§ MR. LYNCH, in rising to call attention to the case of Michael Walters, and the conviction of the Crossmaglen prisoners; and to move—
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facts connected with the conviction of the Crossmaglen prisoners and the subsequent release of Bernard Smith,said, he hoped he would be accorded that indulgence by the House which was usually accorded to those who addressed it for the first time. His remarks upon the subject would be very brief, as upon this occasion it would be quite unnecessary for him to enter into the details of the case of these Crossmaglen prisoners or their treatment, as his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan. (Mr. Healy) had very humanely taken up the case of these unfortunate men; and he was, therefore, better qualified to deal with it, and to lay the full details before the House. He should, therefore, leave the matter in his hands. In adopting that course, however, he would, he hoped, be permitted to urge upon the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the necessity for allowing this inquiry which they sought to be made. By doing so the people of Ireland would acquire more confidence in the administration of the law in that country, and it would tend to remove a very painful impression which prevailed amongst a large number of people concerning this case.
§ MR. HEALY, in seconding the Motion, said, the case was one to which he had drawn attention now for the third time. The Crossmaglen prisoners and the case of Michael Watters he had now placed before the House on three different occasions; and he trusted that the statement which he should make should establish the necessity which existed for an inquiry into the case of the prisoners whom they believed to be innocent men. About two years ago, some 12 young farmers were arrested in a district in the counties of Armagh and Monaghan, which was known as Crossmaglen. This district was at the time in a state of intense quietude, and no outrages of any kind, except the sending of a few threatening letters, which they could prove to have been written by the informer Duffy, 615 were heard of in the district. A young man, aged, he believed, 17 years, named Michael Watters, was arrested under the Coercion Act, and with him two or three other persons of the same class in life, and they were kept in gaol from January, 1882, until the expiration of the Coercion Act. Then they were, however, only discharged at the door of Kilmainham to be re-arrested upon the main charge of conspiracy to murder. After they had been in gaol on this charge for a short time, another batch of men were arrested, and a magisterial inquiry was held in the town of Armagh. At this magisterial inquiry the informer, Patrick Duffy, came forward, and made several allegations with regard to a number of these men. Constable Gartland swore various corroborations with regard to the statements of the man Duffy, with regard to Patrick Gahagan and others of the prisoners. In support of this, the Crown called several gentlemen from the neighbourhood, who proved that they had received threatening letters. One of the number, however, swore that, so far as some of the men in the dock were concerned, he knew nothing whatever to their detriment, but everything to the detriment of the informer Duffy. It was a remarkable fact that all these men. when the case was sent before a Belfast jury, were called, except the man who had discredited the informer, and spoken in favour of the prisoners, to give evidence. The men were returned for trial at the Summer Assizes, before Judge Harrison, than whom a more impartial Judge did not possess the confidence of the Irish people. But the Crown put forward a statement to the effect that an important witness was absent, and claimed an adjournment from the Summer Assizes. Everyone knew what that meant, and the prisoners had to remain in from July to December and January. Well, this important witness, a man named Edmund O'Hanlon, was sworn by the Crown to be absent, although it could be proved that he was going about his business in his locality all the time that the Crown were making the statement, and before the Assizes for five months. He had walked the day before the Assizes 10 miles as a witness on behalf of the prisoners. The venue of the cases was changed to Belfast from Armagh, and, instead of being tried before Mr. Justice Harrison, they were heard 616 before the notorious Mr. Justice Lawson, against whom he would not say a word, but leave his character to the appreciation of the public. In the meantime the Crown arrested Edmund O'Hanlon, whom they said was a very important witness. He had made various affidavits swearing the guilt of the prisoner. He, however, swore that this was done while he was under the influence of drink, and declared that all the prisoners were as innocent as the child unborn. Accordingly the Crown put him into the dock with the other prisoners, and he was at the present moment in Mountjoy Gaol. After detailing at length the proceedings at the trial, the hon. Member commented very strongly upon the conduct of the police officer who had conducted the case, and also as to the modus operandi of the Crown. Two books were produced on the trial, the Crossmaglen book and the Mullabawn book. Now, contrary to all decent practice in England, the men were never shown the Crossmaglen book until a few minutes before the informer was to be examined by the counsel for the prosecution. Why was it not produced at the magisterial inquiry? Because it was said that it was contrary to the public interests; and yet, when it was produced at the trial, it was handed over to the reporters of the chief Gladstonian organ in the North, The Northern Whig, and published in that paper. Now, what was the evidence against these prisoners? The first fact in the case that Duffy swore was that Peter Finegan instigated him to shoot Mr. Brooke on the 24th of July, 1880. Finegan cried out that he was in Glasgow that day— an unfortunate statement for poor Finegan, for the Crown mended their hand, and at the Assizes Duffy swore that there was a second attempt on Mr. Brooke's