MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 17 June 1884 vol 289 cc679-722

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had to move the following Resolution: — That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Government with regard to the criminal charges against James Ellis French, County Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary, Gustavus Cornwall, Secretary to the General Post Office, and George Bolton, Crown Solicitor. As would be seen from the terms of that Motion, he wished to bring under the attention of the House the conduct of the Government in regard to certain charges — not the charges themselves, or the merits of them, but to the conduct of the Government in respect of them. By the word "Government" he did not, of course, mean those individual Gentlemen who sat on the Front Bench opposite. It would readily be understood that he would shrink, as any other Member of the House would shrink, from entertaining for a moment the idea that, whatever might have been done by any subordinate, however highly placed, in the Post Office, the slightest stain could by any possibility attach to a character so noble and so pure as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett); and although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was alive to the theory of the Constitution, that he was responsible for the administration of the country, yet, of course, his personal character was far above any stain that could attach to any misconduct on the part of anyone under him; and as the Prime Minister was in relation to the whole of the Administration, so with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who was responsible for the administration in Ireland. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was very anxious to say this, because he remembered that four weeks ago, when he gave Notice of the Motion which he should have to submit to the House tonight, he observed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary look up at him with an air of marked surprise. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had felt that the surprise was due, not to the fact that this Motion had been placed upon the Paper, but to the fact that it was he who had given the Notice. He had often thought of that look since, and he appreciated it. He was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should clearly understand that in placing this Motion on the Paper he did it without for one moment entertaining the notion that the right hon. Gentleman had done anything, or that he was capable of doing anything, unworthy of a Christian Gentleman; and on that point he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able easily to accept his assurances. He should conceive it as hard of him to believe of the right hon. Gentleman that he had done anything of the sort, as he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would find it hard to believe it of him. So with regard to the Lord Lieutenant, he was not actuated by any personal feeling towards him. He was opposed to the present Government, he believed, as bitterly as anyone in the House, but his political antagonism never prevented him from appreciating the personal characters of the men to whom he happened to be opposed. He knew nothing of the Lord Lieutenant. He did not even know that he should be able to recognize him if he saw him in the street. It would be impossible to deal properly and adequately with the question of the charges against these three individuals mentioned in his Motion for the reason that there were at this moment actions pending in the High Court in connection with two of them. Bolton and Cornwall had just commenced proceedings for libel against a weekly newspaper published in Ireland, of which all the House was aware. But for these pro- ceedings it would be a perfectly simple matter to deal with the entire case. As they stood they were in the way of a full exposure of the situation; and, personally, he was very thankful that it was so, because, at least, he would be spared a great deal of mental distress, from which, out of a sense of his duty as a Representative of the people, and out of a sense of loyalty to his Colleagues, he trusted he should not have shrunk, but which would certainly have been one of the most painful experiences of his life. Well, the third individual mentioned—namely, French—likewise brought an action some time ago against the same newspaper, but that action had since been dismissed in default of prosecution, and he was not, therefore, precluded by the same considerations from referring to the case against that individual. He promised the House, however, that he would refer to it only so far as might be necessary for his present purpose. The charge against Cornwall was of a similar nature to that against French; but it rested on evidence which could be entirely separated, and the charge itself was quite different from that which was brought against Bolton. There was one charge, and only one charge, against Cornwall, so far as he was aware, and as it would form the subject-matter of a suit which was now sub judice in Dublin, it was not necessary or proper that he should in greater detail refer to it. Neither should he refer to the question at issue in the action now pending at the suit of Bolton. The Court of Justice would deal with both the one and the other. But he would, in the first place, ask leave to draw the attention of the House to matters entirely outside of, and altogether unconnected with, the present judicial proceedings — matters with which the Government were acquainted, and which affected the character of Bolton. There was a lady of the name of Hart, born in 1802. This lady was possessed of a large fortune. She married a Mr. Tivey, by whom she had three children. Mr. Tivey and the three children were all long since dead. In 1860, being already old, she married Mr. Brown, a solicitor. On her marriage with him there was a settlement, by the terms of which complete power over the whole of her property was reserved to herself. In connection with some differences as to the testamentary disposition of her mother's property, she and her relations became estranged, and it was in connection with these differences that she first, in 1869, became acquainted with Bolton. He then held more than one appointment under the Government. He was a widower, with an income derived partly from private practice and partly from his Government appointments. Being again a widow, the old lady agreed to marry Bolton, and as one of the conditions of the marriage, she stipulated that her property should be settled on her as it had been settled by the marriage settlement when she was married to Brown. She entrusted to Bolton—and though he was a professional man, and ought to have known his duty in such a case, he accepted the commission—the carrying out of this arrangement. When the marriage was celebrated she believed that the arrangement had been carried out by a marriage settlement which he drew up; but when, some years afterwards, the matter came to be looked into, it was found that he had not carried out the agreement in that particular. There had been differences between her and her husband with regard to a female servant, and she left him. Subsequently, she instituted proceedings against him in respect of the marriage settlement. The case came to be tried before Mr. Justice Fry, and the learned Judge thought it right to send a letter to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in relation to Bolton's part in this transaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) said, in reply to a Question put to him yesterday by the hon. Member for Waterford— I am not informed of any ground for an allegation of fraud unless it be referable to transactions which occurred five years ago, and were investigated both by the late and the present Governments, and stated by both to furnish, no ground for action being taken against Mr. Bolton. That was partly correct, and partly incorrect and misleading. As a matter of fact, Bolton simply deceived the late Government. How did he do that? Well, he tried, first of all, to obtain from his wife a letter in which she was to make an admission that the whole affair had been amicably settled by an arrangement which was of the nature of a compromise. She could not conscientiously do anything of the kind, and she refused, but she did write a letter which answered his purpose, because in its terms it was not absolutely at variance with the theory that the affair had been amicably settled. On the strength of that he maintained his position; but the real nature of the case was never known to the late Government. It became known to the present Government by the Judgment of the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division on the Probate suit M'Dermot and King v. Bolton, Bothmer intervening, tried in January and February of last year. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had with him a report of the long Judgment, from which he would trouble the House with a few extracts— The President explained to the jury what in the eye of the law amounted to undue influence, and pointed out that there was much documentary evidence in this case as to the friendship for very many years existing between Mrs. Bolton and Dr. M'Dermot. Dr. Tristram expressed great astonishment at the change of feeling on the part of Mrs. Bolton towards her husband; but it was difficult to see what ground for surprise there was in that circumstance. If the oath of the lady herself was to be believed, she had discovered that the marriage settlement prepared by her husband was a very different one from what she had supposed it to be; and, apart from the question of fraud, it was a most astonishing settlement. How any man, whether solicitor or no solicitor, could have thought otherwise it was not easy to see, for the effect of the settlement was to denude the woman of the great portion of her property. Now, it was the A B C of marriage settlements that a woman should have the first interest in the property which she brought into settlement. But in this case that rule was reversed, for the husband took the first life interest, and it was only when he died the lady herself could take a life interest in it. After that it would go to his children. By that settlement the Countess von Bothmer was entirely ousted. In her statement of claim Mrs. Bolton alleged that the terms of the settlement were contrary to her bargain, and that a large part of the property was left out of settlement, thus charging Mr. Bolton with fraud. Why, then, should we be surprised at a change in her feelings towards him? He had submitted to a decree. He said that he had done so in consequence of the conversation he had had with her, and of what she had said to his daughters; but there was only slender, shadowy evidence on that subject. What compromise had she agreed to? What more could have been gained by a plaintiff than she gained? And did Mr. Bolton rely on any terms or any compromise when he addressed her after the trial? No; he cast himself on her mercy, and she was merciful. He sent her a letter to adopt, which, had she signed it, would have been in direct contradiction to the charges she had made and sworn to; but she behaved generously, and wrote the letter which had been read that day. In it she stated, what might well be believed, that her only object had been to secure the settlement of her property, and not to act harshly towards him. The jury instantly found for the plaintiffs on all the issues. The whole case was a record of villainy, and of the charges brought against him the villain stood convicted. The Crown knew it; it could not help knowing it; all the world knew it; it was the talk of Dublin and the Irish Provinces. There were other delinquencies of this man that might be mentioned. There were other proceedings in other Courts, and other Judgments of other Courts, all of which went to make the responsibility of the Government greater; but he had no desire to make his remarks longer than were absolutely necessary, therefore he would pass from that part of the case. Now, the charge against French was, as he had said, of a different nature; compared with it the delinquencies of Bolton were venial. This man was a Director of the Detective Department of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with the rank of County Inspector. As such he had supreme control over the Detective Service at the command of the Government. His character and conduct were indicated and denounced by the newspaper against which he was subsequently forced to bring an action for libel. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know that he could at this moment put his hands upon the first mention of French's name in the paper he had referred to; but, at any rate, early in October of last year there was a statement in this newspaper pointing him out. A paragraph was inserted which was generally understood to refer to him, and was still so understood, stating that a high official connected with the Detective Department at the Castle had been suspended, which would cause a great sensation. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know whether that was absolutely correct; but other paragraphs appeared—whether in consequence of that or not he did not know—in other newspapers relating to this man. Well, there was a writ issued on the 12th of October, 1883. Appearance was entered by the defendant immediately. The plaintiff did not serve his statement of claim until the 23rd of November; the defence was delivered almost immediately afterwards, when the plaintiff served a notice for particulars. Those particulars were furnished to him, whereupon he gave notice for further particulars on the 5th of February, 1884. The Court made an order that the defendant should give further particulars within 14 days, and on that occasion the defendant asked the Court to put the plaintiff under the terms of filing his reply, and serving his notice of trial; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had with him copies of the issues of the newspaper, which, if it were necessary, he could refer to, showing that throughout the defendant was anxious that the matter should come to trial, and pointing out that by various means the plaintiff, with delay after delay, was manifesting a totally different inclination. The defendant offered to give further particulars immediately the plaintiff was put under terms with regard to notice of trial. The Court gave the plaintiff an extension of time for the delivery of his reply before the further particulars had been delivered. He might mention that, at the time this order was made, the plaintiff's time for delivering the reply had expired; but the particulars of the plaintiff's claim were furnished, giving date and occasion, and a notice of each offence, specifying these things as briefly as possible—still these statements, condensed as they were, occupied 18 pages of paper. On the 29th February of this year the plaintiff delivered his reply and joined issue. No notice of trial was given, and he did absolutely nothing for six weeks. Accordingly, on the 14th April, having allowed February and March to go by, the defendent at last moved to have the action dismissed for want of prosecution. On the 16th April the plaintiff served the defendent with a copy of a medical certificate signed by some local doctors, stating that, in their opinion, the plaintiff was totally unfit to attend to any business whatever. No reason was given. A motion was duly heard and adjourned by the Court for an affidavit as to plaintiff's condition by a qualified doctor, and on the 17th April the case came on again. It was then certified that the plaintiff was suffering from symptoms of cerebral softening. The Court gave him a month's time, and refused to allow the defendent to have the plaintiff examined by an inde- pendent medical man. Things went on in this way until, at last, on the 5th June, the plaintiff having made no move, the Court did at last dismiss the action for want of prosecution. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had gone so far in order not to break the thread of the story as connected with the Court; but with regard to the knowledge of the Government and their conduct in respect of this Mr. French and his doings, he wished to say this. The day after the libel appeared, a Government official—I no less a man than Colonel Bruce, who was Inspector General of Constabulary—wired for another high official of long standing in the Service, who happened to be in the Provinces, and ordered him to attend in Dublin on the following day in order to furnish information and evidence. On that day Inspector General Bruce was not alone, the Deputy Inspector General Fanning was with him. The Chief Inspector would be puzzled to know how all this information had been obtained by the active energy of private individuals; but the result of it was that the Government did obtain from those two officials very important, not to say complete, information. They were put upon the line of knowing, not only that the charges brought in relation to recent times were true, but that they might have been brought any time during the last 12 years. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had had furnished to him a statement, which he believed to be correct, to the effect that it was French's own declaration, or purported to be that he received a letter some time after, in consequence of which he went to see the Chief Secretary himself, who told him—so the allegation went—that he must bring an action.

MR. TREVELYAN

I beg pardon; I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but this is very important. I should like to know whether this is a mere allegation, or whether the hon. Member is giving the statement on the authority of any person; I should like to know whether he is going to name his informant, or is stating that which he merely believes to be correct? I do not object to either course.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate the delicacy of the position in which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was placed. He was obliged, as he went on, very care- fully to consider what he might safely say, and what he had to leave unexpressed; but he might go so far as to say that this was a statement made by French, which, if the inquiry he asked for was granted, they would be able to prove was made by that person. In consequence of that communication, Mr. French went to see the Chief Secretary, who told him that he must bring an action against United, Ireland for libel.

MR. TREVELYAN

Who must bring an action?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

French. French replied that he had no money, and made a variety of other excuses; but the Chief Secretary pressed him. French then asked for money and for the assistance of the Crown lawyers; but the Chief Secretary refused him either the one or the other. French then went away and did nothing for a fortnight. He then received another letter, in consequence of which he again saw the Chief Secretary, who told him that he must either take action or retire from the Service. French then found himself driven to do that which he sought to avoid; and when he found he had no option he went straight to the office of Messrs. Barlow and Orr, solicitors, and instructed them to bring an action. French complained bitterly that the Castle had not given him money to fight the case; but yet he refused a sum of £500 which certain of his friends, who did not believe in the charges, offered to subscribe for him to fight the case. This matter had been investigated—as certainly it ought not to have been necessary to investigate it—at the cost and on the responsibility of private individuals. The Government officials in Ireland were bound in duty, from what they knew long ago, on evidence which could hardly admit of question, to take action—they knew that the charges were well-founded. The charges were notorious—the conduct was notorious; so much so that the senior members of the Constabulary Force were accustomed to caution cadets against forming acquaintance with French. Evidence which it had been possible to obtain in regard to this matter by private individuals could have been obtained very much more easily by the Government. They had in their service men to whom the matter was known, who had abundance of the dearest possible testimony, which testi- mony could have been readily furnished if proper steps had been taken to elicit it. Those who had taken this matter in hand assured him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that one of the difficulties they had to contend with consisted in this—that men connected with the Constabulary Force, who were ready to make admissions, fell back upon the rule by which they were precluded from giving any information respecting the Force to outsiders. More than that, this man French was at the very head of the very Department which was specially charged with investigating matters of this kind. Moreover, when the persons necessarily employed by a private individual to sound to the depths the real truth of this matter were pursuing the work they had in hand, they were met and worked against by members of the Force under the direction of French. At the time when they were told that French was ill, and unable to attend to his own affairs, and was fit for a lunatic asylum—which was the most charitable thing-anyone could conceive—in reality he was busy using the officers of the Force for the purpose of destroying the existing evidence against himself. That appeared plainly from circumstances which admitted of but one interpretation. The defendant's solicitors made special application for a sworn inquiry in regard to this matter; a matter of the very gravest importance in regard to a thing of this kind. But what was the result? It was a proved fact that certain head constables, whose names he had now under his eye, were being employed by French to receive letters at Dublin Castle, and to carry letters to his companions in crime. The Government, or its representatives, were content, on a question for a sworn inquiry into this matter, to accept the mere disclaimer of the head constables, and to refuse the investigation; but the evidence which had been got together was complete, even in such matters as French going down on his knees and saying his prayers before going to bed. The evidence, only a portion of which he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) held in his hand at this moment, was of a nature which was overwhelming and astounding. Admissions—such admissions—confessions—he did not know how many—lengthened, detailed, explicit with regard to time—many times—with regard to persons—many persons—and with regard to circumstances. It was perfectly impossible for any human being to look over half this evidence without feeling that the Government, who had it in its power to investigate so easily these charges as the Government of Ireland might have done, failed in their duty by not prosecuting the inquiry. He was glad to think that perhaps he had said almost enough to show ground for the Motion which he had put upon the Paper, and he was also glad to state that he had almost got through what he had to say. He had been for 16 years a member of the Civil Service, and during that period he had formed acquaintances and, as he hoped, secured the friendship of a large number of men whom he highly respected and esteemed, and he felt, with hundreds of Civil servants, that the character of the Service, which, for integrity, honour, and morals, was as high as any Civil Service in the world, had not been duly considered by the Government in reference to this matter. He could sympathize with the large number of men of the Legal Profession in Ireland who resented the continuance as Crown Solicitors of men such as Bolton; and, as one of the Representatives of a people suffering under Coercion Law, he thought it his duty to point out to the House the character of one of the chief men who administered that law. He had endeavoured to make the statement which he felt it his duty to lay before the House in few words, and such as should not offend the susceptibilities of the most delicate mind. The House, he was sure, would feel that he had had to discharge a difficult and painful task; and he had nothing to do now but to thank the House for the patience with which it had listened to him, and to move the Motion which stood in his name.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County, and he should not think it necessary at all to supplement his very able and felicitous remarks, only that there were a few points which his personal interest in the matter rendered it necessary that he should refer to. Two actions for libel—one by Mr. Bolton, and the other by Mr. Cornwall—had been brought against him since he gave Notice of the Motion which his hon. Friend had just moved. In United Ireland he had invited Mr. Cornwall to submit his conduct to the verdict of a jury of his fellow-countrymen several weeks before he had mentioned his name in that House; but he took no action. On the contrary, his solicitors, Messrs. Ellis, distinctly stated that he had determined to take no notice of the matter until he decided on a course which gave it a wider publicity than it would otherwise have obtained. Curiously enough, Mr. Cornwall sought to attack him for contempt of Court. His case was, that United Ireland was circulated so largely among the citizens of Dublin that his case, appearing in it, would prejudice the people against him. His action was brought only when his conduct had been brought under the notice of his superiors in that House, and when he knew there was no chance of shirking it. It was exactly the same with the action of Mr. Bolton. If such an attempt had been made to intimidate an English Member of Parliament as had been made to intimidate him, he fancied that Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Bolton would have been standing at the Bar of that House to answer to a charge of Breach of Privilege. He did not want the protection of any privilege; he wanted a jury of his countrymen to stand between himself and the persons in question. If they had gone into these two cases, it was because they had a perfect right to do so. The question he wanted to have decided was that of the responsibility of the Government in respect of