HC Deb 12 May 1874 vol 219 cc190-201
MR. BUTT

rose to call attention to the ease of Patrick Casey, a prisoner confined in prison for three years under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and to move for the following documents:— Copies of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey; of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion; of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest; of an subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody; and, of all sworn Information, if any, on which the original Warrant of his arrest was issued. The hon. and learned Member observed that, were he not told that the circumstances to which the Papers related had arisen in Ireland, a stranger would suppose that they belonged to some tale of oppression in a despotic country. Patrick Casey was at present confined in Kilmainham Prison under a warrant issued by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act. On the 29th of April last a motion was made in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin to bring up Patrick Casey. The motion was made on an affidavit sworn by the father of the prisoner, and in the course of the hearing the learned Judge before whom the application was made happened to inquire for what offence Casey was imprisoned. The learned counsel who appeared for him replied—"That is precisely what we want to know." Application was made to the Governor of Kilmainham Gaol to see the warrant under which he was committed, but the application was refused and reference was made to the Castle. Casey was arrested and confined under a most arbitrary and extraordinary Act which was passed in the year 1871, and which applied to the county of Westmeath and certain adjacent districts. He was imprisoned on the 13th of December, 1871, without any accusation, and, so far as he (Mr. Butt) was aware, without any information having been afforded him as to the cause, or without any opportunity of vindicating himself against any charge that could be preferred against him. He had remained in prison ever since. He asked now for a copy of the affidavits upon which the application for a habeas corpus was recently made in the Queen's Bench. Up to the time of his arrest the young man had borne an unblemished character. It appeared by a Return made to that House that he was imprisoned originally on suspicion of being connected with the Riband conspiracy. He remained up to October, 1873, in Naas Gaol, and then by a warrant issued by the Lord Lieutenant—though he (Mr. Butt) could not understand why—he was removed to Kilmainham. His father stated in his affidavit that he himself was an old man, upwards of 70 years of age, and paralyzed; that he held a small piece of land which this son was his principal means of working, and that his son's imprisonment had reduced him to a state, almost of, destitution. He was not aware of any crime of which his son had been guilty. His son had been imprisoned for two and a half years, till his health was breaking down under the confinement. He was not confined in prison for the mere sake of safe keeping, but was suffering a punishment more severe than some years ago was awarded to criminals convicted of grave offences. For 22 hours out of the 24 he was kept in a state of solitary confinement, and when any of his relations called to see him, which they could only do at long intervals, a warder was present at all their conversations, and whenever he attempted to ask any question relative to his confinement, or to the charges upon which he was confined, the warder stopped the conversation, and he was not allowed to open his lips. He regretted to have to say to the House that that treatment of a prisoner in Ireland was perfectly legal. The Act gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of arresting any person in the district included in the Act if he suspected him of being connected with the Riband conspiracy. The Lord Lieutenant had power to detain him in prison without bringing him to trial. He had already been imprisoned for two and a half years, and, under the Act he referred to, as he now saw for the first time, the Judges in the Queen's Bench were to a great extent prohibited from issuing a writ of habeas corpus. He had searched through all the previous Acts of a similar character, and in no one of those Acts was that right taken away. This was the first Act ever passed in which that right was taken away. The Lord Lieutenant's warrant was a sufficient answer to any motion directed against the detention of a prisoner; but the Court should have the right of inquiring whether the warrant was legally issued. This young man, therefore, was locked up without any power of his being reached, and this Act for the first time placed him beyond the reach of the law. Such was the state of facts. This was a mere formal Motion for a Return; but he was anxious to bring the case before the House as one which instanced the system of coercion which he believed was practised in Westmeath, and which he also believed was utterly indefensible and unwarrantable by anything that had occurred there. There was another part of his Motion which probably the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland might not be disposed to grant, and, if so, he did not think he should wish to press it. He had asked for sworn copies of any in formations upon which Casey was arrested, and of the warrant which had been issued for his arrest, imprisonment, and removal. If there were none, of course that could be stated, and it would be an answer to his Motion. The prisoner, and others like him, were not originally arrested on the motion of the Lord Lieutenant himself, but on some statement by some police officer or other person whose dignity he might have offended, or who had reasons for desiring his arrest. It was said that arbitrary acts like these were necessary for the peace and security of Ireland; but here was a young man charged with he knew not what, except that the Lord Lieutenant suspected him of being connected with the Riband conspiracy, and without any possibility of his friends getting him to be brought to trial. He was sure the House could not approve of such a state of things; and he begged to move for the Returns contained in the Notice he had given.