HC Deb 08 March 1883 vol 276 cc1851-79

(8.) £1,700, Wreck Commission.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not wish to oppose this Vote, but simply to ask the President of the Board of Trade to explain how this amount was reconcilable with his statement last Session, that the new arrangement with regard to the Assessors of Wrecks would not increase the charge to the public. Last Session considerable alterations were introduced in the mode of remuneration of the Wreck Commissioners; and when he had pointed out that that would impose a permanent charge on the public in place of certain fees, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no ground for that supposition, as there would be no increase of the amount.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, bethought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension. He had no recollection of having made such a statement, although he did remember the hon. Gentleman asking a question with regard to unclaimed wreckage. He could not recol- lect any question as to the charge for Assessors. The additional charge now made was due to the inquiries before the Wreck Commissioners having been more numerous.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £210, Revising Barristers, England.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, he 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 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he intended to move the reduction of the Vote by £30,000. He thought hon. Members opposite, who had been endeavouring to bring about a spirit of economy in these Estimates, would be rather surprised at the amount of money which Irish Law Charges required. The original Vote was something over £86,000; but here was a Supplementary Estimate of £40,000, or nearly half the whole original Estimate. That was his first point; and the second point was the nature of some of the prosecutions for which this money was asked. The first prosecution was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); and he thought the Chief Secretary ought to be obliged for having this opportunity of speaking upon this subject to-night; for if he remembered the words correctly, the right hon. Gentleman had said, on a previous occasion, that there was no prosecution and no action of the Government on which they more anxiously invited discussion than the prosecution of that hon. Member. What was the hon. Member prosecuted for? For some sentences taken out of a considerable speech in County Carlow; and he wished to invite the attention of the Committee to this extraordinary act on the part of the Government. The Government possessed various powers for instituting prosecutions of this kind, and all the machinery placed at their disposal by the Prevention of Crime Act; but instead, of resorting to that machinery they went back to a Statute of Charles I. in order to prosecute his hon. Friend. His next point was that the Government did not venture to bring any definite charge against the hon. Member. All they said was that the words, if persevered in, would have such and such a tendency. He ventured to say that an indictment of that kind suffered from the very worst vice—namely, vagueness. The next point was that the punishment inflicted fell not so much upon his hon. Friend as on the constituency he represented; and although the Chief Secretary gave what to him seemed to be a satisfactory answer, he could not help noticing that the term of the hon. Member's imprisonment was co-extensive with the duration of the Session. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would bear testimony, as would any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the remarkable Parliamentary ability of the hon. Member for Wexford, and was quite aware that in the course of this Session several measures would be proposed for discussion with regard to which the hon. Member was acknowledged to be a very skilful authority. On Wednesday next there was proposed to be an Act to amend the Land Act of last year; and the Prime Minister had admitted that almost next to himself the hon. Member for Wexford was one of the most trustworthy authorities on this most important and most vexed question. He thought the House had treated his hon. Friend almost scurvily by the manner in which they had received the Judge's intimation of the hon. Gentleman's imprisonment. But he would not go over all that again, except to say that in the insolence of his ignorance the distinguished Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland did not even correctly describe the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, nor correctly give his name—although in 20 or 30 years the name of Healy would probably be far more familiar to the people of Ireland than that of Chief Justice May. He did not wish to dwell on the words which were used in connection with this trial; but he would extend an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary frequently had to say things and to express opinions which were not welcome to hon. Members on the Irish Benches, or to the constituencies they represented; but he would invite the right hon. Gentleman to take advantage of this opportunity, and not to let this Sitting of the House terminate without getting up and announcing that the Government had resolved to release the hon. Member for Wexford and the two other gentlemen who were imprisoned on the same charge, and to allow the constituency of Wexford the enormous advantage of having their Representative in the House to advocate their cause. He was sure the hon. Gentleman's words had produced no bad effects in Ireland; and he challenged the Chief Secretary to trace to those words a single act of violence or illegality in the county in which those words were uttered, or elsewhere. He wished further to say that he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was adopting some of the ways and opinions of his Predecessor and some of the Liberal organs in this country; but he could not help remarking that the action of the Government in this matter had met with the unanimous disapproval of the Liberal organs in England. In a friendly spirit to the right hon. Gentleman, he would again invite him to seize this excellent opportunity of announcing the approaching release of the hon. Member. Passing from this case to that of Mr. Harrington, he did not think the Government would be able to say a single word in their defence in regard to this matter. He was not going to fight over again the words which the hon. Member for Westmeath had used; but here was a fact which must strike anybody. The hon. Member for the County of Westmeath was at this moment serving a term of imprisonment for intimidating the farmers of Westmeath; and yet four nomination papers were sent in on behalf of Mr. Harrington, three of which were signed exclusively by farmers in that county whom the hon. Member was accused of having intimidated. In other words, the Government said to the farmers of Westmeath that Mr. Harrington was intimidating them, and yet these poor shivering intimidated farmers came forward and signed nomination papers, and subscribed towards Mr. Harrington's expenses! These were the farmers whom he had been intimidating. He asked the Chief Secretary if he really seriously believed that the farmers were intimidated by Mr. Harrington? That was a categorical question; and he asked for a categorical answer. If he could not say conscientiously and truly that he believed that those farmers were intimidated, was it not his duty at once to acknowledge his mistake, and open the prison doors to the hon. Member? Practically, the charge of the Government against Mr. Harrington was that he was endeavouring to force the farmers by intimidation to the employment of labourers, whether they wanted labourers or not. On that point he wished to say that there was no such inflammable material in Ireland, except in periods of distress, as the labourers; and no strike could be more fierce and furious, or more murderous, than a strike between the farmers and the labourers; and, further, if once the spirit of crime and outrage took possession of the labourers against the farmers, the Government would find that a far more difficult strike to put down than one between the farmers and the landlords, for, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had heard, a leading gentleman in Ireland, when conversing with an agricultural labourer, was told by the labourer—We can fight the landlords a great deal better than the farmers can;" and being asked how, he took a box of matches from his pocket, and said—"That is the only weapon." In recommending the farmers to approach the labourers in a kindly spirit, Mr. Harrington