Campbell, H.
Carew, J. L.
Channing, F. A.
Clancy, J. J.
Coleridge, hon. B.
Conway, M.
Conybeare, C. A. V.
Cossham, H.
Cox, J. R.
Crilly, D.
Dillon, J.
Ellis, T. E.
Ellis, J. E.

bate to a termination after the speeches | Byrne, G. M. made to-night without some further discussion and answer from the Government than that we have so far received. Sir, we have the precedent which has been fforded in the case of the Belfast riots, where a sworn inquiry was held into the conduct of the police and all parties concerned. Although it is not pretended that the rioting in the case of Mitchelstown amounted to one-hundredth part of that which took place in Belfast, yet we have had an intimation that two lives have been lost, and another will be lost; and I regret to say that we have had no intimation from the Government that they intend to hold a sworn inquiry into the matter. On the contrary, the Chief Secretary has distinctly announced that he intends to support the conduct of the police, and to shield them from injustice and from inquiry. In the circumstances, we ought to have an opportunity of moving an Amendment to the Motion before the House in the direction of a sworn inquiry, and I propose to move a Resolution of that kind to-morrow if it is in Order. If it is not in Order, I will propose another Resolution.

be

MR. W. H. SMITH: I may allowed to say one word in reference to an observation which has fallen from the hon. Member. The hon. Member must be aware that he will have an opportunity of proposing a Resolution without the adjournment of this debate. There is another stage on the third reading, when the hon. Member will be in perfect Order in moving any Resolution. Nothing so unusual, so unprecedented, and I may almost say so unconstitutional, has ever been seen in this House as that a debate on going into Committee should be continued till halfpast 12 o'clock, and that then, no Amendment having been proposed, a Motion should be made for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member for Cork will have a good opportunity of moving his Resolution on the third reading to morrow; and I must, therefore, resist the Motion for Adjournment.

Question put.

M'Laren, W. S. B.
Mayne, T.

Morley, rt. hon. J.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Nolan, J.

O'Brien, J. F. X.
O'Brien, P.
O'Brien, P. J.
O'Connor, A.

O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

O'Gorman Mahon, The

O'Hanlon, T.

O'Hea, P.
O'Kelly, J.

Pickard, B.
Pickersgill, E. H.
Power, P. J.

Esmonde, Sir T. H. G. Parnell, C. S.
Fenwick, C.
Flower, C.
Foley, P. J.
Fox, Dr. J. F.
Fuller, G. P.
Gardner, H.
Gill, H. J.
Gill, T. P.
Gourley, E. T.
Gray, E. D.
Grove, Sir T. F.
Hanbury-Tracy, hon.

F. S. A.

Harrington, E.
Harris, M.
Hayden, L. P.
Hingley, B.
Hooper, J.
Hunter, W. A.
Labouchere, H.
Leahy, J.

Provand, A. D.
Pyne, J. D.
Quinn, T.
Reed, Sir E. J.
Reynolds, W. J.
Roe, T.
Rowlands, J.
Rowntree, J.
Sexton, T.
Sheehan, J. D.
Sheil, E.

Stack, J.

Shirley, W. S.

Stanhope, hon. P. J.

Lefevre, right hon. G. Williamson, J.
J. S.
Lockwood, F.
Macdonald, W. A.
M'Arthur, A.
M'Arthur, W. A.
M'Donald, P.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

Addison., J. E. W.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.
Ainslie, W. G.
Aird, J.
Ambrose, W.
Amherst, W. A. T.

TELLERS.

Biggar, J. G.
Sullivan, D.

NOES.

Anstruther, Colonel R.
H. L.

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Baden-Powell, G. S.
Bailey, Sir J. R.
Baird, J. G. A.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.
Balfour, G. W.
Banes, Major G. E.
Baring, T. C.

Barry, A. H. Smith-
Bartley, G. C. T.
Bates, Sir E.
Baumann, A. A.

The House divided:-Ayes 87; Noes Beach, W. W. B.

228: Majority 141.

Beadel, W. J.

Beckett, E. W.

Bective, Earl of

Ballantine, W. H. W. Bentinck, W. G. C.

AYES

Beresford, Lord C. W.
de la Poer

Bethell, Commander G.

R.

Biddulph, M.

Bigwood, J.

Birkbeck, Sir E.

Blundell, Colonel H.

B. H.

Bolitho, T. B.
Bond, G. H.
Bonsor, H. C. O.
Boord, T. W.

Borthwick, Sir A.
Bristowe, T. L.
Brodrick, hon. W. St.
J. F.
Brookfield, A. M.
Bruce, Lord H.
Burghley, Lord
Caldwell, J.

