§ MR. PARNELLSir, I wish, before the Motion for the Adjournment of the House is carried, to direct the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to a matter which I trust, he will find time to consider during the Recess; and I trust that the result of his considerations may be that he may see his way to afford a favourable answer to the representations made to him from time to time with regard to this matter. I refer to the taxation of the City of Cork for extra police. This matter is one which has engaged the attention of several of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors for a number of years, and it has never been possible for us to bring it to a satisfactory issue. In fact, the laws regulating the powers of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the quartering of extra police are in such a very unsatisfactory and confused condition that it is almost impossible to know what the law on the subject of this quartering of police in the City of Cork really is. And although the Corporation and Town Council of Cork have made several attempts to obtain a judgment in the Superior Courts of Law with regard to the legality of the tax for this extra force they have never been able to carry the matter any further than the Recorder's Court. That official had expressed, in a judgment of the day, his very grave doubt as to whether he was interpreting the law correctly, or as to whether he could determine what the state of the law really was with regard to these old enactments under which forces of extra police are quartered in any Irish counties or towns. The first Act which applies to the Irish Constabulary, is one of the 6th and 7th William IV., 14th chapter, 13th section. That Act empowered the 73 Lord Lieutenant to declare by proclamation any city or county in a disturbed state, and thereupon he was empowered to send extra police. Section 35 of this same Act provides that the expenses of the police should, in the first instance, be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The 37th section directs that the Inspector General, with the assistance of the Receiver, was to ascertain the cost; and in case where an extra police force was sent, he was to send to the secretary of the Grand Jury a statement of the amount which any county or city in which extra police should be quartered was liable for, and a certificate, and lay it before the Presentment Sessions, and then the under secretary should send before the Assizes another circular nearly a duplicate of the other which was sent to the secretary, and was mandatory on the Grand Jury to present for the amount. The legal effect, to which I wish to direct attention, of the extraordinary provisions of this Act of Parliament, has constituted one of the great difficulties in obtaining any real legal decision as to the legality of the action of the Irish Executive in reference to this quartering of these extra police in Cork. The effect of this was declared to be binding and conclusive, even though it was proved to be a fact that the police charged for were not in Cork at all, or even though there was a palpable overcharge. I can only compare any of these certificates to the warrants by which, the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), was empowered to issue under the Coercion Act. There can be no question whatever that the authority on which they were raised is entirely removed from the purview or jurisdiction of any Court of Law whatever. Under this first and original Act regulating the Irish Constabulary, which were a certain fixed quota, there were originally 100 men free appointed to Cork under the Act. The next Act was that of the 2nd & 3rd Vict. c. 75, and under this Act the reserve force was established. This reserve force was for the purpose of meeting contingencies which, in the Preamble of the Act, are clearly recited. The reserve force was intended to meet contingencies when the ordinary force was deemed insufficient for the maintenance of order, as in the case of elections or other temporary ex- 74 citements, such as the July celebrations in the North of Ireland. The services of the reserve force were to be obtained as might be required. This reserve force was also to be available for all parts of Ireland, and they were to be maintained at the depôt in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, which is the nursery for recruiting, and training of officers. Section 6 of the same Act provides that under the order of the Lord Lieutenant the whole of this reserve force can be sent to any part of Ireland, there to remain as long as any order might be made. I should like particularly to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that section. The importance of that section is that it clearly indicates the temporary character of the order, which was intended to be for a definite period. It was necessary that the Lord Lieutenant should state the period which this force was thus to remain away from the depot. And yet it is a very remarkable thing that we have never been able to secure the production of that document, although the Corporation have endeavoured from time to time to obtain it. Moreover, so far as we know, that order has no existence — indeed, it is very likely that it has no existence. The order was not made by Lord Spencer, nor was it made by Lord Cowper. It was an order made many years ago when it was intended to meet a temporary emergency, and for a limited period. Cork had for a long time been in a condition of peace and good order; and he hoped the Chief Secretary would show his appreciation of this fact by withdrawing the heavy tax for extra police. The 3rd & 4th Viet. c. 128, and the 6th section, was a very important one, to which he begged to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, which empowered cities to make applications with reference to the force. The Town Council of Cork, some 80 years ago, finding that 100 men were not sufficient for the police requirements of the City, voluntarily applied, in the first instance, for six extra men, in order that a police station might be established in the district of St. Luke's, one of the wealthiest portions of the City, which, up to that period, had been without police protection. By further applications that force was increased to 16 extra men, which were paid for 75 voluntarily and without any grumbling, and the total force of the City remained for a considerable time at 116 men. When the Fenian period came, Cork being, from its geographical situation, the nearest port of call on the way between America and Liverpool, it was found necessary by the Government of the day —not for the purpose of checking violent disorders in the City, but solely as a matter of precaution, and for the purpose of protecting Irish-Americans and others who landed in Cork from America—to send an extra force of Constabulary to be stationed at Cork. This was done by one of the several Constabulary Acts passed from time to time to enable the Lord Lieutenant to distribute the Constabulary in Ireland; but these were free. The force was raised from 116 to 150, and it was still a free force, the Government being satisfied that it was owing, as I have explained, to the geographical position of the City of Cork, and not to any local causes, that the additional force was requisite. Up to 1866 the force was increased to 200 men and retained in the City, and in 1866 it was still a free force—the force of 200 men. In April, 1866, a letter was received from the Chief Secretary, in which it was stated that the time had arrived when it was necessary that the extra police of the City should be reduced, and only such number retained as the Town Council should decide upon in accordance with the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108. The Council, having considered the application fully, arrived at the conclusion that, for all practical and legal purposes coming within the purview of police duties in the City of Cork, 16 extra men added to the 153 men were ample; and, in fact, that the number of 16 extra police were necessary, and they instructed the Mayor to make that representation to the Lord Lieutenant; and that if, in the opinion of the authorities, there would be no reduction made in the force, the Council should not be asked to pay anything in respect thereof. No further action was taken in compelling the Corporation until 1879, when the Chief Secretary (Mr. Chichester Fortescue, now Lord Carlingford) wrote stating that the Council should make formal application, under the 3rd and 4th Viet. c. 108, for 50 extra men, so that the permanent force might be made up to 200. If they did not do this, Mr. Fortescue said he 76 was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform the Council that an extra force of 50 men was necessary for Cork, and a moiety of the charge was to be defrayed by the City. This was the first real attempt made by the Castle to compel the City of Cork to pay for an extra police force; and it was a long time after the Fenian outbreak, and when the City had resumed its normal aspect of orderly quiet. The object sought by this letter was to endeavour to coerce the Corporation of Cork to follow the example of the Corporation of Belfast. The Corporation of Belfast had placed themselves under the provisions of an Act which enabled them, practically speaking, to levy their own police force. That police force, however, was not under the local authorities, and the Corporation of Cork declined to follow the example in question. After some controversy, it was decided by the authorities that the entire extra men should not exceed 50 —that is, 16 men which the Council had originally applied for, and 34 fresh extra men, which, by the Lord Lieutenant's order, were directed to remain in Cork. The Council of Cork, Mr. Speaker, have ever since remonstrated, and are continually remonstrating, against this extra force of 34 men. They have disputed the payment from time to time. They have endeavoured to seek relief from the Courts of Law; but, owing to the state of confusion in which the Act regulating the powers of the Lord Lieutenant regarding the importing of extra police, it has been found impossible to bring any case before any of the Superior Courts. The Corporation have in vain remonstrated against what they believed to be the absolute illegality of the conduct of successive Lord Lieutenants in this matter in abusing an Act of Parliament, which clearly was never intended to give an authority for such a police force in the City. This state of affairs continued up to 1881, when the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) became Chief Secretary. He, in alluding to the subject, suggested that the Council should consider the precedent of Belfast and do likewise. But as the Town Council still continued to refuse to adopt the suggestion, the extra force of men was increased from 50 to 70, I suppose as a sort of punishment for declining to be as amenable as the Corporation of Belfast. In 1879 the 77 Under Secretary again wrote to the Council on the subject of the extra police, which at that date was reduced to 30, calling their attention to the fact that the reserve force was short of its strength by reason of 30 men being still retained in Cork, that his Excellency could not see his way to remove them, and he again recommended them to make a formal application with the view to their reduction. You will observe in all these proceedings the central executive authority in Ireland has been exceedingly anxious to get an application from the Corporation of Cork to get some endorsement of this illegal quartering; but although these attempts have been going on for a very long series of years, when the power of election to Town Councils in Ireland was not as it is now, but very much in the hands of wire-pullers and local magistrates, still they have never in one single instance obtained from the Town Council the slightest endorsement, direct or indirect, of this most illegal levy. Well, Sir, a case was prepared by the legal advisers of the Town Council, and it was argued before the Recorder in November, 1882, not two years ago. The result was that on technical grounds, entirely apart from the merits of the case, the Recorder held that, as a matter of fact, a certificate, countersigned by the Under Secretary, was conclusive as to the amount. He could not go behind it. Now, Sir, I think the judgment of the Recorder is a very important one. It was the highest judicial decision that it was possible for the Corporation to obtain. They applied, during the progress of the case, to the Recorder, and asked him to state a case for the Queen's Bench; but that was resisted by the legal representative of the Crown Solicitor, and the Recorder held that he had no power to do it. I would wish to direct the particular attention of the House to the judgment of the Recorder. His worship said—
