§ [MOTION FOR, ADJOURNMENT.]
§ (9.0.) MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)rose, in pursuance of leave obtained at the afternoon sitting, to 972 move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the action of the Irish Executive in forcibly preventing a public meeting of the citizens of Dublin, and in assaulting a Member of this House and others." He said that in bringing this Motion before the House he desired to state that he was not actuated by any personal motives, or by anything that happened to himself on the 18th of May. Neither did he complain of the treatment he received himself, except in so far as it reflected upon his character as a representative of the people and a Member of the House of Commons. He 973 wished to make no private capital out of this matter. His only desire was to vindicate the right of free speech and the right of a Member of Parliament to address his constituents at a meeting legally convened for a lawful purpose. In the Question he put to the Chief Secretary earlier in the day upon this matter, he expected to receive an answer that would have satisfied him and relieved him of the obligation of further taking up the time of the House, He had felt satisfied the Chief Secretary would have admitted that an illegal act had been committed, and that, having had the manliness to admit that, he would have expressed regret for what had happened. The Chief Secretary, in his reply—not from his own personal knowledge, but relying on the information supplied to him—misrepresented the facts, and deceived the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary said the meeting was to be held at Blessington Basin which was a strip of water surrounded by a narrow footpath. The meeting was announced to be held in a cul de sac, at the end of Blessington Street, which was a place at which he frequently held meetings. The place was selected because it was off the main thoroughfare, and could not interfere with the public traffic, whatever the object for which the meeting was convened. The Chief Secretary said it was convened for the purpose of intimidating an individual named Dodd, who had grabbed a grass farm. He denied absolutely that the meeting was called for any such purpose, and for the best of all reasons, that negotiations had been entered into with the United Irish League, and the individual who was supposed to be denounced and intimidated had given up the grabbed farm. There was no intention, directly or indirectly, to intimidate Mr. Dodd. The first objects of the meeting were—to advance the National organisation, and to urge the people, as a means of strengthening their organisation, to join the nited Irish League. The next object of the meeting was to denounce coercion, and the next point was that the meeting was intended to protest against the action of a miserable creature in Dublin who had taken upon himself 974 to prostitute the city of Dublin by announcing that he intended to attend the Coronation as the representative of the city. It was because of that, that this meeting, as he believed, was forcibly suppressed. He would have denounced Mr. Peter M'Cabe in all the moods and tenses at that meeting. Without meaning any disrespect to the King, he would have done that; but, so long as Ireland was ruled as it was, the man would be a craven who would attempt to grovel at the feet of an English monarch.
Now, he contended, if this meeting was deemed to be illegal, the Castle should have proclaimed it. The authorities did not do that, and he never received the slightest warning that the meeting was to be prevented, and when he appealed to the police as to why the meeting was interfered with, he only received the reply: "The meeting will not be allowed to be held." He insisted upon his right to hold the meeting, and he intended, by force if necessary, to reach the rendezvous where the meeting was to take place. He tried to break through the cordon of police who were illegally attempting to stop the meeting, and when he had succeeded in making his way into Blessington Street, and attempted to address the people from the steps of Mr. Lynch's house, he was set upon by the police and flung to the ground. The people were hustled about, and struck by the police. Bâtons were not used, but the people were "pucked" and punched in the ribs. If the men at the meeting had had blackthorns, he would have assisted them in resisting the attacks of those who ought to have been their protectors. He had been given the frog's march, and his arms were twisted until he almost writhed with pain, and in the presence of his constituents he was treated as a common malefactor, a treatment which was seen from the windows of his house by Mr. Thomas Sexton, a gentleman who for years had been an ornament to the House of Commons. So much for his own part in what happened. But the people also were attacked, and some of them beaten. One respectable woman, coming from her devotions, annoyed at the way she was used, struck a policeman with her umbrella, and the cowardly 975 fellow broke the umbrella across his knee, and then struck her with the pieces. Men went to her assistance, and one of them, who not unnaturally retaliated, was fined 40s. next morning—a fine which was paid by the very man whom it was said they intended to intimidate. By whose authority was the meeting proclaimed? He was satisfied it was not the Chief Secretary, who had merely today read the answer which was handed to him. In any case, the only effect of it was to call in a wider way attention to land-grabbing and its consequences. Some of the people who were there did not know what the meeting was for. They probably said "Oh, it is the Member for the College Green Division going to address his constituents. Perhaps he is going for Peter M'Cabe, the butcher, who is to welcome His Majesty." But, in any case, one result of what had happened was that Mr. Dodd had sent a substantial cheque to the League, and was to be elected a member of the organisation. The whole affair was a scandalous instance of the way in which Ireland was ruled. It showed that there was no real freedom of speech, and it illustrated the manner in which the people were treated.
