Civil Services And Revenue Departments Estimates, 1901–2 (Vote On Account)
"That a sum, not exceeding £17,301,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1002, namely:—
|Board of Education||4,100,000|
|Board of Trade||60,000|
|Royal Palaces and Marlborough|
|Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens||40,000|
|Houses of Parliament Buildings||16,000|
|Miscellaneous Legal Buildings,|
|Art and Science Buildings, Great|
|Diplomatic and Consular Buildings||12,000|
|Public Buildings, Great Britain||145,000|
|Surveys of the United Kingdom||80,000|
|Harbours under the Board of Trade||2,000|
|Rates on Government Property||250,000|
|Public Works and Buildings, Ireland||70,000|
|United Kingdom and England:—|
|House of Lords, Offices||3,000|
|House of Commons, Offices||12,000|
|Treasury and Subordinate Departments||39,000|
|Privy Council Office, etc||5,000|
|Privy Seal Office||1,000|
|Mercantile Marine Services||30,000|
|Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade||3|
|Board of Agriculture||75,000|
|Civil Service Commission||18,000|
|Exchequer and Audit Department||24,000|
|Friendly Societies Registry||2,200|
|Local Government Board||85,000|
|Mint (including Coinage)||10|
|National Debt Office||6,000|
|Public Record Office||11,000|
|Public Works Loan Commission||5|
|Registrar General's Office||130,000|
|Stationery and Printing||280,000|
|Woods, Forests, etc., Office of||8,000|
|Works and Public Buildings, Office of||23,000|
|Secretary for Scotland||25,500|
|Registrar General's Office||28,000|
|Local Government Board||5,000|
|Lord Lieutenant's Household||2,000|
|Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments||16,000|
|Department of Agriculture||70,000|
|Charitable Donations and Bequests|
|Local Government Board||26,000|
|Public Record Office||2,000|
|Public Works Office||16,000|
|Registrar General's Office||20,000|
|Valuation and Boundary Survey||6,000|
|United Kingdom and England:—|
|Miscellaneous Legal Expenses||27,000|
|Supreme Court of Judicature||140,000|
|Police, England and Wales||22,000|
|Prisons, England and the Colonies||260,000|
|Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain||140,000|
|Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum||18,000|
|Law Charges and Courts of Law||30,000|
|Register House, Edinburgh||15,000|
|Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions||35,000|
|Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments||45,000|
|County Court Officers, etc||46,000|
|Dublin Metropolitan Police||40,000|
|Royal Irish Constabulary||600,000|
|Reformatory and Industrial Schools||55,500|
|Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum||3,500|
|United Kingdom and England:—|
|National Portrait Gallery||3,000|
|Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom||25,000|
|Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales||41,000|
|Endowed Schools Commissioners||400|
|Diplomatic and Consular Services||225,000|
|Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates and Uganda Railway||320,000|
|Subsidies to Telegraph Companies||50,000|
|Superannuation and Retired Allowances||280,000|
|Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc||3,000|
|Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances||1,000|
|Hospitals and Charities, Ireland||17,000|
|Total for Civil Services||£10,434,000|
|Post Office Packet Service||210,000|
|Post Office Telegraphs||1,680,000|
|Total for Revenue Departments||£6,870,000|
protested against a Vote of such magnitude being taken between two and three o'clock in the morning. The Vote in Committee was discussed for only one night, and the entire evening was then occupied with the important but not very practical subject of education. The Vote included items of Supply of all descriptions — English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, foreign and colonial—and yet it was closured after so short a consideration. There certainly appeared to be a desire to prevent the House discussing most important matters, and, seeing that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill was to be practically de- voted to a discussion on the Irish Local I Government Board, he thought he was justified in making this protest.
declared that the Vote would take a week to discuss properly, but he would confine himself to two items. The first was the question of harbours under the Board of Trade. Two years ago a Board of Trade inquiry was held into the ownership of the Kilrush pier, and the Report of that inquiry proved that His Majesty's Lieutenant, although he had tried to keep possession of the pier, originally stole it. In all, about £1,200 had been expended on the pier, of which £600 was returned by the Board of Trade, and it was proved that His Majesty's Lieutenant had no interest in it whatever. This was the only pier in Ireland which had not been placed under the urban district council. Capitalising the rates which had been lost to the town, the ratepayers had been deprived of about £700. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the matter in greater detail, when—
ruled that the matter could not be considered under the Vote before the House.
