MR. O'BRIENsaid, he wished to call attention to some topics connected with Irish criminal administration, in consequence of the answers received from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. In regard to the Tubbercurry prisoners, he wished to point out two or three things. As to Mr. Fitzgerald—whom he happened to know, and whose case had been several times mentioned in the House of Commons—he was arrested in London without a warrant, on a charge of treason-felony. When he was taken to Ireland, the charge of treason-felony was dropped—it had only been assumed to justify an arrest without a warrant—and the officials trumped up instead a charge of conspiracy to murder, which was only a misdemeanour, and in reference to which it would not have been legal to make an arrest without a warrant. Mr. Fitzgerald and the other prisoners were seven times remanded, at secret investigations in Sligo Gaol, without a particle of evidence being produced against them. Police officials had gone amongst the prisoners endeavouring to seduce them into giving evidence by holding out threats and pecuniary inducements to them. Mr. Fitzgerald's wife had actually been visited and tormented by the detectives, with the object of getting evidence from her which would incriminate her husband. These matters had been brought before the attention of the House and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; and, ashamed of these underhand proceed- 536 ings, that right hon. Gentleman had, at length, given an order that these secret inquisitions should cease. When the investigation became public, what was the evidence produced against these men? Why, in the first place, that of a local informer who, it was proved, had been for two years in the pay of the Government fomenting and organizing crime; and, in the second place, that of one of the Phoenix Park murderers—a man who had been taken out of penal servitude, who had purchased himself out of it by giving this evidence. Was there any country in the world but this where a convicted murderer would have a chance of freedom given to him, in order that he might offer evidence against an alleged political offender? These prisoners were ready to take their trial at the last Assizes. There was an engagement given in this House that the evidence against the men should be brought to the test of a trial The Government could not make up their minds what they were going to do until the Assizes had actually commenced, and then the men were deprived of their trial, on the pretence that a jury under the Prevention of Crime Act was subject to intimidation in the county of Sligo. That excuse, flimsy as it was in any case, could not apply to Mr. Fitzgerald, who was a complete stranger in the locality, and had not a single friend in Sligo. These men were willing to take their trial at the Commission now sitting in Dublin, and which would have to sit for a longer time than would be necessary for the Crown to serve notices of trial to it. But, still, the Government who gave Cornwall, in Dublin, an opportunity of having a Prevention of Crime Act jury when he pleased, would give these Tubbercurry prisoners no facilities for trial, but continued to keep them in prison with a terrible charge hanging over them. He should like to know where that sort of thing was to end? There was scarcely a county in Ireland where charges of that kind had not been trumped up, and where, in nine cases out of ten, they had not been found to be baseless. In King's County, and a great many other counties, he could mention this had occurred. In almost every other country in the world, at the conclusion of a period of turbulence such as Ireland had lately passed through, the Government would be anxious to grant an amnesty. The 537 country was in a perfect state of tranquillity; there was hardly a crime being committed in it; but, at this very time, when, as he had said, any other Government in the world would be proclaiming an amnesty and forgiveness for the past, the appetite of the Government for revenge seemed to be growing keener and keener. He did not know whether it was the Government itself, or its underlings in Ireland, who thought their occupation would be gone for the want of crime in the country, and were keeping up the memory of events which, perhaps, the Government had as much interest in forgetting as anyone else. He would like to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to-night what information he had to give with reference to the perfectly shocking revelations which had been made as to the events upon which the unfortunate man Myles Joyce was hanged. That man's case had been mentioned over and over again in this House; but no satisfaction had been obtained. When the old man was convicted; when his execution was about to take place, the men who were to have been hanged with him joined in a solemn declaration that Myles Joyce was innocent. That declaration was sent to Earl Spencer, and it was backed by the strong opinion of the Roman Catholic chaplain who had attended the men, to the effect that he believed in his heart that Joyce had had nothing to do with the murder. His innocence was so strongly believed in, even by the officials in Galway, that on the night preceding his execution the telegraph office was actually kept open to the last moment, with the hope that Earl Spencer would relent, and, with this evidence before him, would spare this man's life; but the office might as well have been closed. Earl Spencer's heart was shut, and on the following morning Myles Joyce was executed. To the last moment he protested in Gaelic that he was innocent, and the last scene was Marwood kicking him into the pit as he was protesting his innocence. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had again and again pressed the Government as to the declarations of this man's innocence that were laid before Earl Spencer; but he was never able to elicit the truth as to the statement these men made. Again and again he had asked that this statement 538 should be furnished to the House as a Return; but that was refused, and again and again the Government evaded the matter. On Thursday last, he (Mr. O'Brien) had received a telegram from a respectable Irish priest in the West of Ireland, in which he said—
To-day, Thomas Casey, one of the approvers in the Maamtrasna case, came before the Archbishop of Tuam at Partry, while confirmation was being administered, and in the presence of the clergy and flock he declared that Mr. Bolton, the Crown Solicitor, compelled him to swear against Myles Joyce, and others, who were innocent. Casey is prepared to do anything in his power to make whatever amends is possible.On the publication of that statement, The Freeman's Journal sent a correspondent to the West of Ireland, and he had an interview with this man Casey and another man named Philbin, who were the principal witnesses upon whose evidence Myles Joyce was convicted. The result was, he ventured to say, one of the most shocking revelations ever laid before the public. The correspondent of The Freeman's Journal stated that he had an interview first with Casey, and proceeded in this way—He gave ready answers, and said that he first offered to give evidence on the Thursday before the trials commenced in Dublin. Mr. Bolton sent a messenger to him, who brought him to a private room, where he was left with Mr. Bolton.He (Mr. O'Brien) himself heard Mr. Bolton swear last week, in Belfast, that he never in his life had a private interview with a prisoner in the gaol or otherwise; although he had received most precise information that again and again Mr. Bolton had prolonged interviews in Kilkenny Gaol with the "Invincibles," as he, beyond doubt, had with these men as well. Then the story proceeded—'Now,' said Mr. Bolton, 'Casey, your brother-in-law, is giving evidence in this case. Are you going to do the same?' 'I am,' said Casey; 'in the truth, and nothing but the truth.' 'Very well,' said Mr. Bolton; 'let us hear the truth.' 'I,' continued Casey, 'started and told him a few words, and Mr. Bolton said, 'Oh, that is nothing at all. I won't accept that.' We then had a few words in private—that is, as to how the case was—them that was in it, and them that was not. I mentioned as amongst those who were not in it Myles Joyce, Pat Joyce, Martin Joyce, John Casey, Thomas Joyce, and Anthony Philbin. I did say that Philbin was not in it. Mr. Bolton then said, 'I won't accept that without you correspond with what your brother-in-law has given.' He then showed me what my brother-in-law had 539 given, and he said, 'You wont to his house for him that night?' I said I did not; and added, 'I don't care if you don't accept that. I can say no more.' He then called the warder, who took me back to the cell. I think that was on the Thursday, and on the Saturday following I went to the priest. I was giving myself up then to be hanged. I was giving myself up to God. Then came the day of trial. I saw Philbin going out in a cab. We—that is, the rest of the prisoners—were in the van, the whole nine of us together, and we were talking about it. 'Oh,' said they, 'between ourselves there is nothing to save us from being hanged.' I said, 'But what about the innocent? Can't we help them that was not in it? Why wouldn't you go and tell the truth, and let those that are innocent escape?' We were in the dark, the whole nine of us, and the warder came to the door, and 'Thomas Casey' was called. I went out. There was Mr. Brady, and Mr. Bolton, and the Governor of the gaol. Mr. Bolton said, 'Casey, are you going to give evidence? Now you are getting a chance to save your neck from the gallows.' I said, 'Well, I would like to give evidence fair. I don't like to give anything wrong.' Mr. Bolton then said, 'Well, I will give you twenty minutes to say 'Yes' or 'No;' and if you don't say 'Yes' you will be the fourth man I will put on trial, and you will surely be hung. I will give you twenty minutes.' I did not say a word for ten minutes or so, and I suppose they thought I was staying too long; and he brought me to another room, where we were alone, and he brought out the statement and showed it to me. 'And now,' said he, 'can you read?' and I said, 'I can't read but a few words;' and he showed me Phil-bin's name written to it with his own hand. I knew that the thing was put down, and I then started to give him my evidence. The correspondent asked—'Did you give him anything but the truth?' and he said, 'To be sure I did. I gave the same evidence as Philbin, to save myself. It was false that Philbin was there at the murder. He was no more there than the child unborn. He swore that I went for him, and I was compelled to say the same. I would not be taken as a witness if I did not do that. Philbin swore that Myles Joyce went into the house, and Pat Joyce and Pat Casey. It was I talked about Nee and Kelly.' 'You know, as a matter of fact,' asked the correspondent, 'that Myles Joyce was not there?' 'I am sure he was not. Myles Joyce was not there, nor Phil-bin, nor the four men that are in penal servitude.'Now, that was the statement of one of the informers upon whose evidence Myles Joyce was convicted, and that statement he had already made solemnly in the presence of the Archbishop of Tuam, and of the clergy and his neighbours. Then the correspondent of The Freeman's Journal had an interview with the second informer, and, of that interview, he wrote—Philbin was not at all so inclined to be communicative, and it was only when Casey arrived, and chiefly in answer to questions put by Casey, 540 that he made any statement whatever. He admitted that he was not in the murder, although he had sworn that he was. 'You swore that Jim Casey came for you?' 'Yes.' And that he brought you with him?' 'Yes.' 'And you were compelled to swear that?' 'I had no other way of saving my life. Mr. Bolton said to me—'Jim Casey came for you?' Whatever I knew I learned from the evidence of Anthony Joyce. Bolton came to me about seven days before the trial. I told him I was not there at all. I denied it. He said, 'But Joyce says you were;' and then I made a statement out of Joyce's evidence; and Bolton said he heard that and more from the Joyces. And then he said 'by tins' (meaning the press, or whatever he had in his hand) 'that if I would not toll him the truth I would be hanged.' 'At all events, you know nothing of the transactions except what you heard?' 'I was not there that night.' 'You are aware that Myles Joyce was not there?' 'I do not know.' 'But you don't know that he was there?' 