§ (21.) £26,383, to complete the sum for the Register House Department, Edinburgh.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he wished to call attention, for a few moments, to this Vote. Last year he directed attention to the position of different grades of clerks in the Sasine Office; but as the Vote came on at a late period of the Session, and about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, he had refrained, out of consideration for the time of the Committee, from entering fully into the question, and had contented himself with giving Notice of his intention to do so this year. He had had a Motion on the Paper this Session; but, owing to the condition of Business in the House, he had not moved it. He could not, however, now allow the Vote to pass without saying a few words upon it. He would state, shortly, his grounds for raising the question. The Staff of the Register House was reorganized last year under a Minute of the Treasury, and under that Minute the clerks in the Sasine Office were divided into three classes. The salaries of the eight first class clerks rose by annual increments of £10 from £250 to £305; the salaries of the second class clerks—12 in number—began at £170, and rose by annual increments of 1046 £15 to £240; while the third class clerks, who numbered 62, began with a salary of £90, which rose by increments of £5 to £160. This last-named class felt greatly aggrieved by this arrangement. They said, in the first place, that their salaries were too low when the qualifications required of them and the kind of work they had to do were considered. He would not detain the Committee by describing in detail the nature of the work performed by them; but he would state generally that it consisted in registering in the public records of a great variety of writs affecting landed property, and on the absolute correctness of this Register the validity of the titles to a great deal of property in Scotland rested. Professional knowledge of a very considerable kind was required by these clerks, as well as ability to pass the ordinary Civil Service examination; and they had to bring evidence that they had served a certain time in the office of a solicitor. In point of fact, a very large number of the present third class clerks had served full apprenticeships in lawyers' offices, had attended legal classes, and possessed very considerable legal knowledge. For men possessed of such qualifications, and requiring to do such work, he thought the Committee would agree with him that the remuneration was altogether inadequate. They also complained that their salaries were too low as compared with those of the other classes of clerks in the Sasine Office, the duties they had to do being exactly similar to those of the other clerks. There was hardly any work done by the first or second classes which was not also done by the third class. The third grievance was that the amount they received in salaries was very small when compared with that given to clerks in similar branches of the Public Service. He would especially refer to the Irish Registry of Deeds Office. The salaries paid to clerks in the Irish Registry of Deeds Office were very much greater than those given in the Edinburgh Office, although in the former the same amount of knowledge was not required as in the latter. In the Irish Office no knowledge of law was required, and the work given to the clerks was of the simplest kind. They had nothing to do with what was one of the most important duties of the clerks of the Sasine Office—namely, preparing the minutes of the deeds presented for registration. 1047 In Ireland those were prepared by the solicitors of the persons whose deeds were to be registered, and a large cost was thus incurred by the clients of those solicitors, which was entirely saved in the case of the Scotch Office. Then, as to their qualifications, the Irish clerks, he understood, had simply to pass the ordinary examination for the Civil Service Departments, and were not required to have any legal or professional training of any kind. It seemed, therefore, very inequitable that while they received salaries beginning at £90, and rising by £10 annually, the clerks in Edinburgh should begin at the same salary and rise only by £5. He wished to point out that the whole of the Register House in Edinburgh was very unfairly dealt with as compared with the Registry of Deeds Office in Ireland. In the Scotch Office there were 82 clerks altogether—first, second, and third classes—and they received in salaries £12,582, whilst in Ireland there were 62 clerks, who received £14,231. If the Scotch clerks were paid in the same proportion as the Irish they would receive £18,850, or about 50 per cent more than they actually received. That was an inequality that should require a great difference in the kind of work done; but, as a matter of fact, the work done in the Registry of Deeds Office in Ireland was of an inferior kind to that performed in the Scotch Sasine Office. He did not make any objections to the payment given to the Irish clerks. He did not regard it as at all excessive, and he merely compared the payment in the Irish Office with that of the Scotch, for the purpose of bringing out the injustice done to the clerks in the latter Office. The inequality appeared still greater when they looked at the profit yielded by the Scotch Office as compared with that derived from the Irish Office. In 1880–1 the Register House in Edinburgh cost the country £21,975; but there was received from stamps £25,977, so that there was a profit of £4,002. On the other hand, the Irish Office cost the country £18,255, and the stamp duties came to only £12,498, so that there was a loss on the Irish Office of £5,737. The Scotch Office, therefore, doing a great deal more work, and bringing in more revenue than the Irish Office, received less pay for its clerks. He might mention the English Registry of Deeds Office, where, 1048 on an expenditure of £5,400, there was a loss of £4,000. The grievance to which the most importance was attached was the unequal division of the classes; and they justly complained that the chances of promotion afforded them in consequence of the very large number of third class clerks, as compared with the numbers in the classes above, were very small. There were, as he had already shown, 12 clerks in the second class, and 62 in the third, so that they were as 5 to 1; and it must be evident to all that the chances of promotion to the higher classes were very small. In the Irish Office the third and lower class clerks were only about two and a-half times more numerous than the higher classes, so that their chances of promotion were double those of the Scotch clerks. He could not find in any Department of the Civil Service any such inequality as existed in the Sasine Office. He had very shortly and very hurriedly stated the position of the clerks in the Sasine Office; but he trusted he had said enough to show that they had good ground of complaint, and to induce his Eon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look favourably upon their claims, and to consider that some steps should be taken to do justice to them. He had now to state very shortly what it was the third class clerks asked. They asked, first, that the rate of increment of salaries should be increased; secondly, they asked a re-arrangement of the classes, so that their chances of promotion might be improved, and made more in accordance with what was almost invariably found in other branches of the Public Service. They did not object to classification, for they recognized that that was necessary in all public offices, to give advantages to seniority; but they thought that the arrangement in this Office was a very inequitable one. The third thing they asked for, failing the granting of the two former, was a public inquiry into the arrangements of the Office and the various classes in it, such as he understood had been granted some years ago in the Irish Office, and the result was highly satisfactory. He had no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to whom the subject might be new, would look into the facts, and would give just consideration to the claims of a most deserving class of clerks; and he trusted—at any rate next year, if not now—a satisfactory 1049 answer would be given by the Government.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he looked on this as an illustration of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the other day as to the difficulties of the Treasury in encountering the demands made from all quarters for an increase of salary. He ventured to say that the fact that an Office in one part of the country was well administered, while another in another part of the country was better paid, ought not to be brought forward here as an argument that the salaries of the former Office ought to be raised. They ought not to hear that line of argument so frequently in the House of Commons; and, without entering into the merits of the question, he would simply say that the less that was said by the Representatives of the Government in the way of a promise to review the salaries of this Office in Edinburgh the better.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that at the outset he must thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) for the brevity and moderation with which he had put his case. This was an example, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had pointed out, of the applications that were repeatedly pressed upon the Treasury from all parts, and which, no doubt, tended to excite their sympathy. But he was obliged to place the other side of the question before the Committee. The work to be done in the Sasine Office at Edinburgh was not of a very elaborate character, or of a nature that required very great qualities of any kind whatever, while there was a constant supply of gentlemen ready to do the work on the present terms, and to do it well and faithfully. The character of the work was, for the most part, very simple, requiring rather fidelity and care than special qualifications. The hon. Gentleman had made three claims for consideration, and the first was on the ground of the nature of the work itself. The hon. Gentleman said the third class clerks were rather insufficiently paid compared with the second and first; but this was rather an assumption that the first and second class were paid according to an absolute standard of justice: It might be that they were all too highly paid, and, therefore, might be an argument against the hon. Member. He 1050 (Mr. Courtney) would not say whether that was the case or not; but it was an argument against the view of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said that the clerks in Scotland were not so well paid as the clerks in Ireland. His (Mr. Courtney's) answer to that was, that they were reducing the pay of the third class clerks in Ireland, and were bringing it down not merely to the level, but, in some instances, even below that of the clerks in the Sasine Office in Edinburgh. He was sorry to meet the case put forward in this uncompromising manner; but he was bound to say he did not see that any claim had been made out which the Government could entertain.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he felt very much what had been said on both sides of the House as to the disadvantage of pressing in this House the claims of various public servants; but this he would say—that if there was a case that ought to be treated liberally, it was that of the Register House in Edinburgh, because that Office had always been a source of income to the Treasury, the fees received having more than counterbalanced the expenditure. It seemed to him that this question was not so much one between the Scotch officers and the Treasury as between the officers who were paid for doing the work, and the Scotch people who had to pay the fees. It seemed to him that whatever surplus there was should be applied to the remission of fees. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury had taken away from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock the strongest argument he had brought forward—namely, the comparative proportion of the Irish salaries. It was very often necessary to meet Irish grievances by a liberal subvention from the Treasury, and he hoped the Treasury might succeed in this case in carrying out their intentions to reduce the salaries in question. He feared that in this instance the Treasury might propose, and the Irish Members dispose.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but he did not think he had answered the question of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, which was, whether there could not be an inquiry into the matter. It was very often found that the number of clerks was too great, and that by reducing it the salaries of those who 1051 remained could be increased. He hardly thought the Secretary to the Treasury could be averse to having a Committee of Inquiry, because it seemed very likely that, considering the number of third class clerks compared with those of the second class, the position of the former might be improved without difficulty.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he did not think he should prolong the discussion; but the Secretary to the Treasury had based his objections to granting any concessions to the third class clerks chiefly on the fact that their work was of a very simple description. He would ask the hon. Gentleman to lay upon the Table of the House a portion of the Report which had been presented to the Treasury in the beginning of last year, which stated in full detail the work done by those clerks, and the arrangements of the Office. He was willing to base his whole claim upon that Report. He believed he should be able to show next year that the work of these clerks required great skill. If the hon. Gentleman would not give an answer on the point now, he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) would put a Question on the subject on the Paper.