the crimes charged; and he thought that responsibility was perfectly clear in connection with the case of French, which was, practically, beyond dispute. He did not mean to go into the details of the evidence in that case, which consisted of statutory declarations, and which, having remained unchallenged for the last six months, had, of course, all the force of evidence. The subject was too horrible to linger upon for one moment, and it was even more so to think that those who were carrying on the system under the walls of Dublin Castle knew well that they had the complicity and protection of the Detective Department. As to the circumstances under which the responsibility rested with the Government, if French's action had been brought, they would have been able to place the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Inspector of Constabulary at the table of the Court; but, unhappily, they had been obliged to fall back upon secondary evidence. This man received from Mr. Hamilton a summons to an interview with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at which the right hon. Gentleman ordered him to bring an action. A fortnight afterwards, not having done so, he was summoned again, and was peremptorily told to bring his action, or be dismissed from the Force. Now, why should he be told that if he were an innocent man? And, on the other hand, why, if he were guilty, should the proof of his guilt be thrown upon him (Mr. O'Brien)? Of course, they had been kept in the dark as to the part taken by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this matter. He had again and again asked for information, and all that the right hon. Gentleman had told him was that the informal inquiries which had been instituted when the charge was made had been dropped, because an action had been commenced against him. Again they had to fall back upon what they believed they could prove if this inquiry was granted. They wanted to know whether Colonel Bruce reported to the Chief Secretary the evidence given by the first witness who was examined; and, if not, why he had not followed up the clue? Nothing would have been easier than to elicit facts about a case that was the common gossip of the Constabulary depôts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state that night why the inquiries were dropped. he invited the attention of the Committee to the fact that the first paragraph in United Ireland, which referred to French, related to a mere general rumour that an officer connected with the Detective Department in Dublin Castle had been suspected under certain circumstances that would cause a sensation. No names were mentioned, and the paragraph was not actionable; and it was repeated in almost the same words in a Dublin newspaper a couple of days afterwards. It was only when they stumbled into the single erroneous statement made in reference to the matter—namely, that French had left the country, and when their information was supposed to be faulty, and it was thought the proof would collapse —that this wretched man was goaded on to take action. He asked the attention of the Committee to dates. Their appearance was entered on the 20th of August; the statement of claim was not served until the 23rd of November; fully three months were wasted in fishing inquiries; all the time French was supposed to be incapable he was at work on his case, and he captured with his own hands one of their detectives; he was in the habit of writing letters to his accomplices exhorting them to hold firm, and trying to terrify or seduce their witnesses away. He kept on, that system by the help of the Court of Queen's Bench; he kept on that system, of sham medical certificates month after month, until the Court of Queen's Bench itself, after giving extensions of time, scouted the ruffian out of Court in disgust. What was the attitude of this crime-abhorring Government all this time towards the man? They allowed him. to swear, in his affidavit, that nothing whatever had occurred to damnify his position; they allowed him. to retire to the country; they sent down a doctor from Dublin, whose name he (Mr. O'Brien) could give, and whose report they suppressed, or, at least, never published; they allowed the fellow to use their detectives, and when complaint was made of the conduct of those detectives, an inquiry was refused; they continued to the very last moment of the last hour their protection of this man; they continued it until actually one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench—Mr. Justice Lawson—raised his voice in the matter. Then, indeed, they dismissed French; but they dismissed him upon the false ground that he was incapacitated from illness. As a matter of fact, ever since he left work he had been driving about the country to fairs and auctions, and transacting his business just as shrewdly as ever he did in his life. If the Government had thought there really was any ground whatever for believing the man innocent, it was a downright outrage on their part to have dismissed him at the time of a crisis. What could have been more unfair towards the wretched man, if he were innocent, than to have been dismissed; and what could be more shameful than the conduct of the Government in delaying that dismissal until the very last moment? The conduct of the Government in respect to the man's pension was only an illustration of the miserable, guilty policy they had pursued all through this business. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), when questioned by him (Mr. O'Brien) as to the pension to be given to French, said his pension would depend upon the issue of the action. Was ever such a thing heard of—that this man's pension would depend, not upon the favour of those who employed him, but upon the liability to prove his case? Well, but there was a still more extraordinary plea put forward by the Chief Secretary, and it was possible he would rely upon it to-night. The right hon. Gentleman had said there were no informations sworn against this man. What did the Chief Secretary mean by that? Did he mean that he (Mr. O'Brien) and his Friends should surrender into the hands of the Crown the evidence which they had been at infinite trouble and risk in amassing, and upon which they relied to justify their action before the jury? Were they to surrender that evidence into the hands of the Crown to be manipulated by Mr. George Bolton; and were they to have the fears and the cupidity of their witnesses worked upon by French's own allies, and colleagues, and detectives? Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that before they submitted their evidence to a Judge and a jury of their fellow-countrymen they should allow men like Bolton and Mr. Peter O'Brien to falsify it? Did he mean to say they ought to give an opportunity to such men to falsify their case, to get at their witnesses, and break them down, or, possibly, to prosecute them—it might be to represent that the whole thing was a conspiracy against a meritorious public servant? He contended that if there was the slightest shred of confidence in the administration of justice in Ireland that would have been at once their course, and it would have saved them from a most onerous and loathsome task. But they knew too well what the prosecution of Irish Government officials like French and Bolton by Government officials would end in. They knew full well that for the last two years Government and Crown officials in Ireland had stopped at no amount of illegality or injustice or foul play in order to calumniate, and wrong, and make victims of their political opponents. If the Government wanted information to be sworn, it was their business to have it sworn. If the Government wanted proof of the accusations that were made, they could get plenty of it for the asking. But they had, from the very beginning, considered these men innocent; they had not up to this moment repudiated or withdrawn their protection; indeed, they had not done a single thing, or raised their little finger, to deliver Dublin from the horrors of the sink of depravity in which these men lived. If the Government had any defence to make, they ought to be glad to make it before a Committee of Inquiry such as was now moved for. If the Government refused an inquiry, they must not be surprised if the Irish people attributed to Earl Spencer's Government the immunity which this abominable fraternity had enjoyed, and attributed to that Government some of the ignominy and guilt of the whole transaction.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Government with regard to the criminal charges against James Ellis French, County Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary, Gustavus Cornwall, Secretary to the General Post Office, and George Bolton, Crown Solicitor."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. TREVELYAN

Sir, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) began his speech by giving the House assurances that he was not actuated by any personal feeling against any Member of the Government; and he stated particularly that he did not bring any charge of a disagreeable nature against the action, or throw any imputation upon the character, of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), myself, or Lord Spencer. I was glad to find that the tone in which the hon. Gentleman commenced his speech was continued to the end; and I shall certainly imitate him, so far as the tone of my remarks is concerned. I think that when such frightful matters as those that have been touched upon to-night are before the House it is extremely important that we should observe the utmost moderation of language. Sir, I want, at once, to refer to some observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) which I think particularly concern myself. I was surprised early in this Session at some Questions which, were put to me by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), because that hon. Member is always particularly anxious to be sure of the materials with which he comes before the House; but that mystery, for it certainly was a mystery to me, is cleared up by the hon. Member for Queen's County. The hon. Member for Queen's County states that he and his Friends—I do not know exactly what word he used—have reason to think that Mr. French has stated that after the first attack was made upon him in The United Ireland he came to see me, and that I told him he should bring an action against The United Ireland; that Mr. French asked for money to carry on this action and for the aid of the Crown Lawyers, and that the Chief Secretary refused both; that then, after a fortnight, he saw me a second time, and that I reiterated my wishes in that respect. Now, Sir, all this is pure invention. The hon. Member for Monagham and the hon. Member for Queen's County have had, I do not hesitate to say, false evidence laid before them, which they are not in the least to be blamed for believing; and I can very well guess whence this evidence comes, because there has been in Dublin for some time past a man of the name of Meiklejohn, who was formerly in the English Detective Force, but who was dismissed from that Force, put upon his trial—a criminal trial—for levying blackmail, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, the circumstances of the offence being such that it was generally believed it was extremely fortunate for Meiklejohn that two years was the outside punishment that could be given. The House may imagine the terrible danger which Irish officials run when a man of this sort is in Dublin trumping up cases against them. How can any Irish official be free from the most horrible charges when a man of this character is in Dublin spying about to the right and left? I do not know what charges he has brought against other Irish officials; but if they are of the same value as that which he has brought against me, I must say that the House must be very careful how it accepts the outcry with which these charges have been published. For what is the fact about myself? It is very difficult and dangerous to say that you have never seen a person; but, I can assure the House that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen Mr. French. But what I am quite certain of is that I did not see him between the time this article appeared in The United Ireland and the time when he actually brought his action against the editor of that paper—the article was published in August, and the action was brought on the 12th or 13th of October. First of all, I was in the House of Commons in August; then I went straight on to the Continent; when I came back I spent a short while in England; and though I have not got the exact date on which I returned to Ireland, I feel quite confident it was not before the 12th of October, because I remember very well that in October I had some shooting, and that I then stayed another week to see the Prime Minister. I am certain it was not until the 13th or 14th of October that I returned to Ireland; consequently, the whole story of my interview with Mr. French, from whatever quarter it comes, is entirely and absolutely incorrect. Well, Sir, I now come to the conduct of the Government in this matter. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) complains that, instead of ourselves pursuing and punishing people who have been guilty of certain atrocious crimes, we leave it for private persons, at great risk and expense to themselves, to bring the offenders to justice. My answer to that is that I think something may be said of the duty of those who are aware of these horrible crimes, or who think they are aware that these horrible crimes have been committed. These crimes are criminal matters deserving of criminal punishment; and when any person has evidence that such crimes have been committed, he should proceed against the persons who have committed the crimes in the way that the law enjoins, that is, to lay information before a magistrate, whether the offenders be Government officials or not; and it is extremely doubtful whether, when a man had got hold of such evidence, he has a right to use it in any other way until he has tried that first. That is my opinion, and I hope it is the opinion of the House. But that is not all; because it is not only a question of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) having this evidence, but it is a question of our not having it. ["Oh. Oh!"] Mr. Speaker, I must protest against the practice which is gaining ground in the House, that when a statement of fact is made by an hon. Member, it should be greeted in such a manner, which means, if it means anything at all, that the hon. Member is telling a falsehood. It is absolutely the case that, until I saw in The United Ireland the article commencing—"Mr, Gustavus Cornwall, Secretary to the General Post Office, says this is no longer a country in which a gentleman can live," and challenging Mr. Cornwall to bring an action against the paper, neither I, nor any Member of the Irish Government, was in the least aware that any charges had ever been brought against Mr. Cornwall; and, at this moment, I have not the slightest notion of the nature of any charges that have been brought, or can be brought, against Mr. Cornwall, except from the columns of The United Ireland. How, then, can the Government act against a man who may be innocent, or may be guilty, when they have no evidence at all of any sort or kind except what is contained in an article in The United Ireland? ["Oh, oh.!"] I submit that this is not the way in which to conduct a debate. We are not conducting a debate; we are conducting something like a legal inquiry into private character; and in a Court, an advocate is allowed to conduct his case without interruption. In the case of Mr. Bolton, he has been frequently charged in United Ireland with being a forger. Well, we have before us the whole of the charges brought against him, and among them we have been unable to find the least particle of foundation for anything that could possibly be construed into a charge of forgery. How can we condemn a man of so horrible a crime when we have no evidence against him whatever, except that he is charged generally with that crime by United Ireland? The hon. Member for Mallow complains that Mr. Bolton did not bring his action until the hon. Member and the hon. Gentleman who was acting with him had brought forward in this House a Resolution. That was with very good reason; because, up to that time, Mr. Bolton, although he was bitterly attacked in United Ireland, had not been, attacked in such a manner as to make it absolutely necessary for him either to bring an action or retire from the society of decent mankind— because this very reason, placed, as it was, United Ireland, obliged Mr. Bolton to act. I will read a passage from United Ireland— I beg to give notice that whenever the Government apply for a Vote on Account, I will bring under the attention of the House a charge of felonious practices against French, Cornwall, and Mr. George Bolton, Crown Solicitor, and the conduct of the Irish Government in reference thereto. And then United Ireland had these words put at the top of this announcement— "A precious trio." It is very shocking to me to find that an hon. Gentleman with whom I exchange, at any rate, official communications, should seriously think it is not a very terrible thing that a man—whom the hon. Gentleman himself now says Mr. Bolton was not charged with an atrocious crime, should be placed in the same category as two other men who are charged with an atrocious crime, called with them "a precious trio," and then charged with felonious practices—and that at a time when there is no case of felonious practices charged against Mr. Bolton. The charge that was made in the House of Commons was afterwards continued in leading articles. I find an article, dated the 24th of May, in which it is said that really Messrs. French, Bolton, & Co. ought to have remembered that even an English Lord Lieutenant could not afford to identify himself with unclean beasts who insisted on bringing their profligacy into public daylight. Everyone in Ireland knew, from the columns of United Ireland, what was charged against Mr. French. Was it possible, then, for a man, who was coupled with French in that article, not to bring an action? Then, in an article on the same day, allusion is made to the Lord Lieutenant for permitting felons, like French, Cornwall, Bolton, & Co., to continue to act in the service of the Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The matter which the right hon. Gentleman is now referring to is sub judice, and I abstained from referring to it.

MR. TREVELYAN

I am speaking of the reasons why Mr. Bolton brought this action. I am very sorry this case is before the House at all; but if men's names are mixed up with the charges, and the Rules of the House allow me to do so, I am obliged to state all and what I know about the facts. I imagine that, as a general proposition, the one course which the Government can take, when an official of that Government is charged in a newspaper with odious, crimes, and when no evidence of those crimes is brought before the Government—the one course that Government can take, unless the charge is manifestly and ludicrously ridiculous, is to insist on the person so charged, clearing his character by an action. I know of no other course they could pursue. Of course, if the charge is an official charge; if the hon. Member opposite stated that he had reason to believe that there had been in a Government Office favouritism, or a misuse of political power, and that cases of a criminal character were very lightly punished, that would be a very different matter. Such a case could not be easily tried by a Court of Law, but was a proper subject for an official inquiry. But when a Government official is charged with felonious practices, then he has the same right as other people to be tried in a Court of Law, where witnesses can be heard and cross-examined, and the Government has a right to insist that he shall clear his character. With regard to Mr. Cornwall, he has taken exactly the course which, in my opinion, an official or a private individual should take. In the case of Mr. Bolton, he has brought an action for libel—I am not quite sure that he has not brought two —against United Ireland—and certainly not at the expense of or the desire of the Government. Before I pass to French's case, I will just observe on the remarks of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) as to Mr. Bolton's conduct in 1879–80. The hon. Member stated the case as it appeared to him; but that case, as the hon. Member knows, was laid before the late Government by Mr. Justice O'Brien. The late Lord Chancellor Ball, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General went very carefully into the matter, and they all agreed that there was no ground for taking any action or official notice of Mr. Bolton's conduct. When the case was again brought to light in the Court of Probate, and questions were asked in this House by the late Lord Chancellor Law, in order to see whether the case stood differently from its position when examined by his Predecessors, he came to the same conclusion as Lord Chancellor Ball and the Law Advisers of the late Government in Ireland. With regard to Mr. French, his case is, in fact, precisely the same as that of Mr. Cornwall, except that it extends over a much longer period. Mr. French went on sick-leave on the 16th of August last year which, I believe, was anterior to any charge brought against him in United Ireland. He went on sick leave on the 6th of August for a month, and the first article in United Ireland, of which we have cognizance, appeared on the 25th of August. On the 1st of September the Inspector General first saw this article, and called Mr. French's attention to it, asking what steps he intended to take to repel so foul an imputation on his character? He was not forced or asked to take this action, though we may imagine that this was the original intention of the Inspector General. On the following day, Mr. French replied that he should place the matter in the hands of his solicitor, and take such action as he was advised. About the same time the Inspector General, on his own responsibility, and without communicating with any Members of the Government, commenced an informal inquiry; but nothing transpired to establish a primâ facie case against Mr. French. On the 8th of September Mr. French was informed that he need not return to his office until called upon to do so; and he then wrote, stating that the facts were in the hands of his solicitor. On the 9th of October he was urged to proceed with his action without any delay. Michaelmas Term begins, I think, at the commencement of November, and lasts till about the 21st of December, and the writs were issued, in this case, on the 12th of October. On the 22nd of October the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) first appeared in the action. He proposed, I think, to remit the action to the County Court, on the ground, I suppose, of its being a sham action, and it was at this stage that Mr. French made an affidavit of innocence in the matter. On the 3rd of November the motion on the part of the hon. Member for Mallow was refused, and judgment was then demanded. I am informed that the delay between that date and the 23rd of November was not due to Mr. French; but that is a legal matter, on which I am obliged to speak second-hand. The defence of the hon. Member for Mallow was put in on the 5th of December. This defence was made before counsel, and counsel differed up to a certain point; but it ended by Mr. French asking for particulars of justification on the 18th of December. On the 20th of December the Inspector General, who had again asked Mr. French to hurry on the suit as fast as possible, was informed that no time was being lost in pressing on the case. On the 5th of January, 1884, the solicitors of the hon. Member for Mallow refused to give any particulars. This caused considerable delay. On the 5th of February, 1884, the Court ordered them to give particulars within 10 days; but in consequence of this refusal of the hon. Member for Mallow to give particulars, something like six weeks at a most critical time were lost, so that if there were delays it seems to me that they were on both sides.