'I do not.'He (Mr. O'Brien) did not assume that these statements were true; but he did say that they demanded a most searching investigation. As he had already stated, Mr. Bolton swore the other day that be never had an interview with prisoners in prison, but he believed there was ample evidence to show that Bolton did again and again visit various prisons; and if there was the shadow of truth in these circumstantial statements which he had read to the House, they were of such a character as to demand some notice from the Government. In point of fact, considering the evidence of the men who were convicted with these men—considering the opinion of the chaplain, and considering the strong opinion of every man who had to do with these people that Myles Joyce was innocent; and considering also that Earl Spencer had persistently refused to publish this man's statement, he thought that now, for his own sake, Earl Spencer ought to be the first to challenge some public investigation which would satisfy the public mind that a terrible miscarriage of justice had not taken place in this case. Unfortunately, the facts mentioned here were only a small part of the universal system of suspicion, of fraud, and foul play that had attended the whole of the administration in Ireland during the last few years. There was the case of the jury in the Hynes case, with regard to which any public inquiry was refused, and the High Sheriff of Dublin (Mr. Gray) was sent to prison for demanding one. Then there was the question of jury packing. He had heard the Secretary of the Constitutional Club state that Catholic jurors 541 were told to stand aside in Dublin; and he had heard the borough magistrate denounce in the strongest terms the practice of solicitors soliciting prisoners, and endeavouring to seduce them into giving evidence. He had also heard him denounce the system of remands of case after case in the last few years; and remark in the strongest terms that although he had himself publicly complained with regard to a vital affidavit in the murder case at Sligo, in which the Crown could not get at a document which the prisoner's counsel could get at for 1s. at Castlebar. All these facts justified the worst that had ever been alleged against the system of foul play that had been going on in Dublin; and if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would not stand up to-night and give some promise of an investigation that would satisfy the public mind, Englishmen need not be surprised if, instead of regarding the administration of the law in Ireland with respect, nine-tenths of the Irish people regarded it with contempt and aversion. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
§ MR. HARRINGTON, in seconding the Resolution, said that, judging by the manner in which grievances which, from time to time, had been called attention to had been met by the Treasury Bench, he thought there was no disposition on the part of the Government to take the course they were invited to take by his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien), and to hold a public inquiry into these suspicious, if not infamous transactions. He desired to say a few words with regard to the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners which had been repeatedly referred to in that House, but without avail. It had been repeatedly shown that the delay in the trial of these men was a delay for which the Crown officials in Ireland were responsible, and not the prisoners themselves. That being so, they had ample power—nay, the law almost compelled them, to admit these men to bail, they being only waiting trial on a misdemeanour; but they still persistently and obstinately refused to admit them to bail. English Members might ask why it was that there was such a desire on the part of the Irish Members to admit to bail men who might possibly only have to wait five or six days in gaol, before their trial. He had no doubt 542 that was the ground upon which they would be met; but what was the fact? That men who were kept in prison awaiting their trial, and were then brought into the Court manacled to meet their trial, went before the jury with a prejudice on the part of the jury, and a presumption of the guilt of the men; and if anything could strengthen that prejudice in the mind of the jury, it was the course that had been adopted by the Crown in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. The evidence against the 13 or 14 men was of precisely the same character in regard to all. If there was a shade of difference at all, it was undoubtedly on the side of the men who were still in gaol, and had not been admitted to bail. The others had been admitted to bail because of some special circumstances connected with their families; but unfortunate men, holding respectable positions, and with no stronger evidence against them than that against the men who had been admitted to bail, were not admitted to bail. Practically, the Crown told the jury who were to try these men that they had already drawn a distinction and a line of demarcation between the two classes of prisoners, having admitted a certain number of them to bail, but refused it to others who, in their opinion, were guilty of the offence charged against them. He would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider, calmly and impartially, whether there was anything behind that; whether it was a fair and straightforward proceeding that, because a man occupied a fairly respectable position in society, and because he had been the political opponent of certain officials in Ireland, as Mr. Fitzgerald had been, and as other men detained in gaol had been, he must be detained in prison, while humbler men were released, although the evidence was the same against them all. Yet a distinction was drawn between the two sets of men, and the presumption was drawn that a certain number of them must be guilty, but others might not be. If that was the only ground upon which they could appeal to the House, he thought that would fully justify the attitude which Irish Members had taken up; but there were stronger and higher grounds which forced them to draw attention to this subject whenever they had an opportunity. They knew per- 543 fectly well—and everyone in Ireland knew—that the only reason for the detention of these men was that the Crown might have an opportunity of manufacturing informers against them. They knew how the system was worked, and the Crown officials had been obliged to admit it. He had said that the evidence was precisely of the same character all through the cases. That evidence rested on the testimony of two informers, and he did not believe that in any civilized country in the world—he did not believe that in any nation on God's earth—except this, the Government would attempt to preserve law and order by two such wretched individuals as the Crown had used in this case. One of the informers, on his own showing, was a discharged soldier, branded and disgraced, and drummed out of the Army. His character was such as not even to qualify him for a position in the British Army. That was a very worthy individual the Crown had brought to their aid in this matter. But what was the evidence this person had offered? Why, he had stated, in open Court, that the conspiracy for which these men were to be tried was a conspiracy that he, himself, had fostered and encouraged whilst in the pay of Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps that man's story was true, and that some Government official, seeing how useful he would be for the prosecution of innocent men, had employed him and paid him; and perhaps that man had got up a conspiracy for the sake of the wretched gain it would bring. Now, if the character of the informer in this case was such as might well lead hon. Members to consider whether Her Majesty's Government were pursuing a judicious course in prosecuting these prisoners, surely indignant feelings would be aroused in the breast of every honest man, whatever might be his political opinions, or whatever might be his opinion of the guilt or innocence of these men. Who was the second gallant soldier that Her Majesty's Government had brought to their assistance in the vindication of law and order in this case? Why, Pat Delaney, convicted of highway robbery, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude, and, after his release, convicted and sentenced to a period of 12 months for attempting to take the life of Mr. Justice Lawson, and subsequently convicted 544 and sentenced to death in connection with the murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke in the Phoenix Park. The House, they knew, had been occupied for a long time with the discussion of the attempts of Her Majesty's Government to maintain peace and law, and their authority in Egypt; and he would ask hon. Members now to bring their minds to a place much nearer home than Egypt. He would tell them there was no system of criminal prosecution in Egypt, there was no tyranny and despotism, however rude, practised in that country which could equal the system upon which law and the administration of justice rested in Ireland. They had heard the case of Egypt stated over and over again, and they had heard Egyptian officials maligned and condemned over and over again; but if those officials only knew the state of things in Ireland, how the Crown prosecutions were manufactured, and how informers were paid and pampered—aye, and how the wretched men were tempted with the bait of their very lives to give evidence, and swear away the lives of innocent men, there was not a potty tyrant in Egypt who would not tell them that the state of things in this country was infinitely worse than anything which they could point to in his country. He (Mr. Harrington) would put it to Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be better that a few men, even supposing them to be guilty of the crimes alleged against them—and he very much doubted it, knowing the officials who were getting up the prosecution—should escape the penalty of their offences rather than that they should outrage sentiments and feelings of an entire people by getting up prosecutions on such testimony as that to which he had referred? Would it not be better to let a few guilty men escape than the discredit should attach to the Government of availing themselves of the assistance of infamous wretches of this description—rather than they should be tempted to swear away the lives of innocent men? Although they might succeed in getting a verdict of guilty against the prisoners in the present case, and though it was possible that the people of Ireland might believe them to be guilty, still the people of Ireland would cry shame on the English Government, who had to bring to its assist- 545 ance wretches of this abominable type, and could not get any fitter or more worthy instruments for the vindication of the law than a man who had been drummed out of the Army, and another who had been convicted and, in the end, sentenced to be hanged in Dublin for murder. He could not conceive how it was possible that a Government which called itself Christian could place the lives and liberties of a dozen unfortunate men at the mercy of individuals who had been guilty of such infamous crimes as this man Delaney had been guilty of, and who would be prepared to swear away the lives, not of one, or a dozen men, but of half the world, if it were necessary to enable him to eke out his wretched existence for a few years longer. The Irish Members did not ask that Her Majesty's Government should not carry on the prosecution they had initiated against these men; they did not ask for any mercy for them; they did not ask that any unusual course should be adopted in their regard; but they did ask that the same lines which were laid down by our Judges in England, and invariably followed by English officials in the trial of unfortunate men, should be pursued in reference to these prisoners in Ireland. They did ask that, if these men were guilty, they should be found guilty by fair means; and they did protest that it was better the guilty should be allowed to escape than, being guilty, they should employ, to prove the guilt of these men, such instruments as those he had described. What was the demand which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had made as to these men? It was simply this—that, as the Crown officials had deliberately delayed the trial of the prisoners, and as the prisoners had repeatedly challenged the Government officials to bring them to trial, they asked that the course always adopted in England as to such prisoners should be adopted in Ireland, and that they should be admitted to bail. Only a few days ago, he had seen a case reported in the English papers, in which an English Judge—he believed Mr. Justice Hawkins—had made some strong observations on a case that had come before him for trial. What did this Judge say? Why, he commented on the fact that some of the prisoners placed on their trial before him were 546 prisoners who very well might have been admitted to bail; and he said he could not understand