ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 17 March 1865)

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
said, as the question which he wished to put was one of considerable importance, and it would be necessary to refer to certain statements made by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland in reply to an hon. Member last night, he would, with the permission of the House, make a few remarks by way of introduction, and to put himself in order, he should conclude by moving the adjournment of the House. It appeared that at the County of Down Assizes certain persons were charged with having been engaged in a riot. The riot had taken place between Protestants and Roma Catholics, and the men of one party only had been made amenable to justice. The statement given in The Times was that— One of the witnesses, who said that his son had been beaten and struck with a stone, was asked why he did not tell the magistrates at the time, to which he answered,' I did; but the magistrates don't want to hear any but one side of the case.' On this the Judge remarked, 'It is very like it, upon my word.' The jury acquitted the prisoners. In his charge his Lordship said, 'They had now heard the whole case, and he must say that he was very much disgusted with the way in which justice was administered in the county of Down. Both parties should have been arrested, and there should have been an investigation. Certainly, those who used guns should have been found out and put upon their trial. The charge against the men in the dock was that they were guilty of illegal assembly and were present as rioters. He was only sorry that he had not enough of both parties before him—the ringleaders, and if the jury would only do their duty and find a whole lot of both sides guilty he would then know how to deal with them…He would only say that he should take the earliest opportunity of informing the Government of this case and asking for an inquiry. As far as he could gather from the evidence it was a gross perversion of duty on the part of those who sent the traversers for trial. If they expected to have peace in the county when matters were conducted in this way it was utterly impossible.' He (Colonel Greville) had given notice of the question which he was about to put on Tuesday last, but in the meanwhile notice was given of a similar question by an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), and in reply to the hon. Member, the right hon. Baronet stated that— Chief Justice Monahan had not yet submitted any Report to the Government on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had anticipated the question which was to be put to-morrow by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, and he hoped on that occasion to be able to give information which he was unable to do at present."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii. 1740.] 1826 If that had been all, he should not have made a single remark upon the subject, but the right hon. Baronet went on to say— He did not think, therefore, that Chief Justice Monahan was justified in saying that there had been in that case a partial administration of justice."—[Ibid.] So that the right hon. Gentleman had characterized the remarks of the Judge as unjustifiable. Now, it certainly appeared to him (Colonel Greville) that it was a very strong proceeding for a Minister in that House, without waiting until the Judge had made his Report, or hearing what he had to say upon the subject, to have characterized the remarks of the Judge as unjustifiable. That House did not like to condemn any man unheard, and what, therefore, would they say to this proceeding of the right hon. Baronet when they took into account that the Chief Justice had no power of defending himself in that House; that he had made no Report, and that the Government had no information upon the subject. It appeared rather a strong measure for a Minister to make such remarks upon one of the most able, impartial, and distinguished Judges on the Bench. He would now beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the statements made at the late Assizes for the County Down by the Chief Justice relative to the administration of justice in that county, and what steps the Government have taken with reference thereto?