life, at Finegan's instigation, on the 15th of August. Now, that was a remarkable holiday in Ireland. He had several affidavits to prove that Finegan left Glasgow that very night. The most remarkable circumstance about this particular part of the case was that Sub-Constable Dempsey corroborated the informer on both occasions. Now, the second tangible proof in the case related to Denis Nugent. Now, he esteemed it an honour that he shook the hand of that convict in Mount joy Prison. He believed that Nugent was suffering there as an inno- 617 cent man. He was a remarkable man. He was a classical scholar, and spoke French, and was a man of superior education; and if the Crown inquired at Mountjoy they would find that from the Governor down to the warders they believed that not only Nugent, but all those 12 men were innocent. Duffy sworo that Nugent collected money for burning M'Gullagh's mill, and gave John Donnelly £7 for doing it. But the fact was that Donnelly was in America for months and months before this time, and the Orange Grand Jury of Armagh rejected the presentment for the malicious burning of the mill; and the chief witness against the application was the great Gartland, the policeman, who was at the bottom of the whole affair. Now, wherever did that Crossmaglen book come from? Gartland swore that he got a note saying where he would find the book. At the Assizes the Crown was asked to produce the note. "Oh, here it is," said Mr. Murphy — now Judge Murphy—and then he fumbled for it, but he could not get it; and afterwards a Sub-Inspector was put up to prove that he lost the note out of an iron safe, of which he had the key. Really this was taking matters too far. The Crossmaglen book set out with declaring that Duffy was expelled from the Patriotic Society, and yet he was represented as being present at all the subsequent meetings of the Society from which he was expelled. Now, the next case was the case of Peter Develin. Peter Develin, on one occasion, threw Duffy out of a wake, neck and crop, as a bad character, and just after that night Develin's name appeared in the book. Duffy swore in his informations that he attended a meeting of the Patriotic Brotherhood on the 21st of June, 1881, and that it was held at Cox's Mill. The Crossmaglen book, which was supposed to corroborate Duffy, recorded that the meeting was held at Lara, which was 12 miles from Cox's Mill. To prove the statements he had made, and to disprove the Crown case, he was prepared, if the Government would give him a Select Committee, to bring forward 200 witnesses. He might be asked why these 200 witnesses were not produced for the defence at the trial? The reason was well known to the Crown. The Crown selected the venue at Belfast; they gave the prisoners no knowledge 618 whatever of the statements that would be made against them, and before the prisoners could communicate with their friends in Crossmaglen, they had been convicted and been hurried into convicts' jackets. On the last day of the trial scores of men loft Crossmaglen and hurried to Belfast to disprove the statements made on the part of the Crown; but the trials had concluded. The second witness examined for the Crown was Constable Gartland, and he was the heavy villian of the piece. Nugent, one of the convicted men, had threatened to prosecute that constable at the succeeding Petty Sessions for obtaining money under false pretences from his solicitor. Nugent was thereupon arrested under the Coercion Act. He wrote to his friends that on his release he would proceed with the prosecution of Gartland; but he never was released, for Gartland had him included in the conspiracy to murder. Therefore, these two men were at enmity. He had affidavits from three men stating that Gartland offered them large sums as rewards if they would swear against Nugent and Geoghan and other prisoners. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when Chief Secretary, had empowered by a Circular, which The Freeman's Journal exposed, every head constable of police to offer money rewards to any persons he pleased for the discovery of crime. These three men refused, and then Gartland himself went upon the witness-table at the Assizes to corroborate the informer, although he had stated at the magisterial investigation that he knew nothing against some of these men. He swore that on the 5th of March, 1881, the American flag was suspended from a public-house in Crossmaglen by Patrick Burns, an American citizen. He had affidavits to show that Patrick Burns had left for America before March 5, 1881. He had affidavits to prove that fact from persons in Providence, Massachusetts; also from the owners of the steamship in which he sailed, and also from persons residing in Liverpool. It was true that the American flag was hung from the public-house alluded to; but it was not on March 5, 1881, but on the first Friday in November, 1880, and it was displayed by an American in honour of the election of General Garfield to the Presidency of the American Republic. Constable Gart- 619 land had an entry in his diary that on March 5, 1881, President Garfield was elected. This entry clearly showed the diary was a concoction, for everyone knew that the election for the American Presidency was always held in the month of November. The Irish people were expected to reverence law and order, and to believe policemen; but how was this possible so long as transactions of the kind he had detailed were connived at and encouraged by the authorities? It was an unfortunate fact that the only other corroborative witness was a man named Owen Corrigan, a brother of a policeman concerned in this case, and one who was shown to have made strenuous efforts to have largo rewards offered to get evidence against the prisoners. He would not touch upon the Crossmaglen book. He had shown that this book, contrary to all the principles of decency and fair play, if not of law, was denied to the prisoners, and only handed in at the trial. It contained the names of men absent from the district at the dates written in connection with their names. One had gone to America, another to Glasgow, and others to England for the harvest. An expert in handwriting- was brought from London, who swore that he had been engaged on the Tichborne trial; but it turned out that in that case he was only called to prove some mere matters of detail, having no more to do with handwriting than with this witness proving that Orton was at Wagga Wagga. The witness stated that the Crossmaglen book was in the same handwriting as a certain copybook produced at the trial. That might be. The copybook was sworn to be in the handwriting of Watters. But by whom? By Duffy, who said that he had got Watters to write the book in his forge. Fancy the harmonious blacksmith, Duffy, in his forge getting his fellow-conspirator to fill a copybook with pothooks and hangers. The book contained two long speeches; and he asked the Home Secretary whether it was likely that at a meeting of raw-heads-and-bloody-bones a young rustic of 17, who knew nothing of shorthand, would have taken down long speeches about the freedom of Ireland, and the necessity of crushing landlordism that might have come out of a copy of The Irish World? Mr. Inglis, the wonderful expert, swore that this 620 was in the handwriting of Michael Waiters, and that his handwriting was disguised.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. HEALYthanked the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) for having' given him a short period of repose. It was a remarkable fact that, though the handwriting was disguised, Michael Watters should have put his name at the foot of every page. He now came to another portion of the pile of manuscripts. the Mullabawn book was declared to have been got up by Edward O'Hanlon, now in penal servitude; and O'Hanlon stated, in the affidavit prepared for the purpose of his defence, that he wrote the book at the suggestion of Duffy, and that they hid it in the thatch with an old pistol, a revolver, and some blasting powder. There was another remarkable feature of this case. Duffy was proved to have been at deadly enmity with Bernard Smith. Smith was convicted with the other man, but had not been in prison for more than a month when he was released by the Lord Lieutenant. That was a damning fact in connection with the whole case. Smith also said it was most improbable that O'Hanlon and himself should be members of the same Society, considering the enmity that had existed between them during the last five years. It was also shown in Smith's statement that the prisoners were tried in two separate batches. He was in the second batch, and he could plead when the first batch was found guilty, and the solicitor's clerk, Mr. Mulholland, came to him in the prison, and said that he would got out in 12 months if he would plead guilty; but he refused. They were afterwards called into the Governor's office, and the clerk repeated to them collectively what he before said to them individually; but they again refused to plead guilty. Again, as they were being marched to the Court, on Easter Monday, the clerk tried to induce them to plead guilty; but they refused to do so. He had occupied a long time in stating the circumstances of this case; but he did not think that, considering its magnitude, the House would grudge the time. The Crown had released one of the men, thereby admitting his innocence, and all 621 the others who had been convicted on the same story were still suffering penal servitude. He would ask the Government respectfully to hold out some hope that the case of these prisoners would again be investigated. He could produce 200 witnesses who would give evidence in their favour. He had a huge file of affidavits. It had cost him days and nights to go into the case. He never saw one of the men. till he visited them in prison. He never knew anything of the case till he read of it in the newspapers. His interest in it was of the slightest description beyond the interest which any Member of that House who had a duty to these innocent men should have in it. He had no concern in the matter one way or another; and if the men were guilty, he should have said they richly deserved their fate. But, being innocent, he appealed to the House on their behalf. Nobody in that House had shown more opposition to the Home Secretary than he; but in all the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dealings with English criminals, and even Irish-English criminals, throughout the whole range of his Department, he noticed as much tenderness of heart as the limits of justice would allow, and he could not but contrast the conduct of this English Gentleman, dealing with an English Department, with that of an English Gentleman dealing with any Irish Department. It appeared that when an English official went over to Ireland his feelings and nature changed. Just as a certain kind of wood when put into water became petrified, so when an English official went to Ireland his heart was turned into stone. He did not know what there was in the Castle—whether it was the associations or not—which changed his mind and soul; but here was the case of this boy Watters, who was declared by the Governor of the gaol to be dying last June, and whom he also declared in that House to be dying, and who died in October. Yet, after his statement in that House, the Government not only refused to release him, but absolutely refused to surrender his corpse. The release of Bernard Smith on the plea that he was suffering from ill-health looked very strange by the side of Michael Walters' confinement. The case was one either against the whole of them or against none of them. There were the same facts, the same oaths, the same 622 policemen in the case of the whole dozen, and the same juries convicted them. If one was innocent, they were all innocent. He respectfully implored the Government on behalf of those men. If they themselves would go into the prisons and see how these convicts were engaged; if they would try to put themselves in their position, knowing that there was some chance of their innocence, and remembering that their wives and families were in impecunious circumstances, at least they would have some sympathy for them. There was, at least, some doubt of mistake; and what