Carmarthen, Marq. of
Cavendish, Lord E.
Chamberlain, R.
Chaplin, right hon. H.
Charrington, S.
Churchill, rt. hn. Lord

R. H. S.
Clarke, Sir E. G.

Fisher, W. H.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Fitz-Wygram, General
Sir F. W.

Fletcher, Sir H.
Folkestone, right hon.

Leighton, S.

Lewisham, right hon.
Viscount
Long, W. H.
Lowther, hon. W.
Lowther, J. W.
Lymington, Viscount
Macartney, W. G. E.

Sutherland, T.
Talbot, J. G.

Theobald, J.
Tollemache, H. J.

Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Tyler, Sir H. W.
Vernon, hon. G. R.
Vincent, C. E. H.
Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Waring, Colonel T.
Watson, J.
Webster, Sir R. E.
West, Colonel W. C.
Weymouth, Viscount
Whitley, E.
Whitmore, C. A.
Wiggin, H.
Wilson, Sir S.

Wodehouse, E. R.
Wolmer, Viscount
Wood, N.

Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Wroughton, P.
Yerburgh, R. A.
Young, C. E. B.

TELLERS.

Douglas, A. Akers-
Walrond, Col. W. H.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton): I have some reluctance in expressing myself, as I think it is my duty to express myself in this debate, because I

Viscount right hon.donald, right hon. cannot help recognizing that the lan

Forwood, A. B.
Fraser, General C. C.
Gardner, R. Richard-

J. H. A.
Maclean, J. M.
Maclure, J. W.
Madden, D. H.
Makins, Colonel W. T.

Mallock, R.
Manners, right hon.

Lord J. J. R.
Marriott,
W. T.

right hon.

guage used here may be appreciated on the other side of the Channel by men without the same kind of protection against undue action on the part of the Executive which we have here; and I feel reluctance even to express the principles of law which seem to me clear, if at the same time I have to fear, as I really have, that the expression of those principles may encourage men in asserting their rights, when the answer to that assertion may be a bullet, directed by the orders of the Executive. I feel I should be doing less than my duty if I did not challenge some of the monetrous doctrines laid down from the opposite Benches this evening. I hardly know which doctrines are the most astounding, those of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), to whom I listened with great attention, or those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), or those of the Leader of the Tory democracy of England (Lord Randolph Churchill), as to the rights of Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. the Government and the rights of indi

Maskelyne, M. H. N.
Story-
Matthews, rt. hn. H.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Mayne, Admiral R. C.
Mills, hon. C. W.
Milvain, T.
Morrison, W.
Mount, W. G.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir
J. R.
Mowbray, R. G. C.
Mulholland, H. L.
Muncaster, Lord
Muntz, P. A.
Murdoch, C. T.
Newark, Viscount
Northcote, hon. H.
Paget, Sir R. H.
Parker, hon. F.

Pearce, Sir W.

Pelly, Sir L.

Pitt-Lewis, G.

S.

what remedy is there for individuals against the Executive? To talk in this fashion, and then to declare in the House of Commons and in a reformed Parliament that the rights of Government are unlimited-if this be the doctrine of Tory democracy, I am glad it is proclaimed before the General Election.

were to be checked only by a Court of Law or by Parliament.

MR. BRADLAUGH: I misunderstood the noble Lord; but it was hardly my fault, because the noble Lord expressly used these words, for I took them down-"The Government are armed with Common Law powers, which are, in my opinion, unlimited." I say the Government are not so armed. I say that no sound Constitutional lawyer would say so, and I say that any man who contends that the Government in this country have unlimited powers is one who may be a Tory, but who has no claims upon the English democracy.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL : What I said was that the Executive must be supported either by Parliament or by a Court of Law.

