in a. position, almost from personal observation in every case, to state what occurred as regards the procession. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not moving the adjournment of the House to make any complaint of the lack of protection given to the processionists. They were able to protect themselves, but it was the duty of the Government to keep all attack from that procession. As a matter of fact only at two points—namely, at Dover Street and Broadway—was there, the slightest attack made on the processionists by the Shankhill Road men, and those were of a trifling character. The crowd who attacked the procession at Broadway were instantly driven buck by the processionists, who only fired a few stones and then took flight. In Dover Street, where the crowd of Shankhill men numbered about 300, there were only four constables holding that thoroughfare, and if the Shankhill men had closed with the procession a most bloody riot would have taken place. As it was they were instantly driven back. These were the only two instances in which the procession was interfered with. Nobody was hurt, except one unfortunate policeman in Dover Street. The Nationalist procession then went into the country, and held their meeting, and then returned to Belfast. On the return there was not the smallest attempt at disturbance, so far as I could observe. Let me call the attention of the House to this fact—that throughout that day, when a multitude of people passed through, the streets of Belfast, no Protestant was hurt, no stone was thrown, no offensive word was said, and there was no attempt at disorder; but at six o'clock, on the Shankhill Road, when the Nationalist procession was over, and the Nationalists had gone home peaceably and quietly and wisely, the warriors of Shankhill, who had been afraid to attack the police when the Nationalists were parading down the Falls Road, took the field in all their loyalty, not against the Nationalists, but against the Queen's police, in order to prove, on their unfortunate bodies, their unquestioned loyalty to the Throne. A more monstrous, despicable, and unheard-of proceeding could not be found even in the annals of Belfast. I am most anxious to remove the impression which has to some extent gone abroad that our complaint is of any attack made on our procession. Nothing of the sort. The processionists went home peaceably, and not one of them was hurt. I venture to say that if you search the police books, and the books at the hospitals, where, perhaps, 300 or 400 persons had their injuries dressed, you would find that they were all Shankhill Road men and the police. I have hero a short account of the proceedings on that extraordinary night. I have taken this account from the Belfast News letter, the organ of the Orange Party, which is owned by the Lord Mayor of Belfast. I do so because I know that in order to impress this House I must, to a large extent, quote from the organs of the Conservative Party. Referring to the procession, the Belfast Newsletter says:— The return journey to Belfast was practically without incident. The rain poured incessantly, but, although the processionists were, in colloquial phrase, 'wet through,' they were nevertheless cheerful, and one could not help admiring their indomitable enthusiasm. When passing along Falls Road, near the Giant's Foot, somebody hurled a huge stone over the wall. The missile passed immediately over the heads of a party seated in a car, and fell between the vehicle and the processionists. Later in the journey, five revolver shots were heard, but these appear to have been discharged, as in the Wild West, with the object of expresssing exuberance of spirits. Smith-field was reached at 6.20, and about half an hour later the processionists, who had met with a cordial reception on their way thither, dispersed. That is the end of the procession, and then comes the next stage. They go on to describe the proceedings at Shankhill Road— The procession had not long passed down the Falls Road to the rendezvous at Smith-field before the police were actively engaged in another quarter. Mark you, not the quarter connected with the procession, but another quarter altogether. As we have stated elsewhere, the return journey was without any marked display of hostility; but if the advance guard of the main body of the processionists passed without any concerted attack being made upon them, an effort was made to prevent the tail end from escaping so easily; and it appears that one or two determined rushes were made down Percy and Dover Streets by numbers of young men and boys. The admirable arrangements made by the police, in view of such contingencies, were ample to protect those taking part in the demonstration, but the inevitable result of these attempts was that the police came in for very rough handling. Now, those rushes must have been of a very insignificant character, because I happened to be in the tail end of the procession myself, and I saw no scene of any kind of that description. Then they go on to describe what took place in the Shankhill Road— It was not long before the whole district was aware that serious fighting was proceeding; and crowds gathered with that celerity that one would expect under the circumstances, their numbers being increased every moment. There was no scarcity of missiles in any of the side streets, and when the conflict had assumed really serious proportions brisk fusillades of paving-stones were soon directed against every policeman in sight. Whilst the stone-throwers were incensed at the opposition shown by the police in the streets adjoining the processional route and manifested no hesitation in attacking them, it would appear that the animosity of the mob had been excited at an earlier hour in the day, when, at about four o'clock, three policemen were compelled to seek safety in Brown Square Barrack. After reporting the conduct of the mob, they obtained reinforcements, and went out again. The rioters were doubly indignant at this increase of the force, and a more vigorous attack was made upon them. The Newsletter then goes on— It is stated that there had been some ill-feeling against the constabulary in this neighbourhood of late, owing to their action in dispersing the small crowds that usually accompany the bands which occasionally parade in the evenings, and expression was given to this dislike by stoning the police out of the streets.' That is the expression of the Newsletter. It was not because they had been attacked, but because they disliked the action of the police on former occasions, and they gave expression to their dislike by stoning them out of the streets. They then go on to say— When the police had retreated from Dover Street"—the police had retreated from Dover Street several times—" a few mounted men were drawn up at the corner of Carlow Street, which is about 50 yards further up the road. Now listen to this, and, mark you, up to this particular incident the police had made no attack whatever; they had merely been standing on guard. Here a most vicious and determined attack was made upon them, and, being outnumbered 20 to 1, they had absolutely no chance in the midst of the thick hail of stones which was poured upon them from three or four quarters at once. During the mêlèe a mounted policeman named Torrens was struck a severe blow on the head with a stone and unhorsed, and the animal which he had been riding was also struck several times. When the man fell, a postman ran over to him, and picked him up endeavouring at the same time to secure the man's helmet and baton. This was the signal for a most cowardly and renewed attack upon the injured man, who was insensible. The postman carried Torrens on his back for some little distance, also carrying his baton, when some onlookers ran forward and endeavoured to wrench it out of his hand. One man struck the postman twice in the mouth, whilst others endeavoured to kick the policeman. Eventually the latter was carried into the house of a Mrs. Bruce, who was also assaulted for affording him shelter. Head-constable Hussey was present at the time, and he, too, was struck two severe blows with stones. He stood by his comrade, however, and kept the crowd at bay with his revolver, while the ambulance was summoned, and afterwards superintended the removal of the injured man to the Royal Hospital. Our representative saw the postman who so courageously interfered on Torrens' behalf, but he, for obvious reasons, did not wish his name to be published. That is what they consider, presumably, a reasonable state of affairs in Belfast, and a man who had the audacity to pick up and carry off a wounded officer of the police does not, for obvious reasons, wish his name to be mentioned. His narrative of the occurrence is practically identical with that furnished by the police. He stated that Torrens was struck with his own baton after he fell, and that Mrs. Bruce had several teeth knocked out when giving the injured constable shelter in her house. Now, this was all done, not for the purpose of driving a rebellious procession off the streets, because that had been allowed to proceed; but when this mob had intimidated the magistrates of Belfast, and when they found that they could outnumber the police by 20 to 1 in the Shankhill Road, they proved their undying loyalty to the Queen by pummelling Her Majesty's police in this most brutal manner which I have described. Now, I come to the extraordinary incident as to which I put a question to the Chief Secretary. When the riot was at its height, after the ambulances proved insufficient to carry off the injured, and numbers of cars had been pressed into service for that purpose, the Rev. Mr Gas informed the magistrates and the Police Commissioner that the gentlemen of Shankhill Road would keep the peace if the police were withdrawn, and that was done.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OP IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