said he would pass from that to the Constabulary Vote. In January last a man named Ryan was arrested by Sergeant Sherridan and a constable for posting seditious notices. The man was kept in prison from January 1st to January 26th, when a sort of Star Chamber Court sat upon the case, with the result that the man was spirited away and the sergeant and constable dismissed from the force. Either the man posted those threatening notices, in which case he should be brought to trial, or he had nothing to do with it. In which case the sergeant and constable should have been prosecuted for making false evidence. If the police were guilty, they should have been placed in the dock, while if they were not guilty a great injustice had been inflicted upon them by their dismissal from the force. If ever there was a case which required a public inquiry, this case did.
said he wished to enter his protest against the policy which had been adopted by the Chief Secretary since he came into office, for he appeared to be adopting the same regime as his predecessor. If the costs of the abortive prosecutions which had been alluded to were included in this item as law charges and criminal prosecutions a more monstrous charge was never imposed upon the English public. Until the administration in Ireland came more in touch with the people there never would be peace. The small section of Ireland represented by the hon. Member for North Armagh had more influence in the House of Commons than the large district represented by the hon. Member for Water-ford. He intended to oppose this Vote as strenuously as he could. He believed that the Chief Secretary had the best possible intentions towards Ireland, and if his hands were untied he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do something towards removing many of the grievances complained of. It was on those grounds that he protested against this Vote. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would inquire into the needs and requirements of the country and look into the office directed by the Attorney General's devil in Dublin Castle. He knew the Attorney's General devil in Ireland.
Order, order! The official of whom the hon. Member is speaking is not a member of the Government. He must address himself to something more serious, and which really has something to do with the question.
said he had been much impressed up to the present by the sympathetic policy the Chief Secretary had adopted, and he would conclude betaking this opportunity of asking the right hon. Member to look with the greatest possible suspicion upon his advisers in Dublin Castle.
said he desired to bring forward a matter with reference to the recent disturbances in Portadown, which was distinguished not only from the rest of Ulster, but from the rest of Ireland, religious enmity being rampant there. Last August the Catholics, who were in a minority in the town, proposed to have an excursion to Bundoran, and, warned by past experience ' that they might possibly be assaulted by their Orange brethren, even when engaged in amusing themselves, the hon. Secretary to the Catholic Young Men's Association on 19th August addressed the following letter to the District Inspector of Police—
That letter was a proper letter to write under the circumstances, but lest it might not have been enough, the Catholics telegraphed to the Under Secretary, Dublin Castle, on August 25th—"Dear Sir,—I am instructed by the Committee of the above Association to inform you that the members and their friends are going on an excursion to Bundoran on Sunday next, 26th inst., leaving Portadown Station at 8 a.m. and returning back again about 9.30 p.m., and to ask you to kindly make arrangements for their safety in your district. They will assemble at the station, but going to it and returning to their homes the police should be on the streets. They will travel viâ Armagh going and returning. Water Street, Bury Street, Edgarstown, etc., should be patrolled, and we would suggest that where a crowd assembles if some of their names were taken it would have a good effect, as they then would be afraid to do wrong."
A reply was sent by letter on the same day from Sir David Harrel which stated—"Large Catholic excursion going Portadown to Bundoran to-morrow. Fear attack here, leaving and returning. Make proper provision, please. Committee Catholic Association."
One would have imagined that the pledge contained in that letter would have been fulfilled. He would recount to the House as briefly as possible what happened. The Catholic excursionists, in order to avoid giving any offence whatever, not only went to the station without banners or bands, which in that locality might excite disorder and opposition, but went in twos and threes and fours by different routes. In every street leading to the railway station and on the steps of the station Orangemen came up and assaulted the Catholics without the slightest provocation. There was only a single policeman present to protect the excursionists. He asked the other day what had been done by the Castle or its agents in the locality to give the special protec- tion promised by the Under Secretary, and he was rather surprised that so candid a gentleman as the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not give a more candid reply. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what did the special protection consist in, but the right hon. Gentleman absolutely refused to answer. He asked him now to deny that no special protection was given at all. There wore not more than half-a-dozen policemen in Portadown on that morning, although from previous experience the police must have known that an attack would be made on the Catholic excursion. The Orangemen of the district felt that they were masters of the situation, and they renewed the attack on the excursionists when it returned in the evening. Again he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to deny that there was no special protection on the streets of Portadown that evening. The result was that for two days afterwards the Orangemen of Portadown, feeling that they had the magistrates on their side, and that there were no police ready to protect the Catholics, continued their violent assaults on Catholics going to and returning from their work. The disturbance lasted for a few days. The Catholic minority were subjected to continued acts of violence, and they thought that even still an appeal to the Castle would produce some effect. Accordingly on the 22ud September they wrote a long letter in which they made certain suggestions as to the preservation of the peace in future. The letter said—"In reply to your telegram of this evening, I beg to inform you that the Inspector General of Constabulary has been communicated with and has wired directions to Armagh constabulary to take the necessary steps to preserve the peace."
