§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,600, 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 1881, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, there was an item under this Vote of £3,100 for foes to Law Officers and fees to Counsel consequent on the recent State Prosecutions in Ireland, and also an item of £3,000 under the head of General Law Expenses. 1084 He should ask, by-and-bye, for some information with regard to the item "G, General Law Expenses;" but he proposed, for the present, only to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,100 under the sub-heads B and F, for fees to Law Officers and fees to Counsel.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he proposed to reduce it by excluding sub-heads B and F, amounting to £3,100. The prosecutions in Dublin were undertaken in pursuance of he knew not what policy. In fact, he supposed that the Government had not, at the time, quite made up their minds what policy they were going to pursue; but they imagined that they might waste a little public money in carrying on a farce in the Four Courts, Dublin, at the expense of the public. He did not understand why a Liberal Government, in any case, should have resorted to the obsolete device of an indictment for conspiracy. When the attention of the late Government was directed to the Land movement in Ireland, they did not adopt the plan of an indictment for conspiracy. They could have done so if they pleased. The materials for a charge of conspiracy were just as much open to them as they were open to the present Government; but they preferred the more honourable and the more straightforward course of making each man responsible for his own action and his own words, and they prosecuted Mr. Davitt and one or two others at Sligo to that end. He did not think that anybody could object to being made responsible for what he said and what he did himself; but he did object to the doctrine of constructive conspiracy being called in by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of a political prosecution. In fact, if they intended to persevere in such a course, no man would be safe; but men might be held to be responsible for what somebody else said in America or Australia, provided they could get a jury to believe that the persons in question were acting in mutual combination. In fact, the doctrine of constructive conspiracy was a most dangerous one; it was dangerous to individuals, and it was also dangerous to the public good. He regretted exceedingly that it should have been reserved for a Liberal Government 1085 to take refuge behind that doctrine for the purpose of attempting to put down a political agitation in Ireland. Now, what was the doctrine of constructive conspiracy? A man's words were seized upon for the purpose of making out a case. The Crown Lawyers seized upon certain isolated passages in a speech; they said that a certain individual had made a certain reference in one part of his speech, and that some other individual made a somewhat similar reference, and then they collected the passages, and, putting them together, they tried to make out that an understanding had been arrived at by many persons, and that that constituted a breach of the law of conspiracy. But in the present day men came to a political agreement without coming to any distinct personal understanding. A doctrine was announced by one public man, which he (Mr. Parnell) read in the newspapers, and, approving of that doctrine, he went on to a public platform and recommended the same thing. It followed, according to the doctrine of constructive conspiracy, that he had been conspiring with the man who made the first speech—whom, perhaps, he had never seen—simply because he adopted his published ideas and endorsed them as reasonable, fair, and proper. He now wished to ask the Government whether they intended to set in motion the law of constructive conspiracy in Ireland, or whether, on the other hand, they would simply make every man responsible for his own words and actions? Did they intend to arrest men under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus under that law of constructive conspiracy? An act, which, if committed by one man, would not be an offence against the law of the land, became a criminal offence when two or more persons conspired together to commit it; and hence it followed that under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus the Crown might claim the right to arrest persons because they might think they had conspired together to do things which, done by one person, would not have been a breach of the law. The matter was of considerable importance in connection with the new powers which the Government had been given; and however much they might have been disposed to forgive the Government for their sins of commission in the past, and for instituting 1086 prosecutions under an obsolete law, which had broken down—yet, when they were asked to vote money for such purposes, he thought they were entitled to inquire whether the Government intended to arrest any persons in Ireland in the future under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for any offence which might come within the law of conspiracy. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,100.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500, 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 1881, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not suppose any hon. Member wished to occupy much time that evening in debating questions which had taken up so much time during that Session. The hon. Member for Cork City had asked whether the Government intended to arrest persons under the law of conspiracy when putting in force the Protection of Person and Property Act. With regard to the policy of the Government in instituting those prosecutions he did not intend to enter into a legal definition of the words "constructive conspiracy." He would leave that to the Law Officers of the Crown. He could only say that what chiefly operated on the mind of the Government was the fact that they found several persons advising men in the strongest possible terms to break their contracts, and not to pay their debts. They were advised that if that was done by a combination it was a breach of the law. They considered that it was a breach of the law, and that it was their duty to bring the matter before a jury, so that if the evidence was sufficient a conviction might follow. He thought the Government were perfectly justified in doing so, and would have been very much to blame if they had allowed the law to be broken without attempting to vindicate it. The hon. Member asked him a Question with regard to their action under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He could only refer him to the terms of that Act. They would not arrest any persons except those with regard to whom they had reasonable suspicion that they had 1087 either committed a crime punishable by law—such as acts of violence, intimidation, or having incited to these acts. That had been very frequently described in the debates on the Bill; and, so far as he knew, nobody would be arrested under it unless they came within the category mentioned.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Cork City had raised the question of conspiracy. He had had an opportunity of consulting a friend of his who was well known as an authority on the law of conspiracy—he meant Mr. Henry Crompton. He now charged the Government with inventing or re-inventing the old law of conspiracy against labour which had been altogether destroyed by the legislation of the last 10 years, as being part of a system of thoroughly bad legislation. He thought that charge was made in sufficiently definite terms to receive a definite answer. He would go a little into details. It was not many years ago, as the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, since in this county it was a criminal offence for a workman to enter into anything like a combination, the moment the combination became of an effective character. It was held by the laws of that time that workmen were perfectly justified, and were not disobeying the law, in entering into a strike; but the moment workmen, in order to make their strike effective, "picketted" the streets to discover who were standing out and disregarding the union, then the Criminal Law was put into operation, and the workman was made a criminal offender. The legislation of that time, which did not come from the Liberal, but from the Conservative side of the House, took a very sensible view of the situation, and said—"If working men are entitled to enter into a combination at all, every act which is a fair and legitimate result of that combination is a fair and justifiable act." Now, he applied that course of argument to the Land League. The statements of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that he found a number of persons going about the country inciting persons to make a breach of contract. Now, he asserted positively, on the authority of Mr. Henry Crompton, that it was perfectly lawful for a number of men to combine even to effect a breach of contract. Now, if it be justifiable 1088 with regard to a breach of contract between master and workman, he contended it was justifiable between landlord and tenant. It might be said that the case of the landlord and tenant was essentially different, because the subject-matter was the property of the landlord. He denied that proposition altogether, He denied that the subject-matter of dispute between the landlord and the tenant was in any sense solely the property of the landlord. It was the joint property of the landlord and the tenant. The Solicitor General smiled sceptically when he made that proposition; but, perhaps, he had not read carefully the reports in Hansard of the debates on the Land Act of 1870. He challenged the Solicitor General to deny the proposition of joint ownership or partnership between landlord and tenant. If there was no such joint ownership, what right was there to give a tenant compensation upon being turned out? His proposition was, therefore, that the farm—he did not profess to speak in legal language—was a piece of goods in which the landlord and the tenant had a joint interest and ownership. Under the law, as it existed in this country, it was perfectly permissible for a tenant to break his contract, or to enter into a combination to break his contract, if he thought proper to do so. Therefore, his charge against the Government was that, under the pretext of law, they were merging into lawlessness; and that, in the defence of property, they were stamping upon the rights of tenant's property, and trampling upon that liberty of combination which successive statutes, coming from both sides of the House, had given as an unquestionable privilege to the working classes of this country. He challenged altogether the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrests which had taken place. He contended that the majority of the arrests which had taken place already were in distinct contravention of the terms of the Act itself, and in still more distinct contravention of the pleas upon which that legislation was passed. He challenged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that any of the men who had been imprisoned under the Act were men in any sense belonging to that class of dissolute ruffians or mauvais sujets who had been so often spoken of. He knew himself of one 1089 case—that of young Mr. Kelly, who had been arrested and imprisoned, and he was a most respectable, well conducted, and orderly young man. He had taken a rather prominent part in the demonstrations made in connection with the land agitation; but he would challenge the Chief Secretary to say that he was imprisoned because he had advised a breach of contract to anyone.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, what he had said was that those arrested were suspected of having committed a crime punishable by law.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORBy no stretch of the imagination could the conduct of Mr. Kelly be brought under that definition.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERAnd inciting to violence or intimidation.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, they could not call inciting to breach of contract an act inciting to violence or intimidation. Another point he wished to remark upon was the amount of legal ability which was engaged by the Crown at the prosecutions. He did not begrudge hon. Members their share of the spoil, which was, no doubt, well earned; but he thought their high ability might have been better directed than in trying to bring home a criminal charge against those whom the people regarded as the saviours of their country. What he did complain of was that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who were surely competent lawyers and men of the greatest ability, should have found it necessary to surround themselves with a perfect constellation, a galaxy, a panorama, of legal talent. What was the meaning of it? What was the necessity of half those lawyers? There was no necessity at all, except that they wished, by a side-wind—he would not say a "dodge"—to deprive his friends of as much legal ability as possible by engaging it themselves. He asked an explanation upon that point, and he thought he had a perfect right to do so with some energy, for the reason that it was only that system of bribery and fees which had prevented such able Gentlemen sitting by his side as supporters of the Irish movement, instead of being on the Treasury Bench. Those were the points upon which he wanted information—his main point being, whether the law of conspiracy was applied to contracts between landlord and tenant.
§ MR. CALLANalso wished to ask some questions with regard to the trials. He found, from a sub-head, that the expenses of the trial for 20 days amounted to some £1,550. When he compared that sum with the sums he had seen marked on the briefs held by gentlemen of the English Bar, he felt almost ashamed of the Irish Bar to think that the Law Officers of the Crown should accept such paltry fees. The education of those gentlemen was just as expensive, and they were just as accomplished, as the Law Officers of the Crown for England. In trials in England, it was common to hold a large number of consultations; but, in the State Trials, he found that there were 20 days' sitting without any consultation at all. Supposing that trial had taken place in England, what would it have cost? He should like to give the English Attorney General's clerk such a brief as the Law Officers for Ireland had in the late trials. He wondered what he would do with it? In England, at the very least, the trial would have cost £5,000; and yet, in Ireland, it was put off for the paltry sum of £1,500. The leader for the defence, familiarly known in Ireland as Frank Macdonnell, he was informed, got 1,000 guineas for his brief; and he was told that none of the leading counsel for the defence received less than £500. There was one item which he certainly would like an explanation about, and that was the item "General Law Expenses," £3,000. He found he was referred to a note or subhead, and that note put down the details as miscellaneous. Now, he got quite as much information from the word "Miscellaneous" as he did from the title "General Law Expenses;" and, therefore, he thought some further explanation should be given.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he only wished to say a few words in reply to the observations made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had no reason to complain of the manner in which the Law Officers had been criticized. But the most important matter, in his opinion, was that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), where he asked for information with regard to the application of what he called the obsolete doctrine of conspiracy. He (Mr. Law) took excep- 1091 tion altogether to the statement that conspiracy, as a branch of the Criminal Law, was obsolete. He thought, during the last 10 days, he had seen several criminal prosecutions for conspiracy in England; and there was a large class of mischievous offences which could not be dealt with by any other process than that of a prosecution for conspiracy. Complaint was made that in a prosecution for conspiracy one man was unjustly made responsible for what was said or done by his associates; but he (Mr. Law) must point out that this was nothing more than happened in all cases of association, whether for lawful business or for a guilty purpose. In all partnerships alike there was a combination for a common object, the essence of the thing being that each man should not have to depend upon his own exertions merely, but should also have the benefit of the exertions of the persons associated with him. Given a common purpose, and a combination for that purpose, it was just as reasonable that a man should be held criminally answerable for the acts of his confederates in furtherance of their common guilty purpose, as that one partner in a business should be held liable for the acts of the other partner or partners done for the benefit of the firm. In this case, however, there was no occasion to stretch the law by any construction whatever; the persons prosecuted took credit, and they had justly taken credit, for having, in all they had said and done, acted entirely above-board. They declared plainly that what they had meant to do was to combine for a certain purpose; and if it were held that by that course they had exposed themselves to a prosecution for infraction of the Criminal Law, well and good. The Government would have been guilty, under the circumstances, of a dereliction of duty if they had not brought the matter to an issue. It was always part of the contention of the traversers that the course they had taken in thus combining, and their action in furtherance of the objects of that combination, were within the limits of the law. The Law Officers of the Crown, however, believed that the traversers were acting, not within the law, but in flagrant violation of it. On that point he would not go further than to state that the case was tried not before a single Judge, but before the Court of Queen's 1092 Bench as then constituted; and it was held by the Court that it was a breach of the Criminal Law for two or more persons to combine to induce others not to pay their just debts, and also that it was a crime to combine to prevent persons taking farms from which tenants had been evicted—in other words, to prevent people from doing that which was a thoroughly legal act. Those were the two principal charges against the traversers, and the justification of the opinion the Government formed as to the nature of the acts of which those persons had been guilty was sufficiently shown by the decision of the Court. So strong, indeed, was the opinion of the Court upon that matter that one of them stated that if the case had been a civil one he should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would pass that by. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) seemed to think that the law of conspiracy would not apply in cases of "picketting," and that one man might in that way lawfully injure another who took a course opposed to his views.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that as he was informed it was perfectly lawful at the present moment for a member of a trades union, when a strike had been agreed upon, to go as close to the place of business in connection with which the strike had occurred, as to be able to ascertain whether any of his companions went there or not.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)To go for the purpose of acquiring knowledge is not picketting.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI am informed that it is picketting.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)said, he did not consider it such, although, of course, the hon. Member could call such action by any name he liked. He should not have advised a prosecution of the Land Leaguers if they had confined their operations simply to obtaining knowledge as to who paid his rent and who had not. If they had simply gone to the trouble of watching the rent offices, and had never taken a step beyond that—never tried to induce people to break their contracts, or to intimidate their neighbours, if they had never advised the besetting of people's houses, or following them from place to 1093 place to annoy and injure them, he should not have advised the prosecution; but to abstain from this would not have served the purpose of the Land Leaguers. Their object was to bring the landlords on their knees; and he begged to say that a combination for that purpose—a combination to do mischief to any man or body of men—had, from the earliest time, been dealt with as a criminal offence. It was indisputably a breach of the law to intimidate a man to prevent him from fulfilling a lawful contract. Personal liberty consisted, not merely of freedom of body, but also of freedom of mind and will; and, as they had been told by a learned Judge, now a member of the Court of Appeal, any persons who sought, by watching, besetting, or by black looks or otherwise to coerce or interfere with a person's freedom of will, were guilty of a criminal act. He would therefore repeat that what had happened not only justified, but imperatively called, upon the Law Officers to advise the Crown that a prosecution should take place. As he had said, it was contended and loudly declared by the Land Leaguers that they, in everything they had done and were doing, were strictly within the limits of the law; and that being so it was only right that they should be disabused of their mistake. It had been argued that the landlord and the tenant were co-partners, inasmuch as they were both interested in the farm. Well, he did not dispute that they were both interested in the farm; no doubt a tenant had some interest in the land, and a co-partnership might exist, though the share of one partner might be comparatively small. He would ask, however, whether the fact of their both having an interest in the land gave one of them a right to combine with other people to do an injury to his partner? The late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had had before him a case in which this very point had been raised—where one partner wont into a mischievous association with an outsider to do an injury to the other partner. The man was indicted for conspiracy, and the Court of Criminal Appeal held him to be rightly convicted of the crime, although it would not have been possible to punish him if he had acted by himself. He now came to another point upon which he had an observation to make. It had been alleged that the Crown had acted unfairly by surrounding itself with a 1094 "galaxy of legal talent." No doubt there were a number of very able men engaged upon the trial; but the "galaxy" was on behalf of, as well as against, the traversers. Certainly the defendants were not so badly supplied with legal ability that their case suffered in the least; and the Crown had only acted with propriety in selecting those legal gentlemen to assist in conducting the case that they thought would be most useful. Though the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared that the traversers were left in a pitiable plight, it must be acknowledged that they had the advantage of the services of most able counsel; whilst the happy result of his piteous complaint was that a considerable stream of gold flowed in at once to the coffers of the League from Ireland, America, and elsewhere. As to the magnitude of the case, it should be remembered that the proceedings at 128 or 130 meetings were to be proved, and that some 500 speeches had to be considered. There were eight counsel for the Crown and eight for the defence; whilst there were 14 persons upon their trial, and the Government could not have been acquitted of dereliction of duty if they had not secured the best counsel they could possibly procure. This, at all events, he could say—that the selection of counsel on behalf of the Crown was not in the slightest degree made for the purpose of prejudicing the defendants, but simply with the object of doing proper service to the Crown. He trusted he had now given sufficient explanation upon the matters which had been referred to. He did not wish to reopen old sores. He was glad that the whole thing was over, because not only was the case the source of considerable anxiety, but it was, in some respects, a painful one to those who had to conduct it.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANregretted that he had been so unfortunate as not to hear any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or from anyone on the Treasury Bench, as to the question that naturally arose to everyone's mind in connection with that trial—namely, why it was that the prosecution had been instituted at all, and why it had taken the shape that it had in the Court of Queen's Bench? Let the Committee recollect that the offences charged 1095 against the traversers were 10 months old. No doubt, if he might use such a colloquial phrase, it was by way of "piling up the agony" that some offences were brought up to the very eve of the trial; but if the Crown believed their own case, they had evidence of acts and language used in the months of January and February of last year on which to found an action. He wished to know from the Crown if they could say why they lay by apparently slumbering? Was it in order that those men for eight long months might be allowed to believe that they were on the path of legality? Why did the Attorney General lie by, he would repeat? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the evidence circulated by the late Government; and he was able to obtain information from all kinds of newspaper reports from Gurney's reporters and from the police reporters. The evidence adduced on the trial in Dublin presented to his (Mr. Sullivan's) mind an impression which he could never forget, and it was this—that, but for what he knew of the personal character of the Attorney General for Ireland, and only for the fairness with which he conducted the prosecution, he should have said, if he had been a stranger, not knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or anything of the circumstances, and judging merely by what he had heard in Court, "that he was, in a moral sense, most culpable for having lured those men to their ruin"—if they had been ruined. If the traversers had been on the path of illegality, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of it so many months before, it was his duty promptly to tell them so. If he had known that crimes were being committed in February, was he not bound, and were not the officials of Dublin Castle bound by their oaths to come forward and vindicate the law? If illegality was being perpetrated in February, March, April, May, why did not the prosecutions take place before September? Eighty years ago, on no less an authority than that of the King, complaint was made of a similar course, and it was stated that certain officials had done what was in the highest degree culpable by allowing crime to continue, by winking at it, by conniving at it, by allowing those who committed it to believe they were on the path of 1096 legality. It was declared by the King of England that it was a criminal act for officials to store up crime against individuals for the purpose of enmeshing and ruining them. Why was no warning voice raised in Ireland to tell the people to keep away from those meetings—to have nothing to do with those criminals who were luring them on to destruction? Had not the Government been like the panther watching behind the tree, waiting his time for a spring? If they had not known that the Attorney General for Ireland was not only a kindly Gentleman, but an honourable public official—and he was glad his Colleagues had spoken of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that spirit—they would have accused him of having lured on the traversers to their ruin. He did not wish to be personal in the slightest degree, and he only used those phrases in the sense of his argument; but why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Castle officials lay by silent, motionless, conniving by their silence, even up to the month of September? One man had been prosecuted for saying that the landlords ought to be shot like rabbits in a warren. No one would deny that that was language of a most heinous and culpable kind. He (Mr. Sullivan) had no political sympathy which would induce him to say the use of such language was not a wicked and culpable act. Why, then, was that language allowed to pass unnoticed, and why was the man who uttered it allowed to remain at large—a man who, not in one but in several speeches, incited to assassination? Now, he asked the serious attention of the Government to that question, why did they allow that individual to force himself on the Land League meetings? The man was never a member of the Land League at all. The Government allowed him for months to go round and tack himself on to the tail end of Land League meetings, allowed him to rush on platforms before the chair was taken and let off some of those incentives which figured next morning in the London newspapers as language used at Land League meetings—for the Crown confessed that they knew what was going on? They threw that into the common charge in order that this abominable language might stick to such men as the hon. Member for Cork City, whom they wanted to bring down. 1097 With all his respect for the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, this was not a course of conduct that befitted their high position. They had their police spies, and their police reporters, giving them information of the language that was used at those meetings; and it came out in evidence on oath in Dublin that the man to whom he had referred, before he had gone on platforms and after he had gone on platforms, before the day of meeting, and after the day of meeting, was drinking in public-houses with those police officials. The police gave him drink before he went on to the platforms, they gave him drink after he left the platforms; and he, in order not to appear a mean fellow, although he was exhorting people to wicked and outrageous acts, treated the police to drink in return. That was the sort of man who was allowed by the police for five months to go making seditious speeches through the country, getting every day worse. There was for the conduct of that young man Nally an explanation that might lead some of them not to attach so much blame to him as at first sight one would suppose he deserved. It seemed he was not exactly a believer in the Permissive Bill, and, perhaps, was not often accountable for his language—in fact, it came out on the trial that the young man was, from a very early hour in the morning until a very late hour at night, in an exciteable condition—he would only describe it in that way. That young fellow was put upon his trial, and his ravings were read gravely over to the jury by the Irish Attorney General, though the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his possession at the time the explanation of that language. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not that explanation in his possession, why did he for five months hesitate to prosecute? Now, the late Government in Ireland, at all events, had acted in a more candid and straightforward manner. They found some of those men attending Land League meetings, and using what they considered to be illegal language, inciting the people to crime and violence, and they grasped the men there and then. The right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, at any rate, deserved credit for this—that they did not allow those people to walk into the pitfall—did not allow them for eight long months to believe that they were endeavouring 1098 to attain an object by legitimate means—by public agitation. When the crime—as the late Government considered it—had been committed they struck the offenders in the name of the law, brought them to the Bar, and prose cuted them for their conduct. Nor were the late Government guilty of—and he wanted to use a word that would most strongly describe the conduct of the present officials in Ireland without personally reflecting on them—the unfairness of allowing a thing which they considered to be illegal to go on without taking each offender to task for his conduct. The late Government would not have bundled all the defendants together in a group as the present Government had done, so that the Member for Cork City, while away in Philadelphia, hat in hand, begging for alms at crowded meetings in America, was held responsible for the ravings of that peasant he had referred to in the wilds of Connemara. Was the action of the Government in that matter worthy of British justice? Why did not the Attorney General prosecute Nally for his language and the hon. Member for the City of Cork for his? He had abundance of evidence in the one case to convict any man of using seditious language. He (Mr. Sullivan) put it to the Attorney General on his reputation as the head of the Irish Bar, to which he was a credit—he put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his own reputation whether he had not had abundant evidence to sustain a charge for sedition? Now the trial was over, he had no hesitation in telling the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he had said all along to his own Colleagues—namely, that it would have gone very hard with them if they had had to defend themselves against a charge of sedition. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman raked up, not an obsolete doctrine of sedition, for the doctrine was not obsolete by any means, but what was, as regarded those political prosecutions, a discredited resort. As regarded political prosecutions, where the men could be indicted for their individual acts, the course adopted by the Government was by the enlightened public opinion of this country—nay, he would almost say, by the dicta of the great men in the Legal Profession—held to be a discredited and unfair resort. In pressing this matter 1099 in the most forcible manner, he desired to exempt from blame the Attorney General for Ireland, to whom belonged the credit of conducting the first State prosecution in Irish history that had been fairly conducted by an Officer of the Crown; but he challenged the Government on these matters—first, that the Crown remained silent and inactive for several months; and, secondly, that when they did take action they proceeded upon a miserable charge of conspiracy instead of prosecuting for sedition. It was really painful to see the minuteness with which the case for the Government was got up; but in the two or three days' opening speech of the Attorney General there was not a superfluous word. It was, however, impossible to listen to the speech without feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had proved too much, for he told an awe-stricken audience of words uttered at 157 meetings, while words uttered at three meetings in May, and when Parliament was sitting, would have been sufficient for any evidence necessary for the case. Why, before Parliament broke up, were not the Irish people treated to a word of warning upon the illegality of those meetings, if they were illegal? He complained that the prosecution, when instituted, was for political exigencies. In the academical sense, it might be said that the Government acted as they did from a pure love of abstract justice, and could not have taken action a week sooner or a week later; but it was known that the prosecution was not dreamt of until a wicked Press in London had hounded on the Government to take a step which ended in failure. This great State Trial was the huge blunder of the Irish Administration, just as the Coercion Bill had been the blunder of the English Administration. Two nights' discussion would not exhaust the important issues involved; but, under the present circumstances, on account of the pressure on public time, he would not enter fully into the matter. Of course, the form of the objection was to the Vote; but none of the Irish Members objected to the Vote in this sense—the Irish Law Officers did their duty, they did it fairly and honourably, and the remuneration represented in that Vote was not too much for them. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would understand the Irish Members in that 1100 spirit. They had raised this contention upon this Vote, because they considered the prosecution a mistake, because they thought it ought to have been begun at once if crime was afoot, and that a charge of conspiracy ought not to have been the form of the proceedings.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that if there should be a division he should deem it his duty to vote with the Government, although he did not think the prosecution which was instituted was the wisest or the most effective way of dealing with the particular crisis with which the Government were unfortunately called upon to deal. The prosecution was commenced on the 2nd of November; and although it was commenced on November 2nd, and was founded on the legal opinion that the operations of the Land League were illegal, not a single meeting of the Land League was interfered with for some months after that opinion was given. Therefore, so far from being effective as a moral teaching of the magnitude of the law, in the month of November, after the institution of the prosecution, the crime doubled, and in the following December it quadrupled. The institution of the prosecution was thus far from being an effective agent; nor, looking at it as moderately and reasonably as he could, did he think the institution of the prosecution could be regarded as the wisest Executive step that could have been taken, because he did not think it right or wise to institute a State prosecution unless it was founded upon a serious and well-considered belief that it was likely to be successful, and to result in a conviction. He asserted, as a matter of almost universal belief at the Bar, and he believed of almost universal belief in Ireland, amongst educated people, that there was hardly a shadow of chance, in the then system of constituting juries, of getting a conviction from the prosecution; and that was an immense element when the wisdom and prudence of the prosecution came to be considered. He did not for a moment question the perfect soundness of the advice given by the Law Officers in Ireland, whose advice he was sure was supported by law, and was what he should expect from their position and experience; but the prosecution was not one for which the Law Officers were to be considered primarily responsible. The prosecution 1101 must have been instituted on the authority and at the instance of the Government; therefore it was one for which it was not reasonable to regard the Law Officers of the Crown as answerable. Of course, it would not be reasonable to ask for the production of their opinion; but he ventured to suggest that in the advice they gave upon this question, in addition to stating what legal offence could be put forward in the indictment, they also indicated the grave uncertainty that existed as to a conviction. He was disposed to think that they pointed out the certainty, in the then constitution of the jury system, of not getting a conviction. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) asked why the prosecution was instituted. He did not think that they would have far to seek for a reason. It was necessary that something should be done in the then terrible state of affairs. He was disposed to think that the assertion of the ordinary law, although it might not have been sufficient to cope with a crisis then so grave, might have been more vigorously applied at an earlier period. Unquestionably the ordinary powers of the law were not applied with anything like reasonable vigour until after the meeting of Parliament. Another thing might have been done. In the then unfortunate condition into which Ireland had been allowed to get, Parliament might have been summoned. That not having been done, it was absolutely necessary that something should be done; the Government arrived at the conclusion that it was their duty to institute the prosecution. That prosecution did one thing—it put the Land League and its operations at arms-length from the Government, and that he considered a distinct gain. He did not understand that any of the Irish Members who had discussed the subject questioned that the Government were proceeding on an entirely legal course; he himself had not the shadow of a doubt as to that, nor did he find, in the course of the trial in Dublin, that anyone suggested that the indictment was not legal and sufficient. He believed that no one attempted to question the legality and the fairness and the sufficiency of the way in which the Government put forward their case. If the Government put forward a legal case reasonably and fairly and bonô fide, 1102 according to their opinion of what was required for the country, it would be a strange thing to ask the Committee to divide against that Vote because the prosecution was not successful. The hon. Members who had criticized the Vote had abstained from criticizing the small details, which would have been unworthy of them; but his professional eye had been caught by finding amongst the English Votes the expenses of two prosecutions, each of which amounted to over £7,000. That was far in excess of the sum asked for in the Vote. The prosecution, in addition to putting the Land League at arms-length with the Government, had elicited from two able Judges a clear exposition of the law, which he thought had been attended with great advantage in Ireland. No one could question the absolute judicial fairness and great judicial power of the two eminent Judges who presided at the trial; and those two Judges had given well-considered and able and weighty decisions in favour of the legal opinion of the Law Officers. That, he believed, had had a substantial influence in Ireland, and had shown those who had been previously misled what the law was and what law could be asserted against them. It was not for him to make a suggestion to hon. Members as to whether they should divide on the Vote; but he thought this was a question that was more for discussion than division, because any division must take the form of reducing the fees of the counsel engaged, and that, he was sure, was the last thing in the world that hon. Members desired.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not at all unnatural for hon. Members representing Irish constituencies to discuss the Vote, and there was nothing in the tone of the remarks that had been made to which he could object. One or two remarks, however, had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) which could not pass unnoticed. The hon. and learned Member had made the serious charge against the Government that they had lured men on so that they might prosecute them.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANexplained that what he had said was that a stranger might have taken that view if he had not known the personal charac- 1103 ter of the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked what was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Government ought to have done? The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said that no Government ought to institute a prosecution unless there was some certainty of success; and he gave as a reason for uncertainty in this case the constitution of the jury system. He (the Attorney General) must dissent from that view. He thought no Government should institute a State prosecution unless there was a certainty that they ought to succeed. But how would that affect the jury system? That a State prosecution should not be instituted because there was uncertainty of conviction, because of the jury system, was a doctrine he could not understand; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view was correct, the Government could never prosecute anyone in Ireland.
§ MR. GIBSONexplained that he had said that the Government was bound to consider the probability of getting a conviction, and that in this case that probability was not held out.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)could only say that it was the duty of the Government, whether there was a defect in the jury system or not, to see that the law was in force, and to enforce the law even by criminal prosecution, when that law had been broken; but he was equally certain that the Criminal Law ought not to be brought into effect until the Government were certain that it would be for the benefit of the community; but if there was a crime committed, they must wait until they saw that they had a real offender whose offence required punishment as a matter of example; and the Government ought not to lightly undertake a State prosecution until they were certain that the effect of the trial would be great. Had there not been a slow but certain growth of crime in Ireland? There was a time in the existence of the Land League when there were speeches by comparatively unmarked men, who had brought themselves technically within the law; but at that time it was the duty of the Government—with the qualification that they should consider whether they were likely and ought to obtain 1104 a conviction—to consider what would be the effect of letting the chief offenders escape and picking out minor offenders. There were Members of that House who left their duties in Parliament in the early part of September last, and took part in promulgating the doctrines of the Land League; and on the 19th of September that disgraceful creed of inciting to crime by what was known as "Boycotting" was preached. A Member of the House committed a crime within the definitions of the law when he, in common with others, taught the creed that when a man had made a contract and was urged to break that contract, and when the person with whom the contract was made had recourse to the law to enforce the contract, the man who enforced the law was to be shunned and condemned, and passed by as a leper; while anyone who afterwards sought to obtain the natural use of his capital by taking the land vacated was to be subjected to consequences worse sometimes than violence. That was a criminal act. There could be no doubt whatever, after the ruling of the late Lord Chief Justice and the ruling of Mr. Justice Willes, that that was a criminal act. If two men combined to prevent a person obtaining the fair performance of a contract, they were criminal—and that had been openly preached. When? Not in the early Spring, but in September and October. That doctrine was preached by men of such mark that they, and not the ignorant men, ought to be held primarily responsible. When was the charge made? Unless the Attorney General for Ireland had instituted a prosecution before June, the 2nd of November was the earliest time at which he could do so—and upon the 2nd of November he did institute proceedings. He lost not one day open to him, after the June sittings, for opening proceedings—and what had occurred between June and November? If there was no probability of a conviction in November, how much stronger would the improbability have been in June? In June the Government still hoped that a policy of forbearance towards Ireland would have produced good fruit, and that the legislation contemplated for Ireland would have had an ameliorative effect. What censure could be justly cast upon the Government because in June they had not instituted proceed- 1105 ings? Yet that was the only charge which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), who had given such proof of his ability at the trial, and who had every knowledge of every feature of the case, could find to present to the Committee against the Attorney General for Ireland. It might be that if the Government had, with all the quickness and desire of some criminal lawyer, been disposed to pick out a word here and there, they could have done so in May and June; but he held that it was not the duty of the Government, instead of endeavouring to pass a measure of amelioration, to have employed themselves in picking out words of sedition uttered by some obscure and drunken man; but, when they found men of conspicuous position, whose example ought not to be an example of crime, but of peace and order, teaching criminal doctrines, then the Government, and not till then, put the law in force against the utterance of words which amounted to crime; and he should think that the last censure upon the Government which the hon. and learned Gentleman could have discovered to make would have been for having acted too slowly. There was one matter to which he must refer——namely, to the assertion made by those who, with very little knowledge of the law, said that the enforcement of the law of conspiracy had become obsolete. That law was not obsolete; and, in his opinion, it would be a day fraught with danger to the country when conspiracy ceased to be a crime. One man might speak foolishly and wickedly, and one man might not have to answer for words which, spoken alone, might have very little effect; but when they had to deal with combination—only dangerous because it was combination, when they had the banding together of many men who could defy the law by virtue of the strength of their numbers, and who, when so coming together, were able to inflict injury on the individual and danger to the commonwealth—then it was for the law to say, you who enter into combination and become in the eye of the law conspirators together—you must answer for the acts of each other. It was a combination that the Government had to deal with, and had for its object to cause persons illegally to break their contracts. The Government could deal with this combination in no other 1106 way than as conspiracy. The conspiracy they had to deal with had developed to such an extent that it had been said, in the now hackneyed phrase, to have succeeded in "knocking the Queen's law in Ireland into a cocked hat." That was the object of the combination; it was for that these proceedings were instituted in the manner which even his hon. and learned Friend opposite said he had nothing to complain of, and within a time which was perfectly proper and reasonable.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had misunderstood the nature of the objection which had been taken against these prosecutions. He had not understood it to be said that prosecution for conspiracy was obsolete. He heard it contended that the doctrine of conspiracy of the constructive kind—that was, conspiracy for which they made one man responsible by citing against him every word any other man might utter—was obsolete. He understood it to be contended that the true principle was that actually reduced to law in the case of combinations of working men; that what a man might do of himself he might do in combination with other men, and persuade any number of other men to do in combination with him. They contended that the Government had departed from that sound principle in endeavouring to restore the old doctrine of constructive conspiracy; and that when they found a man doing what was in itself lawful, they had endeavoured to throw a legal network around him for the purpose of making him responsible for the acts and words of other men. It was well known that every reform in the law tending to give liberty of speech and writing had been brought about by violating to some extent the existing law, and by Governments gradually dropping that law from practice, and allowing it to become obsolete. He and his Friends contended that a perilous condition of things had been reached when the Government endeavoured to revive the doctrine of constructive conspiracy, and make it a living principle of law again. They held that the leading men who were placed on their trial in Dublin were simply leaders of a political Party; that they had done nothing whatever opposed to the principles of the law of England; and that the Government had taken ad- 1107 vantage of a law which had fallen into disuse in order to punish them. The Government found men acting as political opponents, and converted them into criminals. Being unable to put down political agitation by fair discussion and by remedial legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman then fell back on the principle of constructive conspiracy. The manner in which the Government had acted from the beginning of this prosecution made it almost impossible that it could succeed. An hon. Member had suggested that the Government should not have instituted the prosecution unless they were well assured it would succeed. For his part, he did not go so far as that. He agreed rather with the Attorney General for Ireland, in saying that the Government ought to be guided by the opinion that the prosecution ought to succeed, rather than that it was likely to succeed. But certainly success was an element that ought to have been taken into consideration. With regard, however, to this prosecution, everyone knew that it never would succeed, because it was a political prosecution in the least noble sense of the term—a prosecution which sought to repress political opposition by criminal law. How did Her Majesty's Government show reason and excuse for that prosecution? They found that the leading men had said and done nothing which was outside the range of fair political argument and organization; they found that the objects they professed to have at heart were in no sense whatever illegal. But the Government found also that hanging on the skirts of this movement there was a number of utterly irresponsible men, without education, without position, without leadership, absolutely unknown to the majority of the leaders, and they sought out for every occasion when one of these men made some idle threat, and then applied their doctrine of conspiracy to make it appear that the whole of the leaders were actually responsible for what one man had expressed in the language of braggadocia. The acts and sayings of such men had been brought against the hon. Member for the City of Cork in order to convict him of unlawful combination; and the whole proceeding formed a picture so ignoble, pitiable, and discreditable to the Government that nothing like it had occurred since the 1108 days of Lord Norbury and the informer Jerry O'Brien. No jury would convict on such evidence unless it was composed completely of policemen or informers. What the Government had to deal with was this—they had some honest men speaking from their convictions; while, on the other hand, they had a number of obscure, irresponsible, reckless men delivering speeches which were in open defiance of the Criminal Law. Why did they refrain from prosecuting men who advocated the shooting of landlords? Why did they not put the leaders of the land movement on trial for their own utterances, and their own acts? Instead of doing so, they endeavoured to apply to them the all but obsolete doctrine of constructive conspiracy; and they endeavoured to convert an open, Honourable agitation into something like felony. In the course of this discussion there had been a great deal of loose language indulged in, and a singular mixing up of politics and law. The Attorney General for England (Sir Henry James) made it one of the accusations against the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) and some of his Colleagues that they had not employed themselves in endeavouring to lessen the popular feeling in Ireland against the Government of this country. Now, he wanted to know what public man carrying on an agitation ever attempted to lessen the popular feeling against a Government. He wished to know whether, in the famous Mid Lothian campaign, the eloquence of the Prime Minister was occupied in endeavouring to mitigate and soften the feeling of the Scotch people against the last Government? Had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) ever occupied himself in any of his reforming campaigns in endeavouring to mitigate the popular feeling against the Government against whom he was carrying on the struggle? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to think that the fact of a law being in existence, and on the Statute Book, justified the Government in instituting a prosecution under it. Now, he (Mr. M'Carthy) believed there was upon the Statute Book a law prohibiting the Jesuits from living in this country. But was there any reason for instituting a prosecution under that law, and would there be any justification 1109 for doing anything so foolish? The Attorney General for Ireland attempted to make it out that the only object of the Government was to get a decision upon the question of law. In the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the law was not quite certain. Some people thought certain things were lawful, while others thought they were not. Therefore, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman—"Let us seize the hon. Member for Cork City, bring him up, and have a trial, in order that we may learn what is the law." If that was really so, he did not wonder at the want of success which attended the trial. The Law Officers of the Government ought to have something of the politician in them, as well as of the lawyer; and it would have been wiser for them to consider how far the spirit or the letter of some decaying law was in harmony with the natural laws of modern political movement than to force on a prosecution against a great public agitation in order to find out what the law was. He hoped that his hon. Friend who had moved an Amendment to the Vote would press it to a division. It was only right that they should know what the opinion of the Committee was in regard to the prosecution which had been instituted, and whether they considered it right to pay the cost of a prosecution which had been entered into without any possibility of success.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, it was his intention to divide in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He was, however, unwilling to give a silent vote. He would, therefore, trespass for a few moments on the patience of the Committee, while he gave his reasons for the course he was about to take. The reasons why he should vote for the Amendment had not as yet been given by any other Member. He was quite willing to admit that in the circumstances in which the Government were placed the prosecution of the traversers was almost unavoidable; and he also believed that the prosecution, when it did commence, was conducted with fairness. But he must hold the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, accountable for the fact that the necessity ever arose for these State Trials at all. In the year 1870, when he had just ceased to have the honour of a seat in that House, a Land Bill was brought in by the Government; and there was 1110 never, perhaps, such an opportunity given to any Government to legislate effectually upon any question as upon that occasion. The Prime Minister had it in his power to manage the large majority he had in his own way, and to make the Bill a most efficient measure. Had the right hon. Gentleman then introduced such a measure as, by general supposition, was now about to be introduced, they would have had peace and quietness in Ireland for many years past. When the Government came into Office last year, great and reasonable hopes were entertained that they would inaugurate their government by the introduction of a suitable measure of Land Reform in Ireland. But in that respect the hopes of the people were disappointed. They all knew—at least those who had been in the House as long as he had—his acquaintance with the House having commenced some quarter of a century ago—that hardly anything had been given to Ireland for the sake of abstract justice, and that without agitation nothing could be accomplished. Now, his hon. Friends around him, who took an active part in the land agitation, and a part in which he was afraid they were carried somewhat too far by their enthusiasm—knew very well that unless agitation was kept up in Ireland, and very strong reasons were given why an adequate measure should be introduced, there would be very little hope for them. He thought he could cite no better witness as to the necessity for agitation, and the good results that were likely to follow from it, than the Prime Minister himself, for the right hon. Gentleman had fully admitted that without the agitation that took place on the Land Bill and the Church Question on a former occasion he would have failed to carry those measures to a successful issue. He (Mr. Blake) considered that the agitation in Ireland had, perhaps, been carried a little too far. He was himself, to a certain extent, one of the victims of the very strong feeling which existed in Ireland that rents should be limited to a particular standard. It was one of the recommendations of the Land League—and hon. Members beside him would correct him if he was wrong—that, under certain circumstances, the people ought not, until the Land Question was finally settled, pay more than Griffith's valuation. He must give the Land League credit that they did not 1111 mean this in a general, but in a particular sense; but, unfortunately, the people took it as it suited them, in many instances in a general sense, and he (Mr. Blake) was, in consequence, in this position at this moment, that unless he consented to receive from his tenants about half of the income he was entitled to he would get no income at all. He therefore waited with the greatest impatience and anxiety, stimulated by his own particular necessities, the period when the Prime Minister would bring forward a measure that would enable him (Mr. Blake) his rights. He was very sorry to say that in Ireland there were some hundreds, perhaps some thousands, in exactly the same position as himself. Therefore, speaking entirely from a landlord's point of view, he trusted that, for the preservation of their lives and the peace and quietness of the country, that the Government measure of Land Reform would not be long delayed, and that it would be of a satisfactory character, just to the tenant as well as the landlord. The only Member of the Government present now who took an important part in the agitation of 1870 was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). So far as popular rumour went, if the right hon. Gentleman had had his way on that occasion, the Irish landlords would now be in possession of their rents, and the country would be in a state of peace and prosperity. It was because he regarded the Government as the primary cause of the agitation which had led to such unpleasant results in Ireland, and which culminated in the late State Trials, that he should vote in favour of the Amendment. He protested against the Government not having taken the measures they were bound to take on coming into Office, in order to allay the just discontent that existed. He should enter his protest against their inaction in that respect by voting in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman if he pressed it to a division.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORregretted to say that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England had introduced into the debate an amount of acerbity which did not belong to it before. He (Mr. O'Connor) had no knowledge of the law whatever; but he had taken the trouble to consult those who knew something about the law of conspiracy, 1112 and he found that on the 4th August, 1873, in the debate on the "Conspiracy Law Amendment Bill," Mr. Vernon Harcourt made some remarks which might be applied now to the operations of the Land League in Ireland. It was really a very remarkable speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman was moving that the consideration of the Lords' Amendment to the Conspiracy Law Amendment Bill should be taken that day three months, and he said—
Under the pretence of limiting the penalty the Bill did, in fact, affirm the offence, for if they passed the Bill it would give a statutory assent to the doctrine which Parliament had never yet sanctioned—that an agreement to break a contract within the provisions of the Master and Servant Act was a criminal offence properly indictable as a conspiracy."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 1533.][Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) shook his head. But these were sentences open to the interpretation of any hon. Member of that House. The speech said distinctly—This Bill would, for the first time, recognize in an Act of Parliament an agreement to break a contract to be an indictable offence. … To so dangerous and mischievous a proposition he, for one, could never assent."—[Ibid.]In this case the tenants were advised not to keep a contract, and, according to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Vernon Harcourt, it was not an indictable offence to combine in order to agree to break a contract. He left the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to settle conclusions with the Attorney General and his hon. Colleagues as to what the real state of the law was. That was the first point that arose. The second was that the right hon. Gentleman laid down that because two eminent Judges, Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Barry, declared certain things to be illegal, that therefore they were illegal, and in this very same speech by Mr. Vernon Harcourt on the 4th August, 1873, he found the hon. Gentleman protesting against this Judge-made law in these terms—If Parliament was to keep faith with the working classes in respect of the pledges it had given to secure the freedom of labour, it was bound to protect it against the practical super-session of its will—by this sort of Judge-made law. No one had a more sincere respect than he had for the sages of the law; but that respect was limited to their legal province—Cuilibetere-dendam est in arte suâ. Even men so just as Mansfield and Eldon and Ellenborough and Kenyon 1113 had laid down doctrines on political and economical subjects which it had been the duty of Parliament to correct, and upon no head of the Common Law had decisions gone more astray than upon trade questions."—[Ibid. 1535.]These were the words used by Mr. Vernon Harcourt with regard to the Judges of England when dealing with State questions or questions between masters and servants. If it was justifiable on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise that objection against the decrees of the English Judges on questions affecting masters and servants then, à fortiori, it was justifiable for the Irish Members to raise the same question on the decision of the Irish Judges upon questions between landlords and tenants. It must also be borne in mind that in the latter case the Judges were political in their origin, that they were raised to their places by political Parties for political services, and that they were called upon to decide questions of political struggle between one Party and another. The right hon. Gentleman was now chief guardian of the law; and although it was quite permissible for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford to cast this slur upon Judge-made law, it was regarded by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as an indescribable offence for the Irish Members to raise the same objection against Judge-made law in regard to questions of dispute in which the Judges themselves were personally interested. He (Mr. O'Connor) had great respect for the two Judges who had given their decision on this Judge-made law; but he was not prepared to abnegate all the rights of the Irish people because Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Barry happened to say that such and such things were illegal. He did not see why the fact that they said it was illegal should make it illegal. He certainly failed to see why the mere dictum of Justices Fitzgerald and Barry was to make a breach of contract between landlord and tenant a necessarily overt offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thought it necessary to go out of his way to refer to transactions which had been only incidentally alluded to, and which he might have known would awaken painful and disturbing recollections which ought to be allowed to rest. The right hon. and 1114 learned Gentleman alluded to the famous advice of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) at Ennis in reference to what was called "Boycotting." He challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon that point, whether it was or was not a fact that "Boycotting" was a part, and a necessary part, of every trades' union organization in this country. Was that so, or was it not? What was "Boycotting?" "Boycotting" meant simply that certain persons belonging to a certain class, opposed by another class, found that their only strength and defence lay in combination; that that combination was only possible by the observance of all the conditions of combination by the combined, and that in order to preserve that combination they must have the moral sanction of a social breach of intercourse with those who disobeyed the combination. As a matter of fact, if he was rightly informed, in some of the instances of the trades' organization of this country a fine was imposed in the Trades' Union Court—a Court which he supposed, if sitting in Ireland, would be accused of high treason by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. That Trades' Union Court called before it any man of the Union who worked for an employer against whom a decree of the union had gone forth. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that? Could he deny further that the offender was brought before the Bar of the Trades' Union Court, and that the Court, usurping the functions of the Sovereign, frequently imposed a heavy fine for any breach of the trades' union regulations. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) in his place. He would appeal to his hon. Friend if it was not a necessary and prominent part of trades' union organizations that a person belonging to the union, and disobeying the decree of the union with regard to taking work under certain employers was visited by something like those social penalties which were summed up in the word "Boycotting?" Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman dare not bring into that House a Bill which would in any way interfere even with the fringe of these rights of combination, and of "Boycotting," and of social ostracism, encouraged by the 1115 trades' unions in this country. It was only when they were established as adjuncts to the land agitation in Ireland that they were looked upon as intolerable. The right hon. Gentleman had not proved to his mind, nor had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that this mischievous doctrine, as it was called by Mr. Vernon Harcourt—that an agreement to break a contract was a criminal offence was recognized by the law of England. Therefore, before he received this doctrine as the law of the land, he should like to see it a little better tested than it had been at present. He was certainly under the impression that it was perfectly legal for the tenants to combine together for the purpose of breaking a contract, and that it was not an indictable offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary to speak of the advice which had been given—not to take a farm from which a person had been evicted; and he went so far as to characterize that advice as disgraceful. Now, that advice, disgraceful as it was in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, was, in his (Mr. O'Connor's) mind, justified by overwhelming national necessities. It would be highly dangerous to leave to the landlords the power of eviction, unchecked by some such power as this. If there had been no such part during 1879 and 1880, the people whom they tried by their Disturbance Bill and failed to save would have perished. A combination to prevent the taking of a farm from a man who had been unjustly evicted was no more morally criminal than the combination brought about by the trades' union to prevent men from entering certain employments. Thought hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of getting Irishmen convicted by Irish juries. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reflect for a moment on the hidden meaning of these words—the difficulty of getting Irishmen convicted by Irish juries, he thought he would find that it would have been more correct to say—the difficulty of getting an Irish politician like the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) convicted by an Irish jury. The Government knew that no jury of Irishmen fairly brought together would convict his hon. Friend, or any of his hon. Friends, upon such evidence as that 1116 adduced at the recent State Trials. It was the doctrine of persons who believed in the Divine right of Monarchs that Kings could do no wrong; it was his doctrine that no nations could do wrong in its own interest. The Government must know that in the State Trials, while they were on the one side the Irish nation were on the other, and it followed that the Government were wrong, and that the Irish nation could not be wrong in failing to convict its public men. The sooner the Government took the lesson to heart, the sooner they refrained from oppression, coercion, gagging, and tyranny, and the sooner they governed Ireland according to the principles of equality and justice, the more conducive it would be to the welfare of both countries.