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £36,396, 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 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the most obvious point connected with the Vote was the amount of money asked for for 1882–3, which showed a large falling-off on the amount asked for in the previous year. That was a remarkable consideration, and was, no doubt, owing to the Irish Executive having had at its disposal an Act of Parliament enabling them to undertake judicial proceedings that rendered it unnecessary for them to examine witnesses in the ordinary way. The proceedings under the last Coercion Act were inexpensive, because they only involved a secret inquiry by the Lord Lieutenant, and the imprisonment in Kilmainham or some other gaol. One would imagine that after a year of such cheap and expeditious law, the expenses in connection with Law Charges and 1052 Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland would have considerably fallen off; yet the Committee would, be disappointed to find that, after having placed in the hands of the Irish Executive an exceedingly cheap and expeditious mode of justice, which had been largely indulged in, the lawyers' charges, putting aside the decrease for expenses of prosecutions and witnesses, were as heavy as ever. While the expenses of prosecutions and witnesses had fallen from £27,000 to £21,000—making a decrease of £6,000 on the year—the lawyers' charges had very considerably increased, and were at least £2,000 more than in the previous year, notwithstanding that there should be fewer cases, in consequence of the greater facilities in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant for committing people without trial. There was a still more remarkable feature in the Estimate under the head of fees to the Law Advisers. The Attorney General for Ireland and the other Law Advisers received a very large allowance, and yet they took between them £8,000, or £3,000 more than last year. It would be very interesting to know under what circumstances it had happened that the three learned Gentlemen concerned had received £3,000 more under the head of fees, in respect of the present year, than they received last year. He (Mr. Sexton) had to remark that under this head the Attorney General for Ireland did not seem to have spared his faculties in directing Crown prosecutions, because the fees in respect of them had reached a very considerable sum indeed; but Irish Members in the House had, during the present Session, used strong arguments to induce the right hon. and learned Gentleman to prosecute policemen whom they believed to have been concerned in attacks on the people, but without success. It was relevant upon this Vote to at least endeavour to elicit from the right hon. and learned Gentleman some explanation of the firmness, he supposed he must not say obstinacy, with which he had refused to prosecute such officers as Sub-Inspectors Ball, Allen, Rogers, and others whose conduct had brought about violent conflicts between the police and the people, resulting in deplorable loss of life. He (Mr. Sexton) hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would condescend to tell them why, when he had been so liberal in directing Crown prosecutions in other cases, he had been so 1053 reluctant to do so in these cases? He wished to draw attention to the Crown prosecutions, and to the course pursued by the Irish Legal Advisers of Her Majesty at Cork during the Winter Assizes—to the packing of juries and the refusal of the prosecutions to pay witnesses' expenses. During the next three years, of course, the use of juries would be done away with, and they had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland the power of changing the venue and sending men from the North to the South, and men from the South to the North for trial—for instance, from Cork to Belfast, and from Belfast to Cork. At the last Cork Assizes there were 200 men on the jury panel, 50 Protestants and 150 respectable Catholics. What was the result? Why, that out of that 150 Catholics only 35 were called upon to serve, whilst in the case of the 50 Protestants 47 were called upon. Each Protestant juror was called upon to serve four times, and each Catholic juror only, in proportion, a quarter of a time—that was to say, the Protestants were called upon to do just 16 times the work of the Catholics. In order for the Committee to understand that proceeding he should say that the persons accused of crime were almost universally Catholics, and the persons supposed to be injured Protestants. He looked upon the conduct of the Crown in this matter as nothing but a mean and cunning appeal to religious bigotry. He would invite the Attorney General for Ireland to explain that remarkable practice, and to say why it was that the Crown Prosecutor, during these prosecutions, challenged from 35 to 45, and sometimes 50 jurors, the whole of them being, without exception, Catholics. It was almost the invariable rule that the person challenged was a Catholic, and the person put upon the jury was a Protestant. No doubt the Protestants who were put upon the juries would say to themselves—"We are considered better and more trustworthy than the Catholics, and, under the circumstances, we are bound to find verdicts in favour of the Crown where there is a possibility of doing so." In one instance the Crown did allow a Catholic jury to be empannelled; but in that instance the case was a bogus one, and was put before that jury with almost unconcealed mirth—it was a case where no verdict of "Guilty" was possible. With regard 1054 to the next point—namely, the refusal of the expenses of witnesses during the Winter Assizes to which he referred, prisoners and traversers who ought to have been tried in Limerick, Kerry, Clare, and other places were brought into Cork to be tried. And what did the Crown Solicitor do after having brought these poor people, who never had 10s. to spare, scores of miles from their houses to a Court of Justice? Why, they had kept witnesses hanging about the Courts, without being called, week after week, until they had become destitute—so long, indeed, that their counsellors had eventually advised them to go to the poor-house. In more than one case in the county of Cork traversers who had been brought from Kerry and from Limerick had gone to the Crown Solicitor and said—"We are starving here, put us on our trial, or give us the means of living;" and he replied—"I cannot put you on your trial until after Christmas," and some of them were certainly waiting six weeks before they were tried. In one case, in consequence of these extraordinary proceedings, a prisoner, who had been nearly driven to the point of starvation, had pleaded "Guilty" rather than suffer the ordeal any longer. When the Government came forward and asked for such a sum as this for Law Charges and the support of witnesses, it was only natural that they, the Irish Members, should complain that people like these had not had their expenses paid. Who were the people who had had their expenses paid? Why, such people as Conolly, the most notorious official witness of recent days in Ireland. The Crown used that man to testify in "Moonlight," and some other political cases. It was notorious that he was a deserter from the Army, and had been in gaol, and had the brand of different infamies upon him, and was believed, indeed, by a great many people in Ireland, to have been guilty of murder itself. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee whether he was aware of the name of the man whom Conolly was said to have murdered; and, if he was aware of it, and believed that a murder had taken place, did he propose to condone the crime, and to take Conolly's evidence in "Moonlight" cases? He should like to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to put Conolly on his trial for the crime of murder, either 1055 now or some time in the future? It would be desirable that they should know, once for all, whether the Crown were inclined to condone even the capital crime for the obtaining a conviction in the case of a political offence. There was another person to whom part of this sum voted for the expenses of witnesses had, no doubt, been paid, and that was a youth of 17 years of age, named Molloy, who was examined at the Cork Winter Assizes in the case in which two brothers, Daniel and Edward Flannagan, were accused of having fired into the house of the father-in-law of the elder prisoner. The youth Molloy was the only witness who deposed to having seen the outrage occur; but he had allowed four hours to elapse before he stated that he knew the men who entered into the house. Let the Committee observe what Mr. Justice Fitzgerald had said on this case; he had said, in fact, that the whole case rested on the evidence of the boy Molloy; and he added that the case was a very important one—important to the public, and important to the two young men who were in the dock charged with the grave offence. The learned Judge spoke of the boy Molloy as excellent, clear, and courageous; and, on the evidence of that young fellow, these two men were convicted, one being sentenced to seven years' and the other to five years' penal servitude. Well, he (Mr. Sexton) had in his hand a statement from the parish priest, declaring that these two young men so sentenced were highly respectable, and of unblemished character. What had since happened? Why, this—that one of the prisoners, since his conviction, had been released; and when he (Mr. Sexton) had asked the reason of that release, he had been informed that it was on account of his ill-health. Did ever anyone hear of such a thing? A prisoner convicted of a serious crime released from prison on the score of ill-health. The other brother was still in prison suffering the term of seven years; but with regard to Molloy, after the Assizes were over, he was taken to the police barrack at Ennis, and that "clear and cool-headed boy," as he had been described by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, there stole a policeman's watch, and, in proof of his "clear and cool-headedness," changed it for another, which he pawned. The authorities then thought the best thing they could do would be to get rid of him. It did not 1056 suggest itself to their minds that they should prosecute him for that theft. They provided him with an outfit and sent him to England—to London—in charge of a police constable, and probably the expense of that journey would come under the head to which he was drawing attention in the Estimates. Molloy and the police constable were seen together in London, and it was known that they went into a restaurant. At that place it appeared that Molloy's fancy was captivated by a gold-headed cane; he took possession of it and carried it away. The policeman discovered what he had done, brought back the cane, and restored it to its owner. The Government had found that this boy Molloy was a blackguard and an incorrigible thief; and, he presumed, discrediting his testimony, for that reason they had released one of the prisoners convicted upon his evidence. But why, he (Mr. Sexton) would ask, had they not released the other prisoner, who was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude? It was a singular thing that when persons like Conolly and Molloy were taken into the arms of the Government, and petted and pampered, and assisted to emigrate, innocent men should be allowed to suffer in consequence of their unsupported evidence. He trusted the Committee would hear that tardy justice was about to be done in the case of the second brother Flannagan.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that some of the things which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had referred to were new, and made their appearance now for the first time in that House; but other of the points were old, having been gone over at least half-a-dozen times. One of the things which, to his certain knowledge, had been repeated again and again, and denied each time it was asserted, was that with regard to jurors. Upon that question the charge of the hon. Member had been met in a manner which he believed was perfectly satisfactory to the House. Then, the hon. Member very naturally asked a question which he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had himself asked, because he had been unable to enter into a personal inquiry, and desired to be in a position to answer any Question that might be put with regard to it. The hon. Member said that in 1881–2 1057 the charge for fees to the Law Officers of the Crown was £5,000, while in the present year it was £8,000. If the hon. Member would look at the first three items in the Account for 1882–3, he would see that all the items were given, and that the difference between the two amounts was owing to some new mode the Treasury had of arranging the accounts with which he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not familiar. All he could say was that he was not to blame for it. The hon. Member asked whether the £5,000 was earned by not prosecuting; Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary who had rendered themselves amenable to the law? Well, it seemed to him (the Attorney General for Ireland) that everything had been done which could or ought to be done with reference to those Sub-Inspectors. Sub-Inspector Ball was not found "guilty" by a Coroner's Jury, although, notwithstanding, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had considered it his duty to direct an information to be applied for in the regular way before the magistrates for manslaughter against the Sub-Inspector. He had discharged his duty in directing the prosecution, and he left it to the law, as he was bound to do, to then deal with the case. He did the same thing in the case of Sub-Inspector Stritch—that was to say, he directed the law to be put in motion against him. As to the case of Sub-Inspector Allen, he did not remember it; but the case of Sub-Inspector Rogers he did recollect, and in that the facts appeared to have been misconceived by the magistrates. With regard to the boy Molloy, he could assure the hon. Member that the convict, who, on Molloy's evidence, was convicted, had been released, because his health was breaking down. There was nothing more in the taking of the cane than there was in his losing a new silk umbrella in this House through some hon. Member taking it by mistake. Even the subsequent theft of the watch did not render Molloy incapable of identifying two men who fired into a house. With regard to the jury panel referred to, the fact was that 70 of the jurors so entirely miscarried at the previous Assizes, that every Crown case was withdrawn, and it was decided not to submit any other Crown cases in consequence of the erroneous verdicts given. The religious question, as he had satisfied 1058 the House when he spoke on this matter on a previous occasion, had nothing in the world to do with these cases, nor until the religious question was drawn into the matter in the House was it raised at all. He would, however, tell the Committee what was raised. A meeting of discontented jurors was convened in Cork, and they passed a series of resolutions, and the Chairman of the meeting, or at all events one of the principal jurors, stated that if he was empanneled as a juror, and the oath was administered to him, he would not take it, because he was satisfied that 75 per cent of the law being British law, it was so unjust