I have been trying to guide my blind footsteps through the labyrinth of police legislation, with the aid of Mr. M'Carthy, whom I may call a legal Ariadne; but I must say that, after an argument lasting more than a day, I am not at all satisfied on the point under consideration, because, since the time of William the Fourth, the Legislature have been passing Act after Act—amending Acts, repealing Acts, explanatory Acts, and contradictory Acts—and really it is monstrous that nothing has been done to consolidate those Constabulary Acts. The Constabulary are a most important force 78 in the country. It would, therefore, be most desirable if some plain legislation were produced which would enable us to know where they are, what they are, what they ought to be, and what are their laws. Now, it appears to me that, beginning with the Act 6 & 7 will. IV., and comparing it with the Act 20 & 21 Vict. c. 17—that, upon the whole, the Inspector General, with the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant, has the right, in addition to the 100 men allotted to the City of Cork, to distribute the force as ho pleases without any restriction; but I am not at all certain that I am right in that construction of the law. But I am bound by this certificate, and if the Corporation require an alteration in the law, which, in my opinion, is demanded, they should send Mr. Lawrence to Parliament. Mr. Lawrence was the legal gentleman engaged, and let him vindicate their case there as he has done here. I do think that under the circumstances I am bound by this certificate, and I cannot get out of it. The Corporation ought to take the course I have suggested. I, for one, would be very glad to see Mr. Lawrence in Parliament, whore his great abilities would help to bring Irish Members to rational, reasonable, and sound views.This learned Judge does not recommend an appeal to the Superior Courts—in fact, he would not state a case for the Superior Courts, because he said he could not. All the relief he could give the unfortunate ratepayers of Cork was a sort of extra-judicial advice, which does not appear to have been acted upon up to the present, to send this legal gentleman to Parliament, where their case might be brought forward for review by the highest Court in the land. Well, Sir, I bring the case forward tonight, and I say it is a monstrous state of affairs that under a variety of enactments, which are, according to the Recorder of Cork, self-contradictory and impossible to be understood, which permit of no appeal, which simply rely upon the existence of a written piece of paper, purporting to bear the signature of the Chief or Under Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, that it should be possible to saddle the ratepayers of an industrious and peaceful city with such a monstrous charge as that without any remedy. Cork has now been charged for extra police for a period of 30 years, commencing with the year 1855, when the Corporation voluntarily agreed to pay a yearly sum of £175 in respect of an extra force of five men. The sum, paid in 1881, which was the last year in which payment was made, the Town Council having refused to pay the amount since then, was as high as £1,025. The total extra force in Cork 79 amounts to 180 men. Now, I wish to compare this total of 180 men, which is the ordinary police force, plus the extra force, with that of the other towns, and with the number of policemen to the population in other towns. The number 180 makes 23 policemen for every 10,000 of the population of the City of Cork in September, 1881. In Derry the Returns showed that there were, for the same year, 30 men for every 10,000 inhabitants—that is, an increase of 7 per 1,000, or nearly one-fourth as many more as in Cork. In Waterford the number was from 27 to 29 for every 10,000 of the population; but the House will bear in mind that in the two cases I have mentioned—the cases of Derry and Waterford—there was not an extra police force, and there was, consequently, no extra police tax. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker) dissented.] The hon. and learned Solicitor General shakes his head; but I am quoting from very accurate information, which I have reason to believe is absolutely correct. The authorities, in fact, provided 30 for every 10,000 of the population in Derry—I am not speaking of the occasional bringing in of men for particular occasions like the celebration of the shutting of the gates—and in Waterford they provided for every 10,000 of the population 27 men, whereas in Cork they only provide for every 10,000 of the population 20 men; for that 20 men they charge one-fourth, or about five men as an extra force—thus reducing the free force of Cork by one-fifth of these men. In other words, the cities of Derry and Waterford have a considerably larger free police force than Cork, counting the extra police force for which they pay. If there is one city in Ireland which deserves from the Government more consideration than another, entirely apart from its peaceful condition, it is the City of Cork. It is the chief inlet and outlet for the vast passenger traffic of the Atlantic steamers, and also for the passenger traffic from Munster to England. It has more police, force thrown upon it in respect to offences of a local origin than all the other Irish ports, excluding Dublin and Belfast, put together. In this respect the City of Cork does the work of the Empire. I find that, excluding Dublin, but not Belfast, Cork has now 1–16th the population of 80 Ireland. The distributive Constabulary Force, including Belfast, taken on the average of 1880–1, which is less than that of 1882–3, and divided by 60, would give a free force of over 170 for Cork. The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could hold out any hope that this extra police force would be removed. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he had consulted the Bench of Magistrates and the local authorities, and that they were of opinion that the present force was not more than sufficient for the preservation of the peace of the City. I should be very glad to know what Bench of Magistrates or what local authorities the right hon. Gentleman had consulted. After the best local inquiry I have been able to make, I do not find that a single independent magistrate, and by ''independent" I mean magistrates not directly subject to, and in the pay of the Government, was consulted. I find that the Mayor and Town Council were not consulted. I find that no meeting of magistrates was held in reference to this matter, and that no recommendation opposed to the removal of the extra police force has proceeded from any public body. I am at a loss to know what Bench of Magistrates the right hon. Gentleman consulted, and what authorities. If he consulted magistrates and authorities they must have been very few. They must have been persons interested in maintaining the present position of affairs in order that they might retain their swollen and exorbitant salaries. When the right hon. Gentleman's reply was reported in the newspapers, the Corporation of Cork met and passed a resolution unanimously declaring that if the so-called extra police force were continued in the City, it should be placed permanently on the ordinary free establishment, which, even with the increase, would be very little, if anything, in excess of the quota the City should receive on the ground of population, and emphatically claiming exceptional consideration in this matter on account of the peaceable state of the City. Notwithstanding all this, they found that the Government, so far from treating Cork like Derry and Waterford, gave that City a smaller free force, and placed a heavy impost on her by this levy of extra men. Many thousand pounds have been paid by the citizens 81 since the establishment of this force, and since there is no possibility for them of redress from the law; since they are prohibited from asking the intervention of the Superior Courts, and since the only magistrate whom they have been able to approach has declared his opinion that it is impossible for him to understand what the state of the law is, or, if he did understand it, to decide the case upon its merits, the citizens have come to the conclusion, and I think they are right, that they will not pay this tax unless it is dragged out of them. Cork has been-exceptionally peaceful during the whole of the Land League agitation. There have been no outrages of any description. I say exceptionally peaceful as compared with the rest of Ireland, because Cork has been always peaceful. We have been told by Government officials that inflicting fines for extra police is of the greatest importance to deter districts from crime or disturbance; but there has been no crime in Cork, not even any disturbance. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his traditions and history, would have seized this occasion for showing the appreciation by the Government of the peaceful and quiet City of Cork. Instead of that, for purposes which are inscrutable to us, the Government insist upon maintaining this heavy taxation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider this matter during the Recess, which I trust he will very much enjoy, and that he will be able to announce to the House on his return that the Government see their way to remove the extra force from Cork, or to leave it there as portion of the permanent free force. When the Exhibition was held the Exhibition Committee had to pay, in addition to the extra police, for every policeman on duty within the walls of the Exhibition. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see I have made out a reasonable and fair case, and that it is an instance in which he ought to exercise his own judgment and authority, and not be guided by the biassed opinions and interested motives of subordinates.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he would not follow the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) very deeply into legal questions, nor, indeed, did he gather that Her Majesty's Government had done more than state the extreme perplexity in which the Cor- 82 poration of Cork found themselves with, regard to the various Constabulary Acts; but he was bound to say that to qualify the Constabulary Acts according to the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman and those who sat beside him was a thing which the Government could only do as a last resource. He should not enter into the legal right of the Government to exact what they had for a good while partially exacted, and what, at the present moment, they were endeavouring to exact with not quite equal success. These legal matters were, in his opinion, outside the purview of the House until they had been brought to the consideration of the highest tribunal to which they could go; and he did not agree with the hon. Member in holding that there were no means of taking the question before a higher tribunal. He concluded, if the decision of the Recorder was not a sound decision, it could not be enforced by mandamus from the higher Court, and that in that way, if no other, the case could be brought to appeal. As regarded the treatment of Cork in the matter of extra police, as compared with other towns, he thought that the hon. Member had been somewhat misled by a very natural predilection for that City, with which his name was so thoroughly identified. The hon. Member said if there was one city in Ireland which deserved more consideration than another it was Cork. From, that dictum he (Mr. Trevelyan) should be very unwilling to dissent. But he must go further, and say that there was no great city in Ireland, or, for that matter, in England or Scotland, which, on the point of paying for its police, had received such treatment as the City of Cork. He did not say that that decided the question; but it was a proposition he was ready to support. The hon. Gentleman, not having access to that official information which was at once at his (Mr. Trevelyan's) command, had a little erred in comparing Cork with other Irish towns and cities, especially with reference to Londonderry. He thought he heard him say that it had to pay for no extra police.