why it was that the Crown did not take care that every man whose trial was delayed in any way was treated fairly, and admitted to bail. The learned Judge had gone further, and had said he considered it to be in the highest degree prejudicial to the case against the prisoner upon trial, that he should walk from the prison into the dock; and that, where the Crown was entitled to admit a man to bail, it was desirable that it should give him his freedom until it was necessary for him to come finally to stand his trial. These were views which would commend themselves at once to the feelings of the people of Ireland, who loved justice, and who had been a long time asking for it in vain. But that was not language they had been accustomed to hear from Irish Judges. Irish Judges were more than judicial functionaries, they were Crown Prosecutors as well. They were persons who advised the lines of policy upon which the Government proceeded in certain cases. They were gentlemen who had the initiative and the direction of prosecutions in their hands, and who were afterwards called upon to try the cases. The Irish Judges were called upon to try men against whom they had originally set the law in motion. He would take the case of one of the prisoners—namely, Mr. Fitzgerald who, as his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) had said, was arrested in England. That gentleman had been arrested by a mere trick on the part of the Government. The Irish Members had been told in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) that Mr. Fitzgerald was arrested upon suspicion of treason-felony, and it was, of course, at once seen that it was perfectly legal to arrest him on such a charge without a warrant; but it so happened that that very same maxim of law, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was so well acquainted with, and which the Crown officials employed for the arrest of Mr. Fitzgerald, when they ventured to arrest him on a different charge, the right hon. Gentleman was ignorant of when he came to arrest Mr. Cornwall a few days afterwards. This Mr. Fitzgerald had been imprisoned for the last three months 200 miles away 547 from his wife and family, and his friends, andevery one who could render him assistance. The case against him rested on the evidence of these two unfortunate creatures to whom he (Mr. Harrington) had referred. This evidence was much weaker than that against the men who had been released on bail. The Government officials knew that he had not been guilty of conspiracy to murder—no official in the country would ever, on independent testimony, be able to bring home such an infamous charge to him. But it was known that he was no friend to the Crown officials in Ireland, and no friend to the system of government Her Majesty's Ministers were pursuing in that country; and, because that was the case, and the Government knew he entertained strong political opinions, they punished him by detaining him in prison 200 miles away from his friends, and depriving him of the means of obtaining witnesses to testify in his behalf, and of having access to his books. They would force him to be tried 200 miles away from home and before a packed jury. Why did the Irish Members call attention to these cases so frequently? Not because of the injury the men suffered by a few weeks' or months' confinement in Ireland. They were sufficiently acquainted with the fact that it did not kill, and that it would not inspire any very lively affection for Her Majesty's Government. They called attention to what was going on, because they knew that with regard to these men whose trials were delayed, and as to whom the Crown officials in Ireland had deliberately made up their minds to allow no bail, so surely as the bloodhound who had tasted blood ran down its victim, so surely would a conviction be obtained against Mr. Fitzgerald. He would be tried by a packed jury; and if there should be one man on it who did not think the evidence sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, the Crown would carefully eliminate the man who had disagreed, and had given an opinion in favour of the prisoner, and would appoint another jury on which they would put the 11 men in favour of a verdict of guilty. That was the system against which they were forced to raise their voices in the House, against which they were forced to raise their voices in Ireland; and while the system 548 existed, and so long as they had an opportunity, they would never lose the opportunity to cry shame on the system, and the men who were employed in it. The case of the unhappy men who were still awaiting their trial fitted in exactly with that case quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow; the course he so much dreaded was being pursued against these men, whom he (Mr. Harrington) believed to be innocent, but who, at all events, innocent or guilty, were entitled to a fair trial—a course which had been pursued successfully against other innocent people in Ireland. His hon. Friend had referred to that unfortunate man, Myles Joyce; and on one of the first occasions when he (Mr. Harrington) had the opportunity of speaking in the House, he drew attention to the case of this unhappy man. Through the instrumentality of Her Majesty's Government, he (Mr. Harrington) was imprisoned in gaol a few weeks after the man was executed, and there was not an official in that gaol, however hardened he might be, there was not a man, however he might differ from the sympathies of the Irish people, who did not believe in his soul, before God, that Her Majesty's Government had hanged an innocent man. Repeatedly, he (Mr. Harrington) put Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the depositions of the other two men who were executed on the same scaffold with Myles Joyce, and, time after time, evasive answers were given. Finally, when he put the Question to the Prime Minister, when the character of the Irish Executive was impugned, when it was I suspected that, by negligence or connivance, they had sacrificed the life of an innocent man, the answer was a refusal to place before the House the depositions of the two men executed with Myles Joyce, though this would have settled the question one way or the other—whether the suspicion that had found such firm root in the feelings of the Irish people had any foundation, whether it was just or unjust. He wished to remind the House of the course pursued in regard to this man. There had just been published the testimony of two of the men who were employed as informers on the trial, that they were forced, in order to save their own lives, 549 to make a statement, to hang a story together, declaring that they had participated in the murder, that they were present, when, actually, neither were present, and to swear, amongst other things, against the unfortunate Myles Joyce, who they had heard from others was not present. These two men said the only knowledge they had of the murder was from talking to the other men who were in prison. But George Bolton, the urbane, obliging Crown official in Ireland, paid visits to the cells of these unhappy men, while waiting for their trial, and so preyed on their feelings, telling them it was their only hope for life, that they swore to the story he had written on paper for them to swear to. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would say it was a question between Mr. George Bolton and these two men, and that he preferred to believe Mr. Bolton. He might express that preference, and so might Her Majesty's Ministers; but they would not win respect for the administration of the law, or commend their policy to the Irish people, while they, to shield George Bolton, refused impartial inquiry into facts. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances of the case. When he first directed attention to it in the House, he had never heard of the statements of Casey and Philbin published that day—the two men who now stated they swore away the life of an innocent man—the statement he (Mr. Harrington) made on that occasion was from what he learned from the gaol officials. Three men were found guilty of the Maamtrasna murders, and sentenced to be executed on the same day—Myles Joyce, John Casey, and Pat Joyce. These three were, as he had said, sentenced to be executed on the same day. Everyone who knew anything of prison regimen, of the routine of prison life, knew perfectly well that it would be impossible for two condemned men, with warders always in their cells, to concoct a false, though consistent, story about a third man. And what were the facts? These men were attended by the Catholic chaplain, who endeavoured to prepare them for death as best he could. What the confessions of the condemned men to the priest were, he could not divine, and upon that the reverend gentleman could tell nothing; 550 but every Catholic, every man acquainted with the tenets and practice of the Catholic Church, could form a judgment from what happened. After the Catholic chaplain had attended them for some days, he heard their confessions, and prepared these men to meet their death. And then the two men, Casey and Pat Joyce, expressed a desire to make a sworn deposition before the Resident Magistrate who had charge of the prosecution against them, and conducted it to a successful issue. Everyone could understand how, finding that the third man was perfectly innocent of the murder for which he was condemned, the priest, though he could not state it, would press these two men to make such depositions, and would press on them their duty to confess their own guilt, and make some reparation for their crime by saving the life of an innocent man; and everyone would know how hard, under such circumstances, it would be to induce unhappy men, who clung to the hope of reprieve, to make such confession. Well, the Resident Magistrate went to the gaol, and took the depositions of Casey and Pat Joyce, and those depositions were made without any agreement, without any message passing between them. He (Mr. Harrington) did not believe that either knew of the other's intention to act on the counsel of the priest who heard the confessions. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said the depositions did not state that Myles Joyce had no complicity in the murders; but he (Mr. Harrington) knew there was no Catholic priest living who would conceive so lax an idea of his duty, as to seek to save the life of a murderer under such circumstances as these; it was monstrous, it was absurd. It was merely a subterfuge of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to prevent the public from getting at the full truth of the facts; it was merely an endeavour to save the system of administration for which the Irish Government were responsible. These men made separate depositions; and he was informed, by men who had read them, that these two men expressly and clearly stated they were present at the murders and participated in that horrible crime, and that, as an act of reparation, they felt it their duty to state their own guilt, for the sake of endeavouring to save the life of a man who was not present at the murders and knew nothing 551 of the matter. Now, if this statement of what was in the depositions was not true, if there was no foundation for these allegations, the Irish Executive had an easy way of meeting the charge. If he (Mr. Harrington) and his hon. Friends were misleading the House, and misleading public opinion, surely, for the mere sake of a technicality, the Government would not allow public opinion to be misled, and horrible suspicious to be excited, when they had in the Office of the Lord Lieutenant these statements, these dying depositions of the two men, which they could lay on the Table of the House. He challenged the Government to take that course. If they did, then it would be seen that, either with guilty knowledge, or through neglect, the life of the man Myles Joyce was sacrificed, either designedly, or as the result of a bad system of officialism in Dublin Castle. Earl Spencer, who took the responsibility, neglected his duty, and did not read the depositions when laid before him, allowed the law to take its course, and this unfortunate innocent man to be launched into eternity with the brand of infamy on his name. These depositions were sent by the magistrate to the Lord Lieutenant; and if they did not state, clearly and expressly, the innocence of the unfortunate man Myles Joyce, would the magistrate who had committed the prisoners have been so anxious that the Lord Lieutenant should read and pronounce judgment on these depositions? Would he have remained at the telegraph office, which was kept open all night, waiting for the reprieve which, in his own mind, he felt sure would come? But he waited in vain, for those depositions were never read; or, if