MR. O'BRIENsaid, that as he was not able to get any satisfactory answer from the Chief Secretary for Ireland this afternoon, in reference to the case of Mr. Fitzgerald, he was under the necessity of stating the facts perhaps a little more fully. Mr. Fitzgerald's own account was that on Thursday he was proceeding across London Bridge to make a business visit, when a man rushed at him and, seizing him, called out— "You are Fitzgerald; I arrest you for treason felony." Mr. Fitzgerald asked to see his warrant. He replied that he had none. The Home Secretary declared that a warrant was unnecessary; but if a warrant had to be drawn up, as the Chief Secretary admitted, surely it was necessary that it should be shown to the person arrested. Fitzgerald said he was forced into a cab and taken to Scotland Yard. He asked to see some friends, or, at least, a lawyer, but was refused. He was taken to Dublin, and again he requested to see several persons, one of them a doctor. Again he was refused, and was driven away upon a long journey to Sligo, and there taken into a room in the gaol, and even then no copy of the warrant was shown him. In Sligo he was refused legal assistance. His legal adviser, Mr. Stack, from the office of Mr. Horgan, travelled all night from Tralee to see him, and presented himself at the gaol, where he was informed that he could not be permitted to see his client. He applied to the Resident Magistrate, and could get no satisfactory answer from him. There could be no possible motive for treating this man as he had been treated, except, what he believed was at the bottom of the whole matter, 490 the desire to create an impression that he had turned informer. Other persons, also, had been arrested on a charge of treason felony, and kept in separate cells, subjected to secret visits from men like George Bolton, broken down, ill-treated, and told that such and such a man had turned approver, in the hope that they themselves would follow the same course, and invent some story. Fitzgerald was a respectable man, a commercial traveller, a man against whom he believed no charge of sedition could be established, and he was seized in London, carted away to Ireland, and then the public were told, through the Press Association, that he had turned informer. Such indignities were not possible in England, even in its worst moments of panic and alarm. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have something to tell them in the way of justification for treatment of that sort. What was there in the state of Ireland which made it necessary that the man should be treated in that infamous manner? He could not suppose, though he wished it, that the English rule was in such desperate straits in Ireland that, in order to preserve it a little while longer, it was necessary to go to lengths of this kind. He wanted to know why it was necessary for the Government to do those things? In the cases of the prisoners charged with organizing explosions in England, these men were refused for a time permission to see their friends; yet the Home Secretary, after thinking over the matter, withdrew his objection, and allowed them to see their friends. Why was not the same thing done in Ireland, in cases where there was much less ground for apprehension? He had asked the right hon. Gentleman, also, for some undertaking that in the future proceedings against Mr. Fitzgerald he should be produced in open Court, and that the proceedings should take place in the presence of the representatives of the Press. That was but a very small guarantee of the proper administration of justice in Ireland. It was the only guarantee they had, and he thought it should be remembered that proceedings in open Court were now somewhat guarded in Ireland; but the proceedings conducted in private in prison cells in Ireland were worse today than they were a century ago in England. He wanted to know what 491 was the objection which was brought up against having reporters present, so that, at all events, the man's friends might know what the charge was against him, what was the evidence against him, and what was the position he held. If that was not done, he should strongly object to the whole proceedings as simply vile and miserable, and a libel against this man, in order to ruin him with his friends, and drive him to despair, and as an attempt to make him give testimony against guiltless men, or to make him the victim for someone else.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that before the Speaker left the Chair he wished to support the hon. Member for Mallow in his efforts with regard to this gentleman, Mr. Fitzgerald. He did not dwell so much upon his arrest in London, nor even so much upon the proceedings in Dublin; but he did dwell, with the utmost earnestness and indignation, upon the treatment which he had received in the gaol in Sligo. He complained, first, that he had been refused the assistance of an ordinary legal adviser, a refusal which would never have been made in England; secondly, that the proceedings against him were taken in private; and, thirdly, that the police and Press had circulated false rumours about him for the purpose of inducing him to turn informer. Well, this, he said, was a most vile and scandalous system, and one which, in effect, would give rise to the most corrupt and dangerous form of perjury in Ireland. With regard to the men of Tubbercurry, they had been several weeks in prison without trial. All of them were persons who occupied a respectable position, and yet they were taken out of their beds in the dead of the night. They were hustled into gaol, and had not been allowed to obtain adequate legal assistance. The proceedings against them he regarded as having been conducted in a manner which was highly improper. They then found from day to day vile rumours against one or other of them of the nature of which his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) had complained in the case of Mr. Fitzgerald. There was nothing whatever in the condition of Ireland at present which would warrant such a course of procedure. As regarded crime they were in a most favourable position; and therefore he would ask why the Government resorted to proceedings which 492 were mediaeval and barbarous in their nature? He would wish to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that this would be discontinued, and that the prisoners would be treated fairly and justly. He would ask him to communicate to-night with the magistrates in Sligo and direct them to proceed with the cases. He would also ask him to specially direct Mr. Moloney, R.M., to bring forward any adequate and material evidence which he had. The magistrates should then be directed to proceed with the case to a Constitutional and definite issue. He did not want to ask what the evidence was; but he would ask them to bring it forward if they had had it, and if not he would ask for the prompt acquittal and release of the men if there was no evidence against them. If there was evidence, why could it not be produced; or did the Government want to wait until they were able to manufacture evidence by continuing this system of private examinations, and at the same time spreading false malicious statements in the public Press. He would ask that the very next examinations after the present remand expired should be conducted in open Court, and that whatever evidence they had against these 11 prisoners should be produced; for he might inform them that it was the universal belief in Sligo that there was no evidence against them at all. If there was sufficient evidence to justify any intelligent, rational magistrate, they should be committed for trial; but if not they should be discharged at once. If they did not do this, they would find it very hard to convince the Irish Members that the whole case was not an attempt to obtain manufactured evidence. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) smiled. He was a witness in his time as Chief Secretary of facts and proceedings of this nature; and he would like to ask him how much he thought they contributed to the success of his administration? The Irish Members could not tolerate prisoners being pursued and treated in this manner in Ireland at a time when the country was free from any serious crime.
§ MR. TREVELYANIn reply to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien.) I can only repeat the substance of what I stated in answer to his Question, 493 for that answer proved at once the whole case.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, Order!
§ MR. TREVELYANThe hon. Member has made several charges against the action of the authorities in England and in Ireland; but I cannot perceive that he mentioned anything out of the usual course that had been done in this case. I was advised, as I told you, by our legal adviser in Ireland; and I have since seen that the Home Secretary confirms that advice, in substance, in the few remarks which he addressed to the House. I am also advised by several other hon. and learned Gentlemen that there is no doubt about there being a law to the effect that where a felony has been committed, or is suspected to have been committed, a policeman may arrest without a warrant, or any other person may arrest and commit prisoner to the custody of the police. In this case the warrant was made out, but it could not be in the hands of every officer, and it was necessary, in order to arrest this person, that several parties should be on his track. It happened that the party that arrested him at the moment had not the warrant in his possession; but I am advised that everything that was done was perfectly legal. The hon. Member then refers to what was the case about the prisoner's solicitor, and the hon. Member referred to what had been done by the Home Secretary in the cases of the English conspirators, who were eventually punished for a conspiracy to produce dangerous explosions, and said that in that case he eventually allowed these prisoners to see their solicitor. I am surprised after the explanation I gave that the hon. Member for Mallow should have retorted with such extreme warmth of language that Fitzgerald had been forbidden to see his solicitor. What passed was this. As soon as the prisoner had arrived at Sligo a gentleman presented himself at the prison who was not known to anyone there. He might have been a solicitor, or might have been anybody else; and, accordingly, the authorities telegraphed to the solicitor whom he said he came from in order to see if this person was the person whom he represented himself to be. As soon as the telegram arrived from Mr. Horgan 494 stating that this gentleman had come as his emissary or agent, the police looked for this gentleman but could not find him, and consequently for a time Mr. Fitzgerald was without legal assistance.
§ MR. LEAMYI would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police informed Mr. Stack that they had telegraphed to Mr. Horgan, and would admit him if they got a reply in the affirmative?
§ MR. TREVELYANI can quite understand the hon. Gentleman asking that question; but, at the same time, he must allow that not having any information on the subject I am unable to answer whether or not that was the case. The precaution by the police was a precaution which was perfectly legitimate under the circumstances; but there was no intention whatever to deprive Mr. Fitzgerald of legal assistance. The next question was that of the remand, which was private, and entirely a formal one. It was simply a policeman who stated that the evidence was not yet ready to be produced, and the remand was perfectly right and legal under the statute. As regards the former point, the next inquiry will be public; and I may state that the Attorney General is now at the present moment at the Irish Office in London, and will communicate with the authorities in Ireland, and I am informed that, in all probability, at the next inquiry the evidence will be given in public. As regards the Tubbercurry prisoners, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has complained that they were unable to obtain adequate legal assistance. Well, as to that point I will inquire into it, and will give the hon. Member all the information which I can obtain upon the subject. With regard to the remands, it was necessary in grave cases to have remands given, and it was not exceptional to Ireland. I am informed that in the case of the English prisoners—I mean Dr. Gallagher and his accomplices—the remands were very frequent, in all as many as 11.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, Order !
§ MR. TREVELYANAs regards the private inquiries, it is quite impossible for me to instruct magistrates; such a course would be irregular, and, I believe, in fact absolutely unconstitutional. The 495 Government will be able, however, to consult their own counsel as to the cases; and on the point of remands they would see that the cases would be brought on for trial with the greatest possible despatch. He hoped that this answer would satisfy the hon. Member.