§ MR. PARNELLI was speaking of the free establishment.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would come to that afterwards. Limerick paid a sum less, indeed, than Cork, but still a very tangible sum, £340 or £350 a-year for extra police, and Londonderry 83 paid £1,550 a-year. What was the sum which Cork paid for extra police?
§ MR. PARNELLLondonderry has a very much larger free force. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute the accuracy of the proportional figures I gave regarding the free force in Londonderry.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not at all inclined to dispute the figures which he had heard. What he desired to say was that Limerick and Londonderry, in proportion to the population, was very much heavier taxed than Cork. It was quite true now that in Kilkenny, Galway, and Drogheda there was a much larger free force; but he found that in Londonderry the free force only numbered 10 in every 10,000, in Belfast only 17, and in Carrickfergus only 10, the average of the Irish towns being 16. Cork, therefore, was not excessively, although sensibly, above the charge made on other Irish towns; and, comparing Cork with English towns, he thought it would be found that for a population of 80,000, £1,100 a-year was a very small charge to make.
§ An hon. MEMBER: But the local authorities have charge of the force.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would come to that. He might say that he was not now referring to the mere extra police lately stationed in Cork. Now, he would like, first of all, to compare the extra police force in Cork with that in other Irish towns. In Belfast the extra police cost £11,000 a-year, or 10 times more than Cork. Londonderry paid £1,500 a-year on a smaller population. Londonderry, in fact, paid 5d. in the pound for police, Belfast 4½d. in the pound, and Cork only 1d. in the pound. Taking for comparison an English town of nearly the same size as Cork— namely, Wolverhampton, which had a population of 75,700, whereas Cork had one of 80,000, he found that the Government contribution for police at Wolverhampton was £3,000 a-year, while £3,600 a-year was paid from the local rates—a great deal more than Cork had been paying for many years past. In Northampton again, with a population of 50,000, £2,846 a-year was paid for police; while Birmingham, with five times the population of Cork, paid 25 times as much for its police as the citizens of Cork had done during the last 10 years. However, he quite agreed 84 with the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) that paying money against the grain, and for a service that was not asked, was not a very pleasant thing. He knew that many historical non-payments were for small sums of money; but the question was—Was the City of Cork over-policed? Were they paying the moderate sum of 1d. in the pound on their valuation for police that they did not want? In April, 1871, when this question was discussed, a resolution was passed by the county magistrates, stating that they could not recommend any reduction in the police force of the City of Cork; and in the following August a resolution was passed by the Mayor and magistrates of the City of Cork expressing their opinion that the force of the City could not safely be reduced. Then there came a correspondence in which the Government wished to have the extra police paid for by the Corporation of Cork; and the Corporation, on the other hand, wished to keep the extra police, but at the charge of the public Exchequer. On the 10th of January, 1880, a resolution was passed unanimously by the Mayor and magistrates that the force should not be less than 180; and at the latest period, as far as he knew, at which the opinion of the Mayor and Corporation was authoritatively declared, it was their opinion that the present force—he did not speak of nine detectives—was the least that could keep the peace of the town, but that it should be paid for entirely by the Exchequer. He thought it was little to demand of a flourishing City like Cork, which had been characterized by the hon. Member, in not overstrained words, as one of the gates of the Empire, that if it was to have the full amount of police which its elected authorities considered necessary for its safety and good order, it should pay 1d. in the pound, when the cities and towns of England frequently paid 10d. or 1s. Nevertheless, he allowed that it was the duty of the Government to communicate with the Corporation of Cork and ascertain what their real wishes were. He was not at all sure that if the town were perfectly satisfied with the free force as it at present stood, whether the police of Cork should not be reduced to that free force; but that the free force should be increased was a proposition to which, until they came again to the quintennial period of re- 85 vision, he could not for a moment assent. He was such a lover of self-government that he should be very glad if the responsibility of the ordinary police of Cork was placed to the greatest possible extent upon the elected Municipality of Cork; and if he found on careful inquiry that there was no real danger to the peace of the City, he should be very glad to see the force reduced by the greatest possible amount. With regard to what was required for the detection of special crime, he should be allowed to say that the immense advantages of Cork as one of the gates of the Empire imposed upon it the same duty which would be imposed on Liverpool of seeing that the gate was safely guarded; and he would promise the hon. Member very carefully to inquire into the matter, and if the stipendiary authorities could make out with the elected authorities, and should come to the conclusion that the mere peace of the City could be preserved with a smaller force than were now allotted to preserve it, he, for one, would be very glad to endorse that conclusion.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not give them the benefit of his very elaborate and exceedingly laborious calculations with regard to the respective police forces of England and Ireland, though he confessed he (Mr. Gray) did not see the applicability of the comparison. The right hon. Gentleman had compared the cost of the police in Cork with the cost in other Irish towns, and then with certain English towns. Now, no such comparison was possible. The police in Ireland were a Governmental force, maintained for Governmental purposes, and in the Irish Municipalities that police force discharged hardly any of the many duties discharged by the police force in English and Scotch Municipalities. What the Chief Secretary seemed to think was, that the Irish towns should be satisfied to pay a police force over which they had no control, because English Municipalities, which had the control and management of the force for their own purposes, did so. Well, happening to have some knowledge of the working of local authority in Dublin, he should say that Cork was comparatively well off in having only to pay 1d. in the pound for its extra police force. In Dublin they had to pay 14d. in the pound for a police force over which they 86 had not the slightest control. He was very glad to hear the Chief Secretary's declaration of principle over this matter, although he did not give any indication of a practical proposition of reform. One of the worst ways in which the present police system militated against the communities in Ireland was the enormous injury it inflicted on the country in the matter of public health. Now, the death rate was higher in Dublin than in many of the English towns. In Dublin, if they wanted to use a policeman as a sanitary officer, they first of all had to pay 14d. for him, in supporting the ordinary police of the City, and then the Government came and demanded £120, or £140, for his services as sanitary officer. The result was that the sanitary condition of the City was deplorable, and it must remain deplorable, as long as this system of Governmental control, as distinct from local control, was exercised. This was only one more example of how a vicious system of centralization permeated the whole working of the social organization down to the smallest detail, and poisoned the administration to an extent which was not dreamt of by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Very likely they thought that the question of the control of the police in Ireland was merely connected with the maintenance of what they were pleased to call law and order. It had to do with a great many things besides that—as, for instance, maintenance of health and the preservation of life. Another means by which the control of the police operated most injuriously in regard to the public had reference to the most helpless class of the community. In Dublin the Government insisted, in spite of repeated remonstrances, and he believed of recommendations by a Royal Commission and of a Committee appointed by themselves, in placing an extremely onerous and oppressive tax upon the pawnbrokers of the City. He believed it amounted to over £ 100 a-year for each pawnbroker's licence. This was a portion of the indirect revenue which the Government received and devoted to a police maintained for purely Imperial purposes. Pawnbrokers taxed in this way were obliged, in order to recoup themselves, to tax their customers; and thus the Government in Dublin levied a most cruel tax upon the poorest of the poor for the purpose of maintaining a 87 system which even the Chief Secretary objected to, and would like to see abolished. He hoped that during the Recess, the contemplation of which had put the right hon. Gentleman in an extremely good humour, probably because he would be free for eight or ten days from having to answer any more Questions, he would give the matter his consideration. It would be something, perhaps, for him to look back upon if he could say when he quitted Office that he had reformed in Ireland an exceedingly vicious system, which he (Mr. Gray) could assure him from personal knowledge worked most detrimentally against all classes. He very much doubted whether, under the reform system which the Home Secretary contemplated introducing for the Metropolis, or in any Municipality of the United Kingdom, he would find that any community would tamely submit to this tax, amounting directly and indirectly to 4d. in the pound, for a force maintained largely for Imperial purposes, and over which the local representative body had no kind of control.