that his conscience would not allow him to administer it. These discontented jurors were excluded from the pannel, and he thought quite properly, seeing that they would not administer the law. [Mr. SEXTON: One juror.] Not at all; the facts could not be denied, and anyone who would take the trouble to look at the papers would find all the particulars. [Mr. SEXTON: How many jurors were there at the meeting?] Eighteen or 19. It was a meeting of jurors who felt aggrieved, and their grievance found expression in what he had stated—that they would be bound to find according to their consciences, and their consciences would not allow them to administer the law. He believed, if the Crown Solicitor had not ordered them to stand aside, he would have neglected his duty, and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) should have had to call that officer to account, and he would have remained Crown Solicitor for Cork but a very short time after. As to the costs, if the facts were as stated by the hon. Member, the costs were most inexcusable. The Act of Parliament made provision for jurors to be dispensed with, and it was intended that the rules under the Act of Parliament should be bonâ fide carried out. His answer must be that which he had previously given—namely, that it was extraordinary, and to his mind utterly unreasonable, that such facts as those stated by the hon. Member should have occurred. If the Crown Solicitor had not acted rightly—he was a very kind-hearted man—an appeal on the spot by any person who had not got his expenses to any Judge in open Court, or a letter or telegram to him (the Attorney General for Ireland), would immediately have 1059 produced redress; and the only case brought forward in the House—namely, that of Constable Walsh—was redressed at once. It was inexcusable that people should make complaints of this kind without at once obtaining redress; and he quite agreed that such a case ought not to have existed at all. In order to prevent that sort of thing occurring, he had himself given express directions to the Crown Solicitor at the Winter Assizes that nothing of the kind should occur. On the same lines the hon. Member for Sligo did very considerable injustice in suggesting that he had used his privilege while Attorney General, or, rather, had exercised the duty imposed upon him by the Prevention of Crimes Bill. A more unjust implication could not have been made. [Mr. SEXTON: I only said you could do so.] He had changed the venue in eight cases. They had been removed to Dublin, and tried without the slightest religious element, and the only question was that there would not be an Assizes until September, and the men must have languished in gaol up to September if he had not had them tried in that way. There ought to be perfect fair-play in this matter, and he had taken care that justice should be done.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, there was one remark which occurred to him on looking at this Estimate. Crime and outrage might be prejudicial to the general interests of the Irish and the English people; but they seemed to be rather a good thing for the Law Officers of the Crown, because the more outrage there was the more they received. In 1881 these Estimates amounted to £5,000, but for this year they were £8,000.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had explained several times that this difference was due to some way in which the Treasury made up its accounts.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought he need not apologize for not being able to understand that explanation, for the answers of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) were of a most unsatisfactory character. Questions had been asked about the characters of these two persons—Connell and Molloy—and the right hon. and learned Gentle- 1060 man did not even attempt to answer the grave and serious charges made against those persons. Was Connell a murderer or not? If he was a murderer, how could the Government profess to be anxious to put down crime and retain unprosecuted and in their employment a man whom they ought to have hung if they could have got him convicted? He had gone into the case of these persons very closely, and they had sworn at the Cork Assizes that there was a conspiracy in Ireland to establish a real Irish Republic. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that any witness who went to a Court of Justice and testified to the existence of a real Irish Republic would be contradicting himself in so gross a manner as to expose himself to a charge of perjury. There was a man against whom a charge of murder was made—
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)No charge of murder.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the charge of murder had been made against him in that House over and over again. He did not want to deal with technicalities; but the statement had been made over and over again that this man was guilty of murder, and he (Mr. O'Connor) would make that charge on the man's own evidence, and would challenge contradiction. In the face of these facts, the Government, instead of putting this man on trial, had got the liberties and lives of people sworn away. Any Government who made use of ex-murderers and proved perjurers to get convictions would be condemned in the eyes of all civilized men. Did this man commit the series of crimes charged against him by the hon. Member for Sligo? Was this the ruffian who, after he had got persons sentenced to penal servitude, stole a watch? Was he the man who could not go into a restaurant in London without stealing a gold-headed cane? The witness Molloy seemed to have been as faithful to the Crown Prosecutors as to the unfortunate young man convicted on his evidence in Cork. He did not know whether the Attorney General for Ireland would look back with any species of satisfaction to his career as Law Officer of the Crown; but he thought there was one thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not forget; or, at all events, which other persons would not forget—namely, that 1061 he was the Law Officer who—he did not know whether on his own inspiration or under the malign influence of the late Chief Secretary—directed prosecutions in Ireland under a Statute of Edward III. He did not like to ask unfair questions; but he would ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reflect without a blush on the fact that he was the first lawyer who directed persons to be prosecuted under that Statute? He hoped the day was passed when Irish Governments would have to go back three and four and six centuries in order to pick up some obsolete and wretched Act of Parliament to put men and women upon trial. His hon. Friend was quite within his right when he called attention to the large sum taken in this Vote for fees to witnesses employed by the Government. He was glad to see that for 1882–3 this amount would undergo a reduction. He did not know whether this item came under the same category as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred to—the system adopted by the Treasury; but he certainly thought this reduction ought to be called for. Finally, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to ponder whether it was according to the principles of honour and conscience to employ wretches like Connell and Molloy to swear away the liberties of the people?