§ (9.30.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I have pleasure in seconding the Motion. There are two aspects in which this matter may fairly be considered. First of all, there is the aspect of the illegal conduct of the Government in interfering with the right of free meeting and free speech in the city of Dublin. That is a very serious aspect of the case. We have been accustomed for several years to interference in other parts of Ireland with the right of free meeting, but interference with it in Dublin is a rare occurrence. Although, strictly speaking, and from the legal point of view, there is nothing more wrong in the suppression of a meeting in Dublin than in the country, the rare character of the proceeding gives greater gravity to the action on the part of the Government. It becomes all the more serious because the pretext upon which the Government has always sought to justify its interference with the right of free meeting is absolutely grotesque when applied to Dublin—the pretext, namely, that the 976 meetings in other parts of Ireland have been called, or were calculated, to intimidate individuals residing in lonely situations. But this is the first time in our recent experience of coercion in which any Chief Secretary has suppressed a meeting in Dublin upon the plea of its being organised for the purpose of intimidating an individual. That, I gather, is the ground upon which the Chief Secretary is going to defend the action of the police.
I desire to protest against the tone in which the Chief Secretary dealt with this question. He endeavoured to turn the whole matter to ridicule, when he spoke of my hon. friend the Member for the College Green Division as proceeding to address a meeting of his constituents at Blessington Basin, which is a sheet of water. In other words, what I assume the Chief Secretary meant, if his statement had any meaning at all was that the audience would be swimming round in the basin as if they were a set of aquatic fowl while the hon. Member was standing on the margin addressing them. That, I suppose, is intended to be witty and humorous, but it is not a worthy tone for him to adopt in dealing with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, never saw the place in question; but it is quite near where I live, and it is a place suitable for public meetings, and I am informed that meetings are held there. It is a cul de sac, and therefore there is no traffic which could be interfered with. What happened was a serious matter, and it might have led to bloodshed. It is not the fault of the police or the Chief Secretary that it did not.
Now I want to say a word as to the point put as an alleged justification of the action of the Executive, that the meeting was in reality intended to intimidate a gentleman living in the vicinity. Although there was nothing on the placard calling the meeting to show that, the police in their wisdom took it into their heads that that was the object. I protest in the most forcible manner against the doctrine again renewed in Ireland that the police have the right, by some power of thought reading to look into the minds of the promoters of meetings in Ireland, and, because they think that these men have some occult design, to proclaim meetings to prevent 977 the promoters from doing something I which they say they have no intention of doing. In the present instance their action was clearly illegal. It has been laid down in this House by Mr. Gladstone, one of the greatest authorities on constitutional law, that when the police undertake to interfere with a meeting they have no more legal authority than anyone else, and if you have sufficient power you are entitled to beat down, to resist, to overcome them, and to hold your meeting, and that the police have no remedy against you but that of force on the spot. It must be evident to anyone who accepts that doctrine that the Government ought not to undertake to prevent a meeting unless they are confident they can show that there is some great and useful public object to be achieved by suppressing the meeting. I say that the Government who recklessly, and without any great object to be served, stops a public meeting legitimately assembled, and thereby takes the risk of causing a breach of the peace, is committing a very great crime, and ought to be called to account for its conduct. The history of this case is very characteristic of the action of the Irish Executive. This gentleman, Mr. Dodd, has had a most extraordinary experience during the past two months. He took a farm in the West of Ireland. A difference of opinion arose in the district as to whether his action amounted to what is know in Ireland as land-grabbing. Mr. Dodd, however, continued to hold the farm, though his action was condemned by some local branches of the United Irish League. What happened then? My hon. friend the Member for North Leitrim was attached by Mr. Justice, who is landlord, as it were, of the farm held by Mr. Dodd, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and fined for interfering in the case by publishing in his newspaper the resolution condemning Mr. Dodd. The publication of that resolution in the Sligo Champion had no effect on Mr. Dodd, but the moment Mr. Justice Ross intervened, Mr. Dodd wrote to the papers apologising to the Member for North Leitrim, and having surrendered the farm removed his cattle to Dublin, and had them waiting to be sold there, when this meeting was summoned. Therefore, I do not see 978 how it can be maintained that Mr. Dodd was intimidated. What the United Irish League in Sligo failed to do, the intervention of Judge Ross immediately achieved. Before the meeting was summoned, which the Chief Secretary says was summoned for the purpose of intimidating Mr. Dodd, that gentleman had actually surrendered the farm in the West, and had written apologising to the Member for North Leitrim. What was the next step? This meeting is suspressed, and my hon. friend brutally ill-treated. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh because my hon. friend says he was punched in the ribs. When a Dublin policeman punches you in the ribs you are in no humour to laugh. If you have ever the misfortune to get punched, you will not forget it for a very cons derable time. But, to return to the case of Mr. Dodd. This outrage on the people of Dublin was committed for the purpose of protecting Mr. Dodd, though he had already made his peace with the United Irish League. On the morning after the meeting, Mr. Dodd wrote to the Inns Quay Ward Branch of the United Irish League, sending a cheque for £5, as a protest against the action of the Government, and requesting the honour of being elected a member of the League. Consequently, the result of the action of the Government in this case has been to drive Mr. Dodd out of his farm and into the National Organisation. The action of the Government has been precisely and diametrically the reverse of what they intended it to be. Let me say a word as to the conduct of the police. I must say that as contrasted with the constabulary in the country, the Dublin police have, on the whole, an honourable record. Their conduct towards the people is not characterised by the harshness which so often distinguishes the Irish police. Unless in extraordinary cases of this kind their energies are mostly directed to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, and these are duties which the Royal Irish Constabulary generally consider beneath their notice. In this case my hon. friend was knocked down and rolled in the mud by the police. They seized him and twisted his arms as is done in the case of the most violent people—a 979 cruel proceeding which, when people are very violent and outrageous, the police may sometimes be justified in resorting to. To resort to that in the case of my hon. friend was brutality, which I do not think you can justify. I say that transactions of the nature I have described must inevitably lead to irritation amongst the people, and the responsibility of the Government in the matter is enormous.
I think I have a right to ask the Chief Secretary, first, to tell us on what ground he held this meeting to be illegal. Was it so determined by himself and on his own responsibility? I refuse to accept the stereotyped answer which the Chief Secretary usually gives of saying that he accepts all the responsibility. We want something more than that. We want to know who is the man who actually decided that this meeting should be suppressed. Was he a police officer, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney General? I want to know also when was the decision arrived at to suppress the meeting? If the decision was arrived at, as I assume it must have been, some time before the meeting was to be held, why was not the usual proclamation posted? Why did the speakers not receive proper notice? Why was the Member for the Division not served with a notice? I also want to know whether before taking action any attempt was made by the authorities to ascertain if Mr. Dodd required protection, or if he would not infinitely rather that the meeting had been allowed to go on? It is outrageous to take action for the alleged purpose of protecting people who would rather be left alone to make peace with their neighbours to the best of their opportunity.
In this connection, let me draw attention by way of contrast to the difference between the position of the city of Dublin and of the great municipalities in this country. Here they are under the Home Secretary; in Dublin they are under Castle government. English Members have the opportunity of drawing attention to grievances of this kind, whereas in Ireland no attention is paid to our representations. It is monstrous that all this conduct on the part of the police should be possible in the city of Dublin in connection with an absolutely peaceful 980 meeting. There is not a shred of pretence that any disorder or violence was displayed in connection with that meeting. As a matter of fact there has not been a disorderly meeting in Dublin for a very long period; but my hon. friend and his constituents have been hustled by the police most brutally at a peaceful meeting, and they have no means whatever of obtaining redress. We are exercising tonight, greatly to the inconvenience of the House of Commons, the only means open to us of ventilating our grievances. Why should not this question be judged on its merits in Dublin by the Corporation, or some other body on the spot? Contrast this condition of affairs with what took place in Birmingham the other day. In that city there was a violent and savage riot, in which the police were subjected to a hailstorm of stones before they retaliated; but immediately the whole matter was investigated at enormous length by the Town Council of Birmingham, and everybody was allowed to state his case in full, while the action of the police was condemned to a certain extent. In Dublin when a perfectly peaceful meeting was being held, an unjustifiable attack was made upon it by the police, and the representative in this House of that constituency was attacked by the police, knocked down, and rolled in the mud. Yet nothing was done. If the Colonial Secretary had been rolled in the mud in Birmingham at a public meeting by the police, the House can imagine what would have happened! When that was done to a representative of the city of Dublin, and when he complained at the action of the police, he was only laughed at. Of course, we shall be told by the, Attorney General for Ireland that the hon. Gentleman might have recourse to the courts of law; but everybody knows that in the present condition of affairs in the city of Dublin justice cannot be expected. The last case in which the action of the police was challenged in the court an enormous amount of money was spent, but no one was the better of it except the lawyers who got their costs. I am not surprised when the Attorney General for Ireland gets up and says that our remedy is in the courts of law. It is the old story,"'Come into my parlour,' said the spider 981 to the fly." The fact is that the police can do what they like in Ireland, and trample upon the law. The difference that exists between this country and Ireland is that here the Home Secretary is responsible to the House of Commons, and immediately there is any invasion of the rights of the people of England, if there is a doubt, the decision is given in favour of citizens. But when you cross the Channel to Ireland the whole thing is absolutely reversed. When we bring forward a case of the rights of the citizens, and a doubt arises, the benefit of the doubt is given in favour of the police. It is for these reasons that I most heartily sympathise with my hon. friend, and support him in taking this opportunity of drawing attention to his case.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ (10.0.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,) DoverThe first thing I have to say is that I accept the whole responsibility for the action of the Irish executive and the Dublin metropolitan police, in respect of everything said or done, directly or indirectly, by anyone connected with the police or the executive in the matter in question. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked me to give, in my reply, consideration to the statements he made. I may say that I do not accept all the statements made by the hon. Member, and I do not expect that ail my own statements will be accepted by the hon. Member. I wish, however, to reply to the hon. Member, after mature consideration. I know all that has taken place, and I doubted if the Government, or the police force of any town in this country, or on the continent of Europe, ever acted with greater tact, forbearance, and consideration than the Irish executive and the Dublin metropolitan police did on this occasion, in view of proceedings that were not only exceptional in Ireland but, I believe, unique in the history of the civilised world. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that the action of the Government, and of the police, was extraordinary. So it was. When people behave in an extraordinary manner, they must expect extraordinary 982 procedure Never before in Dublin—or in any other town in Europe—has a citizen, representing a division of the city in this House, ever counte anced an attempt to advance with bands and brakes in order to molest and annoy one of his own constituents!