No, the Police Commissioner refused to withdraw them.

MR. DILLON

As the Chief Secretary says, the Police Commissioner refused to withdraw the police; but they were withdrawn, nevertheless, because, although the Commissioner refused to withdraw them, they were compelled to withdraw. They were driven out of the field. Now let me come to a point which appears to me to be of exceedingly great importance. For two or three weeks before the Belfast authorities were aware of what was going to take place, and they knew that the dangerous time was not in the day. They knew the danger would be when the men came out of the ironworks in full force, and when all the elements of disorder were let loose; but in the face of all that they neglected to take measures to keep the peace. I venture to say that 20 police would have been able to keep the peace so far as the procession was concerned. The procession was not attacked. We had 15,000 men there, and out of those we had 10,000 of as good lighting men as ever I have laid eyes on. The idea of the crowd coming out to oppose us when we were on the hill is the height of absurdity. The police came in amongst us, and we were very glad to see them; but they were not necessary. It was quite unnecessary for them to be there at all. But when we came back at live o'clock into the city, when the dangerous time was approaching, when the iron men were leaving their work, I passed masses of police and their officers, turning from the city and going back into the country. That was about an hour before this riot took place. Now, those men could not have been very far distant when the riot became severe; it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have got them back again; but the right honourable Gentleman says that they were not available. They were not available because the gentlemen of Shankhill Road had given notice to the magistracy, and informed them that if any extra police were brought into the city they would be assassinated. The fact is, the city inspectors and the magistrates were intimidated from bringing in any extra police lest they should be assassinated in the streets. Now I want to know, and I think this House is entitled to an explanation, why a manifestly insufficient force was exposed to the various mobs for hours, when a sufficient force to restore order was within easy reach at that very moment. I have only this to add—this was on Monday night. On that night, the rowdies, having wreaked their vengeance upon the police, attacked two Catholic public-houses, breaking open the windows and the doors. Having got into the houses, they tapped the whisky barrels, and when some of them who were captured in the houses were brought to the police offices they were found to be not only drunk with stolen whisky but to have their pockets stuffed full of money taken from the tills. Now, one would have supposed that the proceedings of Monday night would have been sufficient to have given warning to the authorities as to what might occur on the Tuesday. Before I pass from the Monday let me just quote a short notice from the Northern Whig, a journal hostile to our cause— No words could be too strong to condemn the conduct of the roughs and rowdies, who by their repeated and determined attacks upon the police yesterday evening made the scene on Shankhill Road painfully reminiscent of the evil times of the last great riots. There is surely no excuse whatever for these fellows, who, because they were prevented from attacking those engaged in celebrating an incident of rebellion, turned themselves to assail the representatives of law and government. Now let me turn for a moment to what occurred on Tuesday night, because what occurred upon that night was worse still. On Monday night the Shankhill Road was given up for four hours to a revengeful mob. Now, one would have supposed that, such a thing having happened on the one night, on the subsequent night the authorities would have taken ample precautions to secure the city from a recurrence of such proceedings; but what happened on Tuesday? On the Tuesday night the Island men came home, as they usually do in times like these, in a procession, and this is the description given in the Freeman's Journal, which gives the fullest and best report of the matter that I have seen— The workers came up first in a loose stream and then in a compact phalanx over 2,000 strong. In Carrick Hill and Millfield about 400 or 500 Nationalists were assembled. The demeanour of the Island rowdies was defiant, and they halted at Carrick Hill, crying party expressions and waving caps. A green flag was displayed in the Nationalist quarter, and instantaneously the two parties came into conflict. A terrific fusillade of stones and other missiles were exchanged. Numbers of Loyalists flung iron bars over a foot long, and formidable nuts and rivets. Only four or five police were present, and on ail sides complete amazement was expressed at the want of foresight shown by the authorities. The handful of constables were utterly powerless, and for nearly 20 minutes a regular pitched battle fiercer than any seen in Belfast for years raged with unceasing fury. The Island heroes assailed a woman standing at the comer of Boyd Street, and stoned her until she fell. An old man was mercilessly assailed. Many of the workers sustained most serious injuries. They were assailed with a hurricane of stones from Carrick Hill and Millfield at once, and were nonplussed under the flank attacks. Several times they were driven right up into the Shankhill locality, but returned to the charge only to be furiously repulsed by their opponents, whom they far outnumbered, but who stood in a commanding position. Nearly every house in Boyd Street is damaged; Messrs. McGlades' fine public-house was practically wrecked; the windows in Mr. Connolly's, on the other side of the street, were demolished. Marvellous to relate. Brown Square Barracks is stationed only five hundred yards away from the scene of this formidable street battle, and