That was the opinion of Lord Eldon. | stances, is calculated to excite terror, alarm, I suppose he knew nothing about the and consternation, it was illegal; law; it is only the Attorney General for Ireland who knows the law. [Laughter.] Well, what becomes of your doctrine of anticipation of what speakers will say, and what will be the consequences of what they will say? In The Life of Lord Eldon you will find two remarkable letters, which he wrote to his brother, a lawyer not less eminent than himself. In one of these he says― "If the meeting were an overt act of treason, the justification is complete." You will find that Lord Eldon, throughout the whole of the controversy, maintained that to justify the magistrates and police in suppressing a public meeting by force it must be shown either that the meeting amounted to a riot, or that it was act of treason. Now, as to the alleged right of stopping such a meeting as the Peterloo meeting by the Common Law, let me read this extract from a letter written by Lord Eldon to Sir Walter Scott "In fact, the state of our law is so inapplicable to existing circumstances that we cannot meet the present case. I am as convinced as I am of my existence that if Parliament does not forthwith assemble there is nothing that can be done but to let these meetings take place, reading the Riot Act if any riot takes place." That is the Common Law of England as stated by Lord Eldon. It is and always has been the Common Law of England, and we are here to-day to protest against this perversion of the law by the Attorney General for Ireland. I cannot weary the House with a protracted legal argument and quotations from a series of cases; but I venture to say that the same doctrine has been maintained ever since in all the books I have ever read. In the case of Hunt, who was tried, the Judge, Mr. Justice Bailey, said "Wherever a meeting, from its general appearance and all the accompanying circum and, no doubt, when a meeting was held by armed people, by drilled people, in those days when people came in military array with arms in their hands, they did inspire terror; and I admit at once that that is an unlawful meeting. You do not pretend that any such thing took place at Ennis. An old authority cited on all these cases, Hawkins, says— "The meeting of a great number of people under circumstances of terror which cannot but endanger the public peace,' that is, the apprehension of riot or circumstances that lead to the immediate apprehension of riot at the meeting itself, and he further says "Meetings where people come together armed and in a warlike manner,' these are unlawful assemblies. Pre cisely the same doctrine will be found Chartist case, in 1839, in the cases of to be laid down by the Judge in the "R. v. Vincent," and "R. v. Neale." I might come down to our own days; I would cite the opinion of two eminent Tory lawyers not 20 years ago. The Tory Party has made progress since then, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) talks of the Tory democracy; but upon this question, what was the doctrine of Tory lawyers in 1868? It was this— "We think that meetings and processions "not prohibited by Statute-"not amounting to unlawful assemblies, cannot legally be prevented simply because they may lead to breach of the peace. But where the objects of the meetings or processions, and the conduct of the persons assembling together, are such as to inspire terror in Her Majesty's subjects, and to tend to the disturbance of the peace, then the meeting might be dispersed and persons prevented from joining it.' This is the Common Law of England, but it is not the law of the Attorney General for Ireland, who lays down that meetings are to be proclaimed, not because there is anything about them that inspires terror, but because there is some anticipation that somebody may say something that somebody may imagine to be dangerous. If you allege that meetings are held with a treasonable purpose, treat them as such; if you apprehend they will lead to riot, treat them as such. But short of that you have no right to suppress them by force. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear an hon. Gentleman on that side agree | Anyone who will read the Unionist with me in commending that doctrine; papers of last Monday morning will see that was the ground upon which the that what with machine guns and evicClontarf meetings were proclaimed in tions by Irish landlords, there would be the time of O'Connell; the Proclama- very few of the Irish people left if the tions set forth that the meeting was to policy they advocated were allowed to be one of men with arms and in military work itself out. I hope the Irish array, and that it designed to affect people will persist in the prudence they alterations of the law by demonstrations have exhibited. ["Oh. oh!" and a of physical force. You have not said laugh.] I dare say the hon. Gentleman that of the Ennis meeting; you knew who laughs does not wish that they you could not say it. should. It would, no doubt, answer his purpose a great deal better that they should spit themselves on the sabres of your Hussars. I say nothing about the celebrated Hyde Park riots and the Phoenix Park meeting; those do not bear upon the right of public meeting, but upon the rights of the Crown in the Royal Parks; and so I intend to say nothing about those cases. I may say a word in reference to the Salvation Army meetings, as I had to do with them myself. I had been advised, as my Predecessors had been, that if you thought a meeting would lead to disturbance, not on account of the conduct of the people who called the meeting, but on account of the conduct of other people who called an opposition meeting, then you had a right to stop both meetings. That was the opinion of the Government, supported by the Law Officers of the Crown; but the Court of Queen's Bench determined there was no such right. Well, the Government proclaimed the Ennis meeting; and those who summoned that meeting, the Nationalist Party in Ireland, had the wisdom not to resist the armed forces of the Government. They have been scoffed at; they have been mocked by the Tory Press and by the Unionist Press of England; and I have no doubt that these parties were only too anxious to see Peterloo revived, ["Oh, oh!"] I read in a daily newspaper an expression of regret that only rifles were used at Mitchelstown, and the expression of a hope that machine guns would be sent to Ireland. ["Name, name!"] It was The St. James's Gazette of Saturday. I do not know whether they have been sent or not; but I would advise hon. Members to turn to the comments of The Times upon the meeting, in which everything was done to taunt the Irish people with cowardice-the most detestable and scandalous language that ever degraded the Press of a free country was used for the express purpose of provoking the Irish people to resist the Government. But they have much stronger weapons to rely on; they do better to rely upon the public opinion of this country. If there is anything dear to the British people it is the right which this Government have unconstitutionally trampled upon-the right of public meeting; and I invite the Government to try the experiment of their Common Law doctrine upon the British people, who will make short work of them and their doctrine. The Attorney General for Ireland is going to put down meetings, because he anticipates that speeches will be made against the proclamation of the League; that is his definition of an improper purpose. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton): I am sorry I must intervene ; but the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the context of my speech. I distinctly called attention to the fact that speeches were directed, and would be directed, to incite the conspiracy against the enforcement of the law. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The speeches that have never been made rest exclusively upon the imagination of the Attorney General for Ireland, and he can imagine any speech upon the subject exactly as he chooses at any moment and upon any occasion, and as he supposed one speech for a man who had never made it last Friday, he may imagine another speech for the same speaker to-day. There was no limit, except in the imagination of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to the topics he may suggest, as he claimed for the Government the right to anticipate what speeches may be made. Then I will tell him, if these are improper purposes, they will be pursued by us in every corner of this country; we shall proclaimed, he said he did not advise it, denounce the conduct of the Govern- and he had told the Government the ment in proclaiming the League and opinion of this country would not susin proclaiming the meeting at Ennis. tain it. Does he think the public What we shall say as to the conduct of opinion of this country will sustain this the Government in firing upon the policy? people at Mitchelstown must depend upon the evidence produced in that case. But, Sir, we have no objection to the Government pursuing this policy; it will enable us to make the people of this country understand exactly what the Unionist policy requires. We have always said that it meant coercion, and coercion of an extreme kind, founded upon more violent doctrines than had ever yet been known or heard of in this country. It is well that the people of this country should understand what is the policy of the Government and of the Liberal Unionists. They were pledged against coercion; they promised equality of treatment for England and Ireland. Do you dare to treat England as you are treating Ireland now? You made the pretence, and we denounced it as a false pretence, that your Coercion Act was intended to put down crime. ex My noble Friend says he is not responsible; he washes his hands of the affair. When I was reading those great debates, that storehouse of national eloquence, I came across a singular passage in the great speech by Mr. Fox. He said "Even in the reign of King William, the Marquess of Hartington took the side of liberty. Perhaps he might be laughed at for the superstitious veneration in which he held in the kingdom. There was no one for which the names of some great and ancient families he had more respect than that of Cavendish, and sorry was he to see that in a question of such great constitutional importance not one of that illustrious family, which had so many seats in Parliament, was to be found either in the minority or in the adverse ranks.” Well, that is not so on this occasion. My noble Friend, with his great authority, will tell us to-night whether he is in favour of, or against this policy of putting down the right of public meeting; he will let us know where we are, and what title the Unionist