a horrible burden it was to pass year after year of their convict life with the sting in their souls that they had been falsely accused, and were suffering because of the oaths of ill-minded men and blood-money and bribery. Most of them had some sympathy with the causes that drove men into crime; but they had no sympathy whatever for the crimes that were committed. These men were driven often into crime by the state of the laws, and yet they were pursued as if that had not been the case. He was speaking of the general system of trials in Ireland. He solemnly believed that any Irishman sitting in Dublin Castle governing the country—if he was an Irishman sincerely attached to England—would endeavour to let bygones be bygones—let the past lie, in order that the system of retaliation might not be carried out in the future. They might convict Irish criminals—they might break up Irish conspiracies; but as sure as the story of the sufferings of those men went about among the population, they were heaping up afresh reservoir of hatred—they were heaping up a fresh mountain of conspiracy. They actually fed these conspiracies, and gave fresh fuel to the flame, for every Irishman who was believed to be wrongfully convicted on false and perjured evidence. He implored the House, if they wanted to stem this tide of hatred, to show that if a mistake had been committed they were willing to rectify it. He believed that if they showed that the law was intended not merely as an instrument of punishment, but as an instrument of justice, they would do more for the peace of the country than a dozen prosecutions successfully conducted to the bitter end, such as that of the Crossmaglen conspiracy.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the facts connected with the conviction of the Crossmaglen prisoners and the subsequent release of Bernard Smith,"—(Mr. Lynch,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that anyone must sympathize with some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Monaghan—for instance, the sufferings of convicts who were undergoing the sentence of the law. But the demands of the law were a matter of higher consideration than all this; and if the observations of the hon. Member were pursued to their logical consequences, he need not tell the hon. Member that they would strike at the root of the administration of all justice. Now, dealing with the Motion before the House, he himself, of course, as the hon. Member know, had no knowledge of these matters beyond the documents before him, and the information these documents furnished; but he would ask the House to consider a few broad facts that appeared, he thought, undisputed in the case. Without going into minute details, into some of which the hon. Member for Monaghan had entered, he thought he might say that nothing would be more dangerous to the administration of justice than that a course should be pursued in that House or anywhere such as that after a trial had been had before a jury with the aid of a Judge, after they had convicted the prisoner, and after the sentence of the law had been passed, a trial should be again gone into over again upon declarations or informations made by interested persons. [Mr. HEALY: The Tichborne trial.] On declarations made by persons beyond the seas by persons in America and other places, who would naturally be, many of them, incriminated. Nothing could be more dangerous, and nothing more likely to strike at the root of the administration of justice, if such a thing were allowed. He would refer to some of the leading facts which led the jury to come to the conclusion at which they arrived, and which led the Judge to say that he saw no 624 reason why the law should not take its course, although the prisoners had been defended by one of the ablest counsel at the Irish Bar, and although he urged on their behalf nearly all the arguments which the hon. Member for Monaghan was now able to supply. It appeared that this Michael Watters filled a position of some consequence in the district. Although young, he was an educated man. He was the assistant of a National School teacher in the district. He was nephew of Patrick Watters, who was examined at the trial. At that school Watters was intrusted with the teaching of the young of a great portion of that district. Assuming, now, that the jury arrived at a right conclusion, when they found that Watters was closely connected with this shocking conspiracy, he thought he might say, without fear of contradiction, that Watters, filling that position, was one of the principal culprits of those 12 persons who were there arrested and convicted. The prisoners were tried on a charge of conspiracy to murder and of treason-felony. They were convicted of the conspiracy to murder, and therefore they were not arraigned afterwards on the other charge. They were brought up for trial at the first Assizes at which they could be tried—namely, the Winter Assizes of Belfast, in December, 1882, there being no Winter Assizes in Armagh. As Edward O'Hanlon, who had made an information for the Crown, did not appear, the trial -was postponed till the following March Assizes at Belfast. [Mr. HEALY: Why Belfast?] They were brought up at Belfast first, and it was natural that they should be brought up there again, he apprehended. He did not think that a fairer trial could have been had in Armagh than was had in Belfast. In fact, he believed that, under the circumstances, a fairer trial could be had in a locality like Belfast, where the prisoners were unknown. Patrick Burns hung out the American flag in Crossmaglen on March 4. The hon. Member had drawn attention to the case of the American flag which had been hanging from the window of the public-house. It was, however, proved that in this case a man named Patrick Burns came over from America —as was recorded at the time—that he came over as a delegate from O'Donovan Rossa. [" Oh! "] This was the case, as 625 was proved at the trial, and he came over in order to unite all the secret societies in the district into one. It was also proved that Mr. P. J. Sheridan was in the district—this man, whose name was now known far and wide, and who, in this case, appeared to have left his native Mayo in order to visit the Crossmaglen district. According to the evidence which was given, it appeared that a secret society was formed, which received the name of the "Patriotic Brotherhood"—a name which had been given to other societies of a similar character. One of its books was discovered, which contained records of a most interesting character. Among them was the oath, part of which was to the following effect:—