it is alleged that a force of policemen, ranging from one to two hundred, were stationed there at the time of the encounter. That is the description of the state of things which prevailed on Tuesday day night. On Wednesday morning the Lord Mayor issued a proclamation, an appeal to the citizens, which is a very remarkable and important document, because the Lord Mayor directs his observations directly to the inhabitants of the Shankhill Road. There is not a single word in the proclamation to indicate that he blames the Nationalists in anyway, from beginning to end, for being the cause of those disturbances. On the contrary, the proclamation is addressed "to the peaceable inhabitants of the Shankhill Road and district," and he says— I appeal to the men of Queen's Island, when returning home from work, to go in the ordinary milliner, and not in large bodies, as the latter way is calculated to lend to disturbance. Ample protection will be afforded to the men who, by complying with this request, will maintain their own reputation and the credit of the city. Now mask what follows— The Queen's Island men came home from their work in practically a solid body. And that is the respect they pay to the appeal of the, Lord Mayor. What does it all amount to? It is idle for anyone to say that the blame for this disturbance should be laid upon the shoulders of the Nationalists. If you give liberty to the people of Ulster to form processions you must give it to both sides. When you allow these processions to take place you are also responsible not only to protect the demonstration, but to prevent any person breaking the peace, and to show a man, whether he be a Nationalist or an Orangeman, that if he attempts to break the peace, or attack those who are civilly walking down the streets under the regulations given out by the magistrates, or wantonly at any time breaks the peace, he should suffer for it. I have made no complaint in regard to this matter, and I do not make any, because no attack was made on the Nationalist procession. It passed through the city without the men uttering a word of offence or saying anything to anybody, and without in any way breaking the law. What we complain of is this—that the Nationalists of Belfast, having set an example of which we are entitled to be proud, of respect for the law and strict observance of the rights of others, are now to be subjected to nightly outrage and robbery, and plundering and wrecking of houses, which now prevail in Belfast, and which is more like living in a state of primæval chaos than in a civilised community. I do not think anybody can object to my bringing these facts before the House. I justify my action upon this ground—I think those who are the principal citizens of Belfast are entitled to the protection of the law, and I say that the Nationalists of Belfast have not got the protection of the law, and consequently, when a collision takes place, there is bound to be the most bitter feeling engendered. On the night of Tuesday they were obliged to protect their homes to prevent them being broken into and sacked by the Orange crowd, and the Government placed four constables in that district to protect them from the crowd of Island men returning from their work. That is no way for men to have to live in a civilised country. It is monstrous that the Nationalists of Belfast should had their houses smashed and robbed and the tills of their shops rifled unless they can protect themselves. They are entitled to the protection of the law, and they ought to have it. On Wednesday night, when the Island men came home again in a large procession, they found a large force of men drawn up across the road. Why was not that force of men there before when the Nationalists were attacked? If they had been there this riot would not have taken place. But they allowed this bloody and ferocious riot to remain unchecked and uninterfered with—not without warning—for fully half an hour. In addition to that six Catholic houses had been sacked, all the liquors in the grog shops had been stolen and drunk, scenes of unparalleled debauchery and drunkenness occurred in the streets, and men who were afterwards captured while drunk with the stolen liquor were found to have their pockets stuffed full of the money which they had taken front the tills. The Nationalists have shown that they can, upon occasion, defend their rights with their own arms, but it is not the way in which they should live under the law. They should be assured of protection for their lives, limbs, and pockets. I do not think the magistrates have done their duty, and what I ask now is that the Government shall make some declaration as to their determination to see, at whatever cost, that the peace shall be maintained in the future in Belfast, and that such occurrences as these will not be allowed to recur. Now, I turn to the telegram of to-day, which says— No renewal of the rioting took place up till 11 o'clock—a circumstance due entirely to the fact that the disturbed districts were under the control of the military. The cavalry have patrolled the main thoroughfares and the infantry have been standing in the side streets. Large crowds collected, but no serious attempt has been made to disturb the peace. The military will be withdrawn after midnight. It also says— Excitement still runs very high, and attacks upon the police will no doubt be made whenever opportunity offers. Is that a condition in which to live in the city? Are they now to submit to the intolerable insolence of this Shankhill mob, who say they will not keep the peace? They must have soldiers to keep the peace. They like the soldiers, and fraternise with them; but the moment a policeman's head is seen it is fractured with a stone. What I demand in regard to Belfast is that some assurance shall be given by the Legislature that if the city authorities neglect their duty the Executive will insist, at all events, in future, that peace shall be maintained. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

