CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE. (Hansard, 27 August 1880)

§ MR. PARNELL
said, there were some important matters connected with this Vote which he thought it would be well to mention. He would refer first to the actions that were brought last year by the late Government against Messrs. Daly, Miller, & Brennan. This was a proper opportunity for asking Her Majesty's Government what they proposed to do with reference to these proceedings which were still pending, as far as he had been able to gather. The late Government broughtthese gentlemen before the magistrates at Sligo, and they were committed for trial at the Sligo Assizes. The Crown then applied to have the cases removed by writ of certiorari to Dublin; and consequently, when the time for the trials came on, no further proceedings appeared to have been taken by the Crown. He thought it very desirable that it should now be known whether it was intended to proceed further in the matter or not. If the Crown intended to proceed, then the proceedings should be undertaken within some reasonable time, so that these charges should not be kept hanging over the heads of the gentlemen implicated by them. He, therefore, ventured to ask the Law Officers of the Crown whether it was intended to proceed further with the actions which had already been commenced or not.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cork he might state that it: was not the intention of the Government to follow up the matter further.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse him if he called attention to another matter. He wished to know if there was any Vote in these Estimates for the expenses of private or detective reporters at public meetings in Ireland? There was no doubt that the Government did employ these private or detective reporters, and sent them round Ireland for the purpose of attending meetings and providing the Government with information; but he could not find any item in the Vote for the payment of 417 their expenses or in remuneration of their services. He should very much like to object to the Vote for the payment of these peculiar reporters. Could the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland inform him where he was to find the item for the payment of these gentlemen, who were, in a certain sense, Government informers, and whose employment, as an old Press man, he regarded as incompatible with the dignity of the Press? He also wished to make a remark upon the Office of the Attorney General for Ireland himself. He desired to direct the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend to a matter which was of considerable public importance, and he had no intention of bringing it forward in any hostile spirit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be aware that there had been a very serious litigation going on in reference to the foreshores at the Skerries, near Dublin. He believed that some scores of people in that district had been prosecuted and interfered with, though they were only in reality asserting what he believed to be a public right. If he was correctly informed, it turned out that it was a bonâ fide public right, as the rights of foreshores had never, in this case, been granted to any particular landlord. He, therefore, respectfully submitted that it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland) to take care that the public rights were not abrogated or allowed to lapse. He was glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) in his place, because he believed that the question affected that right hon. and learned Gentleman more than the present holder of the Office. If he was correctly informed by the public Press, a very curious act had been done on the part of the late Attorney General for Ireland. In England, wherever a public right was questioned, the Attorney General would at once appear, and take care that a claim was put in on behalf of the public and of the Crown, and that the public rights were not given up to particular landlords. But in this particular case, so far as he understood it, the Crown had acted in a most peculiar and extraordinary way, having intrusted someone to appear on their behalf to concede away the public rights in the matter, notwithstanding the fact 418 that the landlord claiming these rights was unable to adduce any grant from the Crown. Thus it would seem that, in the year 1880, the rights of the Crown were allowed to go by the board, and the rights of the public were openly compromised. What was particularly objectionable in the matter was that no one on the part of the present Attorney General for Ireland had remonstrated, but that an arrangement, agreed to under the instructions of the previous Attorney General for Ireland had been tacitly agreed to. He should be delighted to hear that it was not so; but it was so reported in the public Press, and he only wished to have some light thrown upon the subject, which had given rise to very serious complaints in Ireland. If it was not too late, he wanted to know that the Attorney General for Ireland, without prejudicing the case of the Crown or of the landlord, would take care that the rights of the Crown and of the public would not be prejudicially affected by any lapsus or concession which had already been made in the case. If the landlord had any substantial and just rights, let him establish them; but if not, then let the public rights be protected. He hoped the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would be able to explain this very curious transaction which was established in the Dublin journals of the day.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
was understood to say that personally he knew nothing of this particular suit before the Vice Chancellor of Ireland, but that he had made inquiries about it; and, as far as he could make out, the case was as follows:—There had been a series of proceedings between the owner of certain seaside lands and various members of the ordinary public as to the right of the latter to cut sea-weed on the shore. The matters in dispute had been going on for some time. Indeed, he believed that one action was tried as far back as 10 years ago, and there had subsequently been a case in the Rolls Court arising out of the transaction, as well as other suits. It was right he should state that in the suit in the Rolls Court to which he referred the Crown was represented by Council, who contested the plaintiff's title, which, however, was established, and the Crown left by the Court to pay their own costs. As far 419 as he was able to ascertain, the facts connected with the last trial were these:— No notice of the suit was given to the Attorney General for Ireland or anyone representing him; but counsel appeared on behalf of the Crown, instructed not by the Attorney General or his solicitor, but by the Solicitors of the Board of Trade. He presumed this strange course was adopted because the jurisdiction in regard to the foreshores had been by Statute vested in the Board of Trade. Under these circumstances, the Solicitor of the Board of Trade or his counsel retained by him, acting probably under the directions of the Board of Trade, seemed to have appeared at the hearing of the cause, and to have formally stated that the Crown made no claim to the foreshores in question. As already explained, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had no personal knowledge of the transaction, never having been consulted in regard to it.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had clearly shown that his Department was not to blame in the matter, but he had shifted the responsibility upon the Board of Trade. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) did not know whether anyone on the part of the Board of Trade could account for the transaction. It seemed that the authority of the Board of Trade was unknown to anybody in Dublin; but the legal gentleman employed by that Board was instructed to appear on behalf of the Attorney General for Ireland, although it now appeared that he was instructed without the Attorney General for Ireland ever having appeared in the transaction. He would not say it was a very Irish transaction; but it certainly bore a strong resemblance to a Board of Trade transaction. If nobody was present to explain this peculiar transaction, he should on some future occasion call attention to it. He would not take the extreme course of objecting to the Vote on the present occasion, because it was one which arose upon the salary of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but he should certainly put a question to the President of the Board of Trade in reference to it.

