§ (2.) £425, Chancery Division and Supreme Court Generally,
§ MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Attorney General whether arrangements had been made to relieve the block which had existed since last year in the Court of Chancery? It would be satisfactory to the Committee to know if any successful attempt had been made to meet the pressure of business.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that a large number of cases had been transferred to the Queen's Bench Division from the Court of Chancery. The only other relief that could be given would be to exempt the Judges of the Chancery Division from going on Circuit. This was now under consideration, as was also a proposal to send only one Judge instead of two into the smaller counties. All the Judges would be put into the Commission, so that they could be utilized as required in the different Circuits.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £985, Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
§ MR. WARTONpointed out that the numbers of the Judges and clerks provided for in the Vote was not stated. He had frequently complained of the way some of the Estimates were made up. The entire absence of details made it impossible to arrive at a proper judgment on the Vote. It would be no answer to say that details were never given in these cases, because some of the Votes contained just the details that were absent from this Estimate. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to supply the information desired, and that he would have the Estimate presented in a more intelligible form in future.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he objected altogether to this Vote. How was it that this additional sum of £985 was asked for Travelling Expenses? The whole Vote, in 1881–2, was only £4,800, and in 1882–3 £4,800. This increased expenditure not only required explanation, but justification. The hon. and learned Attorney General had al- 1397 luded, on the last Vote, to the anomaly of the Chancery Judges going on Circuit; but he (Mr. Fowler) ventured to think that if the Secretary to the Treasury gave the Committee the details of this Vote, it would be found that the charge arose from a much greater evil, which inflicted a serious wrong on suitors in the Supreme Court—namely, the Lords Justices of Appeal going on Circuit. Those Judges were sent about the country for the purpose of trying persons for trifling offences which could be disposed of at the ordinary Quarter Sessions, a practice which he regarded as the greatest waste of judicial power of which a civilized country could be guilty. The present Vote offered one of the very few opportunities which presented themselves for discussing questions of this kind; and he availed himself of it to ask the Attorney General to say whether there was any likelihood of a stop being put to the custom of sending the Lords Justices of Appeal about the country to try Quarter Sessions cases?
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he hoped the time had come when the Government would not only consider the waste of judicial power involved by the Lords Justices of Appeal having to try Quarter Sessions cases, but that also occasioned by sending any Judges at all to try eases of the kind. He thought the Committee were entitled to some declaration of intention on the part of the Government as to whether they considered that it was a proper use of the judicial force of the country that cases which could be tried at Quarter Sessions should be allowed to consume the time of the Judges of the land.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he endorsed all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with regard to the great inconvenience consequent upon the Lords Justices of Appeal going on Circuit. He (Mr. Grantham) went farther, and said that similar inconvenience resulted from the absence on Circuit of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, who were often called upon to try cases with which they were in no way familiar; and the result of it was that the time of the suitors was wasted, and great expense incurred by the country, in prolonged attendance at Assizes. Certainly, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to put a stop to this practice, 1398 especially when it was known that the only reason for this anomaly was their desire to put the Judges on an equality as to expenses incurred in going Circuit; or, in other words, because the Common Law Judges had to pay £500 a-year for Circuit expenses, it was admittedly unfair that Chancery Judges should receive the same salary as Common Law Judges, and yet not be liable to any similar reduction; and, therefore, instead of paying the expenses of the Common Law Judges, the Government preferred to send Judges unfitted for their work on Circuit, in order to make them pay lodging expenses and railway fares to the amount of £800 a-year—a most wretched economy, and only worthy of a Liberal Administration.
§ MR. WADDYsaid, he hoped they would succeed in getting some expression of opinion with regard to this serious matter. It was hoped that it would be a good thing to have one Court instead of the old-fashioned Courts, which were numerous; it was thought that in time the new arrangements would work smoothly and harmoniously. The result, however, had been that pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham). The expenses of going Circuit amounted to something like £500 a-year, and Judges had been compelled to pay them out of their own pocket; because it was felt that the official and judicial position of the Judges required them to undertake certain expenses. As it was a grossly unfair thing to fine certain Judges £500 out of a salary of £5,000, or, in other words, to reduce their salary to £4,500, it was thought the only way to protest was not to pay the expenses. He hoped that the time was coming when this matter would be looked at in a fair and reasonable way. The Chancery Judges did Chancery work well; but they themselves would admit they did not do as well work to which they had not been accustomed.
§ MR. CROPPERdesired to say a few words in support of the position taken up by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He came from a county in which they had as often as not to give the Judge a pair of white gloves. It was felt to be very troublesome, and to be a great waste of time by the common jurors and others, to assemble time after time in the county 1399 town to go through the same ceremony. It seemed, moreover, a great pity that the whole retinue of the Judges should be brought down in order that the ceremony he had mentioned should be performed. He agreed with some of the hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him that many of the cases now tried at Assizes might with advantage be tried at Quarter Sessions; and he earnestly hoped that this opportunity would not be lost in pressing on the Government the desirability of initiating some reforms in the direction indicated.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, that, before the Attorney General replied to the questions which had been addressed to him by so many hon. Members, he would suggest that one means of relieving these learned Gentlemen from some of their duties was that the Government should at an early date, by means of legislation, prevent the possibility of English Judges interfering with the jurisdiction of Scottish Courts. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might think it was a matter for amusement that a Scottish Representative should make a complaint; but he assured them it was no matter of jest in Scotland that the Supreme Courts should have come so much into conflict as they had done on a recent occasion; and he thought it right to submit that the people of Scotland should not be trifled with in this fashion. They had got on for 150 years without conflict between the Courts of England and Scotland; and it was not till within the last few years that the Supreme Court of Judicature had interfered with the Scottish Courts. He wished to bring under the notice of the Government the fact that unless something were done to prevent conflict of jurisdiction, or to prevent the English Courts interfering in any way with Scotchmen in cases affecting themselves in Scotland, it would be a very serious matter, and would be viewed as such by the people of his country. The Union, which was framed upon the supposition that it was to exclude the interference of the English Courts in Scottish cases, had been violated to a decided extent by certain decisions which had been given in the Court of Chancery and elsewhere on recent occasions.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)agreed with a great deal that had fallen from hon. Members, and 1400 he sincerely wished he could make a statement that would be more satisfactory to the Committee than he feared he could make. It was impossible to make any announcement as to the intentions of the Government in this matter. He might say, however, that the Lord Chancellor had asked for the assistance of certain Judges, with the view of arriving at some practical remedy for the evils which they all knew existed. He must point out that this was not a question on which the Government could act exactly as they wished in order that the block in the business of the Courts might be removed, or that certain Judges would not need to go Circuit. Directly any step was taken to prevent any unnecessary expenditure in judicial strength opposition to such action exhibited itself; and the Government were told that it was very advisable that justice should be administered in the different counties, because it was well the people should be instructed in the manner in which justice should be administered. Directly there was a suggestion that there should be any such economy in judicial time, even the smallest Assize town, where, perhaps, no substantial business was done, found reason to make protests against any alteration of the system of holding Assizes. He was sure there were many hon. Members who were conscious of the objection their constituents had to the removal of certain Assize business. All these questions must be considered. He did not mean to say they all ought to prevail; but it was wise to take the assistance of everyone to see that no towns were passed over unduly. Undoubtedly, the observations made in the House would be of great use, inasmuch as it showed what might be the opinion outside the House as to planning some system whereby judicial strength should not be thrown away, but that it should only be brought to bear where it was absolutely required. He could assure the Committee that those who had the consideration of this matter in hand were fully alive to the necessity of reserving the Judges of the Supreme Court within their own sphere. The fact was admitted on all sides that it was a great evil that Appellate Judges should have to leave London to go Circuit; and he fully recognized the great importance in the administration of 1401 criminal justice of having men to try the cases who had had some experience in criminal cases. He wished he could say more than that the matter was under the consideration of the Judges. Of course, it was necessary to listen to every view and every suggestion; but he would not fail to report what had occurred that night to the Lord Chancellor.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, there was one question he had to ask with regard to this "Vote. He had always understood that the Judges paid their own travelling expenses when on Circuit——
§ MR. COURTNEYThe old Circuits—not the new.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what was the meaning of the charge of £985?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that two new Circuits had been formed; and it was felt that when they increased the number of Circuits they could not reasonably expect the Judges to pay the expense of going the new Circuits.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he did not think the Committee really understood the question of the expenses of Judges. It was generally believed that the money Judges expended was spent in defraying their own personal expenses; but that was not so, for the £500 a-year which it cost them included judicial dinners given to the magistrates and to the Bar, in almost every town they went to, besides the expenses of a retinue of clerks and servants. If the public were aware of the facts he was persuaded they would see reason why Judges should not be called upon to pay the expenses of going Circuit.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYquite understood the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) was not in a position to make any binding announcement; but his reply did not cover the point which he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) raised just now—namely, the question relating to the trial of criminal cases.
§ MR. WADDYsaid, the point which he had raised was purely one of money, and the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices could hardly make a recommendation upon it. The Motion must come from the House; in point of fact from the Government.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he saw great force in what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Waddy) had said. There was too much legislation by Judges. It was scandalous that legislation should be hurried through the House as it was last Session, and that power should be given, after only a few hours' discussion, to Judges to make momentous changes in the Rules and Orders of the Courts. He hoped there would be no more Committees of Judges. He was sure the Attorney General wished to do all he could in the interest of the Profession; but he was afraid it was the Secretary to the Treasury who drew the purse strings too tightly in matters of great importance. The administration of justice was of the highest importance, and if one or two Judges more were required they ought to be supplied. The Secretary to the Treasury, however, put the Attorney General in the humiliating position of making an insufficient number of Judges do the work. The evil was getting worse and worse; and until the fact was recognized by the Treasury that more Judges were required no alteration of the Circuits would be of the slightest avail. He had to complain of that absurd alteration brought in by the Judicature Acts, by which an attempt was made to join things which were perfectly distinct. Now and then there would be a few men, like Lord Westbury, who would be able to understand Equity Law as well as Common Law. For years, and even now, there was the scandal of sending Equity Judges to try criminal cases. It would not be decent for him to name particular Judges, and he would not do so; but he maintained that most scandalous miscarriages of justice had taken place in consequence of Equity Judges being sent down to try criminal cases. He knew nothing more unseemly than that a man should be tried for murder, for instance, by a man who had had nothing to do with criminal cases; it was a barbarous idea. He hoped there would be a thorough abandonment of the ridiculous idea that Equity Law and Common Law could be administered by one man. Absurd changes had been carried by the ignorance of the supporters of the Government, who knew nothing about the questions upon which they voted. It was shocking that because there was 1403 now an ignorant majority behind the Government sacred old principles should be destroyed, and grand old institutions torn up by the roots.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARBER HERSCHELL)said, he would not say more, in respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) had just said, than that the great change represented by the fusion of Law and Equity was not made by this terrible Ministry and supported by the present servile majority, but was made by hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Opposition side of the House. He, however, rose chiefly to say a few words in reply to what his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ramsay) had stated about the conflict between the Scottish and English Courts. His hon. Friend had alluded, no doubt, to a well-known case decided recently in the House of Lords, and which seemed likely to come up for decision there again. Of course, it would not be right for him to make any allusion to that case, because it was now on its way to the House of Lords; but he was sure his hon. Friend would be glad to know that Rules had recently been made which limited very much the cases in which it was possible to sue in England a person resident in Scotland; and he would also be glad to know that those Rules met many of the cases to which attention had been called and exception taken lately. He would further be rejoiced to know that only yesterday the Court of Appeal, in a particular case, overruling a decision of the Divisional Court, decided that a Scotchman out of the jurisdiction ought not to be served with a writ by the English Courts, and that the litigation ought to be conducted in Scotland. That was a decision given only yesterday in the Court of Appeal under the new Rules; and he thought his hon. Friend would find that those new Rules would meet most of the evils of which there had been just cause for complaint.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it must be very puzzling to anyone not acquainted with the House to arrive at any distinct opinion with regard to the Rules and Orders which regulated their discussions. When he left the House some time ago an hon. Member had been called to Order because, in discussing a general Vote in aid of Public Works in Ireland, he was proceeding to comment upon the administration of that Department; 1404 and yet he found that an hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, could discuss, under a Vote for the Travelling Expenses of Judges and Clerks in England, the difference between the judicial finding in Scotland and that in England. That appeared to him to be travelling very far afield from the Vote; perhaps that was the only connection with the item of travelling which could be established. He would not follow the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) into the discussion on the wisdom of the fusion, or what was called the fusion, of Law and Equity under the Judicature Act of 1875, or upon the advisability of making use of Equity Judges for the trial of criminal cases. But with regard to the subject-matter of this particular Vote, it was perfectly well known—it was an open secret—that the reason why there was so much difficulty in getting Judges to go Circuit was that they were put to pecuniary expense which, if they did not go Circuit, they would not be put to. Under those circumstances, it did seem extraordinary that, while they voted, and voted without any difficulty or opposition, £10,000, £20,000, and £30,000 for such stupid things as Royal Yachts, which no one saw, except the officers who drew their pay half-yearly for serving upon them, they should refuse £5,000 or £10,000 for an extra Judge or two to get rid of the scandalous arrears in the Courts of Justice, by which the whole body of the public were injured, and suitors were put to all sorts of unnecessary expense and perfectly unjustifiable delay. It did seem to him that, instead of coming for a miserable £985 on account of Travelling Expenses of Judges and Clerks, while the people's business in the Courts of Justice was so scandalously delayed, it would be more worthy of a great and civilized Government to come forward and say—" The great object of Government is to secure justice between man and man; and therefore we propose a very much larger Vote on account of the Supreme Court of Judicature than we have submitted to Parliament before." If that were done, he was perfectly certain that House would not hesitate to vote, if needs be, another £100,000 for the purpose of such a service.
§ MR. RAMSAYmerely rose to say, with reference to the remarks of the hon. 1405 and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Hersehell), that no arrangement of the kind that he had indicated—an amending of the Rules framed by Judges of the English Court—would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland. They were entitled to protection against the intrusion of English jurisdiction into Scotch Courts, and it was that of which they had just cause to complain. He felt it was necessary that he should say this, for the purpose of preventing the idea that any arrangement of the kind the Solicitor General had indicated would settle the matter in a satisfactory way. It should be put beyond the power of the English Judges to sanction the interference of any English Court in a Scotch case.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £9,916, County Courts.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had no intention to criticize the Vote in detail, because, after all, the sum wanted was not a very large one. What, however, he wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) was, whether it was the fact that, for some time past, there had been the tendency rather to diminish the number of County Court Judges? If that be the case, how was it that the expenditure in respect of County Courts was increasing and not diminishing?
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked, whether the increase in the expenditure on County Courts was in any part due to the operation of the new Bankruptcy Act?
§ MR. COURTNEYNo; in the year which is now expiring the expenditure is rather less.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would answer the question he (Mr. Warton) had put to him—namely, whether, by a re-arrangement of Circuits, there had not been a decrease in the number of Judges?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not aware that there had been any re-arrangement of Circuits. He knew it was contemplated to do away with one or two if the opportunity was afforded. Of course, they must wait for the opportunity before they could effect any re-arrangement. 1406 (5.) £5,100, Police—Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
(6.) £100, Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
(7.) £4,700, Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Great Britain).
§ MR. GIBSONasked if the Secretary to the Treasury was in a position to tell the Committee if anything was likely to result from the recent labours of the Industrial and Reformatory Schools Commission?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to answer the question. The Report of the Commission had been received, and had been issued to both Houses of Parliament. The Home Secretary had sent copies of the Report to the Departments which would be affected by it—namely, the Education Department, the Local Government Board, and the Treasury, and he had asked for their observations upon it. As soon as the replies were received his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would consider in what way action should be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which were contained in their Report. He ought to add that the work of the Commission had been most ably conducted, and that he hoped their labours would result in great advantage to the classes affected. A copy of the Report had also been sent to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland's Department, and to Scotland.
EARL PERCYasked if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) could inform the Committee what was the cause of the continual increase in the number of children sent to the schools in question?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the increase of children had been much greater than was anticipated when the Estimates were framed. The number in the present year had increased from 11,197 to 12,160; and it was owing to this great increase that this Supplementary sum was required. The Department were not aware of the cause of the increase, except that Industrial Schools were made use of more liberally than formerly. He believed that when the cause came to be ascertained it would be found that the whole subject required serious consideration.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYreminded the Committee of the flourish of trumpets 1407 with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary announced what he was going to do with regard to juvenile offenders, when he first succeeded to Office. As a matter of fact, very little was done until a great scandal occurred in regard to one particular school. Had it not been for the disclosures connected with the school to which he alluded, they would not have had this Royal Commission, the Report of which they had been waiting for previous to legislating with regard to juvenile offenders. Could the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) say whether the increase in the number of children was due to the operation of the little Act—the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Act—which was passed, he thought, in 1880, and which brought in a fresh class of children? It was estimated at the time the Act was passed that it would increase very largely the number of children admitted to the schools.
§ MR. HIBBERTwas not able to say whether the increase was due to the operation of the Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) referred; but the whole of the increase was in respect of English Industrial Schools; it had nothing to do with Reformatory Schools at all.
EARL PERCYsaid, he thought the Act to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) alluded did refer to Industrial Schools. It affected children belonging to a certain class, whose sad condition had been the cause of great anxiety, and it was found at one time extremely difficult to induce magistrates to send children to Industrial Schools. It would be exceedingly interesting to know whether there had been any change in the disposition of magistrates to send children to Industrial Schools.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, a great part of the increase was due to the new system affecting Industrial Schools which had been introduced in recent years. He would gladly make further inquiry and to confer with the noble Earl.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that one of the most valuable parts of the Report of the Royal Commission was that which referred to the elementary education of the children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools. It was not sufficient to give the children an industrial educa 1408 tion;they required an education such as was given in elementary schools. He was glad to hear from his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) that the Government meant to take the Report of the Commission in hand in earnest, and that it was not to be put where a great number of Blue Books were put—out of thought and out of sight.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired how many Industrial Schools there were?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, there were 12 Industrial Schools in England.
§ MR. WARTON said,he thought that when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) went fully into the question he would find that the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) referred did not account for a tenth part of the increase in the number of children sent to Industrial Schools. In the present day there was a great deal of fanaticism about education, and he (Mr. Warton) was inclined to attribute the increase to education. He rose chiefly, however, to point out that the law, as it at present stood, worked great hardship and wrong. For instance, a child could not be admitted into a Reformatory School unless he had undergone a term of imprisonment. He put it to this wise and philanthropic Ministry whether they could not so alter the law that children who had committed some trivial offence could not be sent to a Reformatory School without their being first of all degraded by being sent to prison?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been considered by the Royal Commission, and one of their recommendations was very much upon the lines the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £730, Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
§ MR. RAMSAYpointed out the necessity of securing greater economy in the management of this asylum. The expense of it was very great, and frequently attention had been called to the matter in Parliament. It was said that the present increased expenditure arose from natural causes—that it was owing to the increase of the number of patients retained in the asylum It was estimated that there would be 515 patients; 1409 whereas the daily average number actually maintained was 530. The charge was £27,450, so that about £50 was taken for each criminal. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) would take the matter into consideration; because he was persuaded that, if the hon. Gentleman compared Broad moor with Perth, he would find he could secure greater economy with great advantage to the patients and to the public.
