§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £63,238, 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, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, this Vote included certain allowances to the County Court Judges in Ireland, and he would take advantage of that circumstance to inquire from the Chief Secretary whether he could give any explanation of the very limited extent to which the people in Ireland went to the County Courts for the administration of the Land Act. Looking over the Return for the month 1415 of June, he found that, whereas the Government claimed that the Sub-Commissioners had in that month had several thousand cases before them, only 200 cases were settled by the County Courts throughout Ireland, and in the greater part of Ireland the County Courts were not resorted to at all. It would be a great advantage if the people of Ireland could feel such confidence in the County Courts that they could resort to them for the fixing of fair rents. The Irish Members had lately impressed on the House the calamitous character of the fact that the machinery for the administration of the Land Act was very inferior to the necessity of the case. If, as he said, the County Court Judges enjoyed the confidence of the people, and the people resorted to them, it would greatly ease the congestion which prevailed in the administration of the Land Act; and he should be curious to hear for what reason farmers and landlords resorted so little to County Courts to have fair rents fixed. Perhaps one individual fact which he was about to state might throw some light upon the avoidance of the County Courts by the farmers of Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary aware of any peculiar circumstance connected with Mr. Lefroy, County Court Judge, who was one of the gentlemen entitled to administer the Land Act? He found upon the prospectus of Mr. Kavanagh's extermination Company the name of Mr. Lefroy as a subscriber to a considerable amount. In the ordinary exercise of his functions as County Court Judge, Mr. Lefroy was to say whether or not the rent which the tenant was to pay to the landlord was a fair rent for the farm held, and he (Mr. Sexton) would like to know whether a gentleman who subscribed to a Company for the purpose of keeping rents at their present height, and for the purpose of preventing tenants availing themselves of the Land Act, was a fit person to be charged with the administration of the Land Act? It was also possible—indeed, it was probable—that Mr. Lefroy might be called upon to administer the Arrears Act, which, by a sudden and unexpected failure of valour on the part of noble Lords in "another place," was now about to become part of the law of the land. Surely a gentleman who was a subscriber to a Company intended to clear the land of the present tenants was not a proper 1416 person to decide whether a tenant was unable to pay his rent, or whether a tenant should be allowed to remain on his holding, or to administer a law intended to keep the tenants in their holdings. This Vote also provided for the salaries and expenses of Resident Magistrates in Ireland. The stipendiary magistracy in Ireland had lately been the subject of some re-organizing work on the part of the Government. A number of magistrates had developed symptoms of dissatisfaction, and he desired to know for what reason that dissatisfaction was developed. Was it true that the ordinary stipendiary magistrates had been provoked by the fact that they had been practically deprived of their ordinary functions, and that persons like Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been appointed to play the part of despot over them as well as over other people? It had been said a number of Resident Magistrates had been invited to retire on favourable terms. How many had retired, and what were the favourable terms? In other words, to what extent were the public to be burdened by these favourable terms of retirement in consequence of the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd and others had made the service intolerable? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary lately promised the House that in any new appointments of magistrates two principles would be kept in view. The first was that the gentlemen appointed should have some legal training; and the second was that they should be persons who, as far as possible, would be free from bias as between the landlord and tenant classes in Ireland. From day to day persons were appointed to the office of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland; and he thought the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman might conveniently and usefully inform the Committee and the country on what principle the selections had been made. He had heard criticisms with regard to the new magistrates which led him to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had either been overborne in reference to the appointments, or he had not borne his pledge vividly in mind. It was impossible to forget for a moment the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He was by far the most prominent and conspicuous man in the magisterial service in Ireland; and he (Mr. Sexton) would move that the Vote 1417 be reduced by £1,000, which he conceived to be about the amount of the salary and allowances to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He considered that the fact that a gentleman like Mr. Clifford Lloyd held an official position was a danger to the Government and a calamity to the country. Early in the Session he placed on the Paper a Notice of Motion to the effect that in the opinion of the House Mr. Clifford Lloyd should be withdrawn or ought to retire. He, however, found no favourable opportunity of bringing that Motion forward; and in making the Motion which he did make to-night—namely, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000 in respect of the salary and allowances of Mr. Clifford Lloyd—he did so in order to mark his sense, as perfectly as he could, that the time had come when it was imperative that Mr. Clifford Lloyd should be either dismissed from the Public Service or transferred to some other sphere of labour for which he was more fitted than that of magistrate in Ireland. A little time ago the Chief Secretary was asked a very pertinent Question with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He was asked in how many counties or districts in Ireland Mr. Clifford Lloyd had, during the last year, exercised jurisdiction; what was the number of outrages committed during his magistracy, and during the corresponding period before he took charge; what were his qualifications; by whom was he recommended; and in what district he first acted? It was well to remind the Committee of the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave. The right hon. Gentleman said he had endeavoured to obtain a Return of the outrages committed in the district during Mr. Clifford Lloyd's magistracy, and during the corresponding period before he took charge; but the Inspector General of Constabulary informed him that the Constabulary and magisterial districts were not conterminous, and the crime records in his Office did not afford the information asked for. Of course, the Constabulary districts might not be conterminous with the districts of the Resident Magistrates; but surely it had lately been the practice to issue Crime Returns for counties. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the Superintendent of three counties all at once, so, in spite of the very civil answer given by the right hon. 1418 Gentleman the Chief Secretary, nothing could have been easier than to have given the information requested—namely, what had been the crime in Limerick, Clare, and Galway before Mr. Clifford Lloyd assumed the charge of these counties, and what was the crime after his advent? He (Mr. Sexton) had looked over the Returns of Crime, which were preserved in the Library, and he was prepared to stand on the assertion that after the arrival of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in counties Limerick, Clare, and Galway there had been no considerable diminution in the most serious classes of crime, neither had there been any improvement in the detection of crime—in fact, no criminal had been detected in respect of any conspicuous or any serious crime since Mr. Clifford Lloyd took charge of those districts. Mr. Clifford Lloyd adopted a very peculiar method of detecting crime, for he told the inhabitants of Roscrea that he "would make the grass grow in the streets of the town, or he would find out who committed a certain murder." He had made the grass grow in the streets of the town, but he had not found out who committed the murder. He had ruined the town by oppressing the people, but he had not discovered a criminal of any importance. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd was originally recommended. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no official record of by whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd was recommended, or of what qualifications were submitted to the Government at the time. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling, no doubt, the hollowness of that reply, went on to add that it appeared from Returns that the gentleman in question had held various legal and Executive offices in British Burmah. He should hardly think the right hon. Gentleman would say that an experience gained in British Burmah would qualify a gentleman to hold a magisterial office in such a country as Ireland, where the people were supposed, at least in theory, to be equal before the law with every British subject of the Queen. The Committee would remember that early in the present Session the question of the erection of huts for evicted tenants in the county of Clare came under the notice of the House. He should say that one of the first acts of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Kilmallock was to stimulate a pro- 1419 secution against certain ladies of the town for having gone to the lodgings of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and waited outside the door to receive and welcome the hon. Gentleman. The prosecution, however, turned out to be of so ridiculous a character that Mr. Clifford Lloyd himself was obliged to throw it overboard. While in the East Mr. Clifford Lloyd appeared to have acquired a passion for theatrical display, for it was his practice to go about Limerick and Clare, surrounded by a body-guard of policemen, and amidst the glittering of spurs and the clattering of sabres. Now, in regard to the question of huts. The Committee would remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) early in the year visited the district of Tulla, in Clare, where a number of families had been thrown out of their farms and cast on the roadside. While in Tulla the right hon. Gentleman was asked by the priest of the place whether it would be legal to erect huts for these people, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it would be legal and laudable. Encouraged by this decision, the Ladies' Land League sent down Miss Kirk to procure shelter and provide food for the evicted families. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, however, suddenly took the notion that this work, which the then Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) had described as being legal and laudable, was illegal and dangerous to the peace of the district. He arrested Miss Kirk, who had been sent on this mission of charity; and by way of illustration of the manner in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd performed his magisterial duties, he would read the affidavit sworn by Miss Kirk in the High Court of Justice in Ireland—
I, Annie Kirk, now a prisoner in the gaol of the City of Limerick, aged 20 years and upwards, make oath and say as follows:—No. 1. On the morning of Friday the 21st day of April instant, I was arrested in my sitting room in Tulla, in the county of Clare, by the Head Constable of the district, and informed by him that I should proceed in his custody to the police barrack to appear before Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The said Head Constable added that he had a warrant for my arrest, and that I should go with him at once. No. 2. I was then taken to a room in the police barrack, which was in a few minutes afterwards entered by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R. M., Mr. O'Hara, J. P., and Mr. Crean, Sub-Inspector. No. 3. When so arrested I was wholly ignorant of the nature of the charge made against me, and thereupon at once applied 1420 to Mr. Lloyd for an adjournment of the case, whatever it might be, with which he appeared to be about to proceed, as I was entirely unprepared to defend myself. I asked for a postponement for throe days, in order that I might ascertain the nature of the charge against me and produce such witnesses as might be necessary to show that the statements made against me were unfounded. No. 4. Mr. Lloyd, however, refused to grant me any adjournment or postponement, and insisted on the case being proceeded with forthwith. No. 5. I then asked that one of the local clergymen whom I wished to examine for my defence might he allowed to be present, but Mr. Lloyd positively refused to allow the reverend gentleman to be present. No. 6. An information of the Sub-Inspector was then read, in which he stated that he believed mo to be an emissary of an illegal Society known as the Land League, and that I was engaged in creating discord and dissension amongst Her Majesty's subjects. No. 7. I stated, as I swear the fact is, that I was solely engaged in charitable purposes—namely, endeavouring to provide food and shelter for the families of tenants evicted for non-payment of rent; but I was nevertheless ordered to enter into recognizances in £50, with two sureties of £50 each, to be of good behaviour for three calendar months, and on refusing to enter into the same was committed to Limerick Prison for that period. No. 8. I admit I am a member of the Ladies' Land League, but I deny that it is an illegal body, and no proof whatever that it is such was given at any trial. I say that its objects are to promote the cause of charity and humanity, and I submit that until the contrary has been properly established the said Ladies' Land League should not have been assumed to have been an illegal body. No. 9. I say that if the postponement for which I applied had been granted I would have been able to produce and would have produced witnesses who would prove that I was innocent of every charge alleged against me, for I say that I never excited discord or dissension amongst any of Her Majesty's subjects, and I never intimidated or attempted to intimidate anyone, nor was I then or at any time engaged in any illegal practice, nor was I guilty of any misconduct whatsoever or any act which would justify the order made against me. No. 10. I submit that the said order ought to be quashed; that I was taken entirely by surprise by the proceedings, and was denied all opportunity of defending myself or obtaining professional assistance which said opportunity, if granted, would have enabled me to give complete proof of my innocence," &c.Such was the case with regard to Miss Kirk. It was a case disgraceful to Mr. Clifford Lloyd and to the Government, and it was typical of the manner in which the law had been administered in Ireland during the last few months. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and others like him, refused to allow adjournments of cases, so that the persons brought before them could not put their cases in a legal shape. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would attend to this matter. Mr. Clif- 1421 ford Lloyd refused to allow Miss Kirk and other ladies to provide themselves with counsel, but threw them into goal; and the Court of Queen's Bench held that unless legal points had been raised in the Court below the Court above could not receive them. Mr. Clifford Lloyd took care that by gagging the prisoners no legal points should be raised in the Court below. When the question of huts came up in the House of Commons, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was defended by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster). He (Mr. Sexton) asked on what pretence Mr. Clifford Lloyd said the huts were erected for purposes of intimidation; and through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) Mr. Clifford Lloyd said that the grossest intimidation was being practised on the tenants, that they were prevented in many instances from paying their rents, and under Land League intimidation they suffered eviction; and in order to keep a grip of the soil the Land League built huts on other tenants' land, who dared not refuse to allow it. There were 24 evicted tenants, and this was what they themselves said—We, the undersigned, evicted tenants from the property of Major Molony, D. L., of Kiltanon, Tulla, now occupying and about to occupy the houses provided for our shelter by the Ladies' Land League, having seen the statement of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, read by Mr. Forster in the House of Commons on Thursday last the 20th instant (April), to the effect that' many of us had privately paid our rents, are not permitted by the Land League to return to our farms, and are forced to occupy the Land League huts,' hereby give our unqualified denial to these several statements, and pronounce them to be a tissue of falsehoods. We suffer no intimidation, except from the myrmidons of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, from whom our liberties, even our very lives, are unsafe; yet we feel obliged in the interests of truth and justice to make this declaration,And then followed the names of the tenants. The tenants went before the Board of Guardians for the purpose of procuring out-door relief, and they made this additional declaration—We solemnly declare, and are prepared to testify on oath, if necessary, that we have paid no rent privately or otherwise since we were evicted from our holdings by Major Molony. We have no means by which to pay, and, therefore, did not pay. We have not been forced by anyone to occupy the huts erected for us by the Ladies' Land League; on the contrary, we gladly availed ourselves of the shelter provided for us, which also relieved our poor neighbours from the trouble and inconvenience they have 1422 been put to, in making room for us and our families in their own already crowded dwellings, and which, in many cases, could not possibly be continued for any lengthened period.With regard to the allegation that tenants were induced to give sites for Land League huts, five tenants made a declaration denying the statement in toto. Now, there was a complete reply to the false statements which Mr. Clifford Lloyd induced the Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) to make in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford opposed to him (Mr. Sexton) in the matter a resistance like a wall of adamant, for he credited the declaration of Mr. Clifford Lloyd that these huts were intended for the purpose of intimidation. But what fastened attention upon the truth was the case of the poor old man, John Kenny. Old Kenny had gone to one of the huts; but he with others were turned out. They were obliged to herd together in a house which was not large enough for them, and when meal time came, they had to go out on the hedge side. He asked if that were true, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, adding to his former falsehoods, put it in the mouth of the Chief Secretary that it was not true. Kenny, however, in a few days, died from exposure, and his death fastened the attention of the Executive upon the case of these huts. Lord Spencer personally inquired into the case, and the result was that he allowed the erection of the huts. The wonder to him (Mr. Sexton) was that, after such a result, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was retained at all in the magisterial service. Mr. Clifford Lloyd put forward a series of falsehoods in this House; he said that the tenants who were evicted had been evicted because they were afraid to pay their rents; he said that the tenants who gave sites for the huts did so because they were afraid to refuse them. He (Mr. Sexton) had produced the evidence of the people themselves, and he was able to point to the conclusion arrived at by the Lord Lieutenant himself in refutation of the statements. He was curious to know how long this gentleman would be continued in his present position. It was well to consider what bearing the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had had upon the remainder of the Resident Magistrates. He was reliably informed that no Resident Magistrate was content to live under him. 1423 Formal representations had been made to Dublin Castle by the magistrates of Limerick, Clare, and. Galway that it was impossible for them to act in concert with Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He would take one case which would serve as an illustration. Mr. William Morris Reade retired recently from the Resident Magistracy of Galway, and The Galway Observer, a paper on the popular side, writing on the retirement, said—It is believed that Mr. Reade has resolved upon this step rather than be under the control of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who it appears, though not coming to reside here, has jurisdiction in this county. Mr. Reade has been a Resident Magistrate for 20 years, and during that time has earned the respect of all by his impartiality, yet withal, his firmness in giving decisions. All classes in this town have a high opinion of his judicial capacity. It is said that he himself has been so successful in the discharge of his duties, both towards the Government and the people, and on account of his long standing as Resident Magistrate, that he objects to be controlled by a meddling military man, who knows nothing about the duties he is called on to perform.Lest there should be any doubt about the cause of his retirement from the service, he had here a letter addressed by Mr. Morris Reade himself to The Irish Times. Mr. Morris Reade wrote—I was appointed to serve Her Majesty by one of her representative Lord Lieutenants, to every one of whom in turn, and to every subject of the Crown, without fear, favour, or affection, I have, to the best of my ability, honestly done my duty; and, though not one word of complaint was made in the resignation which I tendered to Earl Spencer, and which he was graciously pleased to accept. I trust it may be distinctly understood by every man, woman, and child in Ireland, that I would cut my right hand off before I would 'Kowtow' to any Special Resident Magistrate.It, therefore, did not appear that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was very successful or popular amongst even the magistrates. Certainly, by the people of the town of Belfast, where he formerly served, he was held in anything but happy memory, and in the places where he now officiated the feeling against him was exceedingly strong. Amongst the official classes he seemed to have provoked feelings of a very nearly identical character. It was one of the peculiarities of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's character that he seemed to infuse in the officials around him a desire to act like himself—Sub-Inspector Smith affording a memorable example. He distinctly wished the Committee to understand that he stigmatized Mr. 1424 Clifford Lloyd as a person who was not to be believed upon his word, a person who, for the sake of his official position, had made statements, which had been read in that House, which were flagrantly contrary to the truth. Some time ago he asked in that House whether it was true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had caused a telegram to be sent to the sergeant of police at Carrigaholt, asking him to send in the names of half-a-dozen tenants of Colonel M'Donnell who had not paid their rents, so that he might have them arrested under the Coercion Act. The late Chief Secretary denied that such was the case, but he (Mr. Sexton) had been supplied with the exact words of the telegram. The telegram ran—If Colonel M'Donnell's rents be not paid by Monday or Tuesday, send me names of 20 prominent Land Leaguers, with a view to consideration of their arrest.This was the way in which this gentleman used his magisterial power. And what was the extraordinary fact? Why, that the tenants referred to in the telegram had since gone into the Land Court; some of them had had their rents reduced by 75 per cent, but upon the average the rents of this very property had been reduced 50 per cent. In other words, these rents had been reduced one-half by the constituted Judges of the land, and yet last spring, before these rents had been reduced at all, Mr. Clifford Lloyd considered the delay in paying them a sufficient reason for arresting the tenants under the Coercion Act. If the Chief Secretary had any doubt that Mr. Clifford Lloyd sent the telegram in question, let him apply to the telegraph office in the district, and he could easily obtain the original. He had no doubt whatever that the telegram was sent, and upon that ground alone he maintained that this gentleman was extremely incapable of holding his position any longer. He desired, in conclusion, to refer to the condition of the counties of Limerick, Clare, and Galway under this gentleman's regimé. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had exasperated the people of those counties, and he had produced no healthy effect upon the state of crime. In the first place, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had failed in detecting crime; and, in the second place, he had failed as regarded veracity. When the interests of his position, and the moral claims of 1425 veracity came into conflict, in his mind the moral claims of veracity went by the board. He had disgraced the magisterial service; he had caused heartburnings wherever he had gone, and he had created a sort of mutiny among the people. He had done all that the most active official could do in the way of exasperating the people; and, at the same time, he had done all that an incompetent official could do to exasperate those who acted under him. The Committee would remember what happened last Friday in Limerick. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had the audacity to call upon the police to parade before him, and to interfere with their financial arrangements with the Government. He insulted them because they had combined together; afterwards the men refused to parade before him, and he had not the temerity to appear again. The time had really come when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might invite Mr. Clifford Lloyd to retire from the Public Service. It was not merely a calamity to the country, but it was a disgrace to the Government that so incapable a man should be continued in so responsible a post. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would represent to the Cabinet the propriety of reconsidering the position of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The Government, by retaining this man, condemned themselves. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £62,238, 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, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that some weeks ago a very horrible murder was committed in Loughrea, and 26 people were arrested in the town. Many of the people he happened to know. Several of them occupied very respectable positions, and he believed three of them were Poor Law Guardians or Town Commissioners. These people were arrested upon evidence, or they were not; but certainly the time had come when something definite should be done. If no evidence could be brought forward, the people ought to be released. Mr. Clifford 1426 Lloyd happened to be the official on the spot, and he arrested the people. It was a terrible thing for respectable people to be accused of a foul murder, and, therefore, he hoped the Government would state what they intended to do in the matter.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that as the salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was included in this Vote, he thought it would be very desirable that the Chief Secretary should inform the Committee what Mr. Clifford Lloyd really cost the country, since the date of his appointment as a Special Resident Magistrate. There was more than the actual salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd concerned when he spoke of what he had cost the country since the date of his appointment; for instance, allowances were made to him for servants and orderlies. If Mr. Clifford Lloyd was withdrawn from the service of the country, the service of a large number of police, who had been told off for his special protection, as he called it, would be dispensed with. These men, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had put it, had been withdrawn from the service of the country for the pleasure of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and to give him the satisfaction of making a grand military display wherever he went through the streets and cities and towns of Ireland. It was a fact that he went out in "high pomp and circumstance." He was fond of going about with an advance guard and a rear guard; and in the house where he lived he had a large body of police on guard in various passages and lobbies, and so forth; and therefore, in calculating the cost of this famous gentleman to the country, all these circumstances were bound to be taken into account. It was desirable that the Committee should freely and honestly be told what the country had to pay for such a man as Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Sullivan) saw the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) in his place, and he had never forgotten the testimony which that hon. Member gave, some time ago in that House, when first the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd began to come up in debate; he had never forgotten the testimony that the hon. Gentleman gave as to the character of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and as to the effect which was likely to be produced in any part of the country which might be afflicted with his pre- 1427 sence. The hon. Gentleman told the House, upon the authority of his brother, who was a magistrate in Drogheda, that it was his opinion that wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent, whether it be to the South, East, North, or West of Ireland, he would produce something very like a rebellion. That was told to them a very long time ago, when the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was almost new to them; but did not the facts and circumstances which had since occurred bear out the description of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's character given on that occasion? He would be glad if the hon. Member for Drogheda would again refresh the memories of the Committee by repeating, on this occasion, the testimony he gave at that time. On a previous occasion he (Mr. Sullivan) referred to Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a very costly luxury to the British Government. Besides the actual cost in salary and allowances, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been an enormous burden upon the country in other respects. There was no estimating the amount of mischief he had done; there was no estimating the amount of evil he had created; and long after that gentleman should have disappeared from the stage which he was now so unworthily occupying, the evil he had done would remain. It was absurd and improper for the Government to maintain this gentleman in the position he now held, because, instead of doing service to the cause which they professed to have at heart—the cause of peace and order in Ireland—Mr. Clifford Lloyd had shown himself its enemy. That being so, unless the Government wished to maintain the irritation of the Irish people; unless they desired to show themselves to be bullies of the Irish people, why did they maintain this firebrand in the position he held? Let the Government justify, before this Committee and the country, their policy in maintaining such a man in an office he so unworthily filled, and filled to the detriment of good order and government in Ireland, and to the shame of the Government that maintained him.