§ DR. COMMINS
wished to have an explanation of the following item in the Vote—Crown Solicitors,£16,350; Ses- 420 sional Crown Solicitors,£5,825. This was exclusive of£12,000 paid as fees for counsel. As a matter of fact, the Sessional Crown Prosecutors or Solicitors did a considerably larger amount of work than the Crown Solicitors; but they frequently heard from the Judges of Assize that the amount of the salaries paid was not at all regulated by the amount of work done. He wished to know from the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government intended to take any steps for a revision of the salaries of the Crown Solicitors and the Sessional Solicitors in Ireland, having regard to the great difference which now existed in the amounts paid to each, and the similarity of the business transacted by each. Indeed, the bulk of the work in conducting prosecutions fell upon the Sessional Solicitors, and the Crown Solicitors were merely instructed to prepare briefs.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
asked, what was the particular item the hon. Member referred to?

§ DR. COMMINS
I refer to the item of£16,350 paid to Crown Solicitors, and of£5,825 paid to the Sessional Crown Solicitors.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
At what page of the Estimates?

§ DR. COMMINS
Page 24.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
But the hon. Gentleman has been referring to a paper.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, that it was simply a paper which had been placed in his hands in order to enable him to put the question. He had not had an opportunity of giving Notice of the Question, or he would have put it on the Paper of the House.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
understood that the hon. Gentleman wished to know what was the difference between the nature of the work transacted by the Crown Solicitors, by the Sessional Crown Solicitors, and by the Crown Prosecutors.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, that the salaries paid were so very disproportionate that he wished to have an explanation of the reason why such a difference existed. The Crown Solicitors received enormous salaries in proportion to the Sessional Solicitors. He wished to know 421 if it was intended to take any steps in order to apportion the salaries to the amount of work done?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that these several gentlemen, whose respective duties were of a somewhat different description, were paid in proportion to the importance of the work they performed. The work done by the Sessional Solicitors was of a less responsible and difficult character than that done by the Crown Solicitors. The difference in the amount of remuneration was, therefore, according to the different character of their respective work.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, he had received no answer to the question he had put to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland with regard to the payment of reporters at country meetings—police reporters.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
did not find that there was any special Vote for these services. He believed the persons referred to were employed to take down the language used at certain land meetings. He presumed that they received only the wages of policemen.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he understood that the members of the Constabulary referred to were employed to attend certain public meetings for the purpose of informing themselves as to what took place at them. No question was now raised as to the policy of the Vote. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) only asked for information as to the principle on which the expenses were paid. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would not be so well able to explain the matter as the late Attorney General for Ireland, as it was the late Government that introduced the practice of employing the police in this capacity.