still claim to the adjective "Liberal." It is impossible for him to say he will not take any responsibility in this matter, Any man who supports the Government in such a policy as this is responsible for that policy and for all that follows from it. In my opinion, the criminality and the injustice of this policy are only equalled by its folly. The thing you are attempting to do you will not-you cannot-succeed in accomplishing. Permit me to read to the House one more passage from the speech of Mr. What crime have you put down? What crime have you attempted to put down? You have arrested an editor and have proclaimed a lawful meeting; you have fired upon a mob; but what crime have you put down in Ireland? The object of your policy, as we always affirmed it was intended to be, is to stifle opinion, to crush the sympathies and the sentiments of the Irish nation, which you govern against its will. You are determined to emplify what was so well said by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) when he described the Government of Ireland to be a Government like that of Austria in Italy and like that of Russia in Poland. You talk of a mandate; you have no mandate for such a policy as this from the people of this country. Is your "What is the benefit expected to be derived policy that which was proclaimed by from all this? Are provisions like these the noble Marquess the Member for likely to alter the minds of men? Are they Rossendale at the last Election? Is it the opinions and discontents of a people? If calculated to prevent communication and stifle the policy that was preached at Bir-it were a new and an abstract question there mingham at the last Election? Is my noble Friend going to take the responsibility of advising this policy of proclaiming public meetings? I am not surprised that when the League was might, perhaps, be a difference of opinion upon the subject; but, unfortunately, a book is laid legible characters the true character and conopen to us in which we may read in most sequences of such a measure-that book is the kingdom of Ireland." Now, this was spoken in 1797, just be- | dignified or a glorious position for a fore the events of 1798responsible Government? You hold just so much of Ireland as you occupy with your troops and police. Every spot that is evacuated by those forces comes under an influence that is hostile to your rule. ["No, no!"] "In the year 1794 a Convention Bill was passed in Ireland to prevent meetings of the people. What was the consequence? Ministers boasted of the success of the measure; they flattered themselves they had succeeded in preventing meetings; but I have now the authority of the Parliament of Ireland for saying that what they had prevented publicly had been done in private; and that ever since the year 1791 meetings of the people had been held which, up to the year 1794, were small and insignificant-small because, up to that time, they had still the power of meeting in public and discussing their grievances openly and without reserve. Up to the year 1794, then, they were small and harmless; but then comes the Convention Bill that forces them into clandestine and secret meetings by midnight." And then he says this "You tell the people that when everything That is what you are afraid of. proper Mr. "What a mockery is this! What an insult to say that this is preserving to the people the right of Petition to tell them that they shall have a right to applaud, a right to rejoice, a right to meet when they are happy, but not a right to condemn, not a right to deplore their misfortunes, not a right to suggest a remedy. I hate these insidious modes of undermining and libelling the Constitution of the country." Those are principles and doctrines which, in my opinion, are worth remembering at this moment. The truth is that, as Mr. Fox wisely said, the greater the prevalence of discontent the more necessary and salutary is the remedy which public meetings supply. As I spoke of the Peterloo massacre, I may remind you that the six Acts passed in consequence are names of opprobrium in the history of this country. But you are a great deal worse; you are acting as if you had got the six Acts. When those Acts were passed, and that Government acted upon the authority given them by Parliament, the immediate consequence was the Cato Street Conspiracy. COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.): Ulster. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got all Ulster to himself. I want to know whether this will bring tranquillity to Ireland? The boast-the foolish boast-of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Irish people have fled before the very sight of his Coercion Bill THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE LAND (Mr. A.J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh, yes; I heard him myself. He said the tranquillity of Ireland was due to the fear of the Bill. Foolish and vainglorious language. Ah! Sir, perhaps Cromwell might have given the sort of tranquillity that But then the you wish to Ireland. difficulty is, first of all, that you are not Cromwell; and, in the next place, that if you were, the English people would not support you. I hope that these meetings will continue to be held in all parts of Ireland. Let the Government suppress them if they will. I hope they will not meet with a forcible resistance. But public meetings in England, I tell the Government, shall supply their place. For every meeting that you suppress in Ireland you shall lose a dozen seats in England. We will denounce your Proclamation of the League, which you will not allow to be done in Ireland, at public meetings in England. An Irish MEMBER: We denounce it in Ireland. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will you dare to suppress them? Will you dare to suppress the reports of those meetings in the Irish newspapers? I dare say you will. You are getting on fast. You swore by all your gods that you would never touch the right of You are going to proclaim meetings public meeting. You have done it alall over Ireland, and the forces of the ready. You were not going to interCrown and the Irish people are to play fere with the Press. That will be the hide-and-seek and to dodge each other next thing. You will go on, as is the throughout the country. Is that a case with all Governments which are weak, from violence to violence. The Government have entered upon a course from which there is no issue except defeat; but in spite of your police and Hussars and your Parliamentary majority, you will have to do with antagonists who are stronger than your troops, and who are the masters of your majority. What we invoke against you, and what is more powerful than all, are the sympathies and convictions and the public opinion of the English nation. You say, "Oh, all this is done in the name of the Union." But when the English people are satisfied that the Union can only be maintained by blood, you may depend upon it the Union is in a bad way. But the Union is not your real object; I have always said so. The Duke of Abercorn was kind enough to state it very clearly. He did not care about the base pretences of supporting the Union." LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing): He used the word "bare," not "base." re right now, and in three months they would have it all their own way. He is in the secrets of the Government. He knew what was going to be done at Ennis. Perhaps he knew what was going to be done at Mitchelstown. He went down to tell the people that the Irish landlords would have it all their own way in three months. But do not let him be too sure. The Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day-I read it with great regret-used the word " retribution." Opposition cheers.] Yes, this firing on the people was the " tribution" in the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I think it is a most unwise, a most unsafe, and a most unstatesmanlike word to employ; but I have no doubt it justly expressed the policy, the principle, and the sentiment of the Government upon this subject. Well, you may suppress meetings; you may charge with your Hussars; but there is a force stronger than either-a force which is the master of Governments-a force to which Parliamentary majorities must succumb. It is to this force that we appeal. It is a force which speaks with a voice which must and which will be heard. And, in my opinion, if there is one lesson which the history of politics teaches more clearly than another it is this-that a cause which cannot bear to be discussed is already lost. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh, I beg pardon; it is not base-the bare or naked pretence of supporting the Union. The "pretence" of supporting the Union! That is not what he or his distinguished relative means. What they mean is a far more important thing. It is the rent. That is the real object of the plan of your campaign. I MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before, Sir, I have consulted Lord Spencer on this come to the main substance of the asquestion, and he tells me that there tonishing speech we have just heard-a never was a public meeting about to be speech which I confess surprised me held in Ireland that the landlords did almost more by the total absence of not beg for its suppression. Of course the ordinary good taste which disthey did; always the landlords and tinguishes Ministerial speeches in this generally the magistrates. He would House, as by the extraordinary holnot give in to that policy, and greatly lowness of the arguments advancedhe was attacked for it. You are em- I will relieve the right hon. Gentlebarked on the impossible task of exact- man's mind upon two questions which ing impossible rents. The public opi- he asked me in the earlier part of his nion of Ireland is against you; and that remarks. He has asked whether I will is why you are determined to put down lay upon the Table of the House or compublic opinion in Ireland. What has municate to the House the special inbecome of your boasts? Why, all your structions given to the police in dealing boasts have vanished. You were going with public meetings. So far as I know, to stop evictions; but I take up the Sir, the instructions under which the newspaper and I read that evictions are police are now acting in Ireland are pregoing on every day. What is the mean- cisely the instructions under which they ing of that? We have had no explana- acted when the right hon. Gentleman tion from the Government. Then I saw himself, as Home Secretary, was largely a speech of the hon. and gallant Mem-responsible for the government of that ber for North Armagh, delivered some- country. The second point on which he where in the North. He said it was all desired to be reassured related to Sir |