That was a very respectful letter, and the following reply was received—"Catholics here feel that they have no one but themselves to depend on for protection, seeing that those responsible for the peace of the town, though timely warned when the Catholic excursion was being promoted both by our Committee and by bills posted on the hoarding, afforded us practically no protection."
"Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Justices to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of '22nd inst., with regard to the recent disturbances in Portadown.—I am, Sir,
The Catholics of Portadown might well be expected to give up faith in Dublin Castle after that, but they wrote again on the 8th October to the Under Secretary as follows—"Your obedient servant."
Now I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that letter. A memorial, which is practically confidential, was addressed to the Under Secretary. It was supposed to be private, and no Catholic journalist got hold of it. Yet it leaked out of Dublin Castle down to the office of the local Orange paper. An answer was duly received, which stated—"Sir,—On behalf of the C.Y.M.S. we would urge upon your immediate attention the prayer of our memorial of the 22nd ult. We have grounds to fear a renewal of the disturbances on the declaration of the poll on Saturday should Mr. Orr be returned. Besides the fact that a portion of the contents of our memorial was published in the last issue of our local Orange press is not calculated to add to the safety of our Catholic brethren, while the present local administration obtains."
"I am directed by the Lords Justices to acknowledge the receipt of your further letter of the 8th inst., with reference to the state of affairs at Portadown.—I am, Sir,
The Catholics of Portadown seemed to be very hard to deprive of confidence in the Castle. Again on 8th November another respectful letter—a much more respectful letter than he would have counselled them to write—was sent, suggesting additional police and so on. And again what was the answer?"Your obedient servant."
If a matter was "receiving the due consideration of the Government" in Ireland, that was a sign that it was at the last stage that could be reached. The next letter, written by the Secretary of the association, was dated 22nd of December, and was as follows—"Dublin Castle, November, 17th, 1900."I am directed by the Lords Justices to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., in regard to the disturbances at Portadown on the 26th August last, and to say that the matter is receiving the due consideration of the Government."
He had asked the right hon. the Chief Secretary the other day whether it was the fact that the last two letters had been left without an answer, and he said they were not. Further, he said he would give the matter his personal attention. Now he was informed by telegram from Portadown that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had no foundation. Of course he did not attribute any wilful or intentional misstatement to the right hon. Gentleman, but he was compelled to believe that the statement from Portadown was correct. The last letter written by the secretary of the association was dated 26th January, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That letter directed attention to the correspondence which had taken place, pointing out that no answer had been received to previous communications, and stated that if the recommendation of the association were not attended to it was their intention to have the matter discussed in the Mouse of Commons. The letter went on to say that the committee wished, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, as he had not been in office at the period of their former communication, to give him an opportunity of redressing the grievances under which the Catholics in Portadown suffered. They had been given to understand that justice would have been done before this, had it not been for the action of local officials, who forwarded reports regarding the character of their association which were at variance with the truth. The letter concluded by saying that, if necessary, a list of members of the association would be supplied, when the right hon. Gentleman would be able to judge for himself on whose authority and behalf the committee spoke. Now, that was a somewhat pathetic letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman—a kind of despairing appeal to his sense of justice; and he asserted that no answer, not even a bare official acknowledgment had been given to it. He did not exaggerate when he said that this correspondence revealed a state of things which was a disgrace to any Government which had for one of its objects the preservation of the peace, and enabling Catholics to live in quietness. He asked what would have been the action of the Executive if a thing like that had occurred in the south or west of Ireland, in a town like Galway or Bandon, where the Catholics were in an overwhelming majority and the Protestants in a minority I The state of things which prevailed in Portadown and a few other places in the north was so utterly strange to the experience of men in other parts of Ireland that they could hardly believe it. Supposing in the town of Galway or Bandon a Protestant society representing a minority of the population proposed to go on excursion, and asked for protection—thanks be to God, they would not need it! —but supposing they did need it, and asked for it, did anyone in his senses believe that, if necessary, the whole police force of Munster would not be drafted on to the spot? They knew what took place when a landgrabber was in difficulties. Why, not only the police but the military would be sent to his assistance. He had been on the spot and spoke from personal knowledge, and he maintained that in Portadown not only had the Catholics no confidence in the agents of the police, but in his opinion those agents did not deserve it. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House the other day that certain persons I had been arrested and prosecuted. Yes, they were; and he would give the House the story of two prosecutions. A member of the Orange Society had gone up to and struck a Catholic, admittedly without the slightest provocation, and knocked two or three of his teeth out. On the following day, whether there was a row or not he did not know, the man assaulted struck the Orangeman. The two men were prosecuted, and both were convicted. But what did the magistrates do? They sent the Catholic to gaol and took surety only for keeping the peace from the Orangeman. One would have imagined that for shame's sake they would have left the case to the resident magistrate, but the Orange magistrates crowded the bench, and he would not be speaking the truth if ho did not say that they went there predetermined as to the course they would take. Again, he would not be speaking the truth if he did not say that the resident magistrate was as bad as the rest of them. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that as long as he left Mr. T. D. Gibson at Portadown he would run the risk of inducing the Catholics of that town to believe that the best thing they could do for their own protection was to do as the Orangemen did—namely, arm themselves and fire bullets at the persons who in future might attack them without provocation. He had asked the other day whether it was a fact that the Catholic chapel in Portadown had its windows broken, and the right hon. Gentleman could not deny the fact. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply? These were not his replies, they were the replies he got from the local Orange officials. He should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to say, occupying the position he did, "Yes, the windows of this Catholic church were broken; it was a very detestable outrage; I deprecate such attacks, and hope they will be prevented in future.""I am instructed by the Committee of the above Association to ask you what decision, if any, the Government have come to regarding the recommendation contained in their letter of 22nd September, 1900."
I said it was a wanton and mischievous act.
said he would have expected the right hon. Gentleman would have said something to the effect that he disapproved heartily of these outrages. But what did he do? He gave an answer which amounted to a justification or rather an excuse for the outrage. He (the hon. Member) was not given to making reckless statements, or using immoderate language; but he was indignant when the right hon. Gentleman answered that not only had the windows of the Catholic church been broken, but also the windows of the Protestant church. Now, what had that to do with the case? But he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that this trumped-up excuse was an excuse-three or four years old—the work, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, of some little boys, but it was three or four years ago. And that was the act set up by the right hon. Gentleman by way of excuse for the ruinous breaking of the windows of the Catholic church in Portadown within the last few months. At that inopportune hour he would not occupy more of the time of the House, but from what he had said he was certain the House would be under the belief that he had not, up to that point, occupied their time unnecessarily. He had only one other remark to make, and that was that in his opinion no justice was at present to be had for the Catholic community in Portadown; and unless the right hon. Gentleman that night or on some other occasion took the opportunity of washing his hands clear of this foul transaction—because he could call it nothing else—he would have taught a lesson to the people of other parts of Ireland the fruits of which he would live to regret.
said he desired to associate himself with his hon. and gallant friend the Member for West Clare. He had never been able to love the Irish Constabulary, but at the same time he believed every man had a right to fair play. He wished to know from the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Irwin, who was concerned in discharging a sergeant and constable in Clare for having put a document into a man's pocket, was the Mr. Irwin who was a witness at The Times Commission, before which Mr. Parnell and his compatriots were impeached and came out with flying colours? He also wished to know whether he was the man who was sent into the gaol at Cork before the trial of Twiss? Why were not the two policemen who were dismissed put on trial in the ordinary way? It seemed to him that there was something mysterious and dangerous behind the action of the Executive. He would not interfere if all the policemen in Ireland were chasing each other into the Irish Sea, but at the same time he hoped that the case to which he referred would be investigated, and that the right horse would be saddled. With reference to the disposition of the money under discussion, Ireland had no interest, except in so far as she had to pay a proportion of it, which it was acknowledged by experts was too great. They in Ireland had had experience of the British Government. They remembered the famous telegram sent to Youghal. "Do not hesitate to shoot" and also the men who were shot down in the square of Mitchelstown.
