§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had to apologize to the House for calling their attention to the now rather monotonous subject of the affairs of Ireland, after the excursions they had just taken to Cyprus, Jerusalem, and other foreign places. He would not have troubled the House on the present occasion but for an answer he received two or three days ago from the Attorney General for Ireland, when he ventured to call the attention of the House to the case of a magistrate in the County Kerry, Mr. Herbert, J.P., whose relations with the place had become quite notorious. He wanted to bring before the House the language used by this magistrate on the Bench. After he had learned that the police, who had been engaged in protecting a process-server in serving writs had been regaled by the people with new milk, he said it was simply shocking that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be drinking new milk with a riotous and terrible 797 mob, when they ought to have been engaged in dispersing it, and that he wished somebody had been in charge of the police on that occasion who would have ordered the mob to be "skivered," and buckshot to be used against it. He had brought this language before the House before, but could not say he had ever supposed that the result would be the removal of the magistrate from the Bench, for while Englishmen were at all times ready to seize upon words and expressions which might be used against the people of Ireland, they seemed to find no fault at all in anything that might be said by the landlords against the people. When he had made a quotation the other night from John Mitchell, he had been received with marked disapproval; but no such signs were forthcoming when he repeated Mr. Herbert's remark "that the people ought to be skivered." He considered that the reprimands Mr. Herbert had received were altogether insufficient. He asked, was it proper that an Irish magistrate should be allowed to continue on the Bench who had not only used the language quoted, but had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly by the local police? Again, at Ballydehob another magistrate, Mr. Nottar, declared that he hoped the people would soon be treated to powder and ball, and went about with a revolver in his pocket, and perhaps several glasses of Irish whisky interiorly disposed.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINI rise to Order. These, if they are true, are very scandalous statements; if they are untrue, it is very shameful of the hon. Member to make them, and I ask whether the hon. Member is in Order?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has made certain assertions on his own responsibility, and I am not disposed to interfere.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, no doubt, his statements about this magistrate were very shocking to a gentleman of the high character of the hon. Baronet. Unfortunately for the hon. Member, his statements were so true that the Government could not deny them, and it was their truth that constituted the poignancy of his remarks. The present was not the first time he had made those statements, and if he was compelled to repeat them it was because he had failed to obtain any satisfaction from Her Majesty's Government, The Ballydehob magistrate 798 had admitted having used the expressions attributed to him, and Mr. Herbert admitted the expression "buckshot," but denied the soft impeachment of "skivered." The Chief Secretary had been told that scores of witnesses could be produced who could prove the use of the words complained of; but the Government refused all inquiry into the subject; while, at the same time, they flung into the teeth of the Irish Members every word which was used in denouncing those Irish landlords who had brought social ruin upon their country. These cases did not stand alone. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) must have heard of another Irish magistrate—Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That name had penetrated the dull walls of the House of Commons. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT dissented.] He did not marvel at the ignorance of the Member for Eye, as he was generally engaged at Jerusalem or Madagascar.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINI rise to Order. You, Sir, called the hon. Member for Eye to Order because his remarks were not relevant to the Question before the House. I wish to ask are the hon. Member for Wexford's observations relevant to the Question now before us?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand the hon. Member for Wexford to be referring to the conduct of one or more paid magistrates in Ireland, and the salaries of those magistrates are included under this Bill; he is, therefore, quite in Order.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was sorry that a Member of the high character and great dignity of the Member for Hythe should subject himself to being unhorsed a second time. For the information of the hon. Baronet, he would just add that when he he had endeavoured to bring this matter forward in Committee of Supply he had been told by the Chief Secretary that the proper time would be during the consideration of the Appropriation Bill. He must blame the Government for having refused all inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Healy) was prepared to testify personally as to the conduct of that magistrate; but the present grandmotherly Government cast its shield over Mr. Lloyd. Another magistrate in the West of Ireland had published a book full of the most odious libels of the Irish people. This was how a magis- 799 trate occupied his paid leisure—in libelling the people who paid his salary. What would be thought of an English magistrate in India who published in the vernacular scurrilous libels upon the people among whom he ruled? Could it be expected that the Natives would have any respect for justice administered by such a man? In one of the Cork papers he read the report of the prosecution of a man by the police on the charge of being drunk and disorderly. He was fined 2s. 6d. and costs, and on leaving the Court he thanked the magistrates, Messrs. Monsell and J. F. Bland. Mr. Monsell called back the defendant Noonan, and told him that if he did not thank the police he should be sent to prison for a month. The defendant then thanked the police, and was discharged. Could anything be more tyrannical and debasing than this? If such a thing occurred in Turkey under the rule of the Pashas, what a noise we should have in this country by certain Members of that House. This was a sample of the way in which the people were constantly harassed, insulted, and annoyed by the paid magistracy in Ireland. He complained that when they brought forward these cases all inquiry was refused. In England a magistrate was dismissed because he gave a free breakfast at an election time; but in Ireland no man was driven from the Bench except he wast a patriot. It had been attempted to drive the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) from the Bench; but he had not committed himself sufficiently far. When the Government tried to fasten on hon. Members on that side bloodthirsty charges, why did they refuse an inquiry in the case of magistrates who used language which paled even before that of O'Donovan Rossa, with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was so familiar? The magistrates in a coercion-ruled country had unlimited power, so that in many ways they met the people at every turn in their daily life, and it was not too much to ask that these men should be placed above suspicion. The conduct of the Government was reprobated by every man in Ireland. If these cases had been brought forward as occurring in any place under the sun but Ireland, they would have called forth the indignation of the Radical Members; but now they were silent.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the hon. Member for Wexford stated that he had raised the question in consequence of an unsatisfactory answer received from the Government with respect to the conduct of Mr. Herbert. He was not in the House when that answer was given, and was unacquainted with either the question or the answer; he, therefore, was in no way responsible for the answer of which the hon. Member complained, and could only regret that whoever gave the answer was not then present to vindicate it. No doubt, the hon. Member had obtained his information from persons to whom he gave credit. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) believed that Mr. Herbert, in answer to a letter from the Lord Chancellor, had admitted, to some extent, the truth of some of the statements which he was charged with making. No one could reprobate more strongly than he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would the use on the Bench of any language calculated to bring into disrepute the magistracy of the country, or the administration of the law. Being a member of the Irish magistracy himself, he had had many opportunities of judging of their character and procedure in general, and he was happy to say that he had never been present when language of that kind had been used. It was really going too far to select two instances of unpaid magistrates using improper language, and then found upon them a general charge against the magistracy at large. He had an intimate acquaintance with many of the Irish magistracy, and he could honestly say that, as a body, they were a painstaking, upright, and conscientious body of men. He heard people talk of the law and administration of the law in Ireland who knew as much of the subject as they did of Timbuctoo; but, so far as the law in Ireland went, the Government had no more power over county magistrates than the Crown had over the Chief Justice of England. The gentlemen to whom the hon. Member had referred were unpaid county magistrates, and were under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor, who, if he was worthy of his Office, would resent any interference from the Government in the discharge of his own duty. The law did not authorize that interference. The matter might be brought under the no- 801 tice of the Lord Chancellor for his consideration; but if the Chief Secretary, or even the Lord Lieutenant, were to require him to supersede a particular magistrate, the Lord Chancellor would decline to act merely on such dictation. The Chief Secretary had brought the case under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who had inquired into the case, and he, therefore, knew more about it than anyone else, and he had formed his opinion that Mr. Herbert's language deserved reprobation, but did not require that he should be superseded. No doubt, this instance showed that a magistrate might sometimes forget himself; but if he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had to exercise authority in the matter, and found that a magistrate, who ordinarily discharged his functions in a fair and just manner, had upon a particular occasion used reprehensible language, he did not think he should take the extreme course of superseding him. With respect to Mr. Nottar, he found that he lived in a remote part of the country, and had, on the whole, discharged his duty justly and well. Now, as to the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whose conduct on a particular occasion had been complained of as illegal. On a former occasion he had pointed out, and he would now repeat what he had then said, that the plain course open to anyone who complained that a magistrate had acted illegally, in dispersing a meeting or otherwise, was not to run with a kind of tittle-tattle to the Lord Chancellor, or even to the House of Commons, of which the person assailed was not a Member, but to appeal to the law, which was open to everyone, and was a course which the Irish people understood very well. Anyone who supposed he had his grievance could try it inexpensively by an action at Quarter Sessions, or by a more expensive process in one of the Superior Courts. There was also a third course open—namely, by application to the Court of Queen's Bench. Let them adopt any of those courses to determine whether their complaint was well or ill founded, and not appeal to a tribunal where the facts could not be investigated, or the issue—if there was one—decided. The hon. Member for Wexford had referred to yet another case, in which a defendant, on leaving the Court, was advised by the magistrate to thank the police. Well, this again might be sus- 802 ceptible of a very simple explanation: it was, possibly, no worse than a foolish joke. The hon. Member should bear in mind that the words said to be used by the magistrate were not uttered till the case had been decided. It was still customary, he was glad to say, with a courtesy which had not yet faded away from Ireland, for a man on leaving Court, and at other times, to utter some such words of