§
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £46,446, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland with regard to these law charges —namely, as to the State prosecutions in Dublin. He should like to know on what principle the accounts had been paid, and whether payments for criminal prosecutions were generally in proportion to the length of the cases?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the counsel engaged in these cases in Ireland were paid for each case almost, he might say, a fixed charge.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he found under the head "D," and also under the head "G," items for the expenses of witnesses for the prosecution. He wished to know what was the difference between the item of £27,000, and the modest sum of £600; and, further, he thought the Government ought to give the Irish Members generally details as to the nature of the prosecutions in respect of which such sums of money were paid—there should be a distinction drawn between ordinary criminal prosecutions and those which were of a political character. He would ask whether the expenses of the Crown prosecution in "The Queen v. Parnell and others" came under 433 either of these heads, and to what amount the expenses in that case came? He failed to see the difference between Crown witnesses and ordinary witnesses; and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see the propriety of offering a full explanation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that under the head "D" were put charges for prisoners, which formerly had been paid by the counties. Since, however, the change which had taken place in the arrangements the charge was paid under the Parliamentary Vote.
§ MR. O'DONNELLIt seems to be a general estimate.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)Yes; that is so.
§ MR. HEALYwould like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question as to the amount of the charges in the case of "The Queen v. Parnell." Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell them the entire cost of these trials? Then, with regard to another point— namely, the expenses of the Crown witnesses, he was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not complain if he put a question with regard to the detention of those unfortunate girls in the case of the Boyd trial. The prisoners were in custody for 11 months, and yet the Government had not thought it proper to bring them to trial. So great was the uncertainty and the mental strain put upon these men that one of them was driven into a state of raving lunacy. Some of the Crown witnesses in this case were girls; and these unfortunate creatures were taken from their homes for the first time, and that without the consent of their father and mother, and locked up in Fairview, in Dublin, under the paternal protection of a sub-constable. All this was done to procure the conviction of the Whelans, who, as a matter of fact, were never brought to trial. This was a most extraordinary state of things. Then, again, in the case of the murder of a policeman at Loughrea—he had no sympathy with the murderer, and he hoped that he would be convicted, and hanged by the neck until he was dead. He had no sympathy whatever with crime of this kind. The murder was a foul and blackguard murder, which no respectable person—[Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to 434 laugh; but there were some murders with which even Englishmen sympathized—for instance, the murder of Charles II. [Mr. WARTON: Charles I.] Well, Charles I. It could not be expected that Irish Members should be up in English history. In the case of the murder of this Constable Linton, there were again spirited away two or three girls from their homes, and taken up to Dublin, where, no doubt, they were now being prepared to swear as Crown witnesses were always expected to do. How could hon. Members expect that when people, especially women, were placed under the care of Crown officials, and were taught to swear, as good Crown witnesses should swear, the juries before whom the case was tried would convict on such tainted evidence? What had happened in this case? Why, a local Petty Sessions Court was held, and the prisoners applied for copies of the information; but they were refused. Technically, the Crown was justified in refusing them, and he did not complain of that; but what he did complain of was that the witnesses gave their evidence before the local Court; but the prisoners had no means of comparing that evidence with the testimony which was subsequently given publicly after the witnesses had been under the care of Crown officials and tampered with. Such a system as this, where the witnesses were spirited away to Dublin, treated to the seductions of Dublin, and prepared for giving that evidence which the Crown required, he emphatically denounced. A considerable row was made about these disturbances in Ireland; but in England, where, as had happened only a night or two before, a man flung a woman over a bridge, the case was brought before the local Court at once, and the prisoner would have the advantage of being able to compare the statements made by the witnesses directly after the deed was committed with the evidence that would be given at the trial. In Ireland they had resident magistrates, paid £700 or £800 a-year, to carry out the law, and these men committed prisoners for trial, without appeal, and allowed the witnesses to be sent up to Dublin under the care of the Crown prosecution, not allowing them to be produced in the local Courts. As he had said, he had no sympathy with the murderer in this case; but he must say this— 435 that when a jury came to be empanelled, much as he abhorred the deed, he should look with the greatest suspicion upon the evidence of witnesses who had been confined for months and months in some den in Dublin, and primed by the police. It was unfortunate that when the ordinary complaints were made in England against Irish juries, no one understood the real circumstances of the case. People were not told that the evidence given was tainted, and that the witnesses had been confined for months in Dublin under the care of the police. Nothing of that sort would be said; and people would be told that in that case there had been a miserable failure of justice—that an acquittal had taken place upon the plainest and clearest evidence—upon such evidence as any right thinking man would have felt himself bound to convict upon. They had seen the result of the state of things he was describing in the Boyd case. The Government expected to get convictions in Ireland; but he did not think they would succeed as long as they continued their present system. He did not support the abolition of capital punishment, and whenever he had to give an opinion upon the subject he went against it, because he thought that everyone who took away another man's life should lose his in return. He, therefore, sympathized with the endeavours of the Crown to bring to justice all murderers; but, at the same time, he sympathized with the juries who refused to convict when such cases as those of which he had spoken arose. In the Whelan case, the girls, who had been spirited away and primed to give evidence, were locked up, and kept away from their parents, and their father had to get a writ of habeas corpus in order to recover them. In the Loughrea case a most indecent remark had been made by the magistrate during the local inquiry. The prisoner was charged with being in possession of an old flint-lock pistol, which had apparently been manufactured in the reign of Queen Anne—a weapon that would be far more dangerous to the man who fired it than to the man who was fired at. An adjournment was asked for, and the magistrate, in reply, said—"We will give you the adjournment that Constable Linton got." He had also the record of a case heard in the county of Kerry, where an unfortunate drunken man was fined 2s. 6d. 436 and costs for assaulting a policeman. He said—"Thank your worship, and thank God." Thereupon the magistrate said—"Bring back that man;" and then, to the prisoner—"If you do not thank the police too I shall change the ruling, and send you to prison for a month." Mr. Bland, another magistrate, said—"I do not think he knows what you mean, Mr. Monsell;" and the resident magistrate replied—"Oh, he knows very well what I mean, and he must return thanks to the police, or go to gaol." The defendant then thanked the police, and left the Court. These magistrates were the veritable "village tyrants" who made local life in Ireland a misery. These were the people who exercised the most cruel wrongs on the unfortunate peasantry, and the Government expected Members of Parliament to vote taxes to people of this kind. They had Mr. Blake, another magistrate—
§ MR. HEALYIf I am out of Order, I will not go on with these observations. I thought I was on the Vote for Crown prosecutions, and I was dealing with Crown prosecutions; but if I am out of Order, I will postpone my observations until another opportunity presents itself.
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Crown prosecutions, he is in Order; but I cannot see that the stipendiary magistrates have anything to do with Crown prosecutions.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Chairman was quite right, and he (Mr. Healy) had been transgressing in the matter. What he wanted to ask was this—why the Government allowed these witnesses to be locked up without letting the evidence they had given before the local Courts be communicated to the prisoners? As a matter of fact, the witnesses were taken up to Dublin and there doctored. He should think that the law and practice in regard to evidence in Ireland should be assimilated with the law and the practice in England.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he also wished for information with regard to this item of £27,000. Did it include any of the expenses payable to the informer Clarke, who tried to swear away the life of Bernard M'Hugh? The circumstances of this case were of the most imfamous character. The police and the magis- 437 trate tried to convict M'Hugh of a murder of which he was afterwards acquitted, and even after his acquittal they continued to persecute him. Well, there was a grave suspicion—in fact, more than a suspicion—in the county of Eos-common that the informer who was paid for prosecuting this unfortunate man was really the person who committed the murder. There was the strongest possible evidence in the county that this was so; and if the Government really wished to find out who was the murderer of Young they should arrest Clarke and put him on his trial. It was a matter of absolute notoriety that Clarke was the man who, in all probability, did the murder; but, notwithstanding this, the Government had been paying him money to swear away the life of another person. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether any money was included in this Vote as payment to this man? and, if so, he should feel it his duty to take the decision of the Committee upon the Vote.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he had already given the only answer he could give. He could not tell the hon. Gentleman at the moment what the gross amount of the costs of the State prosecution had been. To the best of his belief, it was all paid and accounted for in the last Estimate; but, further than that, he was not in a position to say anything. As to the second matter, which was of a more serious character, the hon. Gentleman, he thought, scarcely did justice to the mode in which prosecutions were conducted in Ireland as compared with England. In Ireland, as in this country, depositions were taken in Courts of Petty Session, or before magistrates, and the depositions taken down in this way were available at the trial. [Mr. O'KELLY: They were refused in this case.] They ought not to have been refused. In certain cases, where the witnesses had not been before a local Court, and the evidence had not been taken by the magistrates, it was the invariable practice to hand to the defendant's solicitor an abstract of the evidence the witnesses were prepared to give. This was the ordinary practice in Ireland. Now, as to the witnesses being 438 withdrawn, it was unfortunate that it should ever be necessary to place witnesses under the care of the Crown officials; but the hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Healy) would be one of the first to recognize that there were two sides to this question, and if the condition of society in a certain district was such that there was reason to believe that the murder had been committed by the concerted action of several people, that it was the result of combination, it was obvious that if they left the witnesses, especially women, who were more open to the influences of terrorism than men, to be worked upon by such a combination, they would be allowing justice to be defeated in a most absurd manner. It might be that witnesses were withdrawn, not for any improper purpose, not for the purpose of "doctoring" them, as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had said, but simply to protect them against outrage, on the one hand, and against being tampered with, on the other. This, he thought, the hon. Member would admit was justifiable, and it did not appear to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) just or reasonable to jump to the conclusion that the witnesses were removed for the improper purpose the hon. Member had suggested. As to the girls, to whom reference had been made, they had not been taken away against the will of their parents—
§ MR. HEALYYes, they were, and a writ of habeas corpus had to be obtained in order to secure their recovery.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the girls were withdrawn for their own protection, the family feeling that it would not be safe for them to remain in the locality where the murder was committed. They were young girls, and they were perfectly willing to go to Dublin, where they remained in the family of a married policeman. Well, the trouble that the girls might have been subjected to fell upon the parents, and at last these people gave their consent to the girls being brought back. The moment intelligence of this change of mind reached the authorities, and before the writ of habeas corpus was obtained, the girls were sent back.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)Yes; even before the application for the writ was made.
§ THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that was so. The very moment the first intimation was received from the parents that they were not in the same frame of mind as they had been before, the girls were ordered to be sent back. As to the other case referred to, he could not assent to the statement that it was notorious in Roscommon that a particular man was the murderer. He could not imagine how, if everybody in Roscommon. knew who the murderer was, no one could be found to denounce him, especially when another man was being, as it was now said, falsely accused. It was said that it was perfectly notorious in the county that Clarke committed the murder—
§ MR. O'KELLYNo. What I said was that it was perfectly notorious he was suspected of having committed it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)Oh, it was notorious suspicion only. He had not so understood the hon. Member. He thought he had heard the hon. Member say there was evidence of the fact that the murder was committed by Clarke. If that was so, all he (the Attorney General for Ireland) could say was that such evidence had not been submitted to the authorities. It was very much to be regretted, if the hon. Member knew that such evidence did exist, that he had not taken steps to have it brought forward. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not know whether any of the money for the expenses in this case was included in the present Vote, and therefore he could not give the desired information. With regard to what was reported to have fallen from the stipendiary magistrate (Mr. Monsell), the hon. Member who had made the accusation must allow him to doubt that the words quoted were ever used at all.