said he was glad to have an opportunity of discussing the manner in which justice was administered in Ireland. He would state very briefly the facts of one particular case which could not be contradicted. One evening in June last a tramp went to the workhouse in Birr, and asked to see the master. He was refused admission, and the master stabbed the tramp with a knife. His life was in danger for several weeks. Ultimately the master was brought before the magistrates, and he being an Orangeman, the Catholic magistrates, with a sense of decency and propriety, declined to attend. What was the result? Lord: Boss and his satellites attended, and the accused man. Benjamin Goode, who had been an emergency man for Lord Ross, was admitted to bail. The matter was reported to the Local Government Board, and he himself asked a question about it in the House, but the Chief Secretary gave him a snappish answer. They demanded an inquiry, and applied for the informations to the Clerk of the Petty Sessions, and he refused them. They were then told by the Local Government Board that, not having the informations before them, they could not grant an inquiry. Why did not the Local Government Board take action? If Benjamin Goode were a Catholic, would Lord Ross and his satellites let him out on bail? That was how the law was administered in Ireland. He was prepared to stand by his statements, and defied contradiction. He held the Chief Secretary responsible. They were told to admire the constitution in Ireland, but there was no such thing. He had little confidence in the British Constitution anywhere, but when a man submitted himself to be governed by it, he ought to be governed fairly and impartially. They had heard about Portadown, but there were Portadowns all over Ireland.
called attention to the fact that the Civil Service Estimates of £142,000 included expenditure in connection with the Board of Trade, and asked why the Irish people should be asked to contribute to the payment of that expenditure, seeing that there was no branch of the Board of Trade in Ireland. There was no means of knowing, in regard to Ireland, statistics of imports and exports which would prove how trade was going on in that country. On the previous day he asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there was any intention to start a department of the Board of Trade, and he replied in the negative. He wished now to ask the Chief Secretary why the Irish people were asked to help to support the Board of Trade, which had no representative in Ireland? Referring to the item in the Estimates for the geological survey, he said that, while the survey in England was completed many years ago, it had not yet been commenced in Ireland. What was more important was that the Education Department at Kensington had not yet begun the soil survey. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laughed were only revealing their ignorance. If they had any acquaintance with the manner in which this matter was attended to in Germany, France, and the United States, hon. Members opposite who laughed would know that this was a vitally important subject. The reason why England was obliged to import so much food was that agriculture was being neglected. If the food supplies of England were shut off for six weeks the people would be starved out. The harbours around the Irish coast were monuments of the incompetence of the Board of Works. These harbours showed that the Board of Works had in their employ the worst engineers in the country. With regard to the rates on Government property, he said he was informed by a gentleman of high official authority that the rates in Dublin were not one-fifth of the value of the property. That was a public scandal. What were the railways in Ireland? They were the worst railways in the world. They had the highest rates and less facilities than existed in any part of the world. They had no cheap trains for working men. In his opinion the railways of Ireland as at present constituted were more dangerous to Irish prosperity than the Irish landlords. The landlords' rents were liable to revision at certain terms, but the railways could and did charge what they liked. He knew how they mangled and maimed the animals they carried, and the owners could get no satisfaction whatever. The railways were a sort of commercial Dublin Castle, and there was not the slightest chance of getting any kind of justice from them. His experience of the Local Government Board in Ireland was that it was a kind of Irish House of Lords. There were three or four non-elected and irresponsible individuals on it whose apparent aim was to make local government as expensive and unpopular as possible. He protested against the system of valuation that prevailed in Ireland at the present time. The five county boroughs in Ireland were to be revalued, and, judging by what had taken place in Belfast, there would be an enormous increase in taxation, because by increasing the rating the Imperial taxation would also be largely increased. If excessive taxation were drawn from a country, that country was bound to be impoverished. That was largely the reason Ireland was so poor, and if the present system of revaluation continued, the effects would be even greater than at present. He therefore appealed to the hon. Members for Belfast to support him in his endeavour to obtain the transplantation of the English system in Ireland. From every piece of Irish legislation the heart was generally left out. That had been the case with the Local Government Act, as the taxation powers were taken out of the hands of the local people. With regard to the reformatory and industrial schools, since the recent action of the Lord Lieutenant the number of children sent to these institutions had enormously decreased. Industrial schools tended to prevent the manufacture of criminals, and since the establishment of these schools there had been a notable diminution in the amount of juvenile crime. The Lord Lieutenant's Order, however, had made it very doubtful whether many of the institutions could remain open much longer, and he hoped that some arrangement would be come to under which the schools could go on as formerly. The increase of lunacy was another serious matter in Ireland which the. Government should take into consideration.