Should it fall to your lot to be appointed at any meeting to murder anyone or assist, will you do so? —Tea.It also showed that arrangements were actually made from time to time, according to which it appeared that some of the prisoners had lain in wait for some gentlemen to shoot them. These cases were detailed at length in the records which were to be found in these documents. These records contained the names of each of the 12 prisoners. It was also shown that a number of persons, whose names were recorded in this book, had fled the country, and some had gone to America. It was proved that at various places which had been named by the informer, Duffy, meetings had been held at night, which were watched by the police, who saw several of the prisoners leaving the meetings at 2 o'clock in the morning, in twos and threes. The book had been found by Constable Gartland, of Crossmaglen, in the place which had been indicated. This book, in itself, afforded ample evidence on which to convict the prisoners. According to the law, and justly so, an informer's evidence required confirmation by independent testimony; and the evidence of Duffy was confirmed by that of other credible and reliable witnesses. Three books had been found, but one of them was of no value in the case. The book found in Duffy's possession had been proved by him to be in the handwriting of Watters. Duffy, who was an uneducated blacksmith, could write his name, but no more. It had not been alleged at the time that Duffy was capable of writing the book; 626 but he understood the hon. Member for Monaghan to say that the cousin of the prisoner, who was now in America, compiled the book with Duffy. But what was the evidence in regard to the writing of this book? First, there was the positive evidence of Duffy, which had been corroborated; secondly, the genuine handwriting of Watters. When in prison Watters wrote letters, the genuine character of which had not been disputed in the course of the case. The experts to whom those letters were referred stated that they were written by the same person who had written the contents of the book. The jury had also compared the two handwritings, and they had arrived at the conclusion that two of the books were in the same handwriting as that of Watters. A number of threatening letters had also been produced, and they had been proved to be in the handwriting of Watters. Therefore they had three kinds of corroborative evidence on this point; the positive evidence of the informer, the evidence by comparison of the writing, and the evidence given by an experienced expert. It was also proved upon the trial that the informer was concealed, not on the top of a load of straw, but underneath it. It was, he believed, in the interests of justice not desirable that, after careful trials had taken place, and prisoners were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, declarations should be made by interested persons, and statements should be made in that House to impeach the sworn evidence upon which the prisoners were convicted. Such a course would be highly dangerous to the interests of justice. The hon. Member had discredited what was found in the books which were produced at the trial; but he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was sure that anyone who had any experience of criminal trials would admit that it was frequently the case that the case against prisoners who were charged with offences of this kind had been materially strengthened by documentary evidence of this character. All the discrepancies, or nearly all, referred to by the hon. Member, had been commented on by the Judge and the counsel in the case. Then there was the evidence of Corrigan—
§ THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not think that detracted from the value of the man's evidence. He proved that Daly asked him to join the secret society, and he refused. Then, as regarded Kelly, documents traceable to the Fenian Society were found. The prisoners were found guilty, and Waiters was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, and two others to shorter terms of punishment. Now, as to the case of Michael Watters, the hon. Member did not refer to it fully; but as statements, to which the Chief Secretary could not reply, had been already made, he would wish to go into the particulars of the case. Watters was received into Mountjoy Prison on the 3rd of April, 1883, and he remained perfectly well till the 6th of June, when he reported himself as suffering from slight derangement of the stomach. On the 7th of June he was seen by Dr. Young, and he was admitted to the hospital, the statement of Dr. Young being that he was not able to leave the gaol, the case being a serious one. Dr. Young asked for a consultation, and on the 27th of June he held a consultation with an independent physician—Dr. O'Kelly, of Jervis Street—who was not a prison doctor, and they both came to the conclusion that the disease was a very serious one and likely to terminate fatally. The doctors stated that the prisoner was not then, nor at any time afterwards, in a condition to be removed without danger to his life. On June 28 the Governor of the prison communicated to the prisoner's uncle that Watters was seriously ill in hospital, suffering from a stomach affection which might terminate fatally; and the uncle came up from the country on the 28th of June. The result was that a Memorial was sent to the Lord Lieutenant and received on the 13th of July asking for the release of Watters.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the usual course was taken, and it was referred to the doctors, who gave the Report that he was bad.