viduals. I understood the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington to advance the doctrine that no individual has the right to offer physical resistance to a member of the police force under any circumstances. No more monstrous misconception of the law was ever stated in any place or at any time. The reading of Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, and LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: some of the old judgments, apart from I did not say that the powers of the Goany of the newer law, would have modi-vernment were unlimited, but that they fied such a doctrine. I had the duty once, then as plaintiff, but in consequence of the previous position of defendant, to argue that very point before a full Court of Common Pleas, presided over by Lord Chief Justice Erle; and if I err to-night, it will not be for want of having looked up the law on the subject. I state, without fear of contradiction from any person who has the smallest acquaintance with the law of England, that the mere fact of a man being a constable gives him no right to do an illegal thing, and that any individual whom he attacks illegally has the right to resist him, even if that resistance involves the killing of him? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL dissented.] The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington shakes his head. Ihave had the advantage of reading the law from even MR. BRADLAUGH: Well, but being higher authorities than the noble Lord, sustained by a Resolution of Parliaand of hearing it expressed by those ment does not make that legal which whose acquaintance with it is even more is illegal. You may have the maextended than his own. I will, however, jority vote in favour of illegality. I try to examine this question from a have known the noble Lord take higher point of view than that which part in a majority vote which a Court has been the standpoint of examination held to be illegal. A Court of Law from the opposite Benches. What is has described a Resolution concurred the right of proclamation of a meeting; in by the noble Lord as an illegal what effect has the proclamation upon Resolution; but the Courts had no a meeting? The right hon. and learned power over the House of Commons. Gentleman the Attorney General for The power of Parliament is unlimited; Ireland himself says the proclamation of but the powers of the Executive Goa meeting does not ascertain its cha-vernment are not unlimited in this racter, does not define what its cha- country, and shall not be while we racter is, and gives no character to it can prevent them. Let us try to which it otherwise would not have. And follow the arguments the Chief Seyet I understand the Government to claim cretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has adthat when they have proclaimed a meet-vanced. The Chief Secretary said that ing they may disperse it simply because in proclaiming a meeting they have to they have proclaimed it, and because consider the state of the district, the they choose to think it illegal. The kind of speeches that will be made, and noble Lord the Member for South Pad- the character of the men who are to atdington says "Oh, if they have acted tend the meeting. Do you really mean wrongly, you have your legal remedy." that because some men, known to be What remedy has the man that has had seditious men, are likely to make sedihis skull blown in; what remedy have tious speeches, you are to proclaim the those who are crippled and maimed; meeting, disperse it, and shoot down the

people dispersed peaceably and quietly. In Ireland that would not have been the case. They would have shot down unfortunate wretches "misled" by me. The people, so far as I know anything about them, are growing indignant with the monstrous course you the Government of this country-are pursuing in Ireland. It was declared over and over again by the Chief Secretary that there was no

of any particular agitation in Ireland; but here we see in Ennis a meeting, in every sense a political one, has been interfered with by the Executive. You proclaimed this meeting, and you adopted a course of proceeding like that of Mitchelstown with the lightest heart—you value the lives of the people so lightly that you have the official who ought to be responsible for the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and whose constant effort ought to be to save the spilling of human blood, telegraphing to his representatives in Ireland to shoot down the people if necessary. A real statesman would go great lengths in order to avoid the use of weapons against citizens of his country-a real statesman would never allow arms to be used against the people excepting as a last resort, and then he would look upon it as a thing greatly to be deplored.

persons who take any part in it? If men make seditious speeches prosecute them; but do not arrogate powers which no Government, except a despotic Government, can ever claim to exercise. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) says that nothing that is done in Ireland will affect the right of meeting in this country. I do not think it will; but that is all the worse, and it becomes all the more necessary that English Repre-intention of interfering with the conduct sentatives, especially if they themselves have taken part in similar struggles, should take care their Irish compatriots are not unfairly dealt with. I have taken part in two proclaimed meetings. In regard to one of them I was formally served with the notice of proclamation. Let me deal with the question of the right of the police, or police reporter, to attend any meeting. I lay down the doctrine that when a meeting is held in a room or field the property of some individual, the invitation to the meeting is an invitation which the promoters of that meeting may cancel at any moment. The police have only the right of entering the meeting in consequence of some previous felony in connection with those taking part in it, and have only the right of ordinary individuals to attend the meeting; and the promoters of the meeting have the right to say they do not want the police there, and the police have no right to offer resistance on being expelled. I put that down as a sound doctrine of law, and one which I do not think the English Law Officers will venture to challenge. I had been served with a notice proclaiming a meeting-a meeting which was advertised to take place in Hyde Park some 22 years ago-and I have also known a meeting proclaimed which was to have taken place in Trafalgar Square. In both cases a written notice prohibiting the meeting was issued by the Home Office. In each case I disregarded the notice, and in each case the meeting was held, and no violence was used against those taking part in the demonstrations. I had given notice with regard to the Trafalgar meeting to the Home Secretary declaring that his proclamation of the meeting was illegal, and that any attack on the part of the police would be illegal, and would be resisted by force. The result was that the meeting took place, was perfectly orderly, and after it was held the

But in Ireland that is not the case. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington thinks that the Government will keep its majority. Yes; it will keep its majority so long as there are no elections to influence the occupants of the Treasury Bench. People at the last Election believed that the Government meant a peaceful Union, and an attempt to do their best for the Irish people by means of some kind of ameliorative reform. They did not imagine that the promised local self-government meant the baton of the policeman or a rifle thrust out of a barrack window. If there is one circumstance which has kept the English people more loyal than another it has been the largeness of their liberties with regard to public meeting. Public meetings have been the safetyvalve for discontent-the English people have been loyal because they have had opportunities of protesting against that with which they were dissatisfied. A distinction has been drawn by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington between that which is illegal and that which is legal. The noble Lord says