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to join the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) in urging upon the Government to bring the gentlemen—for many of them were in the position of gentlemen and respectable traders—who were arrested on suspicion of being 1428 concerned in the murder of Mr. Blake, at Loughrea, to trial or to release them. He was very much surprised to find that the Government had yielded to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, after that murder, so far as to make these wholesale arrests. It was not until Mr. Clifford Lloyd came into the town of Loughrea that the arrests were made, and it was evident that they must have been made upon his suggestion. He should be very indisposed to attach any weight to any representation Mr. Clifford Lloyd might make with regard to the act of any person, unless he was willing to bring him before a magistrate in order to make out his case. He could tell some strange stories to the Committee of the language and action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd towards accused persons who had been brought before him. He knew that in many cases Mr. Clifford Lloyd held his inquiries in prisons and other places, in the absence of the Press, and that he had sought to bully and intimidate people into admissions of guilt. He could tell a story with regard to a prisoner who was brought before Mr. Clifford Lloyd for attempting to murder Mr. Wilfrid Lloyd, and who was sent under the Coercion Act to Kilmainham subsequently. No particle of evidence had been brought against the man, and he could repeat to the Committee expressions used by Mr. Clifford Lloyd during his secret inquiry into the case against the prisoner which were an outrage to all justice, and certainly expressions which a Resident Magistrate should be ashamed to use towards an accused person. The Government in Ireland appeared at one time to imagine—he would not say they did so now—that they could succeed in creating a respect for the law by meeting the illegal acts, which had undoubtedly been done in some cases by the popular agents, with intimidation of a much more extreme kind on their own side. The struggle carried on in Ireland resolved itself simply into this—whether the officers of the law should use more illegal intimidation than the people themselves. So far, certainly, the effect had been that the officers of the law, instead of vindicating the law, had simply put down popular right by the exercise of intimidation. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had proved himself one of the most unscrupulous agents in the administration of that sys- 1429 tem. He (Mr. Parnell) had been hoping, having got rid of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and seeing that another policy had been inaugurated by the Government in Ireland, a policy that was signally justified by the result that there had been a reduction of outrages by 80 per month ever since it had been introduced, that they would also have got rid of the right hon. Gentleman's pet—Mr. Clifford Lloyd. This officer was only fit to rule in some savage country where it was necessary to adopt martial law, and where a number of persons were endeavouring to obtain a settlement on land that did not belong to them. It would suit him well to be engaged upon the North-Western Frontiers of America, or he might have been suited for the position of magistrate in Burmah; but, certainly, to introduce this man into a civilized country, where the Government were endeavouring to win the people over to law and order, was the most palpable absurdity that any Government could contrive. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would make a statement as to what they intended to do with regard to the 26 respectable persons who were languishing in gaol without hope or expectation of trial. Why were they arrested? What was the case against them? Did the case to any extent rest upon the representations of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Did he hold out any hope that he would be able to obtain evidence to justify what had taken place, and had he obtained any evidence? He had now some experience of the use made of the Coercion Act by the late Chief Secretary and the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in arresting men on suspicion of murder against whom there was not a single particle of evidence, whom they did not bring to trial, and whom they themselves did not believe to be implicated in the crime. He wished to know whether it was right and just to apply the powers of the Coercion Act to respectable men who had lived for years in their native towns, where many of them had been engaged in large businesses, and whose businesses were irretrievably injured by their forcible detention? One of these men having been detained in gaol for 12 months was released, and had been since re-arrested. The promise 1430 made by the Chief Secretary when the Coercion Act was passing through the House had never been fullfilled—namely, that no person should be arrested except upon evidence which, if he were in the jury-box, would justify him in finding that person guilty. The persons he had referred to were still detained in prison, although there was not a particle of evidence against them. Why had they not been proceeded against under the ordinary law? When a policeman could swear that he expected to get evidence a prisoner could be remanded from time to time until some evidence was forthcoming, and the magistrates in Ireland were never unwilling to commit a prisoner for trial if there was a promise on the part of the police that they would introduce evidence at the trial. There were still 170 prisoners in gaol under the Coercion Act of last Session, almost all of whom were entirely innocent of any offence; and had he known that this would have been the case he should certainly have preferred to remain in Kilmainham until that day. Looking at the fact that outrages in Ireland had decreased, he thought Irish Members were entitled to complain that this large number of 170 men should still be languishing in gaol without trial, and without hope of trial; and, therefore, he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was able to go over to Ireland and see the state of affairs with his own eyes, he would use his influence to get rid of such agents of disorder as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and to bring about the release of a very large number, if not all, of the 170 men now in. prison on suspicion.
§ MR. WHITWORTHsaid, he rose because he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) to say a few words about Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He had not the privilege of knowing Mr. Clifford Lloyd personally; but he had stated in that House that his brother had told him that the conduct of that official in Drogheda was anything but creditable, and that he was an exceedingly dangerous man to send down to the South or West of Ireland. The hon. Member for Westmeath exaggerated when he said the statement was that, "Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a dangerous man to be sent either to the West, North, East, or South of Ireland." He (Mr. Whitworth), only mentioned 1431 the South and West, because he believed that in the North, where Mr. Clifford Lloyd was first stationed, he gave perfect satisfaction to the people. He must candidly admit that he had greatly changed his opinion with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd since he first mentioned his name in that House. He found he was condemned by every rebel in Ireland. Every rebel in Ireland hated Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and he was bound to say from the evidence he had heard that evening that he had been of immense service in the South and West of Ireland. Moreover, he had such confidence in Her Majesty's Government as to believe that if they were convinced that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not doing his duty they would at once dismiss him.
§ MR. CALLANcalled upon the Attorney General for Ireland to say at the Table of the House what he had said on the Treasury Bench a short time ago. When the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) referred to the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had put women in prison, he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say—"Served them right." The brother of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) was a man of largor experience and greater knowledge than the hon. Member, and his language was that Mr. Clifford Lloyd "was a firebrand, and would prove himself to be so wherever he went." And had he not justified that description of himself? Why, it was only a few days ago that he was on the verge of driving the Irish Constabulary into revolt; he was nothing else than a meddling busybody, and there were other persons in Ireland of the same character. Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Limerick last Saturday; the Inspector was to arrive at 2 o'clock, but Mr. Clifford Lloyd went into the police barracks, paraded the men, and used language for which he had been obliged to apologize. It was true that afterwards he sent a communication to the newspapers explaining away his language; but he (Mr. Callan) asked whether the Government were willing to grant a Court of Inquiry as to his conduct on the occasion referred to? For his own part, he was almost sick of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name, and he had only risen to express the feeling of indignation with which he heard the remark made use of by the Attorney 1432 General for Ireland on the Treasury Bench.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has no right to refer to remarks that were not made with the intention of their being heard by the House.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, with all respect to the Chair, when an observation of the kind he had mentioned was directed in an insulting tone to the remarks of an hon. Gentleman, he was entitled to notice it.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, with the dread consequences of suspension before him, he should, of course, bow to the Chairman's decision. He had heard observations, even of the Prime Minister, called in question, and if he had erred at all, he had erred inadvertently in not closing his ears to an insulting observation. He could not help remarking that it would conduce more to the order and harmony of the debates if the presiding authority censured Members of the Government for irregularity as readily as it censured Members sitting in that part of the House.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he rose with reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) that he had been guilty of some exaggeration in recalling the remarks of his brother, the late Member for Drogheda, with reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. If there had been any exaggeration in the matter, it was certainly unintentional on his part. He understood the hon. Member to state that his brother had said, "Wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd is sent he will do this evil work"—that was to say, he would get up something like rebellion. The hon. Member now said it was only in the South and West of Ireland that it was supposed these consequences would ensue from his being sent amongst the people. But was it not a curious fact that these were the very quarters of Ireland in which the Government had set Mr. Clifford Lloyd to work? He was, it seemed, doing no harm in the North; but they would not leave him there; they sent him to the very parts of the country—the South and West—where he was likely to do a great deal of harm. But they had now heard the hon. Member for Drogheda say that he had changed his mind about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that he regarded the 1433 South and West of Ireland as fit fields for the exercise of his talents. He would like to know the whole amount that the country had to pay directly and indirectly for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, because, as far as he had been able to gather, the Government were paying altogether "too dear for their whistle," so far as his services were concerned.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Committee had listened to several suggestions as to the best kind of occupation which the Government could find for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had suggested that he should be sent to the North-West Frontiers of America, and he believed the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had recommended that he should be appointed to the office of magistrate in Burmah. But his own opinion was that it would be a good thing to find him a situation as stipendiary magistrate in England. He was bound to say that, having visited the district in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was engaged the last time he was in Ireland, his acts there did not appear to bear out the character which had just been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), but rather that which had been given by Irish Members below the Gangway—namely, that he was a disturbing element amongst the Irish people, and that his transfer to some other part of the Kingdom would be an advantage for all parties. He had already asked his right hon. Friend a question about Mr. Henry George, who had been arrested and released after some detention. Although he did not then suppose he had suffered any serious injury by that detention, yet he now found that Mr. George and his companion, whom he (Mr. Cowen) was not acquainted with, had been subjected to great personal indignities by the police—he believed their luggage had been broken open, and all the usual indignities done to them which were practised under such circumstances by "Jacks in office." He knew Mr. George was a man of considerable eminence in his own country, and that he was also a man of great ability; he was not an Irishman, but an American subject, and had no more to do with the political organization existing in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his Colleagues who sat beside him. He 1434 said it was a great hardship that a man like Mr. George, who went into a village purely for the purpose of getting information, should be arrested under the despotic powers of the Prevention of Crimes Act, and that, too, under circumstances of indignity and, in some measure, of pain; and he urged that if the Act was to be enforced in respect of foreigners, it must be applied with some amount of discrimination. It was fair to ask that some amount of consideration should be shown to persons arrested under such circumstances as he had described. Mr. George was a man known to many Members of that House, and he was known, moreover, throughout Europe and America; his companion, too, was well known, and he had no difficulty in getting the Justices to release him. But suppose he had been a man in different circumstances, and that he got into the hands of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, he would, in all probability, have been detained in gaol for weeks or months. He asked what would be the feeling here if the representative of an English newspaper, a political economist, had been taken when in a town in Germany collecting information for the purpose of writing a book or making communications to the newspapers at home—was arrested at, say, Breslau or Halle, and subjected to gross indignities on the part of the local police? The feeling here would be one of great indignation; yet that was the part we had acted towards Mr. George. He had no other intention in making these remarks than to insist, as far as he was able, that some amount of leniency and consideration should be shown in exercising the powers of the Prevention of Crimes Act. There were still under the Coercion Act of the previous year 170 men in prison. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Prime Minister had stated that when this Act came into force, the old Act would cease to operate—at least, if that was not given literally, it was given in substance in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—and, therefore, he thought it was only fair to ask that the men now imprisoned on suspicion should be brought to trial or released. Her Majesty's Government talked of restoring order; it would be a matter of surprise if order were not restored, considering the despotic powers of the Acts he had referred to. It was very easy to govern in a state of siege; 1435 and if Her Majesty's Government could not govern Ireland with these two Acts at their disposal, he said there were no circumstances in which they could preserve order in the country.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had begun his speech by referring to the amount of confidence which the Irish farmers had in the Civil Bill Courts, in respect to the administration of the Land Act. It was quite true that the Civil Bill Courts were more applied to than the Land Commission, a fact which he regarded as somewhat surprising. He had lately cursorily examined the statistics of recent months, and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England had also examined them, but much more carefully; and the result of the latter examination was a complete confirmation of the superficial examination he had himself made of the decisions arrived at by both the Civil Bill Courts and the Land Commission. It showed—first, that the Civil Bill Courts had done their duty in a manner which entitled them to the confidence of the tenants of Ireland; and, secondly, it proved beyond all question that the charges brought against the Sub-Commissioners, of being actuated by a dislike to landlords and indifferent to local information, and of having been set to work simply for the purpose of reducing rents, were absolutely illusory. With regard to the four Provinces, it appeared that a certain average of reduction held both as to the cases decided by the Civil Bill Courts and those decided by the Land Commissioners, which showed that, although these Courts decided without reference to each other, there was the same method running through the judgments of both. Both the Courts had decided that, on the whole, the reductions in Ulster should be about 22 per cent of the rent; in Connaught something less than that; in Munster about 20 percent; and in Leinster about 13 per cent. If there was anything that could prove that these reductions were made upon a system, it was that both the Civil Bill Courts and the Land Commissioners, as well as the Sub-Commissioners, had arrived at almost the same average amount of reduction for the four Provinces of Ireland. Therefore, he hoped that in future very much less would be heard of the Sub-Commissioners being too Conserva- 1436 tive in their views, and that they would possess the confidence of the people to a larger extent than they did at present. The hon. Member for Sligo had referred to the case of a Judge of one of the Civil Bill Courts being a member of the Land Corporation. Upon this point he had to observe that the Land Corporation was a body which existed in perfect conformity with the law; and, therefore, it was quite certain that the Irish Executive could take no notice of the circumstance; but, speaking as a Member of Parliament, he must own that the less a judicial functionary was associated with any organization which took an active part in the burning questions that were arising in Ireland the better. Again, the hon. Member for Sligo referred to a matter in connection with the magistrates in Ireland, and his remarks upon that subject had, on the whole, coincided with what had fallen from hon. Members who had followed him. He said that dissatisfaction existed amongst the Resident Magistrates on account of the appointment of Special Resident Magistrates. Now, he must admit that to some extent that was the case; but it was extremely difficult, in any re-organization or re-arrangement of the service, to distinguish the cause from which dissatisfaction sprang. It might be the inevitable dissatisfaction caused to individuals who had hitherto been supreme in their district, and who found someone sent there who would in future stand between them and the Central Government, to report upon their proceedings, and to be, to a certain extent, the arbiters of their fortunes. But this special arrangement had not been long enough in force for the Government to be quite certain whether the dissatisfaction was due to the cause he had just indicated, or to something faulty in the plan of re-organization; and upon this point he was better able to judge than he was upon some other matters, because the arrangement had existed such a short time that very few hon. Members had seen more of it than he had. With regard to the system, Her Majesty's Government were not able to say whether it was going to be confirmed or not. The hon. Member asked who had retired amongst the magistrates, what were the terms on which they had retired, and whether those terms constituted a very great 1437 burden on the public purse? He was glad to notice the growing anxiety in the matter of expenditure that was showing itself more and more in that quarter of the House where the hon. Member for Sligo sat. Well, three magistrates had retired willingly and without any pressure or invitation, and 12 had retired under a certain amount of pressure and invitation.
§ COLONEL NOLANasked how many had refused to retire without invitation?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think it necessary to state to the Committee how many magistrates had taken the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They here came to the question of official administration. Both at the time when a service was reorganized, and at the time when it was simply doing its ordinary work, it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of Departments and high Ministers of State should have power to put pressure on officers whom they considered really inefficient to retire. If Ministers were not able to perform that function when justice or the interest of the State required it, the country could not be well governed. These gentlemen had retired under circumstances in which men retired compulsorily at the time of administrative changes, under the well-known terms of abolition of office which were laid down by the Treasury in the Minute of the 14th of June, 1859—that was to say, every person who had served not less than five years would be awarded an allowance at the rate of one-sixth of his income; in the case of a person who served 10 years, three years would be added in counting his pension; in the case of persons serving under 15 years and not less than 10 years, a period of five years would be added; in the case of persons serving under 20 years and not less than 15 years, eight years would be added; and in the case of persons who served 20 years and upwards a period of 10 years would be added in connection with their pensions. This arrangement, it was believed, afforded a legitimate solatium for men who retired, not when they wished to leave the service, but when, as a matter of fact, the authorities thought it better that they should be retired in the interests of the public, obviously without any stain on their character, because if 1438 there were such stain they would not be qualified for the pension that would otherwise be awarded to them. The operation was one which he had seen performed in large offices in cases of difficulty, and it was an operation which must, from time to time, be performed in every Department, unless that Department was to become inefficient for its work. With regard to the new appointments, very great care had been taken. The officers who had been selected belonged to three classes; and he might say that in making these appointments an infinitesimal amount of weight had been given to interest and patronage. Whether the selection was good or not, it had been made with a desire to appoint men who would do justice without fear, without favour, and without being oppressive to the people. As he had before pointed out, these gentlemen belonged to three classes. Four of them were Sub-Inspectors of the Constabulary, who had shown those qualities which the Irish Government imagined would fit them for the office. Four of them were Irish barristers, of which class of men the Government would gladly have got more; but it was found to be impracticable. It was necessary, in order to tempt gentlemen out of the Legal Profession, to give them much higher emoluments than would tempt men out of the Military Profession, or, still more, out of the professions in civil life. The salaries of civil magistrates began at, say, £400 a-year, and for that sum they could not get good lawyers to undertake the office. He had gone into these matters for the purpose of showing that the Government had done their best to fulfil the pledge given in Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill, to get as many gentlemen as they could from the Legal Profession who were qualified to discharge the duties of the office, not simply because they were lawyers, but because they were men of the requisite legal attainments. As he had already said, then, four of them were barristers; one of them was a magistrate, who had been very active on the Bench; and eight of them belonged to what he might call the general public and, to a great extent, to the Military Profession.
§ MR. SEXTONasked whether these were ordinary magistrates?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, they were ordinary Resident Magistrates, and there 1439 were 17 of them in all. Before concluding, he wished to say a few words with regard to another subject which had been referred to at length in the course of the evening. It was obviously impossible, with the feelings which hon. Members had about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that they could pass this Vote unchallenged. A great many cases had been referred to in connection with that officer, and discussed with more or less detail. The case of a lady sent to prison in default of bail had been referred to. As he always wished to be practical, he should forbear to go back to the past, and would merely observe that since there had been a new method in operation of dealing with intimidation, he did not believe that any lady had found her way into prison.
§ MR. SEXTONMary Keene.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had only to say, in the case of Mary Keene, that she went to prison in default of bail. He did not think he was called upon to defend this case any more than he was called upon to defend any of the cases of the kind which came before Petty Sessions. However, he earnestly hoped that no lady would go to prison under the same circumstances hereafter. With regard to the question of the huts, hon. Gentlemen opposite had acknowledged that whether the Irish Government, six or seven months ago, in the agony of that great struggle between the law and those who defied the law, were right or wrong in the strong course which they took with respect to these huts, the present Government had come to the conclusion that it was not necessary any longer to continue the embargo. Further, the Government considered that, in this matter, their judgment had been vindicated by the result. Hon. Members had spoken of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's method of procedure as not being successful in the districts to which he had been sent. They said that offences had not diminished there, and that this, in all probability, was due to the arbitrary opinions he had expressed. Without going into that matter, he thought that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district showed a very great improvement. That officer became Special Magistrate of Clare and Limerick in December, 1881. In Clare the outrages in October were 48, in November 42, and in December 58. Well, in the next month, January, they rose to 61; they stood at 56 and 55 for 1440 February and March; but in April, May, and June, they were for these months 35, 23, and 28 respectively. In Limerick, for the month in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed, the outrages fell from 62 to 30, and since that time they had averaged about 35 per month. In June they fell to 20. It might be the case that this diminution of outrages was coincident with the diminution of outrages all over Ireland; but it could scarcely be said that there was any evidence in these figures that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's measures had so far failed. Again, the hon. Member had alluded to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct at Limerick a few day ago; and upon this point also his remarks had been supported by hon. Gentlemen who followed him upon the subject of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's interview with the Limerick police. Now, he had in his hand a telegram sent by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and which he had received since the hon. Member asked him a Question upon that point, and spoke of Mr. Clifford Lloyd as having addressed the police in an irritating manner, and of the police as replying that they were not soldiers. In the telegram Mr. Clifford Lloyd said he did not use the language mentioned by Mr. Sexton, or any language similar to it in the sense or manner suggested by him. The language he had used was reported in The Irish Times of the 7th instant. In pointing out to the men the gravity with which such action by an armed force was viewed, and the impossibility of listening to demands made under such circumstances, he had instanced soldiers, saying that if soldiers so acted they might even incur, under certain circumstances, an extreme penalty. There was no such response from the men as indicated, and no declaration or hint even from them that they would not parade again. Putting aside the actual agitation, their conduct had been and continued to be, so far as he could learn, satisfactory. One man had replied, in a perfectly respectful manner, "But, sir, we are not soldiers," which was the only foundation for the statement made. That was not on parade, but while he was talking afterwards to some of the men standing around him. He was inclined to think that that bore out his original view of the question—namely, that the magistrate had used his influence in a legitimate way.
§ MR. PARNELLDid these men parade again before Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think they did. Before referring to the observations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he wished to say a word with reference to a Question which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) asked him the other day. The hon. Member said that since he asked that Question he had received some information. Well, so had he (Mr. Trevelyan). He had had the advantage of reading a letter written by Mr. Joynes, and what had taken place, according to that gentleman's statement, was exactly what had been said in the newspapers. The two gentlemen were arrested, searched, but not detained more than a few hours. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was extremely sorry for it. Within the past two or three days an hon. Member had asked him in the House whether cases of this kind had occurred, or were likely to occur—he forgot the Question—and he was now in a position to say that he had been in communication with the Irish Government, and that it had been agreed that a specific Circular should be sent out giving a very distinct warning to the police. It was obvious that this sort of thing must not occur again. He did not mean that such a person as an Eton Master might not be arrested again, but that if people of a certain standing in this country were arrested it might be easier for them to get away, although people less known might find it difficult to obtain relief. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had referred to the question of the arrests at Loughrea; but on that question he (Mr. Trevelyan) had spoken at length in answer to a substantive Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Sligo. These arrests had not been made in consideration of one murder only; but within comparatively recent times there had been nine murders in the vicinity of Loughrea, the perpetrators of which had avoided detection. The crimes might be said to have been committed with the connivance of the inhabitants, because no one could doubt that a large number of the residents must be aware who were the murderers in, at any rate, some of the nine cases. The murders could not have been so carefully planned and executed unless there had been general sympathy with them amongst the people. The 1442 hon. Member said there were still 171 persons incarcerated under the last Coercion Act, and he had said that he little valued his own release when he knew that there were so many of his friends still in prison. In fact, the hon. Member had said, he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought, that he would willingly go back again if he found himself alone when he got there. The hon. Member had said—and no doubt it was a generous feeling which prompted him to say it—that he valued the release of himself and his two Colleagues only as an earnest of what they expected to follow in the case of the other "suspects" Well, in the presence of the Prime Minister, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would say what he believed was the fact—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the list of "suspects" would be carefully examined in order that the Executive might see who of them could be let out with reasonable safety to the public. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had not the figures before him; but he believed that since that day—that was to say, during the last three months, 130 "suspects" had been released, and only 110 of the old "suspects" remained in prison. As a matter of fact, he believed there were not more than 100 in prison now, the list being made up by 50 who had been put in by Lord Spencer, every one of whom, with, perhaps, a single exception, had been put in under suspicion of the very gravest crimes. There were three from Cavan who had been put in in connection with a horrible assault, 11 from Dublin in connection with the Fenian murders, one from Sligo on account of a crime of a very serious kind—
§ MR. SEXTONOn a warrant 13 months old.
