§ (3.) £18,000, Law Charges.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he should like the Home Secretary to inform the Committee whether the Government intended to pay the expenses of the conveyance of prisoners committed for trial or otherwise at the Petty Sessions to the Government prisons, the case of the county of Surrey, which had been tried, having been decided against them.
§ Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.
§ MR. SEXTON
said, he understood that they were on the Vote for Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland. Already £86,000 had been paid for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland during the past year, and the Committee were now asked for £1,900, which brought the total up to £115,000, which was an unparalleled sum to ask for in one year for this one purpose. He should like to ask whether this sum had been spent in the ordinary course for the detection and punishment of crime? He did not believe it had, but that this inflated Estimate had arisen from the indirect and mean methods pursued by the Executive for the purpose of terrorizing people out of the organization of the Land League. He did not propose to go back to the State Prosecution in 1880, although he saw a sum of £6,000 charged here as a balance in regard to this prosecution. He would merely say that the Executive, in entering upon that prosecution, must have known that they were engaged in a monstrous farce. They must have known that in endeavouring to give the Land League an illegal and criminal complexion they were acting in opposition to the public judgment and conscience, and they must have had some notion that the case would end as it did. Ireland, although to some people an unhappy country, at this moment was a tolerably pleasant one for the lawyers. The Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland, though they might shake the nerves of the House and excite the feelings of the country with regard to the condition of Ireland, had been having a very good time of it there of late. As to the money now asked for it had been spent, not in the detection and pursuit of crime, but for the purpose of attacking the Land League before it was declared an illegal 1668 organization. Last year the Government authorized various prosecutions against members of the Land League, not because they were members of the Land League, but on various grounds. It was impossible for a number of men to assemble together for a lawful purpose—for the purpose of building a house for instance—or to associate together for the purpose of helping and defending labourers who were helpless and starving, without a prosecution being levelled against them by the officials of Dublin Castle. He remembered one case which had occurred in Wicklow which would illustrate the absurdity of these proceedings. A car driver, in deference to public feeling in his district, refused to drive some police to the scene of an eviction. Pressure was brought to bear on him, and in time he yielded; and a son of his, who was standing by, made a remark, blaming him for what he had done, and the result was a criminal prosecution against the boy for the crime of intimidating his own father. He should like to say a word or two about a peculiar class of case that occurred in Ireland last summer. Some licensed traders—publicans—were thrown into prison by virtue of the Coercion Act. There was John Sweeny, of Loughrea, and Thomas M'Giffney, who were deprived of their liberty. Now, they were familiar with the dictum of the Government that the Coercion Act was for prevention and not for punishment; but what happened in these two cases? Why the Sub-Inspector had notices served—in the one case on the wife of Sweeny, and in the other case on M'Giffney himself in gaol—to the effect that these persons were persons of bad character, and that the police intended to proceed against them and break their licences. At a public meeting of the Land League he (Mr. Sexton) had felt it his duty to expose this class of proceeding; and he would do the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the justice to say that directly this exposure was made the proceedings about to be instituted by the police were interrupted and stopped. A large portion of this money, however, had been spent in intimidating licensed traders, who had refused to allow the use of their cars to the police. It must be obvious to the Committee that in the state of feeling prevailing in Ireland last summer it was often as much 1669 as a man's trade was worth to lend his cars to the police for the purpose of carrying out evictions; and in these cases of refusal counsel were brought down to the Licensing Sessions to oppose the applications of the publicans for the renewal of their licences. He was glad to say that the publicans were not left undefended. There was public spirit and finance enough in the country to defend the people; but he thought they were entitled to ask why the Government spent the public money in these legal proceedings?
