The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-09-17 00:00:00

DEBATE ON TIIE MITCABLSTOWN AFFRAY.

On the order for going into Committee on the Appro-
priation Bill, Sir W. Harcourt demanded from the
Government some explanation of the remarkable and
deplorable results of the policy which the Government
were pursuing in Ireland, especially with regard to
putlic meeting. Upon the unfortunate affray at
Mitchelstown he desired to maintain great reserve, as
it must necessarily become the subject of judicial
inquiry; but he observed that such events were
the necessary and usual result of violent and uncion-
stitutional action of Governments. Having inquired,
what instructions had been given to the Irish con-
stabulary in reference to public meetings, and whether
it was true that Sir Redvers Buller had resigned
the office of Permanent Under• Secretary for Ireland,
the right hon. gentleman called attention to the policy
of the Government, and the principles upon which they
declared that that policy rested. The principles
enunciated on Friday list by the Chief Secretary and
the Attorney-General for Ireland he characterised as
the most dangerous and unsound doctrines in respect
to public meetings that had ever been propounded.
Not having dared to ask Parliament for powers to pro-
hibit public meetings, they, nevertheless, were attempt-
ing to use such powers as if they had been granted to
them. The Ennis meeting was prohibited on the
ground of the common law, the meeting having
been called for what was described as an
"improper purpose." If that doctrine was any-
thing like the truth, no public meeting might be
bold anywhere in this country except at the will and
pleasure of the Government. He denied that it was
the common law or Constitution of this country, and
maintained that it was a flagrant breach and denial
of the fundamental principles of both, and was
wholly incompatible with the rights of a free people.
The object of the policy which the Government was
pursuing was to stifle the expression of public opinion,
and its criminality and injustice were only equalled
by its folly. They might continue to suppress public
meetings, but the public opinion of the English nation
would be invoked, and would prove too strong for them.
If history taught one lesson more than another, it was
that a cause which could not bear discussion was already
lost.

_
Mr. A. J. Balfour explained that the instructions
under which the police were now acting were the same
as when Sir William Harcourt was in office, and denied
that Sir Redvers Bailer's return to his military duties
was in any degree attributable to any difference of
opinion with the Irish Executive. Referring to the
use of the epithet " impudent " by Sir W. Harcourt as
applied to the case of the Government, he asked
whether the impudence was not rather on the side of
the right hon. gentleman, who, as a member of the
Government in whicn Mr. Forster was Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland, was responsible for having pro.
claimed no less than 130 meetings under the
powers of the ccmmon law which he now
asserted did not exist. The powers which the
present Government claimed were largely used by the
right hon. gentleman himself six years ago, and the
only possible question which now arose was not
whether they had been acting legolly, but whether
their action was politic. The disturbed state of the
country in which the Ennis meeting was to be held,
the inflammatory placards which were exhibited, the
incendiary speeches made, and the lamentable moon.
lighting outrage which had followed so closely upon
Mr. Dillon's denunciation of land-grabbers, all proved
that the Government were right in their conjecture as
to the nature of the in tended meeting, and justified their
proclamation of it. It was monstrous to describe their
action as an interference with freedom of speech and the
fact that since be had been in office 317 meetings bad
been permitted, while only eight had been prohibited
by the Executive Government, showed that there was
no desire to stifle the voice of the Irish people. With
regard to the unhappy occurrence at Mitohelstown. he
reviewed the circamstanees narrated in the official
report, and asserted that the police not only acted
within their undoubted right, but would have been
guilty of gross neglect had they failed to do so. The
course of the Government appeared to be perfectly
plain. They believed that by a firm administration of
the law, and by a no less firm determination to do all
they could to remove every social difficulty which
fermented the historic discontent of Ireland, they
would ultimately be able to make one united people of
the inhabitants of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Labouchere, as an eye•witness of the collision at
Mitchelstown, asserted that the attack was deliberately
commenced by the police upon the people, who
naturally defended themselves. Ho traversed the
account given by the Chief Secretary, and strongly
censured the action of the police, accusing the resident
magistrate and the police inspector with deliberate
murder.