§ MR. GIBSONnoticed that the victualling for patients and attendants cost £9,745. That accounted for £18 5s. per inmate. In addition, there was the cost of clothing for the patients—£1,120—but that was only a very small sum out of the total. He would like to know what it was that the Government calculated was the expense of each inmate in the asylum? The estimate of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ramsay) seemed a very high one, and he (Mr. Gibson) would like to know whether it was correct?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry to say the average cost was very high in the Broadmoor Asylum—he believed it was about £45 per head. Attention had been drawn to the great cost of the inmates; it had been noticed in the House, and great attention had been paid to the subject by the Department. One ought, in justice to the Managers of Broadmoor Asylum, say that, for many years past, they had been reducing the cost. Of course, it might be still very much in excess of what the cost of criminal lunatics was in Scotland. ["Or Ireland!"] Or Ireland. At the same time, one was obliged to note the fact that this class of dangerous lunatics required a great deal of attention.
§ MR. GIBSONThey are not necessarily dangerous.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, a great many of them were dangerous—they were all criminals, and he knew many of them were dangerous. The increased cost was owing to the increase of 15 inmates upon the number who were estimated for when the original Estimates were sent in. The charge in respect of those inmates was £470. The remainder of the money now asked for was to go towards the repair of a wall which was destroyed in the recent gale. He must say also, in justice to the Council of Suspervision, that they had not for 10 years past come to Parliament for a Supplementary Vote of any kind.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, the cause of the great expense of criminal lunatics was not that they were dangerous. The class who were the greatest expense were those inmates who were not lunatics at all, but who in a fit of delirium tremens committed a crime. They were confined as lunatics, although now they might be perfectly sane. He believed there were none of the inmates who were so difficult to manage as that class.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he did not quite understand how it was the average cost per head was only £45. If the Committee would take the trouble to divide £27,450 by 530 they would find that the cost was £51 per head.
§ MR. HIBBERTIt is £45 per head, exclusive of buildings.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,090, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 & 16 Vic. c. 83.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought it would be well if the Committee were informed whether this Vote included a sum of an analogous character to a sum referred to in the Report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General, under Sub-head E of his Report, showed that £1,087 16s. had been paid to Counsel and Law Officers in respect of the action brought by united Ireland against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). "These expenses," the Auditor General reported—
Are very similar in character to those incurred in 1873 in defending the Government in connection with the Phœnix Park riots, which expenses were shown under a separate sub-head. It would seem desirable where very heavy expenses are incurred for purposes of defence the course adopted in 1873 should he followed.He (Mr. O'Brien) thought it would be desirable to know whether there was any sum of a similar character proposed to be included in this Vote? If so, it would be objectionable, not only because it was not set out as a sub-head, but also because of the enormous disproportion of the costs to the work done. The charge of £1,087 appeared to him most extraordinary. The trials in reference to the riots in the Phœnix Park were very prolonged 1411 and very expensive. The action brought by the proprietor of United Ireland never went beyond the initiatory stage. The writ was served, and he believed the statement of defence was delivered, but no motion was made, no witnesses were summoned. The case never came for trial; therefore, it was of a totally different character to the case of the Phœnix Park riots. The action was brought at the time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) was in the zenith of his coercive power in Ireland. The police were in the habit of pilfering copies of the paper and hunting the editors from city to city. The action was brought; but before any proceedings could be taken the right hon. Gentleman had come to grief. No doubt both sides were glad of the truce; at all events, United Ireland dropped the action. But he desired to know how this £1,000 could possibly have been expended? The right hon. Gentleman in seizing the newspapers no doubt acted on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown; but they were paid in the ordinary way for such advice as that; indeed, he found that in that very year the Attorney General for Ireland received something like £8,000 for work done. He could have had no work in connection with the United Ireland action that he (Mr. O'Brien) could imagine which would entitle him to receive anything like £1,000. It would be well that they should know whether the costs of any other prosecution were included in the Vote, more especially as United Ireland was not yet in smooth waters with the Government—United Ireland was still in litigation. He would not refer to the nature of the litigation, though it was such in regard to which the Government could scarcely be considered altogether indifferent. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would say whether the public money under this Vote could be utilized in respect of the litigation to which he referred?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the Vote related to the trial of persons for murder, and was largely due to changes of venue. It did not include any sum whatever in reference to the matter spoken of by the hon. Member.
MR. O'BRIENasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman had no information 1412 to give as to the action brought by United Ireland?—£1,000 seemed a large sum to pay in respect of proceedings which never came before a Court.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, they could make all excuse for the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker), because he was not in Office at the time the proceedings in question were taken. It was, however, very desirable that these figures should be set out in sub-heads. He could not understand how any hon. Gentlemen could pass an enormous Estimate of £10,000 without a single word of explanation. How was it that any auditor could pass unspecified and un-itemized such a largo amount?—£1,000 was an absurdly large sum to give for advice in an action which never came into Court. It, however, only showed English Members who were anxious for economy—though now-a-days he found there were very few of such Members—how the public funds were distributed amongst Irish Law Officers. Some of the Officers who had drawn large amounts out of the Public Exchequer were now no more; some of them were on the Bench; and it was, of course, hard to expect the Members of the present régime to defend the past system. He was anxious to call attention to one or two points in connection with the change of venue, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker) had referred. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that this Estimate was largely due to the changes of venue. Money could not be spent in a worse manner. He (Mr. Healy) strongly objected to the changing of a venue; and he joined most heartily with Lord Chief Justice Morris in the condemnation of the practice of taking agrarian offenders out of the venue where they were known, and submitting them to Dublin juries, who were prejudiced against them. He regretted the Lord Chief Justice did not see his way, as a Member of the Privy Council in Ireland, to condemn the practice until Orangemen were to be tried. Better late than never. They were glad to have the support of his Lordship in this matter, although it came so late in the day. The Committee would remember that the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) grew virtuously indignant the other day, because Londonderry was aspersed, and because the Attorney General for Ireland 1413 had ventured to send the case of Doherty to Sligo for trial. The hon. Baronet felt that a slight had been cast on the juries of Londonderry; but no slight whatever was supposed to have been cast upon the bulk of the population of Ireland, seeing that in nearly every case of an agrarian or political character the venues were changed. The people of the different counties were virtually told they were not fit to be put on their oath. The re-action had set in. The Catholics of Ireland were refusing to find verdicts in simple cases, and he was not surprised at it. If he, as a Catholic, were told he was unfit to try political or agrarian cases—that he was only fit to try sheep-stealers and petty felonies, would he be likely to lend himself to the machinery of justice? They found Mr. Justice Lawson, in County Clare, the other day condemning, as a great miscarriage of justice, the conduct of a jury who refused to find a verdict in some case of petty theft. That House thought it a good thing to strengthen the administration of justice by passing the Prevention of Crime Act. It was just possible they had weakened it thereby. They had passed that Act for three years; they proposed to make it perpetual. They passed that Act to punish agrarian and political offenders; but the public life of the country was involved. They must punish other criminals besides political criminals; they must punish forgers, and thieves, and robbers, and persons who were guilty of any other crimes against the Common Law. Yet they were told the Catholics of Ireland were not to be trusted to try what the Orangemen of Dublin were fit to try. This was really a very serious matter. They had all over the country to rely upon the common juries, upon the petty juries. The men who composed such juries were Catholics, because the squires and the landlords would not deign to go into Court to try sheep-stealers; squires and landlords were reserved for the trial of agrarian and political prisoners. He noticed that Catholic juries were beginning to make up their minds that they would leave sheep-stealers, and robbers, and other criminals to be tried by the subscribers of The Daily Express as well as political and agrarian offenders. He congratulated the Government upon their administration of justice. In 1414 one case the Crown challenged in succession 49 Catholics—one of them a a Justice of the Peace—and the Judge before whom the prisoners were tried never protested against the jury packing and the changes of venue, although in the next case, when Mr. Mathews came to be tried, he did so. If he (Mr. Healy) were put on a jury now to try any case, so long as the Prevention of Crime Act continued, so long as he was told by wretches like George Bolton that he was unfit to be put on his oath to try any political case, he should fold his arms and say to the other gentlemen of the jury—"Gentleman, you may do as you please in this matter; I shall be no party to the degradation of my religion and my country by taking part in a farce of this kind." The Government might renew their Prevention of Crime Act; pass it again, and pass it for ever; and then he and his Friends would deal with it, because the people of Ireland were a keen and an educated people, and were getting more and more educated every day. The proceedings in that House were educating them, and the House could no longer do deeds in the dark. The Government had pushed this game against the Catholics too far, and it was to the credit of the Tory Government previously in Office that they never stooped to shameful exclusions such as those of the present Government. To get to the bottom of meanness one must go to the Liberals. They professed to be righteous, and to mean everything for the good of their fellow-men; therefore, everything they did of an oppressive character had reference to their good intentions. He would not care to be a Member of the present Government; and he should not envy the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) if he had to carry on the Government of Ireland as Attorney General, as he presumed he would be in the next Ministry, and if he had to put plaisters on all the wounds that the Liberal Advisers of the Crown had inflicted. That was what things had come to, and the Catholic people of Ireland were apparently determined to read the Government a lesson in this matter, and to tell them that if they only left to the Catholics the trial of small cases they would have no part or lot with the Government. The Catholics of Ireland were high spirited enough not to be 1415 made pawns of for the benefit of the Liberal Government. If the Government would not trust them with the high criminal cases, the Government would have to work the arrangements themselves; and he was pleased to see that even the Orangemen were kicking against the action of the Government. He was pleased to see that, as a murder machine, the Prevention of Crime Act was breaking down. Some grit had got into the machine, for even in recent trials Orange jurors had refused to convict, and the case of the Mayo men who were tried at Cork was notorious. These men were taken out of their venue; and he had never heard of a more scandalous travesty of justice than what took place between Mr. Justice Johnson, the Attorney General, Mr. Naish, and Mr. Peter O'Brien. They were well acquainted with Mr. Johnson in that House. They knew him to be a painstaking and courteous official; and the good opinion formed of him in that House was likely to remain with him on the Bench after his action at Cork in regard to the wretched attempt to "bulldoze" him into directing the verdict of the jury, which surpassed everything since the time of Mr. Justice Scroggs or Mr. Justice Jeffreys. The trial had lasted nearly a week; the Court had been sitting all day; and a dialogue of the most extraordinary character that ever had passed between a Judge and jury and counsel took place. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Naish endeavoured to compel Mr. Justice Johnson, by sheer force of bullying, to get a verdict from the jury against the six men who were under trial. His Lordship discharged the jury after they had been sitting till near midnight, and then the foreman made an application that they should not be called upon to serve again. Thereupon Mr. Naish said he would take care that they should not be called upon to serve again at those Assizes, meaning thereby that they were a pack of perjurers, who were not fit to be believed on their oath, and he would take care that the Crown should not again ask them to find a verdict. And this, although several of them had proved most useful to the Crown, for several had already found verdicts for the Crown in previous cases. Mr. Justice Johnson very properly rebuked the great Mr. John Naish, and told the jury that he would ask for their attendance 1416 again, and would insist on their coming, "for," he said—and here he delivered himself of a Constitutional dictum which he (Mr. Healy) hoped would be taken to heart—"the prisoners are entitled to your attendance." This dialogue at Cork upon Christmas Eve gave a thorough insight into the jury-packing policy of the Government. It was not 12 men chosen for their impartiality that the Government wanted in the box, but 12 men who they knew beforehand would convict. In other words, it was not the business of a jury they wanted carrying out, but the business of judicial murder. They formed a charge, for instance, against A, and they put B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and so on, in the box. They believed that A was guilty, and they knew that the men in the box were the men to find him guilty, they being men who were very frequently dependent on the Castle for custom, while many of them were probably landlords or agents. They put these men into the box, believing they could get verdicts out of them; and if that was not the reason, why were Catholics not put on the juries? Let the Government get up and tell the Catholics of Ireland that they were unfit to be believed on their oath, or else give some explanation of this persistent system of jury-packing, and challenging juries. He wished, further, to ask why particular venues were chosen? These Mayo prisoners had been kept in prison for 12 months. They were allowed to linger in Castlebar Gaol over two Assizes, and then they were taken to Cork. Englishmen did not know how far Cork was from Mayo; but taking men from one place to the other was pretty much like taking a man from Yorkshire to be tried in London. Then the men were put on trial, not before a jury drawn from the county of Cork, but before a city and county panel, in order that they might be deprived of all chance of a verdict in their favour; and, further, they were put on their trial in that way after the most startling allegations as to their treatment while in prison. Every effort had been made by the Government to break down their firmness; and the late Attorney General for Ireland, now the Master of the Polls, was not ashamed to get up in that House, in reply to a Question last year, and say—"Oh, yes; of course, these men have been kept in 1417 prison for so long"—and his statement was intended to reach the prisoners in their cells—"and important evidence has been discovered." Where was that important evidence? Why was it not produced? Mr. Porter, now Master of the Bolls, when challenged in that House last August, was not ashamed to say the Government had important evidence against these men, and that their action would be justified. He told the right hon. and learned Gentleman then that he did not believe him, and the facts subsequently justified him. The Cork jury acquitted one of those men, after he had been kept eight months in solitary confinement, and that by the direction of Mr. Justice Johnson, after he had been taken from his venue in Mayo. That was the greasy record of Her Majesty's Government. There was one man, Halloran, whom the Judge would not allow to go before a jury, telling them that he was innocent, although the Government had kept him for eight months in prison. Had the Government offered him any compensation? Had they sowed his land for him, or helped to reap his crop? Had they helped his unfortunate wife and children, whom they had deprived of his assistance? What explanation had they to offer? They had endeavoured to get the Cork jury, by threats and intimidation of the character to which Mr. Justice Johnson had been subjected, to convict prisoners. He did not dispute the resources of the Crown to procure a conviction for anything, and he did not dispute the resources of Mr. John Naish to send a man to prison. He had himself had a painful proof of the forensic intelligence of Mr. John Naish; and he had now over his chimney-piece in Dublin the warrant under which he lay in gaol for four months, without any cause being assigned. It was drawn by Mr. John Naish, and Mr. John Naish had the satisfaction of knowing that for the first time since the Star Chamber—the first time since the days of Charles I.—three men had been sent to gaol upon a warrant which disclosed no offence against them. Every time he contemplated that warrant, which he had had as handsomely framed and glazed as his humble means would allow, he bowed down before the genius of Magna Charter and the forensic intelligence of Mr. John Naish. That was 1418 the gentleman who at present had in hand the direction of criminal prosecutions in Ireland. But what guarantee was there as to the way in which these venues were worked? Why were the Mayo men sent to Cork? Why were they not sent to an adjacent county, if the venue was to be changed at all? Why should these men be compelled to bring their witnesses 200 or 300 miles, and then to keep them hanging about the Court for several days? Why were they not told when their case was likely to come on? Would the Attorney General for Ireland state why prisoners could not be tried in alphabetical order, so that they might know when they were likely to come on? What reason was there for concealing the date when the case was likely to be tried? Why were the witnesses required to attend for weeks before the trial; and, above all, why was not substantial bail taken in the case of these men? Bail was taken for Mr. Doherty, who was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for shooting out a gentleman's eye in Londonderry. He intended murder, and yet, having blown a man's eye out, he had escaped with 18 months' imprisonment, while a man who had shot at a soldier without hitting him was sentenced for life. Why was Mr. Doherty to shoot out a man's eye, and not get imprisoned for life? Why did he get out on bail? Why was his venue not changed to such a distance as Cork? Mr. Doherty was trotted down from Londonderry to Sligo—a very convenient distance it would seem; and, in addition, he was allowed out on bail. A Protestant was allowed out on bail; but Roman Catholics at Cork, and Kerry, and Mayo lingered for months, and sometimes for a year and-a-half, in prison, eating their heads off in cells six feet by four, deprived of association, kept in solitary confinement, and allowed only two hours' exercise out of the 24. Why was there this difference of treatment? What principle did the Government act upon in this matter? He would like to know something with regard to the matter of Mr. Shaen Carter and Surgeon Wheeler. It was stated that Surgeon Wheeler's bill had to be admitted in full, and the Government had to pay £400 in addition. That was a subject upon which the learned Attorney General for Ireland was able to speak; and he might thank 1419 his stars that the Government had treated Surgeon Wheeler in this manner. Why was it that law fees had to be incurred of this extraordinary character, and then the Government should not only have to pay them, but, in addition, to fee the counsel on both sides, and bear costs also? What was the meaning of this state of things? Were the Government to treat the taxpayers' money as they pleased? Finally, there was now going on in Ireland what was like judicial murder. It was a very remarkable thing that the crop of murder trials in Ireland should have all arisen at one particular date. He had got a Return of arrests, ordered through the courtesy of the Chief Secretary, which, by the blundering, he presumed, of someone else, was delayed as long as possible, so that he could not even now use it, as it was being printed. The Return was supposed to be laid on the Table eight or ten months ago; but it had not yet been circulated among Members. Was it printed?