was really making himself the custodian of peace between the two parties instead of stirring up strife Were the farmers intimidated? If so, why did they support Mr. Harrington? If they were not, were not his words calculated to preserve peace and order between those two important classes? He would now pass from the sentence on Mr. Harrington to the circumstances of his imprisonment; and he must say he thought the Chief Secretary himself could scarcely read some of the details given in the newspapers with regard to the treatment of Mr. Harrington without feeling something like shame. In an account of the transfer of Mr. Harrington from Mullingar Gaol to Galway Gaol, The Westmeath Examiner of March 3rd stated that he was required to carry slops from his cell some distance to a yard, past the Governor's house, where, perhaps, he might be the object of the jeering observations of some of those very landlords whose power he had helped to break in Westmeath. Mr. Harrington, like a man of courage and spirit, refused to do this degrading and ignominious service, and what was the result? Because he refused to carry the slops from his cell a considerable distance, he was kept from the Friday to the Wednesday without being allowed out of his cell for a moment's fresh air. From Friday to Wednesday this man was kept in solitary confinement. This man was a Member of this House, and within a few weeks of this would be walking up the floor, and would have a right to take part in the discussions of this Assembly, just as much as the Prime Minister, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself. He thought the Chief Secretary would do him at least this justice—that he never made any strong attack upon him personally, and he hoped never to do so, strongly as he resented the right hon. Gentleman's political doctrines; but he would say this—that he would rather be Mr. Harrington and clear out the slops of his cell for 12 months, than be the Radical Chief Secretary, who sanctioned the proceedings taken against Mr. Harrington. There were other things which arose on this Vote, and he hoped the Committee would excuse him for enumerating them very briefly. Some of them were brought forward on an Amendment proposed previously. Ha did not take part in the discussion, and he did not now intend to enter at any length into them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was sufficiently acquainted with political and economical doctrines to know that the end did not always justify the means. He thought nothing was more instructive in the remarks that were made on a previous occasion, by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and nothing should commend itself more seriously to the statesmanship of the inner circle of the right hon. Gentleman's mind than the contrast between the manner in which the Irish people received the verdict in the Maamstrasna murder cases, and the other cases which had been tried subsequently. In the case of the Maamstrasna murders there was this feeling amongst all others—that the men had received a fair trial; that there was no jury-packing; that men of the prisoners' own creed and feeling were not excluded from the jury box, and thatt here could be no doubt whatever of the patience and the conscientiousness of the jury empannelled. He did not believe there was a man or woman in Ireland who did not approve of the verdict in those cases, and who did not, so far as it was possible for any human being to rejoice over the doom of a fellow-creature, rejoice that the trials had resulted in the men being sentenced to death. But let them contrast the reception of the verdicts in these cases with that of recent verdicts in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were to talk for 12 months in this House he would not induce any sane man to believe that the exclusion of every Catholic from the juries recently empannelled was the result of accident, and was not the result of a deliberate design on the part of the Crown. The feeling was universal in Ireland that some of the men who had been convicted by means of informers and packed juries died on the gallows innocent men. He would not attempt to enumerate or particularize the cases; but, in his mind, there was no doubt that some of the men were innocent of the crime for which they had been deprived of life. An hon. Friend beside him reminded him of the dying declarations of Poff and Barrett. He could not believe, knowing the character of the Irish tenant, knowing what he did of the farmers, of their faith and of their religious feeling—he could not believe that these two unfortunate men, Poff and Barrett, would, when standing upon the brink of death, have written declarations of innocence if they were guilty of the crime. And he put that to the Committee, that it would be better for the permanent peace of Ireland, it would be better for the peace of the right hon. Gentleman's own mind, that even 20 murderers should go unpunished than that two innocent men should be put to death upon the verdict of a packed jury. He promised the Committee that he would not detain them very long, and he would not allude to the matters with which he had dealt at any greater length. He would only repeat his request and earnest prayer to the right hon. Gentleman that he would seize this opportunity of announcing the unconditional release of those gentlemen who had been put into gaol under obsolete proceedings for freely expressing their opinion on public platforms in Ireland. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £30,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, 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 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that, in rising to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he ventured to express the hope that the Committee would take this occasion of marking its sense of the manner in which recent prosecutions had been conducted in Ireland. He did not wish to refer, of course, to the debates in the present Session; but they knew that in the public Press there were very strong expressions of surprise and condemnation at the declarations of the Irish Party that the belief of the vast majority of the Irish people was that the manner in which prosecutions were conducted in Ireland had led to many iniquitous sentences, and to the execution of innocent persons. There was not a man who travelled through Ireland, and who even only partially learned the condition of the Irish nation, who would not corroborate that statement. Throughout Ireland the vast majority of the people did believe that iniquitous sentences were passed, and that innocent persons had been executed. Now, he would ask any fair-minded man, any man of a statesmanlike disposition, what could be the legitimate effect of such a system of legal procedure, which produced an impression of that kind upon the minds of a whole population? They knew very well that it was very easy for officers of the Crown to rise in that House and to declare that they were utterly unaware of any such thing having taken place as jury packing, and to assure the House that any unpleasant appearances that might be presented by the facts were purely accidental. Accidents of that description were regarded as very deliberate contrivances by the public opinion of nations. In case after case hundreds of Protestants and men of strongly anti-popular opinions were placed upon the juries who had to deal with crime of an agrarian character. Now, if it occurred only once that upon a jury panel consisting of scores and scores of Catholics, and scores and scores of Protestants, that only once a purely Protestant jury of 12 men was struck, it would seem, even in that single instance, to be a curious and singular sort of accident. But when on the next day, when the next trial of the next prisoner was before the Court, they found that in a similar manner, out of the hundreds and hundreds of Catholic jurors, every one, somehow or other, was not upon the jury that was struck for the trial, and that the jury for the second trial consisted exclusively of men chosen from the Protestant members of the panel, then, he said, the doubt and the surprise as to the possibility of accident which were felt on the first occasion became singularly increased and intensified when the second accident occurred. And when, on a third occasion, the day after, on the next trial of an agrarian offence before the same Court, they again found all the Catholic jurors excluded from the jury, and none but Protestants and political partizans, antagonistic to the people, placed on the jury, it was beyond the power of mortal man to convince any Assembly that on the third occasion that was an accident also; and when upon the next day, in the case of the next prisoner accused of an agrarian offence, they found that a fourth jury was struck of an exclusively Protestant complexion out of this mixed panel of Protestants and Catholics, then the public opinion of the Irish nation must be forgiven, if it attributed the circumstance to a strained use of the powers the Government possessed, to arrive at a conviction by fair or foul means, and if they believed that the Government, having the choice to arrive at a conviction by fair means, deliberately chose foul means to do men to death. It might happen that a prejudiced jury might arrive at a true verdict. It might happen that a panel struck and chosen by foul means would, nevertheless, find verdicts in accordance with the facts; but that was not trial, and was not law; that was simply as much a case of assassination as where a man committed such a crime with a pistol or some other weapon. Let them leave the case of Ireland out of consideration for a moment, and take the case of England. Let them imagine that in the City of London, or any city of England, Protestant jurors were excluded, and none but Catholics put upon the jury in some important case; let them imagine that that was repeated four times over, and then ask themselves how they could impress the public opinion of England with the belief that they were acting in conformity with justice or the principles of common honesty. It was an old observation of English visitors to Ireland, and observers of the Irish character, that there was nothing that the Irish respected and loved so much as fair and equal justice; but there was no shadow of even the appearance of equal justice about the proceedings at the recent Assizes; and if persons in the country, or out of the country, engaged in stirring up seditious feeling and creating disaffection amongst the people, it was the Government by themselves who had, by such a misuse of the powers of the law, supplied the emissaries of sedition and disaffection with the best argument for sowing hatred and enmity between the people and the Government of Ireland. On a former occasion, in a speech delivered somewhere in the country, though not, he believed, in Ireland, the administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to conduct, the Chief Secretary attempted to defend the treatment which was extended to Mr. Harrington by stating that Mr. Harrington was an opponent of the Government of a formidable description; nay, he believed that, even in this House, the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to extenuate the conduct of the Government by speaking of Mr. Harrington as a formidable man. What impression could be derived from such a view, what inference could be drawn by the Irish people from such a defence, except that the Government made use of the powers of the law, unfairly and strainedly, in order to place a formidable opponent within the four walls of a prison? He read carefully every word in the case against Mr. Harrington; he read it most carefully, with a sincere desire to discover, even on grounds of expediency, some reason for the prosecution; and he did not hesitate to say that from the beginning to the end of those proceedings not a single fact was revealed that called for any condemnation of Mr. Harrington. On the contrary, the facts showed that Mr. Harrington was deserving of the thanks of every man interested in the welfare of the Irish people. When Members of the Irish Party defended the case of the tenant farmers in the House of Commons, was there a more frequent reproach made against them—and he put it to the honour of English Members sitting on both sides of the House—was there a more frequent reproach made against them than that they were neglecting the interests of the agricultural labourers because they had not the votes possessed by the tenant farmers? There could be no doubt that, whatever was the condition of the Irish tenant farmers, the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers was, unfortunately, worse. Mr. Harrington wont down to the county where, undoubtedly, the tenant farmers had gained considerable benefit by the Land Act; and he pointed out to the farmers of the district, who had gained reductions of rent of 15 and 25 per cent under the Land Act, that they had gained those reductions solely on account of an Act which had been passed largely through the cooperation with themselves of the agricultural labourers; and he appealed to their sense of gratitude and honesty of feeling to stand by the men who had stood by them hitherto; and he warned them that unless they did aid the agricultural labourers in the demands for redress they were now making, unquestionably the force of the labourers' agitation would be turned against them. What was that but a form of words and a statesmanlike thought deserving to be made and entertained by everyone honestly engaged in Irish agitation? But it was upon that expression, it was upon those appeals and those words alone, that the magistrates, who professed to deal out justice, sent Mr. Harrington to gaol for two months. They had the admission of the Chief Secretary that there was another reason; and they were to conclude that the magistrates, who were the creatures of the Government, who were dependent upon the Government for their bread, and who had recently seen some of their fellow-magistrates removed from the Magisterial Bench and driven into retirement against their own protests, were overborne by the will of the Government on whom they were so absolutely dependent. The unanimous conclusion of the Irish people must be that the magistrates who sentenced Mr. Harrington to two months' imprisonment for doing his duty did so because Mr. Harrington was a formidable political opponent of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant appealed, and appealed with good reason, to his high reputation in that House, and to his many years' experience in the service of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, a high reputation here; but he possessed no such reputation amongst the people of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not say that by way of reproach; he only stated it as a fact. The right hon. Gentleman came to Ireland as a new man; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) asked if the way to create a reputation in Ireland for himself, similar to the reputation which he believed he enjoyed in the House of Commons, was to cast a formidable political opponent into the common gaol for two months for laudably and honourably doing his duty between man and man and class and class in an Irish county? Her Majesty's Government might be indifferent to the opinion of the people of Ireland, and Her Majesty's Government might wish to emigrate several more thousands of the people of Ireland to foreign shores. He asked the Government if they wished these emigrants, be they willing or compulsory emigrants, to carry a good or a bad opinion of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland when they went to foreign shores? Most assuredly the packed juries in the Green Street Court House, the dying declarations of innocent men, the scandalous and iniquitous sentences upon formidable opponents were not calculated to make the new tide of Irish emigration more favourable to Her Majesty's Government than those Irish settlers now living under the flag of the great Republic of America. The jurisdictions of foreign countries might dismiss with contempt the paltry grounds on which Ministers' charges were supported by Her Majesty's Government; but the Committee knew that the creatures of Governmental choice in Ireland were always ready to carry out any decisions that were suggested by the Government. All the force of the military and police was at the back of the unjust Judges in Ireland to induce, at least, a material respect for their decisions. But the period of coercion must come to an end sooner or later, or the Government must establish new and worse coercion. The present system was intended to last for three years. The Prevention of Crime Act would come to an end just as the last Coercion Act came to an end, and England would then be faced by the usual problem of an irritated and exasperated Ireland. There h ad been many attempts to solve that problem. He saw the notion was gaining ground of turning Ireland into a Crown Colony; but even in Jamaica the experiment of a Crown Colony was not favourable to British administration. The Irish people defied the Coercionists to turn Ireland into a Crown Colony, for the very day they did that would commence the final and victorious struggle of the Irish race for the complete attainment of the national idea.