§ MR. GIBSON
was disposed to think, but could not say so with any certainty, that the charge for the expenses of the police employed in this way were included in the very last item of charge. The payment of reporters came under the head of that Vote. He had no doubt of that, and it was a very moderate sum indeed that was required. He thought it came under the last head—"General Law Expenses"—which comprised various items. He was quite sure that the charge was comprised in this Vote, and 422 he should say that it came under this particular head.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, there was a matter connected with this business to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He did not deny that the Government were entitled to have correct information as to what took place at the land meetings; but there was another practice of a very objectionable character which prevailed throughout the country —namely, the practice of directing sergeants of police and other police constables to take rough notes in a notebook of statements made by public speakers and otherwise. That was a much more objectionable practice, from all points of view, than the employment of special reporters by the police. In the first place, a policeman, under such circumstances, could not take a note that would be of any value or importance. He took out a note-book and scribbled down a few words in it, very often hastily, in the dark, and the note simply represented his idea of the nature of the observations made. Now, he did not think that that was the kind of reporting which the Government ought to encourage if their object was to obtain correct information as to what might be said at a public meeting. If the Government desired to have reports, he thought they ought to employ skilled shorthand writers, as undoubtedly they had done in many cases. The practice, however, had repeatedly been to send a sergeant of police who stood in the crowd and scribbled down a few words under the most unfavourable circumstances, just as he happened, in the most fragmentary way, to catch them. This was an objectionable practice from more points of view than one. In the first place, when the people saw a sergeant of police or a constable produce his notebook for the purpose of taking notes, they were apt to look upon him as a sort of spy; and if he was standing in a crowd, unsupported by his friends, there was, to some extent, a temptation to molest the officer in the execution of his duty, although it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that it was a duty which was entirely unnecessary. He had often himself, in travelling about the country, had to say a few words to the people, and he had soon the police enter the 423 crowd, take out a note-book and commence to jot down what he was saying. Someone in the crowd was immediately tempted to jog his elbow, and a dispute and a disturbance might, under such circumstances, very easily arise. If the Government wanted reporters, there was no reason why they should not have them; but the reports should be taken by regular shorthand writers. He was strongly of opinion that the system adopted of placing note-books in the hands of the police, under these circumstances, was wrong and ought to be discontinued.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
quite agreed with the hon. Member. The Government felt that, as a matter of duty, they ought to know, as far as possible, what was said at these meetings; but it would be better to employ professional reporters, who could not be charged with any prepossession one way or the other in making their report. On the other hand, he was sorry to say, it was desirable that the police should know what occurred at these meetings, and he did not think it would be quite fair towards the police to ask them to trust altogether to their memory. All that the policeman did was, instead of trusting to his memory, he put down what he heard at the time, so that he might afterwards be able to make a report to his superior officer.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he saw the services of the Crown Solicitor put down at£300 in one place as Solicitor of the Valuation Department, and, on turning to another item, he saw the same gentleman's services put down at£400. He should like to know which amount was the correct one. On turning to sub-head "H," he found that that was an item of£500 for the expenses of actions taken against resident magistrates, divisional and other justices, and the Constabulary for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. That Vote for enabling magistrates and other public officials to sustain actions taken against them by members of the public was one of much interest to the public; and it would be very much to the interest of the Irish Members if the Government could give them any information as to the meaning of the Vote and as to the nature of the actions. In sub-head "I" there was an item of£2,540 for the lodging of the Judges on circuit. Even 424 that amount did not appear to have been sufficient, for in the last Appropriation Account, after paying that sum, there appeared an additional charge of£400, paid under the head of rent. Well, he should imagine that if they paid for a man's lodgings they also paid for his rent; and he could not quite make out the distinction between the two. He should to know on what basis that Estimate was calculated. There were 12 Judges on circuit. Supposing£2 a-day each was paid for their lodgings, and they were on circuit for a month in the year, the total amount would be£720. The amount put down appeared to him to be about three times as much as ought to be paid. The last point he had to raise was one of principle, and of much greater importance. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the late Government instituted last year prosecutions for seditious language against several gentlemen who had taken a prominent part in conducting the land agitation in Ireland. He thought there was no chance of his being contradicted when he said that public opinion in Ireland had condemned these prosecutions as a very serious blunder. It was generally recognized that these gentlemen were earnest, conscientious men, who had no other object but the welfare of the people; and it was generally felt that the Government, before instituting these prosecutions, ought to have taken some steps towards alleviating the miseries of the people. Now, he should like to know what was the extent of the cost to the country caused by that blunder of the prosecutions, how much of it was included in the Vote of last year, and how much in the Estimate then before the Committee? He found such items as "support of Crown witnesses," and printing of briefs with the sanction of the Attorney General for Ireland; and he thought that such expenditure ought to be most strenuously questioned, because these prosecutions ought not to have been instituted until the Government had taken some remedial measures to relieve the distress.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, he was disposed to go even further than his hon. Friend behind him. His late Friend Mr. Butt steadily refused every Vote of that kind during the time that he had a seat in that House. He asked 425 hon. Gentlemen who represented English constituencies if they could produce to him any item such as that of expenses of actions taken against resident magistrates, divisional and other justices, and the Constabulary for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. It was a most unconstitutional Vote. It amounted to an indemnity to public officials for breaking the law. Such a proposition as that struck at the root of all civil right and usage. It was nothing less than the claiming on the other side of the Channel of what liberty-loving Englishmen on this side would never submit to. He remembered supporting Mr. Butt in opposition to a similar Vote in the case of Mr. Keogh, a magistrate of Derry. In that case there was a verdict against him of£100. They had an evening's debate over that upon a most important principle. Mr. Butt pointed out that it was unconstitutional and radically vicious to give public officials carte blanche to go ahead, right or wrong, and that Parliament should vote the money for defending them when they were wrong. Nothing could more tend to render them headstrong and reckless in their conduct as public administrators of justice; and accordingly he should like to know how that£500 was made out, and what it consisted of? As for the lodgings of the Judges, he thought there was a great deal in what his hon. Friend had said. There were some newspapers in Ireland that said the law could not be administered in Ireland if it were not for the pomp with which the Judges went about.

§ MR. BYRNE
said, he observed one item where the Crown Solicitor got£200 extra as Public Prosecutor. He had already expressed his opinion as to the undesirability of one man occupying two offices. He was of opinion that there was quite enough talent in Ireland to furnish a man for each office, and he objected to the duplicating system.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he wished to ask whether it was not the fact that there was no single item similar to the one for the defence of magistrates and others in the English or Scotch Estimates; and he also wished to know whether English and Scotch magistrates against whom actions were brought had not to pay the costs themselves?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he understood it to be the fact that in the case of 426 actions against police magistrates the costs were paid or not, according to the result of the action, and the expenses were in all cases examined by the Crown and Treasury Solicitor. With regard to the question as to the lodging expenses of the Judges going circuit, it must be remembered that their lodgings had to be paid for at special rates. It was not possible to obtain lodgings for a Judge at the same rate as for private persons.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
asked whether they were to understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in the English Votes they could find any Vote for that indemnity money. He knew that there might be a point of difference between the two cases in this respect—namely, that something like it was done in the English towns; but what he wanted to know was whether the money appeared in the English Votes passed by Parliament.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, there was no such ease last year; but he would inquire into the matter. He believed the practice to be the same in other countries.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that there was a very important Constitutional difference. In England the costs and expenses of magistrates in the boroughs, or wherever it might be, were paid by the local authorities, and they were under the control of the persons who paid the money. That was all that they wished to have in Ireland—namely, that those who paid the bill should have the control of the expenditure.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he should like to add a sentence or two. If the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had fairly put his question as did the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), he should not have thought it necessary to add a word. But the hon. Member had made use of observations that he could not pass by without a protest. The hon. Member had asked whether any part of the sum spent in the prosecutions he had referred to would be found in the Vote. As a matter of fact, the prosecutions had cost very little, and he should think they were comprised in last year's Votes. It was right that he should say that the inauguration of these proceedings was undertaken after full consideration by the late Government. They were distinctly answerable 427 for them, and he was quite prepared to defend them. He believed that they prevented the repetition of the seditious speeches that were being made, and the beneficial result of them was immediately shown in the moderation of the language that was subsequently made use of. As to the dropping of the prosecutions, he would not criticize so serious a step when it was taken on the responsibility of the Executive Government. They would be distinctly responsible for that step, and he would not say anything further about it except that he sincerely hoped it would be justified by the result. Now, there was another point to which attention had been called by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) —namely, sub-head "H," that of the expenses of magistrates and others against whom actions were brought. He believed the history of that sub-head was as follows:—When his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, there was a discussion on that point; and his right hon. Friend said that, in future, he would raise a new sub-head in the Estimates. Previously to that these expenses used to be placed in the Miscellaneous Charges. That, he believed, was the history of that item. Previously, however, to that sub-head being introduced, he had no doubt that the House was paying these charges in Ireland precisely in the same way that it paid them in England. With regard to the particular case that had been mentioned, it was ascertained, after full consideration, that the officer in question was not to blame, and that he was not in the wrong; and he (Mr. Gibson) should be greatly surprised if public funds were not to be made available for recouping the gentleman for the expense to which he had been put by the mere fact that he was a public official. The only difference between the Estimate now and formerly was that now it was made a separate sub-head of. There was one other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in relation to expenses of the Judges on circuit. He must remind the hon. Member that there were six circuits in Ireland, and that two Judges went each circuit. In addition to that, there were now always Winter Assizes. 428 Sometimes there were three or four, or even five, according to the business to be disposed of; and, of course, on all these occasions, provision had to be made for the Judges' lodgings. He might mention that it was not very easy to get Judges' lodgings in Assize towns. It was not his experience that families were very ambitious to upset themselves in order to accommodate the Judges and their Registrars for two or three weeks, and it was only by offering very liberal terms that the lodgings were to be obtained. He had known cases where the terms were refused altogether.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, he could not help interposing with one observation on what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had informed the Committee that the policy of the late Government in entering upon the prosecutions had been proved to be a good policy by the result. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement across the Table in the face of the present Attorney General for Ireland; and he would warn the latter right hon. and learned Gentleman against acting upon the implied advice of the late Attorney General for Ireland, because he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had had opportunities of judging of the state of public opinion in Ireland, and also in England, at the time those prosecutions were going on. In his judgment, the late Government never made a greater mistake than when they entered upon those prosecutions. He could not recollect any Government, responsible for the affairs of Ireland, who ever made a greater mistake than that. Now, what was the real fact? Why, not 10 hours after the commencement of the prosecutions had elapsed, arrangements were made for a great demonstration of Irishmen in the Metropolis of England, and in a few days not less than 100,000 men assembled in Hyde Park, to do what? To protest against the action of the Government, and to endorse the sentiments of the men who were prosecuted. He would not describe what was the feeling in Ireland. The Government entered upon a contest and were beaten in that contest. They were ignominiously beaten, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman came down to the House and told the Committee that the Government were exceedingly successful in the action they took. 429 He trusted that the present Attorney General for Ireland would not be drawn into undertaking any prosecutions on grounds so flimsy as those on which the last were based.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