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the burden of local taxation, of whatever nature in Ireland, was most keenly felt, because the sum of Imperial taxation in Ireland, as compared with England, was rateably something more than double, having regard to the means of each. He charged it upon the conscience of the House and upon the British Legislature that the system of taxes devised by the Imperial Parliament for Imperial purposes was, in its exaction, doubly greater in proportion to the means of the inhabitants in Ireland than in England; yet it was the habit to discuss questions like that before them as if taxation was generally equal in both.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, the Chief Secretary seemed to have come to the conclusion that it was desirable, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, to consult with the local representatives, and to take counsel with them as to the future course which he would pursue in regard to the extra police force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carry out that principle; and he could assure him, from personal knowledge of the City of Cork, that it would treat him fairly, and expect nothing from him that was impossible. There was no Municipal Body more desirous of maintaining the 88 peace of its City than the Corporation, of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that from 1871 down to 1884, the Corporation of Cork had been unanimously of opinion that the maintenance of this extra force in the City was altogether unnecessary. In 1871, it was true, they petitioned the Lord Lieutenant not to withdraw the extra force; but the circumstances of the time were peculiar. Ever since then they had been desirous that it should be withdrawn, and over and over again had passed resolutions calling upon the Lord Lieutenant either to withdraw it or to charge it to the State. If the Lord Lieutenant desired to maintain the force, it would be unfair to the City that the ratepayers should be charged with the maintenance of this extra force. There was a very strong suspicion in Cork that these extra police had of late years been drafted into outlying districts to attend National League meetings, and that they had not only been charged to Cork, but to the districts to which they had been drafted. He was strongly of that opinion himself, and until the Chief Secretary contradicted it he would continue to hold it. The right hon. Gentleman had contrasted the small amount which they paid in Cork with the amount paid in certain English towns. The ratepayers of Cork would not object to pay 1d. or even 6d. in the pound for the maintenance of a police force in Cork, provided that they had control over that force; but what they objected to was taxation without representation. If the right hon. Gentleman would advise the Government to place the police force under the control of the Corporation, he (Mr. Deasy) had no doubt that they would be willing to bear the entire cost. Not only that, but they would be able to keep the peace quite as well as it was kept now. From time to time the Corporation had felt very great difficulty in compelling these men to do the duty. Even in the streets the police would not regulate the car drivers or regulate the traffic. The force was a source of constant annoyance in their midst; and he was convinced that if they did not give some value for the money paid for their maintenance, the people of Cork would find them some work to do.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that the extra police tax in the City of Cork was only a 89 very small proportion of the grievance that pressed upon the people of Ireland. In a great many districts where the people had been unable to undertake an expensive litigation they had been driven to take the law in this matter into their own hands, for outside the City of Cork, in the various districts of the County of Cork, in Limerick, in Clare, in Galway, in Kerry, the people were universally refusing both to pay the extra police tax and the blood tax; and he thought he must say that the Government up to the present, as the right hon. Gentleman had almost admitted in his speech, had not exhibited any very great energy or conspicuous success in collecting it.
§ MR. TREVELYANI deny that. That is a very important matter. I quite deny that I have said anything to-night which would imply that the Government are not exhibiting all the energy that they possibly can. As far as my attempts are concerned, I must say that the Government are determined to stand by their rights in this matter.
MR. O'BRIENobserved that the right hon. Gentleman knew his own mind best. He (Mr. O'Brien) only spoke of the fact, and it was rather curious that the neighbourhoods where the police had been withdrawn were the neighbourhoods where the people had recognized that there was a very easy way of standing up against these proposals. In one of the districts within the jurisdiction of Captain Plunkett a system of vengeance against the people was pursued in the collection of these taxes. A large farmer named John Daly refused to pay except under compulsion, and Kavanagh, a policeman, came on his farm with a warrant for 11s. 7¼d., and seized a valuable horse which was engaged in the work of ploughing at a very critical time of the year. Mr. Daly, his son, and the parish priest were ready to declare that the policeman was offered his choice of a large collection of cattle, sheep, and pigs, which were on the farm at the time; but his reply was that his instructions were to seize a horse from the plough, and he did so. The policeman afterwards denied that he made that statement. They always denied it, and equally, of course, he was believed by the Castle authorities. The horse, which was worth £40, was knocked down for £5, and the owner protested against the 90 sacrifice of a valuable animal. The policeman knew he had landed himself in a serious legal difficulty; but he also knew the Government would support him in his illegality. The owner had served notice of action for wrongful seizure, and the authorities had boldly declared that the Government would defend that action at the public expense. Did the House think that was the way to maintain respect for the law in Ireland? If the police went on perpetrating outrages of this kind in vengeance for the protests of the people against these odious taxes the collection of those taxes would not become easier, and the item for law charges would have to be considerably swelled next year to pay the costs of the proceedings, for it was likely that Irish juries would have an opportunity of assessing the damages against the policemen—juries whom the Crown officials could not manipulate or pack. He wished they could have, as to this and other districts, some definite statement as to whether or not Ireland was in a peaceable condition. It was impossible to tell, from the statements of the Chief Secretary, what was the condition of Ireland. At one time he spoke as though the country had been in a blessed state of tranquillity since Lord Spencer and he went there. At another he would say Captain Plunkett and his extra policemen were necessary to keep down the disturbance. The fact was the English Minister in Ireland were the slaves of the officials whom they appointed. Even in the case of Mr. George Bolton they were obliged to shut their eyes to his frauds on his creditors and his wife, because it was difficult to gat another person to do what he did. It was the same with Captain Plunkett and those who were responsible for the extra police. The Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General for Ireland got their briefs and made the best of them, and very contradictory the briefs were. One night they represented Captain Plunkett's district as free from crime, in order to show that Captain Plunkett had accomplished something for his money; the next they had to prove that the same district was in a dangerous state of disturbance lest his services should be dispensed with altogether. The Chief Secretary had claimed some glory for the pacification of Ireland, with which he believed he had no more to do than 91 the fly on the wheel had with the dust which was raised. But be that as it might, if that pacification was to continue, he would advise him to shake off those military adventurers and disturbers, men who, wherever they went, in Cork like Captain Plunkett, or in Cairo like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, did nothing but make the name of England detested and detestable.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Chief Secretary had boasted of having information which was inaccessible to others. He said nothing, however, to warrant the boast, nothing to justify the presence of the extra police, beyond the opinion of half-a-score of county magistrates. He was glad the Chief Secretary had at last seen his way to consult the Cork Corporation. His promise in that respect was a sign of a hopeful departure. Not more than two months ago, in the debate on the Address on the Queen's Speech, the Chief Secretary said the condition of crime in Ireland was such as could not be discreditable to the most peaceful country in the world. In January last, leaving out threatening letters, there were only one offence against the person, two aggravated assaults, 11 offences against property. In February, there were one fire, two aggravated assaults, and four or five offences against property. He would ask for an assurance that there should be no repetition of the course pursued by the Sub-Land Commission, and afterwards on appeal by the Chief Land Commission in the case of a servant of Sir Richard Wallace's at Lisburn. This tenant, having purchased all the improvements on his holding five years ago, had actually had his rent increased. The case had aroused deep resentment throughout Ulster.