Sitting of 11 February 1892

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Standing Orders do consist of Thirteen Members:—Mr. Barclay, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Halsey, Mr. William Lowther, Sir John Mowbray, Colonel Nolan, Sir Lyon Playfair, Mr. Stansfeld, and Mr. Whitbread were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee.—(Sir John Mowbray.)
SELECTION.
Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do consist of Ten Members:—Dr. Cameron, Mr. Cubitt, Sir Archibald Orr Ewing, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. William Lowther, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Sir Hussey Vivian, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wodehouse, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee.—(Sir John Mowbray.)

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLMy Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to read, for the first time, a Bill for the abatement of Smoke in the Metropolis. The subject has often come before the House, and at the present moment it excites considerable interest. The Bill I wish to introduce will approximate, as far as the present state of the law permits, with the form that had previously received the sanction of the Select Committee, who went with anxious care into the details and took important evidence upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)The noble Lord has not given notice, has he?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLThe noble and learned Lord will admit that it is not necessary to give notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLORFor a Bill to be presented for First Reading, but nothing more. If the noble Lord was going to make any observations upon it, he ought to have given notice.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLI am not about to make any further observations, except to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government agree with me that the time for legislation has arrived, and that the time for inquiry has been thoroughly exhausted. It is perfectly usual in this House to make an observation within those narrow limits.
A Bill to amend the Acts for abating the nuisance arising from the smoke of furnaces and fireplaces within the metropolis—Presented by the Lord Stratheden and Campbell; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 9.)

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL. [H.L.]
  EAST INDIA OFFICERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to certain officers in India—Was presented by the Secretary of State for India in Council (the Viscount Cross); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 10.)
ARMY SERVICE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WANTAGEMy Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (Earl Brownlow), to whom I have given notice of the question, whether the Report which has been presented to the Secretary of State for War upon the terms and conditions of service in the Army will be laid before this House; and, if so, when?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW)My Lords, up to the present time the Secretary of State has only received the part of the Report signed by the members of the Committee; but he has not received the dissent, which I understand to be signed by one or two members, nor has he received the evidence and the appendices. But it is the intention of the Secretary of State to lay the Report upon the Table in due course.

POLICE PROTECTION IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I beg to ask my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal the Question that stands in my name, which runs as follows:—To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Mr. John Dillon, Mr. William O'Brien, or Mr. T. Healy have at any time been accorded police protection in Ireland since the prorogation of Parliament in August last; whether any one of these persons is at present accorded police protection when in Ireland; and whether police protection was accorded to any of these persons at their own request?
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)My Lords, my noble Friend has not elaborated the question of which he has given notice, and I am hardly in a position to answer as to the exact circumstances to which he refers. My noble Friend is quite aware that every subject of Her Majesty has the right to police protection for his person and his property, whensoever such police protection may be found to be necessary. And certainly, with regard to those three persons alluded to by my noble Friend, that right has been con-

  175
  ceded to them in the same manner as it would be conceded to all other of Her Majesty's subjects. The final clause of my noble Friend's question refers to a matter of detail, which I am afraid I am unable to answer. My noble Friend has himself been in a position in which he took a large and important share in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland; and I think that at the time when he was Viceroy he would have somewhat deprecated the putting of such a question as that. It is obvious that details of that sort are not such as it would be desirable to discuss in public or within the walls of Parliament, and I trust that to that extent, at all events, my noble Friend will not press me for an answer to his question. I do not understand him to ask with reference to any special dates or times upon the subject to which he has referred; therefore I trust that he will be satisfied with the general answer I have given, that in the case of these three persons named no distinction or difference has been made, but that such police protection has been afforded to them as would be afforded to any one of your Lordships, or any subject of Her Majesty.
  *The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept with satisfaction the reply of my noble Friend. I have, as he has mentioned to your Lordships, had a certain amount of experience with regard to the extension of police protection in Ireland. But I would remind him that, in the districts where that police protection is extended, the reasons for which that police protection is invariably extended are generally, and very well known. For instance, my Lords, if there is any member of the lower or humbler classes who has in any way offended the National League of the district by simply taking advantage of those rights which are open to every one of his fellow-citizens, it is well known that his life and his property are in danger, and, consequently, police protection is extended to him. Again, my Lords, if we take the case of a landlord who has come under the ban of the National League, simply because he declines to accept the Plan of Campaign, or any other illegal conspiracy of a similar character,—again, I say, his life is also in con-
  176
  siderable danger, and again he is placed under police protection. And it is well known why he is placed under police protection. I have myself visited the South of Ireland, and seen some of the inhabitants of that part of the country walking about with policemen behind them; and I should be glad to know from my noble Friend whether that same system of police protection has been extended to the three persons to whom I have alluded, and whether, when they have been in any part of Ireland, either under the troublous circumstances of a general election or at any other time, they have been followed by policemen in the same way as the class of persons to whom I have alluded.
  EARL CADOGANThe question is a somewhat novel one.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:I know that it is a somewhat novel question to be put, either to my noble. Friend or to any other Member of Her Majesty's Government; but it is simply novel from the fact that the three men to whom I refer have, until a very short time ago, and I believe up to the present moment, before English audiences posed as the idols of the majority of the Irish people. Therefore that is one of the reasons why I wish to know this; because I wish to prove to the English people whether they are the idols they profess to be or not. Then, my Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend another question. I speak subject to correction on this point, because I have not got the subject up; but I think these three Members of Parliament, about whose protection I am inquiring, were three Members who, in the most violent manner, denounced the Irish Executive for pursuing a policy which they called "shadowing;" but, so far as I can gather from the response of my noble Friend, they are extremely glad to avail themselves of this police shadowing when their own lives are in danger. ["Hear, hear!"] I My Lords, I consider this question which I have put to my noble Friend (and I confess I am disappointed that he has not answered me more fully on the subject) is one of extreme import-