§ MR. DILLONsaid that what he had stated was that he knew of many occasions when great crowds had collected in Dublin, and when there was great excitement, and the police did not intervene.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe police did intervene on one occasion to protect the offices of the Freeman's Journal—in 1892. But that was in a time of excitement; this was a time of perfect peace, and there was no excuse for electoral fervour. Sometimes, we know, some of our constituencies have demonstrated with force against a candidate claiming their support, but I never heard before of an hon. Member of this House demonstrating against one of his own constituents.
Now, with regard to the statement that no notice was given by the police that the meeting was not to be permitted. The advertisement announcing the meeting was published in the Freeman's Journal on 17th May, on Whit Saturday, stating that the meeting would be held on Whit Sunday, the following day. The police visited the meeting of the Inns Quay Ward Branch of the United Irish League, and there saw Mr. M'Carthy and Mr. Kilbride, a former Member of the House, and informed them that the meeting would not be allowed.
§ MR. NANNETTIsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman said was quite correct; but the police forced their way into the hall, and went upstairs in order to state that the meeting should not take place. He might say that he was not present on that occasion.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI am very glad the hon. Member confirms the substance of my argument—that the police did not arbitrarily stop the meeting without any warning. The meeting having been announced to take place on a particular day, the police went to the representatives of the bodies connected with it, 983 and conveyed to them that it would be an illegal assembly. They also called upon the officers of the Arran Quay Ward Branch of the United Irish League, and informed them that the Government would not allow the meeting, as they believed it would be an unlawful assembly. And the police also warned two bands not to attend, and these, accepting the warning, did not turn up at the meeting. The meeting was announced to be held "at Blessington Basin." No one believed that it was to be held there, because Blessington Basin is a sheet of water with a path around it. The police knew that the announcement summoning the meeting to be held "at Blessington Basin" was a mere blind—a matter of poking fun at the Government. Everybody knew that the meeting could not be held in the water, and that it must be held in Blessington Street. Now, what is the point of that? It is that Mr. Dodd lived in Blessington Street. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that this meeting had nothing to do with Mr. Dodd.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that what he had stated was that, according to his information, there was nothing in the notice summoning the meeting which conveyed the impression that the meeting had been called for the purpose of intimidating Mr. Dodd.
§ MR. WYNDHAMMy information is quite different. The placard summoning the meeting stated, after what I may call the trimmings of the resolutions, that the meeting had been called—
For the purpose of forwarding the national cause, and to condemn the conduct of the 'Coronation flunkies'; and to disassociate all Dublin men from all sympathy with land and grass grabbers in cities and in towns.I need not tell the House that the Irish police drew the natural conclusion from that placard that the meeting was not to be held in the water but in the street. On the 27th of April a letter was written to the newspapers stating that the meeting was illegal and immoral, and most injurious to the interests of Ireland; and Mr. Dodd also wrote a letter in which he publicly denied that he was a "grass grabber," and objected to such a meeting being held in front of his house. Another 984 gentleman, however, wrote from Sligo to a Dublin paper, the Independent, that he did not accept Mr. Dodd's view at all. We are told that the meeting was not summoned for the purpose of intimidating Mr. Dodd, and that no honest citizen could have guessed why the Executive intervened. But the subject had been discussed in the public press for a fortnight before the meeting, and it might just as well be said that no one in England would know whether a meeting had been held in favour of, or against the corn tax which had been discussed in The Times and the Daily News with arguments for and against for a fortnight previously. Everyone knew that the meeting was held in order to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Dodd, and pressure was brought to bear on this respectable shopkeeper by the Member of whom he is a constituent. There is no precedent for that in any civilised community, and I declare that if the Government and the police in Dublin, having this thing sprung upon them for a second time, after the meeting had been once abandoned, had failed to deal with it promptly and efficiently, then every man responsible ought to have been dismissed from his post. That view is, I believe, very widely shared in Dublin, even by persons who hold what are called very advanced opinions.We had no reason to believe that any person occupying the position of the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment would have lent the countenance of his presence to this meeting. The hon. Member asked why he was not warned. I have shown that we warned the people who made themselves publicly I responsible for convening the meeting. We had no knowledge that the hon. Member would be present. The hon. Member may reply that his name was on the placard. If the House will forgive me for again referring to the placard, I would ask hon. Members to consider the third paragraph. That paragraph did not state that the hon. Member would be present. It stated that he had been invited to attend, but he was not invited alone. The paragraph states :