Mr. O'Hea and Mr. W. H. Fisher having spoken,
Mr. Gladstone pointed out that the authorities cited
by Sir W. Harcourt against the legality of the course
taken by the Government remained unanswered, and
declared that it was preposterous and not to be
tolerated that a Minister of the Crown when charged
with infringing the law should only reply with a "tu
quoque." Even if the late Government had broken the
law that had no bearing whatever upon the question of
legality. If meetings were to belprohibited because
they were called for what the Government considered
improper purposes, the whole liberties of the people
would be placed at the disposal of the Government.
Characterising the attitude of the Chief Secretary in
reference to the Mitchelstown affray as rash and im-
prudent, he remarked that it was directly in the teeth
of the facts so far as they were before the House, and
expressed a hope that a matter so grave, and which had
excited feelings of horror and indignation throughout
Great Britain, would be probed to the bottom. The
policy of the Government was aimed against the
liberties of the people, and would end in disgrace and
disaster, and he was convinced that the people of this
country would not support it.
The Attorney-General for Ireland contended that
the Government had acted well within their Consti-
tutional rights, and that they would have failed in their
duty had they not proclaimed the Ennis meeting. The
grounds of Constitutional law upon which they acted
were the same as those upon which the law officers of
the late Government acted year after year.
After a lengthy statement by Mr. Dillon as to the
occurrences at Mitchelstown,
Lord R. Churchill remarked that nothing could
bring before the people so vividly the nature of the
struggle in which the Unionist party were engaged
than the fact that in the last days of an unusually
protracted session the leaders of the Opposition Lad
rushed back to town in order to bring all their in-
uence to bear in an attack upon the Government in
Its executive capacity. Their conduct, and the enthusi-
astic applause with which they had received the
attempt of the Irish members to cover with every
species of disgrace and abuse the officers of the law,
were not, he feared, likely to conduce to peace and order
in Ireland, and with regard to the aotion of the
Government, he held that all meetings called for the
purpose of reforming the law or the removal of griev-
ances were legal, and that all meetings for the arrest
of the law were illegal and must be checked. The
Ennis and Mitchelstown meetings clearly came within
the latter category, and the Government were justified
in suppressing them. The Irish members had thrown
down a challenge to the Government for the avowed
purpose of reducing its powers to an absurdity, and
when human life was brought within the range of such
a struggle with the Executive it became of little value
in any country. The Government were engaged in a
struggle for the supremacy of the law, in which they
would be supported by the majority in Parliament,
and upon the triumph of the law their safety depended.
Mr. Parnell having moved the adjournment of the
debate, Mr. W. H. Smith resisted the motion, which
was negatived by 228 to 87. The discussion was then
continued by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr. Brunner, and
the House then went into committee on the Appropria-
tion Bill. On Clause 3 Mr. Cony beare moved to report
progress.

- the motion having been negatived by 229 to 61, the
bill paceed through committee.

LORDS AND COMMONS.—SUSPENSION OF TWO MEMBERS.
A discussion took place at 3 30 on Tuesday morning
on an amendment of the Lords in the Ooal Mines
Regulation Bill, which restricted the choice of the
miners as to the persons they could select to inspect
the mine in which they worked. In the course of the
discussion, Mr. Ouninghame Graham, whom the Speaker
had previously called to order for speaking disrespect.
fully of the House of Lords, said he hoped he was not
again intruding upon dangerous ground if he said that
an assembly not elected by the popular voice should not
dare to dictate to this House, which was elected by the
popular vote.

_
The Speaker saii these words must be withdrawn
and apologised for.—Mr. Graham: I regret to say it is
a matter of conscience with me, and I cannot with.
draw.—The Speaker: Then I name you, Mr. Graham,
to the House.—Mr. W. H. Smith moved his suspension,
ard on a division the motion was carried by 157 against
44.—The Speaker (to Mr. Graham) : I now call upon
the hon. gentleman to withdraw.—Mr. Graham If I
am allowed to make a personal explanation, I wish
to apologise to you rersonally, as I don't
wish to be guilty of any discourtesy to you.—
The Speaker: If that be so, I should ask the House to
rescind this rote.—Mr Graham: As regards my opinion
that the House of Lords should not—The Speaker:
I thought the hon. member was going to express regret
for speaking disrespectfully of members of the other
House--Mr. Graham: I wish to apologise to you
persorally.—The Speaker: I cannot accept a personal
apology. I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw.
—Mr. Ouningharne Graham them withdrew, amid the
cheers of the Opposition members below the gangway.
—Alto? some further discussion, the Lords' amendment
was agreed to by 134 against 61.
On the consideration of the Lords' amendments to
the Truck Bill, Mr. Bradtaugh moved to agree with

•- - -
them.—Mr. Sexton condemned the action of the Lords
In striking out the clause providing for weekly payments
of wages in Ireland.—Mr. W. H. Smith said that as the
bill had now come down a second time it would be lost
if the damn in question were insisted on —Mr. Seaton
thought it would be better to lose the bill than to be
subjected to the disgrace and humiliation of swallowing
the bill as it stood.—Mr. E. Harrington was speaking
against the action of the Lords when the Speaker ruled
that he was not speaking relevant to the subject before
the House.—Mr. E. Harrington said he did not desire
to transgress on a matter of such delicacy, as he
had no ambition to distinguish himself in that way.—
The Speaker then said the hon. member must resume
his seat.—Mr. E. Harrington, in impassioned lan-
guage: I shall not resume my seat. You, Mr. Speaker,
have been on the pounce for me since I rose, and I
claim my right to speak. I have not transgrest.ed your
ruling. You have been on the pounce waiting for me
all the evening, and I claim my right to speak .—The
Speaker, in a quiet, deliberate manner: Mr.
Edward Harrington, I name you to the House:
—Mr. W. H. Smith: I beg to move that Mr. Edward
Harrington be suspended from the service of the House.
—On a division the motion was carried by 135 against
34. Mr. E. Harrington did not return to the House
after the division. The House then divided at five
o'clock on the question that the clause providing for
the payment of weekly wages in Ireland should be
insisted on, and the numbers were: for the clause, 47;
against 129. The other amendments of the Lords
were agreed to. The House adjourned at 5.15 a.m.,
till three o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday.