CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

HC Deb 28 July 1879 vol 248 cc1471-512

(7.) £65,521, to complete the sum for Law Charges, Ireland.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that a great many jurors in Ireland had to travel long distances—in some cases as much as 75 miles—to the places where their services were required, and that they neither received payment for their travelling expenses, nor compensation for the loss of their time. Amongst these persons a strong feeling existed that they ought, at least, to be paid for their expenses out of pocket, and many also thought that their time should be paid for. Complaints also were made that the system of arranging the juries was not good, and that a larger number of jurors than necessary was brought from long distances to Quarter Sessions. He had looked into the arrangements, and found, for instance, that the people of Ballinamore had to travel 80 miles by rail and then 60 miles by road up to Galway, and this continually occurred from the coupling of two Sessions together. The alternate Sessions were badly arranged in some of the counties in Ireland, and the districts from which jurors were drawn urgently required re-arrangement. This question, which affected a large class of persons in Ireland, had also an important bearing upon the proper administration of the law, and for this reason he desired to know whether the Government intended, this Session or next, to do anything to help the jurors in respect of their expenses and loss of time, and whether they proposed any re-arrangements of the jury districts, especially in connection with Quarter Sessions?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

was aware that it was extremely hard upon people to be called upon to leave their homes and business and devote their time to the public service without compensation; but until some change was made in the law, with the sanction of the whole country, it would be impossible to introduce a Bill to deal with this subject in Ireland. Moreover, the system of payment had been tried in England, and had not been found to work. The question was, undoubtedly, an important one; but it would be raised with more propriety when it became necessary to present a new Jury Bill to the House.

MR. CALLAN

complained that no more information was given in the Abstract with regard to prosecutions than was to be found in the Vote itself, and that no information was given as to the expenditure of the sum of £27,000 for that purpose in the various counties of Ireland. The Committee were, therefore, unable to discuss the Vote on its merits. He held that the Committee should know the amount expended in each county and at each Assizes, and not have the whole placed before it in a lump sum. He had now some remarks to make with regard to the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that they had given power of appeal from the Grand Jury to the Privy Council, and that last year a Bill was promoted to make a steam tramway from Kilrush to the Giant's Causeway. This year a much more important Tramway Bill came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on an appeal from the Grand Jury of the county of Wicklow. With reference to that case, he now asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention had been called to those proceedings before the Privy Council on Monday, the 21st of July, and to the statement made by the Lord Chief Baron concerning the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland; whether the Baltinglass Tramway scheme was dismissed with costs, on the ground that the proposed plan for laying rails was in contravention of the Act of Par- liament; and whether it was true that the Kilrush and Giant's Causeway steam tramway was sanctioned on lines precisely similar to the Baltinglass Scheme, which the Lord Chief Baron declared would be illegal?

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that he was, of course, within his right in referring to anything in connection with the duties of the Law Officers of the Crown for which they were paid under the present Vote, but that, in discussing the merits of a particular tramway scheme, he would not be in Order.

MR. CALLAN

was aware that he was perfectly in Order in what he said with reference to the manner in which the Law Officers of the Crown performed their duties. He was perfectly within his rights, which he insisted upon maintaining, in discussing that question under the present Vote. He should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether Lord Chief Baron Palles had not expressed himself as being very much surprised that the Law Officers of the Crown could have signed such an Order, which, in the opinion of that learned Judge, as well as of the Irish Vice Chancellor, was clearly illegal? He should also like to have some information as to who was the person responsible for the illegality?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, he would at once frankly admit that the circumstances of the case were such as the hon. Member had described them to be, and would tell the Committee, as far as he was able, how the matter stood. His attention had not been directly called to it until that evening; but he was in the habit of reading all the Irish papers, and he noticed, amongst other things, the remarks of the Lord Chief Baron to which the hon. Member referred. He at once, after reading them, wrote over to Ireland to ask for information on the subject; and he had received some information, but not all that was required, to elucidate the points which he wished to have explained. He was not, he might add, disposed to admit that the Law Officers of the Crown had done wrong until he had fuller knowledge of the details of the case than he at present possessed. He hoped to have the necessary information in the course of three or four days; and if the hon. Member would, at the end of that time, repeat his question, he would be better prepared to answer it. He might, perhaps, state, before sitting down, that the Lord Chief Baron, than whom there was no more able Judge on the Irish Bench, had not the Order before him when he made the remarks which the hon. Member had brought under the notice of the Committee; and although he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had had the Order before him, he was not exactly in a position to state whether it -was absolutely identical with that of which complaint was made. But, so far as the public convenience was concerned, he was not aware that any injury whatever had been done in the matter.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had referred to the matter, not with the view of offering any opposition to the Vote, but because he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to avail himself of the opportunity, which the discussion of the Vote afforded, to give a fuller reply to his question than, under ordinary circumstances, the Rules of the House would admit of his doing. He would repeat his question on some future day, when it might be more convenient to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer it.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he was not satisfied with the assurances which he had received from either the Attorney General or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with respect to the complaints to which he had drawn their attention in connection with the way in which the fishery regulations were carried out on the coast of Dungarvan. A great rivalry existed between the fishermen of the town and those who resided in the neighbouring villages, by whom the fishery regulations were neglected in leaving their nets out night and day in the manner in which they did. He was informed that the proper authority to prosecute for such a breach of the regulations was the the local Coastguard; but it so happened that the Coastguard men had their station in the immediate vicinity of the locality in which the failure to comply with the regulations had occurred, and the result was that the Dungarvan Bay fishery had been almost destroyed, owing to the wholesale neglect to obey the law. He did not wish to press severely on the Coastguard in the matter, because they were not unnaturally influenced by a feeling of kindness towards their neighbours, and looked upon the rights of the Dungarvan fishermen as being of secondary importance. But the question was a very serious one for those poor men. Some time ago, the fleet of fishing boats belonging to the town numbered 150, and something like £1,000 was earned per week. There was now, however, only a wretched fleet of 20 boats, and the fishermen were reduced to a state of the greatest destitution. Now, if the law were only fairly carried out, that condition of affairs would, he believed, steadily improve. He would not press the matter further on the attention of the Committee on the present occasion, for he was sure the Government would see the necessity of taking some steps to provide that the fishery regulations should be properly enforced.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, he would communicate with the Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland on the subject.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to another point connected with the Irish jury system—he meant the inconvenience which was caused by summoning jurors to serve at considerable distances from the localities in which they reside without any necessity. In his own county very considerable inconvenience was the result of the present system. The town of Tuam was situated about 25 English miles from Galway. and the town of Ballymore was 20 miles from Tuam, and 45 miles from Galway. Now, it was scarcely reasonable, he thought, that jurors should be summoned from Ballymore to attend the Sessions, both at Tuam and Galway. Where the districts were very large some arrangement ought, in his opinion, to be made, providing that the jurors only of the district in which the Sessions were held should be summoned; and if that were done, in the case of the County of Galway, the jurors residing in Ballymoe would not have to go beyond Tuam. In Ireland, he might add, jurors were generally summoned by the relieving officer, who was not the sort of person who would be anxious to secure a good jury, and who was not placed directly in communication with those whose object it was to do so. But the whole jury system in Ireland required to be thoroughly looked into; and, meantime, matters might be materially improved if some such alteration respecting the summoning of jurors, such as that which he had just suggested, were made.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, that in 1876, when the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Chief Secretary for Ireland, an arrangement had been made for the drawing up of a general list of jurors to be summoned to Quarter Sessions. That arrangement had, however, been found to work inconveniently, and a change had since been introduced, enabling the Chairman of Quarter Sessions or the County Court Judge to define the area from which a jury should be summoned, which, he believed, had been found more satisfactory. He would, however, look into the matter, and see whether something could not be done to remedy the inconvenience of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained.

MAJOR NOLAN

remarked, that the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were not always the best persons to adjust geographical details, and expressed a hope that the matter would not be lost sight of by the Government, inasmuch as a great deal of time and trouble would, he thought, be saved if some alteration, such as that which which he had indicated, was adopted.

MR. A. MOORE

said, that much of the difficulty connected with the working of the present system of summoning jurors in Ireland arose from the fact that the relieving officers, who controlled the preparation of the jury lists, had no object in securing the attendance of good juries.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£20,677, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund; including provision for certain Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and for the Trial of Election Petitions.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the Vote should not be allowed to pass without a protest against the mode in which Election Petitions were now tried. Having no wish to cast undue reflections on individuals, he yet felt that he was not mistaking or exaggerating the state of public feeling in Ireland, when he said that the Irish people were profoundly distrustful of the trial of those Petitions by single Judges. It was said 'that the Judges in Ireland were notorious for their freedom from bias, and their action in civil and criminal trials was pointed to as a reason why they should be trusted to try Election Petitions. There was, however, he ventured to think, no force in that argument, because the political partiality which was attributed to the Irish Judges had very seldom occasion to rouse itself in civil and criminal trials, which turned usually upon questions of fact, which had rarely, if ever, anything to do with politics. To contend, therefore, that a man must show perfect impartiality in a political trial, because he did so in trials of a non-political character, was to argue quite beside the real point at issue. As a matter of fact, some Judges in Ireland who were believed to be the most incapable of controlling themselves on political trials—such as the trial of Election Petitions—were most favourably known for their admirable administration of the law in civil and criminal cases. At all events, entertaining the views on the subject which he did, he could not allow the item of £220, contained in the Vote for expenses connected with the trial of Election Petitions, to pass without comment, and without offering to it his strenuous opposition. But apart from the general question, and taking into account the fact that no Election Petitions had been tried in Ireland last year, he could not see on what ground a sum of £140 was asked for in the Vote for the reception of Judges in connection with those trials. If there were no trials, there could not, he supposed, have been any Judges to receive, and how the £140 was to be expended he could not, therefore, understand. But setting aside all microscopical criticism, he must say that he had the strongest possible objection to having Election Petitions tried by single Judges; and, if only for the purpose of impressing on the Government his conviction that if, in making any attempt to amend the law on the subject, the decision of Election Petitions were still left in the hands of a single Judge, they would provoke the most profound dissatisfaction in Ireland, he would certainly take a Division against the item of £220 which he had just mentioned. It was very easy to prove that the Irish Judges were political partizans—the proofs were abundant. There were, in Ireland, several highly respected Judges—men who, when discharging the functions of their office, outside of politics, were admirable Judges; but who, when they came to deal with burning questions—such as the law relating to the land—all at once revealed themselves straight out, sometimes in their addresses to the Grand Jury, as political partizans, undisguised and undisguise-able. How was it possible, then, that when they came to try an Election Petition they could divest themselves of their political feelings? He was arguing against the voting of public money for those trials. In Ireland, in an especial manner, appointments to the Judicial Bench were made for political reasons; although he was glad to see that, in that respect, there had of late been an improvement, which would, he hoped, be carried still further. It was still true, however, that the prizes of the Irish Bench were made the reward of political services rendered by political lawyers; and it was perfectly impossible to persuade any constituency in that country that a distinguished lawyer, who had attained to the ermine by his brilliant defence of this or that political personage, could forget all the circumstances of his life when he was called upon to preside at a trial in which the interests of a member of the political Party with which he had always been intimately associated were involved. Those were general objections to the present system of trying Election Petitions with a single Judge. But there were several objections. The Committee knew that a judgment delivered by the late Judge Keogh, in the case of the Galway Election, when he unseated the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) and gave the seat to his opponent, had provoked the widest dissatisfaction in Ireland. They also knew that at the very next election the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who had been rejected by the Judge, had been placed at the head of the poll, and that his opponent, whom the Judge had made a Member of that House, did not dare, on that second occasion, to show his face to the electors. In a word, the overwhelming verdict of the constituency scattered to the four winds of Heaven the judgment of the learned Judge. In his own case, at Galway, Mr. Justice Lawson had unseated him, on the ground that ho had been illegally elected. What was the consequence? That his dear bosom Friend and College companion (Dr. Ward), the present Member for Galway, was elected in his place, not only because of his own high personal qualities, but as a protest against Mr. Justice Lawson's judgment; and so completely was that judgment rejected, that the other candidate, Mr. Joyce, did not venture to oppose Dr. Ward when he came forward in his (Mr. O'Donnell's) place. In Ireland, not one man in ten could be found who would say that the judgments either of the late Justice Keogh or of Justice Lawson were to be relied upon in those cases. Those Judges had acted and spoken as partizans; and had the Bill of the Government relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections been proceeded with, he should have felt it to have been his duty to bring all the circumstances connected with Mr. Justice Lawson's judgment under the notice of the House. If the Government persisted in their intention to intrust the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland to a single Judge, and thus continue to the Judges the power of quashing the votes of whole constituencies, he should certainly go carefully into that judgment, by which he was personally disqualified from seeking re-election, for reasons which nobody could understand; while, as he had said, his bosom Friend was elected, and that only three weeks after the judgment was delivered. In Ireland the Judges owed their ermine to partizanship, and they could not divest themselves, in the class of cases of which he was speaking, of their political feelings. The late Justice Keogh was an excellent Judge in that department of his office in which he acted properly as a Judge; while Mr. Justice Lawson was also an admirable Judge in the discharge of his ordinary duties. But neither Mr. Justice Lawson, nor a dozen other Judges whom he could name, could have any portion of the trust of the Irish people where the trial of Election Petitions was concerned. He would take, then, a Division on the important item to which he had called the attention of the Committee, in order that that Division might serve as an instruction and a warning to the Government—he did not wish to use the words in any offensive way—that if they proposed to continue the power of a single Judge in Ireland to over-ride the decisions of the constituencies, such a proposal would be received by the majority of the Irish Members as one which it would be their duty strongly to resist. He felt perfectly satisfied that it entirely depended on a Judge who tried an Election Petition in Ireland whether a Member who had been elected by a constituency was unseated or not; and he need scarcely say that to expose a Judge to the unnecessary odium which such a state of things implied was a result which ought to be avoided by any wise Government. In the interest of the Judges, as well as of the constituencies, it was quite impossible that so informal a power in the hands of a single Judge could long be maintained. It ought not, in his opinion, to be maintained in England or Scotland; but the objections to it applied with ten-fold force in the case of Ireland. If English and Scotch Members were willing to subject themselves to the uncontrolled dictum of a Judge, they could, of course, do so; but Irish constituencies were entirely opposed to anything of the kind. They had as fairly high an opinion of the character of their Judges as any other people; but they knew that it was idle to expect any one to be exactly supernatural, and that it was ridiculous to suppose that a political partizan could cease to be a partizan on a political trial directly appealing to partizan instincts, although he might be, in the main, a perfectly upright Judge. The cases of the county of Galway and the borough of Galway judgments were cases in point. They were judgments delivered by partizan Judges—he did not use the word in any unnecessarily offensive sense—which inflicted very severe loss on the individuals concerned, but which was indignantly scouted by the constituencies which they affected, and which resulted in injuring the authority and the character of the Judicial Bench. He hoped, therefore, the Government would take the necessary steps to remove the Irish Judges from the chances of so much odium, and would give the Committee some assurance that a system which worked so disastrously, and in which, practically, no one in Ireland had any confidence, would not be continued. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £220, the sum asked for to defray the expenses of the trials of Election Petitions by single Judges in Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,457, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Queen's Bench, Common. Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund; including provision for certain Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and for the Trial of Election Petitions."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, every Member of the Committee must be aware of the great amount of attention which had been given to the question raised in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, during the last four or five years. More than one Committee of the House had made recommendations on the subject; and a Bill dealing with it was, at the present moment, under consideration, some portion of which, at all events, he hoped would, before long, become law. That Bill would deal with a good many of the topics which had been brought under the notice of the Committees to which he had referred, and would, perhaps, to a large extent, meet the views of many hon. Members. He wished, however, to point out, in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that it was impossible that the Judges of any country should not have some kind of political complexion; and so long as Irishmen were Irishmen they would, he supposed, continue to take a somewhat active view of the leading political questions of the day. But, be that as it might, his own experience of the Judges in Ireland was that while they were exceptionally able men, as compared with the Judges of other countries, they were, at the same time, men of singular fairness of mind. There were many of them from whom he differed in politics; but if any question involving his character or property was about to be tried, he should be quite satisfied to have it tried by any one of them, quite regardless of the political opinions which he might entertain. It was impossible, he might add, that the decisions of Judges by whom Election Petitions were tried could give satisfaction to everybody. On one side there must always be, not only disappointment, but keen disappointment; and when a decision came to be delivered in the very town in which the election had taken place, and where great warmth of feeling must prevail, it was quite obvious that the interest in the proceedings of the trial must be not only keen but excited. No doubt, that was so in the case in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan himself was concerned. Having said thus much, he might be allowed further to observe that there was a Bill before the House which would, he thought, deal, in a reasonable and satisfactory way, in many respects with the trial of Election Petitions, especially in the matter of appeals. Under the Judicature Act, at present, the trial of such Petitions was committed to three Judges, who were placed on the rota, whose selection, he believed, commanded confidence, for it could not fairly be contended, that there was anything like undue selection. There was to be a further provision, that the junior Judge of the Queen's Bench—that position being at present occupied by Mr. Justice Barry—should be under the necessity of going into the Common Pleas for the purpose of deciding on appeals; and he could not conceive any tribunal more satisfactory than a tribunal composed of four Judges selected in that way. He had only to say, in conclusion, that the item to which the hon. Member for Dungarvan objected was a very small one; and as there were several Petitions relating to municipal elections, and means must be had to meet any trials of Election Petitions, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, there was a great difference between the practice which existed in England with regard to the trial of Election Petitions and that which prevailed in Ireland. Those Petitions were tried in England by the Puisne Judges, and here it was the custom to appoint to Puisne Judgeship lawyers who had not taken a prominent part in politics. The English Attorney General or Solicitor General was very seldom made a Puisne Judge; but in Ireland the Puisne Judges, as well as the Chief Justices, were chosen exclusively from the leading political lawyers of the day. There was, therefore, in that respect, a broad distinction between the position of the two countries. But he objected to the present mode of trying Election Petitions altogether. A popular Assembly could not, in his opinion, properly divest itself of the right to try its own Election Petitions, and the House could, at any time, resume the power to do so with which it had parted. In Ireland there could be no doubt it was believed that the present system was not impartially carried out, and that great partiality had been displayed, especially in the cases in which he himself and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had been unseated—the one as Member for the county, and the other for the borough, of Galway. The result showed what was the real feeling of the people in Ireland, the aristocracy having gone one way, while the people struggled to go in the opposite direction. He hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would press his Motion to a Division, because the majority of the people of Ireland had no trust whatever in some of the Judges—he would not say in all—so far as the trial of Election Petitions was concerned.

MR. CALLAN

was sure the Committee must have heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, as to the junior Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench being appointed to assist in the trial of Election Petitions. There could be no objection to Mr. Justice Barry acting in that capacity, although it was generally the case that the junior Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was a man who had taken a very active part in politics. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had also stated that the Judges in Ireland were placed on the rota in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of any undue or unfair selection being made. There had, nevertheless, been such an undue selection made. After the General Election, in 1874, there was a Petition against the return of the present Member for Drogheda (Dr. O'Leary). Now, the senior Judge on the rota was not sent down to try that Petition; but, by some sleight of hand, things were so manipulated that he went to Galway instead. He had made the same charge of unfairness a few years ago, and he now repeated it, in the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would either meet it with a denial or explain it. It could not, however, be met with a denial, for the facts were beyond dispute. A Petition was lodged against the return of the hon. Member for Drogheda. That Petition was not tried by the senior Judge, Mr. Justice Lawson, as it ought to have been; and it was at the time commonly rumoured in Ireland that that learned Judge had been reserved for the trial of the Galway Election Petition, with the avowed purpose of unseating the present Member for Dungarvan. The Drogheda Petition was tried by the junior Judge, Mr. Justice Barry, Baron Dowse being, he believed, the other Judge on the rota. A difficulty arose in the case, and Mr. Justice Barry reserved the point for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas; and the ultimate result of the Petition was that the Election was held to be valid. Had the senior Judge on the rota, however, been sent to Drogheda, it was felt that the present Member for the borough would have been unseated, and that the seat would have been given to the candidate by whom he was opposed. As it was, Mr. Justice Lawson went to Galway, and unseated the present Member for Dungarvan, who, it was fully believed in Ireland, would have retained his seat had the Petition against him been tried, as it ought to have been, by Mr. Justice Barry. How, under such circumstances, could such a tribunal as that by which Election Petitions were now tried in Ireland be regarded with anything but distrust? For his own part, if a Petition was lodged against his own return—should he be returned at the next General Election—and that Justice Lawson was appointed to try it, he should not defend his seat, so sure was he of what the result of the trial would be. As to the item in the Vote for the reception of Judges, he would observe, in answer to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said about the necessity of providing for the case of municipal elections, that there were no expenses incurred for the reception of Judges in those cases; and when he found in the Vote a sum of only £100 set down for the reception of Judges next year, he at once came to the conclusion that the Government did not intend that there should be a General Election, otherwise they would have asked for a larger amount than £100. He perceived, he might add, that the sum of £140 was asked for last year, when no Election Petition had been tried; and how, therefore, that sum could have been spent on the reception of Judges he could not understand. It seemed that £305 had been spent last year in connection with the performance of duties in the discharge of which there was no work done; while £240 were asked for this year to be expended, for all he could see, in the same way. He hoped those items now appeared in the Estimates for the last time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

wished to say a few words in reply to the charges which had been brought very freely, in the course of the discussion, against he did not know how many Judges. [Mr. CALLAN: Only Mr. Justice Lawson.] But the charge could not very well rest on only one Judge, because a man could not be in collusion with himself alone; and if the statement of the hon. Member with regard to the trials of the Drogheda and Galway Petitions were correct, Mr. Justice Lawson must have been in collusion with Mr. Justice Barry.

MR. CALLAN

said, everybody knew how these matters were decided by the Judges; and he had no hesitation in saying that Mr. Justice Lawson had reserved himself for Galway, and sent the junior Judge on the rota to Drogheda. That was a charge which he was prepared to make anywhere against Mr. Justice Lawson, as freely and fully as he now made it in that House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, the hon. Member seemed to suppose that Mr. Justice Lawson had ordered Mr. Justice Barry about as if he were a waiter at a hotel, instead of a Judge having inordinate jurisdiction. To insinuate, with respect to two distinguished Judges, that of two ways open to them one took the honourable and another the dishonourable way, was a course of proceeding which he was sure would not find acceptance from the Committee. The hon. Member spoke of common rumour; but was the character of a Judge, he would ask, to be taken away on common rumour and general impressions in the public mind? Hon. Members opposite had, of course, a right to entertain their own opinions with regard to particular decisions given at the trials of Election Petitions, and affecting themselves or their friends; but it was neither fair nor reasonable that they should cast reflections on the honour of the Judges by whom those decisions were pronounced. A Judge could not decide both ways, but must decide in favour of one side and against the other; and there was not, he believed, a single Judge in Ireland who would not be delighted to be relieved of what was to them a most disagreeable duty in connection with Elections. But, passing from those exciting topics to the small details of the Vote, he would point out to the Committee that a portion of the money asked for was to cover the expenses of the extra work which might be thrown on the officers of the Court of Common Pleas, who had a good deal to do in connection with municipal as well as Parliamentary Elections. He did not see how the whole amount of the item to which hon. Gentlemen opposite so much objected could fairly be regarded as being at all excessive; and the expenditure appeared to him, he must say, to be calculated upon a very moderate footing.

THE O'CONOR DON

thought the discussion to which the Committee had just been listening served to bear out the views of those who objected to having the duty of trying Election Petitions imposed on the Judges of the land. Whether the statements which had been made that evening were correct or not, every hon. Member must admit that it was an unseemly thing that the conduct of the Judges should be so frequently impugned in that House. He quite concurred with the right hon. and learned Member who spoke last that the Judges in Ireland would very gladly be relieved from what they regarded as a disagreeable duty; and he, for one, had always been opposed to the transference of that duty to them from the House itself. The debates which had constantly arisen on the subject since the change had been made fully bore out his views, and that of some other hon. Members, as to the inexpediency of making it; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan went to a Division he should certainly vote with him; but, in doing so, he did not wish, in any way, to be supposed to express his distrust of any particular Judge. He simply wished, acting in accordance with the views which he had always held, to record his opinion that the duties of trying Election Petitions ought not to be thrown on the Judges of the land, and that the House of Commons, in those cases, ought to maintain its jurisdiction over its own Members.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, the duties in question had been imposed on the Judges contrary to their own wish; and he was quite aware that the transference to them, of those duties had been strongly objected to by some of them, and by no one more vehemently than the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland. That learned Judge had pointed out the evils which would result from, the transference, and the soundness of his view was illustrated by what occurred from year to year. The fact was, that the trial of Election Petitions was totally unsuited to the office of Judge, which could not be mixed up with political matters in Ireland without being more or less soiled by the contact. It might be impossible to induce the House to revert to the old practice, which, in his opinion, was much better than the present system; but he would suggest to the Government that they ought to take into account the Report of the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the Election Commission on the subject. Lord Chief Justice Morris, and other witnesses of eminence and great experience, had clearly and emphatically stated that the trial of Election Petitions ought not to be left to a single Judge; and due attention ought, he thought, to be paid to the opinion of that learned Judge, as well as of the other witnesses. It might be said in England there were not a sufficient number of Judges to admit of more than one being spared for the trial of an Election Petition; but that was an argument which did not apply to the case of Ireland, where two Judges could be very well spared for that purpose. What had been the result of the operation of the present system in Ireland? In the case of the Galway Election, it had led to a universal feeling of indignation being roused among the Roman Catholics in that country. The judicial impartiality of another learned Judge had teen frequently and vehemently assailed in the Irish Press and in that House. It could not be denied that, unfortunately, the consequence had been to lower and degrade the judicial office in the public mind. And when, in the course of their ordinary duties, political matters came for decision before these Judges, the confidence of the public in their integrity and impartiality was much impaired and weakened. The question was not whether these charges thus publicly made against the Judges were well-founded or not, but what was their inevitable effect on the public mind. He might, perchance, individually say the action of the judicial body was not to be judged from the consideration of the conduct of one man, or that many statements had been made as to the action of the Judges in which he could not agree; but the very fact that charges were so repeatedly made against them in that House ought, in his opinion, to be quite sufficient to impress on the Government the expediency of having two Judges to try Election Petitions instead of one. [An hon. MEMBER: Three would be better than two.] He would not object to that for Ireland; but the law ought to be, he thought, the same for England and Ireland. And he thought it would be said there was not a sufficient number of Judges to discharge that duty in England. However, if the responsibility was committed to two, public confidence would to some extent be restored, and the alteration would, he believed, remove many of the evils which arose out of the present system. If two Judges had, for instance, been engaged in the trial of the celebrated Galway Petition, there would not, he felt confident, have been such an exhibition of feeling as, unhappily, took place. He knew very well, from some experience at the Bar, how, both by members of the Profession as well as by the public at large, the judgments in such cases were challenged; and it was somewhat of an anomaly, he could not help thinking, that while upon the trial of a question, involving a mere matter of, perhaps, £30 or £40, four Judges might be called upon to sit in solemn array, a question affecting the honour, and position in life of a Member of that House, the interests of a constituency, even the constitution of the House itself, should be left to the decision of a single Judge. The question was one not merely affecting the Irish Judges, many of whose decisions in those matters were far superior to those of the English Judges. But when dealing with Election matters it should be borne in mind the Judge acted not merely in the discharge of his ordinary functions but also as a juror. Not unfrequently his previous training and habit of thought rendered him unfitted to consider facts from a practical common-sense point of view, and consequently some of the Election Judges took various fanciful views, and arrived at conclusions very unsatisfactory to either the legal mind craving a settled standard of law, or the lay mind seeking a practical guide of conduct.

MR. CALLAN

said, that with reference to the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that no person should bring charges against a Judge upon mere rumour or general impressions, he wished to say that he had only supplemented the charge he had made by stating the general impression which ran through the public mind on the subject. What was that impression? It had been, officially stated that the Judges who were selected to try Election cases were placed upon the rota by seniority. They were either placed upon the rota by seniority, or they were not. He believed that, by the Act of Parliament, the Judges were placed upon the rota by seniority. In 1874, Mr. Justice Lawson, Mr. Baron Dowse, and Mr. Justice Barry were the Election Judges. The senior Judge was Mr. Justice Law-son, and the junior Mr. Justice Barry; and had the Galway Petition been tried by Mr. Justice Barry his decision would have given universal satisfaction. If a decision of the other Judges had given equal satisfaction, there would have been no such outcry as had taken place. The outcry had arisen in consequence of the case being tried by Mr. Justice Lawson, who, he repeated, was the senior Judge. At that time, there were two Petitions pending, one arising in respect of the General Election, and the other with regard to a bye-Election, which took place immediately after. If the Petitions had been tried by the Judges according to seniority, Mr. Justice Lawson would have taken the case of the Drogheda Petition. He supposed, however, that the senior Judge had the choice of the Circuit, and that Mr. Justice Lawson selected Galway. By seniority, he ought to have gone to Drogheda; and the result of his going to Galway was the unfair decision that was given in that case. It was the general impression of the public that Mr. Justice Lawson had selected Galway for the purpose of unseating the Member petitioned against. It was unfortunate that there should be such an impression; but it was, nevertheless, the fact that it existed. He must express his opinion that Mr. Justice Lawson was guilty of gross partiality in the trial of the Galway Petition.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

