§ MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Harrington, editor of the "Kerry Sentinel," has been arrested and lodged in gaol, in consequence of his conviction under the summary jurisdiction provisions of the Crimes Act, before two stipendiary magistrates, of printing and publishing an illegal notice; whether two young journeymen printers in the office of the "Sentinel" pleaded guilty to having printed and published the notice in question, and swore on the appeal trial that they had done so without Mr. Harrington's knowledge or consent; whether Mr. Harrington has been sentenced 538 to six months' imprisonment, and, in pursuance of his sentence, will be compelled to wear prison clothes, to sleep on a plank bed, and to eat the prison fare in common with criminals convicted on the clearest testimony of infamous offences; and, whether he will lay the notes of the proceedings of the two trials upon the Table of the House?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, Mr. Harrington was convicted before two stipendiary magistrates, under the provisions of the Crimes Act; and the decision was confirmed on appeal before the Appeal Court provided by that Act. The case was fully heard on both occasions. The journeymen printers stated, on the hearing of the appeal, that they had printed the document without Mr. Harrington's knowledge; but they had not made that statement on the previous trial; and the Court of Appeal, on full consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the ease, did not believe the statement. Mr. Harrington will have the same relaxations made in his favour as have already been made by us in some other cases within the last eight or nine months. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I can only say that the House of Commons is not a Court of review over the decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction.
§ MR. PARNELLI wish to ask the right hen. Gentleman whether it was competent for the young journeymen printers to tender evidence on the occasion of the trial in the first instance, when, as the right hon. Gentleman states, they failed to make the statement or give evidence which they subsequently gave on the appeal?
§ MR. TREVELYANYes, Sir; I have ascertained that point. It was competent.
§ MR. HEALYMight I ask, as there is a kind of insinuation in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that they did not give the evidence on the first occasion, whether they were not in gaol during the whole interval between the two trials, and Mr. Harrington could not have communicated with them?
§ MR. TREVELYANI have since refreshed my memory. I have ascertained that they were perfectly competent to have made the statement on the first hearing, after they had pleaded guilty, if they so pleased.
§ MR. HEALYThat is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has to some extent insinuated that a communication might have been made to them by Mr. Harrington before the appeal, whether it is not the fact that the moment they were found guilty by the magistrates they were sent to gaol; and, whether it was not, therefore, impossible for anyone to have communicated with them?
§ MR. TREVELYANHe could have communicated, Sir, according to the ordinary gaol regulations. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not know why that statement excited ridicule. Under certain circumstances of grave public danger, those regulations had been altered and suspended for the precise purpose of preventing prisoners from communicating with the outside; but, under ordinary circumstances, they were not.
§ MR. HEALYMight I ask, whether it is not a fact that, when a man is sent to gaol under these circumstances, he is not allowed a visit for two months? These men were sent to gaol for two months, and were not allowed a visit during the whole time. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is entering into a matter of controversy. He must confine himself to a Question.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will attend to my direction.
§ MR. HEALYMy Question is, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the fact, although the right hon. Gentleman has insinuated that it was possible for these two persons to be tampered with by Mr. Harrington, between the date of conviction and the date of the appeal, that the prison regulations are such that it was quite impossible for any communication to have passed until the young men were produced upon the witness table?
§ MR. TREVELYANOn that point, if the hon. Gentleman will give Notice, I will make inquiry; but I appeal to the House whether, in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, there was any insinuation such as is suggested by the hon. Member for Monaghan?