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought the explanation of the employment of men like Connell and Molloy was far from satisfactory. In his cross-examination Connell had admitted having been guilty of the most atrocious deeds, and the Judge spoke in the strongest language of his conduct. This man had deliberately stated that there was an organization for the formation of an Irish Republic, and that, in fact, the Republic was in operation; and he also stated that there had been a distribution of gold and silver and other metals as rewards of approved deeds in the service of the Irish Republic; and the jury, having heard stuff of that kind detailed, brought in a verdict of eleven to one. So far as his recollection went, this man Connell admitted in cross-examination that he had shot, at least, one person; and had told of many other crimes, perhaps not so bad as that, but more degrading than any murder could be. How he got into relations with the police did not appear; but some people were of opinion that he 1062 had started on his career as an assistant to the police. This man was "Captain Moonlight," of whom so much had been heard; but he had not gone long on the career of outrage and blood before he became an associate and ally of the police, and concocted many of those outrages in order to betray other men to the police. Unprosecuted for the offences he was stated to have committed, un-arraigned for the deeds of bloodshed he had admitted, this man was in the pay of the police, and was being retained for their prosecutions. He (Mr. M'Carthy) strongly objected to the whole system; he would rather run any risk than be guilty of such a degrading offence against public morals. As there was no other mode of entering a protest against such practices, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £600, the amount given for maintaining men like Connell and Molloy.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,796, 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 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 & 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it should be known that it was this ruffian Connell, the Government assassin, who had just been brought over from Ireland, that was now being used in the trial of the man Walsh for treason-felony. This wretch would, no doubt, make his appearance to-morrow as a Crown witness at the Old Bailey to prove the existence of an Irish Republic; and next year, when the man now being prosecuted had been sentenced to penal servitude, a good round sum, by way of further pay, for the assassin Connell would probably be found in the Estimates. He was very anxious to know why it was that the Government maintained a man like this? How was it, seeing that they obtained an Act last year for the especial purpose of taking up scoundrels and midnight marauders, that this man was allowed to prowl about the country unchecked? How was it that the police allowed him on every occasion to get off scot-free, and that the magistrates never issued a warrant for his arrest? And after all this, too, the Government put £600 on, the Votes to pay him. Everyone in Ire- 1063 land believed that this man could never have gone on as he had done in Ireland for nine months without the police knowing it; and he had no doubt whatever that they knew perfectly well what he was doing, although they never interfered, and although they had an Act in force under which they could, if they liked, arrest every man, woman, and child of the population. It was impossible, under the circumstances, to avoid the conclusion that the police knew full well what Connell was doing—that he was in their pay, and was willing, of course, to earn their wages—because who were the persons he shot; who were the persons he punished? He attacked no landlords. The persons whom Connell attacked were members of the Land League—the men he assassinated, and whose ears he cut off, were Land Leaguers, and so the police did not interfere. And then he was brought up as a Crown witness, and he told his story about the double-barrelled gun, both barrels of which went off at the same time, and about the bullets which struck the corner of the house; all of which was contradicted. But this was the form which justice assumed in Irenad. The Government, having let Connell go on for nine months, proceeded to make use of him as a witness, and gave him £600, the taxpayers of England, Ireland, and Scotland being required not only to pay this amount, but to pay also the carriage of Connell from Ireland to the Old Bailey to give evidence at the trial of Walsh that would take place there to-morrow. The Government talked of preserving law and order in Ireland; but he told them that the people of Ireland despised their law so long as it was maintained by the aid of assassins like Connell. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members cried "Oh!" but it was perfectly relevant to the question before the Committee to consider what was the effect of charging £600 in the Vote for Connell's support. But what was the result of using Connell in the way he had been made use of? Why, 25 young men had been kept in cells for nine months, and not allowed to speak to each other during that time. He was at the prison the other day, and picked out the individual that Connell swore was the captain of the band, and he was about to ask him some questions, but the man said they were not allowed to 1064 speak to anyone, the warder adding—"If you continue this interview, I shall have to terminate it; it is against the rules." Judge Barry, who conducted the trial of the accused persons in the most impartial manner, did not believe a word of the evidence given by this man Connell; he stopped taking notes at an early point in his evidence, which clearly proved that he did not believe what the creature was saying. But how did the matter end? Having kept these unfortunate wretches in prison for nine months in cells 6 feet by 4 feet, and subject to solitary confinement for 18 hours out of the 24, they were dismissed on their own recognizances. They were not even required to find bail; the case against them was considered to be so bad that they were not required to come up again. It was to pay the man who brought about all this that the Government put down £600 in the Estimates; and it was by acts such as this, he repeated, that they made British rule in Ireland detested and despised.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, it was simply disgraceful on the part of the Government to put down money in the Estimates for the payment of men like Connell. Anyone who had read the record of the trial, anyone who was acquainted with the administration of justice in civilized countries, must feel astonished that a country pretending to be civilized should make Use of such men in the administration of justice. But that was not the name given to these proceedings in Ireland; the people there looked upon them as the organization of injustice, perjury, and aggression against the principles of the law. One of those principles was that an informer who accused an accomplice of a capital offence and failed to convict him, was, as Blackstone said, "hanged upon his own confession." He should like to see men like Connell, confessed assassins, organizers of assassinations and treason, conspirators of the deepest dye, men whose lives were steeped in crime, who failed to make good their charges against others, punished for the crimes they themselves confessed to have committed. Was that the course taken by the Government? No; they hugged, the informer closer to their heart, and having failed in Ireland in making a charge successfully against certain persons on the evidence of this wretch, they im- 1065 ported him to England, where, in the case of the man Walsh, he had not the slightest doubt that by Connell's assistance they would be able to secure a verdict. With such things as this before their eyes it was no wonder that neither the Government nor the law was respected in Ireland. They all knew the old maxim, that "a man was known by his associates." It was equally true that Governments were known by their tools; and if they were found making use of men who first made their appearance, say, in the Militia, then disappeared through devious and dirty ways, and afterwards turned up to receive Government pay, how could the people conclude otherwise than that the Government were actually cognizant of the kind of person they made use of? They commenced the training of the tool in the Army or the Militia, and they finished it in the witness-box. Nothing had astonished him more than one of the explanations given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). Here was a man committed for manslaughter, and the Attorney General for Ireland interposed to prevent the case going before the Grand Jury and the law taking its course. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in fact, stopped a prosecution for manslaughter, and he (Dr. Commins) asked whether he could furnish an instance of this having been done by any Attorney General during the last 50 years? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had intervened on the part of the Government to prevent the man being put upon his trial for manslaughter; and he (Dr. Commins) said that the people of Ireland would look upon what he had done as an act of high-handed oppression, and that they would consider the lives of Irishmen were thought nothing of if they were only taken away by policemen in uniform. The act of the Attorney General for Ireland was an admission that the Government dared not trust to the ordinary course of law. Yet they could rely on Connell, the perjurer and organizer of conspiracy; and when he found that man, after his conspiracy, assassination, desertion, and perjury, still kept as a Government pensioner, he was bound to say that the Government pronounced its own condemnation, because it ad- 1066 mitted before mankind that it did not depend upon law and justice or the ordinary agents whom civilized Governments depended upon, and that it was obliged to descend to the lowest depths of society to find tools fitted to its purpose. If the Government had any respect for justice let them cease to employ such tools as these, and the Acts which gave them employment would then cease.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he hoped the Committee would not concur in the opinion entertained by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He rose to state that there was no foundation whatever for the suggestion that any informer was found in connection with the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland. Neither was there any foundation whatever for the suggestion that a man committed by the magistrates for manslaughter had been kept from trial by the intervention of the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that while the trial of the persons accused by Connell was going on, Connell was kept outside the Court watching the witnesses, and when he saw anyone who could testify to the good conduct of the accused, he had him arrested. He asked the Attorney General for Ireland at whose instance the Court of Queen's Bench quashed the proceedings for manslaughter?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 86: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 319.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (23.) £59,806, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought it desirable that the Government should inform the Committee how soon they intended to fill up the vacancies on the Judicial Bench in Ireland. At any rate, it was important for Irish Members to know whether the continued existence of vacancies was due to the difficulty of finding eligible persons to fill them, or to causes that were purely political. 1067 The Attorney General for Ireland must be aware that there were always numbers of gentlemen in Ireland fitted for the positions in question, and he was bound to say that an intelligent public curiosity had been aroused as to whether one of the vacancies would be filled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. For some time past public opinion in Ireland had been expecting the translation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a sphere, if not more dignified, at any rate more serene than that which he at present adorned. This curiosity was very strongly developed amongst the people of Mallow. However, he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to say when it was intended to fill up the judicial vacancies now existing. The Coercion Act had imposed on the Judges duties of a very novel and extraordinary character, and he thought the time had come when the Government ought to be asked to give some explanation of the attitude taken up by the Judges with respect to the proposal by the Government to cast those duties upon them. At the time of the passage of the Coercion Act, the House was informed that the Judges had met and protested against being required to try prisoners in the place of jurors. He wished to know from the Government whether that was so before the Act was passed; and also whether the Judges protested a second time, and whether it was because of that second protest that the Government introduced important provisions, which were not in the Bill when it first came before the House, to enable the Government to supersede the ordinary Constitutional mode of trial by special juries, which would give the Crown a much greater advantage, and enable them to adopt the system of changing venues? These provisions were not contained in the scheme of the Bill as first laid before the House; and he wished to know whether those introductions were or were not due to the protest of the Judges, and, if they were, whether these proposals, throwing power into the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland, were made to relieve the Judges of those functions—in other words, if the Judges had definitely refused to accept the duties proposed to be imposed upon them, and if it was the intention of the Government to cast on 1068 the Judges the duty of trying prisoners, or to act upon the system of changing the venue? As to the resignation of Baron Fitzgerald, he should like to be informed whether that learned Judge's opinion of the Act was such, that rather than undertake such unconstitutional duties as had been proposed, he resigned the dignified position which he had so long held with credit to himself and to the Bench? Baron Fitzgerald was the only Judge who had reached the Irish Bench by the force of pure legal ability. He was pointed to by Irishmen as the solitary exception to that evil rule in Ireland which limited promotion in Ireland to gentlemen who, whether they had legal ability or not, had passed through political elections and given Party assistance to the Government.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)was understood to say that, in consequence of the Long Vacation, there was no immediate necessity for filling up the vacancies on the Bench. The theory of the hon. Member for Sligo, that because the Judges had refused the functions which it was proposed to intrust to them, therefore the Government had brought forward the provisions relating to special juries and the change of venue, however ingenious, was one entirely devoid of foundation.
§ MR. CALLANasked why six months had been allowed to elapse from the death of Mr. Justice O'Brien before the vacancy was filled up, and whether Mr. Justice Lawson was intended to succeed Mr. Justice O'Brien or the present Lord Fitzgerald? The Queen's Bench, above all, ought to have been up to its full strength, especially during the period when extraordinary applications were made for redress of extraordinary grievances.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)was understood to say that Mr. Justice Lawson had succeeded Mr. Justice O'Brien.
