HC Deb 18 February 1902 vol 103 cc460-72

On the Motion for the Adjournment,

(12.4.) MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said the House had been occupied for some eight hours in consulting the personal convenience of its Members, and he now wished to draw public attention, in the only way he could, to the detention from their Parliamentary duties by the Executive of two Members of the House, Mr. Hayden and Mr. John O'Donnell. He had sought to bring the matter before the House as a matter of privilege, but the Ruling of the Chair had been against that. While hon. Members had been considering as to the proper time to adjourn for the weekend, two Members of the House, for discharging their duty to their constituents, were suffering on plank beds and on bread and water in those hells on earth, vile British dungeons, although they were guilty of no moral crime. He first wished to direct attention to the case of Mr. Hayden, at present in Castlebar Gaol, and who was sentenced by an improper tribunal to three weeks imprisonment. He might state that Mr. Hayden and Mr. O'Donnell were the only two Members of the House of Commons who in the whole history of Parliament, when convicted and sentenced and when their sentences were confirmed on appeal, had addressed the House amid enthusiastic cheers, and when they left the House for prison they did not leave it as convicted felons, but left it under circumstances of honour and glory. Every Irish Member would endorse up to the hilt whatever crime they had committed. Why were not those gentlemen expelled? The House dared not expel them, because they were not guilty of any moral crime. It was necessary that the British public should understand those matters, as every attempt was made to hush them up, just as every attempt was made to hush up British reverses in South Africa. Mr. Hayden was, for a speech delivered to his own constituents, accused of taking part in an unlawful assembly. No one knew better than the present occupant of the Chair, who was a most distinguished lawyer, that nothing was more difficult to define than an unlawful assembly, but two gentlemen who were not lawyers had to decide what was and what was not an unlawful assembly. It was a curious thing that those two resident magistrates were moved about like pawns on a chessboard to do the dirty work of the Government.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! That is not the way in which any person administering justice ought to be spoken of in this House. Moreover the hon. Member is not in order in reviewing the decision of the Court on the Motion for the adjournment.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said he thought he was permitted to take this opportunity of commenting on the detention of those men from their Parliamentary duties.

*MR. SPEAKER

They are detained under the judgment of the Court and that is an answer to any question of that kind. A judgment of the Court cannot be discussed.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

asked if he was permitted to state that he had no confidence in the Court.

*MR. SPEAKER

That would be reviewing the decision of the Court.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said with great respect that it would be reviewing the action of the Executive, as the resident magistrates were really the puppets of the Executive.

*MR. SPEAKER

It is not a question of the action of the Executive. Whether the Executive is right or wrong in prosecuting, the Court must decide.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said in that case he could impugn the action of the Executive in putting into operation an unusual law to secure conviction of his hon. friends. He said without fear of contradiction that the Act of 1887 had been galvanised into life for the purpose of sending these two gentlemen into prison, and had been administered in a way in which it had never been administered since 1887. The operative clauses of that Act had been suspended, and when the First Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary of Ireland, it was said that the right of public meeting would not be interfered with unless the meeting had been proclaimed.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now reviewing the decision of the Court by arguing that hon. Members had been charged with offences which they should not have been charged with.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said he would make himself perfectly plain. He was justified in stating that an unusual exercise of a statute and an unconstitutional administration of a statute had been made by the Government. No prosecution had ever been instituted by the Government under the Coercion Act without a proclamation, and the reason of the proclamation was to give persons notice, that if they addressed the meeting under certain circumstances, they would be deprived by the Crown of the right under common law to be tried by a jury, and that they would be brought before an exceptional tribunal. There was a provision introduced into the Act of 1887, that if an unlawful assembly were held even outside the proclaimed area, the men who took part in it could still be prosecuted under the Act. If Carlow, for instance, was a proclaimed county, what could be easier than to hold a meeting outside the boundary, attended by Carlow men, and it was to avoid that evasion of the Act that, under certain circumstances, persons taking part in an illegal meeting should be prosecuted without proclamation. He wished to endorse every single word which Mr. Hayden and Mr. O'Donnell had used, and he wished to tell the Chief Secretary that he would not be able by any process of law, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to muzzle the Irish representatives. It was a pretty object lesson that the House of Commons should have spent six hours in discussing the convenience of its Members, while two Irish Members were in dungeons. The Irish Members would defy the Government and give back blow for blow. The Chief Secretary was a pretty gentleman to send Irish Members to prison. He was a gentleman who was put specially on the South African Committee to be Rhodes' man. He had a letter in his hand showing that the Chief Secretary who was now prosecuting Irish Members and exercising exceptional powers against them, was selected by the man responsible for the Raid to go on the Committee. A letter was published in the Indépendence Belge on the 6th of January, 1889, from Mr. Hawkesly to Mr. Fairfield, who asked if the rumour were true that the Government had decided to appoint a Committee, and if so, would the views of the directors be considered in the selection of Members, in which case, he, Mr. Hawkesley, would suggest Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr. George Wyndham. Then there was a telegram from Mr. Hawkesley to Herr Beit, another distinguished patriot— Have seen Burke, Wyndham and Fairfield. Am doing all possible to secure Wyndham as chartered nominee. Dr. Jameson was a first-class misdemeanant, and the Chief Secretary could not find anything wrong with Mr. Rhodes at all. He reserved his condemnation for the Irish Members, who had no money, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues said a few nights ago. His hon. friends were excluded from the House, although the House did not dare to expel them; and Mr. Rutherford Harris, a gentleman up to the lips in the Raid, was actually invited to be a Member in the House.