  177
  ante. I fully understand such of your Lordships as are not connected with Ireland in any practical manner regarding it as of no importance; but I assure them that we Irish Unionists regard this matter as one of very considerable importance. A very short time ago, my Lords, we viewed Members of the Opposition stumping the country up and down, reiterating the parrot-like cry of the union of hearts in the majority of the Irish, which included naturally the National League. My Lords, a more absurd and a more incorrect cry was never raised. I think, my Lords, I am justified in using these epithets with regard to this parrot-like cry, when we consider that at the present moment that majority is divided into at least—I say, advisedly, "at least"—two raging factions, who exercise the resources and ingenuity of their old foes, the Royal Irish Constabulary, in preventing them whenever the occasion occurs, from breaking each others heads or shedding each others blood. Again, my Lords, when we consider that these three leaders, who proclaimed themselves the popular idols of the country, have been placed (for I maintain that my noble Friend has not denied that they have been) under police protection—at any rate, they have not complained to the Irish Executive that they have been shadowed; and, again, when we see the leader, as I believe he calls himself, of one faction publicly horsewhipped in the Four Courts of Dublin by the nephew of the late leader of the other faction, I think, my Lords, I may say that a more parrotlike and incorrect cry than that of the union of hearts was never raised. I have said, my Lords, that I do not think that those of your Lordships who have no practical experience of Ireland fully realise the importance of this question; but I am glad to say that we, who are practically acquainted with Ireland, do realise it; and we are determined on every occasion that arises to put to the English electorate, fully and fairly, facts such as these that I defy them to contradict or controvert. ["Hear, hear!"] It is absolutely necessary that these facts should be put forward, to let the
  178
  English people really understand the condition of the Nationalist Party in Ireland. When once, my Lords, those facts are put forward and thoroughly understood by the English electorate, I am convinced that they will see how utterly absurd, how utterly futile, and how utterly impossible it is that there should be any question whatever of granting any measure of Home Rule to Ireland, which would place the loyal and united minority at the tender mercy of the disloyal and disunited majority. My Lords, with all deference to my noble Friend, I think that his reply to my question is so unsatisfactory that I should be glad to repeat it on a later occasion, or, if it is considered advisable, I have no objection whatever to raise the whole question of this protection on a Motion in any shape that may be convenient to my noble Friend.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I do not protest for a moment against the right of my noble Friend to bring forward the question, or to express his own views on the subject, and I need not say that my own sympathies are not very deeply involved in the three names mentioned in the paper; but this is a matter of information that has come into the hands of the Executive as the Executive, and, if it is to be divulged or used, it must be used impartially. I apprehend that, according to the practice of, our Constitution and according to our common reason, it is not competent for the Executive to use information that has come into its hands for the purpose of discrediting those who do not happen to support it, or strengthening those who do support it; and, therefore, if we gave this information, I apprehend that we should be obliged to give information as to all persons who have asked for police protection. I do not think that would be convenient, and therefore, without complaining of the action taken by my noble Friend, I think that the course prescribed by Her Majesty's Government, is different, and that we can hardly give the information for which he asks.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question, on whatever day is convenient to my noble Friend, in the form of a Motion.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock.