§ LORD BRABOURNErose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in prohibiting the meetings in the North of Ireland of persons desiring to protest against the alleged disloyal sentiments of the so-called Nationalist Party, the Government desired it to be understood that such persons should rather meet at the same time and place as the Nationalists, move Amendments to their Resolutions, and test the real opinions of the people, or whether they simply 1063 wished it to be made known that to hold Loyalist opinions was henceforth to be a disqualification for the exercise of the ordinary rights of citizenship in Ireland? The noble Lord said he understood from private as well as from public sources that the excitement and irritation among the loyal population of Ulster could hardly be exaggerated. They had been restrained from overt action by wise and prudent advice; and it was infinitely to their credit and honour that during the recent visit of the Lord Lieutenant to Belfast, although smarting under a sense of intolerable injustice and wrong, inflicted upon them by the Executive Government, they had not allowed their feelings to diminish by one jot or one tittle the respect they felt to be due to the Representative of their Sovereign. Men who could so control themselves deserved the consideration they would receive from this House, even though they had failed to obtain it from the Government. As we were rapidly approaching the period of certain celebrations, which annually assembled the men of Ulster, under conditions sufficiently exciting in themselves, it was desirable, if not imperatively necessary, that there should be some authoritative statement which might explain, and if possible justify, the action of the Government, and allay the excitement that action, had produced. Let their Lordships consider the case as if they were historians dealing with the records of a past age. There was a Party in Ireland which called itself "Nationalist." Some persons might justify the title, whilst others would think that it could only be conferred upon the principle of lucus a non lucendo, and that no Party had done such damage to the nation which it assumed to represent. It was a Party which desired to deprive Ireland of her share in the glory and traditions of the Empire, and to tear her from friendly union with the sister countries of England and Scotland, and it ought to be designated the Party of isolation. The Leaders of this Party were the natural heirs and successors of the Land League, of which the Prime Minister had said that crime dogged its steps with fatal and painful precision, that its Leaders preached the doctrine of public plunder, and that the Party desired to march through rapine to the disintegration, and dismemberment of 1064 the Empire. Whether or no this Party was accurately described by the Prime Minister, it was beyond all doubt that at the meetings which it had held in Ireland, language had been held which bordered on sedition, England had been spoken of as an alien country, separation from England had been spoken of as the only panacea for every evil of Ireland, and doctrines were preached which would be tolerated in no other civilized country in the world. Nevertheless, unhappily for Ireland, in three out of the four of her Provinces this Party could with justice claim a majority; but in Ulster loyal principles had taken deep root. Men knew too well the advantages of the connection between the two countries to advocate a separation which could only be injurious to both, and the demagogue and sham patriot found his trade a failure. In vain was the Nationalist net spread in sight of the Ulster bird, although they adopted a different tone from that which they employed in Munster and Connaught, and talked, not of driving the Protestant garrison out, but of freeing the tenant from the yoke of the landlord. The loyalty of Ulster had not even been affected by the legislation of the Government; they, indeed, had forced through a Parliament imperfectly acquainted with its coming results a measure which dislocated the whole framework of society in Ireland, shook the foundations of property, robbed landlords of 25 per cont of the value of their estates, and encouraged every tenant to covet his neighbour's goods. In spite of all this, the landlords and tenants of Ulster remained united by the tie of loyalty in a common bond of union against disloyalty and crime. Ulster stuck in the throat of the so-called Nationalist Party; as long as it remained impregnable, it was impossible to boast that the whole of Ireland was on their side; therefore, it must be gained at all hazards; meetings must be held, with the concomitants of drums and banners, and other incentives to eloquence, so that it might appear to the world that in Ulster also the sympathy of the people was with the Party of isolation. In these circumstances, what were the Loyalists to do? They had, indeed, received advice from one, to whose authority every respect was due. The Prime Minister, speaking at Leeds, and allud- 1065 ing to the evils following the Land League, had said—