I do not wish to detain the House long, but there is no doubt whatever that this is a very serious question, and in the absence of my colleagues I think I ought to say a few words. I am not going to traverse a great deal of what the honourable Member for East Mayo has said. It is quite impossible for anyone to speak in any terms in defence, or in any terms except those of unqualified condemnation of the rioting that has taken place in Belfast. I have had reason to reproach honourable Members opposite and their predecessors for not having condemned acts which took place when they ought to have condemned them, and I do not feel justified myself in refraining from condemning, almost as unconditionally as the honourable Member opposite, the horrible outrages which have occurred in the streets of Belfast. I do not say that there is no excuse for them, but I do say they are uncivilised and that means should be taken to punish the persons who engage in them, and to stop them and to prevent them recurring in the future. Everything that I have heard from Belfast leads me to think that what I have said expresses the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the loyal people of all classes of society in Belfast. But I owe it to my constituents that I should call attention to one or two circumstances connected with this deplorable state of affairs, which it is necessary that the House ought to be acquainted with. Before we pronounce an absolute verdict upon this subject we ought to investigate it a little more fully. Of the attacks upon the police nothing can be said, and I am glad the honourable Member has called attention to one act of heroism which occurred in the street, as I think it is one that ought not to pass without mention. A postman at the risk of his life endeavoured to rescue one of these policemen, and I take this opportunity of expressing my great satisfaction that that act of heroism did take place. The honourable Member for East Mayo put a large amount of blame upon the authorities of the city of Belfast. Inquiry will show how far that statement is justified or not, but I think it ought to be pointed out that the whole circumstances which undoubtedly contributed largely to these riots are not known and could not have been known to the Belfast authorities at the time they made their disposition for controlling the riot when it did take place. That they did anticipate that something of the kind might happen I think is proved by that fact that the Lord Mayor asked the Chief Secretary to proclaim the demonstration, and that the procession should not take place. I think it must be in the memory of nearly all the Members of this House that over and over again the Executive has proclaimed meetings—not in Belfast, but in other parts of Ireland—without making the local magistrates responsible. This procession was organised for one purpose, and one purpose alone. It was a deliberately provocative assembly.

MR. DILLON

Oh, oh!

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I can quite understand that that is the view which the honourable Member takes of this unfortunate and cruel rebellion. This demonstration was organised in the centre of a large city which returns to Parliament four Members who represent the opinion of that City, all of whom are strongly opposed to the principles of those forming that procession. In that procession there took part one or two gentlemen, of whom one was the honourable Gentleman opposite. Now, it must be remembered that it was not until the speeches had been made that the people of Belfast were aware of the nature of the proceedings.

MR. DILLON

The rioters had never heard a word of the speeches. They could not have heard of them till the following morning.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I have here a copy of the speech of the honourable Member. The two principal speakers were the honourable Member for East Mayo, and Mr. Joseph Devlin, who I must say, under the circumstances, expressed very strong sentiments. Mr. Devlin spoke of the proposed alliance between the United States and the people of this country, which I may say the people of Belfast are desirous to see. He then went on to tell them that in his opinion the rebellion of 1798 would never be forgotten. Now, Sir, that statement had one meaning alone, and it was intended and understood that the memories of 1798 were to arouse and be provocative of something of the kind in the future.

AN IRISH MEMBER

Hear, hear!

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I note that my statement is confirmed by the honourable Member opposite. The honourable Member for East Mayo was not at all behindhand in congratulating these gentleman on their fighting spirit and the events of 1798, and he concluded by saying that Irishmen had demon- strated to the world that the old Irish spirit was still alive and kicking in Belfast, and was as eager for the fight as ever. Therefore, I do not think that the whole of the fighing spirit was on one side, but there appears to have been a fair share of it on the other. We must not overlook the fact that this was a disloyal procession.

MR. DILLON

No, no!

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Well, we do not all take the view which the honourable Member opposite wishes us to take, that no discretion is to be shown in these matters. I say that there is no country in the world where such a procession would have been allowed, not even the United States of America. I undertake to say that in the streets of New York such a procession would have been at once suppressed.

MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)

Why, a procession of that kind is held every year in New York!

