MOTION FOR PAPERS. (Hansard, 13 February 1872)

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the treatment of the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates by the Irish Government; and to move for Copies of the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to hold an inquiry into the charges preferred against them, the 308 inquiry having terminated on the 24th of August last; and, of Correspondence that has passed between the Magistrates accused and the Government in reference to the charges made against them, said, that there was no person in the House who was less disposed to bring under their attention merely local matters; but still he must at the outset admit that the matter now in hand was local, and referred to individuals not known to the general public. It had, however, a direct bearing upon the administration of justice, and upon this great question, whether gentlemen who in Ireland undertook the responsible position of magistrates were entitled to the support of the Government in the discharge of their duties. The character of the magistracy was public property, and anything calculated to affect their character for impartiality and a desire to do equal justice to all would prove seriously detrimental to the public interests. In fact, their character should not merely be pure, but it should be above all suspicion. It was, therefore, impossible to exaggerate the importance of a public investigation into the conduct of the magistrates. It was the duty of the Government, when serious charges were made into the character and conduct of gentlemen in the position of magistrates, to institute a searching inquiry into the subject; and, if those charges were sustained, to immediately take steps for their removal from the magisterial bench. If, on the contrary, those charges were found to be utterly baseless and untrue, it was equally the duty of the Government to give the accused the utmost satisfaction, and to make known to the world the results of their inquiry. Now, the circumstances of the particular case he had to submit to the consideration of the House dated as far back as seven and a-half months ago. At that time no less than seven honourable gentlemen were publicly charged with partiality in their magisterial capacity; and from that day to the present, they had been wholly unable to elicit from the Government an opinion, as to whether they deserved that serious imputation or not, although all the while allowed to continue their important and arduous functions towards the public. Nothing could be more prompt than the demand made by these gentlemen for a full and searching inquiry into the allegations against their character. He had 309 the honour of being charged by those seven gentlemen, who felt themselves seriously aggrieved by imputations upon their character, to bring their case before the House. The facts of the case were these:—On June 23 an investigation took place in the town of Dungannon, arising out of a complaint made by a constable against the sub-inspector of the force, both stationed in that town. The circumstances of that complaint had, however, nothing to do with the magistrates whose case he now represented. In the course of the inquiry the evidence of Captain Ball, the stipendiary magistrate at Dungannon, was taken, and that gentleman, when cross-examined, stated, to the astonishment of all the gentlemen present—many of whom had acted with him for a considerable time previously in the most friendly and familiar manner—that, in his opinion, the magistrates generally sympathized with drumming parties who disturbed the public peace. That statement, charging partiality and partizanship, created a great sensation, and immediately attracted the attention of the seven gentlemen to whom it directly applied. Being all honourable men, they lost not a moment in taking public notice of it, and in demanding a Commission of Inquiry into their general conduct as magistrates. They wrote a letter on the subject to the Lord Chancellor, calling his attention to the case, and praying that high functionary to institute an investigation at once, as the charges made affected their personal honour, and also through them the administration of justice in their locality. The Lord Chancellor replied most courteously, expressing his regret that he could not interfere in the way requested, inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction over stipendiary magistrates, and referring the applicants to the Executive Government. The magistrates aggrieved then addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, setting forth the whole case, and requesting his Excellency to institute a public inquiry. No notice whatever, as he was informed, was taken of this communication by the Lord Lieutenant. An intermediate letter, however, was received from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, having reference to another transaction entirely. A second letter, couched in the same terms as the former one, was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant. An answer was received on the 310 31st of July, in which he ventured to say there was evinced an evident disinclination on the part of his Excellency to allow the accused any inquiry or satisfaction. The noble Lord in that letter declined to call on Captain Ball to substantiate his charge, insisting that no charge had been made. A further correspondence took place, in the course of which a clear and forcible letter on the subject from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dungannon (Colonel Stuart Knox) was addressed to the noble Lord. Upon receipt of this the Executive no longer refused the demand upon it, and Captain Ball was called upon to support his charge before a Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate it as well as the allegations contained in a certain memorial to which he (Lord Claud Hamilton) would by-and-bye call the attention of the House. But he regretted to say it appeared to him that the noble Lord seemed to entertain little sympathy with the feelings of these magistrates, and to think that they might be assailed with impunity, and that no opportunity need be given to them to vindicate their conduct and character from the charges thus unfairly made against them. As a Member for the county he (Lord Claud Hamilton) felt himself called upon to put a Question to the noble Lord on the 6th July in relation to this matter, but failed to receive such an answer as could satisfy the magistrates of Dungannon. In justice to Captain Ball he must say that he had heretofore acted in a most gentlemanly spirit, and was, generally speaking, much esteemed and respected. He had never imputed improper motives to that gentleman, who from the first never attempted to deny having made these charges, nor ever disputed the particular words imputed to him. A Commission of Inquiry was ultimately granted—such Commission being constituted of two gentlemen who stood very high in their profession as men of great honour and learning. In the presence of that Commission, to the astonishment of all persons present, Captain Ball, in the frankest manner, completely withdrew the charges in the most ample and comprehensive manner. He had a legal adviser pro-sent of the name of Barry, who asked the following question: "Did you know, on the occasion referred to, what questions 311 we were going to ask you?" To which he replied in the negative, saying that he had not the slightest idea of what they were to he. Captain Ball declared that he had not the slightest intention to impute the slightest partiality or corruption to the body of magistrates at large, or to any one of them in particular. Now, nothing could be more handsome, complete, and unreserved than the withdrawal of all those charges by Captain Ball. That gentleman admitted that he had committed an error of judgment, and frankly withdrew the offensive language he had used. Both the Commissioners, treating the charge as a grave one, expressed their satisfaction at the handsome conduct of Captain Ball in unreservedly withdrawing all his imputations. He (Lord Claud Hamilton), however, regretted to say that this withdrawal, however complete and unreserved, did not relieve the magistrates from the consequences that followed them. The wound was not cured by the withdrawal of the weapon that inflicted it—it still remained, and might prove even greater than the weapon which created it. There were two political parties in Dungannon, as there were generally in other Parliamentary boroughs; and though those charges were completely withdrawn, immediate steps were taken by one of those parties to make political capital out of them. A Mr. Hayden, a tradesman, who was the leading agitator on the side of the Liberal party in that town, immediately assembled his friends and told them that those charges afforded them a good opportunity to get up an agitation against the sitting Member, and called upon them to back up the statement made by Captain Ball. The memorial, although drawn up on Sunday, was ante-dated, and it was explained that it was done to make the memorial coincide with Captain Ball's statement. If it had stood alone the accused magistrates would not have asked for an inquiry; but the memorial was not got up as a real charge against the magistrates, but as a backing up of Captain Ball's paper. The inquiry having commenced it was necessary for the accused gentlemen to go into the several charges that had been made against them, and the principal charge was that the magistrates approved of, or if they did not approve of they did not discountenance, the objectionable 312 practice of "drumming parties" in the neighbourhood of Dungannon; whereas, on the contrary, witnesses were called who proved that for years past those gentlemen had used every means in their power to stop this objectionable practice. But they were powerless as the law now stood. There was so much difficulty to decide where illegality commenced, that it was almost impossible for the magistrates to put the law in force against these practices or even to check them. The magistrates had frequently called Captain Ball's attention to the state of the law, and they had made attempts to get an alteration of the law, but without effect. They had done all that lay in their power to prevent these demonstrations; but it was impossible for them to check them until the law was altered. Captain Ball had, on former occasions, stated that he considered the magistrates had power to interfere by proclamation; but when examined he stated that he did not know what means there were at his disposal by which he could suppress them. A case had recently occurred in Londonderry in which no less a person than the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary, a gentleman of great experience, had been fined £100 because he rashly acted upon a proclamation of magistrates. It appeared that in anticipation of some disturbance the magistrates of Derry issued a proclamation which the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary thought had the force of