§ MR. TREVELYANstated that the Return was printed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had seen the Return in manuscript, but not in print. That Return disclosed a very peculiar state of facts. It showed that this epidemic of a conspiracy to murder trials broke out at one particular moment, like a rash, in the judicial mind in Dublin; and it was a peculiar thing that the period of all these murder dates was the time when blood-money first began to circulate through Dublin—namely, when the Phœnix Park murderers were discovered, and Mr. James Carey gave his evidence. The arrests for this conspiracy to murder were all made between March and May, 1883; but they had nearly all broken down. The men were arrested by the score; they were kept in prison for months and months; their business was ruined; their health was ruined; and the Government tried to ruin their character, and then, after all, they were released. Why were the King's County and the Clare men released? They were locked up for three or four months. Mr. Mallin, who made his fame over the Phœnix Park murders, was taken down from Dublin and introduced into the cells of these Crusheen men in Clare, together with Mr. Morphy, the uncertificated bankrupt. They subjected the prisoners to the French system 1420 of juge d' instruction, and told them their case was hopeless; that they had a witness against them who would swear till all was blue that they were guilty; that their conviction was certain; that they had, therefore, better save themselves. They told those men that the Government were anxious to save them and their wives and families, and to keep them from the clutches of the hangman; and those poor simple farmers were supposed to swallow all this. But not even the blandishments of Mr. Morphy, nor the sinuosities of Mr. Mallin and the Governor of the Gaol, could shake the confidence of the prisoners; and as a consequence they were now free men again. They did not believe Mr. Mallin; they mocked at Mr. Alexander Morphy; and, metaphorically, they put their thumbs to their noses, as far as the regulations permitted, towards the Governor of the Gaol. If this system of persecution and torture was to be permitted; if men were to go into prisoners' cells on the French system and tell men in one cell that So-and-so in the next cell had gone, and they had better make a clean breast of the matter, why not bring back the thumbscrew? They had better have the honest, and frank, and open pitch-cap and triangle, and the rack, and twist the prisoners' necks and torture their frames. There was now before the House the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and he proposed to introduce into that measure an Amendment, making the thumb-screw and the rack permissible in Ireland; because he considered it far more honest and open to cut a man to pieces by inches and to torture his body than to torture his mind. After all, if the Government wanted to get evidence out of the prisoners—and it was permissible to do that—which was more honest and frank—to revert to the time and customs of Queen Elizabeth; or to hang men first and try them afterwards? Yet the nephew of Lord Macaulay was not ashamed—he who had written the Life of Charles James Fox—to draw a salary under a Government which permitted infamies of this kind; to allow those things to go on, silencing his conscience with the assurance that the men were guilty after all, if they could only be found out. That was the plaister which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would lay upon any 1421 wounded feelings he might have, and if his conscience should feel strained after treatment such as that to which the King's County and Crusheen prisoners had been subjected. This Return certainly disclosed a most remarkable state of things. Among the cases was that of Michael Dilleen, who was arrested on February 20, 1883 he was untried when this Return was issued in December, and he remained untried now because the Governor had discharged him without trial. That had been done, after the Chief Secretary had tried to hang Mr. and Mrs. Clarke for the same offence. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant first tried to hang an innocent man and woman.
THE CHAIRMANOrder; order! That is an imputation which the hon. Gentleman is not justified in making.
§ MR. HEALYSir Arthur Otway, I will point out to you that this attempt was made, as the Chief Secretary believed, in the discharge of his duty; and if the right hon. Gentleman believed that these people were guilty he was justified in making it.
THE CHAIEMANThe hon. Member said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had endeavoured to hang an innocent man. That is an imputation he is not justified in making in regard to anyone, and I call on him to withdraw it.
§ MR. HEALYVery well, Sir, I will withdraw it, and I say that the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member, endeavoured to hang John M'Carthy and John Dilleen after they had failed to hang Mr. and Mrs. Clarke, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman joy of the difference.
MR. A. E. EGERTONI rise to Order. I cannot think the hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that the Chief Secretary for Ireland tried to hang anyone.
§ The CHAIRMAN did not again intervene.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that perhaps the hon. Member did not like to see even the Phœnix Park murderers hanged. He would repeat, for the information of the hon. Gentleman who had just interrupted, that the Government of Ireland, through their Law Advisers, through their Judges, and through their other legal machinery, tried to hang Mr. and Mrs. Clarke for the murder of 1422 Constable Linton, in Loughrea; and, having failed to hang them, they put M'Carthy and Dilleen on their trial for the same offence. Let the Government make what they could out of that fact. Points of Order would not get them out of the difficulty; it must be viewed in the light of facts, and it was facts only that would get them out of it. If there were things going on in the Government of Ireland which were a shame and a scandal to this country, it was not by points of Order that they would be able to meet them. If the Government of Ireland was to be amended, it could only be amended by ameliorating measures, and by the healing and beneficent operation of the law. How could they reconcile the population of a country to a spectacle of this kind—that an innocent man and woman were put upon their trial for murder, and, two innocent persons having been acquitted, the Crown then tried to hang other persons for the same offence? If the hon. Gentleman below him, who had interrupted, heard of anything like this in the Soudan, his virtuous British pulse would run up from 70 to 120; but, of course, it was very different when the thing was done in Ireland, and the hon. Member simply thought that any Irishman who alluded to a matter of this kind should be muzzled. Before he passed from the case of this unfortunate man he wished to say that the Government, having discharged him without trial, then come to a determination to persecute him. He was a commercial traveller for some species of wire, and he was followed from town to town, and from village to village, all over the country by detectives in the most open and ostentatious manner; so that, having failed to hang him, they now tried to blight his character and to ruin him. Then came the case of Michael Muldowney, who was arrested in 1883 with four companions. Muldowney had been a policeman on protection duty, and he was arrested on the 26th of January, 1883; but, in order to give him a long day before hanging him, they put back his trial until February, 1884. They kept him in gaol for 13 months, and now they had failed because a jury of Sligo Orangemen and landlords refused to find this policeman guilty. In fact, they declared that he was not guilty, and the Government had committed a crime 1423 themselves in keeping an innocent man in prison without trial for 13 months. He would like to know what had become of the Habeas Corpus Act? There had been a great row in the House, and all the Irish Members had been suspended half-a-dozen times over for endeavouring to oppose the passing of the Act of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The present Chief Secretary-was a good deal cleverer than the right hon. Member for Bradford. He did not go at things in the same bull-headed sort of way; but the malignity was there all the same. The right hon. Gentleman did not pass a Bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. He charged men with murder, kept them without trial for 13 months, and then discharged them. That was the character of the Government of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Irish Members were in that House for weeks. There was a crisis in the British Constitution occasioned by the introduction of the Coercion Act, and they were engaged in resisting the passing of the measure of the right hon. Member for Bradford. But the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary suspended trial by jury by a single stroke of his pen, and humble peasants were kept in gaol without trial for more than 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary struck at the liberty of the humble cottager in Ireland, whereas the Act of the right hon. Member for Bradford was directed at Members of Parliament. The Chief Secretary for Ireland used his authority against peasants, hoping that, as they were humble persons with no votes, so that they could not affect the elections, they would in that way attract very little attention; and so the Government went on, and a sad rosary it was—arrests in February, 1883, January, 1883, November, 1882, March, 1883, April, 1883, and so on, through a long list: of cases without trial, showing that this "conspiracy to murder" charge broke out at the very time the blood-money began to be circulated. So far as the murder machine was concerned the bottom was out of the pot, and it would not work any longer. Even the Emergency men of Dublin were satiated with blood. Her Majesty's Government had now hanged quite enough; and he would suggest to them that they should drop the system. The lawyers of Dublin 1424 ought to be satisfied. One of them had pocketed, according to his own account, from £8,000 to £9,000 in one year, and another from £7,000 to £8,000, so that they must have done very well. He was sorry to think that the Solicitor General for Ireland had fallen upon a lean and hungry time; but, of course, after seven years of plenty for the lawyers, he hoped they would have seven years of famine. It was quite evident that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not going to have a very good time, and he had no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman fully appreciated the fact. He (Mr. Healy) thought the Irish Members should have some explanation of the system which had been adopted of venue-changing and jury-packing. Let them have some assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman on his incoming to Office that he would no longer be a party to the challenging of Catholic juries by dozens, by scores, and by fifties, and that he would no longer insult the majority of the people of Ireland by telling them that they were not fit to sit on juries—that Orangemen might be believed on their oaths, but that Catholics could not be.
§ THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)rose to continue the debate, when——
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the only fault he had to find with the able speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was in respect of the violence of the language he had used. He thought it would have been better that the subject before the Committee should have been discussed in a calmer spirit. As he understood it, in the main the speech of the hon. Member was a direct attack upon the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act by the Executive in Ireland; and he thought that a great portion of that speech would have had more force if it had been delivered at the time that Act was being passed. The hon. Member at the time gave to the Act all the opposition in his power; but it must be remembered that the Act had, by the voice of Parliament, been put into the hands of the Irish Government as a means not only of detecting 1425 crime, but of punishing it when detected. It was, therefore, the duty of the Executive to use it in every legitimate way, and for every lawful purpose. The hon. Member for Monaghan had said that this Act had been used solely against the peasants in Ireland. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) thought it would have been more appropriate if the hon. Member had remembered that the Prevention of Crime Act was directed towards the suppression of crimes, many of which were committed not against the landlords and the high in the land, but against the peasants themselves, and against the humblest persons in Ireland. The hon. Member had said that the Act was used against the peasants; but he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) thought the Committee would agree with him that it had been used mainly for the purpose of protecting the peasants. The hon. Member had complained of the way in which the right to change the venue had in some cases been exercised by the Attorney General for Ireland. He understood the complaint to be that the venue had been changed in some cases which the hon. Member had enumerated, and in others which he had not enumerated. The duty of changing the venue in criminal cases was, in his opinion, a high, solemn, and responsible duty put upon the Attorney General for Ireland; and it was requisite that he should exercise that duty whenever he thought it necessary in the interests of justice that he should do so, in order to secure a more impartial trial. Accordingly, the Attorney General for Ireland had exercised that responsible duty in a good many cases, and in so doing had shown that he fully appreciated the solemn trust committed to him. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would now refer to the cases to which attention had been called by the hon. Member for Monaghan, in which the Attorney General for Ireland had considered it his duty to change the venue. The first was a case which came before Chief Justice Morris. In that case the Attorney General for Ireland moved for a change of venue, and the result was a conviction. In the next case—that of Doherty, who was tried the other day at Sligo—there was also a conviction. Therefore, in the two cases to which the hon. Member had specially referred, so 1426 far from justice not having been done, justice had really been secured. At all events, the conclusion of the Attorney General for Ireland, that justice would would not be done without a change of venue, was justified by the convictions which followed. What was the third case? The hon. Member had referred to the Crossmolina case, where the venue was changed from Mayo to Cork. It must be remembered that no hardship fell upon a prisoner in consequence of the venue being changed, because all his expenses for counsel and witnesses were paid for him by the Crown, and the prisoners, as far as their expenses were concerned, were in a far better position than they would have been if the original venue had remained, because, in that case, they would have had to defray their own expenses. The hon. Member said that the working of the Prevention of Crime Act had led to a disinclination on the part of Catholics to find a verdict in an ordinary case. Now, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) altogether disclaimed such an imputation against the Catholics. He believed that the Catholics of Ireland were a thoroughly loyal body of men; he had many personal friends among them, and he was well acquainted with their character.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member asked why they were not put upon juries. All that he could say was that during the whole course of his official life he should not be a party to exclude any man from being put upon a jury on account of his religion, and he should make it part of his duty to see that they never were excluded. He was, further, quite sure that the Attorney General for Ireland would not exclude any of his own co-religionists from juries on account of their religion. The hon. Member had referred to the observations made by Mr. Justice Lawson, in Clare, in the case in which a jury refused to find a verdict where the venue had not been changed; but, surely, the arguments of the hon. Member went the other way, because this case showed that where the venue was not changed the jury refused to find a verdict; whereas in those cases in which the venue had been changed a verdict had 1427 been found. Certainly that was a strong reason for the exercise of the discretion now vested in the Attorney General for Ireland. The hon. Member himself and the Committee would, he was sure, feel that it was not right for him to make any observation upon the Crossmolina case, because that case was to be tried next week; and nothing would be more unjust, either to the prisoner or the prosecution, than to have a case, which was on for trial in the course of a few days, commented upon by any Law Officer of the Crown. He would, therefore, forbear from saying one word as to the facts of the Crossmolina case. As regarded the other cases referred to by the hon. Member, there was the case of the man Muldowney. Muldowney was a man who was acquitted on one charge; but there was another charge upon which he was to be tried. He was acquitted on the charge of conspiracy to murder; and he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) believed it would be found that impartiality, and not injustice, had resulted from the change of venue, seeing that in each of the three cases referred to by the hon. Member the prisoner had been acquitted. The hon. Member had stated that in regard to the cases of conspiracy to murder it was a significant fact that they broke out simultaneously with blood-money being offered by the Irish Government. But they knew, by the admission of the prisoners themselves, that the conspiracy to murder really occurred before the rewards were offered, and that many such cases were existing and known in Ireland. He would not say anything about the Crossmolina case, in which several prisoners had been sent up for trial; but he might take the Clare case, the Crusheen case, and the Letterfrack case of conspiracy to murder.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said that in the Letterfrack case of conspiracy to murder the men were arrested on the 8th of April. Nine persons were arrested; they were committed for trial on the 18th of July; and the case came on for trial at the Winter Assize at Cork. What was the result? Each and every one of the nine prisoners pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to murder for which they had been sent for trial. 1428 Taking the cases referred to by the hon. Member as typical cases, what did they find? They found one case still untried; in another the jury disagreed; and in the last nine persons admitted their crime.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had not come to that yet. The Crusheen case was one of the most horrible outrages ever committed. A man's house was attacked. The man, like a gallant fellow, came to the door and fired at one of his assailants and marked him, so that he was afterwards found by the police. That assailant eventually became an informer, and gave evidence impeaching some 10 or 11 persons, who were arrested. One of these men gave evidence in the first instance, but backed out of it afterwards, and they were all detained.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was quite aware that the men had now been let out on bail by the Court of Queen's Bench; but the application for bail was made to the Judges, who exercised their discretion in the matter without regard to the Executive; and in this instance it was exercised against the opinion of the Crown, and notwithstanding the opposition of the Crown. The reason for letting the men out upon bail was that the man Egan had backed out of his testimony, and there was no evidence except that of the informer. As a matter of practice, if there was no material corroboration of an informer's testimony, the Courts held that there was no evidence upon which a jury could convict. Therefore, these men had been let out on their recognizances, and were out at this moment, notwithstanding the sworn evidence of the informer, who, beyond all doubt, was on the scene, and who had been sentenced to penal servitude for life in connection with it. He could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in reference to the trial at Cork in connection with the Crossmolina conspiracy to murder case, to pass altogether without comment; and he felt it his duty to say one word out of regard to his right hon. Friend 1429 who now filled the Office of Chief Secretary with such high credit to himself. The hon. Member accused the Attorney General for Ireland of having used words implying that he would take very good care the men were not tried before a certain jury. He admitted that the Attorney General for Ireland did decline to try the men at that particular time; but why was it? It was because the jury were thoroughly exhausted by a trial which had lasted a week; and it would have been unjust to everybody in Court to send them again before the jury after such an exhaustive trial, taking into consideration also the length of time the jury had been away from home. There was a discussion between the prosecution and the Judge; but it was upon a question of law, in which the Attorney General for Ireland questioned the law laid down by the Judge, which he had a right to do in the interests of justice. The hon. Member had referred to the case of M'Carthy and Dilleen. It was quite true that Clarke and his wife were tried for the same murder, and it was quite true also that they were acquitted; and, therefore, the observations which the hon. Member had made against the Irish Executive and the administration of the law in connection with this case were rather an argument to show that the law had been fairly administered. On the 8th of October, 1883, the Court of Queen's Bench allowed M'Carthy out on bail; and in the case of Dilleen the prisoner was put on his trial, and two witnesses out of three were examined on the part of the Crown. The prosecuting counsel saw that the main witness was not reliable, and, finding that that was so, they declined to press the trial, knowing that if successful they would have been open to the charge of hanging a man upon a trial which was not satisfactory. Was that any charge against the Executive? Ought it not rather to redound to their credit? The hon. Member had also referred to the cases of Doherty and Muldowney. In the case of Muldowney the jury disagreed, although the hon. Member had referred to the case as though the prisoner had been acquitted. As a matter of fact, he would be tried again, and there were four or five other persons who would be tried again. Muldowney had once occupied the position of a policeman, and the Crown had 1430 very rightly put him forward for trial, in order to show the people that his position would not shield him. He would not say a word about the case of Doherty, because, terrible murder as it was, the jury had disagreed, and the man was to be tried again. It, therefore, came under the category of an untried case. He would only say that where the jury disagreed there must have been a strong primâ facie case for committing a man for trial. The only other observation he would make was in reference to the statement of the hon. Member, that attempts had been made by the Crown to obtain juries more favourable to conviction. That statement he denied in the strongest terms. He denied that any man had ever been sot aside, or ever would be told to stand aside, on account of his religion. ["Oh! "from the Irish Members.] Yes; he repeated it, and he should regard such an action as an insult to the Catholics of Ireland, He had never been, and never would be, a party to such an action, and he believed the Attorney General for Ireland never had been, and never would be. At the same time, they all knew that there were rules upon which juries were struck. Those rules were necessary for the due administration of justice, and among them was the right of challenge, which when exercised had been exercised in order that proper persons might be put into the jury-box—men who would give a fair and impartial attention to the evidence. It was necessary sometimes to set aside jurors, for instance, in order that men might not be put into the box who had a prejudice against capital punishment. He had now attempted to deal temperately with the observations which the hon. Member for Monaghan had made upon the conduct of the Irish Executive regarding these trials. The Irish Executive had been entrusted with the administration of the Prevention of Crime Act. That administration was committed to them by Parliament, for the repression and detection of crime, and in the exercise of their duty they had put the powers of the Act into operation. He contended that the Irish Executive had not abused the powers conferred upon them; but had merely acted within the lines of the Constitution, in order to diminish crime and to protect poor men—peasant farmers and 1431 labourers—from violence. The Committee would remember how beneficial its provisions bad proved in the prevention of crime. During the last six months the soil of Ireland had been stained by one murder only; and, omitting threatening letters, there had only been 200 outrages. He maintained that that satisfactory result was mainly to be attributed to the action of the Irish Executive.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that it could not be asserted that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, in the course of the speech he had addressed to the Committee, had shown any of that timidity of assertion which was supposed to belong to those who were not used to Parliamentary debating. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman had shown an audacity of statement, which he (Mr. Sexton) could only compare with the hardihood of the promises he had recently made to the electors of Londonderry. The hon. and learned Gentleman was now sitting upon the Treasury Bench fresh from that election, in which he had promised large reforms to the electors, which, however, were not likely to arrive until the hon. and learned Gentleman had reached a much more elevated region. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not been ashamed to come forward that night before a Committee familiar with the administration of the law in Ireland and tell them that he had not only never been a party to any action for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury-box, but that such a system had never been carried out in Ireland at all. In regard to the promises of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could only say be feared their value must be discounted by the value of his other recent promises to the House. He wondered at the mental audacity of any man who, himself a native of Ireland, could stand up before the Irish Members of that House and venture to convey to the Committee that it had not been a settled and cardinal rule, in the administration of the law in Ireland, to shut Catholics out from the jury-box. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to convey that Catholics had been shut out from the jury-box by virtue of a perpetual accident? They had only to look around in order to see Catholics excluded from the Public Service. In a county like Fermanagh, 1432 where the majority of the people were Catholics, there was not a single Catholic magistrate put upon the Magisterial Bench. They would find, in every arena of public life in Ireland, the Catholic deliberately shut out from all share of the influence, prestige, power, and emolument which employment in the Public Service ensured. How, then, were they to credit the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury-box, instead of being part of the deliberate and vile system which prevailed in Ireland, was only the result of accident? He would invite hon. Members to look back upon the records of Green Street for the last few years, and other records in connection with the administration of so-called justice in Ireland, in order to see if they could explain to him how, from a panel composed of one-half Catholics, 12 Protestants invariably found their way into the jury-box, while 50 Catholics were ordered to stand aside. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was in earnest in regard to his promise, let him accept the alternative of resigning his Office, or refusing to be a party to the present disgraceful system of insulting Catholics where the administration of the law was concerned. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would take that course, he (Mr. Sexton) would feel disposed to regret the fact which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that the seven fat years for lawyers were over, and the seven lean years had come; because, after such a speech, if the lion, and learned Gentleman only carried out his promise, no rewards or emoluments in the power of the Crown to confer in Ireland would be too high to signalize the merits of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But it had struck him, in listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he was disposed to take credit to the Executive of Ireland for that which did not belong to them. In one case—the case of Halloran—the man was tried after a change of venue, and, after having been kept eight months in gaol, he was acquitted by the direction of the Judge. Then, how could the Irish Executive claim any credit to themselves when they had kept the man eight months in gaol, broke down his spirit, and then put him into the dock, doing all they 1433 could to procure a conviction which would have sentenced him to penal servitude for life—how could the hon. and learned Gentleman stand up smilingly at the Table, with that modesty already so fully developed in him, and claim credit for a matter over which the Irish Executive had no control whatever? Then, again, in the case of Dilleen, they kept that man 10 or 11 months in gaol they violated Magna Charta; offended against the primary principles of the Constitution; and at the end of 11 months they brought the man into Court, and, having no evidence against him, decided not to prosecute him. By a false display of grace and favour they saved themselves from the ignominy which would have fallen to their lot if they had put him in the dock, because the jury would have acquitted him. But, notwithstanding, they attacked the man's character in a most insidious way, by depriving him of that open arena for his defence which would have been afforded if he had been put upon his trial. The whole system of criminal procedure in Ireland, which the Irish Members were arraigning that night, was one that would disgrace the worst and meanest of those Oriental despotisms over which the Government were continually professing in that House to exercise the influences of their pure and undefiled Christianity. There had been some talk of Magna Charta in connection with Ireland; but to link two such subjects together was, to his mind, one of the boldest flights of imagination. They had almost entirely forgotten Magna Charta, and if it had any place in their minds it was but as a dim and vague tradition. Something was known of it under the Tory Government; but the Whigs had quite abolished it. And the Solicitor General for Ireland, by a piece of special pleading, endeavoured to make out a case in favour of the venue being changed of trials under the Prevention of Crime Act; but he (Mr. Sexton) said it was not merely the change of venue, but the whole system in regard to suspected persons, that was to be condemned. From the moment the policeman laid his hand upon the shoulder of the person suspected to the moment of trial before the Judge, it was the old, old story of baseless insinuations and malignant tales. The man who incurred the malice of the local policeman had 1434 suspicion directed against him; he was arrested and brought to trial; but not brought to trial in the locality where his character was known, or within a reasonable distance of that locality; nor was he brought to trial within a reasonable time; but, in defiance of Magna Charta and the spirit of the Constitution, and by a process of stealthy, dark, and cowardly torture he was thrown into gaol, the Executive trusting to the chapter of accidents that he might die there, or, owing to broken health, might plead guilty to the charge brought against him. Men in that condition might be stricken by the terrors of midnight visits to their cells—by a system of villainy worse than that of Fouché under the First Empire—they might be told that their companions had broken down and given evidence against them. Or it might be said to them by the creature who crept into their cells, as it was said at Kilmainham—"Do you hear that bell ringing? It is for the execution of such a man. Your companions have informed upon you." It had become part of the policy of the Executive to say to them—" Unless you give evidence and save yourself from those who have betrayed you, that bell will ring for your execution, as it rings this morning for another's." Was it to such murderous devices as these that the Government had come in Ireland? It was not enough that they kept men for years in gaol; that they broke down their spirits there, and overcame them with the terror of unscrupulous lies; but they moved them from Connemara to Dublin, from Mayo to Cork, from the parts of the country where they had a good character that might benefit them to others where they were unknown, and placed them in the hands of a body of men who were known to be opposed to them by political feeling and by prejudice. When the Executive had exhausted the last penny they had for their defence, they threw these men into the hands of their political enemies; into an atmosphere in which passion obscured reason, and prejudice denied them any chance of justice. It was too late in the day even for Gentlemen with the calm and deliberate assurance of the Solicitor General for Ireland to rise at the Table of the House and pretend that any English Member, however ill-informed as to the affairs of Ireland, could believe that 1435 the Irish criminal system had any other object or principle than, that of hanging, or sending to penal servitude, the man who once incurred the suspicion of the police. He observed that this Vote included the charge of £5,000 for the detection of crime in connection with the Phœnix Park murders; and he thought the time had come when it might be interesting and useful for the country to be made aware of the disposition of that amount. It was no longer a question of the personal safety of the informers; everyone knew who were the informers in the case of the Phœnix Park murders; and as there could be few things more interesting to the public than severely to scrutinize the conduct of the Government in obtaining evidence by the hope of reward, he thought the Committee ought to be told who were the informers who received this money. One reason for making this application was that Carey bad stated that he only received from the Government a cheque for £100. Now, if Carey was the principal informer of a body of which there were so few, and if he only received £100, he (Mr. Sexton) was anxious to discover how such a sum as £5,000 could have been expended? He was much puzzled to account for this sum, because, in the case of the old man Quin, what happened? Immediately after he was murdered, the police arrested his widow in connection with another agrarian case; they took her from home and conveyed her to the depôt for Crown witnesses, and kept her there until the trial came on. And while £5,000 were to be given in the case of the Phœnix Park murders, and while persons in the West of Ireland had received £500 a-piece for information, he was told that the widow of this old man, who proved the case of the Crown and obtained the conviction of the prisoner, had been munificently presented with £5. He should like an explanation of this disparity of giving £5 in one case and £500 in another.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he had not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He was quite prepared to admit that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated his case rather temperately, although he must observe that the moderation of his language was in remark 1436 able contrast to the vehemence of his delivery. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to one of the cases which had been instanced by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in support of his argument, and he was bound to say that the Solicitor General for Ireland entirely misstated that case, and the circumstances which surrounded it. The prisoners were arrested in the spring of 1883 by Mr. Clifford Lloyd in two different portions of the county—about 10 or 11 of them were arrested in Crusheen, one in Ennis, and eight or nine in Miltown. The information against the Crusheen prisoners was principally that of the informer Trubidy, who had been convicted of an attack at night upon a house of which the occupier, a man named Ford, was wounded. The Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that the man came out and shot at Trubidy and wounded him, the result being that Trubidy was captured and sentenced to penal servitude for life. Returning to the Crusheen prisoners, they were kept in gaol for three months on the evidence of Trouble day. The man Egan had nothing to do with the matter. It was said he had backed out of his evidence; but the truth was that he had backed out of what was alleged to be his evidence by Mr. Clifford Lloyd—out of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's concoction, not out of any evidence of his own. At the end of three months, the Crusheen prisoners were brought up for trial at the Ennis Assizes. The Crown sought to postpone the trial, and keep the men in prison until the Cork Winter Assizes; but, fortunately, for the prisoners, Mr. Justice Barry presided at the Ennis Assizes, and who, having listened to the reasons put forward by the Crown, liberated the men up on bail. Now, it was expected by every person who knew anything whatever of the case that the men would not be tried again. But the men were summoned to appear in Cork at the Winter Assizes, where they were kept for three weeks without trial; during the Christmas holidays they were told they could go back to Clare, which they did; they were then summoned back to Cork, and when the Assizes were over some of them were told they might go home, and one of them was compelled to give bail, with two sureties, to come up again when called upon. It was a remarkable 1437 thing that, as a protest against this continued illegality and barbarity on the part of the Executive, one of the prisoners, a most respectable man, was elected to the position of rate-collector by the Board of Guardians in his district, and that the Local Government Board of Ireland, over which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant presided, having at first refused to sanction the appointment, were afterwards compelled to do so. As he had stated, these men were kept in Cork during the Winter Assizes. In answer to a Question put by him to the Solicitor General for Ireland the other day, he was informed that the men were not tried because there was not sufficient evidence; that it was only a case of strong suspicion. But, if that were so, why was it that the Crown Prosecutor, at the Summer Assizes at Ennis, kept the case back until the Winter Assizes at Cork, the men being in gaol all the time; and why was it that men arrested on suspicion were brought to Cork and kept there six weeks at great expense? It was simply because the law in Ireland was another name for persecution. One of these men, who held a position of responsibility at Ennis, lost his position in consequence of the treatment he had received. He believed it was simply to ruin these men, who were respectable farmers in the county, that they were taken away from their homes, and that their farms were allowed to go to waste. If the Government had had their way, and if it had not been for Mr. Justice Barry, who presided at the Assizes, they would have been kept in prison from March, 1883, to the end of January, 18S4, when they would have been liberated, because, as the Solicitor General for Ireland said, there was only a case of strong suspicion against them. What did the Solicitor General for Ireland mean by defending, with such an affectation of injured innocence, the administration of justice in Ireland? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to obtain justice for these prisoners, who had been liberated after 10 months' persecution, because it was found after that period that the Crown officials were only trying to fish out sufficient evidence in a case which proved to be merely one of strong suspicion? As his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out, it was no doubt conveyed to these men, 1438 when they were locked up separately in their cells, that So-and-so was going to give evidence, and that the individual addressed, perhaps the father of a family, might save himself by doing the same. It was so in the case of Egan, who, it was said, required to be protected by the police for having given evidence—who went to the parish priest at Miltown, and told him to use his influence to get the policemen recalled, and that he wanted no protection, which it was alleged he stood in need of simply in order to spread a want of confidence amongst these men, and so get them to give evidence against each other. The effect of sending the policemen was not only to injure the prisoners, but to place the man in a false position. This was but a single instance of what had occurred; and he believed that if the other cases selected by the Solicitor General for Ireland were analyzed in the same way as he (Mr. Kenny) had analyzed this case, the result would be the same. He also wished to refer briefly to the item of £5,000 in the Estimate for information leading to the detection of crime. How, he asked, had this increase occurred? The Estimate of last year was a little over £2,000, as against £5,000 this year, and he asked the Solicitor General or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to account for this extraordinary difference. The system pursued of rewarding informers in Ireland was one which the Government had resolutely refused to throw any light upon; while it would appear, from what had transpired, that in respect of the money paid some of them had been unfairly treated and others unfairly rewarded. Carey was stated to have received only £100; and this, from what had transpired, would lead one to believe that the reward given to Carey was considerably in excess of the rewards given in other cases. Therefore, he asked what were the exact amounts paid to the informers? And he was sure that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would have no objection to state to the Committee the manner in which the money had been disbursed, and whether the charges which the hon. Member for Sligo had levelled against the Irish Executive were true or not.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think it necessary to discuss in detail, or even 1439 to refer at all, to the cases which had I been brought under the notice of the Committee. The Solicitor General for Ireland had applied himself to those cases. It must, he thought, be obvious to every Member of the Committee that his hon. and learned Friend had not shrunk from the fullest investigation, and that he was desirous to present to the Committee the clearest information as to what he and his Colleagues had done; and he (Mr. Gibson) believed that the opinion of the Committee would be that the action of the Law Officers in reference to this case, however it might be regarded by those who challenged it, was due to a sincere and anxious desire to advance the cause of justice. He passed on to consider the general observations which had been made in the course of the discussion in reference to the administration of justice in Ireland. One of those had reference to so-called jury-packing. That charge had been made very often, and hon. Members were beginning to be tolerably familiar with it. It was, of course, a grave and serious charge. It was one that could be easily put forward, and which must be looked into fairly in order to see whether it rested on any sufficient foundation. Ashe understood it, the charge amounted to this—that the jury was put into the box, not with the desire that they should consider the evidence fairly and impartially for themselves in order to do justice, but with the desire that they should register such a verdict as might be required of them. But what evidence was there to support such a charge as that? Having filled the Office of Attorney General for Ireland during some years, he was unable to think that anyone entrusted with that responsible and anxious Office should have any other desire than to secure for prisoners on their trial jurors who were impartial and independent. He did not believe that in recent years any change had taken place in the direction of having any regard whatever to the religion of jurors. That was his deliberate opinion. They all remembered the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), as well as his Predecessor (Mr. Law). Those Gentlemen were entitled to all respect, and he was sure they were actuated by no such views; and he was equally sure that the same might be said of the present Attor 1440 ney General, who was a devoted Roman Catholic, and entitled to as much respect as anyone at the Irish Bar. Another charge made by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in the course of his speech had reference to the changes of venue. He was not quite clear that he understood the exact position from which the hon. Member wished this question to be regarded; but, however that might be, he thought the time had come for a clear and logical statement on the subject. It must be recognized in all cases that it was desirable to have machinery for changes of venue. But then came the question as to the cases in which that machinery should be applied. He believed that the rule which regulated changes of venue in Ireland was the same as it was in England. Where it was found that there was a disturbance of public opinion, and the prevalence of strong feelings in a locality, it was desirable to change the venue to another locality, the inhabitants of which could supply jurors of impartiality. It was that principle which governed changes of venue in Ireland. It was not denied that there should be some machinery for the changing of venue; and he could not think of any better way of dealing with the matter than to leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General for Ireland. Whom were they to trust, if not the highest Law Officer under the Crown—that was to say, the Attorney General, who, in Ireland, was the Public Prosecutor? Of course, hon. Members could always question his action; but then, if they impugned either his motives or his discretion, they must listen to the answer to the charge; they must insist on the question being fairly argued. After all, it was a question of discretion; and on this matter he ventured to think that everyone who had listened to the question would arrive at the conclusion that in many of the cases—as he was himself satisfied on all the cases, so far as he had heard them—it was reasonable, and in the interest of fair trial, that there should be changes of venue; and he had not heard one syllable to induce him to think that the exercise of discretion on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland was not only fair and just from his own point of view, but also was not sound in the interests of justice that he was bound to look after. One other observa 1441 tion and he (Mr. Gibson) had done—one passing observation as to what the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in the rather dramatic peroration of his speech, described he would do if he were in the jury box and called upon to address his 11 colleagues. He (Mr. Gibson) was not likely ever to have an opportunity of witnessing such a proceeding. [Mr. HEALY: No; I should be challenged.] He was not alluding to the hon. Member's position, but to his own misfortune in not being likely ever to be one of the 11 jurymen who would be addressed by the hon. Member. As he understood the dramatic position of the hon. Gentleman it would be this—that he would fold his arms and pose like an orator before the remaining 11 men, and say that he would be no party to having anything to do with the matter. Well, he (Mr. Gibson) was confident that a moment's reflection would satisfy the hon. Member that he would not do anything of the kind, if called upon to act as a juryman, for the simple reason that before he could indulge in the luxury of dramatic oratory he would have sworn the preliminary oath that he would give a true verdict according to the evidence. The time for the hon. Member to make the declaration that he would be no party to the matter would be before he went into the jury-box, and not after he was sworn to give a true verdict. He (Mr. Gibson) had not intended to say anything about the Prevention of Crime Act; but he found himself bound to do so, in consequence of one or two observations that had fallen from the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and from the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member for Sligo had declared that the Prevention of Crime Act had failed; but that did not seem to him (Mr. Gibson) a fair way of looking at it, and he was by no means satisfied that the hon. Member for Sligo thought that himself. After all, the effect of the Prevention of Crime Act was not to be measured by pointing out how it had been administered in some of the eases—not very numerous cases—that had been tried under it; but it was to be judged by its great preventive operations. That was a criticism never to be lost sight of. At present, as they knew from recent Returns, agrarian offences in Ireland had fallen to a very reduced level compared with what they 1442 were a year or two ago; and that reduction should, he thought, be very largely attributed to the preventive operation of the Prevention of Crime Act. Of the other point dealt with by the hon. Member, he did not propose to discuss or to say anything upon. There had been observations made with regard to the payment of rewards for the detection of crime. Well, the particular rewards mentioned in this Estimate were for the detection of the Phœnix Park murderers. Of course, no one could fail to recognize the immense gravity of those crimes, the serious nature of the organization that planned them, the firmness of the courage that was necessary to cope with them, and the heavy reward that it was necessary to give to those who led to their detection, seeing that many of these people sacrificed their means of subsistence to give evidence. That was a remark which he did not doubt would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee. He was aware that on this Vote in recent years, in reference to Irish law charges and criminal prosecutions, there had always been a very keen and a very full discussion. For his own part, he did not object to the most searching investigation into these matters, when so many charges were made in Ireland in reference to the administration of justice; and he thought it was just as well there should be an opportunity given to have them fully and deliberately examined. The Law Officer in charge of the Vote should be afforded the fullest and most ample opportunity of showing that he had nothing to conceal and nothing to be afraid of in giving an explanation. He was bound to say that he had listened carefully to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and that the explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman had given had been perfectly satisfactory. Even those who had criticized the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement had not denied its accuracy; and, moreover, the temperate language in which that statement had been delivered was worthy of the greatest credit.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he rose, not for the purpose of taking any part in the discussion which Irish Members had initiated with regard to the failure of justice in Ireland, on which subject an English Member, perhaps, was not 1443 so competent to form an opinion; but he rose for the purpose of asking for information on this Vote in reference to a subject which English Members, or, at all events, the House of Commons, was entitled to claim some statement from the Government upon. He would touch upon this matter in continuation of the questions he had put to the Chief Secretary with regard to it when the Estimates were before the House two years ago. He had abstained from raising the question last year in the hope that some reform would show itself in the administration, but he had been disappointed in that expectation; and, therefore, he must trouble the Committee with one or two observations. This Vote, so far as its pecuniary aspect was concerned, was of £10,000 for general law expenses in Ireland, the original sum having been £15,384. This was an enormous sum, £10,000, being an increase on the £15,384, particularly as they had heard the satisfactory account given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland of the enormous diminution of crime in Ireland during the last six months of 1883, and, therefore, for the 12 months of 1883–4. Here they had nine months of an enormous diminution in crime, and yet they were asked to vote an increase of £10,000. If he turned back-to the Estimates of last year he found this same peculiarity, or at all events, this same weakness, if such an expression could be used. The original charge last year was £12,000, and the Supplementary Estimate was £10,000, precisely the same sum as that now asked for, which was a singular thing. They were now asked to vote £25,384 for extra law expenses, and to the ordinary English mind that charge would suggest itself as the expense of the administration of the law—that was to say, by using the words "law expenses," they would mean solicitors' charges, counsel's fees, witnesses' fees, and the cost of the general administration of justice. The ordinary English mind would look upon this Estimate as similar to sums with this title in the English Estimates; but if they turned to the Irish Votes they would find—and he took now the actual expenditure of last year, because they had not got the Appropriation Grant, and, therefore, did not know what this year would show—that the solicitors 1444 had £22,000, the prosecutors had £33,000, for general law expenses £20,000 was charged, and the Law Officers of the Crown divided between them £15,000, the counsel's fees, in addition, being £19,000. Now, he contended that that was a state of things which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant could not sanction, and which he ought to put his foot down upon with strong determination. Such a state of things was utterly unknown in this country, for last year the entire expenses of the administration of justice in England had been £270,000 for a population of 20,000,000, while in Ireland, with a population of 5,000,000, the charge had been £120,000. It appeared to him that the Committee was entitled to know the moaning of this extravagant expenditure; they were entitled to know on this ground—that it was a most dangerous thing to give a class of men an interest in criminal prosecutions. There could be no reason why criminal prosecutions should cost twice as much in Ireland as they did in England. Why should the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland—and in saying this he was speaking with all respect of the Gentlemen who held those Offices, and was not referring personally to anybody, but to present and past officials—receive for their work between thorn three times as much as the Prime Minister, and more than twice as much as the salary of the Lord Chancellor in his legal capacity? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to tell them how this money was spent; what it was wanted for; what it meant; and he would press the right hon. Gentleman to say why the same economy practised in connection with English prosecutions could not be exercised in Ireland; and why, at all events, the Government could not root out the evil of putting, as it seemed, a premium on these criminal prosecutions?