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the six Orange murderers of an unoffending Nationalist in Cavan, one Philip Maguire, had been discharged. The evidence against those men was more conclusive than it was against Hynes, Walsh, or Myles Joyce; but only one of the Dublin jury who tried the case was challenged, and he, of course, was a Catholic. The Government had been carrying on a very extraordinary series of tactics in support of what was called law and order in Ireland. Could Government justify procedure of this 92 kind? How could the Government justify such scenes as tainted the Court House in Green Street? How would Government like, since they refused to punish Orangemen, if the people were to adopt some Texan system of justice? What would they do if they formed Vigilance Committees, as had been suggested in The Evening Mail in the case of landlords? He would only say that if Philip Maguire were a brother of his, and his murderers were let loose to prey about the country, he would undertake to insure that they would not do such a thing a second time. He asked the Government to be warned in time in this matter. They were proving, by the light sentences which had been inflicted on the two or three Orangemen punished, and their connivance at the escape of others, that the whole prosecutions were a farce. The scoundrel Mathews, who was the first to issue a murderous placard against what had been called the Parnellite invasion of Tyrone, and then tried to roast alive a family by setting fire to a Land League hut with paraffin oil, was only sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, and his two confederates to only three months each. Mr. Doherty, who was brought from Derry to Sligo to be tried for having fired a fusilade from the roof of the Town Hall on the Lord Mayor of Dublin, found that his trembling limbs refused to bear him to the Court House to stand his trial, got an adjournment for months, and then was only sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. On the other hand, the young men who had been dragged from Mayo to Cork had been sentenced to years of penal servitude. Of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, who shot two unfortunate men who left their boat to seek on the shore a twig to make a rowlock for the boat, one who pleaded guilty got off, and by some trick of the law, which he would not call a nolle prosequi, the other got off by the payment of £50 or £60. The system of the Government was -simply a conspiracy for the protection of criminals and murderers of one particular class. It was not justice, but vindictiveness, upon the one hand, and partiality on the other, and even these sentences they had no guarantee would be carried out. The scoundrel Hastings, who published a paper abusing Nationalists, for a scandalous libel got six months' imprison- 93 ment, was released after two months, on the ground of ill-health. Had Mr. Harrington been released on the ground of ill-health? When he (Mr. Healy) got four months' imprisonment, he did not get ill, nor would he have got ill had he got four years of it. He had no doubt, however, that, if he had been some person acquainted with Earl Spencer, it would have been alleged that he had disease of the "mastoid process," and some convenient doctor's certificate have been procured. He wondered that the Government carried on this game, and that respectable Englishmen would not be ashamed to support such conduct; yet it would be defended, if necessary, by the Chief Secretary, upon the Treasury Bench, for £2,500 a-year and coals. He would ask the Government, could they expect reasonable men to look upon this system otherwise than with horror? He could show that whilst one class of men were released from prison, another class were tortured to death. He had the report of a debate which he had raised on the 21st August last with reference to the unfortunate persons charged with the Crossmaglen conspiracy, who had been sentenced to long periods of penal servitude—aye, and these poor men were a great deal more innocent of having caused effusion of blood than some of Her Majesty's Ministers. One of them was now lying in his cold grave in Glasnevin, and it was better for him than to be as the others, wasting their lives away in the convict cells of some English prison. On the 21st of August he had told the Government that poor Patrick Waters, a boy of 18, was dying. He had told them at the time that they had released another man— Bernard Smith—belonging to the same batch of prisoners. He (Mr. Healy) observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was receiving with a smile his statement as to this young man's death. The right hon. Gentleman might laugh; it well became his callousness.
§ MR. TREVELYANIt is an absolute falsehood to say that I laughed at the death of that young man. [Cheers, and cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has reached such a high level of violence throughout the whole of his speech, that I feel bound to interfere. He has 94 made charges of the most reckless description. He has charged Her Majesty's Government in language exceeding anything I have heard in this House. He has charged them with conniving at murder; and he has made a statement with reference to the Chief Secretary for Ireland which was couched in language which I conceive ought not to be used by one Member of this House to another. I can only warn the hon. Member that if this language is continued I shall resort to those powers with which the House has invested me to prevent what I consider a public scandal.
§ MR. HARRINGTONI rise to Orde——
§ MR. HEALYI thought when you rose, Mr. Speaker, you rose for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to the charge of falsehood made against me by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Loud cries of "Order !"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to enter into an argument with the Chair. I have simply done what is my duty.
§ MR. HEALYI rise to Order. If I am not entitled to enter into an argument with the Chair, I am entitled to submit to you, Sir, a point of Order. In the course of my speech the Chief Secretary interrupted me by stating that what I had said was an absolute falsehood. You, Sir, at that moment rose, and I was under the impression, naturally enough, that you rose for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not entitled to use the words "absolute falsehood" towards another Member of this House. Perhaps you may have overlooked the statement of the Chief Secretary; but I wish to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether, if I am not entitled to use the language you have condemned, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to address to me a statement that my statement was an absolute falsehood?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I rise, Sir, upon the point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] On that point of Order, I wish to state that my right hon. Friend the Chief Se- 95 cretary was engaged in a private conversation with me.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)My right hon. Friend was smiling at something in our conversation— [Cries of "The point of Order!"]—and without knowing what the subject of our conversation was the hon. Member for Monaghan alleged that the smiling of my right hon. Friend was a smile of approval that an innocent man had been murdered. [Loud cries of "No, no !"] The hon. Member stated that my right hon. Friend laughed at an innocent man being murdered.
MR. O'BRIENI rise, Sir, on a point of Order. My hon. Friend has asked for your ruling, and is he not entitled to your ruling on a point of Order which he has raised without hearing a speech from the Attorney General? My hon. Friend was stating that an unfortunate young man in a delicate state of health was detained in prison until he died, while another man charged with the same offence was allowed to go free. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman rose and said the statement was absolutely false. We now wish to know from you if that statement was in Order? [Ministerial cries of "Sit down !" and "Order !"]
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I am speaking to a point of Order. When my right hon. Friend smiled—["Order!"]
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)Upon the point of Order, Sir, I ask your protection and permission to address the House.
MR. O'BRIEN, who was received with loud cries of "Order! "and" Sit down!" —I rise to Order. I ask for your ruling, Sir, on the point which has been raised.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)When my right hon. Friend was entering into a private conversation with me he smiled; but that smile had no reference to this debate, but to something I said. Seeing a smile on his countenance, the hon. Member for Monaghan at once charged him with a smile of approval of the fact that an innocent man had been murdered. [Cries of "No !"] Under these circumstances 96 my right hon. Friend sprang to his feet with a natural impulse, and did state that that was untrue in the language that the House heard. It is in these circumstances that I ask you whether he has done wrong?
§ MR. HEALYWhere is your point of Order? Where is your point of Order? Mr. Speaker—I rise to Order. You have allowed——
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member proceeds in this disorderly manner I shall be obliged to Name him.
§ MR. TREVELYANI admit, Sir, that I used a very strong word just now, and in consequence of that I think I am entitled to give an explanation. The hon. Member for Monaghan charged me——[Loud cries of "Order!" from the Irish Members.]
§ MR. SEXTONI rise to Order. [Land-cries of "Order!" from the Ministerial Benches.]
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The Chief Secretary for Ireland is in possession of the House.
§ MR. TREVELYANI said I used a very strong word just now, and in con sequence I contend that, like every Member who has done something which is very exceptional, I ought to have an opportunity of explaining it, and, perhaps hon. Members will find, of excusing my self to the House. I am willing to use the hon. Member's own words, whatever they may be, that I was smiling at the death of—whatever the words were——
§ MR. TREVELYANI will take them from you.
§ MR. HEALYPerhaps I had better explain it. I was referring to a young man in prison, and in the course of my statement for upwards of half a minute I naturally supposed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was attending to my remarks and observations on a subject affecting his Department. I observed him smiling. I was stating that this young man had died in gaol, and I saw the Chief Secretary receive this statement, as I thought, with a continuous ripple of laughter. I was saying that Bernard Smith was released from prison because he was spitting blood, and that Michael Waters had died in prison, and was now lying in his grave at Glasnevin. Seeing the Chief Secretary smiling, I assumed that he was 97 smiling at the death of that innocent man; and the Chief Secretary, putting a construction upon my language, said that that statement was an absolute falsehood.
§ MR. TREVELYANI have used the exact words. It came to this really. The hon. Member said I was smiling at the death of an innocent man. Hon. Members heard the sentences uttered by the hon. Member. It is not possible that a Member could be in a smiling mood who was so addressed by a brother Member of the House of Commons. In these circumstances, when I was deeply moved already, the hon. Member makes this extremely strong statement. That statement of the hon. Member that I was smiling at the announcement he made I beg emphatically to deny as a fact; and I do not think the hon. Member himself believes that I was smiling at what he said.