What would happen in this country if schemes of this kind were to go forth, and to become in any degree dangerous to the public peace? Why, what would happen would he this—that vast multitudes of loyal citizens would array themselves in support and in aid of the officers of the law. But no such thing is heard of, unhappily, in Ireland. I hope there will be a change in that respect. I am sure it is necessary.Well, the Loyaliats of Ulster acted on that advice, and assembled in support of law and order. The Loyalists called counter-meetings; if both were forbidden the Nationalists would be checkmated; if both were allowed the Nationalist demonstration would not be accepted as the true voice of Ulster. The invasion of Ulster failed; but the Government, some of whose Members had an unhappy sympathy with rebellion, whether in South Africa or Ireland, could not permit the triumph of loyalty, and the meetings of the Loyalists were forbidden. He could not understand the policy of the Government. It would have been intelligible if they had stopped the meetings of both Parties, so as to prevent collisions; or if they had stopped meetings of persons who had previously indulged in language of a seditious character. But the Government permitted and protected the Nationalist meetings, while it stopped the counter-meetings of those who were united in defence of law and order, because they were likely to be inconvenient to the Party of separation and sedition. It was as if a police authority, because there were thieves about, was to shut up and handcuff all the policemen; or as if a shepherd, because he knew a wolf was about to enter the fold, was to chain up all his watch-dogs in their kennel. He could not conceive any course which was more likely to give greater encouragement to disloyalty, and greater discouragement to law and order. The reason he put this Question to the Government was because he thought it ought to be known what they really wished the Loyalists to do. In England there was a recognized manner of dealing with disputed questions. We called public meetings, resolutions and amendments were moved, the opinion of the meeting taken, and people went quietly home. But he (Lord Brabourne) had always understood that this method of 1066 proceeding was unsuited to the warmer temperament of the Celtic population. If it were adopted, he was told that moral suasion might degenerate into physical conflict. But this might not be the opinion of the Government, or, being their opinion, they might think the time had come when the relative strength of Parties, moral or physical, had better be tried in open public meeting. It was impossible to know what the Government might think on the holding of public meetings, because their ideas were strange, and their ways were mysterious. But if this was their view of the case, it was only fair that the Loyalists should be told the reason why their separate counter-meetings were discouraged, and, moreover, that they should have the assurance that the military and police would not be called in to protect the preachers of public plunder. If the Loyalists of Ireland were not to meet because they were loyal in support of their principles, and that at a time when their principles were hourly called into question and menaced, then he thought the people of Ireland as well as the people of England would wish to know the reason why. During the last week he had often wondered what would be the answer he should receive. His noble Friend might meet him, as he had met him before, with the polite insinuation that he knew nothing about Ireland. He (Lord Brabourne) would retort by anticipation that it would be well for Ireland if his noble Friend had known less, or, at least, had legislated less, about her. His noble Friend had for years been the trusted adviser of Liberal Governments upon Irish matters. His supposed knowledge of Irish affairs, his high character and abilities, and those amiable qualities which had endeared him to so large a circle of friends, had all combined to give him great influence in directing legislation for Ireland. The courage of the Prime Minister had been supplemented, sustained, and supported by the knowledge of his noble Friend, and so it had come about that these two men, each with the best possible intentions, had brought legislative evils upon Ireland which it would take, centuries to undo. Then his noble Friend might take refuge beneath Lord Spencer's mantle, and complain that he (Lord Brabourne) was attacking his adminis- 1067 tration of Irish affairs. On the contrary, he gave the greatest credit to Lord Spencer's general conduct of affairs. He gave him so much credit that he did not believe that this particular act was of Lord Spencer's own conception and suggestion. But if men kept bad company they sometimes suffered for it, and the general excellence of Lord Spencer's administration must not deter thorn from the criticism of a particular error. Anyhow, he (Lord Brabourne) hoped his noble Friend would not attempt to answer him by eloquent platitudes upon the right of public meeting. The right of public meeting was, doubtless, a valuable right; but in what sense was it valuable if in any given district they only allowed people to assemble who were of one particular opinion? In that case, it was not so much a right which, they were conferring or allowing in these people as it was a wrong to all the other people in the district, who might hold different views, who might be in a large majority, and whom they thus compelled to allow a false impression to go abroad as to the feelings of their locality. And how were they to prevent Loyalists from attending and overpowering the seditious meetings which they were so anxious to