words, appears to me to convey his final, speeches of hon. Members and their impression. He did not arrive at any declared policy, taken in conjunction decision as to whether the Government with what happened afterwards at the were right or wrong in proclaiming the meeting, show that the Government Ennis meeting. Is that his view? Be- were justified in the action which they cause, if so, having stated an opinion, in took. My right hon. Friend the Chief a few minutes afterwards he proceeded Secretary has called attention to the to say that he had formed no opinion what- banners and emblems which were there ever. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented.] unfurled. The right hon. Gentleman I have not caught the exact meaning the the Member for Derby is aware, from right hon. Gentleman intended to con- what the Chief Secretary said, that the vey; but I have quoted him accurately. only meeting which was proclaimed by Does the right hon. Gentleman the late Lord Spencer under the ordinary law Home Secretary think that the state of was the meeting on the 24th of Nothe neighbourhood in which a meeting vember, 1883, to celebrate the memory is to be held is a legitimate matter for of the three Manchester martyrs. Does the Government to consider at all? Does the right hon. Gentleman and the late it enter into the question? I say that it Prime Minister think that that celebradoes. It is a vital matter to consider tion was of an innocent character and what is the state of the place where the design? Would they have gone to it meeting is to be held. Does the right themselves? Have their opinions so far hon. Gentleman say, after what the changed that they would like to take Chief Secretary has told the House to- part in a meeting which was proclaimed night, that the state of Clare was satis- by Lord Spencer under the ordinary factory; that there was no intimidation law? Was Lord Spencer acting in a or danger to life; and that it was a place spirit of legality in 1883? And if it where inflammatory speeches inciting to was illegal in 1883, is it more legal to violations of the law might be made eulogize those martyrs at meetings in with impunity? That is a matter which 1887? There have been circumstances must have escaped his attention. Again, which tend to show that if these meetI may ask, is it or is it not material, in ings had not been proclaimed the considering whether a meeting ought to language used at them would have been be proclaimed, to take into account the de- of a violent character. Stones were clared intentions of some of the speakers thrown, and it was necessary for the and their fixed policy. The hon. Member police to make a movement before the for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has declared stone throwing was discontinued. Later that he would continue to pursue the on in the evening the police were atsame policy of intimidation that tacked in the town with bricks and system of Boycotting and oppression bottles, and some people were arrested which has brought so much misery to in consequence. I do not think it the people of Ireland. The hon. Mem- possible to doubt, having regard to the ber who was recently elected for one of disturbed state of Clare, to the emthe divisions of Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) blems displayed in the town, to the made a speech a short time ago in which very large assemblage of persons, and he advised, that if the Government sup- to all the circumstances of the case, pressed the meetings and branches of that it would have been very wrong for the National League in any country, the Government not to interfere. What the members of these branches should would have been the alternative policy? hold their meetings with closed doors. Were the Government to wait until the [Cries of "Hear, hear!" from Irish meeting had been held, and then to Members.] Hon. Members below the bring the people into collision with the Gangway applaud and approve of that police, the result of which would have sentiment. Is it not a distinct violation been a serious catastrophe? One of the of the law? If there are powers con- stronger arguments for the Proclamatained in an Act of Parliament, is it not tion of the meeting is that, with the a distinct incitement to a violation of facts before us, we are able to say that the law, whether hon. Gentlemen may the dangers with which the peaceful like them or not, to say that the inhabitants of Clare were menaced have person who violates such powers is free | been averted without disaster and withfrom moral blame? I say that the out bloodshed. It is not necessary for me to refer, in greater detail, to what The right hon. Gentleman referred to occurred at the Ennis meeting. I many matters as to which he intimated submit to the judgment of the House that he had a strong leaning of opinion that the Government acted well within which was not in favour of the action their constitutional rights in proclaiming of the Irish Constabulary. He said that the meeting, and that they would have the police had wantonly forced their way abandoned their constitutitional duty if through the crowd, that there was no they had failed to proclaim it. I sub- breach of the peace before, and that it was mit that the grounds of constitutional only by their own foolhardiness that the law upon which we relied are the same unfortunate collision was brought about. as were relied on by the right hon. Gen- Now, that appears to me to be a strong tleman's Government, and that it is only and a very dangerous prejudging of the to-night that they were discovered by vital part of the case. In the first place, the right hon. Member for Derby to he condemned the Government for acting be entirely fallacious and wrong. I do on the reports of their own responsible not see how old letters are to outweigh officials-[An hon. MEMBER: The police.] the constitutional grounds of action, or to overule decided cases. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Decided cases! MR. PARNELL: What are the decided cases? MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! MR. GIBSON: Is it to be suggested now that the opinions which have again and again been given as to the power of the Executive to proclaim meetingsrepeated deliberately in this House-is it to be tolerated, for one moment, that those opinions which were given as to the power of the Executive are to be disavowed without one word of explanation by the right hon. Gentleman who was a party to all the Proclamations? I now pass from the Ennis Proclamation to the second matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, intends to practice what he preaches. He commenced his observations about the Mitchelstown occurrence by lamenting what he deems the reckless defence of the police, which my right hon Friend the Chief Secretary made. He said that my right hon. Friend, in his responsible position, ought to have held the scales evenly, and ought not to have indicated any opinion whatever, but to have reserved the matter for future inquiry. But what are the facts? The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that we were pressed again and again in this House for official information; and when we gave it, we were told that it came from a tainted source. I say that my right hon. Friend would not have discharged his duty if, believing the official testimony he had received to be true, he had not indicated that belief to the House, especially when that offcial testimony was so fiercely assailed. instead of newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to advance a proposition very alarming, very dangerous to the administration of the law in Ireland, and in complete departure from and contradiction to everything done in Ireland by his own Executive. Nobody ever, until this debate, thought that any Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench would have questioned the right of the Government to have a police reporter present to take a note of the speeches made when the Government considered it necessary for the public safety. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman discover before that it was an unwarrantable and impertinent intrusion on the part of the police to make their way into a public meeting. The right hon. Gentleman made his speech with a full knowledge of the circumstances which surrounded the Mitchelstown meeting. The night before the meeting the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) announced that he would not obey the order of the Court to attend his trial. Advertisements had been inserted in United Ireland calling on the different branches of the League to go and hold an indignation meeting under the walls of the Court House to testify the opinion of the people as to the course the Crown was taking. Accordingly, 3,000 or 4,000 men did muster on the day of the trial in pursuance of those advertisements, and there were among them some of the gentlemen who were present on the preceding night, when the hon. Member for North-East Cork definitely declared that he would disobey the order of the Court, and who had gone down to attend the meeting. It is in a meeting of that character, composed of men coming from strange counties, armed with bludgeons, and, as described by The Freeman's Journal, with a force of mounted cavalry, that the right hon. Gentleman throws doubt, for the first time, as to the propriety of protecting the police reporter in the crowd. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby seems to have learned some new law, and to have forgotten some old law. As long ago as the 29th of March, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman said Mr PARNELL: He has no right to disturb the meeting. MR. GIBSON: What was the meaning of the words of the right hon. Member for Derby "If it were necessary, in the interests of law and order, to send note-takers to public meetings in England, it would be done as it is in the case of Ireland ?" Did that mean that a crowd of 4,000 persons was to punch the police reporter in the ribs if they liked, to knock him about, and to keep him out? I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have made a speech which appears to contradict the previous legal speeches delivered by Members of his own Ministry, and also opposed to the invariable practice in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman having intimated that the police reporter was a man to be resisted with "If it were necessary in the interests of law and order, to send note-takers to public meetings in England, it would be done as it is in the case of Ireland."-(3 Hansard, [260] 152.) Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the law he then stated was correct or not; or has he since learned that it was erroneous? Now, what is necessary in the interests of law and order? Who is to decide what are the interests of law and order? Is it the persons present at the meeting; or is it the re-impunity, that he had brought the sponsible Government? Assuredly the attack upon himself, in desiring to take right hon. Gentleman will not pretend notes against the wish of the meeting, to convey that it is competent for per- proceeded to state that there were quessons to hold meetings in a public street, tious affecting the action of the police in or a public thoroughfare, under such regard to which he had grave doubts. circumstances, and not competent for The right hon. Gentleman asked, in one the guardians of public order to have part of his speech-"Where were the a reporter present to take cognizance heads of the police ?" I think it would of what is going on, in order to give be inconvenient and undesirable, and in evidence afterwards. Yet that is the that I yield to the suggestion of the great point of the right hon. Gentle- right hon. Gentleman the late Home Seman. The right hon. Gentleman's pro-cretary, if I was to go into any detail as position is that a public meeting may be held, as it was in Mitchelstown, with an enormous force of men, who, as was afterwards shown, were prepared to resort to extreme measures, and that it is by the mere permission and indulgence of the speakers, and the crowd of people present, that the police reporter can be there at all. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No. MR. GIBSON: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten his speech. Ho was perfectly dialectic in his reasoning. He stated that it was a matter of prudence for the Executive Government; but he distinctly added that they had no right. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said that the reporter, like everybody else, had a right to attend a meeting to which everybody was invited. MR. GIBSON: He distinctly stated that the police reporter had no greater rights than the men in the crowd, though he is ordered to attend the meeting. to the circumstances of the Mitchelstown case. The circumstances have been referred to already, in general terms by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. There are, however, some minor points to which I may refer, because it appears to me they do not necessarily involve any undue assumption as to the circumstances of the case. Some observations have been made as to the time at which the disturbance took place. Captain Seagrave, the Resident Magistrate, thought that as the business of the Court was over, that there would be no disturbance, and I believe he went to Mr. Eaton's. The whole matter lasted a very short time, and Captain Seagrave did not appear in the street, I believe, until the whole matter was at an end. Responsible officers of the police, the County Inspector and the District Inspector, were there, and it is upon their testimony that my right hon. Friend has made his statement to-night. It is, I think, better for me not to go into any detail under the circumstances. I con fess I think my right hon. Friend could not have done less than he has done in stating for the information of the House, the information he had himself received, and of the accuracy of which he had certainly satisfied himself. My right hon. Friend would have done less than his duty, after the fierce attacks made upon the police, if he had not stated the information which he relied upon, and which influenced his judgment. The right hon. Member for Derby, following in the same direction as the late Prime Minister, has stated that the same meetings would continue to be held in Ireland. MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say so. MR. GIBSON: That is the statement of the late Home Secretary at any rate. Am I to understand that that is a statement with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite agrees? MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Pray do not understand anything about it. I said nothing about it, and I have nothing to say. MR. GIBSON: The right hon. Gentleman observes an attitude of judicious caution, and, in my opinion, he is acting with great wisdom. If the late Home Secretary will take my advice, having regard to the bloody scenes enacted at Mitchelstown, the fearful injuries inflicted upon the police, and to what may happen elsewhere he will take a like course. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is important that what I said should not be misunderstood. I said that I hoped the people of Ireland would continue their claim to hold meetings, and if the Government chose unconditionally to suppress them, I hoped they would not be forcibly resisted. MR. GIBSON: I think there is much greater elasticity in the later form of the right hon. Gentleman's expression, but I am willing to take the right hon. Gentleman's later statement. The circumstances of the meeting at Mitchelstown were, as I have said, of a very serious nature. It is impossible to deny that it was dangerous for the adminis. tration of publio justice to hold a meeting of 3,000 or 4,000 persons within sight of the Court House on the day that the trial might have taken place there. The right hon. Gentleman must see that, and indeed, it was admitted the other evening. Suppose the trial had actually been going on. Suppose a jury had actually been deciding the case, could it have been tolerated that this great mass of men should have been brought into the town? Could it be tolerated that the police reporter who attempted to take a note of what was going on should be treated as an impertinent intruder, who might be kicked, hustled, and beaten? One of the most remarkable points in the matter, I am sorry to say is that the police reporter, a sergeant of police, was a man who gave evidence only shortly before. Another man, Constable Leahy, also received serious injuries. It is easy for hon. Members in this House to talk about the public right of meeting, but when regard is had to what happened at Mitchelstown, and to what may occur elsewhere, hon. Gentlemen should be careful in their language with respect to the Executive responsibility. Our position is not made easier for us by the language used here by great statesmen to-night. In circumstances of great danger surrounded by peril, we shall endeavour to do our duty to the loyal people of Ireland, and to carry out the proper administration of the law. MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I rise, Sir, for the purpose of stating to the House the facts of which I was an eyewitness at Mitchelstown on Friday last; and although I partly recognize the very great importance of the questions involved in the suppression of the meeting at Ennis, and would gladly say something on that matter, the proceedings at Mitchelstown have become of such vast importance, and have so excited public interest, I think I had better confine myselfto describing what occurred there. And now, Sir, I would first ask this question. We have heard from the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General denunciations as to the impropriety of holding a meeting at Mitchelstown that day. What I want to ask the officers of the Government is this-Do they consider that it was wrong to hold a meeting at Mitchelstown on that day; and, if so, in view of the declarations which they have made as regards the power of the Executive Government in Ireland to proclaim and prohibit any meeting in Ireland which they considered dangerous and improper, why did they not proclaim and prohibit the meeting at Mitchelstown that day? They had I experience of the meeting in Ennis, and which we did-I say, if the authorities heard in astonishment, for the first |