(12.24) MR. DILLON

I wish to support my hon. friend. I am extremely glad that an opportunity has been given us—although a very inconvenient opportunity—of bringing to the attention of the House what appears to me to be one of the greatest outrages ever perpetrated, even by the Government of Ireland. In making use, as you are doing, of the Coercion Act, you are guilty of a breach of faith with this House, which never intended that the Act should be used for this purpose. It was intended, as was stated when it was recommended to the House, to deal with crime. Will any one say that these gentlemen have been guilty of any crime? Are you going to keep criminals as Members of this House? You know they are not criminals. When we comment on this action of the Government, remember that it is at the discretion of the Executive to use this statute or not, and that this is a new departure in the policy of governing Ireland—the opening of a new chapter, which is of far more serious import than hon. Members are probably aware—this using the Coercion Act against Members of this House, whose offence was only that they addressed peaceful meetings which were not proclaimed—this attempt on the part of the Government to strike down their political opponents. The Chief Secretary may shake his head, but that is what they are doing, although they had the instructive experience of the past nine years, during which, according to the admission of the Chief Secretary the other day, crime had almost disappeared. I warn you of what the consequence will be. On whose head will the responsibility rest if our people are thrust back into courses which they had deserted? How can the Chief Secretary face this House in the future, if Ireland is disfigured with crime when he has had recourse to this horrible weapon, which had been laid aside by his predecessors for nine years, in order to shut the mouths of his political opponents? What we impeach to-night is not the gentlemen who formed the Court—that we can do again—but what I must call the momentous, the infamous step taken by the Government, who, without a shred of justification, revived this weapon. There are some of us who have risked our lives and our liberty to redeem our country from this horrid tradition of agrarian crime and outrages, and we have succeeded, and if you are going to throw back once again our people into paths in which they have not desired to tread, I say you will take upon you the greatest responsibility man ever incurred. When we impeached the action of the Government, on the Amendment to the Address, what did the right hon. Gentleman say? That there were only eleven men prosecuted—it was a small matter. He, too, I told him, entered upon a course upon which it would be difficult to turn. I told him that these things always began in that way. These gentlemen represented not themselves merely, because they were all nearly elected representatives, and what is the consequence? I Why this very day there are twenty-one new prosecutions in Ireland. It was said that I and others were disturbing Mayo and Roscommon. It is not these counties only now—it is also Tipperary and Clare, and I tell you that when you wake up Tipperary and Clare, you had better look out for storms. These counties have for long years slept in peace, free from the stain of agrarain crime. You are going to stir them up and endeavour to drive them along that desperate path again. This no joking matter. You are opening a new chapter of Irish history, and I think the right hon. Gentleman who turns the first page will live to regret it. It is a nice performance as a prelude to the Coronation. Fifteen years ago, on the jubilee of the late Queen, we alone, were condemned to the perpetual slavery—for it is nothing else—slavery of living under this Coercion, and we are now told be a great nobleman that we shall get Home Rule when we are loyal. Fifteen years have passed. For nine of them the Coercion Act was laid aside, and if anything could teach wisdom to English statesman in the Government of Ireland, those nine years ought to have been sufficient. You have selected a period only three months before the Coronation for the revival of coercion in Ireland. Is not that an extraordinary state of affairs? Let me now quote from the judgment of one of the greatest authorities—whose name I shall presently give—in reference to recent proceedings in Ireland in connection with the prosecution of Mr. Hayden and Mr. O'Donnell. He said— I hold that the charge was not for unlawful assembly, but for criminal acts over which the justices had no jurisdiction whatever, and for these reasons I am of opinion that the convictions are entirely illegal and void, and ought to be quashed. These, Sir, are the words of Ireland's greatest lawyer, Chief Baron Palles. You have not only therefore revived the Coercion Act, but you have re-opened a chapter in Irish history.

*MR. SPEAKER

I told the hon. Member it was not permissible to discuss the judgment of the Court. The hon. Member has read a judgment of one judge and has not referred to the others. The judgment was that the decision was legal, and the hon. Member cannot review that decision.