§ MR. WILLISwas prompted to make a few observations in consequence of certain remarks which had been made in relation to the law of conspiracy. As far as he understood the law, it was an offence for two or more persons to agree to incite a person to break his contract. It was an offence, not only created by Act of Parliament, but by a series of decisions extending over a considerable period of time. He did not wish to discuss its propriety. The alteration of the law, which took place in 1875, in favour of workmen, when a general trade dispute arose about wages, was just; and if he thought the Land League only incited tenant farmers, who had themselves united to complain of high rents, to break their contracts, he did not know that he should oppose its operation. But the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was mistaken in supposing that there was any analogy between breaking a contract by a labourer and the course the Land League had advised. A labourer retired from the building or place where he was working; but a tenant farmer in Ireland was incited by the Land League not only to break his contract by non-payment of rent, but to remain in the possession of the property, and to compel, by intimidation, the landlord to accept the terms which the tenant dictated. The case of the workman could only be analogous to that of the Irish tenant if the workman not only broke his contract, but took and kept forcible possession of the factory, employed the capital and gave the master just such a share of the profits as in his—the work- 1117 man's—opinion he ought to receive. It was a most unjust and criminal proceeding on the part of a tenant, after breaking the contract he had entered into, to remain in his holding, and thus endeavour to compel the landlord to accept his terms. An undoubted crime was being committed by the Land League, and it was the absolute duty of any Government, worthy of the name, to suppress it.
§ MR. FINIGANhad been extremely amused by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Willis). He had little expected to hear from one professing broad Liberal principles such a very narrow view of the law of contract. Contracts were never justifiable, unless there was an equality and a freedom on the part of both contracting parties. In Ireland, contracts between landlords and tenants were very like those existing between the wolf and the lamb. The unfortunate tenantry were bound to live by some means or other; there was no industry, they had no money with which to leave the country, and they were simply placed at the mercy of the landlords, who were ever ready to demand unjust and inequitable rents. It was owing to this state of things that tenants of Ireland were obliged to enter into unjust contracts. He knew of no body of men claiming any acquaintance with jurisprudence who would hold that such a contract was binding. Until the House of Commons learned that the ordinary law in Ireland was administered in a just and fair spirit, and that the convictions under that law were greater than in England, it would not realize the precise condition of affairs in Ireland. Wherever there were no politics concerned the ordinary law was administered in Ireland justly and with dignity; it was only when polities were infused into the administration of the law, and when it was defined that disobedience of unjust laws was a crime, that the Irish people and Irish juries rejected what was called law, but what was a sheer and undoubted wrong. It had been alleged, in this House, by the Prime Minister, that evictions were sentences of death; and it had been stated, without this House, by Members and supporters of the Government, that the law of eviction was an injustice. To punish a man for breaking an unjust law by breaking his contract was a parody on legislation, and a parody on 1118 equity. He never advocated the breaking of the law in Ireland; but in reference to what was called "Boycotting," he now desired to call the attention of the House to a clause in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875. Clause 3 of that Act provided that—
An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do, or procure to be done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen, shall not be indictable as a conspiracy, if such act committed by one person would not be punishable as a crime.Now, he held that the indictment for conspiracy brought by the Government against his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and others was an act of tyranny. The Government ought to have remembered that they should have applied to Ireland the principles of the Act passed in 1875 for England. He was ready to admit there were several cases in which the Government could and ought to have brought indictments; but against those who were indicted recently in Dublin there was no case for any Court, unless it were the Court too long known in Ireland—namely, the Court swayed by politics corrupted by Party. In any ordinary case brought before an Irish jury, a verdict would be returned equal in point of justice to any given in an English Court. He objected to the Vote now before the Committee, and he intended to support any division upon it; because until the English Government, whether it be Liberal or Tory, learned that the law of Ireland must be framed in accordance with the opinions of the people, there could be no respect for the so-called law—law which was now so much affected by political considerations. He trusted nothing would be done to-night to delay the progress of Business; but at the same time he hoped that Ministers who called themselves Liberal, who called themselves men of justice, would not attempt to defend an indictment for conspiracy, which, though it might be technically right, was judicially and equitably wrong. It ought to be understood by the Government, and by hon. Gentlemen generally, that it was not against the law, but against the system of injustice carried on by official corruption, that the Irish Representatives so persistently contended in this House. 1119 So soon as the same spirit of legislation was evinced in regard to Ireland as in regard to England, the Irish people would be found as true and as firm to the principles of justice as the people of England.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANwas not only favourable to the reduction of the Vote now proposed, but he was in favour of its complete abolition. He considered the late State prosecution was unwisely conceived, and from first to last a waste of public money. There was no man of common sense in England or Ireland who did not know from the very commencement of the proceedings that they could only have one termination. It was said in this country, and in Ireland, as it was said in the newspapers of all parties in both countries, that the trial could only end in the acquittal of the traversers. Nothing, in fact, was expected from the prosecution but a field day for the lawyers, and the waste of a great deal of money of the British taxpayer. In Ireland there was, moreover, another view taken of the matter, and when people were casting about to ascertain why on earth these prosecutions were instituted at all, this view commended itself to many minds; it was this—that the officials of Dublin Castle were resolved to pit the British Exchequer against the funds of the Land League, and thus to impoverish that association by causing it to expend a large sum of money which might have been much better employed. They had heard to-night something on the question of contract; but they had not heard it for the first time. What seemed to be the key to the whole position, in this and other debates was, the sacredness of contract between landlord and tenant. But he denied—as he and his hon. Colleagues had denied many times previously—that a contract for the payment of a rack rent was, in reality, a contract at all. Contract was too good and too sacred a word to apply to an arrangement between landlord and tenant under which the latter was to pay an exorbitant rent. He believed that a real crime on the part of an Irish tenant would be, not in refusing to pay a rack-rent, but in paying. it. The most sacred duty a tenant could have was first of all to support in decency and in comfort out of the proceeds of his labour, himself his wife, and his family. [A laugh.] Whether hon. Gentlemen laughed at 1120 this opinion or not, he boldly asserted it. It was his conscientious opinion; he bad uttered it elsewhere, and he had no hesitation in uttering it on the floor of the House of Commons. A large number of Gentlemen connected with the Legal Profession had spoken to-night on this subject. They had spoken very highly of the State prosecutions. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) said they were in some respects conducted in a model manner; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had complimented the Irish Members on the fact that they did not too narrowly scrutinize the Vote. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) wished to bear his testimony to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland conducted the prosecutions in a fairer spirit than they had ever experienced before in Irish political trials; but, at the same time, the prosecutions were, in his opinion, a great mistake, and a needless waste of money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in opening the case, spoke for two days. That, of course, meant a round of refreshers for all the lawyers, while half the time—nay, even a quarter of the time—would have sufficed. The defence of the traversers cost the Land League about £10,000. He, in common with every member of the Land League, would very much have preferred to see that money distributed to the families of evicted Irish tenants. It would in this way have been much better employed. He should, of course, vote for the proposed reduction; but he would more cheerfully vote for the abolition the entire amount asked.