observed, that the practice of questioning the decisions of Judges was a very objectionable one; but it was well known to anyone who followed Irish affairs that there were some Judges in Ireland who interested themselves to a much greater extent in politics than was done by the Judges in England. There were one or two Judges who entertained very strong opinions upon political questions in Ireland. One Judge might entertain very strong political bias in favour of one party; and when they found such a Judge trying an Election Petition it was only natural that some distrust should be felt. It might be true that such a Judge might be as impartial as a man could be, and as free from bias or prejudice of any kind as it was possible for a Judge to be; but the public would never believe that that was the case, for they were unable to disassociate a Judge from his political opinions, and that was more than usually the case on the trial of Petitions in Election cases. Whether the public impression were right or wrong, it, nevertheless, existed; and to enforce a due respect and estimation for the Bench it was necessary to avoid the possibility of its occurring. In common with some other hon. Members, he very much regretted the change that had taken place in transferring from that House to the Judges the decision upon Election Petitions. The House would have done well to retain its power to declare whether an Election was pure or not. He knew that there were very great objections to the Committees of that House, which were formerly charged with the trial of these cases. When the majority of the Committee was of one opinion there was no doubt as to the result of the case. Still, he did not think that that often occurred, for if it did public opinion would have most certainly condemned it. They knew that upon no matter was opinion in that House stronger than with regard to the conduct of Elections. He believed that they could have come to a time when a number of gentlemen could have been found to sit upon those Committees without any feeling upon the matter at all. But even if there were any objection to the Committees from any suspicion of partiality, the decision of so important a matter as the representation of a constituency should not have been left to a single Judge. Let them look, for one moment, at the case of the Galway Petition. In that case it was tried before a Judge, who was well known, at one time, to have had very strong political opinions. Yet his decision alone not merely unseated one Member, but actually seated another. Thus, it was in the hands of a single Judge to take the representation from a large majority of voters and to give it to a minority. The decision of that Judge placed in the House a Gentleman who was supported by a very small minority of the voters. He remembered its being said in one case—"That man calls himself my Member; but I am one of the majority, and I never voted for him." That was a scandal; but it was one which might occur any day under the present system, although not to so marked an extent as it had done. Perhaps it would be absurd to return to the old system; but they might prevent the decisions in cases of Elections being left to depend upon one single Judge, who might be influenced by political feeling. That could readily be remedied by putting the decision in the hands of two—if not three—Judges.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that if there was any class of public functionaries who ought to be safe from discussions of that kind it was the Judges who sat upon the justice seat. Nothing was more injurious than to have discussions of that charac- ter raised upon the Judges who administered justice; and, therefore, he thought it peculiarly unfortunate that political trials—as Election Petitions were—should have to be tried by one Judge, and especially in a country like Ireland. There could be no doubt that some most regretable discussions concerning the partiality or impartiality of some of the Irish Judges with regard to Election Petitions had arisen, and principally, perhaps, from the great distinctions between England and Ireland. He did hope that they were going to have a better future; but, hitherto, it had been notorious that the appointments to the Bench in Ireland had been made from political lawyers; whereas in England, for a long time past, it had been equally notorious that men were appointed to the Bench because of their professional eminence and personal fitness, irrespective of Party considerations. To take the case of the last appointed Judge in England—Mr. Justice Bowen—he might observe that he never had a seat in that House at all. In Ireland Judges were appointed wholly for political reasons; and, as a rule, no man had been elevated to the Bench unless he had done Party service, either inside or outside of the House. He would remind the Government of a discussion which took place in respect of the very last appointment to the Bench in Ireland. Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon, than whom no better man could have been appointed, was no sooner raised to the Bench than the Conservative journals began to ask—Did he pay £10 to the Constitutional Club? Was he not suspected of Liberal opinions? He thought that kind of talk was a reproach to justice in Ireland. Instead of saying that the new Judge was a man eminent in his Profession—as he undoubtedly was—and that he was a man of unblemished integrity, and of the highest character, the journals only fixed upon a question of Party subscriptions to see whether he had qualified himself. Let them look at the other Judges—he would not mention names, feeling that it was only in extremities that the names of Judges should be mentioned upon the floor of that House, because they could not be heard in their own defence; he had never hesitated to express his opinion of the Judges in Ireland, where they could lay hands upon him—but he would not abuse his privileges in that House. A man who was most sure of attaining to the Bench in Ireland was the man who was most strongly a Party man; but, nevertheless, there was no other country which could produce a Judiciary of, with occasionally a few exceptions, a higher character, or of greater ability, than Ireland. There was no doubt of the integrity of the Irish Bench in issues between man and man; but the moment they began to try Party issues suggestions were raised as to Party motives, and the strong opinions that were delivered lost their force, because the impartiality of the Election Judge was doubted. The famous Galway case was naturally referred to. In that celebrated case, which had aroused the feeling, even in England, that there was a necessity for a second Judge, it was undoubted that the Judge was one of the strongest of partizans. The language of his judgment was rather suited to the political platform than the Judicial Bench. He would press upon the Government, for the sate of the Judges, and for the sake of the Judicial Bench, to take the decision of Election cases from one Judge, and to place it either, in the hands of two or three Judges. He should prefer also that, if necessary, there should be an appeal to the Court. When they had a General Election in Ireland, if one Judge only tried the Election Petitions, let not the House of Commons be surprised if unfortunate suspicions were raised against Judge A, or Judge B, or Judge C. He would appeal to the Government to rescue the Judges from those suspicions—it was due to the character of the Irish Judiciary—that they should cease to have in that House those unhappy discussions with regard to the partiality of the Irish Judges.

MR. PARNELL

hoped that before the next General Election the desirability would be seen of appointing more than one Judge for the trial of Election Petitions. He did not suppose that Parliament would ever go back to the old plan of trying Election Petitions itself. So far as he could see, there were many advantages in not having Election Petitions tried by Parliament, where Party considerations must come into play, but rather by the Judges of the land. But it was essentially necessary that they should adopt such a system of trial as should avoid any possibility of a charge of partizanship, or Party, or religious bias, being brought against the Judges who tried the case. In Ireland, it had, unfortunately, happened that that had not been the case. All the Petitions that had been tried in Ireland, with one exception, had shown that the Judges had not been above Party considerations. If they went back to the celebrated County Galway trial by Mr. Justice Keogh, that trial made the name of the Irish Justiciary infamous throughout the world. Even in America, where the Judges were not celebrated for their purity, that decision was considered a perfect monstrosity of judicial decisions. It was said that they wanted to be above clerical interference, and therefore it was necessary to select Judges who would properly perform their duty; but they did not carry out their object in that matter, for all their attempts in that direction had recoiled only upon themselves. It was too late to attempt to convert the Irish people by Act of Parliament, or by persecution. All attempts to convert the Irish people to the religion of England had only resulted in the fact that the Irish people were more devotedly attached to the Roman Catholic religion than any other people on the face of the earth. England had far better leave those matters to the good sense of all the parties concerned, instead of adopting a system according to their ideas, in order to meet certain difficulties that might or might not exist in Ireland. It had better leave all those questions to be settled by the good sense of the parties concerned. Interference would only lead to results that were not anticipated; and, instead of being calculated to remedy the evil supposed to exist, it would only increase it. A question had been put by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, as to whether Mr. Justice Lawson himself chose to try the Galway Petition instead of trying the Drogheda Petition, which was first on the list? The Galway Borough Petition was one which arose from a bye-Election; but the Drogheda Borough Petition arose from the General Election. According to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland the Judges tried those Petitions according to seniority; and the Galway Borough Petition ought, therefore, to have been tried by Mr. Justice Barry, when the Drogheda Petition would have fallen to the lot of Mr. Justice Lawson. What happened was exactly the reverse. It was evidently seen by the authorities, who made arrangements in those matters, that the Galway Borough Petition was of such a character that there was a very great chance that if an unscrupulous Judge was sent down to try it a favourable decision might be arrived at; whereas, on the other hand, the Drogheda Election Peitition was of such a character that it could not possibly make much difference who tried it. Therefore, Mr. Justice Lawson was sent down to try the Galway Petition, and Mr. Justice Barry was sent to try the Election Petition in Drogheda. That was wrong, for they ought to have stuck to the rota; and if that had been done they would have avoided the unfortunate scandal which had occurred. The Irish Judges were not like the English Judges; the whole system had been deliberately designed, in order that it might be made use of as a powerful instrument against the march of the country. The Bar in Ireland formerly gave the Government a considerable amount of trouble; and it was, therefore, arranged, as a part of the programme, that a system of offices should be instituted of such a character that there should be one Government place for every two lawyers in Ireland. Every other man, when he went to the Bar, was taught to look to Government authority as the "end all and be all" of his career. He did not, as in England, go to the Bar to learn the law and to work his way up in his Profession, step by step, and, perhaps, eventually to attain the Bench or high office; but he went to the Bar in Ireland with the deliberate intention—particularly if a young man of inferior ability and indifferent application, with the idea of obtaining an inferior place, either as a County Court Judge or assistant barrister, or something of that kind under Government. Then if such a man got into Parliament, and, after a few years, the political Party of which he was a supporter succeeded to power, he succeeded to the Office of Irish Attorney or Solicitor General, and all his professions of patriotism vanished. The next step was that he was made a Judge, and was found trying Election Petitions, and sentencing political prisoners. This was the system against which he and his Friends in that House desired to protest, on the present as on other occasions; and in so protesting they wished to place on record their opinion that the political and social circumstances in England and Ireland were so different that the system which might work well in the former was utterly useless in the last-named country. It was out of the question to say that a satisfactory trial of an Election Petition could be got in Ireland, if it was to be tried by one Judge as in England. In fact, he was surprised that the Government should attempt to maintain the present state of things in Ireland; and he hoped that, before the General Election, the Government would-remove this great scandal and reproach from the Irish Bar and Bench, and provide that Election Petitions should be tried in that country by three Judges, instead of by one as at present.