§ MR. BARRYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not well informed with regard to the New Rosscase, for it was a fact that one of the girls was taken away without her parents knowledge. As to the order being given for the return of the girls before the writ of habeas corpus was issued, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong there also. The application for the writ was argued in Court, and the case was looked upon and watched in Dublin with the greatest interest. In New Ross, also, 440 great interest was taken in the matter, and the result, when it was announced, was sent away by telegraph.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he happened to be in Dublin when the matter arose. He was acting at the time for his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who was absent from Dublin; and he was, therefore, in a position to say definitely that the girls were removed with the consent of their parents—his recollection was that their written consent was obtained. Subsequently, the father came to Dublin, and asked that they should be allowed to return. They were out walking with the constable's wife when the father came. Accordingly, they 3ould not be sent away at once; but directly they came in they were informed, and expressed a wish to go home. The matter was brought before him (the Solicitor General for Ireland), and he gave directions that the girls should be handed over to the father at once, if he called for them again; and that if he did not call for them they should be sent home. Instead of going back for the girls, the father went away to a solicitor, and instructed him to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. No order for the girls discharge was made by the Queen's Bench, because the statement was made in open Court on the part of the Crown of what had taken place, and that the girls accordingly would be sent home.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the Attorney General for Ireland upon this matter had misrepresented, as he very often did, what hon. Members had said. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the evidence in the M'Hugh case, he would see that the man Clarke had himself sworn that he was a party to the conspiracy to murder Young. It was perfectly well known that Clarke entertained hostile feelings towards Young, and that he had a personal grudge against him of some years' standing, because, on an important occasion, the deceased had stood between him and the appointment to the stewardship of a certain estate. Mr. Clarke swore, in the information, that he was one of the men who planned the murder of Young; but, in order to cover himself, he charged the offence on M'Hugh, who, as was afterwards clearly shown, could have had nothing to do with it. From all 441 the circumstances connected with these men, it was the general opinion, though there might be no precise and technical legal evidence, that Clarke was the murderer—there was a very strong opinion, strengthened by the man's own evidence, which identified him with the crime. It was considered in the county that there was enough evidence to have convicted Clarke if he had been put on his trial, and the Government had shown great laxity in their administration of justice in not having proceeded against him.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that no one was more ready than himself to acknowledge the urbanity and courtesy of the two Irish Law Officers of the Crown. They were the two most courteous Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench; but, at the same time, in matters of this kind, they were most skilful. For the Attorney General for Ireland he would say that he had managed, on this occasion, with his usual skill, to evade the point which had been put before him. His (Mr. Healy's) charge against the officials, as to the witnesses being spirited away, was this—that no opportunity was given in Ireland, like that afforded in England, in cases of murder, for the evidence taken at the local inquiry, before the witnesses had been doctored, to be taken down and submitted to the prisoner. How had the right hon. and learned Gentleman met this complaint? Why, he had not met it at all. All he had said was that, for the purpose of preventing witnesses being tampered with, it had been necessary to take them away. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had not gone into this matter at all. He had said that if they expected juries to convict in Ireland it was necessary that the Government should not bring before them tainted evidence.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, this same evidence wa8 given at New Ross.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was referring to the Loughrea case; but, of course, he had no means of knowing what had taken place except through the medium of the newspapers. Only that week he had read that two servant girls had been brought away from the town of Loughrea, after a private and secret magisterial investigation had been held. It was his desire, as he had said, that the real murderer or murderers should be brought to justice, and ultimately 442 hanged; but if he were one of the jury having brought before them these servant girls, whose evidence was heard for the first time after they had been in the arms of the police constables of Dublin for three months, he should hesitate very much to convict. It did not do for the Attorney General for Ireland to say he knew nothing at all about this matter. How were hon. Members to learn anything about it if not through the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The only channel of information open to him (Mr. Healy) was the newspapers, which channel was equally open to the Government; but, in addition to that, they had their secret channels of information. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and say he did not know anything about the matter was a thing he (Mr. Healy) entirely failed to understand. The police dared not bring forward the evidence of these persons in the local Courts—they dared not bring forward the plain, unvarnished tale of these people before they had been tampered with by the police—they dared not admit the public to their investigations. The first time they heard of the evidence of these people was after they had enjoyed the society of the Dublin constables, and had consorted with them in the Phoenix Park for two or three months. The Government had not the confidence of the Irish juries, and they did not deserve it. They all recognized the courtesy with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland invariably entered into these discussions. In fact, he disarmed them with his courtesy. No one could quarrel with him; but he was invariably so courteous that it almost seemed a pity to reply to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, did not give them any information. He turned the Cape—winding round the matter, and leaving it exactly where it was. He (Mr. Healy) should watch with great anxiety the result of the trial of which he had spoken, and should examine with great care the evidence of these two women, after they had been locked up and kept under the Protection of Person and Property Act, as amended by the Loughrea Justices. He should note if the jury refused to convict on the evidence of these two witnesses. As to the case of "The Queen v. Parnell," the right hon. and learned Gentleman said 443 he was unable to give the Committee a definite statement as to the amount expended on the trial. A question had been asked on the matter on the Supplementary Vote some months ago.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman cannot discuss that matter, as it does not come under this Vote at all.
§ MR. HEALYI understood that questions affecting the law charges and the fees of the Attorney General for Ireland came under this Vote.
THE CHAIRMANBut the hon. Member has been already informed that the expenses of this particular prosecution are not included under this Vote.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had received information to that effect from the Attorney General for Ireland; but he had not received such information from the Chairman. He was not aware that the Chairman, in his position as Chairman of Committees, could possess the information. He would ask the responsible officials whether that particular charge came under this Vote or not? He would not pursue the subject for one moment if the Attorney General would tell him under what head the expenses in "The Queen v. Parnell" were charged.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)I believe all the costs are already paid, and were accounted for in the last Estimate. That is the case, as far as I know.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)Under the Supplementary Vote dealt with some months ago, and fully discussed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that when this question was raised on the Supplementary Estimates he had put the question, and received exactly the same answer as was now given—namely, that the Government were unable to make any statement upon the matter. If the Government informed him that they could not tell him what were the total expenses in the case, he would not pursue the matter further. He protested, however, against the manner in which the Irish Members were treated on these subjects. He should like to see a State prosecution in England, to see the Radical Members get up and hear what they said, and the kind of answers the Government would be compelled to give. 444 He should like to see the alacrity with which the Government would reply, if asked by the English Radicals how much was spent upon the conviction of Herr Most. But, in this Irish matter, the question only was how much it had cost to prosecute Parnell, and, therefore, it was an entirely different thing.
§ Mr. PARNELLsaid, the only way they could have attacked this Vote would have been by moving to reduce the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he had not conducted the prosecution with sufficient skill; but if nobody else had come well out of the prosecution.—if the Government had not come well out of it—certainly the Attorney General himself had. He had left behind him a memorial of forensic skill and legal ability in the statement he had made to the jury which would always be remembered when his name was spoken of. Therefore, he was afraid they could not move to reduce the right hon. and learned Gentleman's salary, on the ground that he had not conducted a sufficiently skilful prosecution. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to ask under what subhead would they find the cost of prosecutions at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, and Petty Sessions respectively? He was anxious to have information on these points, because he had some observations to make and some reductions to move. Perhaps, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) was looking up the information he was asking for, he might ask the Chairman, on a point of Order, in what way he should move the reduction of the Vote. The Vote was divided into a number of sub-heads respectively from A to I; and, as a point of Order, he wished to know whether the reduction should be moved on the whole amount to be voted, or whether each individual item or each sub-head should be attacked? If a reduction under subhead D were moved specifically, could a similar Motion be afterwards moved with respect to sub-head A?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has two courses open to him—either to propose the omission of certain items of the Vote, or to propose the reduction of the whole sum by a lump sum.
§ MR. PARNELLThen I understand that the omission of the items would have to be moved in the order which, they are put down?
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the hon. Member was desirous of establishing this—who was responsible for the two classes of transactions at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions?
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) to sub-heads B and C, charges for two classes of solicitors. It appeared to him that the Petty Sessional Crown solicitors were very badly paid compared with the Crown solicitors at Assizes, who were very liberally remunerated indeed; and, as far as his knowledge went, in the county of Antrim the time of the Petty Sessional solicitor was a great deal more occupied than that of the Crown solicitor at Assizes. He should like to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of the difference in the scales of fees, and should like to be informed whether the Government considered that the compensation was fairly apportioned. He would, also, direct the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to subhead G, to the sum of £250 advanced to prisoners in cases of murder. He wished to know whether this sum did not represent a small amount of crime, seeing how much stress was laid on the number of murders committed in Ireland?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the scale of fees was regulated by the kind of work the prosecutors had to do. At the Assizes, in criminal cases, the work was more serious than at Quarter Sessions. No doubt, there were a great many prisoners tried at Quarter Sessions; but the cases were generally of much less importance than those tried at the Assizes. The heavier and more difficult cases were, in fact, generally sent forward from the Quarter Sessions to the Assizes, and it was always recognized that the cases which the Courts of Assize were called on to dispose of required a large amount of skill compared with Quarter Sessions cases. That accounted for the difference in the remuneration. The gentlemen to whom those fees were paid were very willing to take charge of the Petty Sessional business on these very reasonable terms. It gave them a certain position, and did not involve any substantial interference with their private practice. This matter had lately been 446 put on a much more reasonable footing than it used to be; and he did not think they could obtain gentlemen of skill and knowledge to conduct cases at the Assizes for anything less than the sums which the Treasury had, with its usual care, fixed on as their salaries. With regard to advances to prisoners in cases of murder, where the prisoners were unable to provide for their own defence, the amount in the Estimate was very small. After all that had been said and done, the number of murders in Ireland was not very considerable, and they must all be glad to find that was the case. He himself recognized the fact with great satisfaction.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could almost fancy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just given such gratifying testimony to the absence of serious crime in Ireland, had quite satisfied himself, before he made those observations, that his right hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had left the House. He trusted, however, that the Press would notice the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, and the contrast between so re-assuring a declaration and the raw-head and bloody-bone story of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given the Committee several explanations, which, with regard to those that related to points connected with Departmental arrangements, he would say were of a satisfactory character. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was evidently thoroughly well acquainted with all the arrangements of a Departmental kind; but, when the information asked of him went beyond that technical part of his functions, when hon. Members made inquiries about matters of policy and so forth, as they had been doing that evening when they brought forward numbers of special cases, and supported them with proofs, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was so thoroughly well acquainted with all the distinctions which divided one office from another was only able to furnish the Committee in reply with generalities and "ifs." He would give the Committee an instance of the way in which the Committee had been treated that evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, amongst other things, 447 been asked by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House questions about the spiriting away of witnesses for the Crown, and had also been pressed with inquiries as to the circumstances under which this self-accused murderer Clarke had entered into relations with the Crown. Now, he had observed that just at the time when Irish Members were pressing the Attorney General for Ireland for information on these points—that was the very moment when the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant appeared to consider it advisable to leave the House, exciting thereby, as he (Mr. O'Donnell) thought, "reasonable suspicion" of his proceedings. The Committee had listened to a most extraordinary story, which had only been told in part by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and which he hoped would be completed, with regard to the character of one of the Crown witnesses who gave evidence on the trial for the murder of Mr. Young in Roscommon. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was true that this man Clarke was self-accused of conspiracy to murder? Was it true that having been made use of as a witness for the Crown on the occasion in question he had failed to bring conviction on the man who had been singled out for denunciation on the ground of his having been an accomplice in the murder? If that was true, he asked the Attorney General for Ireland what had the Government done with this scoundrel who had utterly failed to prove his story, and who was, upon his own showing, a murderer? Was it true that the Government did not mean to do anything more in this matter; that they intended to let this scoundrel go free, without bringing him into Court for trial or punishment? This was a case which afforded a most extraordinary illustration of the way in which charges were made and money spent in criminal prosecutions. But suppose it had taken place in England instead of Ireland; the Government would have adopted a very different course in that case. Suppose that Clarke had been called as a witness on the trial in England; that he declared himself to be an accomplice in the murder; that he brought a charge against men who, as he pretended, were his confederates, and that he utterly failed to bring those charges home. Could anyone imagine that the Government in Eng- 448 land would take no further steps against a self-accused scoundrel of that description? This man Clarke was evidently on the staff of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, and he must be concealed somewhere. The Government could not afford to lose so precious an instrument, and he was probably not allowed to go at large for fear that public indignation might lay hold of him. The whereabouts of Clarke was a matter of considerable interest. Where was he kept? Was he supported by the State out of the money asked for under the general head of charge for witnesses? Something must have been done with this man. He had not been tried and convicted. What had the Government done with their own pet murderer? There was a point where the sublime became the ridiculous; but they had reached one at which the atrocious became amusing. He was sure the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had no connection with the system of government in Ireland, and that he was not responsible personally for what had been done in this matter. There must be some secret Attorney General who managed transactions of this kind on behalf of the Government. He was perfectly satisfied the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew nothing about it; but here was this fellow Clarke, who entered like a burglar on the Votes of the country, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) wanted to know what had become of him. He was a self-accused murderer; he had failed in his endeavour to hang one man, and to tie the rope on the necks of two others, and yet he was borne on the public ledger for so much per week, or per day, and was probably eating mutton chops for breakfast at the taxpayers' expense. Again, he asked for information as to this man Clarke, whose horrible story had partially leaked out on this Vote. Where was the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had left his seat on the Treasury Bench the moment this subject was approached, and had not returned; and, under these circumstances, seeing that the case came within the Department of the Chief Secretary, rather than within that of the Attorney General for Ireland, he was in some doubt as to whether they ought not to move to report Progress, to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of stating what had 449 become of Clarke. What about the Chief Secretary's Roscommon informer? Did Mr. Clarke continue to supply the Government with information in other eases, and was he, in short, general constructor of murderous plots for the county of Roscommon?