§ MR. TREVELYANIn these circumstances, I withdraw the words, because the hon. Member made the statement under an impression as to the truth of which he accepts my denial. I put myself in a false position under what I cannot but think was great provocation by using an un-Parliamentary expression, and I regret it.
§ MR. HEALYNow, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask your ruling as to whether the statement of the Chief Secretary was in Order or not? I have respectfully urged you to give your ruling, and you have not deigned to do so. ["Order, order!"] You have ruled when you were not called upon—["Order, order?"]—with regard to my general language; and now I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary was in order in using the language that he did?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand the Chief Secretary for Ireland has withdrawn the expression he used on the understanding that the hon. Member withdraws the expression he used also. [Cries of "Bule!"] I did express myself, not, I think, too strongly in terms of strong reprobation of the course which had been pursued during several minutes by the hon. Member. I thought the language he made use of exceeded in violence anything I have heard while I have been in the Chair, and demanded the reprobation of the Chair, and I took 98 upon myself to warn the hon. Member, in moderate terms, that if language of this kind was repeated I should be obliged to take serious notice of it, and to exercise those powers with which I am vested. I shall not take any further notice of the matter; I regard the point of Order as settled.
§ MR. HEALYI am glad you have settled the point of Order to your own satisfaction. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name him !"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe language of the hon. Member is not respectful to the Chair, and is not respectful to this House. I hesitate to Name the hon. Member; I am very unwilling to exercise the powers intrusted to me, or to appear to act with anything like precipitancy; but I warn the hon. Member seriously that this sort of language will not be tolerated.
§ MR. HEALY, continuing, said, that at the time this interruption occurred he was speaking of the case of Michael Waters, as to which he trusted he should at least have the attention of the Chief Secretary, so as to avoid the risk of any further misunderstanding. Waters, who had been 12 months in gaol without trial, was dying of consumption, and on the 27th of June the Governor of Mountjoy Prison telegraphed to the uncle of Waters that he was dangerously ill, and wished to see his uncle. As Bernard Smith had been released because of blood-spitting, the uncle of Waters sent a memorial praying for the release of his nephew; but as the Lord Lieutenant was too much engaged in following the hounds to attend to it, no reply was received. The poor boy lingered on in prison without a sight of the blue sky until the 16th October. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison, on the 17th June, telegraphed that he was dying. He died on the 16th October. The Home Secretary told them in that House that it was a barbarity and cruelty which could not enter into his nature to keep a man dying in an English prison without releasing him. After the cruel and barbarous treatment by the prison officials and of the Castle officials of this unfortunate boy, what happened? The nephew's death was telegraphed to Michael Waters' uncle, and he sent this telegram to the Lord Lieutenant—
Will you allow out of Mountjoy Prison the remains of my nephew, Michael "Waters, 99 or at least hold a fair inquest. Reply prepaid.The Lord Lieutenant seemed to have put the shilling of Michael Waters in his pocket and did not reply. They kept this boy's wretched worn-out corpse, and at the dead of night shovelled it into Glasnevin Cemetery. He himself procured the money to pay for the shroud that covered his body. The prison officials would have buried him naked. The uncle of this man told him he had to beg and pray to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison for half-an-hour to allow him to put the shroud and some mementoes of Catholic devotion about the body, to show that his nephew had received Christian burial. He had no desire to continue this painful subject. Why did he and his Friends bring forward these cases? Because the victims were flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood. The feelings of the commonest people in Ireland were their feelings; the blood of the peasants were in their veins. For his part he would rather be a relative of that martyred victim in Mountjoy than the son of the proudest aristocrat in England. The name of Michael Waters in Ireland would be a holy name. On the hills of Armagh, where he was known, it would be treasured, and would be a war-cry amongst the people of the district against their oppressors. His blood rested not upon the head of anybody but the Government. They took him from his native place, kept him a year and a-half in gaol without trial, then dragged him to Belfast, and, before an Orange jury, convicted him without even giving time for his witnesses to be brought up. In the prison books of Belfast they would find the names of the Crown Solicitor and other officials as pretended visitors of this boy, placed there to suggest to his friends who might come to him that he had turned informer. It was a wretched trick they played for the young man's life with loaded dice, and they won the toss. His corpse was in Glasnevin, but his soul went marching on— [A laugh]— and he could tell the Government that the name of this young man—though it might form the subject of laughter to English Members, who wept over the slain Arabs of the Soudan—and the memory of Michael Waters, of his trial and his sufferings and death, would reverberate through the North of Ire- 100 land, and increase the flame which had been lighted against hatred and oppression, and which he hoped would continue until it consumed every shred and vestige of British despotism in the Province.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was somewhat surprised that, after the speech the House had listened to from the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), there was no disposition to reply exhibited on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He took it as evident, intimate as the hon. and learned Gentleman must be with the administration of affairs in Ireland, that his silence in regard to the grave and serious charges which the hon. Member brought against the Government showed that he had not a word to say by way of defence. It would not be possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to defend the Government in an assembly of Irishmen—neither he nor any other official of the Crown would have the hardihood to stand up in a representative assembly of Irishmen to defend the system which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan had assailed. But the hon. and learned Gentleman knew the sympathy which existed for him and his Administration in this House—he was conscious that, however infamous was the system, put forward in the name of the Irish Government, Members on the Ministerial side of the House would support it. Though the Government did not plead in vain for sympathy from hon. Members below the Gangway on their own side of the House—from hon. Members who went to foreign fields for the practice of their philanthropy—Ireland was passing through a system of maladministration and tyranny worse than was to be found in any other country in the world. He was acquainted with some of the facts his hon. Friend had mentioned. He had seen the very telegram sent by the Governor of the gaol—in the case referred to by the hon. Member—to the uncle of the young man, warning him to go up immediately because his relative was dying; and, looking at that telegram, he could not but remember that a few months previously the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had said to him, in that House, that if imprisonment endangered the life of a man the Government would certainly 101 think it their duty to release him. Later on, during the present Session, they had had a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he had gone a step further, stating that it would be heartless barbarity to retain a prisoner whose life was endangered by imprisonment. He (Mr. Harrington) would quote the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a witness against his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench. If it was heartless barbarity to endanger the lives of prisoners by keeping them in prison, that heartless barbarity had been perpetrated in Ireland by the responsible Officers of the Crown who, when an opportunity had been offered them this evening, had not attempted to deny it. Hon Gentlemen opposite who were so fond of applauding every expression of opinion which came from the Government Bench, and who, though they were the professed champions of liberty, were the first to cry down Irish Members when they spoke in defence of their fellow-countrymen, would, perhaps, like to know how it was that the Irish prison officials were empowered to do what they would not tolerate in the Governor of any English gaol. A short time ago he had had an opportunity of giving evidence before the Prisons Commission, and had drawn attention to the deliberate difference which had been made in the law between the two countries on the subject of prison rules. In England the rule was that if a prisoner's life became endangered, or was likely to become endangered, the doctor had immediately to report to the Governor of the prison, or to the Prison Board; but in Ireland the doctor had to report in the case of a prisoner in immediate danger of death. and not in cases where life was en-endangered, and the report had to be made to the Lord Lieutenant and the prison officials. Complaint had been made in the House time after time that prisoners in Ireland were in immediate danger of death, and the excuse for their non-release was that the doctors had allowed them to go so far before making up their minds that the sick prisoners were in immediate danger, that when they did at last make their reports the prisoners were not in a fit condition to be moved. Such a thing as that never occurred in England. But the release of a prisoner in Ireland on account of his being in immediate danger of death 102 was of the rarest occurrence. They had had in Ireland during the past year about 10 cases of inquests on the bodies of prisoners who had died in gaol, some of the deaths having even been, in the cases of persons serving short terms of imprisonment; so that there could be no doubt that life had been shortened by prison treatment. A case tried by the Prison Commission sitting in Dublin— the case of the man accused of the murder of Philip Maguire—had been referred to. In that case the accused was discharged by the Crown on the first disagreement of the jury; but, in the case of the unfortunate Mayo men, they were put repeatedly on their trial, and, finally, the case was withdrawn from Mr. Justice Johnson, who had been inclined to show some semblance of fair play to the accused, and though they were from time to time pressed to proceed with the trial, the Crown officials would not do so until they had got Mr. Justice Lawson on the Bench. Irish officials could deceive English Liberal Members, who would rather sympathize with them on Irish affairs than lose the smiles of the occupants of the Treasury Bench; but they could not shut the eyes of the people of Ireland to the system of administration they were pursuing in Ireland. Depend upon it, whilst they were pursuing a system of relentless hate against the people of Ireland, those people were treasuring animosity in their breasts which England and her Empire would one day feel the effect of. Then, as to the Dromore shooting case which was tried before the Commissioners, he should like to draw the attention of the House to the facts, in order that hon. Members might see that, from the Judge on the Bench to the lowest official in the land, the administration of law in Ireland was a perversion of justice. On the 16th December, four men passed through Dromore on a car and met two unfortunate young men walking in the opposite direction outside the village. The men on the car shouted "Down with the Pope!" or something of that description, and the two young men replied, whereupon the four got off the car and assaulted them, firing a revolver in the mê ée and wounding one of them. A telegram was sent by the Dromore police, directly the occurrence was reported to them, to the Omagh police, warning them to be on the Dromore Road to arrest the 103 young men on the car as they entered the town. The contents of the telegram were, of course, supposed to be a secret from