MR. O'BRIEN

Allow me to say that particulars were given at once. It was further particulars that the Court ordered.

MR. TREVELYAN

Eventually the Court decided that the action which the hon. Member was unwilling to take must go on. After these particulars were given, 12 days' notice were required, and this practically brought the case up to the 1st March, when the Circuits went out, and it was impossible to go on with the case in the Hilary Sittings. Mr. French remained on sick leave, and on the 21st of February he obtained a medical certificate stating that his intellect was more or less affected, and that further excitement would very likely cause permanent mental derangement. This medical certificate was written by Dr. Curtis, Senior Surgeon of the City and County of Cork General Hospital, and by Dr. Eames, Medical Superintendent of the District Asylum. About this time occurred an incident which has been referred to several times. It is said that the detectives who protected French interfered with the detectives who were employed to watch him. The solicitors of the hon. Member for Mallow wrote several letters to the Inspector General, one of which I will read; and I will also read the Inspector General's answer. On the 28th February, the solicitors of the hon. Member for Mallow wrote this letter— Sir,—Tour letter of the 27th completely evades our inquiries. You state, 'The Inspector General has not authorized any proceedings on the part of any members of the Force,' and of course we could not expect you to admit that he had. Be good enough to in form us specifically:—1st. Are you aware that Head Constable Cottingham and Irwin have amongst other matters been in communication with the plaintiff, and have requested him to point out our private detective, in order that they might follow him and watch his proceedings, for the purpose of frustrating his investigations, and also have been watching our officers? 2nd. Is this by the Inspector (General's approval? 3rd. If not, what notice does the Inspector General propose to take of their conduct? 4th. Will the Inspector General guarantee that such conduct will be discontinued? 6th. If the above statements are denied, will the Inspector General inquire on the subject? We are, Sir, your obedient servants, CHANCE & WILEY.

THE DEPUTY Inspector General's answer was as follows:—

"R. I. Constabulary, Dublin,

"11th March, 1884.

"Gentlemen,—I am directed by the Inspector General, with reference to your communication of the 28th ultimo, already acknowledged, to reply to your several queries as follows:—

"1. The Inspector General was not aware of any action having been taken by the Head Constables referred to in reference to Mr. French. Since receiving your letter he has caused inquiries to be made from Head Constables Cottingham and Irwin, and has learned that, in consequence of a communication, made to H. L. Cottiugham by Mr. French, that some suspicious looking persons had been looking for him, they made inquiries at Mr. French's lodgings, and also at a house opposite, whether such was the fact, and ascertained that someone had been making inquiries for him. The Constables did ask at both houses what description of persons were inquiring for Mr. French, but did not ask to have them pointed out. The Constables made these inquiries solely with a view to the personal safety of Mr. French, and not for the purpose of aiding him in any way in the pending action. The Inspector General has further learned that the Constables were not aware that the persons who made the inquiries, or any of them, were acting as detectives, or engaged in assisting you in the case, or that you had any person engaged for detective purposes; he has also learned that they never watched your offices, and do not know where they are situated.

"The above reply renders a reply to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th queries unnecessary.

"With reference to the 5th query, the Inspector General (from the inquiries made by him) is satisfied that there is no foundation for the charges made against the Constables referred to. He, therefore, does not consider any further inquiry necessary.

"The Inspector General has no objection to further state that he is not aware of any action on the part of any member of the Force for the purpose of aiding Mr. French in the pending action. Any such action would have neither his encouragement nor authority.

"I am, &c. (Signed) R. F. FANNING."

On the 18th March, the Assistant Inspector General wrote expressing dissatisfaction at the delay that had taken place, and requiring to be furnished with a statement of the case, and also asking why Mr. French had not brought his case to trial. Then came the letter from Mr. French's solicitors, stating that his condition was such that he was unable further to instruct them. What I would say about the delay is that it is very doubtful whether at the first sittings — the Michaelmas Sittings—there was delay upon the part of French. It certainly is open, to a certain extent, to that construction; but with regard to the second and longer sittings, I think the delay was owing to legitimate legal proceedings. Legal proceedings were set in motion, no doubt, by the solicitors of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). After that, when we come to the Easter Sittings, there is no doubt whatever of the cause of delay. The cause of the delay was that Mr. French was perfectly unable to take part in any business whatever, least of all in such a terrible business as this. On the 4th of April, the Inspector General wrote that there should be no further delay, and calling upon Mr. French to proceed to trial at the earliest day.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Inspector General, I presume, did not believe that French was ill?

MR. TREVELYAN

He did not know how ill he was. Three doctors were appointed, as a medical board, to examine into the condition of French—namely, Drs. Eames, J. E. Curtis, and S. J. Gordon. I think the professional character of these gentlemen is such that their certificate will be taken as of some value, and that there is no ground for the statement by the hon. Member for Mallow that this is a sham certificate. Their report is a very strong one. It is as follows:— Cork District Lunatic Asylum, 20th April, 1884, We, the undersigned, having been appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to examine and certify, for His Excellency's information, our opinion as to the present state of health of County Inspector James Ellis French, R.I.C., beg to report that, having this day visited that officer, we are of opinion that he is suffering from mental disease (softening of brain) and great nervous debility with impairment of bodily health, and that from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent. JAMES ALEXANDER EAMES, M.D., F.R.C.S.I., Res. Med. Supt. District Asylum, Cork. JAMES E. CURTIS, F.R.C.S.I., Senion Surgeon Co. and City Cork General Hospital, and South Infirmary, S. J. GORDON, Surgeon R.I. Constabulary. With that certificate, and hearing that French was unfit for the service, he was struck off the Force as from the 20th of April. The question of giving him a pension was postponed, pending the result of the legal proceedings; but if it is clearly ascertained that his ill-health is undoubtedly permanent, that matter will have to be reconsidered, with that sort of inquiry into his official antecedents as we should make in the case of any officer. On the 5th of June, the action, which is now well known in Ireland, was dismissed on the ground that the condition of Mr. French's health prevented him from prosecuting. I think it was an extremely unfortunate thing that Mr. French was not able to bring that action. I think that Mr. Cornwall and Mr. Bolton are perfectly right in pressing forward, as rapidly as possible, those proceedings, by which they hope to clear their characters; and I can only end, as I began, by stating that the Government have had before them no facts or evidence upon which they could properly have instituted a criminal prosecution against either of these persons. I am glad to think that hon. Members, on the whole, have hitherto conducted the debates of this kind in such a way as not to hamper the responsibility of the Government, or to raise disputed questions which are to be decided elsewhere; and I must seriously beg hon. Members who may yet take part in this discussion to remember that it is a very serious matter to make the House of Commons a Court of Law. We have before had this House made a Court of Criminal Appeal by trying over again cases already tried in a Court of Law; but in the case now before the House, the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in connection with felonious practices are certainly being tried at this moment by the House of Commons on what is only too likely to be an ex parte statement, without any opportunity of being heard in their defence, and without any opportunity of the evidence brought against them being subjected to the test of cross-examination. I trust I have satisfied the House that in this grave matter the Government has acted as it has always been the practice of Governments to act, and I earnestly hope that the debate will not be continued much longer.