§ MR. BIGGARthought he was justified, both as an Irish Member of Parliament and as a taxpayer, in contesting this particular Vote, and in offering some of his experiences in connection with the late trials, and some of the reasons why he considered the Vote ought not to be passed in its present form. The charge brought against the traversers was that of conspiracy. It was attempted to be shown that they had advised the people to break their contracts; but it was rather strange that very little stress had been laid upon the question as to whether such a thing as contract existed between the tenant farmers and landlords of Ireland. He dis- 1121 puted that, even legally speaking, contracts existed between these people. They had seen that the Court of Chancery had held that a man was not even legally, and certainly not morally, compelled to abide by an arrangement under which a landlord or usurer sought to procure from him an extortionate amount of money in relation to any transactions between them. That was a matter of law as clear as anything could be, and he did not think it could be controverted. What was the state of things with regard to the needy Irish tenant? If he did not choose to consent to the terms of the landlord, he and his family were evicted, and might straightway have to go to the workhouse. Much had been said in respect to the question of conspiracy; but it was a remarkable fact that no attempt was made by the prosecution in the late trial to make it appear that there was any connection between the different parties indicted. A great deal had been said about the Land League; but it was never proved that any one of the persons prosecuted was a member of the League. It was a notorious fact that several persons who were put on trial were not members of the League at all. Some of the traversers he had never seen before the trial; he did not even know that such persons existed, and yet he was told he had conspired with them to incite people to break their contracts. What he admitted he had done was to recommend the tenant farmers not to pay unjust rents. He and his colleagues never advised the people not to pay reasonable rents, or not to pay rents in the cases in which the landlord had not acted in an extortionate manner. They merely told the farmers, as they told them still, to abstain from paying unreasonable rents. Another charge brought against them was that they recommended what was called "Boycotting." Now "Boycotting" of certain kinds would be very illegal and very improper. It would be illegal and improper in cases in which actual violence, or a pretence to violence occurred; but would it be pretended that they were not justified in telling the people to hold no intercourse with persons of disreputable character? They held, of course, a man to be of disreputable character who would take land from which another had been evicted on account of his inability to pay an unjust rent. He maintained that any 1122 man who would take land under such circumstances ought to be avoided, and he did not imagine that any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House would pretend to controvert that proposition. "Boycotting" was practised in every profession. In legal circles it was very well known that if a barrister took less than the recognized fee, other barristers would not act in the case with him. It was well known, too, that if a barrister took a fee direct from a client, or before it had passed through the hands of a solicitor, he was "Boycotted." These were notorious facts; and, therefore, it did not become lawyers, who fattened on the system of "Boycotting," to attack Irish Members of Parliament when they advised the tenant farmers in Ireland, who had most keenly suffered, and who continue to suffer, to follow the example of a Profession which held a very high position in the social world, although, of course, in some circles, in which he did not join, it was the fashion to bring general charges against the members of that Profession. Reference had been made of late to what were called Land League Courts. He had no means of knowing what had taken place in any of the Land Courts, inasmuch as he had never been present at any of them; but what he believed was really intended, and what he was sure was usually practised in those Courts, was a system of arbitration. There were Chambers of Commerce in the different business centres, and it was a very common thing for these Chambers to settle trade disputes by arbitration, and thus obviate a law suit involving the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and possibly a very great delay. What was more likely than that a business disagreement should be left to a committee of the trade? Of course, there were no means of enforcing a decision of such a body; but the honour of the persons concerned was at stake, and if a person acted contrary to the opinion expressed by the committee of his trade, the result would be that he would, in point of fact, be "Boycotted," because no one would have confidence in his future dealings. It was quite a common thing for the different trades to have such a committee, and the system had a very salutary effect. It seemed, however, to be forgotten that "Boycotting" had been practised by 1123 landlords in respect to tenants. In the case of contested elections before the Ballot Act was passed, it was well known the landlords of Ireland attempted to exercise considerable influence over their tenants; and it was equally well known that whole districts had been depopulated because the electors had exercised their privilege as their conscience dictated. In point of fact, the landlords of Ireland "Boycotted," and thus ruined many tenant farmers, simply because those farmers had at an election supported the so-called Liberal Party of England. A complaint had been made, and it was one which especially referred to the Vote now before the Committee. It was to the effect that a large number of counsel were engaged, and that this had led to a great waste of money. The Attorney General for Ireland had said there were eight counsel in the case. He (Mr. Biggar) was present during a part of the trial, and, in his opinion, four counsel would have been quite sufficient. All the counsel had to do was to, perhaps once in two days, examine a witness. The rest of the time was spent in looking on; but he supposed they got their refreshers all the same. In point of fact, one-half of the money given to counsel was wasted; and he, therefore, thought that the Committee would be justified in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. The amount suggested should be struck off the Vote, simply for the purpose of insuring that for the future legal business should be properly conducted. It was one of the great complaints, and, he thought, a very just complaint, against the administration of justice in this country that such great expense was incurred, and that those little games of trade unionism were allowed to exist, whereby counsel encouraged the system of employing more legal assistance in a case than was required. This was a question which deserved far more attention than was at present bestowed upon it, and he thought the Committee should declare very strongly on the fact that more counsel had been engaged in the case they were discussing than were necessary. Another complaint was that on this trial, which was a very serious one, the Crown submitted evidence in regard to transactions which took place after the proceedings commenced. The Government were 1124 asked to give particulars of the circumstances on which they intended to base their case, and they mentioned a certain number of meetings at which the different traversers had been present and had spoken; but reserved to themselves the right of bringing forward evidence with regard to meetings which took place after the commencement of the trial. Well, that was an unsound principle, and one which the Committee should very strongly censure. A point had been raised by the Government in this discussion which he did not think they were justified in bringing up, and that was with regard to Irish juries. The late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had said that the trials should not have been commenced, because of the well-known difficulty of getting a proper jury in Ireland. That was a libel upon Irish juries. Irish juries were exceedingly fair; and he thought that probably one of the best things which had ever been done for Ireland by a so-called Liberal Government was Lord O'Hagan's Act with regard to the reform of the jury system in that country. Before the passing of that Act, it was the invariable practice of the Government to pack the juries in such a way that it was impossible for a prisoner to get a fair trial. It was notorious that the juries were packed, and the jury laws, as reformed by Lord O'Hagan, rendered the practice more difficult; and, under existing circumstances, the administration of justice in political and other crimes was much more fair than they used to be, for juries were packed much less frequently. He could not, however, say that even yet the people of Ireland had much confidence in the administration of justice. It was the custom in some quarters to attack Lord O'Hagan; but, for his part, he considered him entitled to the greatest credit. The noble and learned Lord deserved the highest credit for his honesty in bringing forward a reform which he knew, from his practice at the Bar, was so much required. Now, a very curious thing raised as to that trial was this—that the Government fully adopted the responsibility of the proceedings. They did not lay the responsibility on the Law Officers of the Crown for instituting the trial and incurring such a large expense, and this was another of the blunders that the Government had committed, for they 1125 must have known very well that the alleged offences, which had so often been referred to during the progress of the discussion, were only offences according to Judge-made law, and that, as a matter of fact, no moral offence had been committed at all. This was only another of the blunders calculated to make the members of the Land League much more popular with the Irish people, and to discredit the Government. Even from a selfish point of view, anyone would have thought that the Government would have conceived it to be desirable to be on better terms with the Irish people; but they had succeeded in alienating the whole Irish race from them, and consequently in permanently injuring the interests of their Party. Another matter connected with the trial which he wished to point out was this—that the proceedings were so arranged that they were going on while Parliament was sitting. That had been hardly fair to the Irish Members, more especially as everyone knew there was a proposal for passing a Coercion Bill. It was important to the Irish Members, or those of them who were included amongst the traversers, that they should be present in Dublin during the trial, and it was also desirable that they should be in their places in Parliament in the interests of their constituents. The Government should have so arranged the matter that the sitting of Parliament and the trials should not have gone on at the same time. To his mind the Government were not justified in acting as they did. He had gone over all the references made in the discussion that had taken place on this matter, and would shortly refer to some of the things which he had himself observed during the trial, and which he thought justified him in challenging this particular Vote. First of all, with regard to the question which he had asked the Prime Minister, and to which he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention before he went away—the question in regard to the evidence of the police constables. He considered that the policemen should not have been taken as witnesses at all in such a case, and he would give a reason why he thought so. He had been present at a meeting in the county of Cavan, of which evidence was given at the trial, and there was a police officer present at that meeting. He (Mr. Biggar) did not observe the policeman taking notes; but a 1126 Catholic priest afterwards informed him that he saw the man doing it, and that he had noticed that he had simply taken down those of his (Mr. Biggar's) words which he had thought would appear to be a breach of the law if taken by themselves. When he had said anything to counteract or lessen the influence of anything he had said before it did not find a place in the notes. Well, he did not think the evidence of such people as these police reporters should have been taken at the trial, and he did not think that in a criminal matter of that kind the Crown Counsel were justified in bringing it forward. In regard to every police officer examined at the trial, the invariable result of their cross-examination was that they acknowledged their inability to take down in shorthand all that a person spoke. Some of them said they could take down a large proportion of what was said, whilst others could only take a small portion; but they all acknowledged that they could not take all that an ordinary speaker could utter. Well, the Committee knew what was the value of evidence of that sort. They knew that unless a person was reported verbatim a correct idea was not conveyed of what that person had really said. In each of these cases he had referred to, when the witness had broken down and acknowledged his incompetence to report what had been said, the duty of the Crown Counsel should have been to order the witness to get off the witness table. The Crown Counsel had done no such thing, however, for they had gone on examining these men, and a great deal of valuable time and a great deal of money had consequently been wasted. These were things that had occurred under his own observation, and which were notorious. Another matter he wished to refer to was this—and it was the last point with which he should trouble the Committee with reference to these trials—that in giving the evidence of the witnesses from the printed copies of the speeches in possession of the Crown, the Crown Counsel threw great difficulty in the way of supplying them to the counsel for the defence. The leading counsel for the traversers applied to have a full copy of each speech as soon as a part of the speech was put in in evidence by the Crown. Of course, it would be easily understood that giving an extract from a speech did not give a 1127 correct idea of what that speech was. The Attorney General, artfully enough, seemed to fall in with the view of the Judge as soon as an expression of opinion had been given by that personage, and said, in an off-hand way—"I will give you a copy of the speeches tomorrow;" but what was the result? The result was that in each case a formal application had to be made, to be followed by a new order, and the requisite document was not supplied until a new branch of the trial was reached. The counsel for the defence did not get the copies of the speeches which were offered in evidence until the day after they had been referred to by the Crown Counsel. As soon as the reasonableness of the contention of the Attorney General was brought before the attention of the Court, the proper order was made, and each speech was put into the hands of the counsel for the traversers directly the evidence of each witness commenced, which gave an opportunity, more or less, for the traversers' counsel to get witnesses examined in regard to other portions of the speeches than those referred to by the Crown Counsel. But, even under the reformed circumstances, it was not at all easy for the counsel for the traversers to make a good cross-examination of witnesses, because they had to go over the whole speech and pick out any extract which seemed to tell in favour of the traversers during the progress of the examination in chief by the Crown. He only pointed out those things to show that, according to his idea of what a prosecuting counsel ought to be, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not entitled to the very warm eulogiums that were passed upon him with regard to the fairness of his conduct of this particular trial. His (Mr. Biggar's) opinion of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's duties were might be erroneous; but it certainly seemed to him that in a criminal case a prosecuting counsel should not be permitted to explain the evidence. He should come to the real merits and justice of the case, and not fish for a verdict in opposition to what might be the real merits to be submitted to the jury.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had not heard an explanation of an item with regard to which he had asked for information early in the evening. He found that 1128 under the Vote there was a sum to be granted in connection with the Chief Secretary's Office, and of that the Chief Secretary had not thought fit to offer the Committee the slightest explanation. The word "miscellaneous" was supposed to account for an item; but that was a vague phrase, which was not worthy of a public office. He trusted that some information with regard to that matter would be given, if not by the Chief Secretary, at any rate by someone on his behalf.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)stated that the item included the printing and stationery department in connection with legal matters in the office.
§ MR. BELLINGHAMdid not wish to detain the Committee any length of time, but merely desired to say that he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork for three reasons. In the first place, as a protest against the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government ever since they had been in Office; in the second place, because he considered these State Trials were a perfect farce; and, in the third place, because he believed the effect of the trials had been to advertise widely the very principles and doctrines the Government professed to dislike.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 153: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £3,500, Queen' Bench, &c. Divisions, Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was possible there might be no occasion to move to reduce the Vote; but he noticed that the salary of the Master of the Queen's Bench Division was £1,200 per annum. He believed that according to the terms of his appointment that gentleman ought to give his whole time and services to the office. The salary was large; but he (Mr. Biggar) believed the Master carried on a prosperous business as a solicitor in Dublin, and also prepared candidates for examinations. Under those circumstances, he thought that the Government were not justified in paying him a full salary, when he did not give his whole time, but carried on a private practice of considerable profit.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought there was something very unsatisfactory in the Vote, because it was proposed to increase very considerably several of the expenses connected with the Courts in Ireland. The Taxing Master's salary was to be increased, the Registrar's salary was to be increased, and three Town Registrars' salaries were to be increased. It was perfectly notorious that the cost of the Supreme Court was much larger than the circumstances of Ireland required. There were likely to be proposals for some decrease with regard to the Courts in Scotland; and he believed that would be a right course; but he hoped it would be accompanied by a decrease in the cost in Ireland. There was very little information in the Paper with regard to these costs, and the Paper was exceedingly unsatisfactory.