§ MR. HEALYthought it singular that, although Mr. Justice O'Brien died in December, the charges showed an increase instead of a decrease.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (24.) £6,670, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
§ (25.) £580, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
1069§ (26.) £11,976, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, complaints had been made with regard to the allowances, salaries, and status of officers in this Department, and a Memorial had been presented to the Treasury; but the Treasury had replied, in February last, that they could not entertain that Memorial, considering that the position of the clerks in the Registry of Deeds Office was not worse than that of clerks in analogous offices. A very complete answer could, however, be given to that decision of the Treasury. The able gentleman who presided over this Office supported the complaints and Memorials of the clerks. He believed a Treasury Committee was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Earl Percy), who advanced the claims of the clerks. It was, no doubt, true that in recent years the position of these clerks had been the subject of reorganization and improvement; but, in comparison with other Offices, their position was very bad indeed. The salaries of all the clerks in this Office were considerably less than the salaries of corresponding classes in other Offices. The annual increment by which these clerks advanced was much less than that in any other Office, and in other Offices the proportion of first and second and third classes was very much larger than the proportions in this Office. There were clerks who had been in the third class in this Office for 36 years, and could not reach the first class. He would like to know whether there was any reason why the able gentlemen who discharged the duties of this Office should be placed in a worse position than the clerks in any other Office in Ireland? There was no denying the importance of their duties or the facility with which they were performed. The Land Registry in Ireland was far more perfect than any to be found in Middlesex, or Yorkshire, or Edinburgh. Its machinery was complete, and the transactions of the Office in ordinary years affected land of the value of £3,000,000. Its clerks had to examine the papers and give legal interpretations of complicated legal terms, and they were liable to be brought before the Judges of the High Court and removed in case of mistake. They were in a worse position than the clerks in 1070 other Offices, and he thought their case was entitled to consideration when the Report of the Treasury Committee was finally considered by the Government. He hoped they would consider whether it would not be possible, with due regard to public economy, to place the lower class of clerks in this Office in as good a position with respect to promotion as those in the higher classes.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that re-arrangements of the positions of the clerks were under consideration.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (27.) £1,507, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £52,552, 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 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, this was an extremely important Vote, and there was a variety of subjects to be raised under it. He was sure the Government would see the desirability of postponing it. Lord Donoughmore had obtained a Committee in the other House upon the Irish Land Bill; but his tenants had been treated in the most extraordinary manner, for when his tenants brought him into Court he refused to produce his own valuator. The matter was referred to another gentleman; but Lord Donoughmore refused to accept that reference, and it actually turned out, when the matter came before the Land Commission, that the tenants' valuator was willing to pay more to Lord Donoughmore than he had asked for. The noble Lord got a Committee in "another place," and kept the country in a state of turmoil and agitation. Then the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) was referred to as a typical case of injustice, and his action was very extraordinary. He did not see the hon. Baronet in his place, and he did not wish to refer to him; but there were facts in regard to that and other matters which it was desirable to bring out, and 1 o'clock in the morning was not the time at which these matters should be referred to. The whole tendency of the territorial class was this—they desired to intimidate the Commissioners by at- 1071 tacks in that House and in "another place." The territorial influence was supreme in "another place," and very potent in this House. On these accounts he strongly objected to the Vote being taken at this time of night, especially as there were very serious causes of complaint of the way in which the Sub-Commissioners were allocated. The whole of Ulster was swarming with Commissioners, and the hon. Gentleman opposite was getting his rents in Tyrone dealt with and lowered in the most frightful manner, while in Cork and in Kerry the Commission Courts were choked with applications; but nothing was done. It would be very unusual to allow the Government to get this Vote without reporting Progress; and, as a good many of the Votes following this were contentious Votes, Progress ought to be reported. Earlier in the evening the Chief Secretary had given a promise that he would communicate with the Irish Members as to the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill. He had expected some communication on that subject would have been made, and the Irish Members could not be expected to go on with this matter now. He therefore moved that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had been watching with great care and interest the discussion of these Estimates. It was now the 7th of August, and the idea of what was a late hour was rather different at this period of the Session from what it would be earlier in the Session. With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill, it was certainly his intention to ask the House to resolve itself into Committee upon that measure; and, if Irish Members were willing, he should be perfectly ready to ask the House to go into the Bill. He gathered from the hon. Member opposite that his objection to passing this Vote at this moment was that hon. Gentlemen who brought charges against the Land Commission were not present to support them; but he thought they could hardly postpone the payment of the salaries under this Vote because charges had been made against the Commissioners. He would be glad if 1072 the hon. Member would accept his assurance that he would report Progress when he saw a desire to stop, and then he would proceed with the Committee on the Irish Constabulary Vote.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the declaration made by the Chief Secretary would facilitate progress. The Irish Members were endeavouring to see whether he intended to go into Committee on the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill. In addition to the several important questions raised in reference to the Land Commission, there was this further point—this Vote was for the salaries of public functionaries; but if the action of these people was to be taken into consideration, that must be done when the Vote was asked for. There were two non-contentious Votes to which the Irish Members had no objection, and he thought the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill might be dealt with.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (28.) £46,308, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
§ (29.) £4,206, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.