MR. LEAMY

rose to support the Amendment, and to mention one or two cases of hardship, in the hope of obtaining some information with regard to them from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. On the 21st of December last, three men were sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour for stopping the Galway hunt at Dalystown. The magistrate before whom the men were brought was himself a member of the hunt; and he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether the Government approved of a magistrate, who was out in the hunt stopped by the men, presiding in the Court when the charge against the men was brought? He would like also to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was a fact that 34 men, tenant farmers and labourers, residing near Kilmacthomas, County Waterford, were prosecuted under the Prevention of Crime Act for interfering with a hunt there; whether it was a fact that the evidence did not show that any violence was committed; whether some of them were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour; whether others were sentenced to a fortnight; or whether, in the latter case, it was desired that the sentence should be increased? He also wished to asked whether it was a fact that, during the hearing of the charges against these prisoners, the orders of committal were printed and filled up before any verdicts had been returned at all? He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman another question, in order to show how the law was disliked in Ireland, and how it was administered when the person accused happened to be one of the people, and when the person accused happened to be one of what was called the gentry. He had mentioned the case of 34 men sentenced to hard labour for stopping a hunt. The case on which he would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman also to give an explanation was one that occurred in Kildare the other day, where a gentleman, a member of the hunt, was prosecuted by a farmer for intimidation and for using threats. What happened in that case? Was there a prosecution brought by the police under the Prevention of Crime Act? No; in this case it was left to the farmer to put the law in motion against the gentleman, and what was the result? Whereas the farmers and labourers for stopping a hunt had been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment with hard labour, the prosecution being brought at the instance of the police, the gentleman in question was not sent to hard labour, but was simply bound over in two sureties of £5 each to keep the peace. How could the Government expect that the people would respect the law, when a farmer who obstructed a huntsman was prosecuted by the police and sent to gaol, and when a member of the hunt who broke the law was simply bound over to keep the peace? If a farmer was sent to gaol for threatening a gentleman, surely a gentleman should be sent to gaol for threatening a farmer. If the Government wished that the law in Ireland should be respected, they should make it clear that the law had no respect for persons; and he hoped that in this case the Committee would receive some satisfactory explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There was another case that he would mention, in order to show what the Prevention of Crime Act was capable of doing. The Committee had heard a great deal of the absurd prosecutions under the Statute of Edward III. at Armagh Petty Sessions recently; how James M'Closkey was charged for putting out his tongue in a threatening manner. Surely it was only in Ireland, under the Prevention of Crime Act, that such a thing would be regarded as an offence. There was also another case of injustice, and it was the last one he should refer to; it was that of the prosecution of the Mayor of Wexford. The Mayor of Wexford had been east into prison for inserting in his newspaper a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting in which sorrow was expressed that John Flynn still held land from which a farmer had been evicted 12 months ago. That was a resolution passed at a meeting, a report of which the Mayor of Wexford, as the editor of a paper, received in an ordinary way of business; and for inserting that resolution he was charged under the Prevention of Crime Act, and, as the Committee knew, sent to gaol. When the Prevention of Crime Bill was passing through the House no one believed that an editor would be brought up under the 7th clause. There were special clauses dealing with the Press, and everybody believed that the proprietor or an editor of a paper would not be dealt with under the 7th. The Government, however, discovered that by the 7th clause there was a handy means of dealing with the Mayor of Wexford, and they accordingly put it into execution, much to the surprise and consternation of the whole country. It was the more to be wondered at that the Mayor of Wexford was committed to prison in this manner, because he was the first prosecuted, and prosecuted under a clause which it was believed would never be applied to the Press. It generally happened that when a man was brought up under a new Act he was discharged simply with a caution. The proceedings in this case were particularly unjust, because the 7th clause had been enforced against a man who was never supposed to have had any criminal knowledge at all. He (Mr. Leamy) maintained that so long as the Government administered the Prevention of Crime Act in such an arbitrary and unjust manner, so long the people would regard the Act as an engine of oppression. In conclusion, he simply wished to repeat his questions—was it a fact that men in Ireland had been sent to gaol for stopping a hunt, though it was proved they had used no threat or violence; was it a fact that these men were prosecuted by the police; was it a fact that a gentleman huntsman, charged with an equally grievous offence, was not prosecuted by the police, and was only bound over to keep the peace?