moved to reduce the Vote for the£500 he had referred to. He would not trouble the Committee with any observations, as he had expressed his views in a previous speech.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that if they wished to test the principle, would it not be better for his hon. and learned Friend to move to omit sub-head H?

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, that it was his intention. He moved, therefore, to omit sub-head H.

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, that it was the practice in Liverpool to pay all those expenses out of the local funds. If the Judge certified that there had been no ground for bringing the action, then the local authorities paid the expenses of defending it. The only difference was that in England the money was paid out of local funds and in Ireland out of Imperial funds.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, that he had another objection to point out which was still more serious. He wished to ask who received the£500? Under what circumstancss the payment was made they had not the slightest information. If a Return were laid on the Table of the House showing the particulars of the expenditure, probably a great portion, perhaps the whole of it, would be found to be of a character that no one would object to. But, as it was, they 430 were entirely in the dark, and the official to be indemnified against the cost of an action might be some pragmatical policeman who had drawn an action upon himself by gross misconduct. In local cases in England such as the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had referred to, it was well known that there was no liability to any such abuse or the scandal of the public money being handed over to defend unworthy persons.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. That was an Estimate of£500 in regard to a number of resident magistrates and police. He could quite conceive that an Executive Government, honestly administering the funds of the community, might very well find£500 a very small sum indeed for a number of just defences which it might deem it right to authorize on behalf of its officers. He would also remind the hon. and learned Member that if the rank of the officials in question was of an Imperial nature and not of a local character, then the Treasury was especially called on to defend them.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he understood that the special objection to the Vote was not that a sum of money should be given to indemnify magistrates or policemen in cases where it had been proved to the satisfaction of a jury that they were not to blame for the offence charged against them. What was objected to was that, in some cases, where a jury, after an investigation in a public Court, had come to the conclusion that an official had been guilty of an offence that was liable in damages, the Executive Government should afterwards, in an underhand way, decide that that official should be indemnified. Now, it seemed to him that the best test for the Government should be whether there was a verdict for or against the official. If the official was acquitted by the jury, he thought it could not be said that costs should not follow the finding; but if, on the other hand, it was proved that he had acted improperly, and he was mulcted in damages, then he thought it was thoroughly outrageous and indefensible for the Government to step in and indemnify him. Unless the Government would give them some assurance that where damages were given against a party they would not indemnify him he would have to divide against the Vote.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, that before the Vote was passed, be should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he would lay upon the Table a Return showing the items of expenditure under the last head last year? He should like to have some further information; but he did not apprehend there was anything wrong.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the hon. and learned Member might rest assured that the expenditure was all bonâ fide.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a question. He had laid it down that it was the duty of the Government to administer the law as regarded evictions for non-payment of rent and ejectment processes. A short time ago, he (Mr. Biggar) asked a question with reference to a certain John Fox Goodman, who held an office in the Courts at Dublin under a stipulation that he should not hold another appointment. But he did hold another position, and the right hon. Gentleman gave him what he conceived to be a rather peculiar reply. He said that he did not consider it to be his duty to see that the law was enforced. If that were so, he (Mr. Biggar) might personally take the initiative in proceedings against him. He was under the impression that it was the duty of the Government to see the law enforced; and since the answer of the right hon. Gentleman he had received a letter, in which it was stated that the gentleman who wrote it was willing to prove upon oath that Mr. John Fox Goodman acted, not only as examiner of candidates for solicitor, but also carried on the business of a solicitor under the name of Birley, Moore, and Co. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether or not he would insist upon the law being carried out, or whether he was going to enforce what was not a righteous law in the case of tenant farmers, and yet refused to enforce the law in the case of a gentleman who held an official position with a large salary?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that, from the information he had received, that was not a case where the question arose as to carrying out the law or not. The fact was that the occupation to which the hon. Member alluded—namely, examining pupils—was not considered to be an office under Government, and, therefore, was not one over which he could exercise any control.