law, and for acting upon that opinion he was fined. The trial of the case excited great attention and lasted several days. The Lord Chief Justice who tried the case expressed his opinion that the proclamation had not the element of legality; that a proclamation signed by magistrates could make nothing illegal which was not so before; and that magistrates could no more make a thing illegal by proclamation than they could build a house by proclamation. The defect of the law was that if these drumming parties took place in districts where the people were all one way of thinking, no objection was made to them; but it was only where there was a difference of opinion that offence was given and all these troubles arose. It was a constructive illegality. It was not the way in which the offence was committed, but in the manner in which it was received by the people, and hence 313 the difficulty of drawing the line. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the Government to amend the law. All these objectionable practices were dying out in 1864; but unluckily in that year the Government allowed an illegal monster meeting to take place in Dublin, under the excuse that it was in honour of the late Mr. O'Connell, when the law was violated in every respect except in the carrying of arms, but in reality its object was to show that the people were determined to march in large bodies with banners and emblems. So long as those illegal displays were permitted in the South of Ireland there would be counter displays in the North; but it was a most unfounded and unjust charge to make against the magistrates of Dungannon that they had in any way encouraged them in that district. A very gratifying feature of the case was that the evidence adduced to show how they had tried to put down those objectionable practices was, in a great proportion, given by Roman Catholics and Liberals who were opposed to them politically. These persons came forward to testify to the very high character of the magistrates and the zealous way in which they tried to put down those objectionable practices. For seven months and a-half they had been unable to obtain from the Government any intimation whether they considered the original charges had been proved or rebutted in the inquiry that took place before the Commissioners; but in justice to two of them who were mentioned by name in the memorial, it was right to say that the Commission had completely exonerated them. The charge against Mr. Lisle was that he had knowingly encouraged drumming parties by allowing them to assemble on his grounds, and that he had permitted bonfires on certain anniversaries; and so much reliance was placed on it, that the inquiry was twice adjourned for the production of a material witness named O'Neil. When he appeared and gave his evidence it turned out that what he referred to occurred 12 or 14 years since, and it was distinctly proved by a policeman that during Mr. Lisle's absence he took a drumming party through that gentleman's grounds to prevent a collision taking place in the town, and that with regard to the bonfire it was simply a few leaves and sticks which the gardener and Mr. Lisle's son had set on fire 314 to commemorate the latter's coming home for his holidays. The Commissioner in expressing his opinion said that until the case was explained he did not wonder that some prejudice had been entertained against Mr. Lisle; but that immediately it was explained it seemed to him the imputation had been completely swept away. There was not, he added, the shadow of a shade for the charge, and that the witness's statement was a misrepresentation. Although the Commissioners stated that they would be able to make their Report in the course of two months, as long a period as five-and-a-half months had been allowed to elapse, and the seven gentlemen, whose character as magistrates was immediately concerned, were utterly unable to elicit from the Government any information whatever with regard to the result of the inquiry. It was a remarkable circumstance that at the conclusion of the inquiry the assailant of these gentlemen, Captain Ball, was removed from the office he had held, which looked very much as if the Government disapproved of the course he had pursued in the matter. He maintained that the Government were guilty of no little neglect in withholding any communication which should at once officially and completely exonerate these accused magistrates from the charges that had been brought against them, especially after their assailant had been summarily removed from his office. He asked the House to consider the position in which a number of gentlemen were placed, against whom were advanced charges so serious that, if founded in fact, they would instantly unfit them to hold the position of magistrates. He could not form the least idea as to the case the Government proposed to make out, or as to the nature of any new charges which they might prefer; but of this he was quite sure—and he would state it publicly—that the gentlemen whom he had the honour to represent were prepared to meet any charges that might be directed against them. In conclusion, he must apologise for having detained the House at so great a length, and he trusted that it would accept as his excuse the grave importance of the case.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