ordinary courtesy, and not by any means of servility, as "Thank you, your Honour," or the like; and he supposed that words of this kind were used on the occasion under notice, and that the magistrate, in reply, said—"Why, you should not thank me, but the police." He had heard of a corporal's guard being turned out by a general to make a field day when there was no regiment to review; but he had never known so much fuss to be made about so small a matter as this. The subject, in fact, was so trivial that even the Fourth Party, in all the plenitude of its power, would have thought twice before taking such action as had been taken by the hon. Member opposite. As to Mr. Blake, he was unaware of the nature of the publication stated to have been issued by that gentleman; but over such a matter it was surely not worth their while to waste further time. In conclusion, he would say that, so far as he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was concerned, any substantial complaint against any person intrusted with the administration of justice would command his serious attention at all times.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to say with what regret he had heard the frequent attacks which had been made upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He differed as much as anyone from the Irish policy of the Government; but he wished to take an opportunity of saying that if ever there was a man on the Treasury Bench who was animated with a single desire to do his duty to his Sovereign and his country, that man was his right hon. Friend who now filled the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had the advantage of sitting in the House when his right hon. Friend passed two great measures under very great difficulties—the Ballot Act and the Education Act; and the statesman whose name was identified with such legislative Acts ought to receive more consideration from the House and the country than had 803 been shown to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he recognized the kindly disposition of the hon. Member for the City of London. The remarks of the hon. Member reminded him of the old Irish air, "Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot." [An hon. MEMBER: Scotch.] Well, it was thoroughly Irish in sentiment. The hon. Gentleman had evidently not forgotten old times, when he had taken part with the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what he believed was called the "feast of love." The speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland he considered a most extraordinary one. On a certain historical occasion the tanner said—"There is nothing like leather;" and the hon. and learned Gentleman, thinking of the Irish Bar, who, happily, were not very busy now, said there was nothing like law; and he enunciated the doctrine that whenever ground of complaint arose against a magistrate in Ireland, the proper course was, not to have recourse to the Lord Chancellor, or to an appeal to that House, but to go to law about it. That was a pretty piece of advice to give to humble persons. It was calling on them to take their revenge, not from behind a hedge, but in a more expensive way. With regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's case, he could not, therefore, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that the proper course would have been to cite Mr. Lloyd before the Courts for dispersing a meeting illegally and saying—"If you collect together again I will fire." How could the people of Drogheda take out a writ against this magistrate for threatening to shoot them down if they did not disperse?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to misrepresent me. I suppose not. I said that if the magistrate acted illegally in dispersing the meeting any person aggrieved had an ample remedy, and this remedy I pointed out.
§ MR. CALLANthought the hon. and learned Gentleman treated these people as though they had no bonâ fide case. It was his opinion that the conduct of the magistrate did not constitute a cause of action. It was not the Lord Chancellor who was responsible for the maintenance of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; it was the Irish Executive. They had heard the evi- 804 dence of most reliable witnesses that the retention of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was detrimental to the interests of the public peace; but they encouraged him in his acts, and sent him to another district. Mr. Lloyd, on the occasion referred to, behaved, as had been well said, like a firebrand. The way in which the Government treated complaints of this kind was calculated to lower respect for the administration of the law; and he trusted that the next time the Chief Secretary for Ireland had to make remarks with reference to the conduct of a man like Mr. Lloyd, the right hon. Gentleman would adopt a different tone, and would understand that it was not a matter to be met across the floor of the House by such remarks as the right hon. Gentleman had then made.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before the Appropriation Bill was read a second time, he desired to learn from the Government what course they proposed to take next Session with reference to the Irish Borough and County Franchise and Local Government Bills? The first of these measures was not proceeded with, and the second, although announced at the commencement of this Session in the Speech from the Throne, had not been dealt with. Those were subjects on which the supporters of the Government had made promises to the Irish electors. He also wished to know whether the persons now detained in prison under the Coercion Act in Ireland would have an opportunity of preferring claims to compensation in the Land Courts?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied, that he could not give any distinct pledge with reference to those Bills; but the Government were, and had been, anxious to bring them to a successful issue. Last year the Compensation for Disturbance Bill had crowded out the Franchise Bill, and this year the hon. Member was aware that the Land Act had prevented almost any other legislation being passed. Legislation for England and Scotland was quite as much in arrear. With regard to the other question, he felt perfectly confident that every opportunity would be given to persons in prison to defend, in the Land Court, any interests they might have in land.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.