§ MR. GRAY
said, that when the hon. Member called attention to that matter it had already been discussed in Dublin. He knew that the gentleman to whom his hon. Friend had alluded discharged his duties in an exceptionally efficient manner; and he was bound to say that he considered the Profession would suffer injury if the gentleman were removed from the office he held, and which did not appear to interfere, in any way, with his official duties. He knew nothing about the technical part of the question; but he could testify as to the manner in which Mr. Goodman performed his duties.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand his question. He might say, however, that he believed that Mr. Goodman had taken counsel's opinion, and that he did consider that he was justified in holding the double appointment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had intended to direct the attention of the Committee to the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate who was supposed to have given the order to fire on the Catholic procession at Dungannon; but, on consideration, he had thought that his speech would, perhaps, come better into the discussion on the Constabulary Vote. Therefore, he proposed to make a suggestion to the Government which might, perhaps, avoid a lengthened discussion hereafter. There was a good deal of feeling with reference to that matter. Certain Catholic processionists were celebrating the day at Dungannon when they were attacked by Orangemen. The police appear to have fired on the processionists, although it had been stated that no stones were 433 thrown by the processionists after the attack. It seemed remarkable that when the procession had been broken up by the mob, the policemen, whose duty it was to protect the processionists as long as they behaved themselves, should have killed a number of people who sympathized with the procession, while he believed none of the attacking party was injured. He would suggest to the Government that they would issue a Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances, which appeared to be exceedingly serious. He could not help thinking that, after the way in which the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to that case and the hint thrown out, he would not fail to take action as regarded inquiry into the matter. At any rate, he certainly thought it most desirable that the Government should see who was responsible for the order to fire.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not wish, nor did he believe that the hon. Member wished, to enter into discussion upon that matter. He could not altogether accept the hon. Member's version; but he was going to say at an earlier part of the evening that, at present, he thought it was rather premature to have an inquiry. Some time ago a question was asked, and he had replied that he was strongly in favour of an inquiry being held. If there were any misconduct on the part of the officials, the hon. Member would see that an inquiry should not be instituted until after the result of the trial. If there were any charges to be made, they should come before a legal tribunal. When that was over, he thought it was desirable that an inquiry should be held into all the circumstances connected with the affair.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
thought that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had very fairly replied to the observations of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). But it appeared no distinct promise had been made to the Committee that a stringent inquiry would be held into the origin of these unfortunate riots. If the statement in The Times was correct—and he thought it might be assumed that the report in that paper was not likely to be too favourable to the processionists—a well-grounded belief existed that the attack was made upon the Catholic procession by an Orangemen who had been a servant of the sub-inspector.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member; but he was quite sure that he would see the inconvenience of discussing that matter, considering that an inquiry was then pending.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, he had no wish to prejudge the case, but only to. point out what had been stated by The Times' Correspondent, and to show the necessity for a full and searching inquiry as soon as possible. Unless a promise to this effect was made by the Chief Secretary, he thought it would be his duty to show to the Committee that it should be made.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had already made it.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he should be inclined to doubt what had been said about the processionists. The magistrates of the North of Ireland belonged exclusively to the other Party. He thought the Chief Secretary would do well to punish, severely and strictly, those who interfered with those processions; but the matter ought not to be left with the local magistrates. He believed the best thing would be to put a stop to such processions; but, if that were not done, all those interfering with them should be severely punished.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, they could not discuss that matter then; the best way of avoiding those disgraceful occurrences was, undoubtedly, by putting a stop to the processions. He had not, however, got the power of doing that. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last; and he thought it would be the business of the Executive Government seriously to consider how best the law could be altered, so as to prevent those disgraceful proceedings taking place.