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he wished to ask two questions from a financial point of view. He observed that the original Estimate under this head was £47,300, and that the sum actually ex- pended last year was £64,600. This Vote presented all the vicious appearances of Supplementary Estimates, for the Government produced an apparent reduction of something like £17,000, and now asked for an additional sum of £40,000. He should like to have some explanation of this matter. He also observed that £29,300 was set down as fees for counsel, in addition to the large sum voted for the Crown Solicitor and the Sessional Solicitor. If the Committee would consider the matter, they would find that £29,300 was at the rate of £560 a-week for counsels' fees; and he could only say that the fees paid to counsel in Ireland must be upon a very different scale to those paid to English counsel. Then they came to the sum of £10,000 for general law expenses, and £15,000 for prosecutors, in addition to the large sum already voted. He did not intend to enter upon the general questions of policy, which hon. Members opposite had raised; but he must say that if any Vote on this Paper indicated a lavish, he thought he might almost say a reckless, expenditure, it was this Vote.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it might be a convenience to the Committee to know whether, after this Vote was passed, the Government would not consent to report Progress. If there was no assurance of that kind, he should be very much inclined to move that Progress be reported now. At all events, they ought not to go beyond this Vote. There was a fair understanding, when the New Rules were passed, that Supply would not be taken too late in the night.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that, in reply to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he wished to state very plainly to the Committee what position Supply was in. The Government, of course, had no desire to sit later at night than was absolutely necessary; but today they had very carefully ascertained, at great pains, what was the latest day on which the Supplementary Estimates must be taken. If they passed the Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes to-morrow, it would be possible to conclude the necessary Business in connection with Ways and Means on Tuesday week—that was to say, they would be able to pass a Ways and Means Act on that day. If, on the other hand, they did not complete the Supplementary Votes and the Excess Votes to-morrow, it would be practically impossible for the House to rise for the Easter Recess until Thursday fortnight, the day before Good Friday. These were the simple facts, and he would put it to the Committee whether they were willing this Business should be thrown off till the day before Good Friday, or whether they would determine to get through the Supplementary Votes to-night and to-morrow, and thus rise on Tuesday week? Of course, if the House and the Committee were determined not to go further than the present Vote to-night, it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to resist; but he would appeal to the Committee to allow the Government to take the present Vote now, and to do their best to-morrow to get through the remaining Votes.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was sure there was every desire on the part of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House to give all reasonable assistance to the Government in taking Votes which were necessary; but, on the other hand, looking at the importance of the Votes to be considered, he thought the House would be prepared to undergo some inconvenience in the discharge of a grave public duty, even though it might amount to their not rising for the Easter Holidays until the Thursday in Passion Week. He thought there was a general feeling in the House that the amounts now asked for the Public Service were of so grave a character that they ought not to sit to an hour of the morning when it was utterly impossible that the Votes could receive that consideration they demanded. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that he did not call in question the dates and figures he mentioned; he simply rose to express the belief that the Committee would be perfectly ready to put themselves to some amount of personal inconvenience in order that these Votes might receive proper attention.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought that the Government might have expressed some regret at the position in which they themselves had placed the Committee. They knew perfectly well what was the law, and, had they referred to any almanack, they would have seen what time there was at the disposal of the House for the consideration of the Estimates. They passed the New Rules of Procedure largely with the view of having full and adequate discussion of the Estimates. Had the Government really desired that the Estimates should receive proper attention, they ought to have called the House together earlier than they did; Easter was exceptionally early, and, as a matter of fact, the House met exceptionally late. He thought it was so important that these Estimates should receive adequate discussion, that he should very much prefer taking a Saturday Sitting rather than hurrying through the Votes at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, when there was but a thin, discontented, and incompetent House.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

The Government could not anticipate that the debate on the Address would last 11 nights.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It happened last year.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