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped, before this debate closed, right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would give an answer to the weighty and important questions that had been addressed to them by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. II. H. Fowler). He (Mr. Sullivan) wished, in the few words he had to say, to make some reference to the plea put forward by the hon. and learned Solicitor General 1445 for Ireland with respect to the important question of jury-packing in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had virtuously and indignantly denied that there was any intention on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown to exclude Catholics from the jury-box in criminal cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who spoke from that (the Opposition) side of the House, quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland on the opposite side of the House. But the Committee could not forget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin was himself an ex-Attorney General for Ireland. It was a very natural thing for these legal officials, the present Solicitor General for Ireland, and the ex-Attorney General, to be quite agreed as to the aspects of this question. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not wonder at that, because between the ex-Law Officers on the Opposition side of the House and the present Law Officers over the way there was but the difference of the breadth of the Table. They did not know how soon the situations of the hon. and learned Gentlemen might be reversed—they could not tell how soon legal Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House might have to resume the operations they practised in former years in Ireland when they sat on the other side. Who could be surprised at these hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen supporting each other on this important question, and giving each other certificates of good character? But all that would not satisfy the minds of the people of Ireland, who desired to know the whole truth of this important matter. The Irish people could not be deceived by the special pleading of legal Gentlemen on either side of the House. They knew the facts—they had had sore experience of them; and however these special pleadings might serve to mislead the Committee, or the House of Commons, or the people of England, the hon. or right hon. and learned Gentlemen who used them knew perfectly well that they were of no avail with the people of Ireland. There was no denying the fact—and nobody did deny it—that in the cases to which reference had been made Irish Catholics, somehow, were excluded from the jury-box. "Oh," 1446 said the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, "no one questions, and no one doubts, the loyalty of the Catholics of Ireland—far be it from me to cast any imputation upon their loyalty and good faith." Well, then, what was the reason they were excluded from the jury-box?—and that they were excluded was an undeniable fact. How would the hon. and learned Gentleman solve for the Committee this riddle; would he give them any explanation? The Catholics were reliable men—the Committee were told they were honourable men and loyal men; but, notwithstanding all that, they were chased out of the jury-box, and asked to stand by, nearly every one of them, when a jury was empannelled. He put it to the hon. and learned Solicitor General and the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, whether the Irish Members had not a right to ask for an explanation of this state of things? What was the solution of the mystery—where was the key of the riddle? There must be some cause for it; it was not want of good faith; it was not want of loyalty—what was it then? He wanted to know—and he would again and again ask the question—what was the taint upon the Catholics of Ireland that they were excluded from the jury-box? Man after man of them—respectable Irish citizens, and gentlemen respected in every capacity of life—were told to stand by when their names were called; and he had a right to ask for some explanation of the circumstance. He feared there was something disingenuous in the pleas of hon. and learned—very learned—Gentlemen in this matter. There was something they dared not speak out—there was something they dared not say—in the face of the Catholics of Ireland. They did not dare to say that the Catholics were not to be believed on their oaths; they did not dare to say that they were perjurers, or to call them traitors. Then, what was it which almost invariably excluded them from the jury-box on the occasions referred to? No; the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland did not dare to say that Irish Catholics were traitors, for he knew that on that very day the blood of Irish Catholics was wet on the soil of the Soudan, spilled in the defence of this country, spilled in the performance of duties that 1447 they were sent to the Soudan to discharge, the morality of which action on the part of those whom they served he would not question at that moment. Had not the Government sent Irish Catholics to the deadly breach in the ranks of the British Army? Had not these men fought bravely, had they not given their blood, had they not died in the service of England? —and, that being so, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not dare, on the floor of that House, to tell the world and Irish Catholics in the Army and the Navy that their co-religionists at home were not to be trusted as being men whose religious faith put a barrier between them and the jury-box. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not dare to say that; but he and his Predecessors on the Treasury Bench thought they could conceal the facts of the case from Irish Catholics by glozing speeches which they made in that House. He challenged, and he dared, the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House and the country, and the people of Ireland, the true facts of the case. The administration of justice in Ireland was, he would not say corrupt, but partizan, although how far unfair he would not at that moment discuss. In small matters and in large matters it was thoroughly well known that no confidence could be reposed by the masses of the Irish people in the administration of justice—they had no confidence in any part of the system, from its highest to its lowest point. He had read the sentence passed at Mullingar on a man named Lawrence Kenny, who was convicted of having fired at a soldier in the darkness of the night. The prisoner might have fired a shot, or there might have been some mistake about the matter; but, at all events, he was convicted and sentenced by Mr. Justice Lawson—the mild, and gentle, and just Judge Lawson! For the offence Kenny was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Let them suppose, for a moment, that was a just sentence for such an offence; but he heard also of the case of an Orangeman who, in the North of Ireland, was convicted of having made two separate assaults in the same evening on a sentry. On the first occasion, in endeavouring to get through the gate, the Orangeman struck the sentry; and, meeting the soldier a little later, he presented a revolver at him, loaded in six chambers. The man 1448 was disarmed, and no injury was done; but what was the sentence passed on this Orangeman, who, by the way, was also a Conservative registration agent? Let the Committee observe the sentence passed on this person, who first assaulted a sentry at his post in endeavouring to force his way past him, in striking him in the face, and then in presenting a loaded revolver at him and striving to shoot him—which, probably, he would have done had he not been grappled with and disarmed. The sentence upon this man, passed in the county of Tyrone, was a fine of 10s. A fine of 10s. purged the offence of an Orange Conservative registration agent, whilst penal servitude for life was the sentence passed upon another man accused of having fired at a soldier. In the case of Kenny the soldier was not hit; there was no proof that ever he (Mr. Sullivan) could ascertain that there was a bullet in the weapon; but, at any rate, the man was convicted of the charge, and had a terrible sentence passed upon him. The Government ought to know of what sort were the Ulster magistrates, who could let off a man with a fine of 10s. for attempting to shoot a sentry. One of the magistrates on the Bench when the Orangeman was tried was the gentleman who had given an I 0 U to the station-master at Omagh, to pay the train fare of a party of Orangemen to Dromore to shoot down the Nationalists. That was one instance, among many, of the way justice was administered. The Irish Representatives were sent to that House to complain of such administration of justice; and he maintained that the Government had a right, if they wanted the confidence and respect of the Irish people, and if they wanted loyalty to exist in Ireland, to bring about a more satisfactory state of things. They had a right to carry out the administration of justice on a different system to that which they were at present adopting—a system based on the perjury of informers, packed juries, partizan Judges, and Orange magistrates, who had no idea of justice as between Protestant and Catholic, Orangeman and Nationalist.
§ MR. TREVELYANI am glad the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) called us to the more strict Business of the evening. The extent to which we have wandered from it may be judged from the fact that the 1449 hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gave several moments to criticism on the judgment of a Bench of unpaid Justices of the Peace, not one of whom receives one halfpenny under any Estimate or Supplementary Estimate ever brought before this House. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton referred to a debate on, I think, the Supplementary Estimates last year, or the year before, when he criticized, more minutely than he has done to-day, and in a manner that left a different impression on my mind, the expense of law charges and the criminal prosecutions in Ireland. My hon. Friend is a frequent attendant in this House when Estimates are under discussion, and those who are frequent and intelligent attendants on such occasions begin, I think, to understand some of the difficulties that Ministers in charge of these Estimates have to face in their attempts to reduce expenditure. If that is the case in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates, where the expenditure may be said, in one sense, to be absolutely in the hands of the Minister, when he is restrained very much by the criticisms which he finds regulating these Departments, and by general considerations of public advantage, how much more should it be the case in such a matter as the administration of justice, and law charges, and expense of criminal investigations in an Island, in size, not much less than England, and where these charges are very much at the mercy of officers, many of whom cannot be said to be public officers under the control of the Minister at all. Well, if my hon. Friend will compare the result of this year's work with the much vaunted reduction in the Army and Navy Estimates, he will find that something, at any rate, has been done; if my hon. Friend will examine these Estimates he will find a reduction answering to about £1,000,000 out of £12,000,000 in the Navy Estimates, which is a reduction which has very seldom been seen, but which has been seen in our time once. The Minister who makes such a reduction as that is generally allowed to take no little credit to himself for it; but most certainly any little credit that he takes is out of all proportion exceeded by the charges of cheese-paring and flint-skinning which are brought against him. If my hon. Friend will examine the Estimates he "will find that there is a very substantial reduction, answering 1450 to about £1,000,000, on the Navy Estimates, and after I have pointed that out to him I will go a little further, and point out the extremely arduous and difficult circumstances under which this reduction was made. The Estimate last year was £86,000, and the Supplementary Estimate £40,000—that is to say, the total Estimate last year was £126,000. This year the Estimate is £100,000, the Supplementary Estimate is £15,000, and therefore the total Estimate for the year is £115,000, or a reduction of £11,000 on the Estimates of last year. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER, dissented.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is so.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERYou only spent £118,000; that is the proportionate amount.
§ MR. TREVELYANYes; but we still have our possible savings to make. What is the nature of the Supplementary Estimate which we are now asking for? It is one made out in consequence of an increase in certain items, of £20,000, against which we may roughly say there was a decrease of £5,000 to be set off. What was the particular item to which my hon. Friend specially directed his grievance last year? If I mistake not it was the fees to counsel. Well, Sir, this year £18,500 were voted as fees to counsel, and I am glad to say that it is specially on that item that savings have been made. Then, out of the savings of £5,000, £3,237 are due to fees to counsel. The entry of law expenses goes over a considerable number of items. There are payments to Clerks of the Crown, payments to Clerks of the Peace, payments in regard to Petty Sessions, expenses of medical witnesses, payments in respect of Crown witnesses, payments to the Crown Solicitor, and a sum of no less than £3,250 may be estimated for the expense of juries at Assizes, and for the defence of prisoners in case of murder, and miscellaneous charges and printing briefs. There are, in fact, a great many items, all of which have one and the same origin. My hon. Friend talks of the diminution of crime that is now taking place in Ireland, and he argues from that that a diminution in the cost of detecting crime ought to take place in consequence. I can well believe that that should be so; but we have not yet reached the point at which it occurs. One cause of the diminution of crime in Ireland is because the war 1451 against crime has been carried on with special vigour—and I would, at the same time, venture to say with exceptional success—[Laughter.]—I must beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to interrupt me. I never interrupt them, and I must ask that I shall not be treated in this manner. We have clone that in a year which has been marked, of all years in the history of our country, for the successful prosecution of a very great, and, as it was satisfactory, a very successful crime. Now, £5,000 of that increase is due to the rewards that were paid for bringing to justice the Phœnix Park murderers. [An hon. MEMBER: Paid to the informers?] I say £5,000 was paid in rewards for bringing to justice the Phœnix Park murderers. Hon. Members know perfectly well what I mean when I use that phrase. I expressed myself briefly; but hon. Members know perfectly well what I meant. The hon. Members for Sligo (Mr. Sex-ton) and Ennis (Mr. Kenny), I think, referred to these rewards. The hon. Member for Sligo asked for details as to how this £5,000 was spent, in order that it might be known to what persons sums of money bad been paid in connection with the Phœnix Park murders, and what the amounts were. Now, Sir, I must respectfully inform the hon. Member for Sligo that I cannot give him any such details. The hon. Member says that no possible danger can arise to any of these people; but there I differ with the hon. Member. I quite allow that Ireland is in a very different state, as regards danger, to that in which it was some time ago; but I cannot forget that there are several rival Associations in America which are collecting money for the purposes of murder, and collecting it by means of open subscription lists in newspapers published regularly. These subscriptions, for the purpose of promoting murder, are every whit as open and as boldly kept in the face of day as are the subscription lists of the Church Missionary Society. It is for the American Government to say whether they think that these subscription lists should or should not any longer be left open. ["Question!"] Sir, lam speaking to the Question in answer to the hon. Member for Sligo, who wanted the details as to the expenditure of this £5,000 which appears in the Supplementary 1452 Estimate; and I say I cannot give these details so long as large subscriptions are being raised by powerful organizations in America for purposes of murder, seeing that the money may be spent in procuring the assassination of witnesses who have been allowed to escape from Ireland in order to pursue their industrial occupations in other countries after giving evidence for the detection of crime in Ireland. I hope the hon. Member for Sligo will take this as a sufficient answer. The hon. Member for Sligo then comments on the difference between the large sums paid to witnesses in political cases, and the small sums that are paid to witnesses in cases that are non-political. Now, in the case of the Phœnix Park murders it is obvious that large sums were paid to witnesses in order to maintain the faith of the Government, which had offered large rewards to people contributing information which would bring the perpetrators of these murders to justice. But, in ordinary cases, a distinction has to be made between the sums that are paid to witnesses. You pay a witness in a case where he receives nothing more than his mere time for his attendance in proportion as he makes sacrifice by giving his testimony. When the poor woman, whom the hon. Member for Sligo spoke of, came to give her testimony in an ordinary case of murder, she ran no more risk than a person who happened to see a burglar get through a window of a house in London would run in giving his evidence at the Police Court to obtain the conviction of the thief; whereas some of these people to whom large sums have been paid have lost their livelihood, and have been compelled to leave the neighbourhood in which they resided, for I do not for a moment deny that there is still far more sympathy with crime than one could wish to see in some districts of Ireland. The large sums that have been paid have been purely compensation for the comforts and advantages which the people who have given their evidence have lost by their so doing. Hon. Members must remember that war against crime costs money, just as much as any other kind of war; and just think what the war against crime has been. Take merely these Dublin murders. Here is a gang of 26 persons, every man of whom has been accounted for; 1453 there is not one of this gang of murderers who is at this moment at large except in the character of an informer, save one young man who was set at large very early in the proceedings, because it was shown that he had acted under compulsion, and without any participation in the act of murder. Hon. Members, earlier in the debate, brought charges against me, with singular vehemence, couched in language which I really think those hon. Members would hardly repeat in their cooler moments. I was charged with having tried to hang an innocent man and woman. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Sir, I think it would be considered very strange if an English or Welsh Member were to charge the Home Secretary with attempting to hang an innocent man, when that person had been acquitted of the murder. It is not for a person who stands in the position of the Home Secretary of a large country to be able of himself, beforehand, to say whether anyone of the hundreds of people who have to be brought to trial on grave charges ought to be so brought to trial or not. If he did attempt such a task—a task altogether beyond his powers—he would be carrying concentrated and centralized government to a point of absurdity. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) accuses me of supplying the place of a Bill suspending the Habeas Corpus, by keeping men in prison on remand; and he compares my action in that respect with the action of my Predecessor in working the Protection of Person and Property Act. I should be the last person to say anything that would put my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) in an invidious position; the House of Commons put him in possession of his immense powers, and it was his duty to carry them out; but I trust that no power of keeping a prisoner in prison on remand was used to supply the place of a Bill suspending the Habeas Corpus. It should be remembered that every prisoner has a right to apply to the Court of Bail; and it is not I, but the Judges, that have to decide these matters, and who keep prisoners on remand. I am responsible for nothing that concerns any trial before any Court of Justice. The Government are responsible whether or not they sent men before these Courts; but it is the Courts that have to answer, not to men 1454 so much, but to their own consciences, for what they do with the prisoners when once they get to the Court. The hon. Member for Monaghan says that in this respect I am inferior to my Predecessor, who boldly struck at great people, at Members of Parliament, and formidable men; but that I only struck at humble peasants. Well, Sir, I do not know how the hon. Member for Monaghan reconciles that with the fact that he spent not a small section of his speech in a description of his own sufferings in gaol, where he was certainly not placed during the régime of my right hon. Predecessor. I say that to bring it as a charge against the present Government that they struck at humble peasants is very strange indeed. Those we have been defending in the action which has been lately taken were the rich and the powerful? Who were the victims of the Lough Mask tragedy? The Joyce family belonged to the poorest of the poor, and they were Catholics; and when you tell us that we are murdering Catholics, I reply that the very first acquittal for murder was a Catholic peasant. Religion does not enter into the matter at all. Our only anxiety is to make the lives of Her Majesty's Protestant and Catholic subjects safe in Ireland, and I think we have succeeded. Hon. Members call the Prevention of Crime Act a "murder machine;" but, Sir, before that Act was passed, there were 51 murders alone that were undetected and unpunished. In the first nine months of 1882 there were 26 murders of an agrarian and a political nature; and during the past six months, as my hon. Friend has said, there has only been one throughout the whole of Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLCan the right hon. Gentleman, while dealing with the statistics as to the number of murders committed, give the details showing the number of murders detected?