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey: Of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion: Of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest: Of all subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody: And, of all sworn Information, if any, on which the original warrant of his arrest was issued."—(Mr. Butt.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that when he saw the hon. and learned Member's Notice on the Paper he thought he was going to call attention to some irregular or illegal proceedings on the part of the Irish Government; in which case his answer would probably have been that, at any rate, these proceedings occurred three years ago, and that neither himself nor the present Government was therefore responsible for them. He did not gather from his speech, however, that he complained of any irregular or illegal proceedings. So far as he understood it, the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was a speech against the principle of the Act for the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland, and he thought the House would be of opinion that the present was not the time for discussing the policy or provisions of that Act. That Act was applied in this case on grounds which he had no doubt appeared to the Government of the day amply to justify the prisoner's arrest; and, as no charge was made against that Government that the Act had been improperly applied, he should make no remarks on that part of the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick moved for copies of all affidavits used on the Motion for a habeas corpus, for a copy of the Ruling of the Court upon the Motion, for the original warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and also for the subsequent ones for transferring the prisoner. With respect to that part of his Motion, he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman at the present moment had in his possession copies of all the Papers he referred to; and as they could be obtained, or copies of them by anyone who chose to take the trouble to apply for them, he thought the House would be of opinion that, being little more than mere formal documents, they were not worth the expense of printing. With respect to the last part of his Motion, as to the subsequent warrants and all sworn information, if any, on which the original warrant of arrest was issued—he had to say that any Return to that part of the Motion would be directly contrary to the principle of the Protection of Life and Property Act. The policy of that was that the Lord Lieutenant would, upon reasonable suspicion, act upon such information as might be given to him and cause the arrest by warrant of all such persons as might be suspected of being members of the Riband Society. It would be directly contrary to the policy of that Act, and to the intention with which it was passed by Parliament, if any publication should be made of any information on which the Lord Lieutenant might have acted in the matter. It would, in fact, destroy the entire object with which the Act was passed; and therefore, on the ground that, with respect to the first part of the Motion, there would be no useful purposes served by its being carried, and, with respect to the second, that it would be directly contrary to the principles of the law, he must resist the Motion. The hon. and learned Member stated further that the prisoner had been improperly treated whilst in prison. [Mr. BUTT: No.] He had gathered from his statement that the prisoner was subjected to certain restrictions which were vexatious and uncalled for. If that were so—although no complaint of that nature had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, or, so far as he was aware, by any friend of the prisoner—he would take care that it was looked into, and that the prisoner was well treated. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would see, if he referred to the circumstances of the prisoner's removal from one gaol to another, that the removal was made on the ground of the prisoner's health, and on no other. That person, Patrick Casey, had now been confined, under the powers given by the Peace Preservation Act, for, he believed, a period of three years. He quite felt that that was a part of the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given sufficient consideration, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would undertake that it should be carefully looked into, and if it appeared to be consistent with the preservation of life and property in that part of the country in which the prisoner and his associates resided, and in which, he feared, he possessed no little influence, he would not continue him under the present restraints.

