and that the classes will not be able to hold their own against such an alliance. I hold that the right hon. Gentleman is indirectly responsible for what has occurred at Mitchelstown, and that those who are directly responsible are Resident Magistrate Seagrave and Inspector Brownrigg. I accuse these men of gross and deliberate murder. MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.) said, the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reminded him of the typical police magistrate, who believed everything told him by the police, and refused to pay any attention to evidence given by civilians, however respectable, which discredited those statements. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, not allow themselves to be butchered. The firing caused a panic, and in the space of about a minute the square was cleared of all but a score of people. He was afterwards standing with others at the door of Father Morrison's house in the square when 25 or 30 policemen rushed through, striking indiscrimi nately, and some even came through the doorway into the hall and struck some of those who were gathered there. He avoided a violent blow by stepping out of the way, and someone else received it. It was now said that the police entered the house for their own protection, but the truth was there was no necessity for them to seek shelter anywhere, for no one was then attacking them in the square. The police were told they were intruders, and they had better leave, and they did so. He acMR. O'HEA resuming, said, that companied the hon. Member for East having been present during the whole Mayo when he appealed to Captain Seaof the proceedings at Mitchelstown, he grave to send someone to restrain the was in a position to state that The Free-police, and happened to remark to him man's Journal account of the disturbance was in some respects accurate, but in others very highly-coloured and inaccurate; but there was one fact about which there was and could be no controversy. It was that the disturbance was initiated by the police obtruding themselves upon the meeting. When the hon. Member for East Tipperary saw that the first body of police and the Government shorthand writer had got near enough to the platform he proceeded with his address. That peace had been restored was evident from the opening sentences of his speech, but he was soon interrupted by a second disturbance, caused by a second body of police attempting to reinforce their comrades who were in the crowd, and a great deal of hustling and jostling took place. The people were assaulted by the police in an unwarrantable and brutal fashion, and he was proud to say that under these circumstances they made use of their sticks against the constables. After the retreat of the police under a shower of stones, the people had the intention of again gathering round the platform, but the sound of a shot was heard, there was a stampede from the barracks, and the excitement became intense. The shot was followed by several others, and the hon. Member for Northampton, as well as himself and others, implored the people for God's sake to disperse, and "You ought to be proud of this day's work." This remark perhaps explained why he did not receive a little more civility, but, making allowance for that, he must agree that the captain's manner was rather supercilious, and he did not seem to have the aplomb which would fit him for the responsible position he was placed in. He had no wish to use strong language with regard to County Inspector Brownrigg, but he must say that had Bill Sykes been in the County Inspector's uniform he could not have looked a more truculent brute. Before the meeting he (Mr. O'Hea) and others made every effort to find Captain Seagrave. It was the business of Captain Seagrave to be somewhere where he could be found. They hunted about threequarters of an hour round the little town for him, but he was nowhere to be found. Their object in looking for him was to come to a distinct understanding that would prevent any hostility, collision, or friction between the people and the authorities. If they could have found him they would have undertaken to guarantee the safety of a reporter, and he believed the unfortunate events that had occurred would have been avoided. The whole responsibility for what had occurred rested directly upon Captain Seagrave and County Inspector Brownrigg, and upon the Government which employed incompetent officials. He believed that the occurrences at "I am not one of those who disapprove of Mitchelstown, like the writing on the prohibiting meetings which may be illegal or wall, would mark the early and igno-end in forcible intimidation." which by their multitudinous attendance may minious doom of the Government, who were responsible for the lamentable events of that day. MR. FISHER (Fulham) said, it seemed to him that the salient point was the right of the Government to have a reporter at the meeting. The hon. Member for Northampton denied and disputed the right. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.] He referred the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member's speech at Cork on Saturday night. But he would quote against the hon. Member for Northampton the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who, when in Office, laid it down that when the Government had reason to anticipate a breach of law and order then they had a right to have a reporter present. He particularly observed that the right hon. Gentleman in his long historical disquisition as to the Common Law rights of public meetings refused to give the House his definition of what constituted an unlawful assembly, although he went back to 1795, and although he gave them one or two precedents within the last 10 years. He should like to remind the House of what took place in connection with the great meeting of repealers at Clontarf in 1843, which was prohibited by the Government. What were the circumstances attending the Clontarf meeting? It was true that the first notice announcing the meeting was couched in language containing military terms calculated possibly to inspire some terror and alarm apart from the ordinary circumstances in which a meeting might be called together. Prior to the prohibition of the meeting, however, the military terms were carefully expunged. The Irish Leaders in those days, like the Nationalist Leaders of today, were very anxious to keep just on the outside edge of legality, and so they expunged those terms in the notice which might give offence or create alarm; but for all that the meeting was proclaimed by the Executive and stopped to a great extent through the exertions of O'Connell himself. In the debate which took place in the House on that occasion, Lord John Russell, while blaming the Government for not giving longer notice of their Proclamation, said As to the Common Law right of prohibit ing public meetings, he might cite the opinion of Lord Brougham, whose language, however, went beyond what he should be prepared to adopt as the proper policy for this country. In speaking of the Chartist meetings in 1848 Lord Brougham laid it down that it was most important for the peace of the country, as well as the liberty of the subject, for the rights of the Crown as well as the rights of the people, that the right of Petition should be as little as may be interfered with. Lord Brougham also held the right of public meeting to stand in the same position, but that it was an absolutely essential condition for the exercise of that right and for its exist ence that the meeting should be for dis cussion alone; wherever the meeting was a mere assemblage of numbers, too large for any possibility of discussion, it became an assemblage of numbers merely for the display of physical force and intended to overawe the Govern ment. He held that it was impossible to give an exact definition of what an unlawful assembly was, but he would shelter himself behind the definition given by a late Irish Solicitor General of the past Liberal Administration, Mr. Justice Johnson. That Gentleman laid it down that if a riot occurred it was the duty of the magistrate to quell it, if necessary, by force; and even when no riot occurred it was also the duty of the magistrate to disperse, and, if necessary, by force, an unlawful assemblage. The commonest form of such an unlawful assembly, he said, was a meeting which from its character and the circumstances in which it had assembled was likely to prove dangerous to the peace of the neighbourhood or was calculated to excite terror, alarm, or consternation. It must therefore at all times be for the Execu tive to say, looking at all the circumstances and details of the case, and all the local conditions, whether or not a meeting which was to be held was an unlawful assembly, and whether they had a legal right to proclaim that meeting. If the Government were wrong in point of law their conduct could be questioned in the Law Courts. If their policy was inexpedient it could be questioned in the House. For his part, he conceived there was little doubt as to the legal right of the Government to proclaim the meeting at Ennis. The House and the country, he thought, would be satisfied that in doing so they closely adhered to their legal right and carried out their policy in the interests of law and order. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian): I think, Sir, it was naturally to be expected that this debate should mainly direct itself towards the distressing circumstances of the recent occurrence at Mitchelstown; but, notwithstanding this, I am strongly of opinion, and indeed I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down will probably not dissent from that opinion, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has performed a public service in drawing the attention of the House to this subject, and in giving to the House the great advantage of a very full, a very clear, and a very weighty account of the authorities bearing on the subject of public meetings under the Common Law, and likewise of calling attention not only to the facts of the Ennis case, but, what is still more important, to the doctrines in connection with which these facts are to be judged. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland sat down after saying that he and his Government would persevere in their endeavours to bring about tranquillity in Ireland by a firm administration of the law and by the removal, not of grievances-for there were none. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Injustice was my word. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Oh, I beg pardon; I am much obliged for the correction, but I see no difference. Still it is much better to be verbally correct. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was aware that he would find nothing but opposition from this side of the House in his endeavours. I do not intend to dwell on that somewhat invidious remark; but I must protest against it. I must say that whenever Her Majesty's Government have made a proposal which appeared to us in the slightest degree beneficial to the people of Ireland we have hailed that proposal and we have done all in our power to forward it; and when they have been engaged, as we think, during the present year in a course most unwise and most unconstitutional, and likely to disturb and break up the foundations of social order in that country, we have done everything that was in our power by the use of most earnest and energetic language to encourage strict obedience to the law. I will venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I believe our respectful advice to the people of Ireland has been of more use in procuring obedience to the law than all your Crimes Acts and your Constabulary, managed as it was at Mitchelstown. I have spoken of the management of the Constabulary at Mitchelstown, and I hope that we shall hear in the course of time much more on that subject. But undoubtedly one point raised by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) appeared to me to deserve the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The first body of police to escort the reporter consisted of 22 men. I think that number was given in The Standard newspaper, but I am not quite certain. There were 50 constables in the second body. We do not understand that they were under any command or any responsible guidance whatever. If this is so, the circumstance is so strange that I cannot take it for granted; but undoubtedly the accounts given in the newspapers tend to that belief, and I hope we shall have some explanation on the subject. The point, however, on which I wish to speak and to draw the attention of the House is the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. My right hon. Friend has said that it appears to him that the prohibition of the meeting at Ennis was an invasion of public liberty. He has supported himself by references to the very highest authorities. Those authorities are not lawyers who might be supposed to be tainted with Liberal or ultra-Liberal doctrines. On the contrary, my right. hon. Friend relied on many other distinguished names; above all, on the eminent and very distinguished name of Lord Eldon-I may say, considering Lord Eldon as lawyer and not as statesman, the illustrious name of Lord Eldon-as a very great lawyer whose conscience was keenly alive on the subject of law. Well, Sir, it seems to be quite clear, upon the doctrine of Lord Eldon, that it is impossible to justify the proclamation of the Ennis meeting. Lord Eldon laid it down that if a meeting were treasonable, that was a reason, no doubt, for prohibiting and preventing it; if it were dangerous to the public peace, that was a reason for prohibiting and preventing it. But, then, that means proximate danger to the public peace, and not a speculative danger, which it is within the discretion of an official to imagine and to suggest. To my astonishment the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, bracing up all his energies to the business he had in hand, proceeded with self-confidence to denounce the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, bristling with legal authorities throughout, as empty and hollow, and to pass by entirely the discussion and the bearing those authorities had upon the question of the proclamation of the Ennis meeting. What is the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman? A simple tu quoque, neither more nor less. In a matter of mere politics the tu quoque argument is usually the resort of persons who are in great difficulties. But in a matter of law it is absurd to suppose that in this House, when you appeal to great legal authorities and standards, you are liable to be overthrown by saying-Why, you did it. What does it signify-what does it signify for the purpose in view? It may signify a good deal for the purpose of throwing blame upon us. I do not wish to escape from that blame; but it is absurd and preposterous, and not to be tolerated in a man who is a Minister of the Crown, that when it is said the law has been tampered with and infringed, he is to say-You did it. That is no argument whatever. It is a fresh accusation, and as a fresh accusation may deserve a good deal of attention. Lot us look at this fresh accusation. What was it? I heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and the words were these that Lord Spencer and Mr. Forster had in 130 cases at least used those powers against public meetings. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said Mr. Forster in 130 cases, to which you must add all the cases in which Lord Spencer used them subsequently. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That, Sir, was not the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman. There were, he said, 130 cases. Let us well understand this. Lord Spencer has nothing at all to do with the matter, I was pre Mr. except as to a single case. pared to meet the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of Lord Spencer and the Government at that period, with a simple denial, and with regard to that single case I believe that denial applies. But the right hon. Gentleman has narrowed his proposition so much that I will not put it upon that part of the question. Well, there were 130 cases from Mr. Forster. On a challenge from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to explain whether these were public meetings for discussion or not, the 130 cases sank down to 30-a considerable collapse in the case of a statement made by a Gentleman who speaks with all the facilities of official information. After that collapse there remained 30 cases, and for my part I must say I am totally unaware of any act of the description the right hon. Gentleman has given us. Forster is not here to speak for himself; I have no power of communication at the moment with anyone who can speak for him; but all I can say is this. that whether we have done this or not—and I do not admit that Mr. Forster did it until I have some clear account of what he did-it has no bearing whatever on the legality of the proceeding. If