§ MR. TREVELYANI should have liked to have received Notice of that question being raised earlier in the debate. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) is, I know, very familiar with these statistics, because he went into them very closely at the time of the passing of the Prevention of Crime Act; and, therefore, he may draw an interesting conclusion from this—that on examining the statistics I find that in the past three months, out of 96 serious cases in which 1455 prisoners had been made amenable, 64 bad been convicted and 32 had been acquitted. The statistics of agrarian crime, upon which we based the change in the Jury Law, which formed the most important part of the Prevention of Crime Act, for the past three months show that there have been two murders dealt with, though not committed during the period, and in the case of one there was an acquittal, and in the case of the other a conviction. That, Sir, is the result produced by this expenditure. I have looked into the matter very closely this year; I shall look into it more closely next year; and if a reduction on the full amount, as large as has been made this year, can be made next, I shall be very well satisfied. I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) underrates the English expenditure. As far as I can make out, while the amount for Ireland is £115,000, that for England amounts to £'276,000. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Those are the figures of the Government.] I beg pardon—I was going on to say that the discrepancy quite justifies the hon. Member's anxiety, and, I allow, quite justifies the public-spirited form in which he reflected on the inadequacy of our efforts—for all human efforts are inadequate—to reduce the sum in the course of a single year. The result of this Estimate is a thing which I keenly value. In the suppression of crime it is possible that hardships have resulted to individuals. Well, these hardships I deeply regret; but they have not been hardships inflicted from any animus against the people. The Irish Government earnestly and sincerely endeavours to detect the guilty, and earnestly and sincerely endeavours to render innocence secure—[Laughter from the Irish Members.] Well, I know there are hon. Members here who have already gone much too far on this question in another direction willingly to accept that as other than an unfounded boast; but I still believe that the general opinion of the country is that in this matter the Government have sincerely done their duty.
MR. GORSTsaid, that a stranger listening to the speeches delivered on both sides of the House would not have had the slightest idea that the Committee were engaged in the somewhat dry process of discussing Supplementary 1456 Estimates. He did not blame hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies for the warmth they had indulged in that evening; because now that the Rules of the House rendered it almost impossible for questions of vital importance to be brought before the consideration of the House, Members were compelled to take every opportunity they could get, even on the Supplementary Estimates, in bringing forward matters in which they were interested, and which they were shut out from introducing to the notice of the House on more legitimate occasions. The few remarks he wished to make would be as to the aspect of this Vote as a Supplementary Estimate. He wished to make a complaint of the mode in which the Civil Service Estimates were presented to the Committee by the officers of the Irish Government. He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. They had not been favoured, during the course of the discussion this evening generally, by the presence of a Cabinet Minister; but he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, because he would be able to bear out what he (Mr. Gorst) was about to say. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had complained of the extravagance of the Vote for Irish law expenses; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had answered him by saying that the Irish Government was engaged in a war with crime, and that a war with crime, like all other wars, must be a costly proceeding. That was very true; but just because it was a costly proceeding it was likely that the expenditure would not be regular. An expenditure of this kind, whether against crime or against a foreign enemy, should be properly presented in the accounts. When the Supplementary Estimates were presented it was usual to give some explanation of the reason why the sums asked for were not included in the regular Estimates; and if any hon. Member would look at the English Supplementary Estimates he would see that invariably there was some explanation given, more or loss satisfactory, of the reason why the particular sum asked for was not asked for when the Estimates were before the Committee last year. In every single case in the English Estimates such information 1457 was supplied; but in the Irish Estimates information of this kind was not vouchsafed. He took a particular Estimate now before the House—and what he was about to say applied equally to last year. He would take one of the Irish Supplementary Estimates. Well, the Government did not condescend to inform the Committee why it was that this particular sum was not asked for in the Estimates of last year. Surely it was quite obvious to Members of the Committee that it was very inconvenient to have Irish Supplementary Estimates at all, because their effect was simply to double debates. It would be convenient, both for the Government and the House of Commons, if the money wanted were voted once for all, and there was no necessity for application to be made for a Supplementary Estimate. Take the Vote, General Law Expenses. The original Estimate was £15,000, the Irish Executive now came and asked for £10,000 more, without the slightest syllable of a reason being given why the original Estimate was not for £25,000. In the Estimate there was given what was facetiously called details; but those details consisted simply of a repetition of the original item. The item was "General Law Expenses," and the details were "General Law Expenses, under Estimate." Was that under Estimate the fault of the officer who made the Estimate—was it an under Estimate because of some circumstances that had come to the knowledge of the Irish Government since the original Estimate, or why was it an under Estimate? He was not saying the item to which he referred was wrong; but his contention was that the House of Commons was entitled to be furnished with information upon this subject before it was asked to vote Supplementary Estimates. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his contention was not perfectly sound and right? As to the second item of rewards for information leading to the detection of crime, the details stated that the rewards had not been included in the original Estimate. Why had they not been included in the original Estimate? [Mr. TREVELYAN: Because we did not know then.] If that were so, why was it not stated? The crimes had been detected, the criminals had been brought to justice, before the Estimates were laid before the 1458 House; and what he contended for was that specially in connection with this Irish expenditure where there was a war going on against crime—a war in which the expenditure of large sums was necessary—the officers of the Irish Executive should not be allowed to come to the Committee asking for enormous Supplementary Estimates, without, at least, condescending to give information as to the causes that led to these Estimates not being known and laid before the Committee when the original Estimates were prepared. That was a reasonable contention, which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit; and he (Mr. Gorst) thought they ought to have some explanation from the officers of the Irish Government, as to why the universal practice in connection with English and Scotch Estimates was not followed in this case.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Chief Secretary had, curiously enough, opened his speech by accusing the Irish Members with irrelevancy; and, by way of illustrating his own relevant habit of dealing with public questions, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of answering criticisms from the Irish Benches, proceeded to embark upon a long compliment to himself in connection with the successful administration of the Irish Government in the matter of the Phœnix Park murders. Well, it did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that it was the special Vote of £5,000 for rewards for information leading to the detection of the Phœnix Park murderers that formed the main portion of the Irish objection. It was within the recollection of the Irish Members that something like £20,000 was offered in rewards for information leading to the detection of these murderers; and they were rather surprised—at least, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was surprised—to find only £5,000 in the Vote. Of course, it was not within his intention to suggest that Her Majesty's Government could have been guilty of the meanness of cheating even the informers; but, still, they had this fact—that there was only £5,000 mentioned for paying rewards in the case of the Phœnix Park murders, when certainly something like £20,000 was advertised in the Irish papers to be given for the discovery of these crimes. The Chief Secretary, however, also by way 1459 of illustrating, presumably, his peculiar relations with the country which he was sent to govern, devoted most of his attention to answering the very reasonable and business-like criticism of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). [An hon. MEMBER: He did not answer it.] At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman devoted a great part of his time to what purported to be an answer to the hon. Member. He recognized the justice of the correction. The right hon. Gentleman's excuse for not dealing with the Irish objection was contained in the passing reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan), who had called attention to the extraordinary circumstances under which a Conservative registration agent, an Orangeman, had been let off with the bagatelle of a 10s. fine for assaulting a sentry and threatening to shoot him with a loaded revolver. The Chief Secretary was unable to see the bearing of that fact on the present discussion. Part of their objection to this law expenditure was that if expenditure on legal procedure in Ireland was laid out on proper objects, it would not amount to its present total; and the result in regard to public satisfaction and public peace would be very different. However, that was the sort of administration of the law which prevailed in Ireland. Such crimes as those committed by the Orangemen—attempts to shoot a sentry and brandishing revolvers—were allowed to pass without notice, while vast sums of money were demanded from the taxpayers for legal expenditure upon very indifferent classes of offence. He did not intend to refer to the £5,000 voted in regard to the Phœnix Park informers any further; but it was most remarkable that there was first a general Estimate for law expenses put down at £ 10,000; then, by way of a Supplementary Estimate, there was another £10,000. What system of estimating expenses was that? Assuredly, if any English Minister were to estimate the expenses of his Department at a certain figure, and then come and say he had made a mistake, and the expenses were exactly double his Estimate, he would hardly be considered a successful administrator. To judge, however, by the applause which greeted the right hon. Gentleman, he was regarded as an exceedingly successful 1460 English administrator of Irish affairs. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) recently stated that a good many of the objections raised by Irish Members were objections upon which English Members were not competent to form an opinion; but, unfortunately, it was the opinion of English Members which would decide upon the objections of Irish Members to these Estimates. All the efforts of Members on this side of the House or on the other side to extract from the Government information in detail on the matters covered by this Estimate for legal expenditure had totally failed; for, instead of giving an explanation, the Chief Secretary had wandered off into references to matters which were not dealt with at any length on any side of the House. He begged the Chief Secretary, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury, if any of those functionaries would condescend to reply to Irish Members, even at that late hour of the discussion, to give some information in detail, as to what matters, or what particular trials, this £20,000 had been expended upon. He did not believe any explanation could be given which could, for an instant, bear even the well-intentioned and good-natured criticism of English supporters of the Government. He would venture himself to offer an explanation of the reasons of these vast and vague sums which the taxpayers were asked to pay towards the Law Officers and the legal expenditure of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. This additional £10,000 squandered without explanation formed part of the system of Bar bribery in Ireland. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had contrasted the lavish expenditure on law in Ireland, considering the population of less than 5,000,000, as the British Government now put it with pride—for, thanks to the operations of Her Majesty's Government, the population had sunk to below 5,000,000—with the sum required for the administration of law among the 25,000,000 or 27,000,000 of people in England; but the hon. Member had not made due allowance for the very different character of the work which had to be done by English law administrators and Irish law administrators. After all, English law administrators were paid, to a certain extent, by the consciousness that 1461 they were carrying out an honourable function in the State; while it was too well known in Ireland that Irish barristers could only be induced to support the administration of English law in Ireland by being paid a certain something over and above what would be required by the administrators of honourable functions; and that the work of coaching informers, and changing venues, and packing juries, and similar unclean operations of English Governments in Ireland, required to be compensated at a higher rate than the administration of ordinary Jaw in a free country. That was the reason of the reticence observed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not wish to admit that the extravagant rate of pay given to the supporters of the Crown in Ireland represented compensation for the character of the work the administrators of the law were called upon to perform in Ireland. If they had not the present Chief Secretary, doubt-loss they would have another right hon. Gentleman, until the good day came when, he trusted, they would be able to get rid of all those right hon. Gentlemen root, stock, and branch. He was only referring to the present Chief Secretary as an algebraic quantity. The right hon. Gentleman might be Chief Secretary X for all he cared, and any criticisms he passed upon any portion of the right hon. Gentleman's administration only applied to him in his character as a functionary of the Government. Of course, he would not enter into the question of how an English freeman, a lover of liberty, could accept any consideration for functions which the Chief Secretary must perform in Ireland. Objections had been raised in this debate to the practice of jury-packing in Ireland; and the Representatives of the Government denied to-day, as they had denied every day since the present Administration came into Office, that jury-packing existed in Ireland; but, despite those denials, everybody on both sides of the House was perfectly well aware that jury-packing did exist in Ireland, and that without it British law could not be administered in Ireland. Objections had also been raised respecting the constant change of venues which occurred whenever the Government were not quite certain, even with jury-packing, of obtaining a verdict to its taste. He considered that there was no portion of 1462 the administration of law in Ireland that was more thoroughly vitiated than that which was affected by these changes of venue. No portion of the administration of the law operated more unfairly towards the poor; no portion of the administration of the law acted more unfairly towards the weak and helpless, than these changes of venue at the discretion of the Attorney General for Ireland. However, of course, the Government had an answer. Crime diminished in Ireland just as population diminished, and the Government counted on the approval of the House so long as those two satisfactory facts went together. The Chief Secretary was encouraged in his refusal to give any information by the knowledge of the fact that information could no longer be forced from the Government. Among the results of the changes introduced in the constitution of that House, there was none more disastrous than this—that a Ministry, with a majority at their back, could actually refuse any kind of satisfaction to the most reasonable demands of the minority; and sooner or later the time would come—and they had it in their power to make it sooner—when they would be able to insist on a Vote being taken. Explanation or no explanation, they would get their money, and the Representatives of the taxpayers would get no satisfaction. He had only risen to enter his formal protest against the manner in which public money was squandered upon the maintenance of an evil and tyrannical system in his country. Beyond that formal protest, words could have no weight whatsoever; and he only trusted that as these scenes were repeated; as the inefficacy and the uselessness of appealing to a Government supported by a majority became more clearly impressed on the Irish nation, both at home and abroad, the Irish nation at home and abroad would become more and more determined to substitute a more efficient form of pressure for the useless method of discussion in a Parliament utterly and entirely at the mercy of the Ministry of the day.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, that, of all the extraordinary speeches delivered from the Treasury Bench that evening, no speech had surprised him more than that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was appealed to by an hon. Member below the Gangway to give some explanation 1463 of the very heavy expenditure in Ireland; but he had not clone so. If the right hon. Gentleman had given an explanation, it would have been, he ventured to state, that the greater part of the expenditure occurred under the head of Secret Service money in Ireland, because there could be no doubt that Secret Service money gave rise to the most abominable crime of perjury, and that by that means a large amount of crime was placed before the House year after year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) got up, to his surprise, to defend the Ministry; but instead of doing so he devoted the greater part of his speech to lecturing the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and made no defence of the Ministry, except that he thought the Solicitor General for Ireland had met the case of jury-packing, which was the main indictment of Irish Members against the Government. That charge had not been met; and as one of the Members for Cork, where jury-packing had been practised to an alarming extent, he would take that opportunity of expressing his strongest dissent from the denial of the Solicitor General for Ireland with respect to that charge. In support of his statement he would take the liberty of citing a few cases tried at the last Winter Assizes, and give the constitution of the juries which tried those cases. On the 14th of December a man named Timothy Curtin was charged with having maimed some cattle, the property of his brother, and he pleaded guilty to the indictment. The Attorney General for Ireland, who, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, never excluded Roman Catholics from the jury-box on account of their religion, challenged 23 jurors. Of those 23, 22 were Roman Catholics, and the jury was ultimately composed of five Protestants, and the remainder were Catholies. On the 16th of December a man named Casey was charged with having attacked a dwelling house in August last. The Attorney General for Ireland challenged four jurors who were Catholics, and the jury was composed of nine Protestants and three Catholic magistrates, one of whom had signed the Rossmore protest, and was, to all intents aad purposes, an Orangeman of the deepest dye, and one of the most anti-Irish of all Irishmen. On the 1464 17th of December seven men were indicted with conspiracy to murder. Thirty-three Catholics were challenged and five Protestants. Two were considered Liberal members of the Corporation of Cork; but there was never a greater mistake, for they were no more Liberals than he was, but because they occasionally voted with the Nationalists and were not Protestants they were excluded from the jury. The jury ultimately consisted of eight Protestants and four Catholics. On the 27th of December John Murphy was charged with the murder of Thomas Spencer, and the jury was composed of eight Protestants and four Catholics; but 39 Catholics had been challenged and ordered to stand aside as unworthy of belief on their oath. Five Protestants, most of whom were engaged on trials, and who had formed part of a jury which either acquitted prisoners or disagreed as to returning a verdict, were not allowed to serve again. On the 31st of December a second case of murder was tried, the prisoner being Thomas Quinlan. Nineteen jurors were told to stand aside, all of whom were Catholics; but one Catholic served on that jury—namely, the foreman, a gentleman who had signed the Rossmore Protest, and was an avowed Orangeman. On the same day another man was indicted, and 34 Catholics were told to stand aside and three Protestants, the jury being composed of 10 Protestants and two Catholics, one of the Catholics, Captain Fagan, having been foreman of the last jury. On January 1 two Catholics and 10 Protestants were sworn in the jury-box, and one of the two Catholics was again Captain Pagan. On the 2nd of January the fifth murder case was tried. Fifteen Catholics were challenged and four Protestants; the jury consisted of 10 Protestants and two Catholics, the latter being two magistrates who had served on almost every jury on charges of murder. On January 2 a jury was composed of seven Catholics and five Protestants; but the case did not come under the Prevention of Crime Act, which accounted for the extraordinarily high number of Catholics. He had little more to add, except that the people of Cork believed in the charge which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had brought against the Government, of attempting, whether knowingly or not, to convict and hang innocent men; and 1465 so long as this system of jury-packing went on, so long would it be impossible for them to have any confidence in the law, which was so essential to the public welfare. He himself had had the advantage of being told to stand aside over and over again by the Crown Solicitor; and his constituents, in appreciation of that gentleman's action, had sent him there to expose this injustice. He hoped that the Solicitor General, now that he saw that the statement he had made was misleading, and not in accordance with the facts, would give some undertaking that in future he would not pack juries, and would acknowledge his mistake, and not attempt to mislead the House any more.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was only reasonable that before the Committee consented to pass this Vote they should receive some information as to why there was this item of £10,000 for general law expenses at all. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had asked the Chief Secretary some time ago to explain the fact; and when the Chief Secretary rose to address the Committee he expressed satisfaction at the question having been put. But he no more answered that question than he answered any other question that had been put to him. He went off at a tangent, and talked about the Army and Navy Estimates; and then he discoursed on the altitude of the American Government with regard to the advertisements issued in America; but when he came to deal with the criticisms of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton he carefully abstained from giving any information whatever on the point urged upon him. The hon. Member had brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that the original Estimate had been increased by £10,000, and he referrred to the original Estimate last year as having been £12,000, upon which a similar Supplementary Estimate was last year proposed of £10,000. He asked why it was that with a diminution of crime so great—the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that there had been only one murder in six months—and the rest of the crime of the country was very slight indeed, chiefly composed of threatening letters, most of which could hardly be seriously regarded, the other items of the Vote having been so much reduced that the Chief Secretary took credit for the 1466 reduction—this particular item showed such an increase? What the Committee, he thought, might fairly ask the Chief Secretary to state was, what were the causes of expenditure under this particular item? How was it that, with an original Estimate of £12,000 last year, a Supplementary Vote of £10,000 was required? What were the sources of expenditure in the present year, and how was it this additional £10,000 was required, when there was a reduction under every other item? To him this appeared perfectly inexplicable. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had asked for an explanation, and the Chief Secretary, having expressed his intention to give an explanation, sat down without doing so.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had given the explanation in outline which the hon. Member asked for; but he would give the hon. Member the items of these sub-heads which made up the general item of law expenses. The first subhead was that of Clerks of the Crown, £4,300 voted, and probably £6,000 had been spent. Then came Clerks of the Peace (fees for prosecutions carried on throughout Ireland), £1,500 voted, and £2,000 spent; medical assistance, £1,000 voted, £3,000 spent; expenses of Crown Solicitors on special duty, £875 voted, £2,000 probably spent; Crown witnesses, £750 voted, £3,000 probably spent; expenses of jurors, £140 voted, £900 spent; miscellaneous charges, £5,679 voted, £11,670 probably spent; and one or two other items which had also been exceeded. The miscellaneous charges were all of a very minute character, and were chiefly composed of car-hiring, postage stamps, telegrams, &c. The expenses of shorthand writers, employed on compensation eases, formed a large part of the item, and amounted to about £822. The miscellaneous expenditure under Sub-head G, again, was due to the very large number of law proceedings taking place throughout the country. The Government hoped that the diminution of crime, to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) had referred, would tell next year upon this Estimate. It was the widespread efforts to bring criminals to account that had caused the general expenditure which the Committee was now asked to grant. The money 1467 asked for was absolutely necessary, in order to bring about the diminution of crime which had occurred. Although there was an increase of nearly £ 15,000, against it there was a set-off in the way of savings on almost every other item. Having stated the way in which the account was made up, he trusted that hon. Members opposite, although they might not approve the expenditure itself, would allow the Vote to be taken.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that if the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was unsatisfactory, his mode of stating it was still more so. The sum now asked for was £15,000. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that sum did not cover what was to go to the item G. The mode of calculation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman precluded the possibility of arriving at a clear idea of the Vote. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) objected that on the Vote, as presented to the House, there was nothing to show that £5,000 was appropriated to this sub-head over and above the sum now asked for.