could have wished that the noble Lord had sacrificed a little more to brevity instead of putting his case in a speech of an hour and a-half before the House, for if he had done so he might have secured a better attendance on his own side than the half-dozen Members who had stayed to listen to him. He would refrain from following the noble Lord through the greater portion of his speech, and especially with regard to the case as affecting the magistrates themselves, which it was quite unnecessary to consider at present. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord's purpose would have been adequately answered had he put a Question to him on the subject, or asked the Librarian for a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, which was already on the Table, and which would be in the hands of hon. Members as soon as the arrangements of the House would admit. In that Report the noble Lord and the House would find stated, not at such length as the noble Lord had done, but more clearly and succinctly, the opinions of the Commissioners as to the conduct of the magistrates and the charges brought against them. He would ask hon. Members, therefore, to wait a little until the Report was in their hands. The only part of the noble Lord's speech as to which he thought it necessary to say anything was that in which the noble Lord imputed to the Government—first an indisposition to treat this matter with the serious attention it deserved; and, secondly, the delay, which he attributed to their fault. He entirely denied that there was any indisposition on the part of the Government to take the matter up. The noble Lord had spent much time in trying to prove that he (the Marquess of Hartington) was inclined from the very beginning to underrate the gravity of the allegations made against the gentlemen whom he was pleased to call his clients, and quoted an answer which he had given to the effect that the matters complained of were not charges by Captain Ball, but 316 merely statements. He did not intend to imply that the statements of Captain Ball did not contain grave imputations on the conduct of the magistrates. What he meant was that the charges had not been made by Captain Ball voluntarily, but in the course of inquiry upon his oath, and he drew the distinction between statements and charges in order to show that Captain Ball had not made any charges of his own accord. The noble Lord had said that there was great delay in having any inquiry at all. Now, speaking from memory, he could say that as far as the Lord Lieutenant and himself were concerned there was no unnecessary delay. As soon as it was determined that an inquiry should take place, no time was lost in appointing the Commission and giving instructions as to how it should act. The lapse between August and the present month certainly appeared long; but the noble Lord's surprise at this apparent delay would soon be diminished when he heard that the Report of the Commissioners was not received until the 28th of November. When the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) wrote to him on the subject he was informed that the Commissioners had not received from the shorthand writer the transcript of the evidence which they had to read over. When the Report was printed it was sent, as was customary in such cases, to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. The Lord Chancellor read not only the Report, but the whole of the evidence, which took up about 200 closely-printed pages, and when the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) reflected that the Lord Chancellor had some other things to do besides reading Reports of that description, he would not feel surprised to hear that the letter which the Lord Chancellor thought it his duty to write upon reading the evidence was not received until the 21st of January. Since that letter was received by the Lord Lieutenant copies of it were prepared to be sent to the several persons concerned, and in the course of a day or two would be despatched to the magistrates. He would remind the House that although it sounded extremely touching to hear from the noble Lord that seven honourable gentlemen had been kept waiting all this time for the decision of the Government upon their conduct, the practical grievance was not so very great. 317 As had been proved by the speech of the noble Lord himself, the evidence received by the Commissioners had been already made public, and also the general decision to which the Commissioners had come. The magistrates were therefore aware that the only charge of a serious nature preferred against them had been completely and at once withdrawn, and also that the Commissioners were or opinion that the other charges had not been substantiated. It could not be said, therefore, that the magistrates were all this time resting under any imputation whatever. If the formal opinion of the Government had not yet been communicated to them, they must have felt that, based as it would be on the Report of the Commissioners, it would not be such as in any way to affect their character or honour. The noble Lord stated that the magistrates had complained over and over again of the delay; but he was not aware that any such complaint had been made, or if made, it certainly had not been received by him. The only letter he had received on that point was from the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), and that was answered immediately. The Report of the Commissioners contained matter of very great interest quite apart from those personal concerns, and would be well worthy perusal. He quite concurred with the noble Lord that the character of the magistrates could never be an object of indifference to that House.