we have tampered with the law so much the worse, and so much the more necessary it is that the practice of the Executive should be brought back to the law. We have a Minister deliberately going by the discussion of the law, and deliberately setting aside, deliberately describing, in fact, as hollow and unreal a speech made up in great part of citations from the highest legal authorities, showing what the true legal doctrine was, and resting himself upon an accusation made against a former Government, as if it were possible that the practice of former Governments combined with the practice of his Government could make legal that which is in itself illegal. Therefore, I want to know whether that is really to be the ground of defence, or whether the Government are prepared to grapple with the authorities laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and in particular with the authority of Lord Eidon? The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down dwelt on the case of Clontarf, as if it had anything to do-he will forgive me for saying so-with the discussion in which we are now engaged. The case of Clontarf | Will he lay that down as a legal was a case in which, if I remember opinion? Does not common sense teach right, it was intended to gather together the meanest and most ignorant among 150,000 or 200,000 people; and I rather think I am correct in saying that on that occasion, or about that period-because there had been more meetings - Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary, was asked as to whether numbers made a meeting illegal. I do not know whether that question had reference to the opinion which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from Lord Brougham-an opinion which, I confess, does not appear to be unreasonable. At any rate, it seems to me that a meeting which is upon a scale so vast that the discussion cannot possibly be exhaustive, stands in a totally different category from the meeting we are now considering, the meeting at Ennis, with respect to which these considerations have the smallest possible application. Now, with regard to the particular facts of the meeting at Ennis, and whether the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to apprehend that it would be of a dangerous character, I can only say that it would be absurd for me to attempt to pronounce an authoritative opinion without a far more minute and accurate knowledge of the facts than I at present possess. But this I must say that in my opinion the right hon. Gentleman did not in the slightest degree lay before us evidence calculated to command our assent upon that subject. I leave that point rather to be discussed by others; but I wish to draw attention to the point which my right hon. Friend had mainly in his mind-the fact of the prohibition of the meeting, combined with the doctrine by which that prohibition has been justified. My right hon. Friend read out in the hearing of the Attorney General for Ireland the doctrine of that right hon. and learned Gentleman, and what said he? He said that, under the Common Law, it would be justifiable I am not quoting, but only giving the substance-to prevent a public meeting which the Government, upon the evidence before it, might regard as calculated to produce public disorder, or to be called together for an improper purWell, Sir, all public meetings held on the Liberal side are meetings called together for an improper purpose. Will the right hon. and learned Gentle man adhere to such language as that? pose. us that, if a Government is authorized to prevent a meeting which it regards as called for an improper purpose, the meaning is that the entire liberties of the people as regards public meetings are placed in the hands of that Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in this House of Commons he could propose a clause which would run to the effect-"Be it enacted that if Her Majesty's Government shall have reason to consider that a meeting is called for an improper purpose, they there and then shall proceed to prohibit it?" The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland carefully eschewed the discussion of those legal doctrines. Now, what we want is to drag those legal doctrines into view. However important is the prohibition of a particular meeting, much more is the general rule upon which these proceedings are hereafter to be governed. I say that, if you are to prohibit a meeting on account of its tendency to disorder, that must be proximate disorder. You have no right to say, "We think these are dangerous things, and will ultimately issue in social disorganization." That is not ground for prohibiting a meeting. Lord Eldon admitted no such ground; he only admitted that which was likely to lead to disorder and riot in connection with the meeting itself. And then it is most important we should know from the Government whether the Attorney General intends to advise the Government that when a meeting is called for an improper purpose, he is to be at liberty to prohibit it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that there had been a great number of meetings-I think over 300-held since he had been in Office; which were permitted to be held, and only a very small number subjected to prohibition. I even will venture to hope that recent occurrences may have taught a lesson to the Government, and I shall watch their conduct with a very great interest from a sincere and earnest desire to find that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give something like reality in the future more than in the past, to the principles he has laid down with regard to the value of the title of the people to assemble together for the purpose of dis |