everyone but the Constabulary; nevertheless, they reached the local Orangemen, and two of them—one of whom occupied an official position in Omagh — went out on the Dromore Road, met the car, and took the revolver away from the four young men, in that way anticipating the police. The four young men were brought before the local Resident Magistrate and the local Justices, and were formally committed for trial, bail being fixed in the case of each at £50 and two sureties in £25. But what happened afterwards? Why, behind the back of the Resident Magistrate, the paid official of the Crown, one of the local Orange magistrates—a brother Orangeman of the criminals committed for trial—came and reduced the bail from £50 to £20 and two sureties in £10 each. The consequence of this had been that one of the offenders, the most guilty of the four, had escaped to America. This was the system of things the Government wished ton. Members to respect in Ireland. They refused to respect it—the Irish Members refused to ask their countrymen to respect a system which was so infamous and unjust. He (Mr. Harrington) could assure the Government that so long as they dealt in the present manner with the people of Ireland, so long might they expect, to have a pretty hot time of it. And now, to go to another point, a question was raised earlier in the evening with regard to the levying of the extra police tax in certain parts of Ireland. The secret of the keeping up of this tax was that during the agitation the Government found it necessary to increase the police to an enormous extent; and now, rather than place the cost of the extra men on the Imperial taxes of the country and have to apply to the House for a large grant annually or increase the Estimates, they preferred to make the charge local and to keep the minds of the people in a constant state of disturbance. He challenged the Solicitor General for Ireland to stand up and deny that the Government had enormously increased the police, not only in those districts where disorder existed and it was necessary to have an enlarged force, but in the most peaceable and orderly districts of the 104 country. Another tax which was imposed on the people, and of which they grievously complained, was the blood tax. He would give an extraordinary instance of the manner in which the blood tax system was being increased in Ireland. When the Prevention of Crime Act was passing through the House, the case made out on behalf of the Government, its sponsors, for the blood tax was that they wished to bring to justice certain men who had become perpetrators of crime in certain districts, and to raise up in those districts a feeling against crime and outrage. Those who were acquainted with the manner in which the blood tax was levied knew that even where men had been found red-handed and had been brought to justice this infamous tax had been imposed all the same. In order to convince the House of the iniquity of the manner in which the tax was imposed he would give a single instance which had occurred in the constituency he himself represented. Some time since a police constable was murdered in the neighbourhood of Mullingar on the very day on which he had come to the district to get married. There was no doubt the murder excited widespread indignation and that general sympathy was felt with those whom the murdered man left behind. But it was ultimately found that the crime was the act of a lunatic. The murderer was at once arrested. He was tried and found guilty, and because he was a lunatic he was sent into a lunatic asylum; where he now was. An application was made immediately to the Lord Lieutenant to order an inquiry in order that the widow of the murdered constable might be awarded a certain compensation; a certain amount of blood money. No doubt the widow was entitled to a great deal of sympathy and commiseration; but he would put it to the sense of justice and fair play of the House whether the people of a district should be taxed for an act committed by a lunatic? The Government themselves admitted the murderer to be a lunatic, having sent him into a lunatic asylum. It was known, of course, that unless an agrarian complexion could be given to a crime it would not be possible to levy the tax; therefore, in this case, it was declared that the cause of the murder was agrarian, and the Lord Lieutenant had been seriously prepared to have an inquiry 105 held as to the motive of a murder committed by a lunatic. He should like to hear the Solicitor General for Ireland defend the policy of such an act as that. The fact was that the only effect of this blood tax and police tax was to incite people to the commission of crime and violence. It had done so and would continue to do so. They had had a spell of quiet and rest in, Ireland, yet the legal authorities in that country—he would not say to increase their own emoluments, because he did not desire to constitute himself a judge of their motives—were going round hunting up cases for the imposition of the blood tax, and getting unfortunate people to give evidence and, too frequently, to commit perjury. Then there were men who had been 15 months in gaol in Ireland awaiting trial. It seemed an extraordinary thing for the Government, who professed to be wedded to broad principles of liberty, with all their machinery of law, with their Special Commissions, their Winter Assizes, their Crimes Act, their trial by Judges, their extraordinary packing of juries so that not a man who professed the religion of the majority of the people was allowed in the box—it seemed an extraordinary thing for them to allow a system to prevail in Ireland under which men could be kept in gaol awaiting trial 15 or 16 months with no possibility of being brought to trial for another six months to come. That system was in force in a country which the Government told them, from time to time, had the benefits of the British Constitution, which was so much admired throughout the world. If the country was governed so well, why were men kept in gaol for two years awaiting trial for agrarian offences? What was the reason for delay? The Crown, of course, alleged a reason of their own; but the people of Ireland alleged an altogether different reason, and both these allegations were worthy of the serious attention of the House. The reason for repeated postponements alleged by the Crown was, forsooth, that they were hunting in America—all over the Continent of America — for witnesses whose testimony was essential; but the reason the people of Ireland alleged— and in which he agreed—was that the Government wished, by continued detention, to force the prisoners to give evidence, to force them to save their 106 own lives by sacrificing others, some of hem probably innocent. And this continued detention without trial meant not only imprisonment, but isolation from friends and starvation. The food given to untried prisoners was less in quantity than that given to convicted prisoners. The Government, he could assure them, would never settle the Irish difficulty by such methods as this. He should be ashamed to see the day when his countrymen would give their assent to a system so scandalous. They had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary make a comparison between, English cities and Irish cities in regard to the police tax; but the right hon. Gentleman's figures were quite fallacious. There was no comparison to be drawn, the circumstances of the two countries being entirely different. English cities had their police under their own Government, and the people were prepared to sustain the Force. In Ireland that was not the case, the police being hostile to the people. The more the police oppressed the people in Ireland, the more they raised themselves in the opinion of the permanent officials. He would not trouble the House with any further observations. Some defence would be made on the part of the Crown, he trusted, in regard to the serious allegations brought forward against them and their system of government tonight. Hon. Gentlemen who supported the Government, of course, did not care for explanations; in fact, explanations were rather an inconvenience to them. He would do them the credit of saying that they had still some conscience left, and that they shrank from having it pricked by harrowing illustrations of the sufferings of the people of Ireland; but they might make up their minds that so long as a vestige of the present system of administration existed they would have Irish Members, in spite of the Rules that might be put in force against them, making them feel the influence of the passions and hatred they had excited in. Ireland by their government.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that having listened to the violent language that had been used with regard to the administration of the law in Ireland, and having seen the results of that violent language in the excited feelings 107 that had been roused, lie did not sup pose any arguments he might use in reply would have much weight. He would, however, shortly call the attention of the House to the cases mentioned by hon. Members, in order to show those who would consider them calmly how little there was of substance in the charges brought against the Government. In regard to the first matter which had been noticed—namely, the police of Cork, he did not, on the pre sent occasion, propose to go into it, be cause he thought his right hon. Friend had gone very far in the direction o concession when he said that, during the Recess, he would investigate the matter, and if he found that those charges were justified, he would do al in his power to remedy them. Five or six specific instances had been mentioned as charges against the Irish Executive, which it would not be right for him to pass over without notice. The first case was one tried at the last Commission, where the murderers, or one of the murderers, of Philip Maguire, named James Johnson, was arraigned. The hon. Member who last addressed the House had said there was a disagreement of the jury; but that was not the case. The evidence against James Johnson—as he knew, not only from having heard the evidence, but from having read the informations— was stronger than against any of the other prisoners accused of the murder, so that, very naturally, the Crown had him tried first. He was acquitted, and, in consequence, the Crown entered a nolle prosequi in the other cases, deeming it useless to put them on their trial after the acquittal of the prisoner against whom there was the largest amount of evidence. It was now declared that there had been some partiality displayed because James Johnson was a Protestant, and the man who was killed was a Catholic. It had been often charged in this House, and made a subject of complaint by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Catholics were unduly challenged on Irish juries. Well, in the case of these men there was not a single challenge; the case was tried by a Roman Catholic Judge—a Judge whom he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had the honour to know intimately, and who was undoubtedly a consistent, high-minded Catholic — and the Attorney General 108 who prosecuted was a Catholic of the highest character and reputation. Was he to be told, therefore, that the trial was a partial one?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would never believe that 12 gentlemen of the City of Dublin empannelled to try a case would ever stoop to partiality —would treat a prisoner with undue leniency because the man killed was a Catholic.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the venue was changed from Derry to Dublin in order to escape all possible prejudice on the part of the jury, and yet complaints were made simply on the ground that the murdered man was a Catholic and the accused a Protestant. He denied that there was anything in this case to justify prejudice against the administration of the law in Ireland. As to the case of Matthews, in which the venue had also been changed, all that could be alleged against the administration of the law, and all that hon. Members opposite could say, was that the Judge before whom the case was tried, who heard the evidence, and was the person most likely to form a correct opinion in the matter, gave a light sentence. In the next case, Doherty was charged with shooting a man in Derry at some celebration. The venue was moved to Sligo to secure an impartial trial. It was not contended that the case ought to have been left for trial in Derry. A punishment of 18 months' imprisonment was inflicted on the prisoner. He was a man 70 years of age, and it lad been made the subject of complaint n this House, by Members representing the other side, that the man had ever been convicted at all. In the case of Lord Ardilaun's bailiffs, there was a question whether the gun did not go off by accident.