protect? Were the people of Ulster to go about labelled? Were Loyalists to be earmarked, so that the watchful myrmidons of the law might be sure that no one who was not an enemy of the law might attend the law-protected meetings at which the law was to be denounced? The thing would really be laughable if it were not so deplorably serious in its nature. He thought the time had come when the Government ought to speak out on this matter. He hoped they would not use any language indicating a distinction between the Catholic and the Protestant party. Catholics, qua Catholics, were as loyal as Protestants. There was nothing whatever of a religious difference in this matter. A great portion of Ireland was, unfortunately, divided into two camps, the Loyalists and those who were not loyal. The people of Ireland understood that very well, and the people of England were beginning to understand it too. He should be sorry if Her Majesty's Government were the last to appreciate that fact. They had arrived at a time when loyalty and loyal men ought to be supported; and if the Government did not take this view the 1068 more openly they declared their opinion the better.
LORD DE ROSsaid, as a resident landlord in Ulster, he begged their Lordships' permission to say a few words on the subject now before the House. He thought it could hardly be denied that the Loyalists of Ulster had received great provocation and unjust treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government during; the last three years. Meetings had been held in various parts of the Province, under the auspices of the Land League at first, and latterly presided over by persons calling themselves "Nationalists," which had propounded the doctrines of Repeal of the Union and abolition of the landlord class. These meetings were not taken very much notice of at first by the "persons described as Orangemen and Loyalists"—to use the words of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation—beyond certain remonstrances on behalf of some of the local magistrates in the districts where they were announced to be held. In January, 1881, some of the local magistrates at Downpatrick and its vicinity distinctly called the attention of the then Chief Secretary to some of the resolutions which were to be moved at a meeting to be held at that place, presided over by that eloquent, but unprincipled man, Michael Davitt, and which they considered of a revolutionary character. The only reply vouchsafed to their remonstrance was, that the Executive would take care that there should be no breach of the peace. No breach of the peace had been anticipated; but that which was feared did, to a certain extent, take place—namely, the people's minds were disturbed and poisoned by the doctrines enunciated at that meeting; and, in his opinion, a great change came over the tenantry in that part of the country from that date. The happy relationship which had hitherto existed between landlord and tenant assumed a different form, and a spirit of dissatisfaction had been introduced. Since that period several meetings in Ulster had been announced of a seditious character, and they were only prevented by counter-meetings organized by the Orangemen and Loyalists, when both meetings had been prohibited; in fact, the Orangemen and Loyalists had been the means of doing that which the Government ought to have done in the first instance. No- 1069 body objected to meetings of a legitimate character being held; but these meetings distinctly advocated principles of rebellion and separation from British rule. The last meeting, held at Newry on Sunday, June 1, pretty clearly illustrated the nature of these meetings; and it was not only acknowledged, but encouraged by the action of Her Majesty's Government. He would briefly allude to some of the resolutions which were passed at that meeting—
That here exercising one of the first rights of the people, freedom of public meetings and speech, we declare that we owe no thanks, and we give none, to the vacillating, unprincipled Whig Government, which, under the dictation of a pack of Orange landlords and their hired retainers, filched away our rights, and which has now at the eleventh hour, through the action of the men of Newry, been compelled in despair to abandon their unconstitutional conduct and strive to steer 'an even keel.' That self-government is our inalienable right as a nation; and, therefore, in accordance with that ancient and Constitutional right, we claim the privilege of managing Irish affairs by Irishmen on Irish soil, and that no concession short of this shall ever satisfy the demands of the Irish people. That the only hope for the country, as far as the English Parliament are concerned, lies in the active policy of the Irish Parliamentary Party. This policy we endorse, and to that Party we attribute any recent beneficial legislation; and we earnestly trust that at the next election, whether fought under the present or under an extended franchise, the leader of the Irish race, Mr. Parnell, will be supported by an earnest band of loyal, well-trained, and trusted Irishmen. That landlordism as an institution must be rooted out of this country, and that Ireland will not enjoy peace or prosperity until we have the land for the people.Now, he asked, was it to be expected that the loyal men of Ulster were to calmly sit still and take no action whatever, while such pernicious seeds were being sown broadcast throughout their loyal and prosperous Province? Surely it must be admitted that great forbearance had been shown by the loyal men of Newry and Belfast during the past three weeks in circumstances of very great excitement and provocation which deserved the greatest praise. Their Lordships could hardly conceive the amount of irritation and excitement which prevailed in the Northern Province when the letter to Lord Arthur Hill had been promulgated. The Loyalists naturally conceived that they were completely thrown over by the action of Her Majesty's Government, and it was only by reason of great exertions on the part of the more moderate Party that 1070 the Lord Lieutenant was accorded a respectful reception in Belfast, because it was no easy task to persuade the people that Lord Spencer visited Belfast as the Representative of the Queen, and not in a political capacity. He ventured to hope that the loyal conduct of the Orangemen and Loyalists in Ulster would receive the support and command the sympathies of their brethren on this side of the Channel.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTpointed out that the Lord Lieutenant had not prohibited all meetings. He had prohibited the holding of a second and counter-meeting at the same place as the one previously summoned. The noble Lord had denounced the Land Act; but the Land Act was a distinct recognition of the tenant's property, which was never recognized by law before.
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not remember the particular circumstances regarding some of the meetings to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord de Ros) had referred; but the noble Lord appeared to be under an incorrect impression as to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government under the Crimes Act. The Lord Lieutenant had not power to prohibit all public meetings. The noble Lord spoke as if he thought that the Lord Lieutenant had an absolute discretion in the matter. The Lord Lieutenant's power in this respect was very carefully limited, even by this Act, which gave such exceptional powers to the Irish Executive. The Lord Lieutenant's power was limited by these words—" To prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe is dangerous to the public peace or public safety." These powers had been cautiously but firmly used. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Brabourne) had alluded to the Land Act and the condition of Ulster with regard to it. But he did not seem to have an inkling of the fact that the loyal men of Ulster were those whose minds had been most set upon obtaining the Land Act. The desire of the rest of the tenantry of Ireland for great reforms in their tenure, which he believed had urgently needed reform, was weakened and disguised by the agitation which fixed their minds on political and revolutionary objects. But the men of Ulster, who were attached to the Union, 1071 had no revolutionary or political objects. Their whole minds had been set on getting; a reform in the Land Laws. It might be well if the noble Lord grasped that fact. The noble Lord made no allusion to the Lord Lieutenant's letter in which he stilted the policy that he intended to follow in respect to meetings and counter meetings. The noble Lord had apparently not read that letter, which was at the root of the whole matter. That letter was not written in connection with the last meeting at Newry. It was written in consequence of what had happened some time before, and the action taken at Newry was taken in defiance and in the teeth of that letter. A meeting was announced to be held, and immediately a counter-demonstration was summoned. The Lord Lieutenant prohibited both these meetings. But he thought it his duty to cause the letter of the Under Secretary to be written in order to give notice to all parties. He did not resolve to prohibit all meetings; but he arrived at the conclusion that when one Party had called a meeting for a certain day at a certain place it was absolutely impossible that, with any regard to the public peace and safety, a second meeting of the opposite Party could be permitted to be held at that place and hour. The Lord Lieutenant had not forgotten the Rosslea meeting and the statement of Lord Rossmore that it was with the greatest difficulty that he and other magistrates prevented their followers from attacking the other meeting. Nor did he forget what took place at Dromore, when such an attack was made, and when a riot took place which led to the death of an unfortunate young man. The Lord Lieutenant did not forget these things; and he was of opinion that these counter-demonstrations could not be tolerated. The only question, therefore, was whether all public meetings ought to be prohibited. In the mind of the Lord Lieutenant undoubtedly the presumption was always in favour of permitting the holding of public meetings if possible. If the Lord Lieutenant had come to the conclusion that any particular meeting was not to be interfered with, and parties were allowed to take means to bring together a great body of adverse persons to the same place and at the same hour, it was quite evident that the responsible 1072 discretion of the Lord Lieutenant was at an end. All that the Lord Lieutenant laid down was that when he had given a decision he would not permit any counter-meeting, no matter what Party that meeting represented, to be held for the purpose of opposing the first meeting. That was the whole of what was con-tamed in the letter written by direction of the Lord Lieutenant; and it was in distinct defiance of that announcement that the second or counter-meeting prohibited the other day was to have taken place. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches seemed to think that the Lord Lieutenant was going to deprive the loyal inhabitants of Ulster of the rights of citizenship. He did not know what the noble Lord's views of the loyalty of the Lord Lieutenant were; but if he wanted any light on the subject he would refer him to a speech just made in Belfast. He did not think his noble Friend would succeed in introducing the passions of Ulster into their Lordships' House. It appeared to him deplorable that loyal men should for a moment put themselves in so false a position as the Orangemen had taken up; and he wag not without hope that they were already beginning to see that it was not a position that could be maintained as against the authority and judgment of the Lord Lieutenant. He thought they had shown pretty plainly, by their recent conduct at Belfast, that excitement had at first exaggerated their ideas upon this subject, and blinded them to the true nature of the Lord Lieutenant's action, and that they would soon come to recognize that Lord Spencer had no other object but that of impartially maintaining law and order in Ireland.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he must complain of the answer of the noble Lord. He thought the noble Lord had rather burked the main Question of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. As far as he could understand the Question, it was whether, at a public meeting, the Loyalists of Ulster might meet and express their opinions?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)At a counter-meeting. That is the whole point.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, that not a word had been said by the noble Lord who introduced the subject about counter-meetings. If public meeting meant that one side only was to express 1073 its opinion, then public meeting was a farce. He reminded their Lordships that the Land League which the Government had prohibited was now flourishing again under the name of the National League. Inroads were made into the Province of Ulster, and the Loyalists of Ulster had resolved to hold counter-meetings, which would cancel and nullify the detestable doctrines of the Land League, and they felt that their Province was still firm and enthusiastic in its allegiance to the Crown and Constitution. Not only had they been free from sedition, but from the crimes and outrages which had disgraced the rest of Ireland. Ulster was the bright spot of Ireland, and during the period that crime stalked throughout the land, Ulster was the only Province which had kept its hands unstained. But what had been the rewards they had received from the Government? The Nationalists had been protected, and the Loyalists had been forbidden to hold counter-meetings. Their meetings were held for Constitutional purposes; but the Nationalist meetings were held to subvert law and order, and to promote sedition and outrage. The situation was a standing insult to the people of Ulster. In order to prolong their precarious life, the present Government had not hesitated to hand over the Loyalists of Ulster to the same system of crime and outrage which now characterized, unfortunately, the other three Provinces of Ireland. They had in this matter adopted a very unwise and mischievous policy, and had thereby raised up feelings of bitterness and animosity in the North of Ireland which might be most dangerous to the safety of the country, and which would certainly remain for many long years, and which would require a Government with a far greater regard for justice and honesty to eradicate.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had heard the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) with regret, not merely because of the matter of it, but on account of the position which he had formerly occupied in Ireland, and on account of the respect in which the noble Duke was justly and generally held, both for his public and private character, and for the moderate line which he had often taken on critical occasions. The noble Duke complained of the answer given by the Lord President to the question of the 1074 noble Lord on the Cross Benches, To him, however, the answer that had been given was very intelligible. The question asked was whether the Government, in prohibiting the meetings in the North of Ireland of persons desiring to protest against the alleged disloyal sentiments of the so-called National Party, had certain views? The first answer to that was, that the Government had not prohibited such meetings. The Lord Lieutenant, in the plainest possible words, had distinctly said that their desire had been to permit public meetings to which there was no legal objection; and he had only exercised his power of stopping them when there were no other sufficient means of preserving law and order. That power was conferred upon him by the Act of 1882, which said that he might prohibit any meeting which he had reason to believe would be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. The Lord Lieutenant also said that in certain circumstances law and order might be threatened by meetings, and