§ MR. TREVELYANAnd some from Loughrea. A good deal of what had been said to-night referred to a state of things which was rapidly passing away, in which crimes of violence were rampant in the country, and in which that kind of crime was being dealt with by a process which it was hardly necessary to defend or attack, seeing that on the 30th of September next it would be a thing of the past. The process by which the Executive proposed to deal with crime of that kind in the future was much more easy to defend in the House, and he believed it would be very much more satisfactory and effective. He was 1443 very sorry that in the interval between the passing out of the old system and the coming in of the new certain very dreadful crimes in a particular part of the country had obliged the Executive to have recourse to the old system; but by the 30th of September the advantages of doing away with that system would decidedly outweigh the disadvantages. He looked forward with confidence to the prospect of being able to deal with violence in Ireland in two ways, first by the operation of beneficent laws which were beginning more and more to tell upon the country, and next, to a subsidiary extent, by a scheme of Criminal Law, which, though by no means mild, was still far less objectionable than those methods which they had been obliged to have recourse to in the past.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was so satisfactory that he (Mr. O'Connor) should not find it necessary to trouble the Committee for more than a few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman had carried out his promise by sending out the Circular he had referred to; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) might, he thought, claim that the right hon. Gentleman had practically taken the same view on the question as the hon. Member had taken himself. He was glad to find that some of the rates fixed by the County Boards had been much better than those fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; but when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the magistrates his statement was not so satisfactory as that of the hon. Member, because he said that only some 12 of them had been forced to resign their positions, and that altogether about 15 had been got rid of. But 15 was not a bad proportion of magistrates to compel to resign out of a total of 72. The case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been so fully dealt with, and so frequently gone into, that he would be brief in his reference to it. The right hon. Gentleman, although no doubt from no want of candour, had rather evaded that point. His hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) brought four main capital charges against Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He said, in the first place, that outrages had increased under his administration; in the second place, that no detections had followed under his administration; in the third place, that his administration had led to the exasperation of the people 1444 in the district; and, fourthly, that it had conduced to the disorganization of the Public Service. The right hon. Gentleman failed to meet a single one of these four capital charges. He had given them statistics to show that outrages had decreased in Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district; but he had failed to take into account the extraordinary help that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had had in the beneficent working of the Land Act. When the right hon. Gentleman gave them the total of outrages, he might have told them how many were trifling, and how many were serious. He (Mr. O'Connor) believed his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was quite right when he said that the outrages of a serious character had increased during the administration of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. With regard to the outrages that remained undetected, it was a fact that under Mr. Clifford Lloyd not a single case of the detection of an offender had taken place. That point which the right hon. Gentleman had failed to deal with was a matter of popular notoriety in the district; and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's administration had led to the exasperation of the people was also a matter of public notoriety. No name in the whole of Ireland excited more bitter, acrimonious, and terrible feelings than that of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the resignation of several magistrates had been caused by the appointment of the Superintendent Resident Magistrates, of whom the most notorious was Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, in fact, on all four charges Mr. Clifford Lloyd stood convicted on the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who was responsible for his acts as being his advocate and defender in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had given them figures to show how the outrages had decreased; but he did not tell them the reason why the three counties over which Mr. Clifford Lloyd ruled were proclaimed? Why did he not tell them that extra police had had to be stationed in those counties, and that of all the cities in Ireland the only one to which the Curfew Clause had been applied was the City of Limerick, where Mr. Clifford Lloyd lived? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the change that had taken place in the condition of Ireland. That was also the subject of the address of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. O'Connor) was expressing 1445 not only his own sentiments, but those of all his hon. Friends around him, when he said that the change in the condition of Ireland was a matter that must bring gladness and joy to the heart of every honest man in the House. If there was anyone in the House who ought to take to heart the fact that the condition of Ireland was improving, it was the Members on those (the Home Rule) Benches. It was in the name of that change that they asked the Government to get rid of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. When they heard that the Government meant to stand by that gentleman, half the bright hopes, founded on the change in the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland, were darkened. Was it worth the while of any Government to keep within the body politic a disorganizing and disturbing element like Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Both the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken about Ireland had had the good sense to acknowledge that it was just legislation and not coercion that must bring about peace and order in Ireland; and he would here say one word to hon. Members on the Radical Benches. ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would allow him to exercise his own judgment. He would say one word to hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Radical Benches, and it was this—none of them had thought proper to take part in this debate. He did not blame them—it was a matter for their own discretion. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) intended to go to a division on this Vote; and he would, therefore, ask those hon. Members, if they could not support his hon. Friend by their voices, at any rate to give him their votes on this occasion. He would ask them to do so for the sake of Ireland, for the sake of their Party, and for the sake of the Administration they believed in.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Chief Secretary was apparently very indignant at what had taken place in Ireland—namely, the arrest of Mr. Henry George and Mr. Joynes. During the discussion which had taken place on the Coercion Bill, which some persons seemed to think was a little exhaustive, it was frequently pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the consequence of giving arbitrary powers to so many people for the arrest of suspected persons in Ireland would be to 1446 lead to great injustice. They gave power in the Coercion Act to every constable in Ireland to arrest anybody whom he thought he found under suspicious circumstances. How in the world could they suppose that that power would not be abused? For his own part, he was rather glad that English tourists were arrested in Ireland, because that sort of thing seemed to him very likely to bring home to the English mind a desirable knowledge of what a Coercion Act really meant. On the other hand, so far as Ireland itself was concerned, it was an undesirable thing that these arrests should take place, particularly at this period of the year, when a great many people were going away from home on their holidays. A great many people might feel inclined to visit Ireland, and when there they would, of course, spend money, which would be a substantial benefit to the country. The right hon. Gentleman told them that these mistakes must not occur again, and that a Circular would be sent round to the Constabulary requesting them to stop them. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? Did he mean that the police were to exercise more caution, or that they were not to put in force the clause of the Coercion Act under which Mr. Joynes and Mr. George had been arrested? He (Mr. Labouchere), for his own part, thought if the English people were to travel about in Ireland, as they did in any other civilized country, if this clause was to be maintained in the Coercion Act, the Irish Executive should prepare passports to protect tourists and travellers from arrest and annoyance. It was necessary in Germany to supply English travellers with passports, because it had been found that they went wandering about, getting into trouble here and there, it always being supposed that they were suspicious persons if they were without their passports. In this case of Mr. Joynes, he found that his letters were seized by the police, and that was a circumstance that gentleman had to be thankful for, as the result was that they discovered his identity. But it was a monstrous thing that a gentleman visiting Ireland for his pleasure should be in danger of having his letters seized in this way. It would be much better, to guard a man against such an annoyance as that, to give him some paper or docu- 1447 ment which he could produce to prove that he was an honest person, travelling on business or pleasure. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would take this suggestion into his consideration.
§ MR. O'SHEAsaid, that, as one of the Representatives of a county in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a Special Magistrate, he wished altogether to dissociate himself from the remarks which had been made hostile to that gentleman.
§ MR. LEAMYasked whether the police, before they took those two gentlemen—Mr. Joynes and Mr. George—before the magistrates, examined the documents and letters those gentlemen had in their possession; and, if they did, by what authority under the Prevention of Crime Act did they proceed? As far as he (Mr. Leamy) was aware, the Act did not give them the authority. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the police were justified in going outside the Act? There was another thing he wished to ask, and it was a question which had been asked several times before—namely, what Mr. Clifford Lloyd cost the country—what were his expenses? That question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on several occasions, and it had been put to the present Chief Secretary; but no satisfactory reply had been received, and surely the House was entitled to know such a fact as this. How much did Mr. Clifford Lloyd get as salary, and how much in allowances—how much did he get for a salary, how much for clerks, how much for police protection?—because he (Mr. Leamy) had not the slightest doubt, if all the amounts were known, the grand total of the amount spent on Mr. Clifford Lloyd would startle the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the Land Courts, mentioned the average of reductions made in the different Provinces of Ireland, coming to 22 per cent in Ulster and 13 per cent in Leinster; and he had said it was evident from the way in which the reductions were made, both in the Land Court and in the Civil Bill Court, that both the Commissioners and the County Court Judges were reducing the rents on a system. It would be well that they should have evidence of the system; but it seemed to him that it would be very 1448 hard to get it from the Government: If the right hon. Gentleman could give the opponents of the Land Act assurance that there was a perfect system, and could describe it, he ought to do so.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that great complaint had been made with regard to the arrest of Mr. George and Mr. Joynes; but, so far as he (Mr. Healy) was concerned, it seemed to him that the police officer who had made the arrest had acted rightly. He did not know what else the constable could have done. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made the most extraordinary statement, as far as inconsistency was concerned, that he had ever heard, even from a Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the police were to do this kind of thing no more. Why should they not do it again? Was it because Mr. Joynes wore a black coat, and, say, John Murphy wore a frieze—was it because Mr. Joynes wore a shiny hat and John Murphy a cloth cap, that the latter was to be arrested and the former allowed to proceed on his way? Only the other day a policeman met a man in the street and told him to go home. The man replied, "I shall go home when I like," whereupon the constable arrested him, took him to the police station, and had him locked up for 24 hours. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant complain of that? Why, it was because this poor fellow had not dined with two Cabinet Ministers at the Reform Club. It appeared to be a passport to respectability to dine with two Cabinet Ministers. The people to blame were not the police; they were to blame George Otto Trevelyan and Sir William Harcourt, and the Ministers who passed these Acts giving the police such powers. What was the use of blaming the miserable subordinates who put these Acts into operation? Those Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench were, in reality, the pendulum and weights, and the police were but a minor part of the machinery. Well, it was said that they were not going to arrest people like Mr. Joynes and Mr. George any more. He hoped they would—he should like to see them arrest a few Archbishops and a couple of Cardinals, and keep them in a close cell for a night on the principle that he believed Sydney Smith advocated, when he said the best way to stop railway 1449 accidents was to put a railway director on each buffer of the engine. As for those poor wretches who lived on potatoes and stirabout, and earned, perhaps, only 1s. a-day, it appeared they might be arrested, and welcome, without rousing any right hon. Gentleman's indignation. It was a very different thing when they came to arrest a Professor from Eton, and Head Master Henry George, a person who had been invited to dine with two Cabinet Ministers. When these gentlemen were arrested, the country began to understand the horrors of the situation, and their indignation at once burst out. They could arrest a poor man in the West of Ireland dressed in a frieze coat; but directly they arrested a gentleman in a black coat the House was going to come to pieces. Hitherto the right hon. Gentleman had been afraid to caution the police about abusing the Prevention of Crime Act; but now, because they had arrested two swells, they were told that the police were to be cautioned not to do it any more. He might say, of all the absurdities of the British Government, he had never heard the equal of this. If he, like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, were a British official, he should defend everything the Irish police did. If the British Government in Ireland was good, it was proper for them to defend it all through. In the view of the Irish Members, the end the British Government had in view was frightfully bad; but, bad as it was, the English Government, holding the opinion they did with regard to it, ought to stick to the machinery they had prepared for its maintenance. One of two things would happen to the right hon. Gentleman—either he would get hardened in defending the police in swearing that that which was white was black, and that that which was black was white; or, in spite of his official character, the honesty of his soul would come to the surface and assert itself, and they would find him retiring from his post dismayed and disgusted.