§ An hon. MEMBER: Did not the prisoner plead guilty?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the prisoner did plead guilty; but as no one was injured, an arrangement was made which met with the approbation of the prosecution, the parish priest, and the 109 Judge, that compensation should be paid, £40 to one man, and £20 to the other. With regard to Waters, it was declared that he was convicted wrong fully, and that he was, consequently, a martyr. But he was found guilty by a jury, and, therefore, could not be justly said to have been wrongfully convicted. He was taken ill; his uncle was in formed that he was dying. The Home Secretary had said that it was barbarous not to release a man from prison whose life was jeopardized by his confinement; but Waters had no home to go to, and his state of health was such that it would have been a barbarity to have discharged him. In the case of another prisoner, he had been released in consequence of blood-spitting; therefore, there was an inconsistency in the arguments of hon. Members opposite. Waters was buried in Glasnevin Cemetery, the burying-place for Catholics, according to the prison regulations. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had referred to the case in which four young men who were Protestants, driving on a car from Dromore to Omagh, met two young men who were Catholics and fired a revolver at them. The hon. Member had pointed out that the Protestants had been committed for trial, but let out on bail, and that one of them had escaped to America; but the hon. Member had omitted to mention that the three who remained were tried and convicted, and were this moment under going, one five years' penal servitude, another 18 months', and the other 12 months' imprisonment. He hoped, there fore, the House would agree that, in those cases, justice had been meted out to Protestants as well as to Roman Catholics. And now with regard to the question of extra police——
§ MR. HARRINGTONHow about the young man who ran away to America?
§ THE SOLICITOR, GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had sufficiently referred to that matter. He was happy to say there were now in the whole of Ireland only nine cases of extra police, and it was hoped that they would soon be removed. The hon. Member for Westmeath had referred to the blood tax and the murder of the policeman Crowley; but, evidently, he did not know what had occurred in the case. He (the Solicitor General for Ire- 110 land) would tell the House what had transpired, and then, probably, the hon. Member would change his opinion. The widow of the policeman did present a petition to the Lord Lieutenant before the trial, declaring that the murder was agrarian. An inquiry was accordingly granted; but, after the granting of the inquiry, and before it was gone into, the prisoner was tried, and it was found that he was a lunatic and not responsible for his acts. The inquiry had taken place; but His Excellency had made no award, and it was not likely that he would make any. for, as it was shown that the prisoner was a criminal lunatic and that he was not responsible for his actions at the time the crime was committed, a fortiori the offence was not an agrarian offence at all.
§ MR. HARRINGTONThen why hold the inquiry?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had explained that point, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the House. An accusation had been made against the Lord Lieutenant with regard to his not taking the trouble to examine into matters himself, but in putting memorials aside for the sake of the enjoyment of his pleasure. Those who said that did the foulest injustice to the noble Lord, and, in saying it, showed that they knew but little of his character.
MR. O'BRIENThe hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to the charge in regard to the seizure of a horse.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had already answered a Question on that subject in the House. The policeman went to receive the tax, and it was alleged that he stated he had received instructions to seize the horse. That was a most absurd statement, for the hon. Gentleman knew what the law was, or, at all events, if he did not, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could state it to him. The policeman would have no more authority to seize a horse for this tax than he would have to seize one for the landlord's rent.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not prepared to say that the statements of the hon, and learned Gentleman as to the selection of juries shook his belief in the hon. and learned Gentleman's varacity, but they largely increased his faith in his credulity, and he certainly 111 thought the House would be able to swallow most monstrous improbabilities if they could give credence to such an accidental concourse of atoms. He had no intention to revive the controversy between his hon. Friend and the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the subject of his conversation was very different from that which was raised by the hon. Member. He had no difficulty in expressing his perfect confidence in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he considered that the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was one which demanded the concentrated attention of the right hon. Gentleman; and, although he was sorry to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of heartlessness, or of smiling at the death of an innocent man, he must charge him with a certain degree of levity in this matter. He was not surprised that his hon. Friend had imported into this discussion a considerable amount of strong and even fierce and passionate personal feeling. His hon. Friend was a man of strong emotions. This was a case with the details of which the hon. Member had made himself fully acquainted, and he remembered very well the strong speech which his hon. Friend made with reference to this man Michael Waters; and when he remembered that, in spite of the warnings of the hon. Member, the Government had allowed this man to die, he could not be surprised that his hon. Friend had expressed himself so strongly as to carry him beyond the limits of Parliamentary discussion. The case could be put in a nutshell. On the 27th of June, the Governor of Mountjoy Prison telegraphed to the uncle of Michael Waters that the prisoner was dying; on the 21st of August, the Chief Secretary announced in this House that Barnard Smyth, a fellow-prisoner with Waters, had been released because of blood-spitting. On the 23rd of August, the hon. Member for Monaghan brought the case of Waters before the House, and in the following October that man died. The Governor of the prison was aware that the life of that man was in danger, for he practically foretold his death, and, therefore, the Government were responsible to the country. The Chief Secretary was a Gentleman of kindly feeling; but he happened to be an Irish official, 112 and had no public feeling that he cared for, while the Home Secretary was an English official, and had a public opinion which he dared not offend. The Home Secretary, in answer to his hon. Friend, declared that the retention of the prisoner, in a manner which would only be worthy of a savage country, was necessary; and he was defended by the Chief Secretary, because this happened to be committed in a country which was certainly savage so far as the administration of the law went, and so far as the present Government were concerned. This case, simple as it was, was quite sufficient to show the manner in which justice was done in Ireland. The Solicitor General for Ireland urged, as a plea for retaining this man in prison, that he had not a home to go to; but the man asked to be sent home, and his uncle applied over and over again that he might be sent home. To whom were these applications made, and how were they received? The uncle sent a memorial to be allowed to see this prisoner, who, according to the Governor's telegram, was in a dying condition; but he did not get even the courtesy of an answer. Nay, more, with a depth of meanness of which he could not have thought even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland capable, Lord Spencer did not deign to reply to the prepaid telegram sent by the uncle. The hon. Member was perfectly justified in saying that if such a case as this had happened in Bulgaria or Turkey, and if a Tory Government were in power, the Liberals would come back to power upon that case, and Mid Lothian would be harangued, from one end to the other, on the barbarities of Turkish rule and the inherent wickedness of the Tory Government. This was one of the worst cases even among all the bad cases brought before this House, and justified him in saying that never in the past 80 years had there been a Government in Ireland more loathed, more detested, and more despised than the Government of which Lord Spencer was the head, and the Chief Secretary was the mouthpiece.