that they must then be prohibited; and that such circumstances arose when a counter-demonstration by a Party opposed to those who had called a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant saw no ground for prohibiting was proposed to be held in the same place and on the same day. No one could say that such a mode of holding a counter-demonstration would not have a natural and almost inevitable tendency to a breach of law and order; and, therefore, he could not suppose that the noble Duke was of opinion that such a demonstration ought to be permitted. But the Lord Lieutenant was careful to explain that a counter-demonstration would not be interfered with, provided there were no objection to it on other grounds, if held at a time and place which would not bring hostile bodies into close proximity. If those who called themselves Loyalists, and who, according to his belief, did sincerely intend to be loyal, should hold a meeting to make public their objections to the principles of the so-called Nationalists, and if there should be nothing connected with the meeting indicative of a violation of law and order, the Lord Lieutenant would allow the meeting to be held, and would not allow a counter-demonstration by Nationalists to be held at the same place. Anything more just, fair, and 1075 impartial it was impossible to imagine. What another part of the Question of the noble Lord seemed to ignore was, that the Loyalists could hold counter-demonstrations at any proper time and place; it seemed to suggest that the only alternative for them was, either to be silent altogether, or themselves to attend the meeting of their opponents and move resolutions at it. That part of the noble Lord's Question was said not to have been answered; but could anyone suppose it to be seriously intended? He should have thought it clear to everyone who knew anything-either of such matters generally, or of Ireland in particular, that if people who were opposed in views did not wish to break the peace and one another's heads they would not go in great force to the same meeting. Public meetings could hardly be looked upon as calm, deliberative assemblies, governed by such rules as obtained in their Lordships' House. Could such a description be given of them it would be a matter for rejoicing. With respect to the prohibition of the meetings of those who were called Nationalists, the Lord Lieutenant, on whom the responsibility rested, had in each case to determine whether, having regard to the terms of the Act of 1882, they could, or could not, be safely held. First of all, was there anything unlawful announced as the purpose of the meeting? The noble Duke might possibly take ou that subject a different view from the Lord Lieutenant. It was a very grave responsibility to define the precise limits of public discussion on political questions. The Lord Lieutenant had no kind of sympathy with the objects of the Party called Nationalists. He was sure he (the Lord Chancellor) had none, and he doubted whether there was any one of their Lordships who had. But, nevertheless, if no illegal purpose was declared, if the expression of opinions for which no lawyer would say that a man ought to be prosecuted was all the purpose which was announced, then he could not but think that the present Lord Lieutenant judged more correctly than the late Lord Lieutenant when he determined that in acting upon the law of 1882 he would take the legality or illegality of the meetings, not the political opinions likely to be expressed at them, as the test. Then there was the 1076 very important question whether a meeting was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Lord Lieutenant thought that when he had sufficient powers to prevent the occurrence of any breach of the peace, either at the meeting itself, or as a consequence of it, it was, generally, his duty to rely on them. The law must be applied impartially to both Parties—not to meetings of Nationalists alone, but also to meetings of Orangemen, where there was any chance of possibility of their loading to disturbance. If the Lord Lieutenant thought that Loyalist meetings were not likely to lead to any breach of the peace he would not prohibit them; and on the same principle and for the same reason he ought not to prohibit other meetings not likely to lead to a In-each of the peace. Taking into consideration the circumstances of Ireland, it was a question whether greater good or harm might be done by permitting the expression oven of objectionable opinions within the limits of the law. If that were permitted to one Party it must be permitted to the other. Their Lordships might possibly think that a different rule should be applied to Ulster from that applicable to the rest of Ireland. But this he must say—that the responsibility rested with the Irish Government and with the Lord Lieutenant as its Head. The present Lord Lieutenant and his administration of Ireland for the last two years had received strong and just approval from their Lordships. The policy which was now questioned was Lord Spencer's policy, and no person could seriously believe that Lord Spencer suffered his own judgment to be overruled by others for political objects. Lord Spencer thought the course he had adopted necessary in the discharge of his duty for the preservation of law and order; and the rest of his conduct, which had been so generally approved by their Lordships, entitled him in this matter also to their confidence and their favourable judgment.