The following speakers have been invited to attend. Mr. Michael Davitt, Mr. P. A. M'Hugh, M.P., M. J. P. Nannetti, M.P. Mr. J. J. Clancy, M.P., Mr. J. J. Mooney, 985 M.P., Mr. T. Harrington, M.P. (Lord Mayor of Dublin), Mr. P. White, M.P., Mr. John O'Dowd, M.P., and the Very Rev. Canon Maher.The hon. Member was the only one who availed himself of the opportunity of being present. I believe that Mr. Davitt who is a man of extreme views, and always has the courage of them, and who has stated them very frankly in this House attempted to dissuade the promoters from holding the meeting. He said it would be a mistake to have a meeting of this character in the heart of a large city. So far as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin is concerned, the gates of Blessington Basin were shut, presumably by his order, as the Basin belongs to the Corporation. No countenance was given to this meeting by any of the invited guests except by the hon. Member; and I cannot conceive any countenance being given to such a meeting by any responsible person. Just imagine what it was. Three bands and several brake loads of people were to meet opposite the house of a shopkeeper in the hon. Member's own constituency, and then and there demonstrate against him and hold him up to odium. It was perfectly intolerable, and I am bound to say that the meeting met with a very small measure of success. I have a map of the situation. The police said they would not allow the brakes to proceed beyond a certain point in North Frederick Street, and that they would not be allowed to get to the corner of Mr. Dodd's house and threaten him in his own home. No one demurred to that except the hon. Member. Two of the three bands which had been warned never turned up at all. One band came down the street, but on the police informing them that they would not be allowed to advance further they marched themselves off the scene, and took no further part in the proceedings. The whole demonstration consisted of one band and the two brakes. The two brakes wheeled about also, and the, hon. Member, having abandoned his wheel transport, and accompanied now by only two faithful followers, got into a tramcar, passed through the lines of police, and having got through by that manœuvre, took up his position on the steps of a house immediately opposite the house of his constituent, and from that point of vantage began to denounce him.
§ MR. NANNETTII have a right not to be misrepresented. The Chief Secretary states what I know not to be true. I did not denounce any individual.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI know that that is what the hon. Member believes; but I must stick to the facts. This meeting was discussed in the Press in respect to Mr. Dodd, and when the hon. Member now says that he did not denounce Mr. Dodd I think he is going beyond what he said in his first speech, because he then said that originally he did not intend to do so, but that in consequence of the action of the police he went so far as to mention Mr. Dodd's name.
§ MR. NANNETTIWhen I attempted to speak at Blessington Basin I was not allowed to carry my observations very far, because of the brutality of the police, but when a merchant of the city opened his house and gave me his window, then I called attention to the futility of Dublin Castle attempting to stifle discussion, and I did mention Mr. Dodd's name.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe hon. Member now admits that he did mention Mr. Dodd's name, and he takes a different view of that from the view I hold. We have got to consider this. Mr. Dodd is a respectable shopkeeper in Dublin, and because he had taken a farm in Sligo, right away in the country, which he had a perfect right to do, and a right in the exercise of which we are bound to protect him, he has his conduct discussed in the public press for a whole fortnight, a meeting is summoned to terrorise him, it is abandoned because he is supposed to have given in, then someone writes to say he has not given in, and the meeting is summoned again. What is the inference? The hon. Member went very far in his "mention" of Mr. Dodd. He said—
I can tell the police that if they think they can protect those who are the enemies of the people, they never made a greater mistake in their lives.We have been told to-night that this meeting had nothing to do with Mr. Dodd! I quote again—We have proved that if an action is committed in Sligo it reverberates in Dublin; that Dublin is in sympathy with Sligo; and those 987 Gentlemen who may commit themselves in Sligo will have to pay the reckoning to the men of Dublin.Is not that violent intimidation?—and from a Member, too, to one of his leading constituents. I do not think I need elaborate the matter any further. Whenever these questions are brought before the House we are told that we are interfering with the right of public meeting. It is accepted that the right of public meeting is no more than the collective rights of the individuals in that meeting to speak and advocate this or that policy. But these collective rights may not override the rights of other individuals; the right to walk through the streets of Dublin, the right of Mr. Dodd to practise his trade without being molested. It is our duty to maintain the privileges of other persons in rural districts. That duty I have tried to discharge, but it becomes tenfold more imperative when these tactics are attempted in the streets of a great and noble city.
§ *(10.34) MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)Although the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to throw ridiculeon this case, and to excite the laughter, and promote the amusement, of Members of this House, still the fact that he has spoken at such length and with such warmth on the matter shows that he recognises, in his own mind, that this is an important question. The action of the Government in interfering with the right of public meeting in a great city like Dublin must always be a matter of grave importance, deserving the serious consideration of this House. The right hon. Gentleman's justification of his action may be summed up as follows. He says this meeting was summoned for the purpose of intimidating a certain citizen of Dublin with the object of forcing that citizen to give up a farm which he had taken in the West of Ireland, and that it was the duty of the Government to protect that citizen from intimidation. That was the case which the right hon. Gentleman, with great plausibility and cleverness, endeavoured to impress upon the House. But what becomes of that case in view of the fact stated here, and 988 not contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman, that before this meeting was summoned at all, this gentleman had surrendered the farm?