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Had this demonstration taken place amongst a population known to be favourably disposed to its principles, there might have been less to say against it, for instance, in Cork, Dublin, or Limerick. If a procession were organised in these towns where the majority of the people share the views of the honourable Member for East Mayo, they might listen to congratulatory speeches about the rebellion of 1798, and I think nobody would have been more ready to admit this than the honourable Member for East Mayo himself. I cam honestly say that I have never taken part in provocative demonstrations of this kind; and it does seem to me to be an unfortunate thing that they should take place in those parts of Ireland where they are not welcome, and where they are not in harmony with the general spirit of the population. I regret that it was thought necessary to undertake one of those processions in a part of Ireland where it was well known that those sentiments were not popular; where it was known that the people strongly detested them; and where it was felt that the desire for a renewal of the disturbances of 1798 was about the greatest calamity that could overtake the population. I think those opinions ought to be borne in mind and respected. With regard to the conduct of the people of Belfast, I am not going to say a word in defence of it. It must not, however, be forgotten that there is a certain explanation of that conduct. It is a fact which everybody acquainted with Belfast is well aware of, that there is some foundation for the dislike of the people of Belfast to policemen imported from outside. I have no doubt that it will be explained how the confusion and the misconception arose which accompanied the importation of police in Belfast. I know that the police in one case, upon a previous occasion, were entirely mistaken, for they attacked people coming out from their workshops under the impression that they were a riotous crowd, and their action upon that occasion has left a very bitter recollection amongst the people of Belfast. I do not intend, however, to retaliate in this matter, but I do say that that is the explanation which to some extent may account for the action of the magistrates in bringing a large body of alien police. [Laughter from the Irish Benches.] Well, that is my opinion, although I have not a word to say against the Irish constabulary. The honourable Member for East Mayo must be perfectly aware, and everybody in this House is aware, that the whole of this trouble was initiated by this procession. Language was used of a provocative character. No doubt from that small beginning came these lamentable disturbances, and it is certainly right to take the most effective measures possible for putting a stop to this disorder. But there is one point to which I wish to draw attention. There is no evidence, and it is absolutely certain that the Orange body alluded to by the honourable Member had no part in these disturbances. I am not here to champion the Orange body—I am not even a member of it—but I do say this, that as far as my knowledge goes there has been, on the contrary, a very earnest and anxious endeavour made with regard to these disturbances to prevent their occurrence, and to prevent these offences from being committed. With regard to the rest of the population of Belfast, I can only say that I know there is nothing more lamentable in the eyes of the people of Belfast than these disturbances, which are the work of a class of rowdy boys and young men, who have, unfortunately, long existed in Belfast. These riots were initiated, and for the most part carried out, by the class I have described. It is perfectly true that the Island men returning from their work were assaulted, and it is also true that they retaliated, but this wrecking and robbing has been the work of the boys and rowdies who have long been known to exist in Belfast on both sides. What occurred is perfectly well expressed in the newspaper which the honourable Member has read, and the other newspapers are absolutely at one in their condemnation of these outrages. I hope have clearly explained the circumstances to the House. I may also add, in conclusion, that it is within my own knowledge that an enormous majority of the people of Belfast regret these disturbances, and are as much opposed to what has taken place as anyone could possibly be.

MR. DAVITT

I have listened with attention to the speech which has been addressed to the House by the honourable Member who has just sat down, and I think I can say that a weaker speech has never been addressed to this assembly, even by the honourable Member opposite. He endeavoured to palliate the conduct of his political supporters by talking of a provocative procession, and referred incidentally to what he called a "bloody rebellion." It is not necessary, in consequence of his remarks, to go into the circumstances of the rebellion of 1798. I would remind the honourable Member that the leaders of that rebellion in the north of Ireland were not Catholics, but Protestants. But, Sir, one of the most extraordinary remarks I ever heard in this assembly was his declaration that what he called the strong incendiary speeches of my honourable Friend and Mr. Devlin, which were reported in the Nationalist papers on Tuesday morning, papers which Orangemen never read, were the cause of the attacks made upon the Nationalists, and upon the police, the previous evening. That is a species of reasoning the like of which I do not think it is in the memory of any man in this House to recollect. The fact is, disguise it as the honourable Member may, that this was disgraceful conduct on the part, of his political supporters in Belfast. From the contention of the honourable Member I understand that my honourable Friend behind me incited the law and order disciples of Shankhill Road and Island Main to go and attack the policemen. Although I have not had the privilege of reading my honourable Friend's speech, I say that he never incited them to attack the police officers of that city. The honourable Member said further that it is a provocation to these gentlemen of Shankhill Road to bring policemen from outside into Belfast. I believe the contention is that Belfast is a model city in its loyalty to the British Crown; but if the sentiment of the city is so wonderfully loyal, if the desire of the citizens is to uphold law and order, why should they have an animus against those who wear Her Majesty's uniform? I put it to the honourable Gentleman, who is a man gifted with a great deal of intelligence, whether a lamer excuse than that could be addressed to this House. I am satisfied that these gentlemen of Shankhill Road did not intend to attack the procession. What they wanted was an opportunity of attacking the police, upon whom they made a murderous assault in 1886. Under these circumstances, I agree with my honourable Friend that the blame rests upon those who, knowing what the reputation of the Shankhill men has been in the past, did not take the necessary precautions to ensure the preservation of the peace.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The speech of the honourable Gentleman denounced in very severe terms the conduct of the Belfast mob. Nobody attempts to defend the action of the Belfast mob, and I will not waste further words upon that matter. The Motion of the honourable Member opposite had special reference to the inadequacy of the arrangements made by the city authorities and the executive government to preserve the peace and protect property; and it is only on that point I wish to address myself. It is not my business, as representing the executive, to defend in every point the action of the local authorities with whom the arrangements of the details of such cases naturally and necessarily lay. It may be that their action was not in all respects the most prudent, judging by the light of subsequent events; but the real question is whether any really grave error was committed, and whether any really important measure which ought to have been taken was not taken. Well, now, in connection with this, let me remind the House that the honourable Member for East Mayo has himself expressed over and over again the opinion that the procession itself was adequately protected.