MR. BIGGAR

hoped that, whatever was done, it would never again be possible for Judge Lawson to sit as sole Judge in the hearing of any Election Petition. Within his recollection, the only Judges hearing Election Petitions in Ireland who had proved needlessly corrupt were Mr. Justice Lawson and Mr. Justice Keogh.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that such a direct charge as the hon. Member brought against a Judge was one which could only be constitutionally brought in the form of an Address to the Crown, praying for the removal of the Judge whose conduct was impeached. The hon. Member was incurring a grave responsibility in using the terms he had just used.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not suggest that either of the Judges he had referred to had been actuated in the course they took by any desire to obtain money from either of the parties to the Petitions; but he did maintain that they had acted in a most frightful manner, and that Justice Keogh had distinguished himself particularly in this respect in his conduct while trying and giving judgment in the Galway Election Petition trial. That judgment was, in his opinion, utterly dishonest, for the language in which it was couched was such as no gentleman—to say nothing of the fact that he was a Judge—ought to have used. It was now known that when the Judge ended his days he was insane; and it was, therefore, possible that when he pronounced the Galway judgment he was either under the influence of insanity or strong drink. Whether this was or was not the case had never been cleared up; but it must be perfectly obvious to anyone that his judgment was an outrage on justice. During the time that Justices Keogh and Lawson were colleagues they went the same Circuit together, and the one was always perfectly ready to endorse the other's opinion, whenever questions were raised by counsel.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that this was not relevant to the Vote before the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

bowed to the decision; but contended that if the public had no confidence in Judges when they were trying general issues, they were not likely to have that confidence when Election Petitions were being tried by the same learned gentlemen, whose decisions might place Members in that House who, in no adequate manner, represented the views of the constituencies whom they, nominally, represented.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was not desirous to prolong the irrelevant debate which had sprung up; but he must protest against the personal attacks which had been made upon certain learned Judges—one of whom was now dead—who had, he believed, honestly discharged their duties. A legitimate opportunity of expressing adverse opinions as to the mode in which Election Petitions were tried would occur when the Bill relating to that question was before the House. If the Business of Parliament had gone on smoothly this particular measure might have been proceeded with in the present Session.

MR. SHAW

said, he should vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan on principle, and not on account of the personal attacks which he and some other hon. Members had made on certain Irish Judges; because he did not think there were any Judges on the Irish Bench who would wilfully act in a corrupt manner. At the same time, he thought there was room for an improvement in the existing law in respect of the manner in which Election Petitions were tried in Ireland; and he hoped the Attorney General would, before the next General Election, endeavour to hit upon a plan by means of which a remedy could be found.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, it was from no feeling of personal resentment or disappointment that, in the course of the debate, he had felt it his duty to make charges against certain Irish Judges; but he felt bound to repeat that Justice Lawson had given judgments directly contrary to the evidence before him, and, if an opportunity was given to him by the Government, he would prove the truth of this allegation. This was particularly the case in reference to the Galway Petition, when Justice Lawson said that he (Mr. O'Donnell) had held a meeting of butchers in order to terrorize over the constituency. There was no evidence before the Judge in support of this view; but there was evidence to show that the tradesmen and freemen of Galway had a right to hold meetings, and to vote, and that the butchers in question were not a mere body of roughs, as suggested by the Judge, who had taken part in a movement whose sole object it was to intimidate the meeting which had been called, unless that meeting was favourable to his(Mr. O'Donnell's) views. There were 20 points on which he could have proved that the judgment of Mr. Justice Law-son was wrong; but he was unable to do so, because the Judge imputed to him the personal stain of having directly communicated with the butchers in question, and induced them to take the part in the meeting which he alleged against them. Reference had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Government Bill in reference to Corrupt Practices at Elections; and he ventured to say that that Bill would have the distinct effect of worstening the existing state of thing.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Member was not in Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill which was before the House.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he was bound to defer to the ruling of the Chairman; but it seemed somewhat hard that he could say nothing as to a Bill which had been referred to as likely to remove the grievances complained of, and which he did not believe would have any such effect.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not refer to the provisions of the Bill, but simply mentioned the fact of its existence.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would, then, be content with repeating his opinion that there was a consensus of opinion in Ireland in opposition to the present mode of trying Election Petitions in that country.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he had for many years enjoyed the honour and pleasure of being acquainted with Mr. Justice Lawson, and he wished to express his opinion—as that learned Judge had been attacked—that there was not on the Bench in any European country a more high-minded, conscientious, and pains-taking Judge than Mr. Justice Lawson was. The statement that he had voluntarily suppressed or invented any evidence was as void of foundation as any statement made in the House. It was the duty of every Irish Member to defend a Judge who had been so frequently and so unmercifully assailed in that House as Mr. Justice Lawson had been.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought the statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan must be taken notice of apart from his Motion. The statement in question did not embody the manner in which the character of one of the Judges of the land ought to be dealt with, either in that House or elsewhere. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had said that he would prove the charges he brought against Mr. Justice Lawson if the Government would give him an opportunity of doing so; but he would point out to the hon. Member that he could make that opportunity for himself, by putting on the Paper a Notice of his intention to move an Address to the Crown praying for the removal of the Judge from the Bench. This would be a fair and legitimate way of dealing with the matter; but to throw imputations broadcast was unfair in itself, injurious to the administration of justice, and contrary to the practice and Constitution of this country.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he agreed with the general principle which had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee; but he would remind the Committee that he was debarred from taking the course suggested by the line pursued by Mr. Justice Lawson, in the first instance, which shut him out of the House altogether. He should certainly take preliminary steps in the direction suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford; and if he received support on that occasion he should proceed to the further step which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

MR. GRAY

said, he did not propose to enter into the question of the merits or demerits of any particular Judge. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the proper time to discuss this question was when the Corrupt Practices Bill came before the House, and he had intimated that the Bill must be passed before the Elections took place. The late Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) took the deepest interest in this subject, and for three Sessions to his (Mr. Gray's) knowledge, and possibly longer, he impressed on the Government the necessity of such a Bill. Every Session he was met by a promise to introduce a Bill in the following year; but every year he was put off. A Bill had been introduced this year; but it had been kept back so long that it could not now be passed into an Act, and he (Mr. Gray) feared that there was no real determination on the part of the Government to pass such a measure before the General Election.

MR. O'CONOR

said, he took very great interest in this subject; but ho had not addressed the Committee in regard to it, because he thought it would be out of Order, in discussing on this Vote a Government Bill. As regarded, however, what had been said by his hon. Friend, he would remind him, even if the Government Bill passed, they would be in the same position as before in regard to this matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 182: Majority 156.—(Div. List, No. 197.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £111,661, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals.

MR. PARNELL

said, this Vote involved many questions not yet discussed this Session, and the discussion of which had been postponed for a variety of reasons. It was considered desirable, when the Totes for the Scotch and English Prisons were before the Committee, that they should wait until they had the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of prisons. That Report had been only printed and distributed among Members that morning, and they had not had an opportunity of considering it. The question of prison flogging was postponed from the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill until they could reach those Votes, in order not to delay the progress of that Bill. As there were a number of questions with reference to these Votes which could not be dealt with at that hour of the night, he trusted the Government would agree to postpone it until tomorrow, and proceed with some other Business, when they would be able to take the second reading of several Bills. He begged to move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

observed, that the hon. Gentleman had recently been occupied with another matter, which, although, connected with the representation of the people, had necessitated his absence from his place upon a recent occasion; and he, therefore, was apparently not aware that this Vote had been under discussion for more than an hour. [An hon. MEMBER: But at 3 o'clock in the morning.] This Vote occupied a considerable amount of discussion, and other questions, besides those mentioned by the hon. Member, were raised, especially with reference to the medical staff. At that time, after the discussion, a proposition was made that the Vote should be postponed on account of the lateness of the hour; and in order to meet that feeling it was postponed. They had now devoted another whole night to the Irish Estimates, having previously withdrawn two others in accordance with the wish of Irish Members; and he really thought it would be very unreasonable at that hour which, at this period of the Session, was a comparatively early hour. It was the last they had to pass that night; and he did hope, under all circumstances, especially as the Vote had already been largely discussed, the Government would be allowed to take it.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion to which he had alluded was principally whether the Vote should be postponed or not, and though there was some high conversation there was no general discussion of the Vote itself. The Committee had now been very hard at work all night; and it would be quite as well if they could pass on to other Votes, especially as they would probably make quite as much progress in that way as by going straight on. He merely suggested that, and was not going to press it on the Government; but he thought there was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman had said about the period of the Session. Still, they did not want to go on with their work in the dark, and no one would wish to pass Votes until they had been fairly debated.