§ MR WYNDHAMI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I did contradict that, perhaps not explicitly, in this way. Mr. Dodd claimed to have done something of the kind, and then Canon Maher wrote to say that he had not done so.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI must trouble the House by repeating shortly what was stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The statement of my hon. friend is incontrovertible. It appeared in the public press, and cannot be denied, and the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to deny it. What happened? Mr. Dodd took a farm in the West of Ireland under circumstances which the United Irish League thought I unfair and injurious to the community. The United Irish League remonstrated with him without success; then a Nationalist newspaper, owned by my hon. friend the Member for North. Leitrim, published a Resolution condemning the action of Mr. Dodd. Still Mr. Dodd remained obdurate. Then the next step was that Judge I Ross, who was the judge presiding over the Court which had jurisdiction over the estate in question, issued an attachment against my hon. friend. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] I am glad to find that hon. Members are in complete agreement with me so far. I am stating facts which have not been disputed, and cannot be disputed. The next step was that Mr. Dodd, who had resisted the action of the United Irish League, who had treated with contempt apparently the Resolution published in this newspaper, came forward at once when Judge Ross issued the attachment against my hon. friend and surrendered the farm, and wrote to my hon. friend apologising for having been the unconscious cause of getting him into trouble. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] It is rather stupid to cry "Oh." I am not asking hon. Members to agree with Mr. Dodd; I am stating the facts. These are in controvertible facts, and no one can 989 deny them, and they all happened long before this meeting was summoned. Mr. Dodd had, for one reason or other, which may not commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, surrendered the farm. [An HON. MEMBER: Under pressure.] Certainly; but the hon. Member must be very dense if he cannot see my point. I am simply making the point that the Government could not have prevented this meeting for the purpose of protecting Mr. Dodd from intimidation, because before the meeting was held, for one reason or other, intimidation or what you like, Mr. Dodd had surrendered the farm. The farm was surrendered before the meeting was summoned at all, and in these circumstances the Government forced upon Mr. Dodd their attention and protection, and then comedown to this House and say they did it in order to protect Mr. Dodd in his right to retain possession of a farm which, as I have shown, he had already given up.
There are one or two matters in the speech or the right hon. Gentleman to which I desire to allude. He tried to throw some ridicule on the statement on the placard that the meeting was to be held "at Blessington Basin." If he knows the locality he must be aware that Blessington Street ends in a railing and gate leading into the garden in which the Basin is situated; and every one acquainted with public life in Dublin knows that it has been the custom for many years to hold public meetings at the end of Blessington Street, right up against the railings. No one was under any misapprehension at all. The meeting was called to be held at the end of Blessington Street, and all this talk about Blessington Basin being intended to hoodwink the police is simply nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman says that sufficient notice was given of the intention to suppress the meeting. I deny that altogether. It has been the invariable custom of the Government, when they intended to suppress a public meeting, to do it by proclamation, which was printed and posted and served on all persons likely to attend the meeting. My hon. friend had, according to the placard, been invited to attend the meeting, and if the Government had followed 990 their own almost invariable practice, they would serve on each of the persons mentioned on the placard notice that the Government were going to suppress the meeting. They did nothing of the kind. All they did was to send notice to the rooms of two branches of the United Irish League, but no other notice whatever did they give to the citizens of Dublin or to the persons who were invited to attend. The right hon. Gentleman sought to throw some ridicule on my hon. friend, because he was the only one of those invited who turned up. But my hon. friend is Member for the locality, and of all who were invited to the meeting he was the most likely to attend, and probably he, above all others, considered it his duty to attend. He was living in Dublin, his address was well known to the authorities, yet no notice whatever was served upon him, and, as far as the general public was concerned, no one in Dublin, with the exception of two or three men at the offices of two branches of the United Irish League, had any idea that the meeting was to be prohibited, until he found himself in the presence of an armed force of police. I therefore complain that the right hon. Gentleman did not take precautions to prevent the possibility of a collision with the police, attended with violence, and perhaps with bloodshed. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all about the treatment meted out to my hon. friend. He did not say a word about the police throwing him down, and twisting his arms behind his back as if he were a drunken and disorderly person. Is that statement true? If it is true, has the right hon. Gentleman no word of regret and apology to give? I say that it is absolutely intolerable that the Member for a Division of a great city like Dublin, invited by his constituents to address a public meeting, who had received from the authorities no hint that they intended to prevent the meeting, should, when he went to the meeting with the intention of exercising his right to address his constituents, be subject to brutal violence and insult of this kind. It is typical of the system of government in Ireland that when an instance of this kind comes to the attention of the 991 right hon. Gentleman, he has not one word of regret or apology to express to the House. If this occurred in England—[An HON. MEMBER: It could not occur in England]. Quite right. The hon. Gentleman has certainly expressed my view with complete accuracy. It could not occur in England. No matter how unpopular the views which an hon. Member might address to his constituents, it would be absolutely impossible for the police to seize upon him, to twist his arms behind his back, and drag him through the mire, and then find that no word of explanation or apology was to be given. This is another instance, of the difference of the manner in which England and Ireland are governed, and it constitutes another reason for the detestation of English rule in Ireland which animates those sent to this House as the representatives of the Irish people, and constitutes in itself an explanation and justification of the attitude of those who refuse, in a time of general jubilation in the Empire, to have hand, act, or part in the celebration of the Coronation of a Monarch under whose rule such infamies are perpetrated.
