ADDRESS FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 4 March 1875)

§ MR. MELDON
rose to move an Address for Papers relating to the transportation and custody of Mr. John Mitchel. The hon. Member said he did not 1274 move for these Papers with any view of re-opening the question that had been recently disposed of by the House; but on constitutional grounds, in order that the electors of Tipperary might have in the approaching election, fully and fairly before them, the means of judging whether their votes would be thrown away if they should again support Mr. Mitchel. Grave doubts existed on the point whether Mr. Mitchel was legally in custody at the time of his alleged escape from Van Diemen's Land, and as to the legality of the circumstances attending his removal from Bermuda. It was impossible that the warrants or orders under which Mr. Mitchel was kept in custody should not be forthcoming; surely, the Government ought not to refuse to produce the documents asked for. His object was not to entangle the Government in new difficulties or to force them further into the mire, but with the constitutional object he had already indicated. The Government and the House had taken upon themselves to decide behind Mr. Mitchel's back, and on ex parte evidence, upon his qualification; but he (Mr. Meldon) maintained it was the bounden duty of the House to insist upon the production of this evidence—if it existed—and to ascertain the fact whether or not the custody was legal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
on the part of the Government declined to consent to the Motion. He said that on a very recent occasion, the hon. Member for Westmeath, in accordance with the expressed feeling of the House, had withdrawn a Motion for the production of Papers which had reference to the selection of the jury by whom John Mitchel had been convicted; those Papers were asked for for the purpose 1275 of showing that the conviction was improper; and it appeared to him (the Attorney General) that the House would only be acting in accordance with its former views if it now declined to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member, which had for its avowed purpose the showing that John Mitchel was not in legal custody at the time of his escape. But the hon. Member for Kildare had assigned another reason for the production of these Papers, and that was that they were required to enable the electors of the county of Tipperary to make a proper choice at the forthcoming election. To this he need only reply that the Papers in question, if it were possible to produce them at all, could not be produced in time to serve as a guide to the Tipperary electors. To this he might add that, as it was now 10 years since transportation to the Colonies had been discontinued, he could not say whether the records connected with the transportation of persons, who had been convicted nearly 30 years ago, were still preserved.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would add a new sensation to the already highly sensational "Mitchel Case." For what was the astounding confession to which they had just listened? Her Majesty's Attorney General was obliged to confess publicly that documents essentially and most vitally necessary to complete the Papers moved for by the Prime Minister were not forthcoming—had never been seen by him, if indeed they had any existence at all And he had carefully avoided saying where they were. The Government had produced a document purporting to state that a prisoner named John Mitchel escaped on a certain day; but where was the judicial proof that he was not recaptured the next day or the next month? Where was the identification of the John Mitchel that escaped with the John Mitchel that had been returned for Tipperary? Above all, where was the warrant on which it was pretended to hold Mr. Mitchel in legal custody in Van Diemen's Land? They charged that owing to a fatal informality in certain of these documents Mr. Mitchel was never for one moment in legal custody from the instant he left Table Bay. If that were so, every one knew the effect upon his escape and his present legal status. In 1276 what position then did the Goverment stand? "Without those documents under their hand the due proof of John Mitchel's legal disqualification was incomplete, and being incomplete was no proof at all. But whether the Government produced these documents or not—whether they proved valid or invalid—the fatal error remained—they had declared John Mitchel disqualified in the absence of documents and proofs, which every lawyer would declare to be essential—unless, indeed, in the High Court of Parliament less proof were required than at a common Sessions Court on a trial for petty larceny. He warned them lest in their anxiety to strike down John Mitchel they should demolish every precedent that was supposed to be the bulwark of our liberties, and establish one that in years to come many an Englishman might bitterly bewail.