§ MR. G. H. MOORE rose to ask the question of which he had given notice—whether it was true that Mr. James Sadleir had been permitted to leave Ireland without having been arrested; and whether any steps had been taken for the arrest and prosecution of the said James Sadleir by Her Majesty's Government? It was well known that John Sadleir, the late Member for Sligo had been involved in commercial frauds which had no parallel in the criminal history of this country. Who were his confederates and accomplices in these frauds was not yet made public, though the proceedings in the Irish Court of Exchequer pointed to his brother, James Sadleir, as one of the parties. It was also well known that John Sadleir was engaged in a political conspiracy, his associates in which were not doubtful. Relatively to the character of the transactions in which he had been engaged they were regarded by public opinion in Ireland—
§ MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to order. He was to confine himself strictly to the facts in the petition, and such statements as were necessary to make those facts intelligible; and he was not to go beyond them, or make any comment.
§ MR. G. H. MOOREproceeded. About a month ago the Master of the Rolls in Ireland delivered a charge on the case of the Tipperary Bank, in which he expressed great surprise that the Irish Government had not instituted proceedings for fraudulent conspiracy against James Sadleir, and he went so far even as to say that he should not be suprised if the public held them accountable for his frauds in the event of his escape. The Attorney General for Ireland had on a former occasion told the House that he had gone to Dublin, 400 and taken all the steps necessary to put the powers of the law in force in the case. That was about a month ago. He (Mr. Moore) therefore wished the right hon. Gentleman to state also what were the steps which he had taken to put the law in force, as well as to answer the question of which he had given notice.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MB. J. D. FITZGERALD)said, he would not follow the hon. Member's example, but would confine himself to the question put on the paper, and avoid extraneous matter. He had already stated the facts in reply to a question put to him on Friday night, or rather Saturday morning. It was quite true that about a month ago, in the early part of June, the Master of the Rolls, in making observations on a case before him, did use expressions tantamount to what was stated by the hon. Member for Mayo, or rather, more strictly speaking, to the effect that, if the Government did not prosecute some person, whom he did not, however, name, the public would consider them guilty of complicity with his crime. In other words, he charged the law officers of the Crown with a dereliction of their duty in not having already instituted a prosecution against that individual. The answer he (Mr. FitzGerald) gave to this was a statement of the fact that the case had been before another Judge previous to the Master of the Rolls making these observations; and that this Judge, Master Murphy, in whose department the case was, had not only accused no one of fraud, but had acquitted the parties who were before him of all implication in it. He (Mr. FitzGerald) had further stated, that until he had read these observations of the Master of the Rolls he was wholly unaware of the facts of the case, inasmuch as no one had complained of fraud in connection with the parties in question, and no one had called upon the Government to commence a prosecution against them. But that, when these observations were made, he had felt it to be his duty to pay them the attention which was due to them; that he had proceeded to Dublin accordingly; and that he had not been able to find within the reach of the Crown a single fact, a single document, or a single witness, which would enable him to take any steps in a prosecution. The Master of the Rolls was to deliver his judgment in a few days, but he deferred it till the 22nd of June; and when he delivered it the Court was attended 401 by an officer on his (Mr. FitzGerald's) part, or rather on the part of the Crown, in the hope that the evidence on which the judgment was founded would he placed in the hands of the Crown Solicitor to be submitted to the law officers of the Crown. The Master of the Rolls delivered a lengthened judgment on the occasion, but he did not give the documents in question; though he (Mr. FitzGerald) was bound to state, in justice to that learned Judge, that subsequently he received every assistance which he could afford him. The steps since taken by the Crown in the case were of the promptest character. Considerable difficulty was experienced, as the persons expected to be witnesses were either in communication with the parties implicated or in the employment of Mr. James Sadleir, and evidence was moreover to be sought from this country. He had stated on Friday night that he did not consider it for the advantage of the public to press him to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. He would, however, say, that the most active steps had been taken in the case, and warrants had been issued for the arrest of Mr. James Sadleir, both in this country and Ireland, on some day in the early part of last week, certainly before Friday. The hon. Member for Mayo had asked if Mr. James Sadleir had been permitted to leave Ireland? Knowing from the former course of the hon. Member what the meaning was that he put on that question, and that he intended to convey the imputation that if Mr. James Sadleir had escaped it was with the connivance of the Government, he (Mr. FitzGerald) had only one answer to give to that question—it was not the fact. He would add, that from the earliest moment the question was brought under his cognisance he had taken the most active steps to prevent Mr. James Sadleir leaving Ireland; and the report of the officers appointed for the purpose was, that he had not left since the 17th or 18th June. If he left before that time, therefore, it was in consequence of the irregular observations of the Master of the Rolls, and not through any fault of the law officers of the Crown.