§ (10.52) COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)I rather wonder that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down should have challenged the House to cite an incident of a similar kind occurring anywhere in the United Kingdom, except in Ireland. Does he not remember the case of Mr. Cunninghame Graham, who, not far from the walls of this House, offered considerable resistance, and was marched off to gaol.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)And he was prosecuted!
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONSurely that shows that the hon. Member for the College Green Division is in a better position. I must say I listened to this debate with very great interest, because in these days, when so many other matters occupy the attention of the House of Commons and the country, it is well, from time to time, to have the House recalled to the condition of Ireland, to the methods of political 992 parties in Ireland, and to the difficulties which any British Government are bound to have in that country if it is desirous of protecting life and property. For a considerable time, I confess, I found great fault with the Government. When the United Irish League was started I ventured to warn the then Chief Secretary for Ireland that if it were allowed to grow unchecked it would ultimately overshadow the land. My statement was looked upon as an exaggerated view, and the opinion of the Government at that time was that this organisation would fizzle out. But I knew better. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself understand Ireland, and anyone who understood Ireland would know that if an organisation of this kind were allowed to grow unchecked, as organisations were allowed to grow in former years, it would assume a very dangerous position. But the Government are now alive to the facts of the situation, which is a matter of very great satisfaction to me; and I congratulate them on having recently taken a very much more serious view of the United Irish League than they did a year or two ago. They have proclaimed a portion of Ireland, but the difficulty in Ireland is that if you proclaim certain portions of the country, Irish politicians are sufficiently ingenious enough to know that if they step across the border from the proclaimed district they may carry on possibly without much personal danger, an agitation within the proclaimed district. I am glad to know that the Government are now dealing with efforts of intimidation outside the proclaimed districts, and I heartily congratulate them upon it. I do not know what effect has been produced on the House by this debate; but the effect produced on me has been to excite great sympathy for poor Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd had a long and strenuous war with the United Irish League. Ultimately the Government of the country and the authorities were not able to convince Mr. Dodd that they were capable of supporting him through the battle, and so he caved in, and he has now been so moulded by the United Irish League and squeezed into proper shape that he recently paid 40s., the fine imposed on 993 some Irish politician who took part in the recent demonstration in Dublin; and since then, in order to show how complete he has succumbed to the authority of the League, he has sent them a cheque for £5. What I wish the House to consider is—Why was this meeting held? Mr. Dodd appeared all along to be bursting to belong to the United Irish League and, was apparently prevented from joining it by my right hon. friend and Judge Ross.
§ MR. DILLONThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman has completely misunderstood what I said. I said that Mr. Dodd defied the United Irish League, but when the Government attempted to protect him, he gave £5 and entered the United Irish League in order to escape from the Government.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONAs far as I can make out from the hon. Member for East Mayo, Mr. Dodd would not have joined the United Irish League at all were it not for the efforts of my hon. friend and Judge Ross. Why then was this meeting proposed in order to intimidate this happy member of the United Irish League? This is a case of the priest in politics. Why did Canon Maher write to the Irish Independent and point out that Mr. Dodds was not after all sincerely penitent, but had still a recalcitrant element in his nature? There is one difference between England and Ireland. In this country, the constituents keep their eye on their Member, and if the Member votes wrong he hears about it. But in Ireland it is the Member who keeps his eye on his own constituency, and if any constituent takes any step contrary to what the Member believes to be the true course, the Member orders a meeting and denounces him. The result of holding a meeting and denouncing a constituent in Ireland is that no one will buy his cattle, no one will deal with him, and in this case I suppose no one would drink Mr. Dodd's whiskey. This particular constituent ought to have been looked upon by the hon. Member as a very influential constituent because he is the owner of several public houses, and if a meeting were held outside any of them I do not believe that a 994 single Nationalist would dare to enter and slake his thirst. I am glad the House has had an opportunity of recalling the position of affairs in Ireland and the difficulties of the Government. I am delighted that the Chief Secretary has shown that quality which, above all others, is necessary to govern Ireland, and that is the possession of backbone quite regardless of the attacks and the buse which may be hurled at him in this House or the country by his political opponents. The aim of the Government should be, whatever it may cost, to maintain the law.