MR. PARNELL

said, of course, he was very sensible that they should yield to the Government as much as possible at that period of the Session; but there were points of the utmost importance on this Vote which must be discussed. ["Go on !"] It was all very well for hon. Members to say "Go on!" but after working in the Committee since a quarter to 4 he considered they had done a good day's work. For his part, he felt absolutely unable to do justice at that time, and under the circumstances of the case, to the very important questions raised by this Vote. Let him remind the Committee what those points were. First of all, there was the question of the rules to be adopted under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. When this matter was before the House of Commons on the Prison Act the Home Secretary gave him a distinct pledge that the prison rules he would adopt for untried prisoners should be extended to prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. What was the real fact? The Home Secretary, by the way in which he had drawn his rules, had distinctly excluded prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act from the benefit of the exceptional and lenient rules which he had adopted for untried prisoners, They were, therefore, left in the same position in which they always were, as regarded prisoners arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the Government should choose to suspend that Act again, a proceeding they might always resort to at a moment's notice—last time, he believed, it was done on a Sunday—they would be left without any rule for the treatment of the prisoners arrested; and it was on the last occasion, according to the testimony of a distinguished medical man in Dublin, worse than that endured by persons undergoing a sentence of penal servitude. Then, next, they had the question of prison flogging. Now, they had no flogging in their borough gaols, though it existed in the convict prisons, where it was of a most brutal and horrible character. He saw, the other day, the sister of a man named Tiernay, or O'Conner, a political prisoner, who was flogged in Spike Island for attempting to escape. He received four dozen lashes. He was put in irons. He was kept in irons for eight months, and he had solitary confinement for 21 days, on bread and water. This might happen again, for the management of Spike Island was simply infamous, and he wished to have the opportunity of exposing that management. Then there was the question of imprisonment in solitary cells. That was indulged in to a very large extent, merely at the option of the gaoler, and without the order of the Visiting Justices. There was no report made of any such punishment, or of the reasons why they were inflicted, or of the offences for which they were inflicted. There ought to be these reports; and yet they were now asked to vote this money to the Government without making any provision of that sort. It was impossible that he could do justice, at that hour of the night, to the questions which he wished to raise. If the Government were desirous of appearing to get through the Votes, he was willing that they should do so on condition that they gave him a fair opportunity on Report of raising the questions which he wished to raise with regard to this Vote. Those questions were of the utmost magnitude; and he could not allow the Session to pass without having an opportunity of bringing them properly before the House of Commons. The new prison system was admittedly experimental; and a number of sub- jects had to be considered in connection with it which had hitherto not been touched upon. The question of flogging was one which he had distinctly postponed until the present Vote came on for discussion, in order that the Government might carry the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill in time for it to be passed by the House of Lords; and he would be failing in his duty if he did not secure discussion of this important matter at the time when he had the power of doing so. He, therefore, trusted the Government would agree to the postponement of the Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

agreed that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should have an opportunity, on Report, of discussing the questions to which he had referred; and, therefore, if the Vote was allowed to be taken then, he should be willing that the discussion should take place to-morrow, when the Government proposed to report all the Votes which had been taken. If, however, there was not time on Report for the proposed discussion, he would take care that an opportunity should be given on another evening.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RYLANDS

desired to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to items of increase—in salaries, £2,002; victualling, £1,865; fuel, light, and water, £1,945. These items required consideration. With respect to the victualling of prisons, unless there had been a large increase in the number of prisoners, he was quite unable to understand how this large additional sum had been incurred, especially as there had been a considerable fluctuation in the price of all kinds of food, which, in the case of the Vote for Lunatic Asylums, had resulted in a very material reduction of charge during the past year. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some explanation with regard to these items.

MR. SULLIVAN

inquired if any arrangement had been made with respect to the medical officers of prisons, mentioned a few days previously to the right hon. Gentleman?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the question of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) raised a number of points which he had not had time to deal with since the conversation took place. The increase in the items referred to by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was, in a great measure, due to the changes which had taken place in the prison system.

MR. RYLANDS

could not agree that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was the right one. The change of system had been recommended to the House as a means of economy; but the Committee were now informed that the change had led to an increase of expense. He had a strong impression that the taking over of the prisons by the Government was likely to lead to an excess of expenditure, not only in England, but in Ireland and Scotland.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that as hon. Members were aware, an Inspector had to be appointed under the Act of Parliament, and the item of salaries would, in consequence, be increased. There had also been an increase in the fees connected with the Prison Board, in consequence of the new appointment. There had, he was sorry to say, been an increase of 234 prisoners; and he might observe that the sum of £18,000 under sub-head P was insufficient to defray the cost, even if no increase in the number of prisoners had taken place.

MR. RYLANDS

called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the charges for the Board of Inspectors did not come into the item to which he had alluded. If the right hon. Gentleman would look, he would observe that the items A, B, and 0 were those which had reference to the Board of Inspectors, while those he alluded to were for the salaries of the officers of the gaols. The addition of some 200 prisoners would not account for the great increase of charge occurring under this head. His object, in putting these questions, was to show the necessity which existed for some supervision, in order to control this increasing expenditure. At present, he did not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury took any trouble to look into the accounts of Irish prisons, or whether he thought it sufficient to look after the English and Scotch prisons only; but he would do well to examine the Estimates; because he (Mr. Rylands) was clear that under this Vote there was a tendency to greatly increased expenditure. Again, the Estimate did not include any expenditure on account of the manufacturing depart- ment, nor for the farming and garden work; but he saw, by a note at the end, that this would be deducted from the receipts, and that anything over would be paid into the Exchequer. That was a new mode of keeping accounts, but it would, he thought, be better to have an Estimate taken of the amount required, and then to set-off what was returned, so that the Committee might have a clear view of the result. The Home Secretary being now in his place, he took the opportunity of saying that there were grounds for complaint that in the first year that the Irish prisons came under the new management a very considerable increase had occurred in several items for which there appeared to be no justification, and that he hoped the next year would show the effects of greater economy.

MR. GRAY

believed he could elucidate the increase in the cost of victualling prisons. When the prisons were under the old system the Boards of Superintendence of the various districts gave away all their contracts by public contract to the lowest tender; the remodelled Prison Board, however, did nothing of the kind; and the contracts were now constantly given away upon tenders which were very much above the lowest in amount, although the persons who sent in the lowest tenders were of good position, and capable of giving the fullest security for the execution of their contracts. This would probably account for the increase in the victualling expenditure more correctly than the explanation offered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and would, doubtless, be accepted by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in that sense. He thought if the Treasury would devote some attention to this subject, and say that where a man could give security for the performance of his contract his tender should not be excluded, that it would be conducive to public economy and to the credit of the Administration. Amongst other items, he saw in the Vote that the Chairman received £1,200 a-year; the Vice Chairman, £1,100 a-year; and "another member" of the Board, £1,000 a-year. He wished to know who was the other member, and whether he was a relative of any of the members of the Board? "With regard to the victualling of prisons in Ireland, he wished to point out that, although the charge for this item had increased, considerable discontent existed with regard to the food supplied to prisoners. It would probably be remembered that, some little time ago, he had asked a question with, reference to the verdict of a Coroner's Jury in the case of Patrick Grimes, who had died in Armagh Gaol. It had been stated that the withdrawal of the milk before given to prisoners, without the substitution of a corresponding amount of nutriment, rendered the diet of the prisoners insufficient to sustain life. The jury in the case attached to their verdict an intimation to the same effect, and forwarded a Memorial on the subject to the Lord Lieutenant. The question put to the right hon. Gentleman caused a considerable amount of laughter to be elicited by his reply, to the effect that a number of prisoners were upon the jury who had, naturally enough, an objection to the kind of food allowed them. However, according to his information, the Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant was signed by 12 individuals who were householders in the town, and not prisoners; and, in any case, a certificate was signed by the prison surgeon, testifying that sufficient food was not given to the prisoners to sustain life. This was a serious matter; but it had been passed over with a jocular answer, and no steps had been taken. Under this reformed Board they had—first, an increase in the cost of victualling; and, next, a reduction in the amount of nutriment supplied to the prisoners. Then came the fact that tenders of the lowest bidders were not accepted, as under the old system. These facts spoke loudly as to the diminution of real efficiency under the new system; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley in saying that the sacrifice made by the local bodies throughout the country to relieve the rates would have no such effect, and was only a further step in the direction of centralization.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, there had, undoubtedly, been an increase generally in the expenditure, in consequence of the debits for the salaries of warders, governors, and so forth, rendered necessary by the new system, while the increase in the number of prisoners had also increased the charge for victualling.