they were, it was not part of the policy of the Executive to discredit their informers by saving the life of an innocent man. The scene that took place at the execution of the unfortunate man was one that, from its tragic character, must in itself be remembered for many a day in Ireland, and would be fresh in the mind of every Irish peasant when he read the revelations in the journals of the day, when he read the statement of the two men who contributed, by weaving their false story, to bring about the death of Myles Joyce, when the statements were proclaimed before the world, that they were persistently preyed upon by George Bolton, and 552 as he expressed it, with the "hope of saving their own necks," swore to a story he had written for them to swear to. Now, another fact had been brought to light in these revelations, a fact stated in the House 12 months ago, and then laughed at. It had been frequently stated that the men who were sentenced to penal servitude pleaded guilty; but now the fact appeared that four of the men who were sentenced to penal servitude for life, who pleaded guilty to complicity in the murders, four of these were as innocent of the murders as any man on the Treasury Bench. They were completely under the terror of the system they knew they had to face—the thirst for blood which had seized on the Crown officials—they knew it was humanly certain that, innocent or guilty, their fate would be the same; they saw a man they knew to be innocent sacrificed, and they knew they would be sentenced to the same fate as Myles Joyce; and, snatching at the hope of prolonging their wretched existence, they took the advice of the Crown officials, and pleaded guilty to save themselves from the extreme penalty of the law. Here was the result of the system in Ireland—not only did it succeed in forcing a conviction against an innocent man, making him a victim to the official thirst for blood, not only was the attempt made to whitewash every man employed, but, in order to win some credit for mercy, the fears of these unhappy men were so worked upon in prison that they confessed the lesser offence than that with which they were charged, in order to obtain the lesser sentence of penal servitude. If the Government refused to grant inquiry into the facts of this case, let them take, as their reward, the shame that would be heaped upon them in Ireland for that refusal. No amount of sophistry and argument would suffice, when they had the means of disproving the charge, if false; by no chicanery could they avoid it. Earl Spencer had, in Dublin Castle, documents that, if laid on the Table of the House, would clearly show to every Member and to public opinion in England and Ireland, whether the suspicions aroused against Her Majesty's Government, of having hanged an innocent man for the sake of maintaining the credit of their system of prosecution, had or had not any foundation in fact. If the allegations were false, if they had 553 no foundation in fact, then, why not, for the sake of justice, for the sake of respect for law, for the sake of truth, why not for the sake of the Government and the honour of public officials, place these documents on the Table, and allow hon. Members to judge of their worth? The depositions were made by these two men with no hope that they would save them from their fate. These men were strangled, on the same scaffold, side by side with Myles Joyce; they heard him, in his native Gaelic, with the rope round his neck, the bolt about to be drawn, in the final moment before he went to meet his God, declare with his latest breath his innocence of the crime alleged against him, and that his only dread and fear of death was from the shame of having such a crime attributed to him, of which he was perfectly innocent. If the Government had any wish to set public opinion at rest on such an awful subject, if they wished to preserve ordinary respect for their administration of the law, let truth be known by placing these documents on the Table. Did they mean to test the statements of the two informers? Enough, surely, was known of George Bolton to require something more than his statement. If it was said these allegations were not true, then let a searching inquiry be made, and let the men who had been sent to penal servitude be examined, together with numbers of other men who had knowledge of the matter, and so let the Government justify their conduct. Let them show, if they could, that these officials had not worked upon the minds of these men, and threatened them with penal servitude, in order to force them to give evidence against men who were innocent. If these things had not been done, then an inquiry of this kind could not establish a case against the Government. Time after time he and his hon. Friends had challenged the Government upon these matters; but the Government had evaded them. They met them, first of all, with a denial, and this House was the last to admit the truth of these statements. The conduct of the Government had brought them a fruitful harvest of trouble in the past; and all he could say was that he should have little regard for his fellow-countrymen, and little respect for their feeling, if such a system as this, built up upon such infamy, could commend itself to their approval.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the conduct of the Irish administration in reference to the Tubbercurry Conspiracy Cases, and to the conviction of Myles Joyce, was arbitrary and unconstitutional,"—(Mr. O'Brien,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. KENNYsaid, the statement which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had put before the House was one of a shocking and startling description. It went far to prove what many had believed—namely, that the Maamtrasna massacre did not terminate on the 17th of August, 1882, but with the closing scene of the tragedy that took place in Galway Gaol on the 15th of September in the same year. The principal witnesses who had been employed for the prosecution, the approvers who were in the service of the Crown, had now come forward, and in the presence of the Archbishop of Tuam, and in the presence of the population of that district, made a distinct and solemn statement that the evidence which they gave, and the evidence which convicted the three men who were hanged, including Myles Joyce, was a fabrication, and that it was fabricated at the instigation of Mr. George Bolton, the special Crown Solicitor of Her Majesty's Government. Philbin had distinctly stated that not only was his evidence false, but that he was not even present on the occasion of this occurrence; and Casey had also most distinctly stated that Myles Joyce was not present on the night of the murder; and, therefore, he had been hanged for a crime of which he was entirely and absolutely innocent. These statements were brought before the Government. Statements of these men's innocence were laid before the Lord Lieutenant, signed by two other men, Patrick Joyce and Casey, who were also hanged, together with statements by four of the men who were sentenced to penal servitude for life, all unanimously concurring in the statement that Myles Joyce was innocent. What was the plea put forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in that House? He said these statements simply said that Myles Joyce did not commit the crime, but that, in those statements, there was nothing to prove 555 that he was not present on the occasion. The whole tendency of the evidence that was given and of these statements, went to prove that, if Myles Joyce was innocent, he could not have been present on the occasion; and now these two men, who were put forward at the instigation of Mr. Bolton to swear away the life of Myles Joyce, who was the innocent man amongst them, declared that their evidence was an utter fabrication. From the beginning the trial was conducted in a manner little in accordance with the public idea of oven-handed justice. At the beginning of the case an application was made by the counsel for the defence for a change of venue, because it was necessary in the interests of justice that the locality in which the crime was committed should be inspected by the jurors; but then there was a further plea for a postponement of the trial, which was of much more importance—namely, that although the counsel for the defence had applied for the evidence which was given by the second approver, Casey, it had been withheld by the Government, and the counsel for the defence were practically going into Court with only half-briefs. But in face of the fact that the evidence of Casey was withheld, the Crown, led on by one who was then a notorious Crown Prosecutor, and was now a Judge, refused to agree to a postponement, and forced on the case when it was notorious that the counsel for the defence were not ready. And then, at the instigation of Mr. Bolton, the jury was packed; and this was not an exceptional case. Thirty-eight jurors were told to stand aside at the instance of Mr. Bolton; and then a packed Orange jury was constituted, there being, of course, no Catholic upon it. What was the evidence of the man Philbin? A portion of it was, that he and the second informer, Tom Casey, met Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, and his son John, on the night of this murder. The five men went on together, and were met by Martin Joyce, another of the prisoners. When the six men came together, it was between 11 and 12 at night. Martin Joyce came from a field to join them. They then went into Casey's house, but Philbin swore that he did not join them. Then he stated that they went on together, but that he had no arms, and did not know what mission he was going on, not having been apprised of the 556 nature of the mission either directly or indirectly. This man, going, as it would seem from the sequel to his evidence, on a mission for the purpose of committing an atrocious and horrible butchery—it was a little too much a stretch of the imagination and credulity of ordinary people, at all events, if not of a packed jury in Dublin, that an individual like this would be allowed to accompany a number of men bent on the most desperate and most villanous of secret outrages possible—namely, secret murder—without any restraint being put upon him to preserve confidence and secrecy, and without being armed, to carry out the act which, according to his own evidence, he must have been in the conspiracy to accomplish. Then he said he saw Patrick Casey and Myles Joyce and Patrick Joyce break in the door; and then, he said—"All of us went into the night." Now, it was on the evidence of this man, subsequently corroborated by his brother-in-law, Casey, one of whom lived six miles, and the other five miles, from the scene of the murder, that the other men were convicted. But these two men now concurred in the statement made in the presence of the Archbishop and the clergy and the people of the neighbourhood—in whose presence they would not be likely to make a statement so utterly uncalled for and so utterly unjustifiable, if it was false—that the evidence they gave incriminating Myles Joyce was an absolute falsification; and, furthermore, that the evidence they gave against Patrick Joyce and the other men was simply evidence picked up haphazard from their fellow-prisoners. It might be well to state that the first witness who came forward for the purpose of giving information to the Crown was Anthony Joyce; and, with regard to him, it might be interesting to notice that he swore that he was forced to admit on oath at the trial in Dublin that he bore a personal grudge against Patrick Joyce because of some differences between them; and, furthermore, this Anthony Joyce was one of those gombeen men who pursued a calling of the most objectionable kind—a calling which invariably excited in the districts where it prevailed a good deal of enmity towards the men who carried it on. This Anthony Joyce was the first individual who came forward to give information to the police, and his story was this— 557 that he was awakened at night by the barking of his dog, and, on getting up and going out, he saw a number of men walking along the road, all of whom he recognized. He then went into the house of his brother, who lived near him, and awoke him, and also his nephew; and the three men then stealthily followed the men who were going to carry out the murder of the Joyce family. This Anthony Joyce, according to his own story, followed these men to the scene of the murder, and having satisfied himself that a murder or murders had taken place, he and his brother and nephew rushed back to their houses, and it was not till two or three days afterwards that they gave information to the police, and described what they had witnessed. It was rather a singular thing that this Anthony Joyce