It is impossible for me to refer to all the subjects which the hon. Member has just mentioned, but one of them was the question of industrial schools. I am quite alive to the importance of that matter; in fact, I think it so serious a matter that the number of children in industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland far exceeds proportionately the numbers in such schools in England and Scotland that I should show a want of appreciation of its gravity it I attempted to discuss it at this hour of the morning. The hon. Member referred to the railways, and seemed to suggest that as we have courts to fix fair rents we should have courts to regulate railway fares. Fair rents are bad enough, but fair fares would be infinitely worse. The hon. Member ran his fingers through some notes in the scale with reference to the Local Government Board, but as we are to have, as he has told us, a "concerted piece" to-morrow on that subject. I may leave it for the present. In regard to the arrest and subsequent discharge of Ryan, and the dismissal from the police force of a sergeant and constable, the question put to me was why, if we did not prose-cute Ryan, we did not prosecute these two officers of the constabulary. The evidence against Ryan, the constituent of the hon. and gallant Member, was not of a character to justify a prosecution for posting seditious notices, and therefore, after being remanded for three weeks, he was discharged. The two policemen were not prosecuted because the evidence against them did not warrant a prosecution, and yet I felt that their evidence was so unsatisfactory that those officers could not be retained in the force with any advantage to the public. I have nothing more to say on that point, except that I believe the course taken was the right one under the circumstances. It is very difficult to follow the large number of speeches which have been made, but I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin County, North, He made a speech addressed somewhat pointedly towards myself. The subject matter of his speech was a regrettable incident which took place in August last at Portadown, before I was Chief Secretary; but I am prepared to defend the course which the Government took upon that occasion. The hon. Member opposite said that he knows more about Portadown than I do. Perhaps he does, but I know that it is in the borderland between Orange Ireland and Nationalist Ireland, and there the Orange dement is in a large majority. There was a Catholic excursion, and they went off with great public display.
said he could not allow a statement like that to pass unchallenged, for they did not go with great display.
J am not making any point against them on that account, for I think it is a subject of great regret that these conflicts should go on, but J have a very clear view as to the duty of the Government in this matter. The Government having received notice that there would be an excursion which would be interfered with, special orders were sent from Dublin Castle that protection was to be given and that adequate police arrangements were to be made. In the opinion of the Government, adequate arrangements were not made, and, as have already told the House, this remissness has been censured, and every precaution will be taken to see that such an incident does not occur again in the future.
said he wished—
J object to giving way to the hon. Member's interruptions.
The hon. Member must not interrupt unless he has a point of order to raise. He has no right to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unless the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give way to him.
But the right hon. Gentleman has given way.
No; the right hon. Gentleman said he refused to give way.
This transaction, is not a matter of much moment, but the attitude of the Government is that protection shall be given to one side or the other and that the public peace shall be preserved. What happened on a particular occasion in last August was surely trivial and obsolete in comparison with the similar incidents which are happening every day. On more recent occasions adequate protection has been given, and the peace has been preserved. I do not think that either Orangemen or Catholics have any cause to complain. I hope that I have now satisfied the hon. Member that I am fully alive to the importance of these difficulties which do arise in such cases as the disturbance at Portadown, and I may add that the Government is determined to give impartial protection to the Orangemen on the one side and to the Nationalists on the other. If I have omitted any other points which have been raised I will undertake to deal with them more fully when they are, raised on the Irish Estimates.