§ MR. SEXTON
said, he could only say for his own part, that he took a deep interest in this Vote, and considered the importance of it entitled him, in the performance of a public duty, to speak on it. He should not be diverted from his purpose by the interruptions of a few hon. Members. He arraigned this method of spending public money. These men had committed no offence against the law, for they were perfectly entitled to have regard to public feeling and protect their businesses; and, therefore, the Government had no right to prosecute them. There were one or two other cases which bore on this expenditure which he should like to mention. In the first place, there was the case of Dr. Michael O'Brien, a gentleman of great personal ability, who was now confined in Limerick Gaol. Dr. O'Brien gave evidence against a County Inspector—Smith—and the police under his charge, in regard to a gross, and to a great extent, unprovoked assault on the people, which was made the subject of criminal proceedings. Dr. O'Brien had to travel some distance to Cork to attend the sessions under his subpœna. He was told that witnesses would be paid their expenses if brought from outside the district; and yet, in the end, although he had come from outside, because he had given evidence against the police, the authorities refused to pay him the sum allowed to professional people and even his expenses as an ordinary witness. More than this, very shortly after the trial, Dr. O'Brien was arrested and sent to gaol, where he remained 1670 up to the present time. There was no reason in the world for this arrest, except that of vengeance, in consequence of Dr. O'Brien's having had the courage to come forward and give evidence against the police. He would mention one other case, and he was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight and Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was in his place, as he was, to some extent, interested in the matter. He referred to the case of Mr. Henry Brennan, of Cliffoney, County Sligo, a gentleman of acknowledged public spirit. Mr. Brennan had the misfortune to put himself at the head of the tenants of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who was an extensive landowner in the neighbourhood of Cliffoney. During the period of distress 450 of the tenants of the hon. Gentleman were on the books of the public relief committees. The hon. Member was asked for a reduction of rent; but he refused to give any. Mr. Brennan was the means of distributing £1,400 in relief solely in kind—in Indian meal—to the starving people, and £640 in seed potatoes given by the Board of Guardians. Well, the hon. Member had on his estate a keeper named Barker, who had rendered himself very obnoxious to the tenantry. He had a habit of shooting the dogs and other domestic animals belonging to the people. On one occasion he met a boy named Hugh O'Neil with a dog. The lad fell on the dog to keep it from the keeper's gun, and received several grains of a charge of shot, fired by the keeper, in his eyebrow. On another occasion Barker tired recklessly and wounded a young man named Moohan, whose life was not pronounced out of danger for several days. Barker's only excuse for this was that he was firing at a bird which flew from a plantation adjoining Moohan's land. On another occasion Barker threatened a little boy that he would blow his brains out if he kept taking a certain route over the property. Mr. Brennan, it seemed, had interfered on behalf of the tenantry, who claimed a certain right of way to the sea shore, and the case was taken up to the Court of Queen's Bench, and ultimately settled in favour of the people. On one occasion Mr. Brennan, with a large body of peasantry, crossed over from one shore to another of a bay to hold a public 1671 meeting; but, finding that they could not hold it where they had intended, they held one at the place from which they had started. This was construed into an attempt to intimidate Mr. Barker, consequently Mr. Brennan was summoned before the magistrates—and, in all probability, the cost of that proceeding would come under this Vote—but when the case came on there was only one magistrate in attendance, and he refused to hear it. Subsequently 26 men were prosecuted, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight wrote a letter in reference to the case, declaring that he would employ all the "resources of civilization," and invoke all the law that was for the protection of the citizen, in order to give Mr. Barker the protection he was entitled to. This letter was written to Mr. Brennan, who had been the champion of the people, and who had successfully asserted a right of way that enabled them to collect seaweed from the sea shore. When the prosecution, which had been postponed, came on a Sub-Inspector of police was present, and sat beside the magistrate, and that Sub-Inspector actually had in his pocket during the trial a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Brennan, signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary two days previously. The 26 men were brought before the Petty Sessions Court in the regular course, and after the evidence had been fully gone into they were acquitted. They were adjudged not guilty of unlawfully assembling; but what happened to Mr. Brennan? Why, at 2 o'clock that night, or rather on the following morning, the Sub-Inspector went to his house with the coercion warrant—signed two days before, and to be used in case the prosecution failed—and arrested him. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight, no doubt, had used his influence with the Government; and at 2 o'clock in the morning this innocent man, this man as innocent as the other 26 who were acquitted, whose only crime was that he had had the courage and ability to defend the rights of the tenantry and assert his innocence publicly, had his bedroom broken into, and had to get up and dress himself in the presence of the policeman. The police-constable refused to leave the room and remained in the presence of Mr. Brennan and his wife. Mr. Brennan was not allowed to give 1672 instructions to those at home as to the management of his affairs, the police refused to allow him to take any refreshment before leaving home, and he did not get anything before arriving at Gal-way Gaol. After travelling all night he reached Galway Gaol, where he was locked up; and there he was lying now, simply because he happened to live on the estate of a man who was determined to employ all the "resources of civilization" in defence of his keeper. A warrant was issued for the arrest of Brennan, in obedience to the dictate of a minor Member of the Government, and purely out of personal feeling he was thrown into prison.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
My hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) may wish to make a statement; but before he rises I feel it only right to say this—that he had nothing whatever to do with the arrest of Mr. Brennan.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY
said, it would be very instructive to the Committee and to the country if, the hour being earlier, he could venture to trespass on the time of hon. Members for the purpose of going over the points of this story seriatim, because it would be one of the best illustrations that could be offered to the Committee of the way in which unhappy Ireland was misled, and the people were taken away from the paths of justice and right by the skilful misrepresentations of gentlemen who, whether they knew the truth or did not know it, certainly never approached it. He must ask the Committee to bear with him for a few moments. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said that this Mr. Brennan—as to whose arrest and proceedings he would say in passing—though, perhaps, the hon. Member would not believe him—he had never had any communication, directly or indirectly, with the Chief Secretary or any other Member of the Executive of Ireland—had taken the part of the tenants ground down by him (Mr. Evelyn Ashley). The hon. Member, had also charged him with having refused a reduction of rent. Now, the fact was that he had given a reduction in 1879 of 50 per cent, and another in 1880 of 25 per cent. Mr. Brennan never interfered on behalf of the tenants until after these two periods were past. Mr. Brennan did after that come forward as Secretary of the Land League, and was, 1673 no doubt, the cause of a great deal of disturbance in the district. The hon. Member had described Mr. Brennan as a great champion in having maintained the right of the tenants to a pass down to the sea—in having ultimately vindicated their legal rights in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. In the first place, the question of legal right was not yet settled. It had not been heard in the Court of Queen's Bench. In order, he supposed, to annoy him the matter had been taken into the Court, as there was nothing practical at issue; for when he was last over in Ireland he had said to the tenantry that the matter was not of sufficient importance to allow it to be the cause of any ill-feeling between them, therefore he would give them any passage they desired. The question had not been litigated yet—it was still sub judice. As to another point, one of the most unjust attempts he had ever heard made in any public Assembly was the attempt to twist that letter of his into a threat against Mr. Brennan. The letter in question was one written by him in answer to one from Mr. Brennan, summoning him to dismiss his faithful servant Barker, after a peremptory and unlawful attempt had been made to drive him away by "Boycotting" him—the Land League having previously sent a message that if he would not join the League they would drive him out of the country. He gave his reasons why he should not give way, and ended by saying that he intended to invoke every power of the law to protect his servant and his rights as every citizen should be protected. The letter to which reference had been made had been printed in the Sligo newspaper; and if he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had not been here, the hon. Member opposite, although he had the full text of it, would have misrepresented the circumstances of the case. How, he would ask, could people who wanted to do justice to Ireland fulfil that object when hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Sligo came down and made statements such as the Committee had just heard? The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the patriotic-local Press would print the whole of his speech to-night, and circulate it on all sides amongst the peasantry, whilst the reply made to the charges which had been brought forward would 1674 never be reported. The hon. Member would then go down to the neighbourhood in a few months' time and appear before the people in the character of the champion of the poor and oppressed. All this was disheartening, but he would not mind it. He could only say that all his intercourse with his tenants and with Mr. Henry Brennan was entirely defensive. He had only attempted to defend his servant. By the way, with regard to the absurd charges brought against that servant, to the effect that he had shot people through recklessness or carelessness, all these things had been mentioned to him (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and he had examined into the accusations very closely, and satisfied himself that they were untrue. The whole of the correspondence on these matters had been published in The Standard. He had made no application for the arrest of Brennan. He had had nothing to do with that arrest, and, as far as he was concerned, he did not care two pence whether the man was in gaol or out.