§ MR. MELDON
said, there were one or two points which he thought he ought to bring before the Committee. They were as to the offices, and the efficiency of the County Court system in Ireland. He was about to refer to the Registrars of the County Court. It was a matter of great importance. When the County Court Act came before that House, in the last Parliament, a Select Committee reported that it was desirable that the officers should be appointed for the purpose of taking the Equity duties in the County Courts. The Government gave way to that, and certain 435 officers, called Registrars, were appointed The primary duty of those Registrars was that they should take accounts, and other Equity business, leaving the Clerks of the Peace to take the other business, in accordance with the suggestion of the Select Committee. It would not be denied by the Attorney General for Ireland, or the late Attorney General, that the object of those appointments was that there should be a practical and useful officer to help the County Court Judge. What took place? The Bill had no sooner passed than the officers appointed were ordered to receive, not a permanent remuneration, but so much per day for each day they were required to be in Court. The result was to render them perfectly useless. They took no accounts, and did no business when the Court was not sitting; and when the Court was sitting, and the Judge was hearing cases, they had nothing to do. Consequently, the office was simply a sinecure; and unless a radical change were effected he should be inclined to vote for the entire abolition of the office. What ought to be done was to give instructions that those Registrars should take accounts between the sittings of the Judges. The primary duty should be thrown upon them, and they should not be allowed to continue to hold sinecure appointments. A proposition had been made by the Treasury in order to effect that object; and it was suggested that the Registrars should be paid so much a-day, not merely for attendance in Court, but for those days on which they were necessarily occupied on matters connected with the County Court Judge. That had never been carried out. The attempt to make adequate provision for the carrying out of the equitable jurisdiction had proved a complete failure. On that account, he hoped that attention would be given to the matter, which was a most important one.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he wanted it to be quite clear with regard to those processions. He knew that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not the power to stop them; but he had dropped a hint, which he hoped would receive attention, that those matters should not be dealt with by the magistrates of the North of Ireland. He sincerely trusted that one of two things would be done; either that those local magistrates would 436 be restrained from interfering, or that the processions would be put a stop to altogether.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
said, he hoped that what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had called attention to would receive attention. They knew perfectly well that the jurisdiction of the Courts would be extended in other directions; and it was, therefore, reasonable that those gentlemen might know that their duties were likely to be increased. It would be well if they were informed that they would be really required in the future, and would be expected to do good service.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member, there could be no doubt that the original intention was that the Registrars should be appointed to assist the County Court Judges, especially in regard to Equity business. The pay at so much per diem while the Court was sitting had, very probably, prevented their being of so much assistance as they might otherwise have been. The question was undoubtedly an important one, and should receive the consideration of the Government.

§ MR. LITTON
believed that it was essential that strong measures should be taken for the putting down and rendering illegal Party processions in Ireland.

§ MR. MELDON
said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to have referred particularly to the remuneration. That, certainly, was an important question; but it was not the one to which he wished to call attention. The Clerk of the Peace had a variety of duties, and the Registrar had been appointed to assist the Judge in all matters, especially in those of Equity; and it ought to be left to the Judge to draw up rules for the transaction of such business. When attention was first called to that matter, it was pointed out that rules of that nature should be drawn up. The primary duty was, as he had said, the taking of accounts; and if the Registrar was unable to do that, then the Clerk of the Peace should be the officer specially designed to carry out the jurisdiction as regarded taking accounts. That work ought, however, to be thrown upon those 437 Registrars, and they ought not to be allowed to shirk it. If they were incapable of performing the duties, representations ought to be made to the Lord Lieutenant to that effect. The Treasury might settle the remuneration as they liked; but the County Court Judges ought to be made to frame rules, so that the business might be carried out as was originally intended.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),
said, that, no doubt, the hon. and learned Member meant that representations should be made to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Lieutenant had nothing to do with the matter.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he did not know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) to bring that matter before the Lord Chancellor. He had not the slightest doubt that any representation made to the Lord Chancellor would receive the attention which the merits of the case deserved. He rose more particularly for the purpose of referring to the question of processions. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gal-way (Major Nolan) that such processions should be held to be illegal—that was to say, that persons taking part in such processions should be indicted for causing a breach of the peace. However, there could be no doubt that Roman Catholic processions had been attacked by Orangemen; while there was no record, he believed, of Orange processions being attacked by Roman Catholics. The Catholics were the party in the majority; and he thought it was the duty of the Government to see that those who interfered with those processions were punished. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, as to the local magistrates, he thought nothing worse could be suggested, because the people of Ireland had no confidence in them, and the result would be the processions of one sect only would be put down. That would only lead, he believed, to a fresh series of annoyances for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He really thought, with his hon. and gallant Friend, that either those processions should be put down altogether—as had been also suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) 438 —or else they should be protected when they were not acting contrary to the law.