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the noble and learned Lord strangely forgot what had been the results of the Nationalist meetings, which had deluged Ireland with crime, and induced Parliament to give extraordinary powers to the Government of which he was a Member. The Prime Minister 1077 himself had clearly shown how crime and outrage followed in the footsteps of the meetings of these so called Nationalists. The people of Ulster held their meetings only when invaded by men not belonging to Ulster at all, and whose object was to excite the worst feelings. The Loyalists merely said— "You shall not reduce Ulster to the same condition as you have brought the rest of Ireland." It was easy to say that the policy in question was Lord Spencer's policy. The common belief was that it was adopted to catch votes. The Parnellite Party, by voting against the Government, reduced the Government majority to 26, and directly afterwards Lord Spencer was summoned to a Cabinet Council, where the common belief was that he tried to persuade Her Majesty's Government how injurious to Ireland those Nationalist meetings were, but that he was overruled, and that he went back to Ireland with a mandate from the Cabinet that he was to pursue a different policy.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI am bound not to reveal Cabinet secrets; but I may say that there is not the least particle of foundation for that statement.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved that it was the common belief in Ireland. Of coarse, they must accept the declaration of the noble and learned Lord; but he certainly should have liked to have been present and heard the discussion on the subject.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he could only express his surprise that such an important change of policy had not been taken cognizance of by the Cabinet Council, which he thought ought to bestow a little more attention on matters so serious. It was useless for the Government to hold out Lord Spencer as this, that, and the other. He did not think the noble Lord so immaculate a politician as was commonly supposed. He was a very amiable gentleman; but Irishmen could not forget that he was the Lord Lieutenant who gave his sanction to the first Land Act, and that he was a Member of the Cabinet when the second Land Act was passed, and that he did not support the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) and the late Chief Secretary, who went over to Ireland en- 1078 tirely unprejudiced, and yet who were compelled to resign. The Government, in dealing with Ireland, thought too much of the votes they could gain there, and too little of the peace and prosperity of his unfortunate country.
§ EARL COWPERsaid, bethought that the conduct of the Orangemen of Belfast was worthy of the greatest applause. He could not agree with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches that they really had a very just grievance; but he knew that they thought they had. He knew also how independent they were. When he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he paid a visit to Belfast, and was received with the utmost loyalty by the Orangemen; and he could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which they conducted themselves. He might take this opportunity to remark that during the time he represented Her Majesty in Ireland the conduct of the landlords of all classes was very creditable considering the unfortunate position in which they were placed. They all knew that the landlords did not approve of the Land Act as much as some of their Lordships did. It was found absolutely necessary to put a stop to the practice adopted by some landlords of endeavouring by indirect means to get rid of tenants who had a certain right to be on the soil. But many landlords felt injured by the Act, and besides this they were reduced almost to starvation by the general strike against rents, and it was only natural that they should find fault with the Government. He was bound to say that although they abused the Government they did not for some time agitate in their own interests. After a while they did come forward in a very creditable manner and organized meetings in support of law and order. There were many most hopeful meetings organized by landlords before he left Ireland. He did not find fault with them for enlisting the services of the Orangemen. The Orangemen were, of course, responsible in former times for a great deal that was objectionable; but in the present day their chief aim and object was to denounce outrages and to maintain law and order. The Nationalists were, under another form, the Land League, and their going to Ulster placed the Government in a difficult position. It was painful to have to chide our friends and protect our enemies; but he was of 1079 opinion that no Executive would have been justified in allowing a body of Nationalists and a body of Orangemen to meet under such circumstances side by side, and he should himself have been inclined to stop both meetings; but the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had been well advised not to move a Vote of Censure on the Irish Executive. He certainly, for one, should have opposed such a Vote, on the ground that Lord Spencer must have had reasons for his conduct unknown to the public.