MR. BUTT

said, that the documents he asked for were important, though to some extent formal documents. The affidavit of his father would show the system of duresse to which the son was subjected. He could well understand why the right hon. Gentleman should shrink from publishing the documents he asked for, and he did not think there was an English gentleman in that House whose heart would not bleed at the story they disclosed. The Lord Lieutenant's powers were unlimited, and their exercise irresponsible; and he had a just right to complain that the Protection of Life and Property Act had been used to keep a young man a prisoner for two years and a half with no charge made against him. This was a Bastille. This was government in Ireland by Bastille. And he was to be gravely told that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the young man was to die in gaol. He had been removed from gaol to gaol, and he wanted to know whether he was to be kept in prison till he died? If in a time of profound peace that weak and disabled young man must be kept in a prison at the risk of his life to ensure the peace of Ireland, it was a mockery of government. He should press his Motion to a division.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

explained that the removal of the prisoner took place last year. It was ordered by the late Government, and the report as to the prisoner's health which had been since made was that it was good.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he could not, hear those things stated in Parliament without being carried back to the time when men's lives in Ireland were thought no more of than those of wild animals. Was that the case now? Was Ireland in a condition so dangerous that men of this sort were to be kept for three years in gaol, and no one allowed to approach them except under guard? He wanted to know whether that kind of thing was necessary? He did not wish to say that Ireland was misgoverned; but this was evidence that the country was in a dangerous state. It was damning, and the Government ought to look into the matter and try to see what the great difficulty was that made it necessary to keep a human being in prison for three years without the slightest accusation being made against him. He said it was dangerous; it was terrible. Englishmen would not bear it, and would demand to understand why this young man was kept in prison.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, that the Act was passed in consequence of an investigation held before a Select Committee of that House, which was caused entirely by the state of the county of Westmeath and a few adjoining districts. It was not enforced in any place except that particular neighbourhood, and it was not aimed at political but at agrarian offences. It was intended to prevent any of those crimes which had caused the appointment of the Committee, and which had occurred in such numbers that the Government of the day were obliged to apply to the House for a Committee to take evidence. The result of the evidence was to satisfy the Committee and the House that they could not cope with the Riband organization without some such powers as those which the Act conferred. The Act provided that when the Lord Lieutenant had reasonable cause to suspect a member of the Riband Society, he should have power by warrant to imprison him. Parliament had confidence that this power would be used by the Lord Lieutenant with care and caution. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) took upon himself to say, although strongly differing from the noble Earl in political opinions, that no one ever held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who more conscientiously discharged all those public duties connected with the Executive Government than Earl Spencer. The proceedings in this particular case were not left to a subordinate officer, for he had the means of satisfying himself that Earl Spencer exercised his own judgment in this case. The whole question resolved itself into this—would the House place confidence in the Lord Lieutenant or not? The last Parliament had decided this question in the affirmative, and had given the Lord Lieutenant power to apprehend and imprison in certain cases any individual who was suspected of taking part in a Riband conspiracy. To publish the Papers on which these proceedings were founded would be to hold up to terrorism and imperil the lives of those informants who had supplied the knowledge on which the Lord Lieutenant had acted. Earl Spencer had not taken this step except under the strongest and most rigid necessity, and with the belief that there were good reasons for apprehending and detaining this man. No application had been made by the prisoner or on his behalf until the matter was brought before the House of Commons. He would admit that in cases where the detention was prolonged the circumstances required to be re-investigated from time to time to see whether the prisoner might not be discharged. His detention, however, had been the act of a nobleman of singular humanity, sense of justice, and attention to the business of the Executive; and if the House passed a censure upon Earl Spencer, it would be a censure not upon the Lord Lieutenant, but really upon the Act of Parliament under which he had acted. He was willing that the present Government should be judged by anything they did; but he hoped the House would not take a course that would harass and fetter the Government by agreeing to this Motion. That would be, in effect, to say:—"We hold you answerable for the peace of Ireland, while we prevent you from using the very weapon with which you are armed to secure it."