alluded to the occasion of a riot at Stewartstown, where he himself was burned in effigy. Under those circumstances, how could the Chief Secretary say that the Government had taken proper steps to prevent these occurrences? He had always done his level best on all occasions to allay any bitterness in sectarian feelings. In regard to the disorderly proceedings in the town of Dungannon, the Nationalists had a torchlight procession, and he himself told them to go home and avoid rioting. The police took the names of five rioters on each side. They were brought before the magistrates, and the cases were adjourned for a month, and subsequently for another month. Dungannon was proclaimed for seven days. The result ultimately was that no one was convicted. Mow could the right hon Gentleman, who was responsible for the peace of Ireland, defend such action? If the right lion. Gentleman desired to have peace in Ireland he would have to put down partisanship on the magisterial bench. He could give several other instances. They knew that the Orangemen were shielded, that the law was not fairly administered, that the bench was
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Hay, Hn. Claude George|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cranborne, Viscount||Heath, J. (Staffords., N.W.)|
|Arkwriglit, John Stanhope||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hobhouse, Henry Somerset E|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Dalkeith, Earl of '||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Howard, Capt J. Kent, Faversh|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dickson, Charles Scott||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (Denbigh|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Knowles, Lees|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bignold, Arthur||Finch, George H.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Fisher, William Hayes||Leveson-Gower, Erederick N.S.|
|Bull, William James||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'lets)||Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Graham, Henry Robert||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Greene,SirEW.(B'rySEdm'nds||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J (Birm.||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Malcolm, Ian|
|Chapman, Edward||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
packed, and that the scales of justice were weighted. At a public meeting in Dungannon five policemen were injured, and the ratepayers, who had nothing to do with it, had to pay the policemen enormous sums as compensation, He had been asked by the people of Duugannon to bring the matter before the House of Commons, and to ask to have an inquiry into all the circumstances. He hoped that would be done, and that an example would be made. If the offences of one party were not condoned by the local magistrates and by Dublin Castle, Ulster would soon be the most peaceful province in Ireland.
rose in his place and claimed to move that the question be now put.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter, which concerns the peaceful inhabitants of Duugannon, and I would ask the representative of law and order in Ireland—
Order, order! The hon. Member is not raising any point of order.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes 51. (Division List No. 104.)
|Middlemore, John Throgmor'n||Pretyman, Ernest George||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward||Valentia, Viscount|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Purvis, Robert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wason, John Cathcart Orkney|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)||Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne)|
|Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.||Rigg, Richard||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Simeon, Sir Barrigton||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, HC (North'mbTynesde)|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Abraham, Wm, (Cork, N. E.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Asher, Alexander||Hardie, J, Keir (Meithyr Tydvil)||O'Doherty, William|
|Boyle, James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-||O'Dowd, John|
|Caldwell, James||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Malley, William|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Joyce, Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||Priestley, Arthur|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Cullman, J.||Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Reddy, M.|
|Delany, William||M'Dermott, Patrick||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Daffy, William J,||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Elibank, Master of||Morton, Edw.J. C.(Devonport)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murphy, J.|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Field, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
Question put accordingly. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Greene, Sir E. W. Bry. S Edmnds|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Greene,W. Raymond-(Cambs)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chapman, Edward||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Hamilton, Rt. HnLord G.(Mid'x|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)||Rare, Thomas Leigh|
|Asher, Alexander||Cranborne, Viscount||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dalkeith, Earl of '||Heath, James (Staffords N.W.)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)||Hobhouse, Henry Somerset, E.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bafour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-||Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Fay.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Johnston, Wm, (Belfast)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Elibank, Master of||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Finch, George H.||Knowles, Lees|
|Bull, William James||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Fisher, William Hayes||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Caldwell, James||Godson, Sir Angustus Fred'rick||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Graham, Henry Robert||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
The House divided:—Ayes, 140); Noes, (Division List No. 105.)
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Smith, Hon. W.E.D. (Strand)|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Malcolm, Ian||Pretyman, Ernest George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Priestley, Arthur||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorth||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Purvis, Robert||Wason, John C. (Orkney)|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Ratcliffe, R. E.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow||Reckitt, Harold James||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)||Rigg, Richard||Wilson, A. Stanley (York.E. R.)|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Nicholson, William Graham||Smith, H.C (N'rthmb.Tyneside)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md|
|Ambrose, Robert||Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Boyle, James||Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)||O'Doherty, William|
|Burke. E. Haviland-||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O' Dowd, John|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cullinan, J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Reddy, M.|
|Delany, William||M'Dernott, Patrick||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Fenwick, Charles||Murphy, J.|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Ffrench, Peter||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Field, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|