and the other men, instead of going to the police at once, and informing them of the terrible and horrible tragedy they had practically witnessed, returned to their homes and said nothing about the occurrence for several days. Instead of that, Mr. Anthony Joyce, the gombeen man, attended the wake of the Joyce family, and at the wake gave utterance to the extraordinary statement, in the presence of a man named Kernaghan, that Patrick Joyce should be sworn against because he had committed the murder. So far as could be seen, it was more reasonable to suppose that he was concerned in the murder rather than Myles Joyce. He waited two or three days for the purpose of giving information. He and his brother and nephew waited to hatch their plot; and in view of the fact that he was at enmity with Patrick Joyce, it was more likely that he had employed certain men to commit this murder, and then turned round and put forward this cock-and-bull story in order to throw suspicion from himself on to other and innocent men. There were further grounds for suspicion against this Anthony Joyce. From the declaration of one of these men, Thomas Casey, who had now come forward and made this startling declaration, the man who concocted this murder, and who paid, as he said, for its being carried out, was at present "walking on the top of the green grass." What did that mean? That the person who concocted this murder, and paid for its being committed, was still alive—perhaps enjoying 558 the protection of the Government; and probably this gombeen man was enjoying a portion of the money that was distributed among the witnesses. He would further draw attention to certain statements that were made at the trial. Just before Judge Barry, who tried the case, proceeded to charge the jury, an individual named Brian, who was an official in the gaol where the prisoners were confined, stated that the prisoners had had no opportunity of communicating with each other. But there was now the declaration of Thomas Casey, that he and Philbin went out into the yard together, and were allowed to agree on the main points of the story, which they submitted to Mr. Bolton for his approval, and afterwards came forward in the usual way to confirm it. Yet, at the same time, Mr. Brian was brought up for the purpose of proving to the jury that these two individuals and all the others had no opportunity whatsoever of communicating with each other after their arrest. There was, furthermore, the statement of Thomas Casey, that when he entered, and saw he was amongst the other prisoners—that was before he became an approver—they recognized the position in which they were in, and knew what was going to happen. They had seen certain previous trials. They knew what packed juries were by repute, at any rate, and that they would have very little chance of escaping with their lives. That was why these men, for the purpose of saving their lives, took the alternative which, perhaps, many people would not take—that of penal servitude for life. It seemed that, notwithstanding the taunts which had been levelled from time to time against the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that right hon. Gentleman had consistently refused to produce on the Table of this House the declarations of the two men who were executed to assoilzie Joyce, and the statements of the four men who were now in penal servitude—the six statements together freeing Myles Joyce from any share whatever in the murder. Besides that, they knew that the Lord Lieutenant had ordered the payment of £4,000 as compensation to the two sons of the Joyce family—one who was 20 miles away at the time, and the other who escaped when the murders were committed. He did not grudge the compensation to 559 these two unfortunate boys; but there were now two statements made by persons who ought to know something of the manner in which the evidence was got up, and he would like to know what would bethought in England, if it could be made clear upon investigation that one, at any rate, of the men who were strangled in Galway Gaol was innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, and that, though hanged by judicial process, he was as really and truly murdered as any man ever was? It was to be hoped that the Lord Lieutenant or Her Majesty's Government would be as just to the relatives of that man as they were to the survivors of the murdered family. It was to be hoped that the relatives of Myles Joyce would not be allowed to go without some compensation for the manner in which he had been treated. He (Mr. Kenny) did not for a single moment believe that any amount of money paid out of the Public Treasury would compensate these people, poor as they might be, or would compensate even the poorest peasants in Ireland, for the stigma which would attach to their name owing to the fact that one of their relatives had met the death of a common felon upon the gallows. Still, these poor people had now, to a great extent, been vindicated, and there were others also who had been vindicated by declarations of a similarly startling character. Only the other night, there was a discussion in that House upon the somewhat similar or analogous declaration—the dying declaration of a young man in America, who swore that another man was undergoing penal servitude for a crime which he, the man who made the declaration, had committed. Then there was the declaration of a man who swore upon his dying bed that he had suborned false testimony against two men now undergoing penal servitude for a crime which any man who knew anything of the facts knew they never committed. They had these statements, which, in some respects, were gratifying in a melancholy manner to the unfortunate relatives of these persons who had been seized upon by Her Majesty's Government, and tried in a manner which, he thought, would not commend itself to the feelings of justice, even of Englishmen, if the facts could be investigated. He expected that, before 560 long, there would be some more similar declarations. There would be evidence forthcoming—evidence which would satisfy most people—that certain men had been executed for another murder of which they were entirely innocent. There would be the dying declarations of the prisoners themselves, and also the evidence of others, to show that the men were innocent. It would be found, upon investigation, that it was not alone the enemies of Her Majesty's Government who were guilty of murder, and who were the apologists for murder, but that there were others who stood in high places, and who were closely connected with Her Majesty's Government, who had had their turn at the bloody work.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, there had been two matters brought forward by hon. Gentlemen which he would deal with separately. One related to the Tubbercurry prisoners; the other to the trial which took place some years ago, and a statement in regard to which had appeared in the papers to-day. The first complaint was that there had been a great number of remands in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners; but that had been necessitated by the fact that there were 12 prisoners, and it was absolutely impossible that the evidence could close without a considerable time elapsing. Therefore, for their own sakes, in order to make the evidence complete, it was necessary that there should be a considerable number of remands. It was said—and he should not be justified in passing that by—that a gentleman named Jacques visited the prisoners, and attempted to seduce men to give evidence. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would be the last, he would not say to express approval, but to forbear from expressing condemnation of such a thing. The fact was that the gentleman named did not do what he was charged with—there was no evidence to show that he did it—and it rested entirely on the allegation of the hon. Gentleman who made the statement.
§ MR. HARRINGTONI said, evidence could be given that he swore absolute perjury.
MR. O'BRIENThe statement is not mine; but it was made to me by Mr. Fitzgerald from facts within his knowledge.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not think the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had a right to rely on what occurred on his trial. But, as to the question of the Tubbercurry prisoners, hon. Members who had spoken, had allowed themselves to use language with regard to the evidence which he would not follow. If he were to follow those hon. Members, he should, perhaps be doing an injustice to the men by letting it be stated in the public Press what was the evidence which the Crown intended to use against them. All he could say was that there was a strong primâ facie case against them, which would be verified at the proper time. As to the trial which was postponed last January, the postponement arose from the fact that, in the opinion of the Judge, circumstances had taken place, such as the appeal to the special jurors of the county—appealing to them for money for the trial—which led the Judge to the conclusion that a fair trial could not be had among those jurors. A printed document had been sent round for no other purpose than influencing them. It was said that a special jury in Sligo was above influence; but, if so, why was the document sent round? The learned Judge carne to the conclusion that it must influence them, and in his opinion justice could not be satisfied by a trial there. Accordingly, the trial was postponed, in the course of law, to the next March Assizes. It appeared that six of the men had been bailed out of 12; and the hon. Member for Westmeath said it was a great hardship for men to come up to trial who had never been bailed. That was an argument in all cases, but the law recognized no presumption.
§ MR. HARRINGTONI did not give that as my own statement, but as that of one of the most eminent of the Judges in England—Mr. Justice Hawkins.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he did not know under what circumstances Mr. Justice Hawkins had laid down that dictum; but if he did it in respect of a charge such as was made against these men, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) begged respectfully to differ from him. Now, what were the circumstances? The rules under which bail was accepted were a simple matter of law, and were according to the nature of 562 the crime. What was the crime charged against Fitzgerald, whose name was frequently brought up in this discussion? The crime charged against him was treason-felony. It was said there was no strong evidence against him of conspiracy to murder, although implicated in this charge. But, admitting that for the sake of argument, the charge against him was that he had been for years the organizer of "Fenian circles" throughout the country, and that there had been conspiracy to murder or murder itself. It was suggested that the Attorney General for Ireland should, of his own motion, allow these men out on bail. But, in dealing with such matters, the Attorney General for Ireland occupied a judicial position. He could not allow men out on bail on his own responsibility. The plain and obvious course in such a case was for anyone to apply to the Court which had cognizance of such matters—the Court of Queen's Bench. It was said that the Court would necessarily decide for the Crown, but that was by no means so. The Crown might oppose the application, and, probably, would; but it was just as often as otherwise that the Court of Queen's Bench decided against the Crown. If that was so, the Attorney General for Ireland was freed from all responsibility, and the legal and Constitutional and proper course was adopted. He would now say a word about the other matter—the matter of the Myles Joyce trial, and he would not go back upon what was old in that case, but merely upon what was new. The matter was unprecedented. What was the short outline of the case? Two years ago, a murder, the most striking and the most shocking in its character that ever disgraced the country, took place in a wild district. They were not men in a high position—they were humble peasants, and a whole family was murdered—all, from the old grandmother to the little child, were recklessly destroyed, except one. A more shocking murder was never carried out. The evidence on which the murderers were convicted was complete. Not only was there the evidence of these two men, Casey and Philbin, but there was the evidence of other and impartial witnesses, who proved that they saw a party of men passing their house, that they thought these men were up to no 563 good, and that they followed them for a considerable period down the lane, and then remained and watched what happened. These witnesses were men who were not informers, and against them no charge had ever been made.
