§ MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that since the appointment of Lord Spencer as Viceroy, fewer Catholics have received appointments in Ireland even than heretofore; whether it is the fact that out of the seventeen Court Valuators recently appointed under the Land Act, there is not a single Catholic; and that, of the thirty-six jurors who returned verdicts in capital cases in the Special Commission Court, the whole were Protestant; and, if he will call the attention of the Irish Government to the subject?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, the hon. Member, he must admit, was accurate in part of his statement in the Question. But he (Mr. Gladstone) wished to correct an error in it, for he wholly objected to the Question, because he thought that anybody looking at it would suppose that Lord Spencer had acted un-justly towards Roman Catholics in Ireland. After first having laid down the doctrine that, by Lord Spencer, something less than justice had been meted out to Roman Catholics, the hon. Member then proceeded to give a couple of instances of that want of justice. He (Mr. Gladstone) would answer parts of the Question separately. He entirely declined to admit that the patronage of Lord Spencer was administered with anything less than justice to Roman Catholics. His business was, and no man knew it better, to appoint the fittest men; 277 and it was within his (Mr. Gladstone's) knowledge that, under the circumstances of Ireland, he would take special care that no person, being a Roman Catholic, who might appear to him to be the fittest man would be overlooked. He must, therefore, take issue with the hon. Member on the matter of fact, and could not admit, as regards these appointments in the gift of the Lord Lieutenant, that it was a fact that fewer appointments had been given to Roman Catholics since Lord Spencer had been appointed than formerly. Then, with regard to the two instances given by the hon. Gentleman, not 17, but 16, Court Valuers were Protestants; and he need not observe that he had to make the same observations with regard to the motives of the Land Commission that he had made with regard to Lord Spencer, and that they were not in the slightest degree influenced by any consideration adverse to the Roman Catholics. But he wished to observe more particularly that they were entirely and absolutely independent of Lord Spencer in the exercise of their functions, and that he had no more to do with these appointments than the hon. Member himself. With regard to the jurors who had been appointed, as the hon. Member said, in capital cases—he did not know why the hon. Member confined his attention to capital cases—the three out of 11 juries which were Selected. It was quite true that the selection of juries was made under the responsibility of the Officers of the Crown; but the hon. Gentleman knew that it would be a very unusual practice for the Lord Lieutenant to interfere in such a matter, and a very mischievous practice too. He had no doubt that, if the Lord Lieutenant thought things had been indiscreetly done, he would be extremely sorry. It was not within his knowledge, and it was not for him to say, whether they had been discreetly done or not. But this he would say, that the statement of the hon. Member, although accurate so far as it went, did not, by any means, convey the whole truth. For example, he knew that a man named Laurence Kenny was sentenced to penal servitude for life for firing a revolver at a soldier—an offence of a most serious kind. There were six Roman Catholics and six Protestants on the jury, and the man was found guilty. In another case of a charge of arson, 278 he found that there were seven Roman Catholics—
§ MR. HEALYAnd for horse stealing you will give us plenty of Roman Catholics; but my point is—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
MR. GLADSTONEWell, Sir, I cannot conceive that an agrarian case is a bit more delicate than this of firing a revolver at a soldier, with intent thereby to injure or to kill him. Surely that is an offence of the very highest and most serious character; and it is impossible to conceive anything so ridiculous as that the Crown officials should determine that, for agrarian cases or charges, they would have none but Protestant jurors, and that they would allow Roman Catholics to sit and try men for firing at a soldier. The real state of the case is this—that there have been 132 jurors summoned upon the jurors' list, and of these 103 have been what are called Protestants in Ireland—that is to say, members of the ex-Established Church, and 29 Roman Catholics. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that is a disparity; but viewing it from the different distribution of the numbers in the different ranks of life in Ireland, although it is a disparity, and although I give no opinion whatever upon the selection of these men, yet it is by no means a gross disparity, or, still less, approaches the state of things that the statement of the hon. Gentleman would suggest without explanation.
§ MR. GRAYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that, in the cases tried with change of venue under the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act, that, in cases of crime committed in country districts brought up to Dublin for trial, in every one of these cases, every single Catholic was excluded from every single jury; and, whether he is aware that the proportion of Catholics to Protestants on the jury panel was about 80 to 120; and that at least 70 Catholic jurors—some of them of the very highest position, or of very high position at least in Dublin—were excluded, and that not one single Catholic was permitted to serve upon any single one of these cases in which a change of venue had taken 279 place under the Prevention of Crimes Act?
§ MR. DAWSONWith regard to the last part of the Question, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that appointments to the magistracy in Ireland are given in exact proportion to the unpopularity of the persons appointed?
§ [The Question was not answered.]
§ MR. HEALYI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would have any objection—["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] If I am not in Order, I will soon put myself in Order. The New Rules are not passed yet. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to give a Return showing the number of the jury panels called under the recent Special Commission, and giving the names of the Catholics and Protestants on the panel, and the number of Catholics and Protestants who were told to stand aside by the Crown?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that, considering the hon. Gentleman asked for names, he would rather take time to judge as to the practicability of granting the Return desired by the hon. Member. He certainly thought it was right that a Return showing the religious professions of the jurors should be given.