§ MR. PARNELLobserved, that when the English system of Judicature was re-modelled, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the offices which were in existence under the old system, and to ascertain which of them it was necessary to retain, and which should be abolished. When the Judicature Act for Ireland was passed a similar Committee was promised with regard to the offices in Ireland. He did not know whether the Committee had reported; but it was an ominous circumstance that when they were looking for retrenchment they found a Supplementary Estimate proposed, to increase some of the salaries of the Irish officials.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. LAW)observed, that the salary of the Master of the Queen's Bench was formerly paid from the Consolidated Fund; but the salary had now been included in the Estimates. As to the other matters mentioned, there had been a re-organization of offices, and there was an apparent increase; but the number of offices had been considerably reduced, and although some of the salaries were increased there was really a decrease in the total cost. As an instance of this, he mentioned that the number of Taxing Masters had now been reduced to two.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid there had been a large reduction in the number of offices; but the Taxing Masters found themselves hardly treated, because they had not received a considerable increase in their salaries. They considered them- 1130 selves ill-used, because their salaries had not been increased, while their work had been increased.
§ MR. CALLANwished for some explanation on the question of Election Petition trials. He found £220 put down for reception of Judges; but on turning to the sub-head under which it was stated that the Vote would be accounted for by the Chief Secretary's Office he found no details given. He found that in England an average of £244 had been allowed, in connection with Election Petition trials, for disbursements to sheriffs and mayors, while in Ireland an average of only £154 was allowed. He also found that the same amount was not allowed for officers in attendance upon Judges as in England, £120 being paid in England and only £46 being allowed in Ireland. These were matters requiring explanation, and he should oppose the Vote unless that explanation was given.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)directed attention to pages 24 and 30 of the Estimates to show that the Irish Office was not so far behind England in this matter. In the Irish Estimate, page 31, the item £220 for reception of Judges was put by itself; but at page 24 the cost for hire of Court Houses, reception of Judges, and other expenses in England, amounting to £6,100, were put down altogether.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £1,103, Land Judges' Offices, Ireland.
§ MR. BLAKEasked whether it was in contemplation to reduce the number of the Judges in the Land Court, pointing out that some years ago the business was much larger than it was now, and that the Judges were now almost idle; and at that period Judge Flannigan had offered the Government to do all the business himself. Under the circumstances, with only a quarter of the work to be done now that there was then, the two Judges must be almost idle.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)reminded the hon. Member that the Act provided that when a vacancy occurred in this Court it should not be filled up until it was ascertained that a second Judge was necessary.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to know whether it was the case in Ireland that some of 1131 the Judges of what used to be looked upon as the Superior Courts now went Circuit?
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was a Member of the Committee on what were called the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act, and it was then expected that the Land Courts would have a great deal of work in consequence of those clauses. The House was now expecting another Land Bill. He believed that under the new Bill a Land Court would be necessary, and he thought it was unwise of the Irish Members to attempt to reduce the Judges.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £50, Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland, agreed to.
§ (7.) £2,500, County Court Officers, &c. Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to know what was the explanation of the sum of £1,460 for Clerks of Crown and Peace?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)explained that formerly Clerks of the Peace were paid from the county rates; but in consequence of the consolidation of that office with the office of Clerk of the Crown they were now paid by Votes in Parliament.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,900, 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 1881, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the foot note gave correct information? It stated that the total original Estimate was £1,134,461; but the column stated it to be £778,161. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to explain this difference. He would also like to know how much, if any, of the charge was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, in addition to the sum named in the Estimates, and whether the Government had information as to the amount paid by the various counties for extra police during the last year?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, no account had been received for the county charges; but he believed there was no extra charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. PARNELLasked if the counties to which an additional force had been sent were up to their full strength?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he imagined they were nearly so. The charge was for 5,381 men, which was a little under the full strength.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, some years ago the number of police to be placed in each county was declared by Act of Parliament. No power had been given to vary the number of men. Nevertheless, reductions had been made, and in his own county, for instance, the number of men had been reduced to about 130. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork asked whether the number of men allocated by the Act of Parliament were really stationed in each county, or did the Irish Office persist in the course which had been on many occasions condemned by the House, of charging the extra police to the county. The counties of Galway and Mayo had been charged with extra expense for the force sent there; but no allowance had been made for the force taken away from other counties. Therefore, he wished to know whether, when the Government charged the Western counties of Ireland for extra men, they allowed the counties from which those men were taken the difference of cost?
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdesired to draw attention to the subject of a question put by his Colleague about three weeks since. As many as 80 or 90 police were brought into the City of Limerick during the election, and were kept there a considerable time. The city had not then the force it was entitled to, notwithstanding which, an extra charge was made for the men. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated, in reply, that the extra force had been demanded by some of the local authorities, and, as he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) understood, either by the High Sheriff or the Corporation of the City. As soon as this statement was published it caused much astonishment, and on inquiry it turned out that no such demand had been made by any of the authorities of the city. He therefore trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the absence of the Attorney General, would be able to give some explanation of the circumstances under which the men were sent in, and say whether the city was to be charged for them, seeing 1133 that the authorities had made no demand.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the point he wished to make clear to the Committee was this. An Act of Parliament provided that each county in Ireland should have a certain police force. After the passing of the Act the force in the various counties had been allowed to fall below the number provided in the Act. In 1865–6, during the Fenian disturbances, the Grand Juries throughout Ireland petitioned in many cases far extra police, and the Government sent them into the counties which had not their complete force and charged them as extra police, although they only brought up the number of men to that guaranteed by the Act of Parliament. In other words, the Government got rid of the necessity of paying out of the Imperial resources for a certain number of ordinary police sent to a number of Irish counties. That question had been over and over again raised by Grand Juries in Ireland; but the matter at the present time assumed more importance than at any period since the Fenian rising in 1865–6, inasmuch as the Government had been proclaiming a number of counties, and sending to them what they called an extra police force, which was charged upon the local rates. His point was, that many counties into which an extra police force had been sent did not possess their full force previously, and that the Government should have paid the cost out of the money voted by Parliament, instead of throwing it upon the local rates, seeing that, even with the extra force sent in, the counties in question had no more than the number of men allowed by the Act of Parliament. This practice was especially unfair when it was considered that the Government had taken men from certain peaceful counties and transferred them to Western counties like Mayo and Galway, and to Southern counties like Cork, and charged them upon the local rates, without taking off any of the charge made upon the counties from which they had drafted the police. He thought the Government should lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of men which each county was entitled to out of the moneys voted by Parliament, and out of the Consolidated Fund, in a normal state of affairs; the actual number of men in each county supported out of the moneys 1134 voted by Parliament, and the extra force which are charged in such counties on the local rates. If a Return showing these three particulars were furnished, hon. Members would be able to see what foundation there was for the repeated charges made by county authorities, from time to time, that the Government had been acting unfairly in throwing the charge for extra police on the various counties.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the police were sent into the counties under two provisions. One of these was upon the requisition of the magistrates, and was independent of the proclamation that the county was in a state of disturbance. He imagined the hon. Member for the City of Cork alluded to that. He could not positively say there was no case of a county having been below its full force and calling for police, the cost of whom were charged to it; but certainly he did not think that had been so to any extent. On the contrary, he believed the extra force had been only sent in when the counties had their full number of men, or nearly so. If any case of the kind alluded to had occurred, it was probably of a temporary character only, as in the instance quoted by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). By the Return of the 1st March, the whole extra force sent into the counties, independently of the proclamation for disturbances, was 628 men. This number had been spread over several counties, and showed, speaking generally, that the counties to which they were sent were up to their strength before they were sent in. The numbers sent in under proclamation was 1,056.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether extra police had been sent into all counties which had been recently proclaimed as requiring such extra police?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the hon. Member was confusing the two modes of sending police to the enmities. He believed that in every case in which a county had been proclaimed in a state of disturbance extra police had been sent.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, seeing the Attorney General for Ireland in his place, took the opportunity of repeating his question with regard to the police sent to the city of Limerick at the time of the Election. Contrary to the reply given by the right hon. and learned 1135 Gentleman on a former occasion, that they had been sent in at the request of the authorities of the city, it appeared on inquiry that no such demand had been made.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that, whoever the parties were, the police had been sent in at the request of some of the city authorities. He could not, from memory, give the name of his informant.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the fact that there were two methods of sending police to counties—one at the request of the magistrates, and another on proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant of the counties in a disturbed state, did not alter the question at all as regarded the charge for extra police. Whether they were sent in under requisition or proclamation mattered nothing so long as the result was that the charge for these extra men was thrown upon the local rates, and when the extra men did no more than bring up the force to the number the counties were entitled to have under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman must see that it was unfair, when the force in the county was insufficient to maintain law and order, and, if that force was also below the number allotted to the county by Act of Parliament, to send in an extra force under the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant to bring up the force to its proper strength, and at the same time to charge the draft upon the local rates. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that each county should have the full quota of men allotted to it by Act of Parliament before it was charged for extra police sent in under proclamation or on requisition of the magistrates he would meet the point raised.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERentirely agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it was unfair to charge a county under the circumstances pointed out by him. He could not, however, believe that this had been done.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, it was not often that he agreed with the hon. Member for Cork City; but in this case he did so entirely. He was aware, from personal knowledge, that some counties, his own, for example (Leitrim), had been below their fixed establishment of police, and that extra police had been imported on the requisition of the magistrates, or 1136 otherwise, and that the cost had been thrown upon the local rates. He thought it desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that the anomaly complained of should be looked into, and that where it was found that a county had been debited with the cost of extra police it should be disallowed when its fixed establishment was not complete.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the late Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), would be aware that it was a very common occurrence indeed for the force of a county to be kept below its proper number, and then for a large additional constabulary force to be sent in from another county.
§ MAJOR NOLANthought it was highly objectionable to take away the ordinary force of a county, and then to charge upon the local rates the expense of an extra force. They ought to receive an assurance from the Chief Secretary that this would not be allowed to happen again, but that a county would have its own ordinary quota of constabulary before it was charged with an extra force. He did not mean that the force should not be reduced in consequence of casual changes by some two, three, or four, but that no considerable number should be taken away even in quiet times. It was obviously unjust to reduce the strength of a force in a county and then charge it with extra police.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he could explain how the matter worked. Suppose they took the police from a county like Carlow and sent them into the county of Mayo, they charged Mayo with an extra police force, although it was probable before they went there that the police force in Mayo was not up to the full strength provided by Act of Parliament. The consequence was that the cost of the extra force in Mayo was taken off the Imperial Exchequer and thrown upon the local rates, and at the same time the force in the county of Carlow was reduced below its proper strength. By-and-bye Carlow became a disturbed county, and the force in Carlow having been left below its proper strength by the drafts made from it because there were possible disturbances somewhere else, men were sent in under the provisions of the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation to make up the full strength, and 1137 the men necessary to bring it up to its full strength were then charged on the local rates as extra police.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would certainly look carefully into the matter. He admitted that such a practice of charging the extra police upon the county under such circumstances, if it should happen to any extent, would be very unfair, but doubted whether it had been largely followed. He did not believe that in any county the force was kept exactly up to 100 per cent, taking one county with another; but, as a general rule, the proportion was about 95 per cent. A few were generally undergoing a course of training at the depôt; and, therefore, 95 per cent was usually taken to be the full quota, and would be a very fair proportion of the nominal strength. The whole matter would, however, be carefully considered; and if he found it was the case that counties were paying for extra police for a force which was only sufficient to fill up the gap occasioned by the withdrawal of the regular police, something would be done to provide a remedy.