§ MR. HARRINGTONThey never mentioned Myles Joyce.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that one of them did. Casey and Philbin gave evidence on their solemn oath against their own relatives. Now, on the 11th of August, 1884, what took place? In one of the daily journals of Dublin, to-day, a statement appeared of an interview in a remote district, but giving no hint of the influences or of the promises under which such a declaration was made—an interview in which the men Casey and Philbin were alleged to have admitted that they committed perjury at the trial. These men, Casey and Philbin, were now living in a remote district where they were accessible to terrorism; and it was said, indeed, that Mr. Bolton was not to be believed against them. Now, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) preferred to believe these men when on their oath, against any statement they might make two years after they had sworn against their own relatives. It was all very well now to say that Mr. Bolton visited these men, and made them say certain things—all he could say was that Mr. Bolton denied it in the most positive manner. One word more, and he had done. It had been said that the Judges even could not be trusted to administer the law in Ireland, and that they were Privy Councillors, and, as such, advised prosecutions. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Cavan said "Hear, hear!" All he could say to the hon. Member was that anyone who made such a statement as that could have no idea of the work of the Privy Council. No Judge in the land in Ireland, and he believed in England also, as a Privy Councillor, or otherwise, ever took part in advising a trial.
§ MR. CALLANMight I ask, did any legal Privy Councillor take part in advising the prosecution of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the other traversers in 1881?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)Nothing of the kind. No Judge ever took part in 564 advising a prosecution in Ireland, and I trust never will. It would be contrary to the first functions of a Judge to advise any trial.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had kept himself a little more to the Question before the House, and had given less attention to the particular state of mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not told them whether Her Majesty's Government would, or would not, come to a conclusion as to the merits of the case stated in the newspapers this morning. The Irish Members wished to know in this affair, whether the Government really proposed to pass over these very serious disclosures, and take no steps to have their truth or falsehood demonstrated? The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of these men as being in a remote out-of-the-way district; but if he thought that the evidence given in such a place could not be relied upon, let him bring the men from the place where they now were to a place where the evidence could be fairly taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said he could put the depositions of these informers, given two years ago, against their statements of yesterday—he was prepared to set the one against the other. On his own showing, supposing these statements of yesterday were a mass of falsehoods, did it not produce the impression upon the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind that if the statements of these men were false now, the statements they made two years ago might be equally false? Was not the hon. and learned Gentleman's impression altered on the whole state of the case? If they accepted the hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption, that the witnesses made a gross false statement yesterday, the very fact of its being a false statement entitled hon. Members to ask whether the Government would not investigate the case in order to see whether the men who it was said were liars yesterday, were not also gross liars two years ago? The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed never to have heard any story of men being coerced by Crown terrorism into making false and calumnious statements. The hon. and learned Gentleman might have remembered the 565 famous occasion in English history, when an English Archbishop had the torture applied to him to induce him to accuse persons of crime. "My nerves are weak," he said, "and if you press me too far, I may accuse your Grace yourself of crime." The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that case. He must know also that in all criminal trials, where the Crown brought pressure to bear for the purpose of extorting a verdict, that men would falsely accuse others, and even themselves, if they had some hope of escape. In this case, was it not the fact that men who had died on the scaffold had died testifying to the innocence of Miles Joyce? Had they not now to add to that statement, the declaration of these two men who had come forward before the Archbishop of Tuam and his clergy, stating that they were coerced and terrorized into making false statements when they gave their evidence against this unfortunate man Miles Joyce? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman tell them that these facts in no way altered the state of the case? Did he mean to tell them that the case was perfect, and in no way called for further inquiry and investigation? Was the hon. and learned Gentleman not present in this House the other night when a case, not nearly so clear as the present, nor so closely brought under their knowledge, in a declaration of a similar kind was submitted, and they were promised investigation—full and strict and stringent investigation—into the circumstances? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he under-valued the very serious circumstances of this case. He did not seem for a moment to understand the gravity of the case, and how grave was the duty it imposed on the small band of men intrusted with the care of the interests of these poor, humble, and undefended Irish peasants. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Irish Members would not allow the matter to be dealt with in that off-hand and light manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed inclined to treat it. He did not believe there was an independent English Member in the House but who, if he looked into this case impartially, would say—"This is a case in which investigation cannot and shall not be denied." If such a 566 Member as the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) could have this case brought fully under his knowledge, and he were then asked for his opinion upon it as an Englishman and a man of honour, he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was convinced the noble Marquess would say—"This is a case in which, injustice to the unfortunate dead man, investigation cannot be denied in the English House of Commons." It would be the duty of Irish Members now, or at some other time, to see that justice was done in this case, and that the men whom the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of as perjurers and false swearers yesterday, should have their statements of two years ago brought into comparison with the statement they had just made. The people should know what manner of justice it was which accused these men of perjury in one case, and upheld them as truthful in another.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that a few minutes ago he had asked a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, in consequence of an assertion made by him on a question of fact. He had asked whether any Judges, acting as Privy Councillors, had taken part in advising the prosecution of the traversers in 1881, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had replied with an indignant denial. Though not personally acquainted with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr. Callan) had watched his career in Ireland with much pleasure. This was, he thought, the first occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman had appeared in a political capacity, and it was a pity more Irish legal officials did not imitate the hon. and learned Gentleman's example—it was to be regretted they did not devote themselves more to the study of the law than the chicanery of politics. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had denied, with horror that evening, that any Judge on that eminent Bench, which the hon. and learned Gentleman probably expected some day to ascend himself, had ever advised a prosecution as a Privy Councillor. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman ever read the Proclamation which suppressed the Clontarf meeting, which was signed by the Judge who tried the traversers in the trial consequent upon that Proclamation? Had he ever heard of 567 the Judge who tried O'Connel, as a counsel for the prosecution? Had he read the Proclamation which suspended the Land League in Ireland; and was it not a well-known fact that the chief adviser of the prosecutions in 1880 and 1881 were men who were then, as they were now, on the Irish Bench? Was it not the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland who had aroused "the cowardly Government into a timid assertion of the law," as the Tory Press said? These questions only arose from the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Like a skilful Nisi Prius lawyer, in his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the go-by to the weak points in his own case. Was this the first time the verdict in the case of Myles Joyce had been impugned? It was true this was the first time two men—who, according to the law laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were the more to be believed because they were not in immediate fear of death—who were not under sentence, had declared Myles Joyce's innocence. But had not two men, standing on the verge of eternity, declared the same thing, and declared it the day before the day on which they were, as they knew, to suffer the extreme penalty of the law? According to the right hon. Gentleman, these were suspicious witnesses. They must have perjured themselves; because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they were on the brink of eternity, and had nothing to fear—a new doctrine for a Christian Assembly, but one every way worthy of the quarter from which it emanated. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, was it a fact that the two men who were hanged with Myles Joyce made a solemn declaration to the priest in attendance upon them, which was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, backed by other very strong circumstances, declaring the innocence of Myles Joyce? And was it not the fact that so impressed was the Governor of the gaol, who was cognizant of the statement of those two men, that he kept the telegraph office in Galway open, so that the Lord Lieutenant could, even at the last moment, send a reprieve? Under these circumstances—these circumstances of strong corroboration—was it to be tole- 568 rated that an investigation should be refused by the Officers of the Irish Executive? Would not the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury lend his influence in pressing on the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland not to refuse that which he had so often refused—namely, an inquiry into what the Irish Members believed to be a sin against justice? It would not be unbecoming in the hon. and learned Gentleman, either in regard to himself personally, or the Department to which he belonged. This was one of those things which left with the Irish people bitter memories of the British Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland got up and said—"The idea of setting the statements of these men against the virtuous George Bolton after the Belfast verdicts!" The Belfast verdicts, forsooth—£50 for calling a man a ruffian, an adulterer, a thief, and a swindler! He (Mr. Callan) would do the hon. and learned Gentleman the justice to suppose that, still like an able Nisi Prius lawyer, he had assumed the indignation they had witnessed, and that he did not really believe a tithe of what he said. He (Mr. Callan) knew the hon. and learned Gentleman's high character—the high character he bore at the Bar. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not forgotten his Four Courts' practice when he came into that House, and it was obvious that all this was assumed. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not feel what he said; at any rate, that was his (Mr. Callan's) view, and if it were incorrect, the hon. and learned Gentleman could avail himself of this oppportunity of denying the assumption on his honour.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the House had some reason to feel both surprise and something a little stronger than surprise at the fact that the defence of the Government in this case had been confined to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Solicitor General for Ireland. The case which had been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was one of the utmost gravity. It was a case which demanded the most serious attention of the Government—it was a case in which the Irish Members would, if they could, force other Members of the Go- 569 vernment to speak. It was a case which, so far as the period of the Session at which they had arrived would allow them, they were determined to force on the attention of the Government again and again, until they had got them to give a decisive answer to the question. He was aware that, at such an hour of the morning as the present, it was only the extraordinary gravity of the case which could excuse them for pursuing this question. They were now dealing with the question of a sentence of death pronounced and carried out, and the question of whether that sentence was carried out upon a bloodguilty murderer or upon an innocent man. Whether a guilty man had been punished, or the more terrible judicial murder committed, he could not imagine an Assembly like that being called upon to discuss a question of greater solemnity, and one more demanding the attention of Members, especially of the Administration. What was the case of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, in reply to the hon. Member for Mallow and others? Without disrespect, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might say the reply was flimsy. He was evidently not familiar with the case; he missed the central fact—namely, that the proof of the presence of Myles Joyce was not on the evidence of independent witnesses, but was confined to the statement of the two informers, foresworn then, and still more foresworn now. There was, at the time of Myles Joyce's death, a widespread doubt as to his guilt; it was a fact dwelt on by his friends, and it was a pregnant fact, that the people of the town were so convinced of the innocence of the man, and the unlikelihood of his being executed, that on their own responsibility the subordinates at the telegraph office in Galway, kept the office open all night, for the message of mercy to come. The feeling was universal that the man was innocent; and even in that House there was a feeling of apprehension as to whether he was innocent or guilty. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) remembered his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) making a speech in the House in the presence of the Prime Minister, and he described the shocking, the appalling circumstances that attended the execution of this unfortunate man—how he continued to shout in Gaelic his innocence on the scaffold, 570 even with the rope round his neck. As the circumstances were put before the House, the Prime Minister was impressed, and he got up and expressed the feeling of horror and surprise with which the description had filled his mind. At that time, if an inquiry had been demanded, he thought it would not have been refused; but they demanded it now, after two years had passed since the event, when all passion in the matter ought to have died away, and when they were in a position calmly and judicially to investigate all the circumstances. They asked that the case should be reopened, that the anxiety in the public mind should be satisfied as to whether a guilty man was hanged, or whether an innocent man was judicially done to death. What was the use, it might be said, of an investigation now? The demand for investigation was founded on the most sacred obligations of justice. In the first place, as it was put by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), the investigation was required injustice to the memory of the dead man. Poor and wretched as he was in social position, able only to speak in a language unintelligible to the overwhelming majority of his countrymen, he was as much entitled to protection of his life as the highest subject of the Queen; and, if he was innocent, his memory was entitled to have wiped from it the stain of a foul crime, for which, if guilty, he was justly punished. Secondly, the relatives of Myles Joyce had a right to demand that the case should be reopened; they had shared in the shame of his death, and had been injured in their means of livelihood by the removal of the head of the household. It was a just provision of the law that the relatives of those violently done to death should be compensated by the State. The argument was put irresistibly by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), that the relatives of Myles Joyce, if he was murdered, if he was not justly hanged, had a claim for compensation quite as sacred, not more or less, as that of the relatives of persons murdered in Ireland during the last few years to whom compensation was paid. But the most sacred ground on which this investigation was called for was the reputation of the Irish Administration. He agreed with the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), that there was no 571 man in England, Ireland, or Scotland who ought to more readily agree to an inquiry, or, who, indeed, ought to go further, who should take the initiative, and more vehemently demand an investigation into the circumstances attending the death of Myles Joyce than Earl Spencer himself. For what was his position in the matter? Earl Spencer had had his attention called to the case in the most emphatic manner. Representations were made to him over and over again on the question. If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was not very much mistaken, the guilt or innocence of Myles Joyce was brought before Parliament in the most public manner before the man was executed. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No; not so.] Then he was wrong on that point; he remembered now, Parliament was not sitting. But the question of the guilt or innocence of Myles Joyce was brought to the attention of the Lord Lieutenant with the fullest emphasis. It was a fact, brought forward by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), and so far as he know it had never been denied, that the two men executed with Myles Joyce placed at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant their statement that Myles Joyce was innocent of the crime of which he had been convicted. The hon. Member for Westmeath had made the assertion over and over again in the House—that those two men declared that Myles Joyce was innocent, and he had challenged the Government to produce those statements. The Government had never accepted that challenge; and, therefore, the people of Ireland were justified in assuming that the reason why the Government withheld these documents was because they carried out the statement made by the hon. Member for Westmeath, that the two men convicted and executed for the same crime as Myles Joyce declared on their entrance into eternity, and in the most solemn manner, the innocence of Myles Joyce. The suggestion—he would not say the accusation, he would not say the charge, he would purposely abstain from any word that might be considered offensive or even condemnatory, for he held that this matter was still under investigation—the suggestion was that Earl Spencer condemned to death an innocent man. That was the suggestion, and no Member of the Executive ought to rest for an hour under such a suggestion; 572 he should, when fair grounds were raised for it, order an immediate investigation. If such an investigation was not ordered, he knew what the feeling would be in Ireland, he knew what the universal opinion in Ireland would be, and, he would say more, he knew what the just and reasonable inference would be. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had begun by expressing surprise that there had been no answer from any Member of the Government but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—and this was not the first occasion on which they had had to call attention to the utterly unconstitutional manner in which Irish questions were dealt with in the House. [Laughter.] An hon. Gentleman, not remarkable for the profundity of his information on Irish questions, interrupted with a sneering laugh. He would say again they had reason to complain of the unconstitutional manner in which Irish questions were dealt with in that House. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was now left alone to answer for the whole Administration of Ireland; several Irish Members rose, the hon. and learned Gentleman waited until three or four had made speeches, and then got up and made a flimsy reply, and the remaining speeches of Irish Members were left unanswered, the other Members of the Government remaining silent in their ignorance of Irish matters. This was not Constitutional Government. He felt surprise that the Government had not thought proper to give an answer to the case, and he should be still further surprised if they persisted in their refusal to institute inquiry into all the facts. To give them an opportunity of discussion on the matter, and the means of making up their minds, he would conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was under the impression that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was actuated by a kind of personal malice against Mr. George Bolton in bringing this matter forward. As the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. 573 O'Connor) said just now, the way in which Irish affairs were conducted was wholly unconstitutional.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe km. Member must speak to the Question before the House, which is the Adjournment of the Debate.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, that was what he was anxious to do. The hon. Member for Galway had moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that there was no Member of the Government present qualified to deal with this important Irish topic; and, looking at the Treasury Bench, he (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) was compelled to agree with his hon. Friend. With the exception of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, there was no one there with knowledge and authority to speak on Irish matters. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), in the course of his many studies, had not included Irish topics; and, though he was constantly ready to speak on Irish matters, he did so with an inaccuracy lacking to the more serious branches of his knowledge. The purpose for which the debate had been raised was to try and win from the Government an inquiry into this case; but, as the matter stood, there had been no reply at all. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland expressed an opinion on various legal points, more or less interesting; but they had nothing to do with the matter in hand, and, before the debate closed, some more responsible Member of the Government should make some reply to the demand made.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he could hardly have supposed that the Members of the Government would continue to preserve their conspiracy of silence. At such an hour, it was perfectly unreasonable to continue the discussion—hon. Member after hon. Member making a speech, and no reply coming from the Treasury Bench. The subject-matter of the Motion was one Irish Members regarded as of the most vital importance, and it was not their fault if the debate had taken place under unfavourable circumstances. The facts upon which the Motion was based only appeared publicly yesterday (Monday). A large number of Irish Members were obliged to leave London; but the subject was regarded as of such tremendous importance that 574 those Irish Members would be glad, indeed, to return, if it was necessary to do so, to press upon the Government the necessity of this inquiry. Surely they were entitled to hear from the Treasury Bench something besides the helpless non possumus with which the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland met the damning facts brought before the House that night. He trusted that, if they did not have some assurance from the Treasury Bench, that, for the sake of the Government itself, and for the sake of justice to the memory of this unfortunate man, an inquiry, public or private, would be held, such as the Prime Minister promised the other night in a much less serious case, he trusted opposition would be carried to the utmost limits the Forms of the House would allow; that to-morrow, and subsequently, reinforced by other hon. Members, they would persevere in their attempt to break the conspiracy of silence into which the Government had entered.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, if they did not protest, by every means in their power, against the attitude the Government had preserved during the debate, he thought that, to some extent, they would be sharing in the blood-guiltiness of those who had a part in the execution of this unfortunate man. If this were a case of miscarriage of justice of some slight nature in connection with some English trial, there would have been the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department profuse in explanation, and Ministers anxious to dispossess the minds of hon. Members of any notion of wrong done, or the fullest desire to repair it to the utmost of their power. But here was a case of a man strangled by process of law—he would not discuss now the merits or demerits of the case—and both at the time of his execution there were grave doubts and anxiety——