§ MR. CALLAN
said, that the Government promised last year that these accounts should convey information; but he found that, although the sub-head was only a general abstract, it contained as much information as the details. The manner in which these Votes were prepared, after the promise that had been given to hon. Members, was not respectful to the Committee. The Irish Office, he thought, should consent to give details of expenditure of this kind, just as they were furnished in connection with other expenditure.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he did not remember giving any promise in this matter. If his recollection served him right, he had merely stated what would be found in the Appropriation Accounts.
§ MR. GRAY
said, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) used one word that he felt called on to take exception to. He had said that one portion of the personal discussion which had taken place would be published in the Irish papers whilst another portion would not. If there was a single Irish Conservative Member in the House he (Mr. Gray) would appeal to him. whether this charge was true. For his own part he did not believe it was. He believed the Irish Press, taken as a whole, was inclined to give fair play to 1675 both sides; and he considered the suggestion that the Irish Press was partial just about as unjustifiable as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) considered the attack which had been made upon him. The hon. Gentleman considered that personal attack unjustifiable. If it could not be supported, probably it was unjustifiable; but, whether it was or not, it did not entitle the hon. Member to attack others. Without evidence to support him the hon. Gentleman had no right to bring this charge against the Irish Press.
§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the hon. Member (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had stated that he had published the correspondence in this case and all particulars in the London papers. It did not follow that Mr. Brennan and his friends had seen what had been so published. What was said by Irish Members in the House of Commons was not by any means so well reported as speeches which came from Ministers when they were attacking the Irish people or Irish Members. On the whole, the point raised by the hon. Member was a much stronger argument against him than in his favour.
§ MR. SEXTON
said, he did not think it necessary to reply in a general way to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had not even approached the facts of the case in regard to the keeper Barker. ["Oh! oh!"] Well, he would challenge any hon. Member to show where the hon. Gentleman had specifically answered the charges brought against Barker. He was obliged, now, to read to the Committee the letter sent to the hon. Gentleman by Mr. Brennan, in reply to a demand for specific charges. It was as follows:—
§ "Specific charges as requested.
§ Cliffoney, Co. Sligo,
§ 28 September, 1881.
§ "The Hon. Evelyn Ashley, M.P.,
§ 61, Cadogan Place,
§ "Sir.—I beg to reply to your short note of the 5th instant on behalf of the tenantry on your property, relative to the specific charges you require them to bring against your keeper Barker. Allow me to remind you of a case which you must be cognizant of, as you were here in the country at the time of the occurrence. Barker shooting a young boy, a decent farmer's son, named Hugh O'Neil, and several grains of the charge of shot lodged in his eyebrow, which had to be extracted by the medical doctor of the district at the time, and he was in great danger of losing his life—and I may remind you when 1676 the boy was brought before you, you gave him 2s. 6d., and told him to say nothing about it—and the cause of Barker doing such a reckless act was simply because the little boy fell on his dog to save the dog from Barker shooting him, although he was on his own land, on his lawful business, and not in pursuit of game. The boy would have prosecuted only for he being nephew to your land steward. On last winter, when shooting over the lands of Noneygold, he also recklessly fired and wounded another young man named Moohan, and he also was attended by Dr. Roe, and was not able to pronounce his life out of danger for several days. Moohan's father went to the police, and they refused to prosecute in the case. The young man was quite near Barker when he fired, working in his own fields, and cried out to Barker not to fire. Barker's only excuse for this was that he was firing at a bird which flew from a plantation adjoining Moohan's land. Barker also told, or threatened, a son of Matthew M'Dermot, your herd, who used to bring the meals to his sister who is your servant at Classubawn, that he would blow his brains out if he kept going that way, although the poor little boy was on the regular path used by every body……. On bonfire night"—
he (Mr. Sexton) must explain that this bonfire night in Ireland was a kind of national festival—
On bonfire night, 24th June, Barker went where a bonfire was in act of lighting, and in the presence of several young people, both male and female, threw this bonfire into the sea, and told them if they dared to light it again he would blow their brains out with his gun, which he held at the time in his hand. The young people ran away terrified; but immediately some men came and remonstrated with Barker for what he had done, and told him it was the custom from time immemorial to light bonfires there, but to no purpose.
Barker was an Englishman, and therefore, he supposed, he did not understand the lighting of these bonfires. The letter went on to say—
Barker still insisted on putting out the fire, and were it not for some more prudent people blood might have been spilt or life lost. He also, on several occasions, went to the doors of the tenants and shot their dogs and cats, and would threaten themselves; he also shot the dog of a Mrs. Tottenham, a respectable lady in Mullaghmore, who was stopping in The Lodge.
These are only a few of the numerous charges which would be brought against him. Trusting you will see the justice of removing Barker, and thus allow us to live in peace on the property which we evermore enjoyed.
§ "I am, dear Sir,
§ "Your obedient Servant,
§ "HENRY BRENNAN.
§ "P.S.—I am prepared for a sworn investigation if required. H.B."
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY
said, he must tell the Committee—for it was 1677 impossible for him to ask the Committee to listen to a reply to all these statements seriatim—that when these charges were brought against Barker he went most carefully through them, and he could sum up the whole thing in this way, that all that was true was trivial, and all that was serious was false. As a matter of fact, the statement made to him was an artful admixture of the true that was trivial and the serious that was false.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, the Committee should not allow itself to be led away from the serious part of this subject by these merely personal matters. Mr. Brennan was arrested, and a number of other men who, if he was guilty, were equally guilty with him, were tried. They were all acquitted, but, immediately before the trial, whilst the others were allowed to go about their business, Mr. Brennan was arrested and imprisoned. This was much more important than anything else which had been referred to. If this Coercion Act was being used for the arrest of men not guilty of any offence; if, in fact, it was a kind of supplementary power to the Courts of Law to enable the Chief Secretary, when a man was declared "not guilty," to seize him and send him to prison, it was very important that the Committee and the country should know it. Mr. Brennan would seem to have a grievance which called for some explanation from the Chief Secretary; and he (Mr. M'Carthy) trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the question to pass without making a statement with regard to it.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
The hon. Member asks me for some explanation. As far as I can recollect the case, we had reason to believe that Mr. Brennan was connected with some unlawful assembly.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
I have been asked whether it is not the fact that an attempt was made by the ordinary law to punish Mr. Brennan. Yes, an attempt was made. But, as hon. Members well know, the Act was passed in order to enable us to arrest people against whom ordinary evidence could not be obtained.
§ MR. GRAY
said, that some kind of evidence must have been obtained against Mr. Brennan, seeing that a charge was brought against him. Mr. Brennan was 1678 in prison at the present moment on suspicion of an offence which had been charged against 26 others, and of which they had been declared not guilty in a Court of Law. There was no question of evidence now. Let the Committee clearly understand the matter. It was not a question of bringing forward some evidence about a secret conspiracy. There was no doubt about the assembly. The assembly took place, and the whole of the facts were before the public. The question which had arisen was whether the assembly was a lawful one or not, and that point was settled in favour of the accused by the acquittal of the 26 men. If the Chief Secretary had allowed Mr. Brennan to go to trial, no doubt he, too, would have been acquitted; but the right hon. Gentleman forestalled the law and had the accused arrested under the Coercion Act, although on a charge that a legal tribunal had declared to be unfounded. This was the complaint, and the right hon. Gentleman must meet it more specifically than he had done. Possibly his technical legal knowledge was not sufficient to enable him to deal with the matter; and if that were so, no doubt the Attorney General for Ireland would elucidate it.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Without having the particulars before me I can make no statement as to the other 26 persons. I really know nothing about them, and I could not say anything with regard to their case without obtaining information. As to Mr. Brennan, I myself caused his arrest on a warrant charging him with having been guilty, as principal, of a crime punishable by law—that is to say, unlawfully assembling with others. The point put by hon. Members is that it is impossible there could be reasonable suspicion of such an offence as that stated in the Act, because no evidence of an unlawful assembly could be obtained. I can only say he is mistaken in that. There are many cases where we have reason to believe there has been an unlawful assembly where no one has been able to come forward and give evidence to prove that that assembly has taken place.