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that, as an old Eton boy, he wished to bear his testimony to the fact that Mr. Joynes was an Eton Master and a perfect gentleman. He was a straightforward and an honest Englishman; and he (Sir Henry Fletcher) was sure that all that 1450 had been done had been done by mistake.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 81: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 326.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £75,317, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Office.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,082,146 (including a Supplementary sum of £300,000), 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 Constabulary Force in Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he supposed the Government scarcely cherished such an expectation as that this Vote could pass without a fight upon it. Under other circumstances, it seemed to him that it would have been necessary to have made the subject of this Vote a matter of extended observation; but they had had on recent occasions an opportunity of discussing the condition and the recent duty of the Constabulary in Ireland, and they had an assurance from the Chief Secretary that his personal attention would be given to the subject of keeping the members of the Police Force in that country within the pale of the law. They had also heard that a Circular had been sent round warning the officers and the men not to exercise more discretion than they had authority to exercise under the extraordinary powers of the Coercion Act. Under these circumstances, he did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion of any great length; but, at the same time, it appeared to him to be desirable to say that with regard to certain officers of the Constabulary, officers whose names had been prominent before the House and the country, it was necessary to insist that some action should be taken on their account. He referred especially to County Inspector Smith, of Clare; to Inspector Ball, of Ballina; to Inspector Rogers, of Tullaghmore, and others. The nature and extent of the misconduct of these officers had been more than once explained in that House, and he should not trouble the Committee with any further detailed reference to it; but 1451 he would appeal to the Chief Secretary that if Sub-Inspectors and County Inspectors provoked conflicts which led to the loss of life, they could not be punishable in the course of law. He entertained a hope that there might be some inquiries into the conduct of these officers. He had heard complaints from more than one constable that the conflicts which had occurred between the police, and the people were due in a large measure to the officers, who had provoked conflicts against the wish of the men. The officers had thought it necessary to maintain the military character of the Force; and it was due to that desire to develop the military character of the Force that it had become so useless to protect life in Ireland. He would put before the Chief Secretary an axiom which might be of some use—that in proportion as the military character of the Force was lessened, and was freed from the oppressive military code of drill, so its efficiency would increase. There was a wanton arrest of men, and bad treatment of men when they were arrested. In one case a man, who was suffering from lung disease, was confined in a cell seven feet by nine inches, and he had to be held up to the small window to get air. He knew of cases in which men were thrown into prison under the Coercion Act, and in their absence the police annoyed their families by prowling about their houses, greatly to the discomfort of their wives and children. The right hon. Gentleman had urged that bygones should be bygones in relation to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That was, no doubt, the Government view of dealing with the outcome of that gentleman's actions; but he hoped while the right hon. Gentleman said that, there would be some assurance that the future would be different from the past. He could refer to the conduct of the police under the Coercion Act; but it was enough now to say that they had arrested men simply for lighting their pipes under a hedge; and they had even thrown girls into prison. The opinion in Ireland was that there was a Police Force every member of which felt himself at liberty to irritate and annoy and torment those whom he took into custody, and to alarm those who were left at home, and that the youngest constable felt that in pursuing this course he was commanding, at least, the tacit approval of the higher 1452 officials placed over him. He hoped all this would be changed. Before the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) left Office, he had lost all faith in that right hon. Gentleman, not only in regard to his administration, but in regard to his Answers to Questions in that House; but he regarded in a different light the present Chief Secretary. He had had occasion to ask that right hon. Gentleman many Questions, and up to the present time he had not found in any case anything such as he should call a suppression of facts, of the substitution of equivocal Answers for the plain, frank facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary told the truth. He did not mean to convey an imputation that the right hon. Gentleman would tell a falsehood under any circumstances; but he thought there was something in the right hon. Gentleman which prevented the authorities from playing disgraceful deceptions upon him as they did on the late Chief Secretary. It was for that reason that he refrained from referring to those improprieties and cruelties which might be laid to the fault of the police. He would make an abstract of the communications he had received, and would place in the hands of the Chief Secretary the names of the persons accused of misconduct, with a statement of the nature and time and circumstances of their misconduct. He would depend upon the right hon. Gentleman to have a careful and independent inquiry into these statements, and to rely upon his own independent judgment. He would do this with more confidence because there might be an Autumn Session, when, although it was intended to devote that to a particular purpose, there might be opportunities of judging of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman fulfilled his pledges. In the meantime, he was content to rely upon the character of the present Chief Secretary.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to draw attention to the answer of the Solicitor General for Ireland with regard to certain police transactions. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a series of denials which he might have spared the House; and he (Mr. Healy) desired to place the true facts of the case before the Committee, and ask upon what the hon. and learned Gentleman founded himself. He had brought before the 1453 House a case of "Boycotting" Her Majesty's Sub-Commissioners in Castletown, and the fact that a gun-boat had been placed at their disposal, because the Hon. Robert White, J. P., had closed his hotel. The hon. and learned Gentleman fell back on the excuse that Mr. White closed his hotel because of a lack of waiters; but there was another hotel in that town, kept by an "ex-suspect," and the police permitted Mr. White to shut up his hotel for the alleged lack of waiters; and, of course, Mr. John George M'Carthy would not bemean the Sub-Commissioners by going to the hotel of a "suspect." He (Mr. Healy) had put a Question with regard to the "Boycotting" of the Sub-Commissioners by Mr. White, whether it was not the fact that, under the Prevention of Crime Act, persons of humble class had been sent to gaol for refusing to work for persons whom they disliked; and the hon. and learned Gentleman, taking advantage of the absence of his Colleague, denied that that had been the case. But just before, near Cloyne, a smith was sent to prison for refusing to shoe the horse of a person, and a labourer in the smithy was also sent to prison. The smith stated that he would only shoe the horses of his customers, and. the Inspector told him he should shoe anybody's horse that was brought to him. Yet the Solicitor General for Ireland denied that persons of humble class had been sent to prison for "Boycotting." He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman's subterfuge was that the smith was not a person of humble class, but he would dispute that; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman denied that labourers had been sent to gaol he would take leave to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated what was grossly inaccurate. Here was Mr. Robert White shutting up his hotel, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was not an hotel-keeper, because the licence was not in his name. But he drew the money, and was a brother of Lord Bantry, against whom land cases had been filed; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman gave this unsifted statement simply, he presumed, on the word of a local police officer down in Castletown-Berehaven. A gun-boat was placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners, and they had to travel 40 miles a-day in the gun-boat in wild weather, because 1454 Mr. White was short of waiters. If, instead of Mr. Robert White, it had been the case of Mr. O'Gorman, of Charleville, the police would have been sent to call upon him. There was not a single record of a process in Ireland under the old Act used against Mr. O'Gorman, and Mr. Justice Stephen, in the Criminal Code Bill, proposed its repeal; but the Attorney General for Ireland came and rooted up that Act, and put it in force against Mr. O'Gorman. Not being content with a civil verdict against that gentleman, he entered a criminal prosecution against him; and then to-day, with disingenuousness, the Solicitor General for Ireland stated that that prosecution had been "dropped." He should like to characterize that statement with the strongest words it was possible to use in that House. The statement was wholly and absolutely inaccurate. The prosecution was not dropped, but was pursued vindictively against this man under this old Statute, which had never been put in force in Ireland or in England; and it was only when an honest jury refused to be a party to nefarious chicanery that the prosecution was dropped, because it could not be sustained any longer. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman came forward to-day and claimed in his clemency to have dropped the prosecution. If there was an Act in force, let it be applied with an equal hand. He could understand the Chief Secretary being horrified at black-coated people being put in prison sometimes. Labourers might be put in prison, but not Hon. Robert Whites and brothers of Lord Bantry, who carried on the high and mighty trade of hotel-keepers, and shut their doors because they were in want of waiters. Were waiters so short in Ireland? Were the numbers of excursionists so small? Why did not the Chief Secretary inquire into the matter when the hotel was closed? The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) went down there and took good custom with him in the shape of military and police, and the hotel was not closed; but when the Commissioners went down the Hon. Robert White was short of waiters. All that was claimed was that the Act should be put in force with equal hand; and all he would say was that he hoped when the Attorney General for Ireland achieved high office, as he had not chosen to pro- 1455 ceed against the Hon. Robert White, he would order the release of the humbler individuals who were in prison.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not quite see what purpose the hon. Member for Wexford had in view; but be could not allow the hon. Member's remarks to pass without some observations. He did not rise to defend himself in this matter, for he had given an answer from the best official information he could obtain, and he had not the faintest doubt that his statement was perfectly accurate in every respect. As to the other charge—that against the Attorney General for Ireland—it was one of the ways of the hon. Member to use the words "nefarious chicanery;" but he did not think such a remark would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee, or would tend much to the propriety of the debates. His right hon. and learned Friend was known to the House to be absolutely incapable of swerving from the truth; and he thought that observation, in his absence, might have been spared. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did in the Charleville case was this. Mr. O'Gorman refused to open his hotel to Emergency men. That was an offence under the English and the Irish law, and had been punished both in England and in Ireland—[Mr. HEALY: Never.]—and he thought it undesirable that the law should be dispensed with. The Attorney General for Ireland, therefore, in the exercise of his duty, took proceedings against Mr. O'Gorman. Since the Question was asked to-day upon this matter, he had ascertained that the hon. Member was quite accurate as to the case having gone so far as a disagreement of the jury; but he himself had been perfectly accurate in what he had then said—not being aware that the trial had gone so far—that the Attorney General for Ireland deliberately and advisedly allowed the prosecution to drop. A prosecution was not terminated by a disagreement of the jury, but the Attorney General for Ireland allowed the matter to drop, because the landlord had been mulcted in two civil cases, and was in prison under the Coercion Act, and the Attorney General for Ireland thought the proceedings might be allowed to drop. With respect to the other matter, he had not the least doubt that Mr. 1456 White was the landlord of the hotel, and he was informed that Mr. White was the landlord of the hotel, and nothing more. As to the gun-boat, it was true that the Sub - Commissioners had to stay at Glengariff—an exceedingly pleasant place to stay at—and, one hotel being closed for the want of servants, they preferred to go to the hotel at a distance. This matter was really not worth being dealt with in Parliament, and he should not have thought of speaking, but that the hon. Member had made some rather strong remarks.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was too much the custom of Law Officers to make statements simply on their own authority; but there never had been either a conviction or a prosecution in England under this old Statute, and Mr. Justice Stephen, in his Criminal Code, had recommended its repeal.