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not discuss the merits of the case now; he must keep to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not doing so now.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he desired to do so. Here was a question of vast importance brought before the House, and apparently, except by the one single speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman 575 the Solicitor General for Ireland, who ex officio was compelled to speak whether he had information or not, apparently, in a matter of such vast importance, the Government were indifferent; the responsible Minister who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, was supposed to represent the opinion of the Government, had listened to the debate, but had taken no part in it, or displayed any interest in any way. Was it to be an understood rule that, in cases of this nature, the Government would give no sort of satisfaction, simply letting the debate go on without any reply? Surely it could not be supposed that the debate was started merely with the desire to occupy the time of the House. Nothing was further from the mind of his hon. Friends than anything of the kind. They felt their deep, their terrible responsibility in connection with this transaction; they felt the question could not be left where it was, and that it was their duty to obtain from the Government an assurance that an investigation should be made into the grave facts brought to light. To his mind, the indifference of the Treasury Bench with regard to the subject was shocking and horrible. There was not a Minister to say a word upon the matter, and that was shameful, and nothing less.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONYou have stated, Sir, that it would be irregular to discuss the merits of this matter upon this Motion; but, if the Motion is withdrawn, I shall be perfectly prepared to state on the part of the Government what conclusion they have formed on the subject.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORthereupon asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI have heard the greater part of this discussion, and I must say that I think the demand which has been made, that the Government shall at once institute an inquiry into this matter, somewhat unreasonable and precipitate. As far as I can gather, the statements of hon. Members are based upon statements which have appeared to-day in a daily newspaper, which there has been no time to consider, and which, so far 576 as we can tell, may rest upon very slender foundation.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe statements brought before the House this evening are statements which I believe have been brought this evening for the first time under the notice of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland. He had no knowledge of these alleged facts until he heard them this evening; and I believe what he has now heard has been taken from what has appeared for the first time to-day. Statements and allegations of the kind now brought forward do not appear to me to constitute a case upon which a responsible Minister of the Crown could undertake off-hand to make an inquiry. It has been stated by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) that these allegations rest to a great extent on statements which have been made in a formal and solemn manner before a certain dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church. If these statements are primâ facie of a bonâ fide character, and are vouched for by the dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church before whom they were brought, and are brought formally under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, they will receive consideration, and if there appears to be a case for further inquiry, that inquiry will be granted. But I think hon. Members must see that it is impossible to accept ex parte statements which are made without cross-examination, without any opportunity of the statements being compared with the statements of other witnesses in the case, or with facts which have been proved, and are undisputed, as a sufficient ground for inquiry. If the Roman Catholic dignitary before whom those statements were made can give sufficient proofs of authenticity of the statements, and they are brought formally under the notice of the Government, then the Government will be justified in considering what form of inquiry they should institute; but I do not think it is possible, until these allegations are brought in a more formal manner under the notice of the Government, for us to do anything further. I cannot fail to recollect that the Crown Solicitor, whose conduct has been impugned in this matter, has been made on various points 577 the subject of bitter attacks recently, and it is quite possible that some of his numerous enemies may have induced persons to bring forward charges against him in connection with this case. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I am not imputing anything to any hon. Member of this House. It is quite clear that this person has very bitter enemies in Ireland, and has been made the subject of bitter and tierce attacks; and it is quite conceivable and quite possible that the statements now made and published in a newspaper to-day may be part of that system of attack which has been pursued against this gentleman. I have no knowledge myself on this subject; but I do know that he has been attacked; and I think it is only common fairness and justice that we should not accept as proof against this gentleman, or even as constituting a primâ facie case for inquiry into the alleged misconduct on his part, the statement which has appeared in to-day's newspaper, and which responsible Members of the Government have had no opportunity of comparing with the known facts. I have, I think, done as much as is possible when I say that if these statements which are alleged to have been made before a Roman Catholic dignitary are brought before the Government formally, and if they appear to be of such a character as to warrant an inquiry, they will receive inquiry. I do not see how any hon. Member can conceive it possible that I should say more than what I have said, and the assurance I have given that I will bring this discussion and these statements under the notice of the Government of Ireland; and if the statements appear to be vouched for in the manner I have described, inquiry will be made.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the case did not rest on these statements merely, but on depositions in existence. As to this matter coming under the notice of the Government for the first time to-day, it had been the subject of publication for the last three days; and, therefore, if it had not come under the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland before, that was the fault of those who ought to have brought it under his notice. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) said it was necessary to have it brought formally under the notice of the 578 Government; but he really thought this theory of matters being brought formally under the notice of the Government was being pushed a trifle too far. The Government might have known and seen these things, for they were under the eyes of every person but those at Dublin Castle, and they chose to close and bandage their eyes to them. They were determined, whether Myles Joyce had been dealt with justly or had been judicially murdered, to follow blindly the course which had led them into so much trouble already. The noble Marquess had said there was no evidence but the statement which had appeared in a newspaper to-day; and he had suggested—although he had not the slightest proof for it, and the suggestion was an unworthy one—in order to prejudice public opinion in England upon this matter, that this was a conspiracy against the character of Mr. George Bolton—a character so precious in the eyes of the Irish Government that they had already suspended him. He would like to know who, in the view of the noble Marquess, would consider it worth while to conspire against such a person—who would consider it worth while to conspire against an official who had been dismissed by the Government? If an ecclesiastic expressed sentiments which might be deemed to be more or less in support of the English policy of the Government in Ireland, the Government were exceedingly ready to quote them in support of their views, and did not ask for a formal communication before they adopted them. In this matter the Archbishop of Tuam had expressed a strong hope that the Government would at once do all they could to release the much-injured men who were sent to penal servitude, and would liberally compensate them, and would do what they could for the family of poor Myles Joyce. Perhaps the noble Marquess would pay some attention to the Archbishop's words. All that was now asked was that the Government would do in this case what they would do in any English case without any formality; that they would inquire into the truth of these published statements, and order an investigation as to whether they were true or not, and would produce, as English public opinion would compel them to produce, for the judgment of the community—namely, the depositions which 579 had been asked for, in order to see who were innocent and who were guilty. That was what was wanted, and that was what, in England, they would have to do. No Government in England, no matter whether they stood upon the franchise or any other cry, would stand a fortnight if they refused to investigate a primâ facie case. Even Welsh Members, who were steady followers of the Government, would, if a Welshman had been hanged in this way, insist on having an investigation. How much more important, then, was it in Ireland, where the people distrusted English rule entirely, and believed that these men had been hanged on false testimony—how much more important was it that these statements should be tested, and that if they could be justified they should be justified openly? Why did not the noble Marquess make his statement two hours ago? Would not the people in Ireland say that it was only because a number of Irish Members chanced to be here to-night, and were determined to make a protest, that the noble Marquess got up to amend the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, and gave some kind of assurance? He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) would accept this assurance, and put it to the test. He had no doubt the Archbishop of Tuam would formally communicate to the Lord Lieutenant the statement these men had made to him, and then they would see whether any inquiry would be made. The first step to an investigation must be the production of the depositions that were made, and whereby the life of this unfortunate man who had been hanged might have been saved.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, he did not propose to occupy the House more than a few minutes; but he could not allow to pass the charge made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) to the effect that if this case had occurred in England it would have been inquired into. He (Mr. Magniac) protested against that statement. No Government would have been justified in instituting an inquiry under similar circumstances to those of this case. This was not "an Irish case," as it had been described; but the question was as to the administration of justice in the Three Kingdoms, and for them to act upon a telegram in a case of such a grave nature was an abuse of 580 the Forms of the House. A statement was made not long ago, based on a telegram, that a plaintiff in a suit had committed perjury in stating that he was required to appear as a witness in his own case and had declined.
§ MR. CALLANNo such statement was made.
§ MR. MAGNIACThat he had withdrawn himself as a witness, and that his case was closed.
§ MR. CALLANNo such statement was made.
§ MR. MAGNIACThe statement was as I have said.
§ MR. CALLANNo.
§ MR. MAGNIACAm I entitled to speak?
§ MR. BIGGARNo.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must be allowed to continue his speech.
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, that on that—the Ministerial—side of the House, hon. Gentlemen were charged with voting from Party motives—any way the Government told them to vote. He did not think, as he had said more than once, that any large number of hon. Members could be charged with that. Many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House took as much interest in Irish matters as Irish Members themselves, and he protested against this question being considered an Irish question only.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that if they had a day or two to think about this matter they would be able to approach it more clearly. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate. The Government seemed to be ignorant of the facts of the case; or, if they had any facts to base their defence upon, they had entirely neglected to bring them forward; therefore, he moved the adjournment, so that they might have an opportunity of coming to a reasonable decision.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he seconded the Motion; and the more so, because he wished to go into certain grievances connected with what was called the administration of the law in the Queen's County—questions connected with the conduct of the police and the inhabitants of the district. There were other questions which should be discussed, but which could not be gone into with advantage that night—questions which deserved to be considered by the 581 House, such as the treatment and deliberate neglect, by the Local Government Board, of Catholics in the workhouses of the country. This was a matter which could not now be properly discussed. This grievance he had frequently brought under the notice of the Local Government Board, and their attention had been frequently drawn to the various statutes in force setting forth the rights of the inmates, and to the regulations of the Board recognizing those rights. These statutes and regulations had been systematically disregarded, as also had the complaints which had been urged from time to time on the question. He thought the best thing they could do would be to have the debate adjourned, so as to enable these questions to be properly discussed.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 39: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 214.)
§ MR. CALLANI rise to move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already spoken—he cannot do that.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member seconded a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate; and he is not, therefore, entitled to speak.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORAs a question of Order, I wish to ask whether my hon. Friend, having seconded a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, is thereby precluded from speaking on the Main Question?
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is so.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 8: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 215.)
§ Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."