MR. GRAY

asked, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give some assurance that in future contracts would be given to respectable persons upon sufficient security? Because his contention was, that the increased cost of victualling was due to the fact that, under the Prisons Act, a system had been initiated in Ireland of not giving contracts upon the lowest tenders. The feeling which existed in Ireland was that a political tinge was given to all these matters. His view was that, in affairs of public finance, a low price from respectable people, and upon good security, should he accepted. He did not mean to say that the lowest tender should be accepted in all cases; but that there should be good reason for its being refused. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, should give an assurance that, as a general rule, the lowest tender should be accepted, and that intimation would, no doubt, be respected by the Board.

MR. J. LOWTHER

could not accept the general principle that the lowest tender should, be accepted; but promised that inquiries should be made into the subject. The third member of the Board referred to in the Estimates was Mr. O'Brien.

MR. LOWTHIAN BELL

remarked, that the more the Vote was explained the less satisfactory it appeared. He should have imagined that the greater the amount spent in alterations the greater ought to be the economy. He was, therefore, quite unable to understand the great increase of nearly 30 per cent in the charge for fuel, light, and water.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that although, in the first place, there had been a considerable outlay, as must naturally be expected during a period of transition, the alterations, it was to be hoped, would eventually lead to economy and saving of expenditure. The item required for alterations, repairs, and buildings, was for works that would be executed during the present year.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had fairly enough admitted that the taking over of the prisons by Government had resulted in increased expenditure. But what had the Government said on a former occasion? Was not the House told that there would be great economy effected by the prisons being taken out of the hands of the local authorities? The Secretary to the Treasury knew very well that the Government had said the change would be an economical one; but he (Mr. Rylands) ventured to say that there had since been an increase of charge in every item in which an increase was possible. He could only say that the Committee had a right to complain of this expenditure; and that if it went on next year at the same rate the right hon. Gentleman would find that hon. Members were prepared to move the reduction of the Vote. It was to be hoped that pressure would be brought to bear upon the officials in Ireland who had the control of this expenditure, in order to insure more economy in this Department.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the grievance of the prison chaplains was that they got only £100 a-year salary, no matter what might be the number of prisoners. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to page 216 of the Estimates, he would find that the pay for a chaplain of the same class in England was from £100 to £200 per annum. In addition to that salary, a prison chaplain in England was granted an allowance for a residence. It was very clear, therefore, that the pay of an Irish prison chaplain was very much less than that of a gentleman in the same position in England. He would ask, was it right or proper that a prison chaplain in Ireland should not be paid at the same rate as prison chaplains in England? The gentleman to whom allusion had been made complained that the Protestant chaplain got £20 a-year more than he did, although there were fewer Protestant than Roman Catholic prisoners. He was disposed to rest the case for the increase in the salary upon two points—first, that it was an improper salary, as compared with other chaplains in Ireland; and, secondly, that it was less than was paid to English chaplains.

MR. J. LOWTHER

remarked, that there was no distinction in respect of pay between chaplains of various religious denominations; they were paid on exactly the same scale, and without any reference to their religion. With respect to the adoption of the same scale of pay for prison chaplains in Ireland as for the same class in England, it was a branch of a larger subject, and he could not then enter into it.

MR. MELDON

wished to draw attention to the case of a warder, named Kearney, formerly employed in the Richmond Penitentiary. He served for nearly 10 years in that prison; but at the commencement of the 10th year of his service he was afflicted with disease, and at the end of the 10th year was dismissed from his employment by the Board of Superintendence, on the ground that he could not live more than a few months. He was given a certificate of having completed 10 years' service, and that he had, during that period, always conducted himself with the greatest propriety; he had obtained rewards on different occasions from the Metropolitan Police, and had been complimented upon his conduct. The governor of the gaol where he was employed granted him a certificate of having served 10 years. But the Inspector General of Prisons alleged that the man had not been in the employment of the Richmond Penitentiary for 10 years. In point of fact, he wanted some five days to complete his 10 years' service. He was kept on some time, in order to complete the service; but the Inspector General said that the certificate was inaccurate, and that he was not entitled to obtain his pension for 10 years' service. He, therefore, refused absolutely to give the man his pension calculated upon 10 years' service. Some doubts were raised when the matter came before the Judge for adjudication; and as the man was not then in a fit state to enable him to appear the matter was decided against him. It was believed by many that that adjudication was erroneous. The Inspector General contended that the man was not entitled to any pension, but only to a small gratuity. Contrary to expectation the man got better, and was now tolerably well, and likely to live some few years. His case had been brought under his (Mr. Meldon's) notice, and he had suggested a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant; for, so far as he could see, the Inspector General had acted in an utterly illegal manner. The man had received, a certificate from the governor of the gaol in which he had served that he had completed his 10 years' service, and he only left the prison a few days before the end of the year owing to the state of his health, and it was also owing to the state of his health that he could not bring his case before the Judge. If those facts were established, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would grant the man the pension of which he had been deprived in the way he had described.

MR. J. LOWTHER

promised to inquire into the case. If, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the man was only five days short of the 10 years' service, he was inclined to endorse the opinion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed. He would most certainly look into the case.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, that before they passed from that Vote he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the prison surgeons. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say that prison surgeons were not to have their salaries reduced if they refused to compound medicines. But it had been stated that notwithstanding the Prisons Board had issued circulars, insisting that surgeons, who were appointed before the Act came into operation, should undertake the office of compounding medicines, or otherwise they should forfeit a portion of their salary. He thought that system was a bad one which forced a surgeon to compound medicines at all. He would not, however, go into the matter, because it had been fully discussed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had promised to take the matter into his consideration. He wished to remind the Chief Secretary that under the new Prisons Act a very considerable increase of duty had been thrown upon surgeons; they had now eight or nine new returns to make, and a large amount of their time was occupied; they had to make 52 weekly inspections, and four quarterly inspections during a year; and. to discharge their duties properly they were obliged to occupy many hours of their time. It was an unreasonable thing to ask any prison surgeon either to compound medicines or to forfeit a portion of his salary. But it would be a grievous hardship and injustice to extend that rule to surgeons appointed before the Act. The general rule ought, on the contrary, to prevail, and all surgeons to receive extra pay for the new duties imposed on them under the provisions of the recent Act.

MR. MELDON

remarked, that it would not give satisfaction if the prisons surgeons received the same salary at present as they had before the Act came into operation. The threat held out to them was that if they did not compound medicines they would, be left in receipt of their present salaries. The threat was held out by the Prisons Board, in order to make surgeons comply with their requirements. He did not think it was right to make a surgeon do 10 times the work, and yet receive the same pay. He begged, again, to say that, in his opinion, the Chief Secretary would not meet the merits of the case, if he left the salaries of the prison surgeons at the same amount as at present.

MR. J. LOWTHER

remarked, that if the hon. and learned Member had been in the House when the subject was under discussion on the previous occasion, he would have heard his statement that, in consequence of representations made to him by hon. Members and others, and also in consequence of the discussions which had taken place, he had put himself in communication with the Prisons Board, and was investigating the matter with a view to a satisfactory settlement.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.