MR. DILLON

I went further than that, and stated that, except in the interests of the public peace, the procession needed no protection, being quite able to protect itself.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The procession itself was quite able to defend itself. Of course, if the procession had been attacked, no doubt it would have retaliated. The riots that would hare resulted I will leave the House to imagine. But as a matter of fact the procession went to Hannahstown and returned without any incidents, except such as the authorities were able to grapple with. The really serious rioting occurred after the return from Hannahstown, when the procession had dispersed. The really serious rioting, as the honourable Member has stated, was the attack upon the police, and not upon the procession. The honourable Member for East Mayo said there was a certain number of extra police outside the town, and asked why they were not brought into the town. As the honourable Gentleman opposite knows, there is the strongest objection in Belfast to the introduction of police from the outside, but, so far as the Executive is concerned, no obstacle would have been placed in the way of the magistrates if they had wished to adopt that course. In fact, the offer was made and refused by the magistrate on the ground that such a step would be likely to increase the turmoil. The moment the riot became serious the military were sent for, and a troop of cavalry and 100 infantry appeared with out further delay upon the scene. All the arrangements were made for the preservation of the peace by the Belfast magistrates, the Commissioner of Police, and the general commanding the district. It was anticipated that it might be necessary to call in the assistance of the troops. They were confined to barracks all day, and were ready to appear at a moment's notice. They did appear and cleared the streets, and shortly after their appearance the riot was quelled. No doubt one of the most remarkable things in connection with the riot was that, while the most intense animosity and hostility was shown against the police, no such animosity was shown against the troops. If the advice of the Executive had been followed in all respects, the magistrates would, from the first, have made a larger use of the troops, who would have been asked to block the streets at an earlier period. I regret myself that that was not done. If it had been done, I think the rioting, at all events, would have been diminished, if not prevented altogether. I am not prepared to say that in not taking the advice of the Executive the magistrates committed a great error of judgment. It is a debatable point, and it is known that the military have an objection to performing what are described as police duties. To form a cordon in the streets was naturally a duty more for the police than the military, and on that ground, probably, the general commanding was reluctant that the duty should be undertaken by the troops. Still, I regret that it was not undertaken by the troops from the first. Subsequently they were brought into request more than before, with perfectly satisfactory results. The honourable Member for East Mayo read a report from the Times, describing the tranquil state of things in Belfast last night.

MR. DILLON

The continuance of tranquillity depends upon the presence of the troops, and at any available opportunity the police will probably be attacked again.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I earnestly trust that that will not be the case. Of course, at the present time there is still a great deal of excitement, and it is right to take all the precautions the circumstances call for. I am glad to say that the tranquillity referred to by the honourable Member has continued. The last information which I have received is that everything passed off most satisfactorily in Belfast last night; that there was no disturbance of the peace, that the military had been brought out at an early hour in the evening to block the streets and support the police, and that the same course will be followed this evening. I trust that special precautions will no longer be necessary. Now, let me say one word in conclusion.

MR. DILLON

The right honourable Gentleman has not referred at all to the battle of the Island men on Tuesday, when only four constables were on duty in a very dangerous locality.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I do not accept the honourable Gentleman's statement as correct until I have received information on the point. I may not make a statement to the House upon it. Nobody cam regret more than the Executive this outbreak. I am certain that every right-minded man must condemn in. the strongest way the action of the Belfast crowd on this occasion. In my opinion the extraordinary animosity shown against the police must have had some other origin than the speeches delivered on Monday afternoon. But whatever might be the cause of this feeling against the police in Belfast, I feel sure my honourable Friends will join with me in regretting the existence of this feeling, whatever the cause may be. The occurrences in Belfast were a discredit to a great commercial town, and I am sure they will be felt to be a discredit by all the respectable citizens of Belfast. I trust that all parties and all creeds in Belfast will endeavour to put an end for the future to such disturbances as have taken, place there during the earlier part of the week. I should like to refer to what I will describe as the peculiarly cowardly conduct of the constituents of the honourable Member for Belfast. They made no serious attack upon the procession; they knew the procession could defend itself; but when they found two policemen in the street by themselves they attacked them and did their best to murder them. They did not attack the Catholic quarters, but when they found a Catholic house in the Protestant quarter without a sufficient force of police to protect it they attacked the house because they knew it was safe sport. Under these circumstances I think for the honourable Member—who, perhaps of all Members of this House, has been the most studiously offensive for the last 10 years in condemning Nationalist Members as having had share in any outrage committed in any part of Ireland—to rise in his seat and make the sort of half defensive and half condemnatory speech that he has made to-night, is a pretty comment on the sincerity of his long course of denunciations of the Nationalist Members. An honourable Member has said that there is a very natural feeling against the police because they used their rifles, I must say, in self-defence, some 12 years ago. I confess that if that is to be considered an excuse—the honourable Member used the word "excuse"—for the conduct of these rioters; if we are to be told in the House of Commons, by their representatives there, that that is an excuse for the attack on the police, it will be unfortunate. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not understand how it was that the mob did not molest the soldiers on the withdrawal of the police. The reason is very simple. They think that when the soldiers come and the police are withdrawn they have beaten the police, and they treat their withdrawal as a victory. They look upon the policeman as their natural foe, and when they see that he is withdrawn and the soldiers put in his place they regard that as a sign of their victory. At the present moment the situation in Belfast is that the mob have beaten the police. I do not believe that is a very satisfactory situation from the point of view of the Executive Government. One thing may be mentioned. By a peculiar accident, some years ago in a private Bill the Corporation of Belfast excepted Belfast from the general law that prevails in the rest of Ireland as to compensation for such injuries as those caused to the 103 policemen in the town, but by an Amendment accepted to the Local Government Bill the Government have agreed that for the future the law shall be the same for Belfast as for the rest of Ireland. But what I demand is that such provision shall be made retrospective, and those people of Belfast shall be made to pay, in the same way as the people in any other part of Ireland would have had to pay if they had done the same thing, for the ill-deeds of the crowd.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

I am glad to think that this unfortunate riot in Belfast was not due in any way to the Nationalist Party. We have been accustomed for some time to denunciations of the Nationalist Members and of their constituents whenever any unfortunate disturbance occurs, and it is impossible not to contrast the very unfavourable tone of the Debate towards the action of the mob in Belfast with the tone of the Debate whenever such an occurrence takes place in other districts of Ireland. Since I have been in this House, representing the Eastern Division of Clare, Nationalist Members have been subjected to denunciations of the fiercest kind when from time to time comparatively small disturbances have occurred in the county towns; but here we have the fact acknowledged that in this case 103 policemen were seriously injured by a riotous mob in Belfast. I must say that a deliberate attempt has been made to pass over the action of the mob that injured these policemen, simply because they are what is called "Loyalists" in Ireland. I ask anybody to imagine what would be the indignation expressed in this House by the supporters of the Government if news came to hand that in my constituency, or in the county of Cork, or in any part of Ireland, a riot had taken place whereby 103 policemen were seriously injured by a Nationalist mob? Not only would there be indignant references, not only in the House, but in every newspaper in England and Scotland, to the open lawlessness that prevails in Ireland, and which led to the wounding of 103 policemen, and it would be served up from day to day as an argument of the unfitness of the Nationalist population for self-government and the management of their own affairs that they were liable from time to time to break out in this violent way and injure many policemen who were simply trying to do their duty. But because this has taken place in Belfast apparently no indignation is to be expressed at the occurrence. I must say that Nationalist Members have sometimes been denounced for not having been, in the opinion of some persons, sufficiently outspoken in their denunciations of the disturbances and violence in the Nationalist portions of Ireland. However true that may be, I think that many English Members in this House not in sympathy with Home Rule must have listened with great surprise to the tone adopted by the honourable Member for West Belfast in his speech on this matter. No one listening to that speech, no one reading that speech in print, can fail to see that it was, from beginning to end, an excuse for an attempt to palliate the action of this mob, which has committed what I must call this most unparalleled and unexampled outrage upon the police force in Ireland. I have seen the police in the South and West of Ireland behaving, in my opinion, in a most unjustifiable way, but if the police there were assaulted in the same way as were the police in the streets of Belfast they would have used their firearms to protect themselves. I remember Mitchelstown, and I have heard the order given repeatedly to the police that if the mob did not desist they were to use their firearms. Such a thing could not have happened in the south or west of Ireland as 103 policemen being struck down without using their firearms, but because it has happened in the streets of Belfast, where the people who are the rioters are supposed to be the supporters of the Unionist Party, and whose representatives in this House are supporters of the Government, the unfortunate police are obliged to stand these assaults, and we never hear a whisper of anything in the shape of an order such as was given in other parts of Ireland—to shoot unless order was restored. I remember, some years ago, when there was a disturbance in the South of Ireland, and before the police were seriously attacked at all, the Government of that time sent a telegram to say that, if the police were assailed, they were not to hesitate to shoot. But these policemen in Belfast were obliged to stand, practically defenceless, in the streets, without using the weapons in their hands, while 103 of their number were struck down, and some of them, seriously injured, by a riotous Orange mob. I can only say that I hope the opponents of the Nationalist Party in this House, and in the country, will take due cognisance of the fact that this riot has not been the result of the action of the Nationalist Party, and that, if 103 policemen have been seriously injured, it has been the result of the action of the Orange mob. We are told that the Nationalist Party gave provocation by holding a procession in commemoration of what the majority of the people of Ireland consider to have been a gallant struggle of 100 years ago. This is the first time for 100 years that anything has been done in the way of celebrating the rebellion of 1798; but what have the Orangemen done? It is not only a centenary celebration they hold, but every year they hold demonstrations of the most provocative character. I regret these disturbances as much as any supporter of the Government, or anybody in this House, because everybody who comes from Ireland, whether from Cork, or Dublin, or Belfast, must regret to see reports in the newspapers of fierce and bloody combats in the streets amongst people who ought to, and would, under proper government and under normal circumstances, live together in good-fellowship as citizens of one country. We draw attention to the fact simply because it is our emphatic belief that these recurring riots in Belfast take place because the Government will not, in the case of Belfast, take proper steps to prevent them. How is it that in Belfast alone we have periodically these bloody riots in the streets? It is because the rioters in the city of Belfast have been taught, time after time, to believe that their action will be practically cloaked up by the Government of the day. ["No."] Yes, yes, yes; and that whatever damage they do will be as far as possible overlooked, because they are the supporters of the Government and the Unionist party in England. We are told in a lofty manner by the Member for West Belfast that the police are not popular in Belfast. Well, I must say that from a supporter of law and order, who has never done railing at the Nationalists of Ireland, a statement of that description is rather startling. Why are the police not popular in Belfast? Because the police in Belfast have the audacity to try and prevent sometimes lawless mobs of Orangemen from wrecking property and attacking houses. No doubt the police ought not to behave in that way to the Orangemen. If the Nationalists meet together to promote any cause that they may think good, the police should attack them, but to interfere with the sacred rights of Orangemen to demonstrate against the lives and the properties of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen that is a thing which the police ought not to have the audacity to do; and because they have done it more or less in a weak way—for they are not allowed to take strong action—because they have done so, they are unpopular. Well, truly such sentiments, coming from the Unionist representative of the loyal city of Belfast, must strike many Members of this House as being somewhat startling. Of course, if I, for instance, the representative of what is described as the wild and the lawless district of the county of Clare, were to say that the police were not popular in Clare, my statement would be received as evidence of the terrible state of affairs which existed in my constituency; but surely we never expect to hear sentiments of that kind coming from the loyal representative of the citizens of West Belfast. I charge the Government here with not having taken proper steps to prevent these attacks upon the Catholic population of Belfast. It is all nonsense to tell