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

observed that, as a Member for a portion of the county to which the Act related, he was bound to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not made a sufficient answer to the case of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt.) It had been stated by the Attorney General for Ireland that Earl Spencer knew the circumstances connected with this incarceration, and that he gave his personal attention to them. He would be the last person to say anything in disparagement of that noble Lord. But if such an argument were to be admitted it would amount to this—that so long as the administration of Irish affairs was in such hands there would be no need for the application of legal principles in that country. In one district of the King's County, the Barony of Kilcoursy, there was, in consequence of the unnecessary imposition of this statute, such a strong feeling against British rule that not even the Catholic clergy could grapple with it. No doubt this statute removed many of the difficulties in the way of the police, and considerably lessened their duties, but it was a poor way of governing. There was such deep-seated and wide-spread discontent at its existence, that last year, when the proposal was made for its renewal, his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) found it necessary to vote against the Motion. The Attorney General for Ireland had not made out any case against the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. If the statements he had made in placing the Motion before the House were untrue, as had been suggested, then their untruth should be established, and that could only be done by the production of the several documents for which he had moved.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

agreed with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was impossible, for the reasons which he had stated, to give the information which was asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and upon which the arrest of the prisoner was originally founded. No doubt to a very great extent the information upon which the Lord Lieutenant acted was derived from sworn evidence; but a good deal, too, must-have been derived from other sources, or the man would have been tried in the ordinary way. He trusted, however, that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would reconsider his determination, and at all events see his way to granting the first portion of this Motion. He thought it desirable that the House should know all that the prisoner's friends could say about the circumstances; and he ventured to ask the House not to accept as correct, without further information, all the particulars which had been given of the arrest and imprisonment of this man. He regretted very much that he had not noticed the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend on the Paper, because he had consequently had no opportunity of refreshing his memory as to the circumstances of the case, for which the late Government must, of course, be held solely responsible. He (the Marquess of Hartington) confirmed the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland that every case of this kind was made by the late Lord Lieutenant a subject of anxious consideration; and so far from acting, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, upon the suspicion of a policeman or upon the ill-will or grudge of a magistrate, his noble Friend never acted in any case, not only of first committal but of re-consideration, without summoning from the neighbourhood every magistrate, police-officer, or other person who could afford any information on the subject. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had asked whether Ireland was in so dangerous a state that a man ought to be imprisoned for years without a trial? He did not admit that Ireland was in a dangerous state at all; but there was no doubt that in certain limited districts the existence of a secret society did render life and property, to a certain extent, insecure; and when Parliament had placed in the hands of the Executive Government an engine such as this—power for the protection of life and property of individuals—he maintained the Lord Lieutenant would have been wanting in his duty if, by not exercising the great powers entrusted to him, loss of life had ensued in these districts. The mode in which his noble Friend carried the Act into effect was abundantly illustrated by the fact that when the present Government came into office they found only a few persons—if, indeed, the number exceeded one—imprisoned under the operation of its provisions. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would upon reconsideration see his way to grant copies of the affidavits asked for, the ruling of the Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus, and the warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant for the arrest of the party implicated.

MR. DISRAELI

I had the honour to be a Member of the Committee the evidence given before which led to the legislation in question. It revealed to us a state of ruthless anarchy, and it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that there was a necessity for this legislation. I think myself that, whoever may be the Viceroy of Ireland, from whatever party he may be selected, the powers of that Act would be exercised by himself personally and with a sense of the deepest and most anxious responsibility; and therefore I must frankly state my conviction that if this affair were investigated there would be a general opinion that the powers of the Lord Lieutenant were exercised in a necessary manner. At the same time, after the expression of opinion on the part of the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, I certainly should not wish to refuse the production of any documents which may be fairly asked for. Of course, the position taken by my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary was very much influenced by a feeling of honourable political sentiment, of maintaining a course which had been followed by his Predecessor, and the justice and policy of which he approved. I could not, of course, under any circumstances, myself authorize the production of any sworn information; but so far as the preliminary papers, copies of affidavits, rulings of the Court, and copy of the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant are concerned, after the expression of opinion of the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary I certainly cannot decline to produce them.

MR. BUTT

expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the Prime Minister, and would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Then— Copies ordered, "of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey: Of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion: Of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest: And, of all subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody."—(Mr. Butt.)