Vote agreed to.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question with reference to a matter which he had previously brought before the House, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. He wished to know if he intended to carry out the promise of the late Government that they should have a convict establishment in Galway? They were very anxious to have one there, as there was a good deal of water works and others to be done in that district. The late Government repeatedly promised that one should be established there. He should like to get, if possible, a decided answer to the question.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was sorry that he was unable to give a decided answer to his hon. and gallant Friend. He did not consider that there was an actual pledge. The whole question demanded close attention on the part of the Government; and when the subject was taken up, the claims and advantages of Galway, which were, no doubt, considerable, should receive every attention. He could not say further than that.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he was sorry that it did not appear to be the intention of the Government to carry out that proposal. The removal from Cork to Galway Bay would probably be attended with advantage; and the works at Haulbowline Dockyard, for the completion of which they had waited 80 years, might, perhaps, during the next 20, 30, or 50 years, be finished. Ireland would then have a Dockyard. He wished to point out with regard to that Vote that there was a charge for prison chaplains. For Protestant chaplains£1,491, for Catholic£2,100, and for Presbyterian£746. It appeared that there were Roman Catholic prisoners to the number of 3,259, Protestant 1,525, and Presbyterian 142. Hon. Members would find that that represented something like 16s. per head for Catholics,£4 for Protestants, and£5 for Presbyterians. That was the capitation rate. Considering that Ireland was a Catholic country, it did ap- 439 pear to him to be an extraordinary tiling that Protestant and Presbyterian chaplains together should get more than the Catholic chaplains. He hoped that the Government would undertake that the matter should be looked into, in order to see that there was no injustice. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some assurance with regard to that.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not promise to have that matter inquired into. He could not admit that chaplains were paid so much per head. The service had to be performed whether there were four prisoners or 40; and, therefore, it could not be calculated in that way. It must be obvious to the hon. Member that that was so.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that the point was this. In Scotland or England the number of prisoners who were Protestants far exceeded the Catholics; but in Ireland the great majority were Catholics, and yet he found that the Protestant chaplains were receiving greater sums in the shape of salaries. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "Oh, oh !" but if they would take the trouble to look at a Return furnished by the Government on the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), which gave every single prison chaplain's salary in England, Scotland, and Ireland, they would see that what he had stated was correct.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, if the hon. Gentleman would look at page 283, he would see that Protestant chaplains began at£40 and ended at£80, Roman Catholics began at£60 and ended at£200, and Presbyterians began at£40 and ended at£80.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, that it was impossible to calculate that matter fairly on a capitation rate.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, there were one or two questions he wished to ask. In the Report of the Royal Commission it was recommended that an independent inspection should be provided for convict prisons, and a number of gentlemen of high position and character had been appointed to that office for England and Scotland. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether similar steps were being taken in Ireland; and, if not, whether he intended to take the matter into consideration? He should be glad to see gentlemen se- 440 lected who would take an interest in the subject, and who were able to afford the time for proper inspection.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that that matter had come before him and his noble Friend. The consideration of the matter was not yet complete; but he hoped it would be so in a short time.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
was glad to hear that the Government were going on with that matter. It ought to have been concluded long ago. He did not wish to throw any blame, he only wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of those visitors being appointed. He wished to ask a question with regard to Spike Island. That prison was absolutely condemned long ago. That subject had been brought forcibly before their attention, and a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into it, and they reported most strongly against its maintenance. He wished to know whether it was to be abolished, and, if so, how soon?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was sorry not to be able to give a direct answer. When he came into Office, there were so many matters pressing upon his attention that he had not had time to look into the question. He believed there were strong reasons for the rejection of the place. The right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that he would personally look into the matter when he inspected that part of Ireland.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he had omitted to ask a question. He ought to have given Notice of it; but he only asked it in order that the matter might be considered before the next time it came up. Under the Irish Prison Law, flogging was not permitted, while it was permitted in England. They found that they were able to get on very well, and enforce the discipline of gaols without that punishment. But in military prisons in Ireland the prisoners could be flogged for breaches of prison discipline. An inspecting officer could give the order for a prisoner to be flogged, while a civilian could not be. He wished to ask whether the Government would consider the desirability of extending the exemption to the military prisons which prevailed in the civil prisons? Possibly the fact of the abolition of that punishment in the Army and Navy would have some effect in the prisons also. He believed there was a pretty general feeling against the 441 maintenance of that punishment; and he, therefore, did trust that the Government would consider whether they could not abolish it from the military gaols of Ireland.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that all he could say was that he would confer with the Secretary of State for War upon the subject, and see what could be done.