me that they left it in the hands of the local authorities in Belfast. I say that if there was the slightest prospect of a serious disturbance with the population in the city of Limerick, or Cork, or Dublin, the Government would have taken very good care to flood the place with police, to station them everywhere, and to put down in the strongest possible way any riot long before it reached the proportion of having 103 policement stricken to the ground. But they took absolutely no precautions in the city of Belfast, and I say that while the Orangement of Belfast are to be condemned for their reckless and outrageous conduct, disgracing the name of Irishmen, the Government is to be condemned also because they did not take proper steps to check the Orange rioters. They cannot say in this House that they did not expect what took place. Time after time there have been bloody riots in the city of Belfast. It is well known that the inhabitants of the Orange districts have, year after year, and time after time, disgraced their city by their onslaughts upon their Catholic fellow-citizens. The Government had plenty of reason to believe what might take place. But, no; because it was in the loyal city of Belfast, and because the Government did not care to do anything that might perhaps embarrass or annoy their supporters, the Member for Belfast and the other gentlemen who represent those civilised constituencies in the north of Ireland take no action at all; and I say that the fact that 103 policemen have been assaulted, that houses have been wrecked, is indirectly the result of what I must call the criminal apathy of the Government in refusing to take steps to protect the Catholic inhabitants of the city of Belfast. Mr. Speaker, I speak somewhat warmly upon this matter because I have, perhaps more than most Members, some idea of what these terrible riots are. I myself represented an Ulster constituency for seven years in this House, the chief town of which is Enniskillen, in the county of Fermanagh, and I have seen these riots take place; I have seen the terrible results of those riots; and I feel my responsibility as a Member of this House after seven years' experience of an Ulster constituency. I say deliberately if Ulster has been signalised for ferocious rioting it is not the result of division in religious feeling; it is absolutely because it has been the settled policy of the Government, in dealing with the disturbances of the peace in Ulster, to give, directly or indirectly, circulation to the idea hold by the Orangemen throughout Ulster that the Government will deal lightly with them, and that, after all, if they do riot, they are rioting in a good cause, that they are supporters of the Union, and that they are letting the world see that there are some Orangemen who are not Home Rulers at any rate. And if you go through Ulster what will you find? You will find, travelling from place to place, that the tone of their minds is that, although rioting, of course, is a bad thing, still when they come up with their brickbats and their missiles and attack the houses of Catholics, and wreck their property and take stolen drink to their homes, that they are not merely acting as ordinary rioters, but that they are showing that they are supporters of the Union, that they are enemies of Home Rule, and that, though Cork and Limerick and the rest of Ireland may be solid for Home Rule, there are some loyal hearts still left in Unionist Ulster. Well, honourable Gentlemen may think that that is an exaggerated statement. Perhaps it is—perhaps I may be wrong; but I give it to the House as my deliberate opinion after my experience as a Member for Ulster. What is the remedy? I say that a remedy has not been applied by the Government in this case. The remedy is this: let the Government in power, be it Liberal or Tory, have it thoroughly understood in Ulster that Orange rioters will be treated with a severe hand as National destroyers; and if they do these riots will speedily come to an end. It is not only the riot that took place in Belfast the other day, but I believe the riot in Belfast was stimulated by another riot which occurred in Ulster a few days—perhaps a week—before that, when an Orange mob broke in upon the tomb of a Catholic patriot that had been erected at considerable cost. They levelled it with hammers, they broke the stone, they tore down the railings, and they wrecked several houses in Ballynahinch, in the north of Ireland. What was the result? Some petty attempt was made to prosecute them; some show was made by the Government. The result was that no strong action was taken against these men. What was the result? You have the result in the more serious, the more extensive, riots which took place in the city of Belfast the other day. Rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—Orangemen have the idea that they will not be treated severely by the Government, simply because they are on the side of the Government in politics. When these riots take place in Belfast, it is as right to tell your policemen to unsling their rifles and level them against Orangemen as against rioters in Clare, and Cork, and Limerick, and the west of Ireland; and when you do that, Ulster will no longer be signalised as being the one spot in Ireland which, though largely Unionist, at the same time enjoys the unenviable notoriety of being the scene of the most disgraceful and the most bloody riots which have ever taken place in any portion of our country. There is no use, I suppose, in pressing this matter further upon the Government than to say that the damage is now done. Those 103 policemen—victims of Orange rowdyism—must, I suppose, get well as best they can. The Government failed to take proper precautions, but if they have any sincere desire to put down this kind of thing in Belfast in the future, I challenge them to call upon the local authorities to take such vigorous steps against every one of those Orange rioters as will teach them a lesson that they cannot be allowed with impunity, simply because they are Conservatives, to turn the streets of the city of Belfast into scenes of violence of the most disgraceful kind. Punish them well; send to gaol for as long a term as you would send any unfortunate peasant farmer in the west and south-west of Ireland who might incur the displeasure of the Government for making a struggle for his home. I hold that, in justice and in fairness, every paper in England should pay particular attention to the fact that in this riot in Belfast 103 policemen have been stricken down, not by a Nationalist, but by an Orange mob, and that no steps were taken to prevent them. What would have been the result if the riots had taken place in this country? If the riot had taken place in Manchester or Birmingham, and 103 policemen, or other officers of the law, in trying to do their duty were seriously injured and taken to the hospital in an almost dying condition—if news of that description came from your large centres of population—there would be unanimous censure upon the Government for not having taken proper measures to protect the officers of the law. You would have insisted that the Government should deal out adequate and strong punishment to the rioters. I call upon them, in the interests of the peace of Ireland, to take such steps as will make these Orange rioters feel for the future that there is not one law for them and another law for the unfortunate men who incur the displeasure of the Government in other portions of Ireland besides Ulster.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,

Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

who was left in possession of the House, not being in his place,

Question put— That this House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived without a Division.