THE CHAIRMANI am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Dungarvan is, to some extent, trifling with the Committee.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was surprised that the Chairman should address such a remark to him. He said the Government were trifling with the Committee in keeping back information with regard to this self-accused murderer.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he would remind the hon. Member for Dungarvan that trials in which evidence was given by approvers had occurred in England as well as in Ireland. What had happened with regard to Mr. Young's murder was this. About three years ago this man Clarke came forward as approver, and upon his evidence certain persons were accused of having committed the murder. Informations were sworn against them, and they were awaiting their trial when the present Government came into Office. He thought the hon. Member must know that an approver, when he failed to bring home the guilt of murder to those against whom he gave evidence, was never, in this or any other civilized country, prosecuted for the offence which he himself had confessed to. The present Government knew nothing more of the case of the man Clarke than that his evidence had been given at the trial as approver, and that he was a tainted witness whose evidence was not believed.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had listened with interest to the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was scarcely correct in saying that such a thing was not known in England as the prosecution of approvers for offences to which they confessed. There was a time when they were not only prosecuted, but hanged.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he thought the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland was quite inconsistent with that which he had made a few minutes earlier on this particular subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made the reproach that there was no 450 one in the county who had attempted to bring this man Clarke to justice, and he had thereby endeavoured to throw doubt upon the accuracy of the statement which he (Mr. O'Kelly) had made, that it was a matter of notoriety that Clarke had been connected with the murder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not, perhaps, aware that this man had sworn that he was one of the men who planned the murder of Mr. Young, and that, therefore, he was one of the murderers in the eye of the law. Having failed, however, to convict the persons whom he accused, the public in Ireland naturally wondered where Clarke had been taken to, and why he should have been taken under the Government wing. Further, they wanted to know why nothing had been done by the Government in order to bring him to justice? But the inconsistency of the statements of the Attorney General for Ireland appeared in this. He had said that it was not according to law that approvers should be prosecuted for the offences they confessed to. Now, if that were true, if the man Clarke was really protected by the law of the land, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly not right in reproaching him with the fact that no one in the county of Roscommon had attempted to bring him to justice, when he knew it was beyond the power of any man to do so.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to say that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had not, in his recent remarks upon the case of the man Clarke, shown, as he usually did, his acquaintance with the law of the land as relating to approvers. But he would probably remember that Blackstone had told them, with regard to these persons, that under the Common Law of England, if a person came forward as approver, and did not make good his charge, he was hanged upon his own confession. That wholesome practice might have gone out of use; but he could not help thinking that if it were still acted upon there would be fewer murders committed. But there was no reason whatever why Clarke should entirely escape punishment even if the Government did not think proper to go to the full length of the law which Blackstone said was so just. Clarke was either guilty of being an accomplice in a conspiracy to murder, or he was guilty 451 of foul perjury in accusing persons of having committed that crime. He had read the account of the trial, and he knew only too well how inaccurate the reports of public law proceedings generally were; but he saw by the report of the case that not only was Clarke uncorroborated in the statements he made, but that there was some evidence to show that he was speaking falsely. Under all the circumstances he wished to know why Clarke was not prosecuted under the provisions of the old Common Law as an approver who had not made good his charge, or why he had not been prosecuted for perjury. This case had excited very great interest among the people of Ireland, and he thought the Committee were entitled to full information upon the subject. Moreover, they were left in ignorance as to the amount of money which Clarke had received during the two years that he was in the hands of the police waiting to give the foul evidence which he did give. On the whole, he expressed his regret that the Attorney General for Ireland, who was generally so well informed, could not, on the present occasion, furnish the Committee with better information.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was about to move the omission from this Vote of item B, for cost of prosecutions at Assizes amounting to £16,350. He should do so upon three grounds. First of all, on the ground of the policy which had dictated such prosecutions in Ireland at the Assizes during the last six months. Secondly, on the ground of the repeated postponements upon the application of the Crown by which the trials of men who were lying in gaol were put off and the men thereby subjected to unnecessary imprisonment. Thirdly, on the ground of the gross jury-packing which was characteristic of the prosecutions for agrarian offences that had taken place during recent years in Ireland. As regarded the first ground, he was in a position to state that the Crown had deliberately brought men to trial at the Assizes in Ireland for offences of such a flimsy character, that it was idle to expect that juries would convict them. The fact was notorious. He knew of many instances which had occurred in his part of Ireland, although he should not weary the Committee by giving any lengthy account of them. The newspapers, also, had given many instances of 452 cases which had been got up against respectable persons in that part of the country. But there was one case that had occurred in his native county, which had been remarkable for its peaceful character for many years, and where the business at Assizes, and so forth, had always been exceedingly light, to which he asked the attention of the Committee. He referred to the prosecution of an hotel-keeper of Baltinglass on a charge of refusing to entertain the sub-sheriff of the county. It appeared that the sub-sheriff of the county came into Baltinglass to this man's hotel for a night's lodging, and that the hotel-keeper represented to him that if he gave him the lodging, inasmuch as the sub-sheriff was engaged on a case of eviction in the neighbourhood, the consequence would be that he, the hotel-keeper, would render himself exceedingly unpopular in the district, and that, in all probability, his windows would be broken, and other damages committed. The hotel-keeper, under the circumstances, asked the sub-sheriff not to insist upon remaining in his house. The sub-sheriff replied that he was entitled to remain; but it was subsequently arranged that he should leave the house and get another lodging. This hotel-keeper was prosecuted. He was brought to trial, not under the Statute Law, but under the Common Law of the country, and he was acquitted. He would now pass to the second point of postponement of trials. He had mentioned the extraordinary action of the Crown officials at the Assizes in pressing their applications on the Judges for these postponements in the case of prisoners charged with serious offences; and he would now refer to the case of the men charged in connection with the case of Mr. Boyd at New Ross. The persons accused in this case, the Whelans, had been brought into Waterford for trial at the last Winter Assizes. They had been in custody for some time, and after they had endured a considerable term of imprisonment waiting for their trial, it was naturally expected on all hands that their trial would take place at once, and that the Crown would proceed on the ordinary course of law. But that expectation was not realized. Sworn affidavits were put in just as the case was being called on, and it was pleaded on behalf of the Crown that they could not have a fair trial because nearly everyone 453 in the locality was prejudiced; that a large number of the jurors were intimidated, and that a considerable number, about one-third or two-fifths, of the persons summoned upon the jury had not attended. With regard to the latter, the counsel for the Crown tried to make out that they had been intimidated. They also stated that a collection had been made in the neighbourhood for the purpose of the defence of the accused, just as if it was a sin to collect money in order to secure a fair trial for men standing in danger of their lives on a charge of murder. Well, the Judges agreed to the postponement of the trial, and upon this ground, that no answering affidavits had been put in on the other side. He said, with regard to those affidavits of the Crown lawyers, that there was nothing to answer. The grounds were grounds for the consideration of the judges and for the consideration of the Crown prosecutors, as to whether they were sufficient to make a case out for the postponement of the trial. It was not competent to him to go into the question of how the Judges had performed their duty in this matter; but it was quite open to him to go into and to complain of the action of the Crown officers in applying for a postponement of the trial on the statements contained in the affidavits. Now, the first charge against the jury was that they were members of the Land League, or that a great many of them were. That was, no doubt, true in fact; but it was not a fact of sufficient weight to entitle the Crown to postpone the trial, although the Judges granted a postponement. The next argument set forth in the affidavit was that a certain proportion of the jurors had failed to attend, and that the failure of their attendance was due to the alleged fact that intimidation had been brought to bear upon them. It was perfectly true that certain jurors did not attend; but it was not true that their non-attendance was the result of their having been intimidated. All that was necessary to get at the truth of that matter was that the persons summoned to attend as jurors should have been personally visited, and it would then have been found that there was no foundation for the statement that intimidation had been exercised upon them. But nothing of the kind was 454 done. No personal inquiry was made, and yet the Crown prosecutors assumed that the jurors did not attend because of intimidation, and the fact was sworn to in the affidavit. The third argument was that a defence fund had been got up in the neighbourhood, and that many of the jurors had subscribed to it. That was true; but, as in the other charges, it was not a valid ground for making an application to the Judges for a postponement of the trial. Nevertheless, the trial was postponed, and removed to Dublin, and the Crown then made application that the case should be tried before a special jury in the City of Dublin. The special jury was empanelled, and the Crown exercised its right of rejecting some of the jurors, the prisoners doing the same. And what was the result? Before a most partial jury, in the sense that it was far more favourable to the Crown than the jury which had tried himself and some of his Colleagues at the last Assizes, the one prisoner who was brought to trial— for he believed the other was not tried after having been kept in prison on the charge of murder for eight months—was unanimously acquitted by a special jury of the City of Dublin. Moreover, he would say that this acquittal carried with it the approval of the whole of the public opinion in Ireland, and, as he believed, the approval of the Law Officers of the Crown also. There was another circumstance to which he desired to refer in connection with the postponements at the Waterford Winter Assizes. The Committee would be aware that on many occasions in that House it was alleged—and a great deal had been made of the contention—that juries in Ireland had refused to convict persons who were brought before them charged with agrarian offences. In the spring of the present year he had moved for a Return upon this subject, setting forth the number of persons charged before juries and the number of convictions obtained, and the Return was now in his possession. The information which it contained was of a very satisfactory character; and although, no doubt, the Irish Law Officers of the Crown might attempt to make something of the alleged refusal of Irish juries to convict, in defence of their action in the case to which he had drawn the attention of the Committee, he could assure them that the Return in question 455 prevented them seeking refuge in that defence. The Return gave the number of cases tried at the last Winter Assizes in Waterford, the very town in which the Crown stated it was impossible to have a fair trial. The number of cases tried at the last Waterford Winter Assizes was 39; the number of convictions being 30; the number of acquittals eight, with one case only of disagreement amongst the jury. And these were the Assizes which the Crown had selected for the purpose of branding the jurors with partiality and refusal to do their duty. Besides the fact that there had been 30 convictions out of 39 cases tried, it must be borne in mind that an acquittal was almost as good from a legal point of view—from the point of view at which the impartiality of jurors ought to be examined, as a conviction, because everyone who knew the condition of the jury panels in Ireland, and particularly with reference to Waterford, would understand that it was manifestly impossible for the Crown to get such a jury as would not have, at least, one man upon it who would be very anxious to convict a person accused by the Crown, no matter in what direction the weight of evidence went. He contended that in the Return which he held in his hand the Committee had the most ample and explicit testimony to the impartiality of the Waterford jurors, in regard, at all events, to 38 of the cases brought before them. But, notwithstanding their proved impartiality, the Government had condemned the unfortunate men, whose case he had referred to, to a further term of imprisonment than they had already endured before they were brought to trial at Waterford, with all the expenses and uncertainty connected with the charge of murder which was hanging over them—that was to say, the uncertainty as to what would happen when they were brought to trial in Dublin. His hon. Friend near him said that in the case of one of these men the suspense was too much, and that his imprisonment was followed by the loss of his reason. That was the case on which he founded his charge against the Crown officials at the Waterford Assizes in regard to postponement of trials. The third point was that of packing juries. If a common jury was packed in Ireland to-day it must be packed in an unblushing fashion. 456 Before Lord O'Hagan's Act was passed by the late Government, the sheriff of the county could do pretty much as he liked as to the manipulation of the jury panel. He could, practically, put what individuals he pleased on the jury; and this unblushing packing had been resorted to by the present Government under the present Jury Laws. Before that Act, when the panel was produced in Court, the Crown prosecutors had a power to order any person to stand aside, and so they were able to get a clear jury which would give the Crown the benefit of any doubt there might be in the case. Panels were now arranged in a different way. Everybody rated to a certain amount was entitled to come on the panel, and the people were summoned by an alphabetical system, so that there could not possibly be any underhand work; but, unfortunately, the old practice of the Crown directing jurors to stand aside had been resorted to by the Crown, and they had done this to any extent, as had been seen in recent cases in several parts of Ireland. He knew of a case in Leitrim where 60 jurors had been ordered to stand aside simply because they were Catholics. It was often said that the disinclination of juries to convict for agrarian offences was due to sympathy with the offenders. He did not deny that that was so to a great extent; but he believed that a considerable element in this unwillingness was the arbitrary and high-handed proceedings of the Crown. If he were on one of those juries and was a Catholic, and the other 11 jurors were Protestants, and he saw trial by jury made such a farce of as it had recently been, he should hold out and refuse to convict under such circumstances. It might be said, and reasonably, that there were ordinary trials in Ireland not connected with agrarian matters in which the Crown had acted fairly, and that, therefore, this Vote ought not to be objected to. He admitted that; and he did not object to the whole of the Vote, but practically to little more than half, which would be about the proportion due to the Crown prosecutors. He should propose to reduce the remaining amount under sub-head B.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £8,000, for the Crown Solicitor (Sub-head B), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, that as he was well aware of the circumstances of the trial for the murder of Mr. Boyd, he could corroborate what his hon. Friend had said as to the action of the Crown. The murder in that case was committed in August last year, but the trial only took place a few weeks ago. For almost a year the accused was detained in gaol, and when the case came up for trial, the evidence against him was found to be so vague that there was no doubt as to what the verdict would be. The jury did not hesitate for a moment, and the Judge put the case to them in such a manner that it was impossible for them to find any verdict but acquittal in one case, and the other was not proceeded with. The whole conduct of the Crown was most reprehensible. Allusion had been made as to the conduct of the Crown in reference to certain witnesses. Early in the Session he had asked the Chief Secretary to state the facts as to six girls who were alleged to have been taken away by the Government, and lodged in a constable's house in Dublin for six weeks. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was misleading, and he understood that these girls were not released until a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus had been served on the constable. If that was so, it seemed to him very extraordinary for any Representative of the Government—
§ MR. REDMONDreplied, that he would say no more upon that matter; but he agreed with his hon. Friend that the conduct of the Crown with regard to the trial referred to was most reprehensible.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the first charge made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was that in Ireland persons had been arraigned on what he termed flimsy charges. It was difficult to meet general allegations such as that, except by instances, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork had given one instance. It appeared that there had been a prosecution of a man named Lever for refusing to receive, or, rather, for putting out of his house—for he had received him—a guest whom he had received in the ordinary course of his duty. It was true that that was not an offence 458 which was very often a subject of indictment, because an innkeeper was generally very glad to receive guests; and until the last year or so in Ireland he had never heard of an innkeeper, after receiving a guest, turning him out of his house. Under what circumstances was this guest put out? The hon. Member for the City of Cork said it was an absurd prosecution; but the sub-sheriff, who had gone to this inn for shelter and refreshment, whilst engaged in the execution of his duty of serving legal processes, was asked by the innkeeper if he could go somewhere else, saying that the condition of the neighbourhood was such that if he did not go out the windows of the house would be broken. The idea, therefore, was that, in this state of things, the sub-sheriff was to be exposed to a furious mob in order to save the windows of the house. That indicated a condition of society which, as it seemed to him (the Attorney General for Ireland), imperatively required this prosecution for a breach of duty, for an innkeeper kept a house for the reception of all comers, and was bound by law to receive all comers in consideration of his privileges. It was an instance of "Boycotting" in order to frustrate the law; and he did not think that was such a flimsy matter. Again, with regard to the case of Mr. Boyd's murder, when the trial came on at the Winter Assizes at Waterford the Crown applied for a postponement, on the ground, first, that the jury panel was too small. It was stated on oath, and not contradicted, that people had refused to come forward as jurors, owing to intimidation; and another reason for the application was that the jurors were found to be subscribers to the Defence Fund. It was, therefore, impossible to proceed with the case then; and when it came up again for trial at Kilkenny, the excitement was so great, and the jury panel in such a state, that the trial could not proceed. The evidence, no doubt, required most careful examination; but the Crown could not disregard the fact that there was positive identification of the prisoner as the murderer. The man put upon his trial was sworn to as the man who fired the shot. It might be said that everything was fair in war; but the hon. Member was not justified in charging the Crown with acting unfairly in twice putting off the 459 trial when the jurors were subscribers to the Defence Fund. He would not like to be tried by such a jury. How would hon. Gentlemen opposite like to be tried by a jury composed of Emergency men? The Crown wished simply to have a fair trial, and the fact that the evidence went to establish the identification of a disguised man required more careful examination than was needed in ordinary cases. Then, as to the packing of juries, he was not aware that there was any such "packing" as alleged by the hon. Member. It was the duty of the Crown to set aside persons who were known to hold the same views as the accused, and to be prejudiced in his favour. It was not the desire of the Government or their officials to set aside jurors rashly, or for the purpose of insuring a conviction; but if there were a number of persons on the panel notoriously known to be engaged in the same course of action as the accused, the hon. Member would see that it would be absurd to try a man by such a jury. He thought the hon. Gentleman, whatever he complained of, would not do the Government the injustice of alleging that they were actuated by a mere desire to obtain convictions. He did not think the Government were open to the three charges made against them. They might fail—but they would endeavour not to fail—to carry out the law fairly and impartially; and if that could not be done by juries as now constituted some other means must be thought of. The jury system in Ireland was at present very difficult to work; and though hon. Members might fairly criticize, they should, at least, give the Government credit for some honesty of purpose.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sure the Irish Party must recognize that, as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was concerned, he wished to do justice to everybody. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not be everyone in Ireland, and he was bound to do his duty to the Government; therefore, it must have been plain to his own acumen that he necessarily left open a great many gaps in his defence of his administration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced a rather strange theory. He had advanced the theory that they ought not to try a prisoner by a jury, a num- 460 ber of the members of which might share the same opinions as that prisoner—that was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, stripped of the elaborate and flowery language in which he had stated his case. There had been no necessity at Waterford to try prisoners by a jury containing a number of persons who had subscribed towards the expenses of the defence, although he did not see that there was any harm in a fair trial fund of the character in question. The subscription was only like that on the part of the Government—was only like the £250 advanced by the Government for the defence of prisoners in cases of murder. The prisoners were poor, and there was a very serious charge against them, and all the greatest talent at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government was arrayed against them. The most honest men, even Emergency men, would have been justified in subscribing to such a fund in order to see justice done—nay, even the conductors of the prosecution themselves would have been justified in subscribing. Why did not the Government say that they would not go on with the case before a jury, some of the members of which had subscribed to the Defence Fund? He (Mr. O'Donnell) was informed that there were 150 jurors ready to be sworn. Then, as to jurors abstaining from putting in an appearance, it did not follow that abstentions were due to intimidation. He remembered in Galway, during the Ballot case, which excited a great deal of interest, the intimidation of jurors was spoken of, and it was said that it was necessary to take the case to another district. It came to his knowledge, at that time, that a large number of jurors abstained from attending the Court House, in order to give additional plausibility to the plea of the Crown that there could not be a fair trial in Galway. That was the kind of intimidation operating on the minds of the jurors in Ireland at this moment. A juror who, in the honest and conscientious discharge of his duty, acquitted a prisoner, was sneered at by the Government organs. When, as was the case at the Waterford Assizes, there were 30 convictions out of 39 cases, the Government thought it was quite right; but when there were a large number of acquittals, the jurors, who had conscientiously discharged their duty, were 461 denounced, and the Dublin Correspondent of The Times spoke of the jurors as a lot of blackguard Land Leaguers. In reply to the complaint which had been made that the Government dragged up a large number of unfortunate innocent people in order to obtain convictions, the right hon. and learned Member said they had not given many cases. Well, but was it not the fact that the Government, having failed in the process of packing juries, had fallen back on the powers of the Coercion Act, and that the Executive, not being able to obtain convictions by bringing cases from Kilkenny to Waterford, and from Water-ford to Dublin, simply declined to go through the form of jury trial, and sent round a warrant to enable the police to put a man in gaol without trial? Undoubtedly, if it were not for the Coercion Act, they would have a great many more cases of jury packing than they had. He hoped the Government would take notice that one of the results of unduly prolonging the time of suspense —unduly keeping a man awaiting his trial, had, in the Whelans' case—led to one of the prisoners becoming insane. Was not that a fearful commentary upon the administration of the law in Ireland? How would such a thing as that look in a Blue Book relating to Turkish affairs —a prisoner being removed from vilayet to vilayet on the chance of the Government prosecution being more successful in one place than in another, and, in the end, the man's very reason giving way in consequence of the mental strain of suspense? There was another reason why jurors in Ireland discharged their duties under very serious difficulties, and that was the exceedingly vindictive character of the sentences the Judges passed on prisoners. The Judges in Ireland seemed to think that at certain times, in certain states of feeling, they were more bound to make examples than at other times. Men who were found guilty of crimes at a certain period were punished live times more severely than they would have been if they had been found guilty at another period. That was not the proper way to administer justice, and when it was known that vindictive sentences were passed it went a great way towards preventing men from coming forward to perform their duties as jurors. Men did not only refuse to come forward to act on juries in Ireland. The same 462 thing was done where the law was in manifest contradiction with human feelings and human sensibility. Jurors sometimes were just as reluctant to convict in England as in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had done his best in a graceful and kindly way to place the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government in a good light, but the facts were too strong for him, and it was only too clear that the most ridiculous pretexts were seized on by the prosecution to bring about adjournments of proceedings in the hope of getting a jury somewhere to find an unfortunate man guilty, even at the risk of the postponements resulting in driving him out of his senses.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that while he was quite ready to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman credit for personal courtesy and kindliness of character, he could not acquit him of making himself, or being by his circumstances made, the instrument of a system of government in Ireland, which he really thought—comparing it with that of England—was hardly civilized in the present day. Take first the case of the hotel-keeper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that hotel-keepers had been prosecuted in England for a similar offence; but he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when and where? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman give him a number of cases within the last half century where an hotel-keeper had been criminally prosecuted for refusing to admit a certain person into his hotel. There had been one case in Kent within the past 20 years he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was informed; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell him that the powerful men who sat near him on the Ministerial Bench would dare to prosecute the poorest innkeeper in England for refusing to admit a person within the walls of his house? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the Irish case he had described, had drawn—from his imagination—a picture of a howling mob waiting outside the hotel for the person the landlord refused to admit. The picture, however, was wholly imaginary. There was no mob outside the hotel—howling or otherwise. The authorities sent a detachment of police with the person who sought the hotel. Altogether, the right hon. and learned 463 Gentleman, finding his case unsupported, had invented some facts to support it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The people were, it appears, going to break the windows of the hotel.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hotel-keeper had not made any such statement. It was a very different thing to say that the mob were about to do a certain thing than that next week, or on some future occasion, they would do a certain thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a howling mob outside the hotel to receive the sub-sheriff in case he was refused admission. But what was the case of the hotel-keeper? It was that he refused to receive the agent of an unjust and wicked law. It was nothing against an innkeeper of Ireland that his moral sense revolted in any way against the exercise of an unjust law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the main lines of the charge brought by his (Mr. O'Connor's) hon. Friend against the proceedings of the Government in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked that hon. Members should give the Government as much credit for good intentions as they demanded themselves. Well, he gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman every credit for good intentions; but the system of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was part and parcel was too strong for his good intentions. Take the statement about the Waterford Assizes for instance—against which statement he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ventured any argument. What were the facts? Amongst the persons who had been tried were some charged with offences against the Whiteboy Acts, for appearing in arms at night, and for firing into habitations. The Whiteboy Acts said—
If any persons to the number of 12 or more being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled for the disturbance of the public peace at any time—
THE CHAIRMANHow does the hon. Member intend to bring in these Acts? It is clearly out of Order to discuss them on the Vote for Criminal Prosecutions.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if they would allow him he would explain how these Acts had connection with the 464 matter. The Motion before the Committee was to reduce the Vote by the amount of money spent at the criminal prosecutions at the Assizes; and one of the grounds on which they asked for the Vote to be reduced was the policy of the prosecutions, and it was part of that policy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman or some of his subordinates to employ the Whiteboy Acts.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is clearly out of Order in discussing the Whiteboy Acts on this Vote. He may quote them as an illustration; but it is impossible for him to discuss these Acts under a Vote of money.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not intend to do that; and if, in what he had said, he had conveyed the impression that he proposed to take that course, the impression he had conveyed had been a false one. If there was any doubt about his being in Order, he need not cite the Acts; but it was clear that in the Return they had received some of the offences were described as under what were called the Whiteboy Acts. One of the clauses of the Act he had been quoting was to the effect that persons who assembled to the number of 12, and did not disperse when ordered by a justice of the peace, were each and every one of them punishable by law.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)There is no such provision in any Whiteboy Act in force.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if it was repealed, at any rate it was not repealed very long ago. Such a punishment as this would not be inflicted in Turkey; and yet, when he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had attempted to bring about a discussion of the matter, he had been prevented by a Member of the Government. And yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked them to give the Government credit for good intentions, when they had such an atrocious Act as this, and when they excluded from the juries every man who might, even by the tie of creed, have a leaning on behalf of the prisoner. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman sanction the trial at Carrick-on-Shannon, where every juror was excluded on account of his being a Catholic? The right hon. 465 and learned Gentleman did not seem ashamed to lend his countenance to such a transaction. All the officials were against the unfortunate peasant. They had their swaggering policemen to dog his footsteps; they had their Clifford Lloyds, who sent him to prison without bail to await trial—or, if there was no Clifford Lloyd, there were landlord-magistrates. On the Grand Jury, the landlords, against him again, brought in a true bill; and when he came into Court he found nearly all the counsel of the country arrayed against him. The case of the agrarian prisoner against the Crown was the case of a very weak man against a very strong one. Look at the Votes. Look at the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not grudge to the right hon. and learned Member his salary, and he therefore hoped he would not be taken as objecting to it. It was £2,500 a-year, and, with fees, £3,000. Such were the people who were opposed to the miserable and unfortunate peasant, who, perhaps, had not a penny in his pocket to defend himself with. Then, if the jury happened to bring in a verdict which did not please the partizan mind—
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member wishes to discuss these matters at great length he must discuss the exact Vote. The Vote we are now upon is that for the Crown Solicitor.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he bowed to the right hon. Gentleman's order; but he might mention that he was only following the Attorney General for Ireland, who had discussed the whole matter. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to ask this about the Assizes—What had been done in the case of the murder by the police—in the case where the man who was murdered only put up his hand to keep off a horse that was going over him, and was set upon and killed? Unless he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was mistaken, one of the constables was found guilty of murder by the Coroner's jury. "Was the Crown Solicitor of Clare instructed to prosecute? No; the case was not thought even worth being tried. Then, as to the prosecution of the constables found guilty of that dreadful occurrence on the borders of Sligo. Had they ever been prosecuted? Had the Crown Solicitor been instructed to proceed against them?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The Grand Jury threw out the bill.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Government had not taken charge of the witnesses in this case as they had done in other cases that had been referred to. They had not taken them up to Dublin —they had not spirited them away as they had done in the New Ross case; but they had taken care to do as little as possible to secure a conviction. This was why the Irish Members complained of the action of the authorities, and because they were using all the instruments of the law, antiquated and modern, just and unjust, to put down the unfortunate peasantry; and, in the face of this, they had a right to demand something more from the right hon. and learned Gentleman than kindliness and good intentions.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he had very often wished that he might be on a jury which, after having given a conscientious verdict, was subjected to a lecture by the Judge. He should remind the Judge that he was going beyond his province in lecturing a jury, who were sworn to make a just and true deliverance. He (Mr. Dawson) knew of a case in England where a jury, in the face of the clearest evidence, would not find a verdict against the prisoner. The Judge was sorry for it, and expressed his regret; but he did not get up on his legs and walk up and down the Bench, abusing the whole British nation. If he had done so in four or five other parts of England, they would have had—
THE CHAIRMANI must again draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Vote is for Crown Solicitors.
§ MR. DAWSONasked why, then, the Chairman had not kept the Attorney General for Ireland to that question? It appeared that a Member of the Government might go into a question that was forbidden to him (Mr. Dawson). He had, however, said what he had to say.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, when he was being tried, the Crown acted in a most extraordinary fashion. In the Irish Courts, when there was any occasion, there was always an attempt to exhaust the panel by putting all the men who were known to be in sympathy with the people on 467 the ordinary non-political cases, and the residuum, consisting of the Protestants and Orangemen of the locality, were left in Court with the object of being carefully put on the political cases without the slightest semblance of jury-packing. He was delighted to observe how egregiously the attempt failed when he and his friend, Mr. Walsh, were put upon trial. The trial was supposed to be commenced at 10 o'clock in the morning, and, of course, the jurymen were in Court at that hour. There was, however, a charge of horse-stealing to be taken in the same Court, and this was taken first, so that the jury might be exhausted. By 12 o'clock the jury had despatched the horse-stealer, and to their good fortune the counsel against them was not present to object to the jurymen. Judge Fitzgerald was exceedingly wrath, and when the counsel did turn up, he was denounced from the Bench for not being in his place at the right time; the Crown was denounced for not having made the necessary preparations. In the end he and Mr. Walsh were acquitted by a good jury. The same good fortune did not attend the other prisoners that day, for some of them were sent to penal servitude. Knowing what they did know, they were asked to come to that House and say they respected trial by jury. Trial by jury in Ireland was a farce. They were supposed to put men on trial before their country. It was not the selection of the country; it was not the shopkeeper or the gentleman whom the Lord Lieutenant dealt with, or the man the Chief Secretary gave his orders for groceries to, who were to try men, but their country ought to try them. It was not the exclusive few who ought to be put forward as the judges of the many. People ought to be tried by their ordinary fellow-men. When men were put on trial under circumstances such as he had described, when the grossest attempts were made by the Crown to load the dice, there was no wonder they could not get convictions, and they would never get verdicts of guilty as long as such a state of things existed. They had better give the thing up. How could the Chief Secretary for Ireland expect that verdicts of guilty would be returned when the people and the jurymen knew that he could put people in prison for 18 months by the mere breath of his nostrils? How could he expect these things 468 when the country were obliged to submit to his ipse dixit—
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman must strictly confine his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was confining his observations to the action of the Crown Solicitor in Ireland.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is now referring to the Coercion Act.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was only referring to it by way of illustration; and he would say again that, so long as these tricks were attempted by the jury-packing in Ireland, they could not expect to get convictions, and they would not get them. He could understand Englishmen maintaining their hold over the Irish people when they did it by means of the bayonet. He could understand them saying, when they resorted to such means—"We have you, and we will keep you." He could understand the brigand who had a man against the wall, and said he would run him through if he stirred; but he could not understand their hypocrisy. The English would have to rule them by bayonets, or let them go free. They had no other alternative. They could not play with an intelligent people. They were dealing with people who understood them, and watched every act, and could distinguish between truth and falsehood; and he told the English Government that they could not play their game much longer, and they would not succeed. He told the Government plainly that so long as they continued to load the dice they would get no convictions, and they deserved none. They arrayed upon the side of the malefactor the sympathies of the people, when they used against the people all the turns and tricks of the law and the policy of the gambler and the dice-loader. Let the Government come out and fight them in the open, and they would meet them.
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Gentleman will not keep himself to the subject, which is the Crown Solicitors, I must again warn him that he is trifling with the Committee.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had spoken solemnly, and he did not think it could be said he was trifling with the Committee. The Chairman could suspend him right away if he chose; to that he had no objection whatever if the Chair- 469 man thought he was transgressing the Rules of the Committee. It was the duty of the Chairman to do so if he thought fit, and he could do so in this instance if he liked; but it would be his own affair. He maintained that upon this Vote, and owing to the action of Crown Solicitors, the question of trial by jury was brought up, and he was discussing it, and he should discuss it, and it would be for the Chairman, when he (Mr. Healy) was discussing the action of these men in his place in Parliament, to take his own steps upon his own responsibility. [Cries of "Name him!" from the Liberal Benches, answered by cries of "Shame!" from the Irish Members.]
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)asked if it was in Order for any hon. Gentleman to call out "Shame?"
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether any hon. Member had the right to cry out "Name him?"
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not call out "Name him!"
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite in Order in discussing the subject of the Jurors and the Crown Solicitors. It is when he goes beyond that I call him to Order.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had only one or two other observations to make. The case of Mr. O'Gorman had been referred to recently, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had complained that the jury did not bring in a verdict of guilty. He would ask the Committee to remember what the facts were. A jury, sitting in a Civil Court in Dublin, brought in a verdict of guilty against Mr. O'Gorman, and he was fined a certain sum. [The SOLICITOR, GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson): Damages.] Perhaps damages was the proper word to use. Not content with punishing Mr. O'Gorman in a Civil Court, the Crown instituted a criminal action against him at Cork, far away from home, and where he could get no witnesses.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Crown had nothing at all to do with the Civil action.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was, however, the fact that a Civil action was brought against Mr. O'Gorman, and the jury returned a verdict against him, and damages were found. That was not suffi- 470 cient to vindicate the majesty of the law, and he was brought up at Cork; and because the jury, knowing as they did how hardly Mr. O'Gorman had been served, returned a verdict of "not guilty," trial by jury was spoken of as something for which the Irish were unfit. If the Government would show him where the Irish refused to exercise the functions of jurymen in cases of ordinary crime, he would say the people were unfit for the present jury system; but if they found that jurors only refused to act in political cases, it was evident there was "something rotten in the State of Denmark," and the fault did not lie with the jurors, but with the Government.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that one of the Irish Law Officers, commenting upon the want of jurors, said a certain number of jurors had attended a meeting at Water-ford, which had been called some time previously, in honour of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He (Mr. Leamy) would like to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if he considered that, because a man attended a public meeting for any purpose, he was unworthy to act as a juryman in Water-ford? In one of his affidavits the Solicitor General for Ireland had said a number of jurymen subscribed to the Boyd Defence Fund. He (Mr. Leamy) would like to know the number, and he would also desire to be told how many of the jurors who were on the panel were absent from the City and unable to be present when the case came on; and how many of those whose names were on the panel were dead?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had made no affidavit; the affidavits, to which the hon. Member referred were made by persons conversant with the facts. He recollected it was distinctly sworn that a large number of the persons who did not attend had been coerced, had left the City, and had remained away in order not to answer when the panel was called. Several others had attended a meeting at which subscriptions were solicited for the purpose of what was called a fair trial of the men charged with the murder of Mr. Boyd.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not exactly recollect; but he believed that 95 out of 205 were absent.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 80: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 400.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, as the Vote was drawn up it was quite impossible to distinguish the charge for any particular county, and this most unsatisfactory mode of stating the charge had the effect of simply suppressing and concealing the manner in which the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses were incurred. He trusted that this matter would receive the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that, when the Estimates for the ensuing year were presented to Parliament, they would contain full and detailed information of the kind he had indicated.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that there was great difficulty in distinguishing all the charges that applied to particular counties.
§ MR. BIGGARcomplained that various items appeared as lump sums in the Vote without any explanation whatever. He considered it a most objectionable practice that details of these comparatively large sums should be withheld from the Committee by the way in which the Estimates were prepared.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (9.) £54,898, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, some years ago a number of offices of a sinecure character were known to be in existence in connection with this Department, which had been the subject of a good deal of discussion; and at the time of the passing of the Judicature Act a pledge had been given by the Attorney General of the late Government that as soon as these offices fell in they should be consolidated, and, as far as possible, done away with. That pledge having been given, he begged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to what extent it had 472 been fulfilled, and whether or not his attention had been directed to the subject? It was most desirable that the offices in question, which, although they formed a heavy charge upon the taxpayers, were of no practical use, should be abolished; and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would furnish some information on the subject, and take all necessary steps in the future to save useless expenditure.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that it was expected, as a general result of the Act of 1879, that the number of officers would be reduced, and that the amount saved in consequence would be considerable. That would, no doubt, be the case eventually; but just at first the alterations made had not effected a very large saving, because a number of the offices which would be hereafter abolished were for the present retained. There were one or two cases in which salaries had been increased; but whenever they dropped in the amount saved would be considerable. The hon. Member for Cavan would see that the matter was receiving attention, and that a saving had been effected, which he trusted would continue to increase from year to year.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the salaries of Judges and other officials, with the staffs of secretaries and clerks attached to the various offices, constituted a very heavy charge upon the taxpayers of England and Ireland. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would seriously direct his mind to this subject, with a view to effecting reductions both in the number of persons employed and in the amount of the salaries paid. There were too many Judges in Ireland, and too many officers, and the salaries were in both cases too large, and he felt in these respects that great reductions might be made. This charge of £89,898 was, undoubtedly, too large an amount of money to be paid for a poor country like Ireland; and not only did he object to this on behalf of the taxpayers in Ireland, but he objected also to the English taxpayers being made to contribute towards the excessive salaries and expenses of these judicial offices in Ireland. It was difficult to understand why so poor a country as Ireland should have to pay, in addition to the salaries of the Judges, 473 the very heavy sums which appeared in the Estimate—for Secretary, £800; Chief Clerk, £800; Assistant Secretary, £450; First-class Clerks, £350. Such charges as these were really monstrous; and, as an instance, he was quite sure that £100 a-year was quite sufficient remuneration for the services of the First class Clerks. Then there were Train-bearers and Tipstaves to the Lord Chancellor. The whole expenditure was really scandalous; and he trusted that the serious attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be directed to the question of reducing this heavy burden upon the taxpayers.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say he could only repeat the statement he had already made to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the reductions contemplated with regard to the various offices could not all take place at once. There would ultimately be a considerable saving effected, inasmuch as certain offices, as they dropped in, would be extinguished.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had called attention to the office of Trainbearers to the Judges upon the English Vote; and, although it was a fact that there was no actual charge for these persons upon the English Vote, he found that the charge for a Trainbearer appeared on the Irish Vote now before the Committee. He would like to see the office of Train-bearer done away with. He had now to make some remarks upon the question of magistrates in Ireland, and reminded the Committee that on several occasions recently he had called attention to the very improper conduct of several of these gentlemen upon the Bench; and, with regard to one of them, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated that he was not to be deprived of his office, but was to be let off, as was usual in these cases, with a caution. He had been very particular in calling attention to the conduct of this magistrate, because, on the occasion in question, the tenantry of the district having dealt very kindly with the police and having given them new milk to drink, he said that the milk was given with a riotous intention, and that the people should have buckshot thrown into them. He had brought this case forward on several occasions, but had not been able to get any satisfactory an- 474 swer with regard to it. It appeared that the Lord Chancellor had written a letter to the magistrate, which had produced from him a denial as to some points charged against him, and an admission of others; and this correspondence had ended, as he had said before, in a caution. He had no objection, if the magistrate could prove that he did not use the words complained of, to his being let off in this way. Unless he could prove that he had not said that the people should have buckshot thrown into them he ought to be deprived of his office.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he should like the hon. Member for Wexford to point out in what way the question of the conduct of magistrates in Ireland arose under the Vote before the Committee. It had nothing to do with the salary of the Lord Chancellor, which was not in the Vote. He felt it his duty to point out that the Votes must be strictly kept to, or they would never be gone through.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Chairman would probably recollect that he had attempted to discuss this question upon two former Votes.
THE CHAIRMANremarked, that it was not his fault if the hon. Gentleman had been out of Order. It was impossible to discuss the question raised by the hon. Member on the present Vote.
§ MR. CALLANsuggested that the hon. Member for Wexford should raise the question of the conduct of this magistrate upon the Appropriation Bill. He would be perfectly in Order in doing that. There was an item of £300 for the salary of the Pursebearer which required some explanation. This amount appeared in the Votes of last year as the salaries of two officers; but there was now only one, and still the amount was the same.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Louth, and raise the question of the Irish magistrates on the Appropriation Bill.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought the grievance complained of by the hon. Member for Wexford—namely, the improper language and conduct of a magistrate on the Bench, was hardly to be wondered at, seeing the example sometimes set by their superiors. The lan- 475 guage of the Judges in Ireland had, over and over again, been the subject of complaint in that House. They were in the habit of indulging in political harangues of all kinds, and as long as that remained unchecked he should not he surprised to hear of cases of the grossest misconduct on the part of the inferior officers connected with the administration of the law.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon was, as he understood him, discussing the question of the conduct of the Judges. He must remind him that the salaries of the Judges did not appear on this Vote.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, he was aware that the salaries of the Judges were not included in this Vote. They were charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He was not aware that he was out of Order in discussing their conduct upon this Vote.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the object of charging the salaries of the Judges upon the Consolidated Fund was to prevent their being made the subject of attack in that House.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, if the Chairman ruled him out of Order in the observations he was making, he had nothing farther to say upon the subject at present.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved a charge for the salary of Registrars. This was a new office created under the provisions of the Judicature Act, and besides the salaries attached to it there was a substantial staff of clerks. There were two Registrars receiving £700 a-year; and although he did not for one moment say that the salaries were not fairly earned, he would be glad to know what were the duties discharged by these officers, and the extent of their jurisdiction.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the jurisdiction of the Registrar extended over a very considerable district. His duties were onerous, and his responsibility very great.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and, as he now understood the position of the Registrar, he did not consider the salary was excessive.
§ Vote agreed to.
476
§
(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum,notexceeding£6,833, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and the incidental Expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not wish to raise any objection to this Vote; but there was one point in connection with it on which he should like to receive some information. What would be the position of the Judges of this Court with reference to the new Courts? He wished to draw the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary to the desirability of preventing any increase of expense; and he trusted that inasmuch as there were Judges already sufficient to perform all the duties of the Courts, the idea of creating new offices would be given up.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped the Government would give up all idea of patchwork legislation with reference to bankruptcy, and that if it was really intended to introduce a Bankruptcy Bill they would take warning by the five failures which had taken place already. When they did introduce a Bankruptcy Bill he trusted it would be a comprehensive one.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he wished to draw attention to the charge for Registrars of the Court of Bankruptcy. He had nothing to say against that office; hut he would point out to the Committee that one of these officers, in addition to the salary of £540 which he received as Registrar, also received £250 for the office of Clerk of the Peace in the city of Limerick. He held that it was quite impossible for any one person to discharge his duties as Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin and, at the same time, be in his place of business in the city of Limerick. The idea was absurd, and one or other of the offices must suffer. If the Clerks of the Peace discharged their duties in a satisfactory manner, they were, of course, entitled to receive full remuneration for their services. He was aware that the majority of these gentlemen lived in Dublin or about Dublin, although some of them represented counties as far distant as Mayo. How their duties were performed he was not able to say; but, in the present instance, it was so patent 477 that the two offices could not be properly discharged, that he should move the reduction of the Vote before the Committee by the sum of £540, the amount of the salary of one of the Registrars in Bankruptcy.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,293, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and the incidental Expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland.—(Mr. Byrne.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say the hon. Member for Wexford County, in his opinion, hardly did justice to the gentleman who, besides being Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin, was also Clerk of the Peace for the city of Limerick, by saying that he could not possibly discharge the two offices. The present salary for the office of Registrar was £450 only; and although it was intended to increase the amount, it must be remembered that at present the Registrar had not received the increment. As far as he was aware, the duties of both offices were efficiently performed.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he had no objection to alter the amount by which he had moved the reduction of this Vote from £540 to £450. In naming the former sum he had assumed that the gentleman in question was in a corresponding position to his colleague, and that he received an equal salary. He would not enter into the question as to whence the salary for the office at Limerick came, nor was his objection directed against his position as Registrar. His contention lay against the duplication of offices, and on a future occasion he should go more fully into the question, and should certainly not then confine his Motion for reduction to one Vote.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (11.) £1,000, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
§ (12.) £12,217, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he believed representations had been made 478 to the Government with regard to the Staff of this Department. This was a very important Department, upon which the entire landed property of Ireland was dependant; but the clerks of the Department complained of the absence of promotion, and of their inability to obtain annual leave, and of the inadequacy of their pay. These representations had been supported by the Registry of Deeds Commission, and by several other gentlemen, including Judge Ormsby and Judge Barry.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Registry of Deeds Commission recently reported, and the whole question was worthy of consideration.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that the fees exceeded the necessary amount for the expenses of the office. He wished to know if that point had been settled?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied, that the whole of the Report was under the consideration of the Government.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, also, whether the Commissioners were right or wrong in stating that, notwithstanding the Act of Parliament, there was a very large surplus of fees in the hands of the Department which ought to be distributed amongst the officers? If they were not required for the necessary expenses they ought never to have been charged.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHpromised that that question should also Be considered.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £1,717, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORmentioned that the Commission had recommended that this Office of Judgments should be discontinued, and the books handed over to another office altogether. It would be a matter of interest to know how long the Government proposed to consider the Report of the Commission, and when they were likely to come to a decision.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the decision would be come to as soon as possible.
§ Vote agreed to.
479
§
(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £50,730, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in coarse of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a question with respect to the employment of County Court Judges in several places at the same time. There were instances of several County Court Judges fixing a meeting of the County Courts at several places, some miles apart, at the same hour. That practice constituted a great grievance, for while he was not in favour of multiplying offices, but rather the contrary, he held that the administration of justice should be as accessible, and cheap, and easy as possible; and he did not see how people were to get at a County Court Judge in Leitrim if he was sitting in Waterford at the same time. There were 22 Judges, and there was not sufficient business to necessitate a County Court Judge for every county; but he thought the business might so be arranged that the appointments should not clash with each other. Mr. Waters, the County Court Judge in Waterford, who, he believed, was a relative of the Lord Chancellor, was a very good Judge, and the people had great confidence in his justice; but he fixed the Courts at Waterford and Leitrim at the same time, and that was very undesirable. Then, with regard to the magistrates, he had vainly endeavoured to bring before the Chief Secretary the question of Mr. Herbert. That gentleman denied that he used the language complained of; and he (Mr. Healy) wished to know whether the Government would make further inquiry into the matter? It was of no use for the Chief Secretary to say that Mr. Herbert denied using this language. What was wanted was a thorough investigation. He was informed that a number of credible witnesses were willing to come forward and testify to Mr. Herbert having said he hoped the people would soon get buckshot, and would soon be "skivered." If the Chief Secretary desired to create confidence in the administration of justice he should grant an inquiry. Mr. 480 Herbert was a true blue, a landlord, and a hater of the people; an evictor, and a man who was lately arrested for being drunk and disorderly, therefore he was retained on the Bench by the Chief Secretary—
THE CHAIRMANIf the gentleman is a stipendiary magistrate the hon. Member is in Order; but if not, he cannot discuss the question under this Vote.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, this gentleman was not a stipendiary.
§ MR. HEALYmentioned other magistrates, Mr. Blake and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, but said, of course, it was no use bringing these matters forward. They could get no satisfaction from the Chief Secretary. It was a good sign of a resident magistrate if he did not make any trouble; but the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland occupied a position of extraordinary power and responsibility, exercised the arbitrary power of giving liberty or inflicting slavery as extremely as anyone could do in Russia, while their own characters were not always above suspicion. They were generally played-out policemen, or worn out officers in the Army, and how they had become qualified for their position was a mystery. He intended to move, as a protest against Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Mr. Blake, and various other magistrates, for refusing bail to the Land Leaguers, and generally stirring up the people, the reduction of this Vote. If the Chief Secretary would examine into the districts, and would consider the character of the stipendiaries, he would find the cause of the existence or the absence of crime in the districts. It was said, when Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent to Kilmallock, he would prove a firebrand; and before there was a chance of testing the condition of the neighbourhood, three of the Poor Law Guardians, and several other people, including several women, were arrested. He was a trusted ally of the Chief Secretary; and in consequence of the action of that gentleman, and other magistrates, he would move to reduce the Vote by £2,000,
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £48,930, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1882, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."—(MR. Healy.)
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, referring to the last statement of the hon. Member for Wexford, declared that there had been less crime in the district mentioned since Mr. Clifford Lloyd went there than there previously had been, and said that the hon. Member could hardly mean to say that both there, and in other districts, outrages were generally caused by the resident magistrates. The four murders at Loughrea could hardly be supposed to be caused by the magistrates.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it might be true that the districts for a time might have an appearance of tranquility, for if a few turns were given to the screw of a safety valve, the steam might cease to escape for a time, but that was at the great risk of an exploded boiler; so the Government, by sending a tyrant and a martinet like Mr. Clifford Lloyd amongst the people, might suppress their feelings for a time; but their feelings would grow all the stronger, and would be more dangerous than if left to escape in a natural way. Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct would not be tolerated in any other country in the world. Nothing but the patience of the Irish people, and the fact that they had religion, prevented them from turning upon him and taking his life. It was a disgraceful thing for the Government to send such a man into that district to bully and keep down the people; and though, no doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland thought he had done good work, he had not obtained respect for the law, or, at any rate, respect which would last longer than the stringent measures which had been adopted. Did he suppose that he could keep Mr. Clifford Lloyd always at this place, and that he could keep these people down for ever? That was not possible. And did he think that he was preparing the way for the obedience of the people to the law of the land, and for a national resumption of a normal condition of mind, by allowing such conduct as Mr. Clifford Lloyd's to pass un- 482 noticed? Surely not. If he had a mind, he could prove that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, on the evening of his arrival in the place where it was said that the police were attacked, was himself the first aggressor. This could be proved from Mr. Clifford Lloyd's own account; but he had not got the statement. However, Father Sheehy's account of it was substantially correct as to the disturbance at the police barracks. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, it seemed, made up his mind immediately he heard the band playing in the streets, and long before he could see the constitution of the mob, that it was a gathering of rioters; and he, consequently, armed the police with batons, and made them sally out. Directly they got up to the mob, he made them behave in a most brutal way. It was said that Mr. Clifford Lloyd protected a Land League meeting, and, therefore, deserved consideration from the Land League. Well, Mr. Clifford Lloyd protected a Land League meeting because he was ordered to do it. A mob of people came down from some Northern towns by train, armed with bludgeons and revolvers, for the purpose of attacking Mr. Dillon and his friends at the meeting. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had received orders to stop the mob; but he did not do so until it had got close up to the meeting, and when he found the lives of Mr. Dillon and his friends in danger. These gentlemen had come to discuss their grievances in an orderly Constitutional manner; and when they were threatened by a gang of rowdies a cordon of police was put round them. The Irish Members were told that they should be thankful for what had been done on behalf of the Land League; but what had been done was not done in the cause of the Land League, but in the cause of order.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI cannot allow these charges to be made against a man who is believed to be an excellent officer. I entirely disbelieve them. I have looked carefully into the matter, and I adhere to all I have said about Mr. Clifford Lloyd. I believe he has shown both discretion and courage. When he went down to this district the question was not merely one of suppressing occasional outbreaks of disorder. No one was safe there. Intimidation, and violent intimidation, ruled the district, so that no one who did not 483 act according to the dictates of the organization there paramount was safe in carrying on any of his daily avocations. Mr. Clifford Lloyd put an end to that state of things. The danger was very much diminished, and I should consider myself unworthy if I did not say that he deserves well of his country.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he must express surprise at the usually calm Chief Secretary getting up in this manner, at this early hour, and deliberately stating that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was an excellent magistrate, and that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) entirely disbelieved the charges made against him. "What information could the right hon. Gentleman have received on the matter, save Mr. Clifford Lloyd's own assurance? On the 1st of January last, a meeting was held at Drogheda, and, as the proceedings were taking place, a train containing 100 police from Dundalk came up. Mr. Lloyd, the resident magistrate of the district, was present, having allowed the meeting to take place; but directly the police arrived he dispersed the gathering, and, using very strong language, said that if the people met again he would fire upon them. Mr. Lloyd was charged with having used language which, if true, rendered him wholly unfit for the position of magistrate. What was the evidence against Mr. Lloyd? There was the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, Mayor of Drogheda—a Whig English gentleman, who had resided many years in that town—and the charges were by a magistrate named Daly and by Mr. Whitworth, the late Member for Newry. Mr. Whitworth went so far as to describe Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a "firebrand;" and a Catholic clergyman, writing to him (Mr. Callan) on the subject, said—
His conduct to all the priests and laymen who came in his way proved that he must have teen either drunk or mad on the occasion. In either case why do the Government refuse an inquiry into his conduct?Yet the Chief Secretary turned a deaf ear to all this information—said he disbelieved the evidence of three Catholic priests, who were willing to be put on oath, and accepted the mere assertion of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The right hon. Gentleman said Mr. Clifford Lloyd had courage; but every rowdy had that. No man would go into a free-fight unless he had courage. It was said that 484 Mr. Clifford Lloyd had discretion; but this gentleman was described by a magistrate, the late Member for Newry, as a "firebrand." The right hon. Gentleman said Mr. Lloyd was a moderate man, and preferred his statement to the oath of throe Catholic priests. Surely the position the right hon. Gentleman took up would not tend to increase the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of the law at the hands of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he stood by what Mr. Clifford Lloyd had done; but did he stand by him in his statement to the peasantry—"If you meet again I will order the police to fire?" Then, take the case of Mr. Blake. He (Mr. Callan) had always believed that resident magistrates were not entitled to take part in political agitation, yet this person wrote in many papers and magazines, under the name of Terence M'Grath, and disseminated a large number of lying calumnies on the Irish people.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI have not read this book; but I am told it is an interesting one.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of presenting a park or a library to Bradford, would be doing a much more useful act if he presented Mr. Blake to it. [Laughter.] This was not a matter for laughter, and he would enter his protest against the injury —the cruel injury—that would be done to the cause of law and order in Ireland by the statement of the Chief Secretary that he disbelieved the statement of three Catholic clergymen and the magistrates, and stood on the statement of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The language of the Chief Secretary did not reflect credit either on his head or his heart.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERMr. Clifford Lloyd declared that he did not use these words, and I believe him. We all know very well how often—especially where there is excitement—there is a difference of opinion as to words that are hurriedly used. I have had a most marked instance of difference of opinion as to what has been said in what has just fallen from the hon. Member—and not as to what was said months ago, and is forgotten or misunderstood, but as to what has only been said five minutes ago. When I stated that I disbelieved the charges that had been made, I was referring to what had been said with re- 485 ference to Kilmallock, and was not, for a moment, thinking of Drogheda. The hon. Gentleman says I disbelieve what three Catholic clergymen are prepared to say on oath. I have said nothing of the kind. There was another remarkable and inaccurate statement made by the hon. Member, and a statement which he repeated twice. He said I had declared myself ready to stand by everything that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had done. That was not what I said. What I said was that I would stand by all I had said with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the first charge made against Mr. Clifford Lloyd was as to the Drogheda affair. That showed how mistaken the Chief Secretary was. Would the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry into the matter, and allow these priests and magistrates to come forward and give evidence as to Mr. Lloyd's conduct and language?
§ MR. WARTONsaid he thought the Chief Secretary had only spoken for the purpose of explanation.
§ MR. CALLANI am within my rights in doing so.
§ MR. CALLANI have only just gone into this matter, therefore I could not be tedious. I would point out that at a meeting of magistrates Mr. Clifford Lloyd's health was drunk before either that of the Pope or the Queen.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion until he heard the defence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd made by the Chief Secretary. It was notorious that not only recently, but long ago, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had had a bad name amongst the people he had been placed with. He had been described by brother magistrates as a firebrand and a man who would carry exasperation and annoyance along with him wherever he went. It was said that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been sent to a part of the country where there was a great deal of disturbance and turbulence, and that since he had been there the state of things had became very much quieter. That did not prove very much. King Bomba was able to quiet 486 his people for a time. There was a way of making things look quiet for a time when really the heart of things was not sound. It was said that "Order was made to reign at Warsaw;" but were the people contented and peacefully disposed under that rule which made things look so smooth and fair on the surface? They had heard a great deal of late about the storage of electricity, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd reminded him very much of that. That gentleman was concentrating a large amount of electricity at Kilmallock, and before long the Chief Secretary would see the result. There could be no doubt—as every reasonable person would admit—that so much popular feeling did not arise against a man as had arisen in the case of Mr. Lloyd without some reason for it. The people did not object to the proper administration of justice. Even when cases went against themselves, if they thought the magistrate had been impartial they were perfectly contented, as every Irish Member could testify. No matter how severe their sentences or how harsh their proceedings, the magistrates had never been molested. They could travel from one end of the country to another without a body guard. When he found any particular magistrate or Judge inflaming the public mind and creating exasperation, he concluded with good reason that that magistrate or Judge was acting harshly or unjustly to the people; and there was not the slightest doubt that the gentleman whose name was now before them was a tyrant and a firebrand. They were told that he wore a suit of mail to protect his brave heart, for it was said he was a brave man. When they found a man of that type, whose name was a cause of irritation and annoyance and exasperation, they very properly concluded such a man was not a fit subject for eulogies such as those the Chief Secretary had showered upon Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was as brutal as he was cowardly; and it was apparent, from the statement of the Chief Secretary, that the Liberal Administration and its agent, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, were perfectly worthy of one another.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 65: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 401.)