MR. HEALY

said, it appeared to him that Joe Brady had one great misfortune — namely, that he could not get three good doctors to certify to his general debility. He (Mr. Healy) felt perfectly satisfied that if that man Brady could have provided the right hon. Gentleman with a certificate from Dr. Eames, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Gordon, he would not at the present moment be lying calcined in a shell in Kilmainham Prison, because the speech of the right hon. Gentleman practically amounted to this—that a man might be charged with the most frightful, heinous, and abominable of crimes, and if he could get three doctors to certify that he was unable to attend to his business that, in their opinion, covered him from, all responsibility. He (Mr. Healy) congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon taking up that view of the law. He must advert to another peculiar view of the law taken by the right hon. Gentleman, which he (Mr. Healy) trusted they would profit by later on in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had commenced by saying that he was not surprised that terrible charges had been made against the Government officials in Ireland, because a certain man named Meiklejohn, who had been convicted of fraud and sentenced to two years' hard labour, was at present engaged in Dublin, and that in Dublin Government officials ran very terrible risks from the statements of this man. Well, if the Government officials ran very terrible risks from the statements of the man Meiklejohn, when Meiklejohn was only employed by a private individual, who had not the hosts of the State behind him, nor the machinery of the Government and the police at his back, what terrible risks did men run when the Government desired to run down some unfortunate peasant or some political opponent, and when they could scour every prison in the country and employ characters like George Bolton to extract evidence from them. Was there not terrible risk run by every Member upon these Benches, when a man like George Bolton was the chief criminal investigator, and James Ellis French was the chief detective investigator of the Government? Did they run no terrible risk when they got a man like Patrick Delaney, a convict sentenced to five years' penal servitude for highway robbery, and then to 10 years' penal servitude for conspiracy to murder; then sentenced to death, being convicted of murder, reprieved by the Government because he gave them information; kept in clover in Mountjoy Gaol, and produced after 12 months to swear against other men? Who was this man Meiklejohn, whose operations placed Irish officials under such terrible risk? Why, he was an ex-Government official. Set a Meiklejohn to catch a Bolton. It was a terrible thing that they should employ this man and run the terrible risk of impugning the success of abominable proceedings of persons like Mr. James Ellis French. Was it strange that private individuals in Ireland, to convict these men of fearful crimes, should hesitate to employ a Meiklejohn, when the Government did not hesitate to employ a Patrick Delaney or a James Carey? He had often heard flimsy speeches at the Treasury Table; but he had never heard a more flimsy statement in his life than that which had just been delivered by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman threw over James Ellis French—his case was hopeless. He was suffering from locomotor ataxy or Heaven knew what; but "oh," said the Government, "we have got two men to fall back upon, the true and trusty Bolton, and the right well-beloved Cornwall." They threw over French—he went to the wolves; but they had still in their quiver the arrows of Cornwall and Bolton. Aye, and the right hon. Gentleman spurred them on in this House to bring their actions. Of French the right hon. Gentleman had no hope. If the case rested on French, the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Government would stand condemned; but he had yet hope. Let Englishmen take courage and support the right hon. Gentleman; all was not yet lost; there were yet two men to bring actions against the hon. Gentle- man the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and against United Ireland; and then, when United Ireland had proved the charges, the right hon. Gentleman would come down, having egged them on, and would wash his hands of the whole matter at the Treasury Table. The right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the allegation of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that French had been seen by himself. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had watched the right hon. Gentleman very carefully; and he had not said one word, when guarding himself, with regard to whether or not any other official had not seen French. It was the terrible Meiklejohn who had made the statement regarding the right hon. Gentleman and French, and the character of Meiklejohn was such that none of his statements were worthy of credence—the Irish officials ran terrible risks. But what was the instance the right hon. Gentleman gave of the untrustworthiness of Meiklejohn? It was that he had reported that French had seen the Irish Secretary, when, as a matter of fact, no interview had taken place between the two; but did the right hon. Gentleman deny that French had sought an interview; did he deny that he had seen the Under Secretary, Sir Robert Hamilton, or the Deputy of Deputy Jenkinson, or Colonel Bruce, or Mr. Fanning, or even Earl Spencer himself? The right hon. Gentleman made a tremendous point of the fact that he was on his holidays shooting pheasants, and that, therefore, the statement as to Mr. French having interviewed him was untrue. The allegation was truly a terrible one. The right hon. Gentleman might not have seen Mr. French; but there were plenty of Man Jacks in the Castle. If the Government had not spoken with the mouth of the Chief Secretary, surely they were not without mouths in Ireland? But the right hon. Gentleman admitted, later on, that he had written letter after letter—that a regular cat-o'-nine-tails of epistles was written to French, urging him, whipping him, goading him, threshing him on to bring an action, but yet never bringing him up to the scratch. That was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman, and he congratulated England and the Government on having a Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland so ingenuous that he could rest upon that position a case of this magnitude, knowing that the position taken up by the Irish Members on those Benches was that an Irish official was endeavouring to crush an Irish newspaper which had been, and please God would continue to be, a thorn in the side of a hated Government. But the right hon. Gentleman said—"Thou cans't not say I did it. I was pheasant shooting." But they did not know that Sir Robert Hamilton, Colonel Bruce, or even Lord Spencer himself had not seen French. They complained that all the information they obtained on this subject had to be dragged out of the right hon. Gentleman, as it were, with pincers. Was that the way in which English Members would be treated if at any time they had to make a charge against Colonel Henderson or Mr. Vincent—and Mr. French occupied in Ireland relatively the same position as they did? Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) or some other Member of the Tory Party brought a charge against Mr. Vincent, or other persons of his rank, and the actions were allowed to rest month after month and term after term, what would be said by English Members? Why, they would have dragged piecemeal out of the Home Secretary all the information he had in his possession. Would they not have made the charge that the Home Secretary was an accomplice in the matter? The right hon. Gentleman was a Gentleman, an English official, an English Gentleman, and he knew not what it was that compelled him to go over to Ireland and screen the conduct of officials like French. He was a Gentleman in feeling, by nature, and by birth; what obligation was there upon him to defend a dirty dog like James Ellis French? Was not all Ireland under the belief that the Government had screened this man? Would they take the verdict of men on the Treasury Bench as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had raised the standard of officialism by the delay that had occurred? The consciences of men were tried in that House by Divisions in the Lobby; but if they were written on their faces he would take the verdict of hon. Members as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had or had not lowered the standard of offi- cial conduct by the course lie had taken. He knew not why, when English officials went over to Ireland, they made themselves the defenders or the accomplices of persons of this character, and why, when they stood at the Table, they could not say—"This man has not cleared his name of charges of a foul nature which have been made against him," or "The charges against so and so have not been proved." It did not apply to the right hon. Gentleman to defend a creature of the character of French. There were men who would have quitted the Government before they would have made such a defence as that made by the right hon. Gentleman. But they were told they ought to have entrusted their evidence to the hands of the Government. But they knew too much to entrust them with anything they possessed in the way of evidence. They had before their eyes the precedent of Corry Connellan. And what did the English Government do in relation to him? They were as certain of his guilt as they were certain of the guilt of James Ellis French. Some creature of a former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had facts before him as clear as those which the present Lord Lieutenant had with regard to French. Corry Connellan was hunted by the Government out of the country for his crimes; but no prosecution was commenced against him, and he was now drawing a pension from the Secret Service Fund. Trust the Government—the protectors and advisers of Corry Connellan! Give proofs to George Bolton! Let George Bolton manipulate the evidence! He would ask English Members to make the case their own. Here was a Government official charged with crime, who, as a matter of fact, if the proofs of it were entrusted to the Government, would decide upon his own case. Mr. James Ellis French would have to say whether Mr. James Ellis French was or was not guilty, and whether he should be prosecuted or not. Why, in that case the Government would be as sure of a verdict as they were with the Green Street packed jury. Sworn proofs, however, had been furnished in Court. A volume—he might almost say half a cart load—of depositions against French were recorded in the Court of Queen's Bench. Did not the Crown Lawyers know the way to the Courts? If it were a charge against some leading Land Leaguer, how quickly would the sleuth-hounds of the Government sniff out the facts! If any person whom the Government wanted to destroy were the object of these charges, and there was the same amount of evidence in existence as there was against French, how long would the Government have been in finding it out? Take himself, for instance. But this charge was made against a detective — their own darling—and, therefore, the aegis of the Government was flung around him. It was, he said, monstrous to expect the hon. Member for Mallow to supply all his evidence. The Government should be as anxious for their own reputation as a private individual was; like Caesar's wife, they should be above suspicion; the individual on whom the lives of Irishmen might rest should be a man against whom no one could throw a stone. This man Bolton—forger, adulterer, wife swindler—he who procured evidence and manipulated prisoners in their cells—did the in-door work of the Government; the out-door work was done by Mr. James Ellis French; they were the two branches of crime detection in Ireland. On the right of the Government there was George Bolton, and on their left James Ellis French. And they were asked to have confidence in the administration of justice! The right hon. Gentleman said that Bolton had been charged with felony; but that, as far as he understood the matter, the crime only amounted to misdemeanour. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might have left that defence to his learned Colleague; an indictable offence was, in the popular parlance of the Press, referred to as felonious. The right hon. Gentleman said in effect—"Mr. Bolton was charged with being a fraudulent trustee; we are advised by an English legal luminary that that is not felony. Poor George has only been guilty of a misdemeanour. He has swindled his wife; as a bankrupt he has paid 6½d. in the pound; his dealings with his tenants were most improper; he is a fraudulent trustee and a fraudulent bankrupt; but he has not been guilty of felony." He should have supposed that an English gentleman would have blushed with shame for making that defence in the House of Commons. At what a pass had they arrived, when English Members, asked to vote on this question, had to be coaxed to follow the Government into the Lobby—that a right hon. Gentleman should be so immured in the incrustations of the Castle as to make a defence of this nature, and that English Gentlemen should be bound to him so closely by the ties of Party as to be willing to back him up in that defence! The right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Bolton intended to bring his action, and he then skilfully avoided all reference to Mr. Bolton's conduct; but he made a speech that would, no doubt, be appreciated by a Belfast jury. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently bright hopes of the success of Mr. Bolton's action; but why was the case not to be tried by the special jurors of Dublin, who knew Mr. Bolton so well? Why did he not avail himself of the aid of his friend Mr. Welsh, of the Constitutional Club, with whom he was in the habit of manipulating the panels of juries? A jury which was good enough to try persons accused of the most atrocious agrarian offences was not good enough to decide on Mr. Bolton's case; so he fell back on the clause of the Crimes Act which provided for change of venue, and brought his action in the county of Antrim. He would ask, seeing that Lord Spencer, when there, had to be guarded by Dragoons, what guard would not his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) need? Mr. Bolton, in this act, had practically "thrown up the sponge" so far as his conduct was concerned; but the right hon. Gentleman bade him be of good cheer, because of the people of Belfast. Mr. Bolton, the manipulator of jury panels, who knew the panels of the City of Dublin a great deal better than he knew his prayers, this man had gone to Belfast to have his action tried, not being able to trust to his fellow-citizens in the capital, and upon that fact the Government rested their case. What moral weight would attach to a verdict obtained in such a way? French had gone, Bolton had gone to Belfast, and before very long they would have got rid of Cornwall. Of Cornwall's action it was not for him to speak now, although he might very fairly do so after the manner in which Bolton's case had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The manifesto of the right hon. Gentleman would be read between the lines by the Belfast jury, and even if Bolton secured a verdict, he would not be entitled to claim that there was any moral weight attaching to it. The Chief Secretary made a great point of Bolton being called a forger by the United Ireland; but Bolton, designated, as he had been, forger, swindler, thief, adulterer, fraudulent bankrupt, had not attempted to bring a libel action. He was called forger, according to the right hon. Gentleman; if so, where was the action for libel? He was called a thief, where was the action for libel? He was called ruffian, swindler, and every adjective that could be was applied to the hound as he was; but no action for libel was forthcoming. Why was that? According to law, a man was not entitled to recover damages for the loss of a character he had not got. Bolton had no character. He relied upon the fact that in the report of Parliamentary proceedings a Motion was given which he said was tantamount to accusing him of disgraceful offences. That was the head and front, the top and bottom, of the action which Bolton proposed to bring before the jurors of the City of Belfast. Finally, he would say that the Government had given them no satisfaction whatever in this matter. September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, May, and June had passed away, and nothing had been got out of the Government with regard to James Ellis French. Month after month was allowed to slip away and nothing was done, and at the present moment the Government said that even the question of French's pension was under consideration. With what glee would the Radical economists vote for the pension of James Ellis French? The case of the Government from first to last was of the flimsiest description; and he regretted that a gentleman of the character and position of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should have been obliged to rely on a defence such as that he had made tonight. That defence would be read closely in Ireland, and the people would understand that, no matter how great the crime, if the offender were a Government official, he would be taken up by the authorities. And this was a Government which put down agrarian criminals, political offenders, men of every description who were opposed to them, while it allowed frightful crimes to be committed under the walls of Dublin Castle with impunity. They hunted down every political offender, all the machinery of Government was available to hunt them down; but when he and his Friends brought charges of this kind against their own. officials, not only did they get no aid, but the Government's police officers were occupied in dogging the footsteps of their witnesses and detectives, and keeping close watch upon the doors of their solicitors and the persons who employed the solicitors. He made the Government a present of to-night's debate; it would ennoble them in the opinion of the Irish people. This discussion had been conducted by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in a manner to which no one in the House could take exception. No words had been spoken by those hon. Gentlemen which ought not to have been spoken. The House and the country at large would appreciate what the Government had done. They had had this official under their eyes, they knew his guilt, and knowing his guilt for months and months they had screened him; they now screened him from prosecution, and said that if he got well again they would give him a pension. The Government were doing an evil thing for their reputation. That, however, was a matter for themselves and the country to judge upon. He would only say once more he regretted that a Gentleman of the character of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, the biographer and the nephew of Lord Macaulay, should be known in history as the apologist of James Ellis French.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he thought the Irish people, who had looked forward with some interest to this debate, would be surprised and shocked at the reply which the Chief Secretary had made to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). For many months this matter had been discussed in Ireland; and if the Chief Secretary had not had his attention drawn to it, and if he had not had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the allegations which had been made against James Ellis French, it was only another of the many instances of the ignorance of Irish affairs which the right hon. Gentleman displayed. Almost at the commencement of this Session, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that the Government were acting in this matter with their eyes open, and tonight he had posed as the advocate of James Ellis French. Everyone, too, who read the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the case of Mr. Bolton would feel that there had been delivered in the House of Commons that which might more properly be delivered by the counsel for Mr. Bolton before the Belfast jury. The right hon. Gentleman had said that independent medical officers were obtained to examine Mr. French. What, however, was the fact? Why, that one of the doctors was the very gentleman whom Mr. French had called in; and he (Mr. Harrington) thought that, in calling in that gentleman, French had, at least, shown that he was capable of exercising his faculty of discretion. The Chief Secretary had said that information was not supplied to the Government in the matter, and that was the excuse which he made for the Government taking no action in the case of James Ellis French. If the right hon. Gentleman had no evidence, could he not, at least, have consented to receive evidence by assenting to the Motion for an inquiry? The allegation of the Chief Secretary was that he had no evidence on which to proceed, and that unless the Crown was put in motion the Crown would not proceed. How much evidence had he required in other cases? How much evidence did he require when he accused him (Mr. Harrington) of intimidating his constituents at Westmeath? Did he wait until action was taken by the constituents themselves? No; he immediately took the prosecution into his own hands; he underlined the observations which were alleged to have been used by him (Mr. Harrington), directed a prosecution, and appointed the gentleman who was to prosecute. A very remarkable incident, as bearing on this case, came under his notice last Saturday evening. While standing at the mail boat at Kingston, he noticed the detectives of the Chief Secretary and his Government engaged in watching the movements of any political persons who were to cross by the boat. He saw them engaged in the effort to keep in the country men who would be very anxious to escape from being witnesses in this infamous case. From the nature of the offence, the House would understand the extreme difficulty his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) had encountered in getting evidence which would enable him to make a solid defence. The right hon. Gentleman wanted them to place in the hands of the Government officials all that evidence upon which his hon. Friend relied for his defence, while, in the same breath, the right hon. Gentleman admitted it was his desire, and the desire of all the officials of Dublin Castle, that French should do all in his power to crush United Ireland. He (Mr. Harrington) had no wish to detain the House longer; he would only say that to the shame and disgrace with which the name of the Irish Government was associated would be added the further shame and scandal and disgrace of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary cloaking, by his words to-night, an offence which every respectable person in Dublin believed to have been committed.