And the year before.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

Do we understand that after this Vote the Government will consent to report Progress?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Yes.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought it more regular that this discussion should proceed on the Motion to report Progress. He therefore proposed to conclude with a Motion to that effect. He joined with previous speakers that the House should, give every facility to the Government to enable them to take Votes in Supply at a proper hour, and it had been suggested that it would be reasonable to take a Morning or a Saturday Sitting. It was perfectly true that the Government had been placed in a difficulty by the prolongation of the debate on the Address; but it was a difficulty that they might very readily have foreseen—it was a difficulty which had arisen in two previous Sessions, for the debates upon the Address on both of those occasions had been prolonged for more than a fortnight. It was not very reasonable for the Government to say—"We require these Estimates by to-morrow night, otherwise we shall not be able to adjourn on Tuesday in Passion Week." He did not think it was too much to ask the House of Commons to sit for a day longer, either by taking a Saturday Sitting, or by taking a Morning Sitting, or even by sitting a day more in Passion Week, in order that these most important Estimates should be taken decently and in order. They were at present engaged in discussing a Vote of a most exceptional character, amounting to £40,000, in addition to the very largely swollen Vote which they had previously taken; and the Committee were justified in believing that at 20 minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning the facilities for discussing a Vote of such a character were not those they were entitled to demand. He therefore hoped that the Government would agree to report Progress on this important Vote, and that they would afford those facilities for criticizing their proceedings and their action which the Constitution required when the Government were asking the Committee to vote money. He begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 97: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 22.)

Original Question again proposed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that, in reference to the item of fees for counsel, it was a fact that the Estimate for this year had been exceeded very considerably. The total Estimate of the year under the head of Law Charges for Ireland amounted to the sum of about £86,000, and the present application was for a Supplementary Vote of £40,000. The expenditure under the same head last year was about £106,000. He supposed it was not expected that the law expenses would, during this present year, have been so very largely increased. The increase was certainly due, to a large extent, to the passing of the Prevention of Crime Act. If it had not been for the passing of that Act, there would not have been trials in many murder cases; and it must be remembered that the trials which had taken place had been of exceptional importance and exceptional magnitude. In many of those cases the venue had been changed, which involved considerable outlay; and he was quite certain the House would not have considered that those who were in charge of these important matters had done their duty if they had not secured the best legal ability they could command. The hon. Member was in error in assuming that the sum in the Estimate was exclusively for fees to counsel and to the Law Officers; and it might turn out, at the end of the financial year, that this Vote would not all be required. In the course of the year there were not only numerous and expensive murder trials, but a great many other cases under the Prevention of Crime Act, and there was also the regular Assize, which, owing to the amount and pressure of the business, was unusually prolonged. That circumstance explained, to a large extent, why the general law expenses and the fees to counsel were much larger this year; and he could assure the Committee that those having the administration of this matter in Ireland had been in communication with the Treasury, giving the matter their closest attention, and endeavouring to effect the utmost economy in their power. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had made several complaints against the Government in the course of his observations. In reference to the prosecution of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), that matter had been often before the House, and the language used by the hon. Member had been frequently repeated, and had, he believed, shocked the country. The speech of the hon. Member was considered to be of such a character that it could not possibly be allowed to pass without severe censure, and proceedings on the part of the Government. The proceedings that were taken were not taken under the Prevention of Crime Act; and, as he understood, that was one of the complaints of the hon. Member for Galway, because he asked why the proceedings were taken under a Statute of Charles I. They were not taken under that Statute at all, although, to a certain extent, they were controlled by regulations passed in the Reign of Charles. Many political rights and privileges depended upon Statutes of that age. But when the hon. Member referred to this ground of complaint, he would remind the Committee that, under the proceedings against the hon. Member for Wexford, that hon. Gentleman had it in his power at any time to give security which would have enabled him to attend to his Parliamentary duties. Proceedings were taken against him; and, had it not been for his own action in support of an application for postponement, that coincidence of time pointed out would not have occurred. But while the hon. Member for Galway objected to the conduct of the Government in not proceeding under the Prevention of Crime Act in that case, when he came to the case of Mr. Harrington he complained because the Government did proceed under that Act.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had never done anything of the kind. He had not made the slightest complaint of Mr. Harrington having been tried under the Prevention of Crime Act. He had complained that Mr. Harrington was charged with intimidating the very people who had subsequently elected him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that if he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman it was unintentional; but in reference to the question of intimidation, it did not follow that because persons who had been intimidated afterwards came forward and signed nomination papers, therefore the intimidation did not exist. He could not accept the statement in the newspapers as to the circumstances, about which he know nothing more than, possibly, the hon. Member did. The hon. Member had next referred to the conduct of the juries in a number of cases, and expressed his opinion that two innocent men had been convicted and executed, and based that opinion on their having made dying declarations of innocence. He was not present at the trial to which the hon. Member referred. The trial took place at Cork. The case was twice tried; in the first trial the jury disagreed; but in the second there was a conviction. He was acquainted with the evidence. Nothing could have been clearer or more distinct than that evidence, and, in his opinion, there never was a case more clearly and conclusively proved; and that opinion was shared, he believed, by those who took part in or were present at the trial. These men made dying statements that were inconsistent with their guilt; but those state- ments did not appear to him to be of the slightest importance in a matter of this kind. No person of sense could, for a moment, lay down the proposition that because a criminal at the last moment, and even under solemn circumstances, announced his innocence, therefore the sentence should not be carried out. If any such doctrine were laid down, very few criminals would ever be executed; for a man who would commit a foul and base murder was equally capable of making a declaration of innocence. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had used some strong language as to the constitution of the juries in Dublin; but in reference to that question, when the hon. Member spoke of trials conducted without a shadow of justice, he differed from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who said the Maamtrasna trials were conducted in a manner which commended itself to approval.