§ (11.0.) MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in a characteristic speech, has mistaken the whole case and left out altogether the conduct of a former Member of this House, now a judge. An hon. Member opposite said that this case could not occur in England. It could not occur in England for the simple reason that it was impossible to conceive an English Member addressing his constituents being treated in the manner in which my hon. friend was treated. The analogy of the case of Mr. Cunninghame Graham has been mentioned, but he was put on his trial by the Government of the day and was tried by a jury of his fellow citizens. Why has not my hon. friend been prosecuted? If this meeting were illegal then my hon. friend's conduct in resisting the police was illegal. Why was he not summoned? Simply because the Coercion Act is not in force in Dublin and my hon. friend would, therefore, be tried before the ordinary tribunals. My hon. friend asked me to state that he challenges the Government to put him on his trial with regard to these proceedings, and if the case by the chief Secretary possessed one atom of reality, the Government ought to vindicate the law. The law is not to be vindicated by bullies of policemen knocking inoffensive people about. The proper way to test the question is not by dragging an hon. Member of this House through the muddy streets, but by legal action, which ought to betaken by the Chief Secretary if he had the courage of his convictions, and if he believed the case put before him by the police. Speaking 995 for my own experience and knowledge of police methods I maintain that the police had plenty of time, if they wished, to proclaim the meeting. Meetings had frequently been proclaimed and copies of the proclamation served on the persons responsible within twelve hours. Where would the difficulty be in a city like Dublin of serving copies of a proclamation on the persons interested. Was any notice that the meeting was to be suppressed served on any of the other gentlemen mentioned on the placard. The decision to suppress the meeting was evidently arrived at at the last moment, and probably as a result of a telegram from the Chief Secretary himself. Were the police in possession of the fact that this farm had been surrendered and that intimidation was impossible. You cannot intimidate a man from doing an act which it is impossible he could do. Mr. Dodd could not retain possession of the farm he had surrendered a considerable time previously. How does the matter compare with what occurred at Birmingham a few months ago. In that case a legal meeting was being held which was attacked by thousands of people; they were not justified in attacking it; and the meeting was protected by the police, ninety-nine of whom were injured. An inquiry on
§ the part of the Corporation immediately followed. Here was a meeting held in broad daylight, in peace, and quietness. It is suppressed, and an inquiry is asked for by my hon. friend, and all he demands is that if he is guilty of illegality he should be prosecuted.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I beg to move that the Question be now put.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLOn a point of order, Sir, may I ask you if it is in accordance with practice that a Minister who has not been present during a debate should move the closure.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must know that there is no point of order.
§ (11.5.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided :—Ayes, 195; Noes, 6 9. (Division List No. 185.)
999| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Brymer, William Ernest | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Butcher, John George | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Charrington, Spencer | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Finch, George H. |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Micheal Hicks | Conen, Benjamin Louis | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Beresford, Lord Chas. William | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Bignold, Arthur | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Flower, Ernest |
| Bill, Charles | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Forster, Henry William |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cranborne, Viscount | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. |
| Bond, Edward | Dalkeith, Earl of | Fuller, J. M. F. |
| Brassey, Albert | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Dickson-Poyuder, Sir John P. | Gardner, Ernest |
| Garfit, William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Rigg, Richard |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Lowe, Francis William | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Gordon, Hon J. E. (Elgin& Nairn | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Macdona, John Cumming | Round, James |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Rutherford, John |
| Green, Wallford D. (Wednesbury | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Greene, Sir E W. (B'ry S Edm'nds | Majendie, James A. H. | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Malcolm, Ian | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Gretton, John | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Groves, James Grimble | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n | Spear, John Ward |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriesshi'e | Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Mitchell, William | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Stroyan, John |
| Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Helder, Augustus | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Morrison, James Archibald | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Mount, William Arthur | Valentia, Viscount |
| Horner, Frederick William | Muntz, Philip A. | Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield |
| Hoult, Joseph | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton) |
| Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawics | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Paulton, James Mellor | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Penn, John | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Percy, Earl | Williams, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm. |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Pierpoint, Robert | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Piatt-Higgins, Frederick | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R. |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Plummer, Walter R. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lawson, John Grant | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Rattigan, Sir William Henry | |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Reid, James (Greenock) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Renshaw, Charles Bine | |
| Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Renwick, George | |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) | Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Flynn, James Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud | Gilhooly James | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) |
| Blake, Edward | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Layland-Barratt, Francis | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
| Caldwell, James | Leamy, Edmund | O'Malley, William |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lloyd-George, David | O'Mara, James |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lough, Thomas | Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Govern, T. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Delany, William | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh. | M'Kean, John | Roberts, John Eryn (Eifion) |
| Dillon, John | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Doogan, P. C. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mooney, John J. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Sullivan, Donal | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Tomkinson, James | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. |
| Weir, James Galloway | Young, Samuel |
§ (11.16.) Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
1000§ The House divided :—Ayes, 66; Noes, 206. (Division List No. 186.)