MR. PARNELL

Although, Sir, I am a considerable shareholder in the United Ireland newspaper, I have never taken any part in the management of the paper. The management is intrusted by the Company to my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), who has always shown the greatest ability and discretion in the discharge of his duties. It has not, therefore, fallen to my lot to be acquainted with the particular case of Mr. James Ellis French in any other way, or in any other more intimate manner, than as an ordinary reader of the newspaper. I have certainly looked forward to this debate with very considerable interest, in order that it might be possible for me to see upon what foundation the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) rested the extraordinary and unusual charges which he has made against Mr. French, and which have produced such a sensation and such an unheard of state of affairs in Dublin and in Ireland generally. Well, now, Sir, I have listened with the greatest attention to the statements which were made by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who brought forward this Motion, and also to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and I am bound to say that I think the Government cannot meet the charges which have been made against Mr. French, their former Chief Inspector of Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) says he has had no evidence presented to him, and, I suppose, he means also that the Irish Executive have had no evidence presented to them, as to the charges which have been made against Mr. French. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the charge in question is a charge of felony of a very grave and gross character; and I would ask the Chief Secretary whether, if such a charge—a charge of felony of this kind, or of any other kind—were made against persons in Ireland not in the employment of the Government, he would not think it the duty of the Police Department to investigate the case with a view of sifting it to the very foundation? It is not yesterday that these charges have been made against James Ellis French. The series of charges which has culminated to-night has been lasting for a period of fully 10 months, and it has culminated in the neglect by Mr. French to prosecute the action against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and by the dismissal by the Courts in Dublin of the action. I cannot help thinking that the Government must consider that this is a most unfortunate termination of the action. Is it, or is it not, the intention of the Government in Ireland to investigate these charges against Mr. French? If my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, with a single detective, with all the disadvantages which must arise to a private individual engaged in such a case as this, with the very power of the Government's detective force in Ireland arrayed against him, has been able to accumulate testimony on the records of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, filling, as has been described by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), a volume, is it not possible for the Government, with all their detectives, with all their power, their wealth, and their means of investigating felonies, means which, as regards political offenders, they have not shrunk from using to the fullest extent—is it not in their power, after these charges have been rung in their ears for 10 months, and have now been brought forward in the House of Commons—nay, is it not their bounden duty to investigate the case with the view of placing this man, if he be criminal, on his trial? I cannot see upon what ground the Government say that it is not their duty to interfere. If the Government maintain their present attitude, Mr. French has it in his power, by refusing to recover, to prevent his conduct from ever being investigated before a Court. If an accusation involving felony had been made against anybody other than a Government official, if that accusation had been made with such persistency, and in such detailed evidence, as has been brought forward in the case of Mr. French, would the Government shrink from a prosecution? I cannot think they would shrink from an investigation, and I believe that if crimes of a political character were so well substantiated as this gross crime has been against Mr. French, the result would undoubtedly be that all the influence of the Detective Department in Ireland, and all the power of the Government, would be used for the purpose of obtaining a conviction against the persons accused. How has the right hon. Gentleman exhibited himself to the Irish people? They know very well what steps the Irish Government have taken for the purpose of detecting and putting down offences of an agrarian and political character during the last two years. They know perfectly well that the Irish Government shrank from no means, expense, or exertion to put down such crimes; and yet, when one of their own trusted officials is accused of an offence of this character—an offence which must be notorious to the police in Dublin, not only as regards Mr. French, but also a great many other persons, I am sorry to say, it is not possible for the Government to shield these individuals without incurring the imputation of one-sidedness and unfairness in the execution of their duty as the upholders of the law and the punishment of offenders in Ireland. In this case the offender happens to be one of their own officials, and one upon whom they have relied for the maintenance of the law, and the attempt to cloak the case throws general discredit on the administration of the law in Ireland. It is utterly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to maintain the position he has taken up to-night. He has attacked the detective Meiklejohn, and endeavoured to throw discredit upon him by alluding to his conviction for fraud two or three years ago. I think that is not the tone he should have adopted in regard to this case. If he had not investigated this case, and had not directed it to be investigated in Ireland by the authorities, he ought to have done so; and if he had not directed such an investigation it did not lie in his mouth to speak of the persons who had investigated the matter, and the agents who had been the means of preventing French from trampling on the hon. Member for Mallow, as he had done tonight. Unpleasant as this has been, I cannot see how any other course was open to my hon. Friend than that which he has taken. He could not have gone to French, when a suspicion of French had dawned upon him, and ask French to give him the assistance of his own detective department to ascertain his (French's) guilt. Such a course would have been puerile and absurd in the last degree, and in view of the conduct of the Government and of the strange fatuity which seemed to possess the Chief Secretary; and it seemed a most extraordinary thing that his hon. Friend should have been rebuked by the Chief Secretary, and that the hon. Member's agent should be held up to defamation by the right hon. Gentleman for doing that which ought to have been done long ago by the detective department of Dublin Castle. I suppose the Government would refuse to grant this Select Committee; but an independent inquiry of some kind is necessary in regard to this matter, and unless some sufficient assurance was given that the Government viewed the matter in its proper light, and that they saw the great discredit which would be thrown on the administration of the law in Ireland, and upon the whole Executive Government in Ireland, by their further insisting upon their unfortunate and ill-judged course, I certainly think it will be the duty of Irish Members to recur to this subject until they can touch the conscience of the Government.

MR. FAWCETT

In the position that I hold in the Government, I feel I have no claim whatever to ask the House to allow me to make any remarks on the general issue raised on this Motion; but as one of the persons referred to is an old official of the Department over which I preside, I will venture to say a few words lest my silence should be misunderstood. As I understand the charge that has been brought against the Government, it is this—and I may say in passing that I think personally, and I think the Chief Secretary would say the same, that nothing could be kinder to us personally than the tone of the hon. Member for Queen's County—the charge against the Government is this: that we had evidence, or ought to have had evidence, which would enable us to proceed against certain officials; that we declined this duty and this responsibility, and left the investigation to be practically carried on by a private Member of this House, who brought charges against these officials in the columns of his newspaper. Now, let me explain exactly my own position in the case, and I think probably a simple explanation will be, after all, the best vindication of the Government. Far from having had any evidence; far from any hon. Members having given me any evidence or even the smallest intimation that they suspected the official of the Post Office whose name has been mentioned of the crimes which have been charged against him, I read in United Ireland, on the 8th of May, a certain article stating that there was no official in the Post Office whose character was more free from suspicion. Now, in justice to Mr. Cornwall, let me tell the House that he himself sent this article officially to the Post Office, and directed our attention to it, and this was the first intimation we received of these charges. Mr. Cornwall particularly put himself into communication with a firm of respectable solicitors. They consulted one of the counsel of the Irish Government of the highest standing, and throughout he has acted according to their advice. I think I should have enjoined upon him the necessity—and I did so—of bringing an action in a Court of Justice in order to free himself from these charges, yet, in justice to Mr. Cornwall, I am bound to say that he took that course before he was aware that I was going to enjoin it upon him. He has given me a most positive assurance that there should not be one hour's unnecessary delay in bringing these charges, so far as he is concerned, to an issue; and I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I will take care, although I am sure that such an assurance is not necessary, that this promise is fully redeemed. This being the case, as the hon. Member for Queen's County sees, the case is virtually sub judice, and I am sure every Member of the House will feel that it would be most inappropriate for me to say a single word further in respect to this case; but I felt it was due to him to say that he did everything which an honourable man—supposing he is honourable, and is as free from these charges as anyone else—could do. He has done, so far as I can discover, everything that an honourable man could do; and I say this without expressing any opinion as to the ultimate decision; but as soon as the charges were first made on the 1st of May, he did everything that an honourable and innocent man could do to vindicate himself; and, that being the case, I am sure everyone will be careful not to add to the painfulness of the position by saying an unnecessary word until the trial has been brought to a result. Now, with regard to the position of the Government in reference to this case, it has been constantly said that we have not availed ourselves of the evidence in our possession; but charges have been brought, and we have no evidence. If the evidence is in the possession of any Member of the Government, then, of course, we are bound to investigate it. If the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), or the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), had come to me and said that, from evidence in their possession, they were prepared to bring a most serious charge against officials in my Department, then, treating these Gentlemen as honourable men, and feeling that they would not bring these charges, or make such statements, unless they had some evidence to rest upon, I should have said at once—"Tell me your evidence. You may trust me. Tell me your evidence; and, so far as I am concerned, the case shall be carefully, closely, and exhaustively investigated." But that is not my position, and that has not been the position, as I understand, of the Irish Government in respect to the other officials, although any hon. Member might have told me this. As I said before, the first direct rumour I heard of this charge brought against an official of the Post Office was that I read an article which was furnished to me, not by the person who brought the charge, but by the person against whom the charge was brought I can only say, further—although, possibly, it may be considered that I am not the right person to speak on this subject—that it seems to me that there could be no more inappropriate tribunal to investigate a criminal charge of a most grave kind than a Select Committee of this House. A Select Committee may, if the interests of other people were not involved in it, investigate the conduct of the Government, and may censure the Government; but it seems to me—and I think that in this opinion every lawyer will agree with me—that there could be no more inappropriate tribunal before which the innocence can be established, or the guilt proved, of men who are charged with heinous offences than a Select Committee. This being the case, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion to a Division; and I will only say, thanking the House for the patience with which, at this late hour, they have listened to my remarks, I am sure the hon. Member for Monaghan, when he reflects upon it, will regret any words which would bear the interpretation that the Chief Secretary had uttered a word in apology of the offences charged against this man. He did not say a word of apology. All he said, it appeared to me, was that he exercised great care, and great tact, and great discretion in not saying anything that could prejudice the matter, or to prejudice the interests of a man whose case is still before the Courts of Law; and, as I have said before, so far as the particular official with which I am concerned, I believe not an hour's delay will be allowed in bringing the trial or action in which he is involved to a decision.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, the Postmaster General had, of course, a technical connection with this matter, but really nothing more. No one supposed for a moment that he would screen any offender from any charge; but this was really a Dublin Castle question entirely. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a Select Committee was the worst of all tribunals to inquire into a charge against any man. He admitted that they might inquire into the conduct of the Government by a Select Committee; but that was the very thing which was asked for by this Motion. They did not want to inquire into the guilt or innocence of these men, but into the conduct of the Government, to see whether they had screened these men. His hon. Friend said he had testimony against these men, which testimony could be seen by the Chief Secretary at this moment; and what they now asked of the Government was that they would now set an investigation going. The charge was that there was a mass of corruption festering round Dublin Castle, and they asked the Government to now take steps to have this matter sifted to the bottom. If the Government would give a promise to do so, this Motion would not be pressed to a Division; but without some pledge they could only ask the House of Commons to judge between them and the Government, and on the House of Commons must rest the responsibility of denying justice in a matter of great magnitude.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 62: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 123.)

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.