MR. O'DONNELL

I was referring to the first four trials at the Lawson Assize, where the juries consisted of Protestants.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

replied, that at the Lawson Assize the Judge had no more power in the constitution of the juries than the door-keeper had; and with regard to the Maamtrasna trials, if the hon. Member would analyize the juries, he would find that in two cases the juries were similarly constituted. [Mr. O'BRIEN: There were four and five.] In one case there were; but in that trial there was a conviction. Then, with regard to jury-packing, those cases were not Party cases—there was no question of Protestants and Catholics; for the persons charged and the witnesses were Catholics. And so, in every case, were the unfortunate victims whose death was the subject of inquiry. They were cases of justice being administered; and he did not believe that in their cooler moments hon. Members would say that Protestants would be guilty of the crime of returning verdicts against innocent men. The hon. Member for Waterford City (Mr. Leamy) had mentioned several cases of the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act, and had referred to a case in which 34 men were sent to prison for stopping the hunt. Well, he could conceive that even if no assault was committed, and no bones were broken, yet a mob of 40 people, using violent language, clearly came within the clauses of the Act; and it turned out that one person, who was described as a member of the hunt, used language of which the justice did not approve, and for which he was punished. It was not conceivable that the action of one person against 40 would amount to intimidation, and that case certainly did not come within the clauses of the Act. The hon. Member mentioned another case in which a magistrate, who was stated to have taken part in the trial, was a member of the hunt. The fact of the magistrate being a member of the hunt did not disqualify him from sitting on the Bench; but if the magistrate were present on the occasion, and were in any way mixed up with the transaction, and afterwards sat on the Bench and adjudicated on the case, he thought that was a case of inadvertence on the part of the magistrate. The hon. Member also referred to the case of a newspaper editor who had written an intimidating article, and said that was the first offence of the editor, and was not of that character to which it was supposed the Act would apply. He did not know on what ground it was supposed that the Act would not apply to a newspaper; and he could conceive of no case of intimidation coming more clearly under the Act than publication in a newspaper. If publication by word of mouth was intimidation, far more would publication be in a newspaper, which was circulated all over the world. It seemed to him that there had been no reason shown why this Vote should not pass.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made no sort of reply to the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with regard to the economical question. He had stated that there had been many more cases in consequence of the Prevention of Crime Act. Of course there were; but £18,000 were put down for fees to counsel in cases arising from that Act alone. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman state how many cases did arise from that Act? Were there 100 prosecutions? The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not say there were more than 100; therefore, if there were not more, then counsel received in each case £180. Now, in Ireland, as a rule, when a man was prose- cuted, he gave counsel £10 or £15, and for that he generally got Queen's Counsel. Why did the Government thrust this expenditure upon the country? He had always wondered why there were so many barristers opposite. The reason was that there was a regular system of bribery in Ireland. It was preposterous, unless it was to be said that everyone who went to the Bar in Ireland was to be bribed to remain one of the English garrison, that this Vote should be passed. Without going into the question in detail, he thought a great deal of what hon. Members opposite said was perfectly right on the mere economical question; and unless he heard a clear explanation from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from the Chief Secretary, respecting this enormous expenditure, he should vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Taking the number of cases at 100, counsel in each case got £180; but there was also an item of £15,000 for Crown Prosecutors, who, he supposed, were solicitors. Therefore, the solicitors made £150 in each case, and counsel £180. That was too much; and he thought that if the English Attorney General were present, he would say that, although admitting that in England the fees were excessive, especially when the Government paid them, still these fees were far in excess of any fees given in this country.

MR. DAWSON

said, he thought these facts threw light on the whole history of Ireland. The country had been reduced to such a state of prostration under English government, that there was no successful thing there to be compared with the rich harvest of the law in these cases. In an Irish Court to ask a question or make a motion there must be five or six counsel. It was the etiquette that one must ask the question first; then another must ask it; and then a third, and so on. That was why the Government could not find money for relieving the people. Where was the spirit of Plunket and Bush? Where was the spirit even of a man like Butt or MacDonagh, or other men who had gone to the Bar and won credit? It was all gone; and there was no spirit now alive but that which was kept viciously alive by these over-payments. That was the whole explanation. This accounted for the prostration of the glorious profession of the Irish Bar; and he did not think hon. Gentlemen would deny that that this must suggest to the Irish people a raison d'être for these continual Crimes Acts and prosecutions. They were the only harvest left in an impoverished country for a degenerate Profession.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