487§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that there was a Constabulary allowance of £100 per man per annum, and then he found the sum of £4,216 for personal and travelling expenses. Perhaps the Chief Secretary would explain how these statements could be reconciled.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the allowance of £100 was intended for the keep of horses, &c. The £4,216 was for personal and travelling expenses away from home.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, formerly the resident magistrate of Donegal used to get 1s. per mile as travelling allowance.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that the magistrate now received £100 a-year in lieu of that. But there were a good deal of travelling expenses beyond those incurred in going to and from Petty Sessions.
§ MR. CALLANinquired if the £4,000 was paid to magistrates for travelling expenses outside of their own county?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that it was for travelling to places where the horse would not carry him.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (15.) £69,586, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, to put himself in Order, he would conclude, if necessary, with a Motion. He supposed the Government did not intend to take the Constabulary Vote to-night. If they did not, of course there would be no objection to the taking of the non-contentious Votes. There were Votes later on which dealt with education in Ireland—for instance, there was the Vote for Public Education, and that for the Queen's Colleges, and these Votes the Irish Members considered of great importance. There was also the Vote for the English Convict Service, which they would like to have kept back, because it might not be possible for him to bring on his Motion with regard to the arrest of Mr. Davitt with the Speaker in the Chair.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not intended to take the Votes referred to by the hon. Gentleman to-night.
§ Vote agreed to.
488§ (16.) £81,612, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to mention a very important matter on this Vote. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had just received a telegram from Mr. Boyton, now in Kilmainham Gaol, in which the sender said—
Forster's quotation purporting to be from speech of mine entirely incorrect. Never used words even capable of such misconstruction.Now, from what he knew of Mr. Boyton's character and general bearing, he was quite sure that gentleman would not deny any words he had used. He was very much surprised to hear the words upon which Mr. Boyton had been arrested, for he had always been under the impression he was arrested on very different words.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, at the time Mr. Boyton was arrested he made most careful inquiries, and he did satisfy himself that the words were used.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked if the words were reported by a police reporter?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they were.
§ MR. LEAMYinquired whether the police reporter was a shorthand writer? [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, he believed he was.] He (Mr. Leamy) remembered attending a couple of meetings at which there were a couple of police reporters. All the men did was to take down a word hero and there; they appeared quite unable to do what they ought to be capable to do—namely, take down the words as they were delivered.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, this was an exceedingly important matter. The men who were arrested under the Coercion Act were not allowed the slightest chance of saying a word in their own defence. It was a case of the grossest injustice and wrong, and he was glad a little light was being thrown upon it. The Chief Secretary had been duped and misled by the blundering reports of police shorthand writers. He had seen these men on Irish platforms, and was surprised; and he was surprised the Government would consent to have life destroyed and business ruined, in many cases, on such imperfect evidence as those reporters could produce. For the 489 Government to consent was an outrage on justice and humanity.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the police shorthand writers invariably broke down. They could not take notes of a speech; and, more than that, at several meetings priests who were on the platform assured him they did not even attempt to take a full note of what was said; they simply took a note here and there, and filled the speech up afterwards from re-collection.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not going to allude to the topic which had just engaged the attention of the Committee, nor had he any intention of detaining the Committee unnecessarily. He would simply remark that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made what he regarded as a confession in the case to which his attention had been called by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). But there were some matters in connection with the present Vote which he must bring before the right hon. Gentleman; and he had to urge that the attention of the Government should be given to several points of the greatest importance in connection with the prisons in Ireland. He would, in the first place, speak of the character of some of the work done in those institutions. A large number of prisoners were constantly employed in picking oakum. Not only had this work proved to be unprofitable, but it was a source of absolute loss; while, on the other hand, there was other work upon which the prisoners could be employed which would yield a considerable profit. But it was not on this ground alone that he objected to the work of oakum-picking in prisons. Oakum-picking had a demoralizing—a brutalizing—effect upon the prisoner, and for that reason he urged upon Her Majesty's Government that it was most desirable that it should be put an end to. The recommendations of the Committee which inquired into the administration of prisons were explicit upon this point, and deserved the serious attention of the Government; and he trusted that steps would be taken to put an end to the work of picking oakum. Then there was another subject—namely, the separation of prisoners in Mount joy Prison, to which he would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It was most desirable that a system of 490 separation should be carried out with regard to children, a large number of whom were, from time to time, sent to the prison in question, where they became greatly demoralized, the representations of the chaplains of all denominations concurring in attributing the demoralization which resulted from their imprisonment to the want of any separation between them and the adult prisoners. The third point to which he would ask attention was in connection with Spike Island Prison. This was admitted on all hands to be a great evil; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had, in reply to a question addressed to him in the early part of the Session, said that the Government had decided that Spike Island Prison should be done away with. Perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to say whether it had been abolished, or what steps had been taken in that direction. Now, with regard to the Vote itself, he pointed out to the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there was on the Estimate of this year a charge for an architect, and that there was nothing opposite the entry to show that the Treasury had only agreed to the appointment of that official for a period of three years. He suggested that a note should be appended to the Vote to show that at the end of three years this charge was to be suspended; otherwise, in all probability, the charge, which was now only of a temporary character, would become permanent.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, it had been brought under his notice that the colouring of the walls and other parts of the Irish prisons had produced some sad effects upon prisoners. Many of the persons confined in those prisons suffered very greatly from the effect of the sunlight upon the white walls, white cells, and white flooring, that prevailed in them. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) had been most painfully affected by this. He believed that physicians, and other persons more competent than he was, had drawn attention to the injurious effect which these dazzling white surfaces in the sunlight had upon the eyesight of the prisoners. He understood that it was most detrimental to them in this respect, and that ophthalmia had actually resulted in a number of instances. He pointed out to the Chief 491 Secretary that, upon the testimony of eminent authorities, this glare was exceedingly trying to those who had to endure it; and for the sake of humanity he appealed to him to give instructions that something should be done to tone down the white colouring complained of.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he had been aware for some time that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stood, in the case of "suspects," in the position of accuser, judge, and jury. But the Committee now learned that, in many cases, reports taken at meetings by the police were the foundation of the accusations brought against these unfortunate persons. For his own part, he believed that a policeman was quite incompetent to take an accurate report of speeches made at meetings. He had been present at several meetings which took place in the county that he had the honour to represent (Wexford). There were at some of them reporters present on behalf of the Press, and at all of them there were reporters from the Constabulary. He had, therefore, had good opportunities of watching the latter at their work. They had every consideration shown them; room was made for them, tables given to them, and, in short, everything was done to enable them to take a correct note of what took place. As he said before, he had watched these men, and he would say, without fear of contradiction, that not one of those who attended the meetings in the county of Wexford where he was present was a verbatim reporter. He believed that very few of the Constabulary were so; and, therefore, he suggested that, if these men were employed at all, their reports should be received with a considerable amount of reserve. In cases where the liberty of individuals was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman could not be too careful that he received accurate reports. Whenever the evidence of reporters was taken in Courts of Law, the reporter was examined closely as to his competence to take shorthand notes. He had himself been present in Court when the evidence of a reporter was called for in relation to an accident that had occurred, and he had heard the magistrate ask the witness—"Are you a reporter? Are you a verbatim reporter?" and then direct him to produce his notes. If these precautions were necessary in the case of an acci- 492 dent, they were much more so in cases where the liberty of persons was at stake; and, therefore, he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not in future omit to examine the police reporters on the subject of their real competence as shorthand writers.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (17.) £47,548, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the system of relegating the Estimates to the end of the Session, and, moreover, to a late hour in the morning, placed Irish Members at a great disadvantage with regard to the suggestions they had to make upon the Irish Votes. He protested against this hurried way of doing business. There were a great many things in connection with the industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland which deserved careful attention at the hands of the Government; but it was perfectly useless to raise these questions now. The only thing that would secure justice for Irish Members in this respect next year would be to insist that the Estimates should be brought on at a much earlier period in the Session. If the Government did not do that, they would be under the necessity of coming to the House for Votes on Account, when it would be open to Irish Members—and he hoped they would avail themselves of their power—to raise every question they wanted to ventilate upon the Votes on Account; and the Government would then find that the system of pushing back the Estimates to the end of the Session, when there was no chance of sufficient discussion being taken upon them, would not avail them. Therefore, he strongly advised the Government to adopt next year a course, with reference to the Estimates, different from that which they had followed this Session. Under the circumstances, although he had pointed out that there were many important questions which required careful consideration in connection with the industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland, he should, on that occasion, only call attention to two of them. The first point was that the teachers of the children in these schools were the only persons of their class in Ireland who were deprived of the stimulus to exer- 493 tion which the system of payment of fees for results afforded, and the consequence was that the children suffered very much in the matter of instruction. The next point related to the character of the training given in these institutions. There were a number of industries in Ireland that could be easily developed if the advice or suggestions of those acquainted with the schools were adopted—namely, that the industrial training given in them should be of a character likely to be practically useful to the people of Ireland when the children grew up. The Inspector, in his last Report, pointed out the advantages which would result from that kind of training; and he said that such industrial occupations as the catching and curing of fish which was followed in France in industrial schools, and the quarrying of stone, which abounded in Ireland—different kinds of marble, for instance—would help very much not only to train the industrious poor of Ireland, but to develop the resources of the country.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the deferring of the Estimates to the very end of the Session, and the lateness of the hour at which the Irish Votes were being discussed, had, undoubtedly, the effect of preventing full and satisfactory discussion on the part of Irish Members; and he, therefore, entirely agreed with the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O' Connor) that Supply should be brought on much earlier in the year. But he did not think, even if it was brought on at an earlier period next Session, that his hopes of more careful discussion would be realized, because hon. Members knew that no one was to be allowed to discuss the Estimates at all next year without the written permission of the Premier or one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
§ MR. WARTONwas understood to say he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Members for Queen's County and Dungarvan upon the very unsatisfactory proceeding of the Government in putting off Supply to so late a period in the Session. The practice had been followed of late years by both the Liberal and Conservative Governments, to the exclusion of ample and necessary discussion on the Votes in Committee. He felt bound to protest against the Government system 494 of promising a great quantity of legislation, and bringing in a large number of Bills every year which never became law, and which had no other effect than that of postponing the real business of the country. The system was most detrimental to the national interests, and had resulted, this Session, in the naval and military affairs of the Empire being put off month after month, and the Votes finally taken with a very small amount of discussion. In protesting against this practice, he blamed both Parties alike—Liberal and Conservative—but he thought that the Liberal Party were the worse of the two. He differed from the opinion which seemed to prevail that it was the duty of Ministers to bring forward a budget of Bills next year, many of which they could not expect to be able to pass, while their attempts to do so would, under the objectionable system now practised, again prevent discussion until late next year, upon the real business of the country.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (18.) £4,348, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.