§ MR. PARNELLGive us the date of the doctors' certificates that he could not be released.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had one, and he would give it. Dr. O'Kelly reported on the 8th of October—
His condition since 1st August has been so critical as not to permit of his removal, and now the case has become so aggravated as to place his life in imminent danger. His removal would he impossible.It was then thought desirable that a consultation should be held, and there were consultations on the 13th and 14th of October, upon which the doctors came to the conclusion that the disease must terminate fatally. It was on the 17th of October that the Memorial was received from a local Catholic clergyman setting forth reasons for his release, which were inadequate. Reports were constantly received until his death on the 23rd of October. He received the best treatment which could be given to him in the hospital. On the 24th a Coroner's Jury had returned a verdict that he died from the stomach disease from which he had been suffering.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was referred to the Judge in the usual course, with Memorials relating to others of the prisoners, and the Judge reported that there was no reason why the law should not take its course; and, accordingly, the clemency of the Crown was not offered to them. The case of Bernard Smith had also been referred to. In that case the Judge had adverted strongly to the evidence of the informer not being corroborated, and on June 28 had reported that it was a proper case for the clemency of the Crown on account of there being insufficient corroboration, and because a medical Report stated that the prisoner was suffering from chronic bronchitis and blood-spitting. He was sure, therefore, that after what he had stated from documents before him that the authorities could not be accused of callousness; and he thought it would be to the last degree dangerous and mischievous if ex parte statements were allowed to prevail over facts clearly stated in evidence before a Coroner's Jury and carefully examined, and evidence gone into in Court under the direction of the Judge.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very much surprised to hear a gentleman of the knowledge and experience of the 629 hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) express the opinion that the course which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had taken was an unheard-of one, and a mischievous and dangerous one. The hon. and learned Gentleman surely could not have recollected, when he gave that opinion, the case of Edmund Galley. After he had suffered a great many years' penal servitude, Galley's case was brought before the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot); and, his innocence having been established, he was released and granted compensation by the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman must also have forgotten the case of Barber, who, in 1856, petitioned the House of Commons that his ease of alleged wrongful conviction and imprisonment might be investigated by the House; and upon the Petition and a Motion made by an hon. Member a Select Committee was appointed. Barber was enabled to prove his innocence; and for his imprisonment he was awarded by the Government, he (Mr. Parnell) believed, the sum of £7,000. He (Mr. Parnell) could give several other instances if it were at all necessary to do so; but he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would see that he was carried away by the force of his own eloquence when he expressed the rather rash opinion which he (Mr. Parnell) had been obliged to take notice of. The hon. and learned Gentleman dwelt particularly upon the case of the unfortunate man Michael Watters, who died in Mountjoy Prison last year, notwithstanding the repeated attempts the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) made to obtain a consideration of the man's case. Before he (Mr. Parnell) proceeded to the consideration of the general case, he wished to go over the case as made out by the Solicitor General for Ireland in defence of the Government in respect to their action towards Watters. He should not have touched upon the matter were it not that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself introduced it, and put forward a defence of the conduct of the Government, which he (Mr. Parnell) should not characterize as lame, but as he most careless and most inhuman that we had ever heard. The hon. and earned Gentleman said that the doctors 630 in their certificates gave it as their opinion that Watters could not have been released from prison without danger to his life, and that that was the reason why he was not released. But there was a discrepancy between the excuse now given by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) last year. Last year, when appealed to in the House of Commons in regard to this case, the Chief Secretary said that Michael Watters could not be released because there was no danger to his life, and because his case differed from that of Bernard Smith. It was stated by the Chief Secretary, at the same time, that Bernard Smith was released because he was suffering from blood-spitting and his life was in danger, and because there was no corroborative evidence against him. If they were to accept the statement of the Chief Secretary last year as accurate, and to compare it with, and even fortify it with, the statement of the Solicitor General made that night, it came to this—that the Irish Executive allowed Michael Watters to die in prison because there was corroborative evidence in his case, and because the Judge considered there was stronger evidence of guilt in his case than there was in that of Bernard Smith. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was still more unfortunate in the case he now attempted to make out with regard to the conduct of the Irish Executive. He had referred, in a general way, to the Reports of the prison doctors. When asked for the dates of those Reports the hon. and learned Gentleman said they were received when it would have endangered Watters' life to discharge him from prison. Watters was taken ill in June, and the first Report the Solicitor General had referred to was dated the 10th of October. Dr. Young, the prison surgeon, had charge of this unfortunate man on the 6th of June, and Dr. O'Kelly had charge of him in the middle of October. The Solicitor General had only been able to refer to the Report of Dr. O'Kelly, which was dated in October, and which certainly was to the effect that it would be dangerous to the life of the prisoner to remove him from prison. But that was four months after the request was make by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) for his release, and 631 four months after the prisoner was taken ill. He (Mr. Parnell) thought this was a very important matter; and he trusted that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) would lay the Reports of the doctors with regard to the state of health of Michael "Walters on the Table of the House, in order that hon. Members might be able to ascertain whether there was a single particle of foundation for the defence, which the Solicitor General for Ireland had attempted to set up that night, that it was in consequence of the Reports of the prison doctors, that it would endanger the prisoner's life to remove him, that the Irish Executive did not order his release, a defence which was in direct contradiction of the statement made by the Chief Secretary last Session. Now, with respect to the general question of the Crossmaglen alleged case of conspiracy. The Solicitor General for Ireland had, of course, conducted the defence of the Government with great skill; but he had entirely evaded the whole gist and point of the case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). The Solicitor General for Ireland had attempted to divert the attention of the House by dwelling at great length upon minor matters, which really had no bearing at all upon the strength of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) case. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had repeated some of the evidence; but his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan never claimed that there was not plenty of evidence of a certain sort. There was evidence to convict a dozen or any number of men of conspiracy; but his hon. Friend's claim was based upon the character of the evidence; upon the character and the position of the men who gave the evidence; upon the discrepancies—the proved and admitted discrepancies— arising in the course of the case in the evidence itself; and upon the vast accumulation of testimony which it had been possible to collect since from witnesses now in America, in Scotland, and from witnesses near the scene of the alleged conspiracy, which absolutely established an overwhelming case in proof of the innocence of these unfortunate men. His hon. Friend had pointed out the fact that the men were taken from their homes; that their trial took 632 place in Belfast—a locality where political passions and prejudices were at boiling point—that at the time the revelations regarding the Invincible conspiracy in Ireland had excited the classes from whom the jury was chosen to such a pitch that it was absolutely impossible that a verdict of "Not Guilty" could be returned; that no Catholic was allowed to be empannelled; that every Catholic was objected to by the Crown; and that the jury empanelled to try these unfortunate Armagh peasants was packed by Orange Protestants of the lowest class. His hon. Friend had also pointed out that the principal portions of the evidence upon which the Crown relied for a conviction was deliberately kept back from the prisoners until the last moment; that even during the trial counsel for the prisoners were not allowed to see the two books upon which the whole case for the Crown depended. The Solicitor General for Ireland had asked why the prisoners should not receive a fair trial in Belfast? There had been some revelations recently as to the sort of material of which those common Orange Belfast juries were composed; and they had heard from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant a very eloquent and brilliant description of the doings of some of these men—men brought from Belfast and other Northern towns with sack loads of revolvers. Such was the sort of material which the Government deliberately selected a year and a-half ago for the purpose of trying these unfortunate men—and to try them at a time when political feeling was at fever height and people were ready to believe any idle tale. So entirely were the jury biassed against these men that though Mr. Justice Lawson hinted that if they found a verdict of "Not Guilty" in certain cases—in the case of Cockburn and Bernard Smith—the ends of justice would not be defeated, they found them all guilty of the same offence. Now, this was a case which very well illustrated the want of a Court of Appeal. There was no Court of Appeal before which the administration or mal-administration of justice in Ireland could be brought. This was a case which the Solicitor General for Ireland must know had excited a great deal of attention and feeling in Ireland, more especially in the districts to which the prisoner belonged, and in which they had been 633 well known and respected during their blameless lives—blameless, at all events, up to the time of this alleged conspiracy. He (Mr. Parnell) had formed a very strong opinion about the innocence of the men. He firmly believed that if their case could be re-investigated, in these quieter times, before an Appeal Court—if, for instance, the Bill which the Government introduced last Session, and successfully carried through the Grand Committee, had been passed into law and had been applied, retrospectively, to the case of these prisoners, he believed the result would have been that the verdict would have been reversed, and that these men, who were now suffering the horrible punishment of penal servitude, would have been released and allowed to return to their homes. There were certain matters in connection with the whole case which deserved to be kept in mind. In the first place, the district was free from outrage. A few threatening letters were sent; but it was alleged these were written by Duffy, the informer. The district of Crossmaglen was not like many other districts in Ireland, where, concurrent with alleged conspiracy, alarming and murderous outrages occurred; it was absolutely free from any outrage whatever. He asked the House whether it was reasonable to suppose that if a number of men were banded together, during several years, to commit outrages, it could possibly have happened that no attempt to commit an outrage would have been made? The absence of any outrage was a striking proof of the improbability of any such conspiracy as was alleged existing. The name of the man, P. J. Sheridan, was dragged into the case to prejudice the Judge, and it had its effect. He was sorry the Solicitor General for Ireland imitated that night the bad example set by the Judge. He did not mean to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman deliberately intended to convey a false impression by his statement that night with regard to the presence of P. J. Sheridan at Crossmaglen. The hon. and learned Gentleman had only recently assumed his present high Office; and he was naturally not so well informed respecting details in matters of this kind as he might have been if he had held his present position during the last three or four years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, how- 634 ever, would take the trouble to inquire into the matter, he would find that at that time Sheridan was really and truly engaged on a mission of mercy. The work in which he was engaged was perfectly open to the light of day; he was bringing evicted tenants and their wives and families into the town of Crossmaglen from the evicted estates in the neighbourhood, and he was assisted in that work by a clergyman of the Unitarian Church, who certainly would not have connected himself with any matter of a secret nature—he (Mr. Parnell) referred to the Rev. Harold Rylett. He was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland did not deliberately introduce the name of Sheridan to prejudice the case of these prisoners, as undoubtedly it had done that night, and as undoubtedly it did at the time of the trial. The House would recollect that Sheridan was in the district to distribute aid to evicted tenants, and for no other purpose; that he went about openly, just as any other person might have done; and that his presence there was a matter of notoriety to the general public, because his proceedings were chronicled in the newspapers. The case of these unfortunate prisoners was such an intricate one that it was exceedingly difficult to present all the points to the House in a satisfactory way. He thought it was eminently one which the Government would do well to reconsider in all its bearings, and in which to grant the Select Committee which his hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch) had asked for. It was the case of men who were not alleged to have committed any crime, except that of conspiracy; it was not alleged that they committed any overt act or any outrage. He had said that no outrage was committed in the district. Granted, for the sake of argument, that there was conspiracy, no crime or criminal act resulted from it, no harm was done. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) that even if the Government supposed that there was at one time in this district a conspiracy, they would have done well to let the matter sink into oblivion. The Government knew perfectly well that at the time the prosecutions were instituted the alleged conspiracy had ceased to exist, and that no crime had ever occurred as a result of the supposed conspiracy. Inasmuch as the district had never been stained with crime it would 635 have been far better and wiser for the Government to have abstained from this prosecution, and thus have presented the unpleasant and bitter recollections in the district which the prosecution had produced. He believed the debate that night would do good. At all events, the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners could not be allowed to rest until the innocence of those unfortunate men, in which the Irish people quite believed, had been demonstrated to the minds of the Government and of the House.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) appealed so strongly to him that, though he should not otherwise have desired to take part in the discussion, he thought he ought to say a few words on what had taken place. He came that night perfectly fresh to the case. He knew nothing of it before. He, however, listened with great attention to the very able statement, and he must add the moderate statement, of the hon. Member for Monaghan. He listened, on the other hand, very carefully to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Now, a great part of his (Sir William Harcourt's) time was occupied in exactly the same kind of business which now occupied the attention of the House. It was the duty of his Department to consider all representations as to miscarriages of justice. He regretted, with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that that duty now devolved upon the Executive Government. Long before he was a Member of a Government he was extremely desirous there should be a tribunal, independent of the Government, to whom such matters as this could be referred. However, the Executive Government did the best they could under the circumstances. Now, he did not think it was possible for a case to have been more fully stated than this case had been that night. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that, under no circumstances, would the House of Commons be a desirable tribunal as a Court of Appeal. It was well that an Assembly, actuated necessarily more or less by political bias, should not have to be appealed to in cases like the present; but if they got into the practice of considering that the House of Commons was not a proper tribunal before which 636 to bring such matters, it would not only be injurious to the functions of the House, but injurious to the interests of justice. If it was supposed that the Executive Government were not disposed to do their duty in considering these cases, that was a different matter. He had no bias in the matter at all; and he had listened as if he were a Judge of Appeal sitting upon the case. He had listened to the very ingenious and able arguments of the hon. Member for Monaghan, just as he would have listened to counsel. The hon. Gentleman had raised a number of points in favour of the prisoners. He had indicated discrepancies in the evidence. Discrepancies would occur in every case; there were very few cases in which something could not be alleged in favour of the accused. Well, knowing-nothing of the case until that night, he was bound to say that the Solicitor General for Ireland had advanced a mass of solid proof which constituted the staple of the case for the prosecution. It was true there were points to be alleged against the prosecution. Those points could not have been better stated than they were by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan; but whether he (Sir William Harcourt) were acting in the capacity of Secretary of State, or of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or of a Member of a Judicial Court of Appeal, he could not allow that the hon. Member for Monaghan had made out so strong a case as to induce him to interfere with the verdict given by the jury. That, he was bound to say, was the honest impression produced in his mind by that night's discussion. He assumed the statements of the hon. Member for Monaghan and of the Solicitor General for Ireland to be correct; and, as far as he could see, those statements were not inconsistent one with the other. The House could not come to a decision upon such a matter as this; and he asked the hon. Member for Monaghan and the hon. Member for the City of Cork to believe that if they could now, or at any future time, lay before the Chief Secretary for Ireland any evidence which was not forthcoming at the trial, or any evidence which showed that there was an improper appreciation of the facts at the trial, the Executive Government would not close their ears to such evidence, but would endeavour 637 to do justice. He was speaking for Lord Spencer as he would speak for himself. Whatever feelings a political antagonist might entertain towards Lord Spencer, he (Sir William Harcourt) was sure the House believed that the Lord Lieutenant was not a man who, if evidence of a solid and sound nature were placed before him, would not give a proper and fair judgment upon it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork made one observation which he (Sir William Harcourt) must notice. The hon. Gentleman said—
Admitting, for the purpose of argument, there wag a conspiracy, no harm resulted.The hon. Member must admit that if a number of people were banded together —and that was the case alleged here— in a conspiracy to murder, it was impossible, if the conspiracy were detected, to leave it unpunished, because murder did not occur. Now, as he understood, the pith and marrow of the case rested upon the authenticity of certain, books and documents. He gathered from the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the books and documents were verified and supported by solid evidence which was accepted by both Judge and jury. He (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to say that if the hon. Member for Monaghan or the hon. Member for the City of Cork could bring-before Lord Spencer in this case, or in any other case, evidence which, in the mind of a fair and just man, could raise not only a conviction, but a serious doubt as to the justice of the conclusion which had been arrived at, Lord Spencer was not the man who would refuse to do justice in the matter. It was the practice of this country to invite evidence which should tend to show there had been a miscarriage of justice. The hon. Member for Monaghan had been good enough to admit that the duty of accepting and sifting evidence tending to show a miscarriage of justice was, at all events, recognized in England. In the hands of Lord Spencer this matter was in as able, certainly as sincere, hands as it would be in his (Sir William Harcourt's); and, speaking for Lord Spencer, he promised that whatever fresh evidence was produced should be fairly, fully, carefully, and anxiously considered with a view to arrive at a just decision.
§ MR. HEALYsuggested that, after the encouraging statement of the Home 638 Secretary, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Lynch) should withdraw his Resolution. He (Mr. Healy) would undertake to lay a mass of evidence before His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SUPPLY,—Committee deferred till Monday next.