§ MR. TOTTENHAMwas unwilling to prolong the discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had expressed the opinion that the practice of removing the police and then charging for an extra force could not have been carried on to any appreciable extent. He (Mr. Tottenham) would mention what occurred in the county of Leitrim five or six years ago. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I was not in Office then.] The Grand Jury, on the occasion he referred to, signed a strong remonstrance against paying for an extra police force when their own fixed force had been reduced by withdrawals to 40 or 45 men, speaking from recollection, below its proper strength. When there had been so large a reduction as that, it was obviously unfair that the county should be called upon to pay out of the local rates for extra men, under circumstances for which it was not in the slightest degree answerable.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that with regard to this Constabulary Vote the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had very fairly promised to look into the matter, and had stated that he was not accountable for it. There could, however, be no doubt as to the normal condition of things, which was to keep the force very 1138 much below the recognized number, and to send in an extra body of police and charge it upon the county as an additional force. The consequence was that the county was not only charged with its regular quota of police, which, as a matter of fact, it did not possess; but it was also charged with an extra police, which did not bring the force beyond its recognized number. This, he thought, was most unjust to the ratepayers, who had not demanded the services of any extra force. On the contrary, where an extra force was sent in by a proclamation made by the Lord Lieutenant, it would be found that the people of the county had protested against the special laws under which Her Majesty's Government took power to send in an additional force. It was, therefore, not only unfair, but unjust, to compel them to pay for the services of a body of constabulary which they believed to be entirely unnecessary. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Tottenham), the county was charged with extra police when its own regular force had been steadily kept from 40 to 50 below what it ought to have been. In that case even the magistrates protested against the county being saddled with the cost, and sent in a requisition to the Government to that effect. Under the Coercion Acts now applied to Ireland one or two magistrates could send in a requisition and obtain an extra force for the simple purpose of terrorizing over the tenant farmers of the country, and then the people were compelled to pay for being tyrannized over. In the first instance, they were tyrannized over, and then they were made to pay for the expense of the tyranny. He strongly protested against such a principle, on the ground that it was both unreasonable and preposterous.
§ MR. PARNELLexpressed his obligations to the Chief Secretary for having kindly undertaken to look into the matter, and to inquire into the mode in which the police force of the various counties was dealt with. He wished to say, before the Vote was taken, that the Irish Members had intended to raise a debate upon the question of the constitution of the Constabulary Force, and more especially upon the practice of sending extra police into the different counties which the present arrangement warranted. But as the hour was very 1139 late, and as it was impossible to have a satisfactory debate upon the question owing to that lateness, and as he was unwilling, having regard to the state of Public Business, to ask the Government to report Progress, so as to give an opportunity for raising a debate at another time, he would simply confine himself to making a short protest against the principle involved in the Vote, and to taking a division upon it when it was put from the Chair. He thought that if the Government had acted with sufficient determination at the end of last Session the services of these extra policemen would not have been necessary. The money the Committee were now called upon to vote would certainly not have been required if the action of the Government had been different. But, unhappily, Her Majesty's Government had chosen another line, which would, he was afraid, render it necessary for them to come to Parliament and ask for an additional force, not only this year, but for many years to come. The Irish Members thought that the employment of this force was a mistake from beginning to end. They considered that the arming of them with rifles and bayonets was entirely unnecessary. They would be able to discharge their duties quite as effectually if they were only armed with the ordinary policemen's batons. Their services were generally required to protect process-serving. Crowds of women and children went out to obstruct this process-serving, and in some instances it would be found that the force engaged in protecting the process-servers had wounded these women and children with their bayonets. His own opinion was that a constable would be able to remove women and children more effectually if they were not encumbered with rifles and bayonets. They would also more effectually aid in the serving of the civil processes of the law if they were armed as the constables of England were. He observed the other day that when a body of the English police were called upon to disperse an angry and riotous mob in the mining districts in the North of England—a mob far more excited, far more violent, and using weapons which no mob in Ireland was accustomed to use in arresting process-serving—yet the police were able to disperse this mob with the aid of their staves only. 1140 If they were able to do this in regard to a mob of riotous men in England, they ought to be able, in Ireland, to disperse a riotous mob of women by the same means; and they were certainly not entitled, in such an emergency as he had described, to send in an armed force of constabulary. He believed that there had been a great deal of marching about of the constabulary in Ireland with the view of protecting process-serving. He considered that a great deal of this marching about had been entirely unnecessary, and that if they had relied more upon the justice of the operations of the law they would have been able to dispense with these movements. Most of the process-serving had taken place in distressed districts in the West of Ireland, where the people were absolutely unable to obtain bread; and he very much feared, now that the landlords had obtained the power of coercion, that they would be encouraged to carry out evictions in these distressed districts. If this should really prove to be the case, he was satisfied that there would be stories of evictions which would horrify the House of Commons. He trusted that, later on, he might have an opportunity for reviewing the action of the Government when the main Vote for the Constabulary was brought forward. He also hoped that the Vote would not be postponed as late as it was last year; but that it would be brought forward some time before the last few weeks of the Session, and at a time when criticism would be of use. At present he would confine himself to making a protest against the whole policy of this armed force in Ireland, believing it to be entirely unnecessary; and he should certainly take a division upon the Vote.
§ MR. CALLANremarked, that in 1870 the power was taken from Parliament and placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of dealing with the Irish Constabulary, and within six months after the passing of the Act there were proclamations issued putting the powers conferred by the Act in force. In 1877 other powers were given to the Lord Lieutenant; but they were simply to alter and vary the number of sub-constables. In 1865 the number of police stationed in the county of Louth was fixed at a certain figure; but it had never been kept up to within 30 of the fixed number, and yet constables had 1141 been sent from Louth to Galway, and Galway had been surcharged for an additional force. If the Chief Secretary would look into the matter, he would very much facilitate the discussion of the Constabulary Vote. The Chief Secretary seemed to be altogether governed by the views he received from Dublin Castle—so much so, that he did not appear to be able to call his soul his own. Now, that was just the kind of Chief Secretary they did not want, and the kind of Chief Secretary it should be the object of the country to get rid of. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman entered upon a new course, he hoped the country would soon be relieved of such an incubus. To-day, he (Mr. Callan) had given Notice of his intention to move for a Return of the number of sub-inspectors, stating the number of years they had served in any particular county. A great deal of dissatisfaction existed in Ireland in reference to the favouritism displayed towards different members of the Constabulary Force. A Catholic sub-inspector was never allowed to remain permanently in a county, or, indeed, for a longer period than 10 or 15 years. If any remonstrance were made, the stereotyped answer was that it was the usual practice, and that it was not desirable to allow any sub-inspector to remain in the same county for more than 10 or 15 years. But they would, nevertheless, find that Protestant sub-inspectors had repeatedly been allowed to remain in the same county for 20 or 25 years; and he wished to know what special ground there was for the exemption or departure from the general rules in these instances? He had been told that he could himself obtain the materials for the Return he asked for. He did not see why the officials in Dublin Castle should not be called upon to make it, and why the trouble of hunting through the pages of some 20 or 30 volumes should be thrown upon a private Member. He thought the Chief Secretary would facilitate matters if he would pay a little more attention to the wishes of the Irish Members; and in regard to the Irish Constabulary, he specially advised the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some new course of procedure, unless he was desirous of getting into more hot water than he had got into already. He pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of giving this Return, as he in- 1142 tended to found a Motion upon it for impugning the conduct of Mr. Mc'Dermott and the authorities at Dublin Castle.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 16: Majority 173.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would now move that the Chairman report Progress; and, in doing so, he wished to express the grateful thanks of the Government for the very great forbearance and indulgence which had been shown on both sides of the House. He hoped they might be permitted to proceed with Supply again to-morrow, which would be greatly to the convenience of Public Business. He believed there would be a disposition on the part of hon. Members to make the necessary concession; and if it were made, the Government would propose to take the Vote for the subvention to the Indian Revenue in respect of the expenses of the Afghan War.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the right hon. Gentleman, if he was in a position now to inform the House when it was likely the Transvaal Vote would be taken?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that they might have gone on with the Transvaal Vote perfectly well; but, although he could not say absolutely what might happen in a case of that kind, he thought there was a sufficient likelihood of the Government being able to put the House in a greater command of the subject than it now was, by the production of further information, to make it quite worth their while, in the interest of the House, to postpone the Transvaal Vote for two or three days. That was the sole motive for postponing it; and otherwise the Government would have been disposed to proceed with it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired in what order the other Votes would be taken? They had got the Army Estimates and the Navy Estimates fixed, and it would be convenient to know on which days the other Votes would be taken.
MR. GLADSTONEstated that it was proposed to put down after the East 1143 Indian Vote to-morrow the Vote on Account of the Civil Services. The Army Vote was already fixed for Thursday; and if they were allowed to take Supply again on Friday, as he hoped they would be, they would propose then to make the Statement relative to the Navy, and to take the first Vote. He was now assuming that it would probably be found convenient to take the Transvaal Vote on Monday; but he would like to reserve a little discretion with regard to that point.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intended to make a statement with regard to the East Indian Revenue Vote of £5,000,000; or whether it would be made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that it would be in regular order for him, on behalf of the Treasury, to move the Vote, and he would be prepared to offer an explanation of it if required.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before the Chairman left the Chair, perhaps the Committee would allow him a moment for a personal explanation. Last night he stated that he considered the Committee had good ground for complaining of the conduct of the Government in not furnishing the Committee with the necessary documents, which they ought to have had before being called upon to pass the Excess Votes in Supply. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, rose immediately afterwards, and stated that those very documents had been furnished to hon. Members a week previously. He (Mr. O'Connor) heard that statement with considerable surprise, and felt that he was in the position of a man who had discovered a "mare's nest." He was on the point of rising to withdraw the adverse observations which he had made with regard to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but the Chairman put the Vote so quickly that he had not time to do so. Now, however, he learnt from a letter which he had just received from the hon. Member for Midhurst that he was perfectly right in his complaint, and that the hon. Member for Midhurst was under a mistake with regard to the issue of the documents in question. It turned out that the Report of the Committee on 1144 Public Accounts had never been furnished to Members, and that they really had not the information which the Treasury and the Committee had repeatedly declared to be necessary.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was exceedingly anxious that the Committee on Public Accounts should be appointed in time to prepare Papers for the Excess Votes, and after the Committee was appointed he believed they reported on the subject on the very first day.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that was so. They met on Wednesday, March 2, and reported upon the Excess Votes, and presented their Report on the same day to the House. He had certainly supposed that between that time and yesterday the Report had been circulated, especially as he had seen it in print; but it now appeared that it was not distributed.
MR. GORSTsuggested that on future nights, when Supply was the first Order of the Day, the Government should put down sufficient Votes to occupy the House while it was disposed to continue its labours. Last night the Committee closed before 12 o'clock, because there were no Votes remaining of which Notice had been given, whereas two or three hours more might have been occupied. To - night the same thing had happened, the Votes put down being exhausted. Supply was, no doubt, urgent at the present time, and it was most important for the interests of the country that it should be taken. Therefore he hoped the Government would consider his suggestion.
MR. GLADSTONEreminded the Committee that, at 5 o'clock, it was explained that yesterday the Irish Votes were postponed at the request of the Irish Members. But in closing the Committee at 12 o'clock, they were only following what used to be the uniform rule; and, personally, he was averse to putting down too great a number and variety of Votes for one evening.
§ MR. GIBSONinquired whether, before the Transvaal Vote was taken on Monday, the Government would circulate Papers which would put hon. Members in a better position to discuss the question.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, what he had stated was that it would be impossible for the Government to come to a 1145 conclusion on that point without consideration. Concerning negotiations carried on by telegram, it was not possible to say absolutely beforehand at what time information could be laid; but the Government hoped, if the Transvaal Vote were postponed, to be able to put hon. Members in a position to discuss it.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he doubted very much whether putting down a large number of Votes conduced to the saving of time. He thought it more likely to lead to long wrangles and discussions on reporting Progress, and debates on minor points, with the view of keeping back other Votes. On the other hand, if only a moderate amount of Business was put down, hon. Members were disposed to get through it; and therefore he thought the latter plan the better.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.