§ MR. HEALYasked who could have gathered that the expenses under the Prevention of Crime Act were included under this sub-head? He charged the Government with having attempted to lead Members astray, and prevent discussion, by concealing what it was that the subhead covered. In order to conceal from the Committee what the investigations under the Prevention of Crime Act cost, they were lumped under the head of Law Expenses. The Government knew how strongly Irish Members objected to some of these items, and for the purpose of throwing dust in their eyes they had been lumped together in this manner. Had it not been so late, he would have called attention, at greater length, to the fact that in every case where an Orangeman injured a Catholic the Government refused compensation. He understood, however, that some compensation had been given in the case of Maguire, of Cavan; but for that he had to thank not the Government, but the kind spirit of the Prime Minister. Why was not the man who had his eye put out, and the other man who had a bullet driven into his lungs, to have some compensation? If there was no obligation imposed by the Prevention of Crime Act on Lord Spencer to give compensation when an Orangeman killed a 1468 Catholic, why did not the Government bring in an Amending Bill to give compensation in cases of that kind? Irish Members might be asked why they did not bring in a Bill for the purpose? The answer was, that they did not want to go into any law expenses whatever; and they said that the Government ought to have some means of escaping out of the dilemma of refusing compensation to Catholics who were murdered by Orangemen. It was hardly fair that Lord Spencer should award £5 to a policeman who had his thumb scratched, and refuse all compensation when the eyes of Catholics were put out by Orangemen. The Government must see that the law was defective. Then let it be amended. They had heard a great deal of the extraordinary number of murders and outrages committed in Ireland. But what did they find when they were reduced to figures and represented in hard cash? According to the Return, which, of course, was not yet printed, the number would be found to be comparatively small. The Government had represented to the House that the whole country was reeking with blood, in order to get the Prevention of Crime Act passed. Why, there were more people killed in England in one year than were killed in Ireland in three years, and that during a crisis which the Prime Minister had described as a state of social revolution. In Ireland, in three years, they had had 73 persons injured, while in England there had probably been 700. They found that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had given £20,000 to the families of murdered persons, and about £27,000 to persons injured, while the Grand Juries had given a comparatively moderate amount. Lord Spencer eat alone at Dublin Castle; he knew nothing whatever of the character of the localities on which he placed the blood tax; but the Grand Jury knew that it was upon their tenants that they were levying the tax, and that if they put on too much the tenants would not be able to pay their rents. His opinion was that the Government found this tax impossible to collect; and he himself had refused a levy of 1d. in the pound which had been made upon him for the attack on Mr. Field. It would be hardly worth while for the Government to proceed to execution upon his goods and chattels for the amount of 2s. 10d. He hoped 1469 that the citizens of Dublin would act in the same way.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the Chief Secretary having stated that he was not responsible for these law charges in their preliminary stage, he (Mr. Biggar) would ask who was responsible? On the assumption that the lawyers were not responsible, they should not be at liberty to make any expense they pleased; they should not, for instance, be allowed to engage several counsel in cases where one junior would be sufficient. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would use his influence in his official capacity against the manufacture of law costs in Ireland, he believed that a considerable saving would be effected. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not responsible, it was hard to say who was, because he was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who stood at the head of the direction of the affairs of the country. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Earl were Members of the Privy Council in Ireland, from which directions emanated for the administration of justice. He appealed to Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to take the right hon. Gentleman in hand, and try to make some impression upon him, to limit the manufacture of law charges in Ireland. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was not responsible for jury-packing in Ireland; that it was not in his Department. But he (Mr. Biggar) always thought, if the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland jointly would give instructions to the Law Officers of the Crown that no jury-packing was to take place, it would soon be put a stop to, for some time to come, at all events. It had been proved to demonstration, although right hon. Gentlemen said they did not believe it, that jury-packing had taken place in the City of Cork in the most unblushing manner. The Solicitor General for Ireland had told the Committee that, so long as he was in the position of Law Officer of the Crown, he would never take part in the packing of juries. But, unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman was in this position. He had given certain pledges to the electors of Derry, which, as far as he could form an opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman had failed to carry out. Now, if the pledges given 1470 were only of equal value with those which he had made in that House, he was rather inclined to fear that jury-packing must again take place at some not very distant day under the guidance and direction of the Solicitor General. The Chief Secretary had said, on behalf of the Irish Executive, that justice should be administered, and that innocent people should not suffer. Well, there were some cases of a very marked character—those of Hynes and Walsh; and the right hon. Gentleman had himself referred to the case of the murderers of the Joyce family. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether justice had been done in those cases? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the conviction of the prisoners; because if the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman found that the evidence was not sufficient, it was their duty to have suspended execution, and not allow these people to be hanged. Then there was the case of J. Poole, in which a most unprofessional thing occurred. The Judge who presided over that trial was, he believed, counsel in the case before he was raised to the Bench. He asked, what would be thought of such a proceeding in England? That was an illustration, amongst many, of the way in which so-called justice was administered in Ireland; and he thought the Government should be ashamed of the system which, if it was not their interest, it was their duty to amend.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had hoped to hear some reply to the remarkable facts which had been brought to the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Deasy). He had never been more surprised than by that remarkable statement, which he hoped was appreciated by English Members. They had been told that the jury panel was so formed that only a small percentage of Roman Catholics came to the trials; and he wanted to hear how that extraordinary state of things came about. It was idle to tell them of the honour of this or that official—no doubt they were all honourable men. He granted all the virtues which were heaped on the heads of these people; but let the Government explain to Irish Members how it came about that out of the vast majority of Roman Catholics in Ireland only one or 1471 two were to be found on any jury, while the rest of the jury was taken from the Protestant minority. Then, and not until the country had been shown this, he would say there was no jury-packing in Ireland. In the meantime, he maintained that jury-packing did exist. If the Government held that the Catholic population were not to be trusted with the administration of justice, it was an admission that they had no trust in the honour or loyalty of the great majority of the people of Ireland. He would much rather the Chief Secretary rose in his place and declared manfully, if that were his opinion, that he did not believe in the honour and loyalty of the Catholic population. The present system was nothing but a juggle; he did not know how it was done, nor who was to blame; but there were the facts looking them in the face. The Chief Secretary seemed to have argued that he was not responsible for the arrangement of juries in Ireland. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not, in his heart, approve the system; but in that House Irish Members held him responsible for every single detail of the administration of the law in Ireland; and, that being so, they should hold him responsible for this system of jury-packing as long as it continued to exist.
§ MR. MAYNEsaid, that strong as was the case put by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Deasy) with regard to jury-packing the case of the City of Dublin was much stronger. The jury panel in the City of Dublin showed the proportion of Catholics to Protestants to be rather more than as four and a-half to one. When the 200 special jurors were summoned, the panel, if they were indifferently summoned, would consist of, say, 153 Catholics to about 47 Protestants. If such a panel had been gone through in each of the trials of the Mayo prisoners a very different result would have followed. There would have been a very large proportion of Catholics, and a very small number of Protestants; but they found, on the contrary, from the actual figures, that the number of Protestants serving on the seven juries would represent about double the number that ought to be on a panel of 200. They found that there were 47 Protestants out of the 56 jurymen who tried the seven cases. 1472 That state of things was brought about by Catholics being ordered to stand aside. These were plain statements of fact, and could not be dismissed by mere denials, such as they were accustomed to hear when this question was raised in the House of Commons. What took place could not be the result of accident. He knew that, with respect to five of the juries in question, 149 Catholics were ordered to stand aside. On the first jury 23 Catholics were ordered to stand aside before the necessary number of Protestant jurors were obtained; on the second, 20; on the third, 26; on the fourth, 13; and on the last jury 15 jurors were ordered to stand aside, most of whom were Catholics. Now, that was a statement of facts which the Government were bound to answer, and they could not meet it by simply giving a good character to the Attorney General for Ireland; nor did the excellent character which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) gave to the Law Officers of the Crown all round in any way meet the case. The facts and figures must be faced by a promise seriously given in that House, and faithfully adhered to, of abandoning this wretched practice of jury-packing in Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGAR, who was met with cries of "Oh, oh!" said, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to know that it was perfectly competent for an hon. Member to speak as often as he chose in Committee. What he rose to say was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, ought to accept the challenge of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), because, if they did not, they would allow judgment to go by default. A specific charge of deliberate jury-packing was brought against the Government of which they were Representatives, yet they had not the manliness to stand up and deny the imputation, nor had they the good grace to make a declaration that if jury-packing had taken place in the past they would pledge themselves that they would do what they could to prevent it happening in the future. If the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General would so pledge themselves it might be the means of causing him and his hon. Friends to cease to draw attention to the system 1473 of jury-packing—a system which was bringing great discredit upon the Government. Before he sat down he would draw attention to a case which was recently tried, because it showed very clearly the manner in which justice was administered in Ireland. A man named Matthews was convicted of setting fire to a wooden but occupied by a number of persons; but the man was only sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Now, if the offence had been committed by one of the National Party, instead of by a member of the pet Party of the Lord Lieutenant—namely, the Orange Party—the sentence, instead of being nine months' imprisonment, would have been penal servitude for life; and, in his opinion, penal servitude for life was not too severe a punishment to inflict upon any man who deliberately set fire, in the middle of the night, to a house, the inhabitants of which ran, as in this case, a great risk of being burnt to death. But the Judges were Members of the Privy Council; they came in direct contact with the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant liked to play into the hands of the Orange faction. The result was that for any offence committed by an Orangeman only a nominal punishment was meted out; whereas, if a similar offence were committed by a member of the popular Party, the severest punishment the law allowed would be inflicted upon the offender.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)denied that any juror had been set aside on account of his religion. One statement had just been made by the hon. Member for Ca van (Mr. Biggar) which he could not allow to pass by unnoticed. That statement was that the Judges were Members of the Privy Council, and that the Lord Lieutenant consulted with them as to particular prosecutions. Nothing of the kind ever occurred. It was impossible, having regard to the constitution of the Privy Council, that such a thing could occur.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was a curious coincidence that so many cases similar to the one he had quoted occurred. It was a strange thing that Roman Catholic jurors were from time to time set aside, and that Protestants were not challenged. It was a strange thing that first one Judge on the Irish Bench and then another happened to inflict light punishment 1474 on one class of persons, and very severe punishment on another class. Perhaps it did not arise from the cause he stated; but certainly the fact remained. Notwithstanding the general denial of the Solicitor General for Ireland, he asserted that the sentences inflicted upon adherents of the National Party had been of a most partial and unfair nature, and also that the system of jury-packing had been practised in a most unblushing and wholesale manner.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 18: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
§ (10.) £1,194, Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONnoticed the item of £1,200 for the salary of the Master of the Common Pleas Division. How was it that that salary was not provided for in the ordinary Estimates?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that formerly the salary of the Master was charged on the Consolidated Fund. The Master dying in the course of the year, the new salary was not charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,651, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had a few questions to ask with regard to the proposed discontinuance of Sub-Commissioners. Hon. Members sitting on the Irish Benches were opposed to any discontinuance until the entire work was got through. There were still a great number of cases awaiting decision. He had asked a question in relation to the County Mayo, and he was told there were 800 cases untried. And yet they were told that a number of the Sub-Commissioners were to be discontinued. If that were so, it would be a hardship upon the poor people concerned. He did not see why any Sub-Commissioners should be discontinued. Let them get through their work. If any were to be discontinued he would like to ask what 1475 would be the personnel of those who were to be continued? In Ulster a few of the Sub-Commissioners were Catholics. He would like to know whether it was the fact that the Catholic Sub-Commissioners were in the front row for dismissal? There were, out of some 70 Sub-Commissioners, about a dozen Catholics. He hoped the Catholic Members of the Commission were not to be the first to be dismissed. It was especially desirable that the services of the Catholic Members should be retained in Ulster, where religious feeling ran very high; the tenant farmers of that Province should receive some kind of consideration at the hands of the Government; matters should be so arranged that they would be able to put some trust in the persons who administered the Land Act. He desired also to call attention to the conduct of Mr. M'Devitt in the case of Mary Staunton. Mary Staunton, who was a tenant, could only speak a few words of English; and Mr. M'Devitt refused to hear her case because she spoke in Irish. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was, no doubt, a great linguist, yet if he were required to give evidence he would not care to give it in Latin or Greek. He (Mr. Healy) knew a few words of Irish; but he should be sorry if he had to give evidence before a Court, in a case in which interests of an important character were involved, in Irish. Last year he called the attention of the House to the case of the Irish-speaking witness at Bandon who was badgered until they made him speak in English. The man used the word fifty, but he did not mean to do so. An interpreter was called in, and it was found the witness meant thirty. Had it been a smaller numeral he had used, the Court would, no doubt, have said—"You are perjuring yourself; we dismiss the case." Mary Staunton was a tenant on an estate all the tenants on which had got very great reductions of rent. This woman, because she would not—indeed could not—speak English, had had to pay the old rent. What consolation was it to her to be told that in a few months' time she could relist her case? The Chief Secretary accepted answers from the Land Commission which, to say the least, were not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the answers given to questions were only intended to stave hon. Members 1476 off for the time being, and not to give them satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman read out the answers which were supplied to him with all the ease in the world, as much as to say—"There, now, my boys, I have done with you." If satisfactory views of government were to prevail in the country the Chief Secretary ought to probe to the bottom all the complaints which were made. Of all unsatisfactory answers, the right hon. Gentleman's answer about Mary Staunton was the most unsatisfactory. He did not know whether it was given in ignorance; but he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be made a party to the system of bamboozling which was carried on by the Irish Land Commission. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the statement that the woman deceived the Land Commission; and he (Mr. Healy) was obliged to put down upon the Paper another Question. Now, his time was quite as valuable to him as the right hon. Gentleman's was to him; and he objected to being put to the trouble to write out a list of Questions, simply because the Chief Secretary would not take the trouble to get from the Land Commission a sufficient answer in the first instance. Did the right hon. Gentleman, when he was at the Admiralty, treat English Members as he now treated Irish Members? When the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and other hon. Gentlemen acquainted with naval matters, put Questions to him, he did not venture to answer in that off-hand style in which he rattled off Questions now. He knew the Chief Secretary's time was greatly taken up; he knew he was a most zealous and hard-working official; and no one in the House could but admire the extraordinary assiduity and patience with which he performed his work. He (Mr. Healy) wondered that any Englishman would take up the disgusting job of Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was amazed the right hon. Gentleman did so when he got no return for it. Certainly, the Irish Members did not thank him, and the people of this country were absolutely in ignorance as to the amount of work required of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, however, a very poor excuse to the Irish Members that the Chief Secretary was overworked. They wanted their country 1477 managed on the same principles as England was managed. If they had a Parliament of their own they would have a dozen men to do the Chief Secretary's work. The right hon. Gentleman was doing badly what it would take a dozen men to do well. Was it fair for Mr. M'Devitt to dismiss Mary Staunton's case simply because she refused to speak in any other but her native language; was it fair for Mr. M'Devitt to say that she had endeavoured to deceive the Land Commission; was it fair for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to put him (Mr. Healy) to the trouble of putting down a second Question upon the case? He never knew a more unsatisfactory body than the Land Commission. He had charged the Land Commission Court with being a corrupt Court. Mr. Justice O'Hagan was a man completely unfitted for his position, and this was what happened in the Land Court. A gentleman farmer had a demesne with a beautiful house attached. He got his rent reduced by the Land Commission. The landlord appealed, and claimed that the rent should be fixed at a higher figure. He first said the case was outside the Act; but the Head Commission said—"Oh, no; it is not outside the Act; but as we cannot decide with you on the legal point, we will raise the rent £20 or £30." What was the result? The landlord did not produce his own valuer, and his solicitor was asked in private why he did not do so. He said—" Because the landlord's valuer only valued the land at £100 a-year, while the Sub-Commissioners valued it at £130." Judge O'Hagan did not insist upon the landlord's valuer being called, but raised the rent, simply because he could not go with the landlord on the legal point. Such was the character of Mr. Justice O'Hagan. If, by any possibility in the world, Mr. Justice O'Hagan could turn a legal point in favour of the landlord he was delighted to do so; it seemed to rend his heart when he decided a point in favour of the tenant. Justice O'Hagan was a man thoroughly incapable to fill his position; he ought never to have been appointed; he had done his work badly from first to last; the Act which would have been a benefit to the tenant he had turned into an implement of torture. He had no mind of his own. He (Mr. Healy) said that with pain, be 1478 Cause in a literary sense Judge O'Hagan like the Chief Secretary, was a very distinguished man. Some of the mos charming love poems he had ever read were written by Judge O'Hagan, just as some of the best biographies were written by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Healy) protested against the system of elevating men simply because of their literary talents. Judge O'Hagan ought to be a man of great firmness of character. The Chief Secretary was not what they would like him. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he thought it reasonable that Mary Staunton, a Gaelic-speaking witness, should for 12 months be saddled with a high rent because she refused to speak in English to Mr. M'Devitt?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not understand this Supplementary Estimate. The expenses of the Land Commission were becoming terrific. The salaries and allowances, originally amounted to the enormous figure of £157,381, and now they were asked to vote £1,654 for additional offices sanctioned by the Treasury since the Estimate was framed. The arrears of business were very large; and he would like to know who the additional officers were, what were the allowances and pay sanctioned by the Treasury, and what the tenure was? The charge for the Land Commission for the present year, added to the Supplementary Estimate, would amount to within a few pounds of £160,000, which was really an increase of over £60,000 on the original Estimate made two years ago when the Land Commission started its work. When might the Committee expect a substantial diminution of the cost?