§ EARL CAIRNSremarked that up to a certain time Earl Spencer prohibited meetings on both sides when they were announced to be held simultaneously; and he wished very much that that policy had been continued, as it would have given satisfaction in Ireland. He was quite willing to believe that Earl Spencer was placed in a difficult position, and that he acted as he thought best for the country. What he understood by the right of public meeting in this country was the privilege of all who were interested in the subject of the meeting to attend and express their views; but did any sane man think that kind of public meeting could be held in Ireland? Could there be a meeting on a burning question with the free expression of different opinions? The object of a public meeting was not that those who agreed should congratulate each other on their agreement; but it was the expression of divergent views in order to determine those that were predominant. Nothing was more common in the conduct of a movement or agitation in this country than for one Party to challenge another to hold a public meeting, and to test its opinion by resolution or amendment; but it was admitted that such a method of testing public opinion in Ireland was out of the question; if it were adopted there would probably be a free fight at the outset as to who should be chairman, to be renewed on every proposition submitted. Therefore, it was idle to say that these proceedings were in defence of the right of public meeting; they were based on quite a different principle—that of protecting a certain number of individuals who were all agreed, and who did not want any discussion or opposition. As there could not be what we regarded as free and open public meetings, he regretted that the Lord 1080 Lieutenant had not taken the course of prohibiting the meetings on both sides.
THE EARL OF ANNESLEYsaid, he regretted the tone in which the Lord Chancellor had spoken of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Abercorn), whose position and services ought to have protected him from such an attack. He wished to ask the Government what the Loyalists were to do after the reproaches that were hurled at them by the Prime Minister? Were they to be told that it was not lawful for them to take the only step it was in their power to take — namely, to hold opposition meetings?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) seemed to be under an extraordinary misconception as to the general character of public meetings on questions on which there existed any considerable excitement in the public mind; as a rule such meetings were demonstrations on the part of one Party or of the other, and disturbers of the meetings were forcibly ejected. From the argument of the noble and learned Earl it would almost follow that Nationalists could not hold a meeting without Orangemen being present, or Orangemen hold a meeting without Nationalists being present. He could understand a state of things in which it might be necessary to prohibit all meetings; but he entirely denied that you were prohibiting public meetings in the true sense of the word because you would not permit the simultaneous gathering at the same place of Parties who were violently opposed. The answer to the question, What were Orangemen to do? was that there was no prohibition of counter-demonstrations at other times and places, and in conditions not likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The notion was preposterous that because Orange meetings and Nationalist meetings could not be held together, at the same time and place, that, therefore, Orangemen were to be precluded from holding as many independent meetings as they wished.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid, there was reason to be grateful to Lord Spencer for the course he had followed up to a certain point; but what he was doing now was to insist on men being heard whose utterances would not be tolerated in England. This was a repetition of the mistake formerly made in permitting too long the disloyal manifestations 1081 of the Land League; and on that point he would say that Mr. Gladstone was entirely wrong in saying that there had been no counter-demonstration of Loyalists, for he himself presided over an influential meeting which protested against the illegal character of the Land League meetings. If the Government had stopped that agitation earlier they might have prevented some of the outrages and murders that followed. What the Lord Lieutenant now said to the disloyal agitators was—"No matter how strong may be the language you use, you must be heard." Lord Spencer had said that these men, no matter how disloyal their opinions might be, should be heard. For his own part, he protested against those meetings being held in any part of Ireland, especially when the opinions which were held by those persons forming the meeting were of such a disloyal character.