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, he would beg to second the Motion for adjournment, but he must be permitted to observe that on a night like this when Supply was on the paper, and hon. Members had, therefore, an opportunity of calling attention to questions in which they felt an interest, his hon. and gallant Friend had departed from the usual course. Instead of simply asking a question, his hon. and gallant Friend had anticipated the proper time for bringing on this subject by moving the adjournment of the House.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
Sir, what I stated last night—and the House, I feel certain, will confirm me in the statement—was that I had that morning seen the High Sheriff of the county, who informed me that when this case came before the Petty Sessions there were upon the Bench two 1827 Roman Catholic, two Protestant, and two Presbyterian magistrates, and that they unanimously decided that there was no case as against the Protestants, but that there was a case as against the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics were accordingly tried before Chief Justice Monahan, and were acquitted. I stated that the Government had received no information from the Chief Justice, and I believe up to this moment he has made no Report. I founded the remarks which I made upon the observations of the Chief Justice, for whom I entertain the highest Respect, upon the information which I had received from the High Sheriff of the county, and upon his assertion. I do not know whether I may be now allowed to answer a question put to me last evening by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) with reference to the case of an Irish gentleman who has been subjected to a very severe punishment for "coshering." The facts of the case are these:—There is an Act of Parliament in force in Ireland bearing specially upon these cases—it is the 6 Anne c. 11—and it provides— For the more effectual suppressing Tories and Rapparees, and for preventing persons becoming Tories, or resorting to them. This Act, passed in the 6th year of Queen Anne—Queen Anne must have been a very liberal person—went on to say— All loose, idle vagrants, and such as pretend to be Irish gentlemen and will not work, nor betake themselves to any honest trade or livelihood, but wander about demanding victuals, and coshering from house to house among their fosterers, followers, and others, shall, upon the presentment of the grand jury, be sent to trial. Now, it so happened that in the county of Kilkenny there was a Tory or Rapparee, who had no occupation, and was always meddling with respectable persons who were better provided for. This man was levying black mail throughout the country, and it was thought necessary to prosecute him. The grand jury presented him, and the man was tried before Baron Hughes and found guilty of this conduct. He was sentenced to penal servitude for a great number of years unless he could find security for his future good behaviour. The Judge had no alternative whatever but to put the Act of Parliament in force, and I am informed by many respectable persons in Ireland that they think it a very good Act, and that the conviction of this person gave infinite satisfaction to a vast number of persons who were not Tories. In con- 1828 sequence of the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend, I have sent for a Copy of the Information and the Indictment, and I am not aware that any other step can be taken. The Act of Parliament is not repealed, and of course the Judge having no alternative but to follow the Act of Parliament, did commit this man for a term of seven years unless he found two sureties, I think, to the amount of £10.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that the House had no doubt been very much amused by the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he ventured to think that it was the duty of the right hon. Baronet to inform the House that if the Act was such as he described it, it ought to be repealed. The man was begging from house to house.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
Pardon me; he was not begging from house to house, but was levying black mail on the inhabitants of the district, and forcing them to supply him with victuals.

§ MR. HENNESSY
That was evidently out of the question. The man was convicted as a vagrant, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. The people of Ireland were aware that there were different laws for the treatment of the poor in their country and in England, and they would find with surprise that the right hon. Baronet, in alluding to a transaction of that description, had not thought proper to express any condemnation of the law, but had merely made it the subject of a joke. In the absence of any intimation of the intentions of the Government upon that subject, he wished to give notice that he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act in question.

§ MR. SCULLY
I beg to say a few words in reference to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—for whom, everyone knows, I entertain the greatest possible respect. But I think he treated this question of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Colonel Greville) with less than the respect it was entitled to, because he gave it the go-by altogether. In the statement which he made last night the right hon. Baronet actually snubbed the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Now, I venture to say that he has come across a very ugly customer when he attempts to snub that learned Judge. And I further venture to say that the Chief Justice did not make the statement which he is reported to have made without knowing why he made it; and I think that if the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew his 1829 duty he would convict some of the Gentlemen who sit on the Benches near him of being Tories who will not work. They will do nothing for us, and politically they are "cosherers," and "gentlemen who won't work." Therefore, the right hon. Baronet need not go to Ireland to look for cosherers and Tories; he has them by his side. They get there by some pretence or other, and when they succeed in doing that they will not work. So that, politically speaking, every one of them is a Tory and a rapparee. The only one of them that does anything for his living is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
rose to order. He wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, in putting his question, was justified in moving the adjournment of the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the House had reserved to its Members the right of moving the adjournment.

§ MR. SCULLY
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the practice is irregular; but the fact is power is so irregularly exercised here that we are shut out on ordinary occasions, and have irregularly to avail ourselves of irregular Motions made by irregular Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member. I have only to repeat that as coshering and doing nothing is an irregular offence, the political Tories and rapparees who occupy the Government Benches ought to be tried and convicted for that crime.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he wished to explain that when he had given notice of the question he had put yesterday he had not been aware that a similar notice had previously been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford. If he had been aware of the fact he certainly should not have anticipated the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

§ MR. HADFIELD
said, he believed it was time that there should be a Committee to revise all those old Acts of Parliament.