MR. DILLON

I did not think, Sir, I was breaking your ruling in quoting Chief Baron Palles, but I will not refer to it further. I say that not only have you revived the Coercion Act, but you have also opened up a chapter in Irish history which, I fear, will be a sad one, and which I hope will not be a bloody one. You have put into prison Members of this House under a sentence which was never intended for such a purpose, and you are holding them in prison now, though you believe in your hearts and souls that the proceedings are illegal.

(12.36.) MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

Surely it is not possible that the Gentlemen responsible for the government of Ireland are going to remain silent in this debate. I quite recognise that the opportunity is inconvenient, but we must take advantage of it. It will be in the recollection of the House that we asked the First Lord of the Treasury for an opportunity for the regular discussion of this matter, but we were referred by him to the Vote on the Chief Secretary's salary. We pointed out the urgency of the matter, and asked him to put down the Vote for an early day. He disputed the urgency, and we are, therefore, forced to take advantage of this opportunity. The point we wish to make is that the Government, instead of proceeding by the means of the ordinary law, have proceeded against hon. Members by an exceptional statute. In England no man can be tried on a charge of unlawful assembly except by a jury, but in Ireland there is an exceptional law which enables the Executive to try men before a special tribunal for that offence. I can understand the Government saying that they had tried the experiment of putting these men on their trial before a jury and had found it impossible to get convictions, and that they had fallen back on the Coercion Act. They have done nothing of the kind. They passed by the ordinary law, and put these men on trial before special tribunals. These are tribunals consisting of men who are not even lawyers. They consist of gentlemen, generally promoted policemen and half-pay officers, who are appointed by the Government, and hold their office at the pleasure of the Government, and, therefore, the Government, not being able to say that the ordinary law has broken down, has chosen to send Members of this House before tribunals composed of men who are their deputies, servants, and agents. It is idle to contend that this is not an attack on political opponents. My hon. friend the Member for South Roscommon has been a Member of this House for a considerable time. My hon. friend the Member for South Mayo has not been so long a Member, but no hon. Member would venture to assert that my hon. friend the Member for South Roscommon would be guilty of committing crime. He was not prosecuted as a criminal. If he were convicted of crime, then following every precedent you would be bound to expel him, but you do not intend to do anything of the kind. He is punished simply as a political opponent.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is not justified in reflecting on the Court by saying he is punished as a political opponent—he has been punished under the law of the land, and by a competent Court.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I was wrong in using the word punished. I should have said he was prosecuted by the Executive as a political opponent. The Chief Secretary was challenged the other night to lay on the Table of this House the speech for which my hon. friend was prosecuted, but he refused. I wish it were possible for us to get every Member of the House to read that speech, as no one could spell out of it a single sentence in evidence of criminality. In these circumstances, is it not a scandal that a man prosecuted in that way before such a tribunal, and under an exceptional law should be treated in prison as a common criminal? To night these gentlemen are lying on plank beds, and are experiencing the same treatment as many of us on these Benches have experienced, as I experienced in 1888 when, for a speech delivered to my constituents, I was sent to prison to lie on a plank bed. I was refused a book, I was refused even a slate to write on, I was refused all writing materials; I was refused permission to receive a letter, I was kept for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four locked in my cell, I was dressed as a criminal, and was treated in every particular as an ordinary prisoner. It is perfectly disgraceful that that should be done in the case of a man convicted in this way, and prosecuted simply as a political opponent. And yet we found that special methods were adopted in order to prevent Dr. Jameson and his colleagues suffering in the same way. They were convicted in the ordinary way. The judge, who had the power if he chose, to make them first-class misdemeanants, did not do so, but the Government at once interfered, and the Royal clemency was invoked through the agency of the Home Secretary, and they were at once treated, not as common criminals, but as first-class misdemeanants, and were allowed to receive visits and provide their own food and furniture, whereas Irish Members prosecuted by the Executive as political opponents are sent to prison as ordinary criminals. That is a perfect scandal, and perhaps the greatest scandal of all is that those responsible for that policy should remain silent. I am perfectly sure that if hon. Members generally knew the facts they would insist on these men being treated as Dr. Jameson was, but it is impossible to get the House to listen to this question. I think the House will recognise that my hon. friend the Member for South Donegal has done a good service in bringing this matter forward, even at such an hour.

In conclusion, I would only ask the Government to give serious heed to the warning given by my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. His was a serious speech coming from a man who has been through these coercion campaigns in the past, and from a man who has suffered from them. It is an instance of the light and careless way in which the peace and tranquillity of Ireland are considered that the gentleman responsible for the Irish Government should sit silent and not reply to that serious warning. The Chief Secretary has entered on a dangerous course. He has entered on a policy which, if carried out to its logical end, will be injurious to him and to his administration, and which will entail untold suffering and misery on Ireland. For my part, speaking with the serious intention of endeavouring to save my country from the terrible misery and trouble which must come upon her if this policy is pursued, and that is the only object I have in view. I conclude by entering my solemn protest against the course which the Government have taken, and against the contemptuous silence with which they have listened to the indictment.

Adjourned at a quarter before One of the clock.