§ MR. O'DONNELL,upon this Vote, wished for some information which he casually applied for some time ago in a Question addressed to the Chief Secretary with reference to the disproportion of Catholics and Protestants in the Royal Irish Constabulary, from the lowest to the highest grades. He did not bring this question forward in any religious spirit, nor did he care whether a constable was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant; but he was bound to call attention to serious facts of which he wished some explanation. He procured a Return in 1880 of all the members of different ranks in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and from that it appeared that there were some 11,000 or 12,000 sub-constables; and of those, two-thirds, or nearly three-fourths, were Roman Catholics. As he advanced to the rank of constable and to the higher grades he found the number of Roman Catholics strangely diminished, until he came to the officers, of whom there were 240; and of those, only about 35 or 40 were Roman Catholics, while three-fourths of the men of the lower grades were Roman Catholics. He wished to know what was the reason of this apparent exclusion of Roman Catholics from the rank of officers? To a certain extent he could answer his own question. There were so many vacancies filled up by the Inspector General of Constabulary, so many by the Lord Lieutenant, and so many by competition. But in the competition nominations were required, 1457 and the result of this system of recruiting was that the Inspector practically himself nominated Protestants; the Lord Lieutenant also largely nominated Protestants, and the result of the system of nomination by which officers were chosen excluded Roman Catholics in nine out of ten cases. He thought he should not press too much on the Liberalism of the Chief Secretary if he said it was high time for this sort of thing to cease. The idea that the Protestants were better educated in Ireland than Roman Catholics had more truth formerly than at the present, and did not explain the preponderance of Protestant officers in the Constabulary, because the educational requirements of the Constabulary officers were slight—not to exaggerate the matter. Any ordinary young country gentleman, with a small amount of coaching, could makeup all that was required for a Constabulary officer. He presumed that the Roman Catholic was pretty nearly as open as the Protestant to the reception of that species of knowledge which was calculated to make a police officer of him. Then, again, among the County Inspectors, of whom there were about 30, the Protestants were in the proportion of two to one, so that, practically, while all the good berths in the Constabulary were secured for Protestants, the merest minority of Roman Catholics were admitted—not more than one in seven or eight; while the vast majority of the rank and file were Roman Catholics. He made this statement on the authority of a very large number of men of all ranks in the Constabulary. At the time when he took this question up a couple of years ago, he received a large pile of letters from the Constabulary all over Ireland, who, without making any complaint against their officers, pointed out that in a great number of cases the Protestant officers found themselves almost naturally led to choose Protestant sub-constables for promotion; and the fact that there was such an enormous Protestant preponderance of officers explained the circumstance that there was also an undue preponderance of Protestant constables and head constables. The mass of the sub-constables were Roman Catholics; but in the non-commissioned ranks Protestants always got the best promotions and the best places. Another explanation had been given to 1458 him, which he would ask the Chief Secretary to bear in mind. He was told by dozens of correspondents that most of the favouritism which existed in the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary in regard to selection of constables and head constables for promotion, and also in the promotion in the officers' ranks, was to be attributed less to the Protestantism of the leading authorities than to the Freemasonry of the leading authorities. He received statements that it was almost impossible for a Roman Catholic member of the Constabulary to be promoted unless he were a Freemason; but, unfortunately, that offered no escape for a Roman Catholic. He did not wish to say a word that was disrespectful to the Masonic Body; but by the regulations of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, as in other countries, no man could be at the same time a Freemason and a Roman Catholic. If a man became a Freemason he ceased to be a Catholic, and that must be a certain bar on the consciences of Catholics. A Protestant constable had to take an oath that he was not a member of a secret society; but, although the Freemasons were a secret body, the oath did not obtain in regard to them. The Freemasons were a most respectable body in Ireland and in England; but, on the Continent, they were one of the most formidable revolutionary bodies in existence, and he thought the Government ought to watch the influence of Freemasonry so far as it tended to convert the general comradeship which ought to exist in the Constabulary into the comradeship of Freemasonry as distinct from that which should exist in the general body of the Force. He only wished now to lay these considerations before the Chief Secretary without asking for any explanation on the subject; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take note of these facts, and inquire whether there was any jealousy of Freemasonry in the Constabulary, and whether he should take steps to redress the enormous existing inequality between Protestants and Catholics in the higher grades of the Constabulary, looking to the fact that an overwhelming majority of constables were Catholics.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had stated that he only proposed to lay these matters before the Irish Government; and al- 1459 though, he did not think the hon. Member wanted any detailed answer, he should like to see the figures from which the hon. Member had quoted from memory. The general bearing of the Return, as described by the hon. Member, he would take for granted; but the practical question was whether the Irish Government would do what they could to correct this inequality. He might fall back on the principle that he ought not to inquire into matters of religion. In this case it was sufficient that the idea had got abroad that the Roman Catholics had not their fair proportion of men in the Constabulary. Under ordinary circumstances, he should have said that men ought not to be excluded from the Service on account of their religious principles; but, fortunately, the principles of open competition had been introduced into the Royal Irish Constabulary, and one of the many advantages of those principles was that the authorities were enabled to appoint even a somewhat overplus of nominations to a particular class, because it was certain that they would be tested by the process of open competition. Ever since he had been in his present Office he had been glad to receive the name of any young Protestant or young Catholic for the Constabulary. He had not received as many as he could have wished, and it was not always easy to find Irish Roman Catholics such as he wished to see in the Constabulary. He was always glad to receive such names and to see such young men try their chance against others in the open competition. Up to the present that competition had been held under circumstances which, on the whole, he thought were not the best. As vacancies occurred very often these men were appointed for trial; three or four of them were, perhaps, good Roman Catholics; but there might be one who was better than they were, and the consequence was that the three eligible men were defeated, and then they had to come forward subsequently as other men went out. That was not the process for Fellowships at Oxford; and he proposed to correct this system by waiting till there was a small reservoir of vacancies and a somewhat larger examination, which would secure a greater average of candidates, so that each person who was deserving would have a chance, and everyone who was very deserving 1460 something little less than a certainty, and four or five out of 20 men might get in.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 14: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 327.)
§ (4.) £100,704, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDdesired to urge upon his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland the expediency of appointing a small Royal Commission to examine into and report upon the condition of the convict and local prisons in Ireland, upon the management of those prisons, and upon the constitution and working of the present Prisons Board. He felt quite sure that the Chief Secretary would, if a Commission were not granted, set to work with the ability and vigour which he had displayed in his Office to inquire into these points; but he felt equally sure that, looking to the pledges which the Chief Secretary had already given to examine into other Departments and other subjects, it would be simply impossible for him to undertake such an inquiry. He could not find time to make that personal inspection into the prisons which was absolutely necessary. He (Sir Henry Holland) spoke from experience upon that point, as he had acted as one of the Royal Commissioners who were appointed in 1878 to inquire into the working of the Penal Servitude Acts; and they found it not only necessary to visit the different convict prisons, and to see themselves the cells and food and general system of working the prisons, and to take the evidence of Governors and warders, but also to communicate with many of the convicts alone in their cells, without the presence of the Governor or warders. In this way only could they get the prisoners to speak freely. He need hardly add that such statements had to be very carefully tested, as they were often highly coloured, and, indeed, often without foundation; but it was desirable to get hold of these complaints, as they formed the groundwork of further inquiry. It might be urged against his proposal that the Royal Commission, to which he had referred, had, in fact, examined into the convict prisons of Ireland, and reported 1461 as recently as in 1879. No doubt that was the ease; but he would point out that the Commission did not inquire into the working of local prisons, and this would form the first part of the work of the proposed Royal Commission. The second branch of their work would be to see how far effect had been given to the recommendations made by the Royal Commission with respect to the convict prisons. He would not, at that late hour, go through those recommendations; but he might state that the most important ones referred to the abolition of Spike Island as a prison; an alteration in the dietaries; a revision of the system of marks, so as to make it more uniform with the system in force in England; and to the establishing an independent inspection of prisons by persons unconnected with the Government or with the Prisons Board. Now, as regarded Spike Island, he believed that some prisoners had been removed, but that the place was still kept up as a convict prison, although it was most unsuitable for that purpose. As regarded the independent inspection, he was informed that it had failed, from what cause he was not now prepared to say; but, unless he was mistaken, the Chief Secretary himself admitted, a short time ago, that since December, 1880, there had only been one visit paid. The third branch of the inquiry of the proposed Commission would relate to the constitution and working of the present Prisons Board. In 1854, a Board of Directors, with a Chairman, was appointed under the Convict Prison Act for Ireland. It was very similar to the Board now existing in England, and the members of it themselves personally and regularly visited the prisons. Now, in his opinion, and he thought he might add in the opinion of the Royal Commission, members of the Board, who were both Directors and Inspectors—as now in England—were, if they did their duty, in a far better position to understand and to remedy the evils and defects of the system than if they merely acted on the Reports of Inspectors and Governors. It was good also for the prisoners, as it made them feel that they were treated with justice. They then knew that their cases and complaints reached the highest executive authority. If the Directors did not visit the prison, the prisoners did not feel sure that their cases were 1462 reported, or, at all events, that they were accurately reported and not coloured by the Inspectors or Governors. It was no slight advantage to make the prisoners believe that, though they were treated with severity, they were treated justly, and that no favour was shown, and a face to face inquiry greatly promoted that belief. But from 1862 to 1869 there were several changes in the constitution of the Prisons Board, and in 1869 there was only two Directors, and, in fact, for five years after 1873 Captain Barlow was sole Director. The present Board was constituted in 1877, and consisted of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and two other members. One of these latter members was unpaid; but he was paid in respect of other official duties which he performed, and which must take up a considerable portion of his time. Under the Board were three Inspectors. He (Sir Henry Holland) was not sure how far the members of the Board paid visits to the prisons; but, if he was rightly informed, they acted, as a rule, on the Reports of the Inspectors; and if such were the case, he thought the system needed revision for the reasons he had above stated. He trusted that, without going at length into the matter, he had shown that there was good ground for appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the convict and local prisons of Ireland and into the working of the Prisons Board, and that the Chief Secretary would favourably consider the proposal.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had long been distinguished for the care and attention which he had paid to the question of prison discipline, and for the humanitarian views he had always expressed on the general question. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had given the weight of his powerful recommendation to the appointment of a Royal or small Commission in Ireland, for the purpose of investigating the condition of the prisons subject to the Act of 1877, and also to the condition of the convict prisons in that country. In addition to the matters which the hon. Gentleman had alluded to, he (Mr. Parnell) wished to direct the Chief Secretary's attention specially to some other matters which constituted clear defects in the management of prisons, and which required to be immediately 1463 looked to. The subject of independent inspection was a very important one, although it was a very difficult one. He feared very much that one of the great evils attending the passing of the Prisons' Act of 1877 had been the doing away with the independent inspection by the Justices which previously existed. Experience had shown that the Visiting Justices appointed under the Act of 1877 took no practical interest whatever in their functions; and, having no power to cause obedience to their recommendations, they visited the prisons in a most perfunctory fashion. In fact, as a general rule, the functions of Visiting Justices had entirely ceased under the new regulations. He thought that a very wise course to adopt with regard to independent inspection of prisons would be to take advantage of the Local Boards which now existed in Ireland, and to appoint the Boards of independent inspection, partly from the elected Guardians, and partly from the ex-officio Guardians of the Unions in which the prisons were situated, and, where there were Corporate Bodies, that those Corporate Bodies should be empowered to name persons from amongst their members to act as independent Inspectors of both county and borough prisons and convict prisons. By doing that, a body of men would be got who would fulfil the duties of independent inspection, both to the satisfaction of the public and of the Government. He would wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, while on the question of independent inspection, to a Circular which was issued lately by Sir Walter Crofton in regard to this matter, and to the treatment of men who might be imprisoned under the Prevention of Crime Act for agrarian offences. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Sir Walter Crofton filled, for many years, with the utmost distinction, the position of Chairman of the Irish Prison Board, and only resigned that office so recently as 1878. Sir Walter Crofton said that, in 1879, Lord Kimberley's Commission on Penal Servitude, after a very close examination of prison officials, recommended that arrangements should be made for the independent inspection of convict prisons by persons appointed by the Government and unconnected with the Department, and unpaid. In the case 1464 of Ireland that recommendation had been practically disregarded, although the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), then Home Secretary, did institute a system of independent inspection for English prisons, which he (Mr. Parnell) thought was far from being sufficiently minute to satisfy the requirements of the case. Sir Walter Crofton pointed out that, in his evidence before Lord Kimberley's Commission, he showed the special necessity which existed in Ireland for such a control over the prison administration as would be afforded by a real independent outside inspection, and stated that, although in England such inquiries had constantly been held, no such investigation had been made in Ireland for 25 years, the obvious result being that the Governors had been unchecked in their management. That was a state of things which would not be tolerated in England. Sir Walter Crofton went on to say—
Having regard to the consequences of the Prevention of Crime legislation,—and this was what he (Mr. Parnell) particularly wished to direct the attention of the Committee to—I do not think any time should be lost in instituting safeguards against abuse. In my early management of Irish convict prisons I had a very large number of men convicted of belonging to secret societies, administering unlawful oaths, &c., and I know them to be a sensitive class, requiring great care in their management.Sir Walter Crofton separated the class of persons who were likely to be convicted under the Prevention of Crime Act from the criminal class. He looked upon them as a different order of men, not necessarily criminal by nature, and almost as having committed a sort of political offence requiring special treatment and care. Sir Walter Crofton wound up by making several recommendations; but it was not necessary to trouble the Committee with them at that time of the night (12.30). He (Mr. Parnell) wished to add one or two observations derived from his own practical experience of the treatment of convicted persons in Kilmainham. The part of the prison in which he and his hon. Friends were imprisoned was separated from the main body of the prison, where the other "suspects" were confined; it was that in which the criminal prisoners or convicted prisoners were imprisoned. 1465 He believed there were 60 or 65 of such prisoners, and he had daily opportunities of observing their treatment, their appearance, their demeanour, and so forth, and also the condition of their cells. The general impression made upon his mind was that these prisoners were suffering from insufficient food and clothing, that their cells were not properly warmed, and that many of them were exceedingly damp, and that the prisoners were treated with an ostentatious appearance of harshness and brutality by the warders. Knowing, as he did, many of the warders to be most humane men, he could only suppose that, owing to long custom and habit, they had come to believe it was necessary that this class of prisoners should be treated in this way. These convicted prisoners were spoken to, and ordered and directed by the warders as if they were dogs. He had seen men after they had suffered 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour—he had known them before they were sent into prison; he had known them to be well and able-bodied men, and he had seen them after 18 months' imprisonment come out permanently, he feared, enfeebled both in mind and body. He had seen a statement in print by one of the Irish Judges to the effect that no person could stand a sentence of imprisonment for two years with hard labour without its leaving a permanent effect upon his mind or his body, and that such a period of imprisonment was more useful in its effect than sentences of five, six, or seven years' penal servitude. He (Mr. Parnell) believed that to be perfectly true. There were very few men who, under the present prison discipline in Ireland, could stand six months' imprisonment with hard labour without it permanently enfeebling them in body; and he believed that an imprisonment of two years would, in all probability, also enfeeble them in mind. Of course, he was making a general attack. What he had to say applied to every class of prisoners. He considered that the treatment of prisoners in Irish prisons was inhumane, that the prisoners did not get enough to eat. Short term prisoners only got 20 ounces of farinaceous food a-day, and long term prisoners received very little more. The demeanour of the warders towards them was, in many cases, exceedingly brutal; and he trusted there might be a Commission 1466 appointed to inquire into the general management of prisons, and also to inquire what difference, if any, there should be as regarded the treatment of prisoners who might be convicted for offences against the Prevention of Crime Act, which, of course, would not be offences against the ordinary law of England. He thought he was entitled to ask for somewhat less harsh treatment of prisoners convicted under the Summary Jurisdiction Clauses of this Act for offences specially constructed by the Legislature this Session. He wished to give the Committee an illustration of the need for independent inspection, and of the absolute necessity, where that inspection took place, that the prisoners should be examined apart from the prison officials. He had reason to believe that that was very seldom done. It was the custom—it was the law, in fact—that when a child was sent to a Reformatory, it must, first of all, be imprisoned for a fortnight in one of the common gaols of the county. He did not know the reason of this provision; it was a very foolish and absurd one; but it was the law, and the consequence was that children of tender ages were kept in solitary confinement, and many of them almost frightened to death. When he was in Kilmainham, he often heard children crying in their cells for nights and nights together, and he had wondered that the law should be so. The incident to which he wished to refer was that of a child who was crying all night—crying for its mother. The next day it was still crying. He was out in the yard exercising just under the child's cell. He heard a blow administered to the child; he heard the child dragged from the cell to some distant part of the prison where it cried even louder. He reported the incident to the Governor, and told him he believed the child had been struck. The Governor, a most humane man, at once inquired; but his inquiries were conducted in the presence of warders, and, he believed, in the presence of the very warder who had struck the child. The child, of course, denied that it had been struck. He inquired of the chaplain, and that gentleman told him that the child had been struck. He mentioned this as an illustration of the necessity for such inspection as would insure the examination of prisoners in private, and apart from the prison 1467 officials. Now he wished to say a word in regard to the treatment of political prisoners—that was to say, of prisoners who might be sent to penal servitude, like the prisoner Walsh, for political offences. It was one of the disgraces of this country that there was no separate or different treatment for political prisoners. No one would say that even the man Walsh, who had been sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, ought to be classed with murderers, wife beaters, and the ordinary criminal scum of the cities. He did not mean to say that such a man as Walsh ought not to be punished now that he had been convicted; but if there were to be many convictions of a similar kind in Ireland, he warned the Government that the treatment of the men would leave marks behind which they would not be able to get rid of for many years to come. It was so in the case of the last Fenian outbreak, during which outbreak many men by their treatment were driven out of their minds. The Committee had it on evidence given before the Devon Commission that many of the Fenian prisoners were brought over from Ireland and stripped of their flannels in the winter time in order that their punishment might be the more severe. Some of the prisoners lost their health permanently in consequence of the treatment they had received; and their sufferings, he said, would constitute a lasting disgrace to the prison discipline of the time. Let the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given before the Commission which sat to inquire into the treatment of prisoners who were confined for political offences; let him read the evidence of Mr. Davitt, and then say whether, in his opinion, the treatment which he received was proper treatment for a man of his class and character to receive; whether he did not feel ashamed that he had received such treatment. The cruelty from which he suffered continued until he was invalided and allowed to go into an infirmary cell. There was no power under the existing law to give exceptional or lenient treatment to a person convicted of treason-felony; unless he was made out to be an invalid he would have to go through the same horrible treatment that was meted out to the criminal classes. He said this was a wrong, and in the event of there being convictions obtained for treason- 1468 felony in Ireland he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to look into the matter, and save themselves from the reproach of treating men honourable in their opinions as if they were the enemies of the human race. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to grant what the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had asked for, and Irish Members would then have somebody before whom they would be entitled to lay their complaints with regard to the present treatment in Ireland of political and other prisoners.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that at that time of the evening, and at that time of the Session, he should be very much to blame if he were to detain the Committee with an argumentative speech. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland), who opened this discussion, had stated with great truth that, when he (Mr. Trevelyan), went back to Ireland, he would have to look into a great many questions; but that they were questions which, on the whole, anyone accustomed to administration might hope, with care and attention, to be able to influence. But his hon. Friend, than whom no man in that House had a wider or more exact knowledge of the various Departments of the State, knew very well that the question of prison administration was one which it would be idle for him to say he would pay attention to when he went back to Ireland. But he might say that the Lord Lieutenant, with whom he had conversed on the subject, appeared to be favourable to the appointment of Commissioners to examine into the state of the Irish prisons, and very much so for the reasons laid down by his hon. Friend opposite. He would only detain the Committee for the purpose of adding that, in view of the many questions and problems presented by the carrying out of the Protection of Person and Property Act and the Prevention of Crime Act, and considering the great changes that had taken place within recent years, he could not but feel that the time had come for an inquiry into the management of Irish prisons.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTdesired to express the great satisfaction he felt at the announcement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the management of prisons in Ire- 1469 land. The appointment of such a body would be very likely to rectify any abuses which might exist in the Irish prisons, and so remove the just causes of complaint which, unfortunately, gave occasion for the exaggerations of popular speakers. There were two points which he wished to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Commission—first, that they should consider the condition of Spike Island Prison; and, secondly, the question of the establishment of a system of outside and independent inspection of Irish prisons. He had, as a member of the Penal Servitude Commission, seen Spike Island, which had left upon his mind the most painful recollections; and he felt sure that those Members who had seen it, or might see it hereafter, would retain equally unpleasant impressions of it. He did not remember to have spent a more disagreeable time than when he visited the place in question. Not only were the approaches to Spike Island objectionable, but the arrangements under which it existed were altogether eminently unsatisfactory; and, therefore, he trusted the whole subject would be considered. He had on many occasions been forced to disregard complaints made in that House by Irish Members; but he had no hesitation in saying that the management of prisons in Ireland was a question which ought to receive attention; and he repeated the satisfaction he felt at the announcement that it would meet with the consideration it deserved at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to an independent system of inspection of prisons, he pointed out that the Commission on which he had the honour of serving, under the Presidency of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Kimberley), reported in favour of the application of that system to the prisons in England and Ireland, and that recommendation with respect to England, where few complaints were heard, had been carried out; but with regard to Ireland, the prisons of which country were the subject of constant reproach and complaint, nothing had been done in the way of providing independent inspection. He would therefore impress upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of organizing a system of real inspection by means of Committees, before 1470 whom people would have an opportunity of laying their complaints.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked that the convicts at Spike Island found useful occupation in constructing a breakwater. However, the place was condemned on all hands; and he took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a Royal Commission were appointed, its functions would include the examination of witnesses, or the investigation of the question as to whether a new convict prison should be made in place of Spike Island, and, if so, whether the public would be allowed to give evidence?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was under the impression that an official inquiry had taken place in connection with the subject just referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, and that ground had been marked out whereon to erect a new prison. He could not, however, pledge himself to any details, nor make any other promise than that when the time came for taking into consideration the scope of the inquiry, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway should be named.
§ Vote agreed to.