§ MR. GRAY
said, the right hon. Gentleman did not yet grasp the point. There might be many cases where they might suspect people of unlawful assembly without being able to obtain evidence. 1679 There was no question about the assembly here. [Mr. SEXTON: The police were there.] The question was not one of evidence. Granting that the assembly had taken place, the question was, was it unlawful? That was a question of law and not of evidence. It might have been perfectly right, under the section of the Act quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, as interpreted by him, to have arrested Mr. Brennan; but as regarded the particular question under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he understood the case put by the hon. Member on the other side of the House to be that there was what was alleged to have been an unlawful assembly in which, of course, there must have been several persons concerned, and amongst them Mr. Brennan. This Mr. Brennan, he understood, was not brought to trial, but was arrested under the Protection Act. Then he understood the hon. Member to say that several other persons, to the number of 26, were brought to trial and acquitted. He did not know when, or why, and under what circumstances they were brought to trial and acquitted; but it was quite possible that 26 men were brought to trial, and that every one of them might have taken no part in the proceedings beyond merely looking on. The whole of the 26 men might, in short, be perfectly innocent, and if so they would have been acquitted. Therefore, until they knew what the facts of the case were, and the circumstances under which the 26 men were acquitted, as stated by the hon. Member, the Government were not in a position to say whether it affected the question with regard to Mr. Brennan at all.
§ MR. GRAY
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that Irish Members were not in a position to state the case of Mr. Brennan. They might have proceeded to discuss it hypothetically; but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that they were not in a position to proceed, he should carry his argument to its logical end, and move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gray.)1680
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought it was hardly fair to ask to report Progress at that stage because of a statement which had been made concerning a certain number of men who had been tried and acquitted, but in regard to whom there was no information. The point was one which could easily be solved; and as he should be able by telegram to ascertain the facts by tomorrow, there would be no objection to giving the information asked for on Report.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
asked the hon. Member for Carlow not to press his Motion, because the matter had really cropped up incidentally without Notice. He understood the hon. Member to wish for an investigation; but surely that need not delay the passing of this Vote. If an investigation was desired he would undertake to make it, and there would be plenty of opportunities for going into the case besides the present one.
§ MR. HEALY
said, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had remarked that that the Irish newspapers would not report his speech; but Irish Members might fairly reply that their speeches were not reported in the London newspapers. Then, with regard to Mr. Brennan's arrest, he was prepared to believe that the hon. Member did not in so many words, or in a postscript to a letter, which seemed to be a general mode of communication on the part of the Government, convey orders for the arrest. But they had the fact that Mr. Brennan was arrested, and doubtless some policeman knew very well that the estate belonged to a Member of the Government; and someone else, no doubt, knew that in the interest of the Government it was desirable that this leading man should be removed. He would now speak of the estate which, in course of time, would be the property of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. It was a fact that upon that estate, for a considerable period of time, not a single arrest had been made. But an Englishman—Mr. Douglas Pine—went there, and became a leader of 1681 the Land League in the county. Mr. Pine refused to pay the Duke of Devonshire any rent except on Griffith's valuation; he consulted with the tenantry on the Duke's estate and told them not to pay the rent; a writ was issued against him by way of example, but Mr. Pine still held out; and, as he (Mr. Healy) told the House last year, the county of Waterford was proclaimed in order that the Duke of Devonshire might get his rent, and Mr. Douglas Pine was now lodged in gaol. Then they had the fact that two Members of the Government were connected with these estates. The police were, of course, aware that Mr. Brennan and Mr. Pine were making trouble on the estates, and these two gentlemen were accordingly sent to prison. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had said he did not care 2d., so far as he was personally concerned, whether Mr. Brennan was in prison or not; and the noble Marquess would probably say the same of Mr. Pine. The Committee would understand from these two cases the manner in which arrests were made on the estates of Members of the Government.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he did not intend to ask for any more Irish Votes that evening. He was aware that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had been waiting for some time to make a Motion in connection with the English Vote for the Diplomatic Services.
§ MR. CALLAN
asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he could not supply more information as to the details of Vote 33? The title "County Court Officers, Ireland," was misleading, inasmuch as the Vote included the salaries of 15 extra magistrates, who had no connection whatever with the County Courts. He also wished to know whether the payment to Major Bond, and men of the same character who had been deputed to do justice to Ireland, was included in this Vote?