felt that so many new questions arose out of these facts that it would be impossible to discuss them with advantage that night. The Attorney General for Ireland had said he would not, at that hour of the night, enter into details; but what were these questions if details were not entered into? Some of the details involved the whole heart of the questions at issue; but they could not be discussed now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been most anxious to do the best he could in putting his case before the Committee. He said—"I shall not go into this question;" "I am not acquainted with the other question;" "I have the question under consideration;" and so he passed from point to point, and he had for his sole support the "still small voice" of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). He could say nothing but "According to the best of my judgment;" "I believe that this is the conclusion I have formed;" and so on. He did not discuss a single point, and gave no reasons to the Committee. It was the idlest waste of time to go on professing to discuss these questions under such conditions, and at such an hour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government found themselves determined to go to a certain point of Supply within a certain time that night or tomorrow. What did that mean? That the Government were determined to pass this Vote, discussion or no discussion; that they were determined to dragoon the Committee to pass Votes in a certain time. Why should the House not have a Morning Sitting on Saturday, or sit until Thursday week, the day before Good Friday? Surely there was nothing so serious in those penalties that the Committee must pass important Votes of this kind, involving great sums of money, without receiving any reasons. He should move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to re call the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that if they got through the necessary Votes to-morrow night they would suffer no material inconvenience. After the Vote now before the Committee, there were only three others upon which the Irish Members de sired to offer any lengthened observations—namely, those for the Land Commission, the Metropolitan Police, and the Irish Prisons. They had no desire to delay the Committee for a single moment on any Vote on which, in their opinion, it was not necessary to obtain explanations. But in reference to this Vote they thought explanations were necessary. There had been no real discussion upon the Vote; the discussion had been all on one side. They claimed their right to hear what the responsible Minister for Ireland had to say. This was not a matter for a "dry-as-dust" exposition, but for a statement of policy. All that the Attorney General for Ire land had shown was that, though Ire land was a miserable country for the people, it was a good country for the lawyers. Not only was it true that there was a bribe for every lawyer, but he actually believed that County Chairmanships, Inspectorships on the Arrears—

THE CHAIRMAN

Under the New Rules the hon. Member is bound to confine himself to the Question before the Committee, which is that I leave the Chair.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the Question was the necessity of taking this Vote. This was not a suitable time for disposing of the Vote; for, after a considerable discussion on this side, they had only received a dry legal speech—and in the presence of the responsible Minister for Ireland—and until the Chief Secretary replied the discussion could not be satisfactorily concluded.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could not understand why the Government clung so pertinaciously to having this Vote that night. A certain amount of discussion must take place upon it before it was obtained; and it was manifest that that discussion could not be proceeded with with advantage that night. The Committee was not in a frame of mind to listen to arguments raising the important questions it would be necessary to bring before the Committee; and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, it was not reasonable to expect the Committee to sit up any later now. Suppose the Government agreed to a Motion to report Progress, would they lose any time by giving to Members from Ireland facilities which they asked for, for discussing the questions they wished to discuss? The Government might bargain with the Front Opposition Bench not to take the rest of the Votes that night; but it would be necessary to go into Committee of Supply on some other day; and on the Motion for that purpose the Irish Members could raise the question of his hon. Friends the Members for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and Westmeath (Mr. Harrington). That question had, however, already been partially gone into by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and it would be capable of an answer from the Chief Secretary. It would be fair and right to give the right hon. Gentleman time to consider the important considerations placed before the Committee with regard to the release of these two hon. Members, or their continued detention, between now and the next Sitting of the Committee. When he introduced a Motion to refer the question of the imprisonment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as a Question of Privilege to a Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman admitted it was a matter which might profitably and properly occupy the attention of the House. It, of course, became a question for the House to consider what time they ought to take before bringing the matter before the attention of the Committee; and they certainly had been under a considerable hope, and they did still hope, that if the Government received a little more time for the consideration of the matter, the time that they now urged upon the Government to take by agreeing to the proposal to report Progress, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would find himself in a position to give more satisfactory assurances to hon. Members sitting on the Irish Benches than he had yet been able to give. They hoped that by the adoption of the Motion they now made there would be a distinct gain in the matter of the progress of Public Business and the progress of Supply. He and his hon. Friends trusted that the Government would be able to see their way to release the hon. Member for Wexford, in order that he might be able to be present next Wednesday on the debate on the Land Bill which he was so largely instrumental in drafting. And now he would ask the Government what they hoped to gain by asking for this Vote that night? It must have been plainly seen by the course of the debate that there were various matters of great importance requiring further time for consideration. There was the question of the swollen payments that were proposed to be made to the lawyers. They had heard that a new light had dawned on the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and they had every reason to hope that if a little more time were allowed, perhaps that light might be increased and intensified, and that those hon. Members might derive the greatest possible benefit by the delay asked for. There were considerations of immense importance in connection with this Vote, which had not yet been put before the Committee; and he would ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the Government (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he really thought there was any material advantage to be gained by refusing the concession now asked—namely, that they might, at a more reasonable time than the present, be called upon to discuss this matter?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, some regret had been expressed that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not replied to the speeches that were made from the other side of the House. His right hon. Friend would be perfectly ready, even at a later hour, to say what he had to say on this subject; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) feared, from the observations that had just fallen from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that there was no disposition to allow the Government to take this Vote that night, and he was afraid that the Government found themselves not in a position to press the Committee. He hoped, however, he might gather from the observations that had just fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), that if the Government acceded to the Motion now made, that there would be no disposition on the part of him or his hon. Friends to interpose any obstacles to the Speaker leaving the Chair tomorrow when the Motion was put; and he hoped he might also take it for granted that the discussion on these Votes to-morrow would not be protracted to any unreasonable length. He must remind the Committee that, after all, they were only discussing Supplementary Votes, and that it would be possible to discuss the principles involved in the Votes when the Estimates of the year were brought up. He, therefore, would ask hon. Gentlemen to confine themselves, as much as possible, to such exceptional matters as might be involved in the Supplementary Estimates. If the Motion now before the Committee were withdrawn he would agree to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.