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he saw in the Estimate an item for the salary of Mr. Bell, one of the valuers of the Commission, and he wished to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that this gentleman was a person who had recently been subscribing to the Property Defence Fund in Ireland—an organization particularly offensive to the majority of the Irish people, and antagonistic to their aims and interests. What, he should like to know, would become of any Sub-Commissioner who subscribed to an equally legitimate fund, only one having different aims—namely, the fund of the National League? He should propose that the Vote be reduced by the 1479 amount of Mr. Bell's salary. It appeared that the number of the Sub-Commissioners had been reduced. In some counties there were three, whilst in other cases there was only one for five or six counties. For instance, Gralway had the whole services of two Sub-Commissioners and the partial services of another, whilst in other cases several districts had only one between them. He was anxious to know whether the Sub-Commissioners were to be reduced to such an extent that the operation of the Land Commission would necessarily be retarded, and 15 years or so would be occupied—until, in fact, it was time for a new valuation—before all the cases were decided? He wished, further, to call attention to the extraordinary increase in the number of appeals. "What had given rise to this increase? He would tell them. For the last six months or so—probably 12 months—the Chief Commissioners had taken upon themselves to make trifling and vexatious alterations in the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners. The only object that he could see for this vexatious increase was the further development of litigation. He knew an instance where a landlord had appealed—a landlord who happened to be a Peer—and a clear gain of something like £65 to his Lordship was the result. That was an important gain, and would, of course, more than cover the expense of the legal proceedings; and other landlords, when they saw such a thing as this, were inclined to think that it would pay them to appeal. As for the tenants, whenever decisions, in the first instance, were unsatisfactory to them they were not in a position to appeal, because they could not afford it. The result of the procrastination in disposing of cases on the one hand, and of these appeals on the other, was that the tenants had their backs broken, and the landlords could do just what they liked. If the landlords saw that they were likely to gain anything by appealing, the Committee might depend upon it that they would not lose the opportunity, and in this way the work of the Chief Commissioners would be continued for a very long period. The proceedings of the Chief Commissioners and their assistants were extremely unsatisfactory. He would not go at any length into the question now, but only just touch upon it, because 1480 he hoped to have a further opportunity of dealing with it very shortly.
§ MR. TREVELYANSeveral of the more serious parts of the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen resolve themselves practically on the same point, which I will refer to after I have touched on one or two small matters which have also been brought forward. I can assure the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) that Mr. Bell's salary does not come within this Supplementary Estimate at all. This Estimate is for a large number of Sub-Commissioners, who were originally estimated for up to the 23rd of December, the time up to which the Treasury sanctioned their appointment. Afterwards they were kept on, for a very good reason, until the 31st of March, in consequence of which there was a very large addition to expenditure on salaries—an addition of some £13,000. On the other hand, there was a very large saving, principally in travelling expenses, amounting to £9,400; and the result of that is a small balance against the Estimate of £1,654. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) referred to the case of a poor woman, whom he thinks was wronged by the Sub-Commission; and he states that, in his opinion, the answer I gave to the House of Commons on that point was insufficient. Well, I can only say that the answer I gave resembled those answers which I used to give when at the Admiralty. When at the Admiralty I was obliged to answer according to the character of the Questions—whether they affected matters which were or were not within my control. When I am answering for a Department under me I never give an answer until it is perfectly satisfactory to my own mind, and also to the hon. Member who has put the Question; because I do not think it desirable to adopt a plan which induces hon. Members to put Question after Question requiring answer after answer on the same subject. It is a very different thing, however, in dealing with matters that are not connected with the Department immediately under me. Questions relating to the Land Commission would come under the latter category. We have an authoritative voice on everything that relates to the expenditure of the Commission and to the constitution of the Courts; but with the proceedings of those Courts we have 1481 nothing at all to do. I am obliged to give the answers as to the proceedings in those Courts that the Land Commissioners themselves supply me with without any comment whatever. As the Committee will remember, I had to give answers of the same class very frequently to hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite to me. When the Land Commission first sat these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen put Questions, more in a hostile than in a critical spirit, with regard to some of the judgments of the Court. I gave a general statement to the effect that the Chief Commissioners were unwilling to place before the House of Commons their reasons for the decisions they arrived at; and I must say that the statement stopped all questions of that nature coming from hon. Gentlemen immediately opposite. The questions that came from many parts of the House embodying complaints respecting the operation of these Courts are very few, and they are generally what are called leading Questions. I do not deny that if the facts as stated by the hon. Member for Monaghan are as correct as he conceives them to be—[Mr. HEALY: They are not denied.]—I say if they are as correct as the hon. Member conceives them to be, I admit the case is one for fair inquiry as to the policy of the Land Commission in these matters. I made an inquiry on the subject, and I was told that their policy was to provide interpreters in cases where they were required; but in regard to the particular case referred to we must be content with the opinion the Commissioners gave, which was that, in the opinion of the Judge of First Instance, the woman was deceitful. She has her means of redress; and I am sorry that in looking for that redress she has been put to some inconvenience and loss. It is quite impossible to give any further explanation where a Judicial Body like the Land Commission state that they have given you all particulars they choose to place before the House of Commons. I now come to the more important point—the future of the Land Commission. With regard to that, I can give no definite statement whatever at this moment. I can only assure the hon. Member for Monaghan that those views with which he began his speech are as deeply impressed on my mind as it is possible for them to be. At this very moment they 1482 are engaging most of my attention and industry; and I hope the arrangement we shall ultimately arrive at will be satisfactory to the House. In framing these conclusions I was not a little guided by Questions which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) has put to me from time to time in regard to certain counties in which there were large arrears of cases. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) has referred to the enormous expenditure of the Land Commission. I do not propose to enter into that question at the present moment; but I can assure the Committee that the defence of that expenditure is a very simple one, and it is that the work requires all the hands employed upon it. The hon. Member and his Friends are rather apt to complain that the work is scamped rather than the reverse. Nor is it contended in any part of the House that those employed in performing the work are paid too highly; at least, I never heard that statement made; and if these two conditions are admitted, then the cost of the Land Commission can only be reduced by the work being done. The great stress of this work is rapidly approaching completion. The originating notices and the work connected with them are not so advanced as we could wish; but they will be so far advanced that there will be found to be in connection with them a large reduction in next year's Estimates. I can promise the Committee that that reduction shall not be caused at the cost of rapidity of proceeding with the arrears of work. The entire sum spent on the Land Commission up to the 31st of March of this year is £321,000. That is a very large sum, but it is less than some exaggerated Estimates that have been put forward; and whatever the value of the work that is done the amount of it cannot be denied.
§ MR. GIBSONdesired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell him the cost to each Sub-Commission of the additional officials for the payment of whose salaries the Vote was asked? He should also like to know what contribution those who used the Courts made towards their maintenance?
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary amounted to an elaborate statement to the effect that he could tell the Committee 1483 nothing at all. Two large questions were put before him—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had pressed for some information on a certain point, but without obtaining it; and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had raised a point as to the incidence of expenditure and the course to be pursued by the Commission for the future; but the right hon. Gentleman had been unable to give any explanation. He should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, at the close of his speech, would have proposed to postpone the Vote until he was in possession of information.
§ MR. TREVELYANInformation upon what point?
§ MR. SEXTONAs to the general expenditure of the Land Commission, and the amount contributed by those who make use of the Court. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give any reply?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would repeat his question later on.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Irish Members, in their attempt to obtain information, were confronted by an impassable barrier—the Secret Service money was an open and frank affair compared with the Land Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Questions put in the House concerning the Land Commission were very often "leading Questions." What did he mean? Why, that the Questions were so firmly based on fact that, if frankly entertained, they admitted of but one reply, which reply, being inconvenient to the Government, they always refused to give. How had this woman, who had been cheated by a person under the circumstances detailed by the hon. Member for Monaghan, been treated? The right hon. Gentleman refused to give the Committee any information about it. He had told them the Government had some authority over the action of the Land Commissioners in certain matters, but that in other matters they had no control over them at all; and he (Mr. Sexton) had met the right hon. Gentleman by the statement that where they had a controlling voice they had outraged public feeling in Ireland. He had mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman the notorious and scandalous case of Mr. Eyre Preston, a 1484 gentleman who, it was said, had been 38 years connected with the administration of the Land Laws, but who, when the matter was looked into, was found to have only been a kind of amateur casual, an investigator of tithe rent-charge, at one time dismissed from the Public Service for causes which, to say the least of it, reflected no credit on him. This gentleman had had the insolence, at a moment when public passion was excited in Ireland—when there was danger of civil war in Ulster—in order to render the state of things worse than it was, to allow his name to be appended to the Manifesto lauding Lord Rossmore. Mr. Eyre Preston was called upon to resign; he sent in his resignation; but at the point where the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and Lord Spencer had the final power they intervened, and overbore the judgment of the Land Commissioners, retaining the official in his office on account of his mendacious writings in The Daily Express. He should like to know why Mr. Eyre Preston had been retained in his office—at any rate, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £300, the amount of this gentleman's salary; and if he were unsuccessful—as he expected he would be—he would move the same reduction on every Vote in which the Land Commission was concerned. He did not consider the discussion of such matters as these could be satisfactorily carried on at that hour of the morning; but he and his Friends were determined to exert themselves to the utmost to bring the Land Commissioners to a full account for their conduct. He should have to ask the Government why the Land Commissioners had refused, with something not far short of rudeness, to inquire into the conduct of the Mr. Bell, a Court Valuer, who had subscribed to the Property Defence Association? This individual, whose word was final, whose function was to be impartial between the landlord and tenant, in the ardour of his landlord sympathies had subscribed £2 to an Association whose raison d'être was the purchase of the cattle and produce of rack-renting and vindictive landlords. With what decency could this gentleman be retained in his position, the first requirement of which was, at least, a pretence to impartiality? He must say that the hon. Member for 1485 Monaghan need be in no sense surprised that he received answers evasive and incomplete from the Chief Secretary. The wonder to him (Mr. Sexton) was that the hon. Member received any answers at all. This Land Commission retired under the veil of its privileges—hid itself under its official obscurity; but the Irish Members were determined to bring it out into the light. If they had any influence at all, it would be exerted in the endeavour, on this and every possible occasion, to extract information from the Government in regard to these matters. But could the hon. Member for Monaghan wonder that he failed to extract information when so high an official as the Comptroller and Auditor General had been entertained, when he asked for information, with a flat and rude refusal? This official pointed out that the Commission had spent £120,000 under the Act of 1881; and he asked them to satisfy him that the conditions of the Act had been complied with. He was, however, met with a flat refusal. He declared that he had been unable to audit the sum of £120,000, and to say whether it had been properly expended, because the Land Commission had refused to give him the necessary information. On these several points—the expenditure of the Land Commission, its receipts from those who had taken cases before it, the conduct of Mr. Eyre Preston, the conduct of Mr. Bell, and the refusal of the Commissioners to give information to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and because he was sure, from his experience of debates of this kind, that no satisfactory explanation would be given to the Committee—he would move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ MR. TREVELYANThe hon. Member bases his Motion on the ground that satisfactory answers are not given. He began by saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had asked me two questions which I was not able to answer. I was able to answer them, and I will do so directly the debate is resumed. I cannot answer to within a few shillings, but I 1486 can to within a few pounds. As to Mr. Eyre Preston, I must say I do not see how he comes within this Supplementary Estimate, as his salary is not included in any one of the Votes; but if the Committee will allow me to strain a point I shall be glad to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman. If he will withdraw his Motion I will answer him.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, seeing the length of time they had been sitting, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was a very proper one. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo would withdraw his Motion now; and then if, later on, they could not get satisfactory information from the Government, they might ask for a postponement of the Vote. There were several Votes which could be taken after this, which was one of great importance, and one which, probably, the Government would do well to postpone.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I trust the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion, to enable my right hon. Friend to give him the information he desires.
§ MR. SEXTONI should like an explanation given.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)"We cannot give it you on the Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was stating the terms on which he was disposed to withdraw the Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them the best explanation he could as to Mr. Eyre Preston, and the extraordinary withholding of information from the Comptroller and Auditor General, he should be inclined to withdraw the Motion, on condition that the Government would take up the discussion again on Report.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he certainly thought the time had come for reporting Progress, if not on this, at least on some other contentious Vote later on. There were three other Irish Votes to be considered, two of which were not contentious, but the third of which was exceedingly so. He should think the best course would be for the Government to withdraw the present Vote and proceed with the Estimates, on the understanding that when a contentious Vote was reached it should be postponed, or Progress should be reported.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I am not sure whether, on the Motion before the Committee, I shall be in Order in making a statement I desire to lay before the House in regard to Public Business; but probably I shall be allowed to make the statement, seeing that it very largely refers to the impropriety of reporting Progress soon. What I wish to explain to the Committee is the position in which we stand with regard to Supply. I think I shall be able to show that the position in which we stand is one that will require us to devote a great deal of time to the finishing of the Supplementary Estimates to-day and to-morrow evening. The position is this. The Army and Navy Estimates must be taken on Monday and Thursday next, and even then they will be taken at a later time in the Session than they ever have been during the past 10 years. The Committee are, doubtless, aware that there are what may be called financial formalities—or, at any rate, formalities under our Constitutional financial law—which it is absolutely necessary to go through before the end of the financial year; and I am afraid that even if the Army and Navy Estimates are taken next Monday and Thursday it will be necessary to sit on Saturday week. That being the case, it is absolutely necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be finished before Monday, and we have between now and Monday only to-morrow; and Friday not being a day in the possession of the Government, although Supply may be put down, it may be intercepted by a number of Motions before we can go into Supply, and so the time available for the discussion of the Estimates may be very short indeed. If we should not get through the greater part of these Votes to-night, and if it should be impossible to-morrow to complete them, the only course will be to devote a Saturday to them. Some hon. Members will be inconvenienced by that, and to us who are in Office it will be very inconvenient. Still, that is a course which has been taken before, and if it has been taken before it may be taken again; but I wish the Committee to be under no mistake in the matter. The whole of the Supplementary Estimates must absolutely, in compliance with the requirements of the law, be finished before the 1488 Army Estimates are taken by Monday, and the proposal I should like to make to the Committee is this—We have tonight devoted considerable time almost exclusively to the Irish Votes; and I hope the Committee will not object to finishing the Irish Votes to-night. There are then remaining a number of Votes which are not Irish Votes, but which relate to the United Kingdom generally. Of these Votes a large number are practically unopposed—that is to say, the discussion upon them could not be very long; but there are four which will, I understand, take considerable time to discuss. One of these is the Vote for the Diplomatic Service; the second is for the Suez Canal; the third is a Vote for a Grant-in-Aid of expenditure in certain Colonies; and the fourth is the Vote for South Africa. What I propose to do is to take the whole of the remaining Votes except these four tonight, and then to try to finish these four to-morrow. I am bound to say that I think it is not very likely that we shall have time to-morrow to finish them, but we will try; and if we do not get through them we propose to devote Saturday to finishing them. I think that proposal is not unreasonable—to take these four Votes to-morrow, if we can do so, or on Saturday, if to-morrow is not sufficient. That is the proposal which the Government makes. It is the best proposal they can make, having in view the absolute necessity of finishing the work of Supply in a reasonable time.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he presumed that if it was in Order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the statement which had just been allowed, it would be in Order for any hon. Member to offer some remarks upon it.
THE CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman was in Order in stating the reasons why he thought it not desirable to make Progress.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpresumed, therefore, that any hon. Member would be equally in Order in commenting on that statement. If not, he should wish to know why? He had on several occasions witnessed a similar performance to that which the Committee had just seen. Year after year the Prime Minister, or the Minister who took his place for the occasion, had 1489 risen and told the Committee that it was absolutely necessary that these Votes should be passed by a certain date. Every year he had asked why, and every year an explanation had been refused. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would find it easy to explain why it was absolutely necessary that these Votes should be taken by the particular date he mentioned. There was one explanation only, and that was that the Government, having chosen to put down other things on other days, were resolved not to display these items for an examination of the financial affairs to be made. The right hon. Gentleman said he was exceedingly anxious that the Committee should understand the position in which they were. The Committee was, after all, only a secondary matter; the country was much more important. It was just as well that the country should understand the situation; and this was the situation—they were now being asked to vote in Supplementary Estimates sums in aid of Votes which were taken, absolutely with out discussion, towards the end of last Session. The items were brought down when hon. Members had been sitting many months, and were tired, and on the top of that it was proposed that the Votes should be taken pro formâ, and all observations reserved for the Report stage. Those who had any recollection of the history of the House in its dealings with the public purse——
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry if he had travelled further afield than the right hon. Gentleman had; but it seemed to him that if the right hon. Gentleman was justified in explaining the situation he should be justified in pointing out how that explanation was altogether inadequate and misleading. What was done with these Votes? They were passed absolutely without discussion; and now the right hon. Gentleman stated that of the Votes which remained in these Supplementary Estimates there were some that could be passed, as a matter of course, without any discussion. He admitted that four were important; but he omitted altogether to mention the Post Office Vote, and that was one of the largest of all the Votes. Certainly, the Post Office Service required the largest 1490 sum the Committee were called upon to vote; but there were other Votes that called for observation. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not refer to the Civil Service Contingent Fund? It was frivolous for the right hon. Gentleman to say these Votes must absolutely be passed, and that it would be impossible to meet the requirements of the situation if they did not pass them that night, some to-morrow, and some on Saturday. There was no absolute necessity; and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to explain in detail why every day to the end of March must be given up to Supply.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The hon. Member challenges me to give details, which I have no objection to give, and which have been given before. I will do my best again. The last day on which it would be possible that the Royal Assent should be given to the Ways and Means Bill is Friday, the 28th of this month. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Why?] Because a very large number of transactions have to be passed through the Treasury, and it is absolutely necessary that the Treasury should have one clear day before the last day of the month to complete these transactions. They cannot do that work on Sunday; and, therefore, Friday, the 28th, is the last day when the Royal Assent can be given. Wednesday and Thursday will be required to pass the Ways and Means through the House of Lords; and the third reading of that Bill will, therefore, have to be given in this House on the Tuesday. The Committee stage of the Bill must be taken on Monday, and the Report of Supply will have to be taken on Friday. The last Vote in Supply must thus be taken on Thursday next. The Army Estimates will be taken on Monday next, and that leaves only till Saturday week to take the Supplementary Estimates. Now I have answered the hon. Gentleman, and I hope my answer is satisfactory.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTpresumed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that it was absolutely necessary on Monday to take the Vote for the Army, or on Thursday the Vote for the Navy. The Vote for the men was all that was required, so that the Mutiny Act might be passed. The Vote for money need not be taken on Monday or Thursday.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)What I said is strictly correct. The Vote for the men and the Vote for the money must be taken, for the Army on Monday next, and for the Navy on Thursday next; and those two days are the latest days on which the Votes for money, either for the Army or the Navy, have ever been taken, and are three days later than the time when such Votes have been taken during the last 10 years.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTSurely it is not the money that is required.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTWhy? I always understood that the object was to pass the Mutiny Act.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The Mutiny-now called Army—Act does not expire until the 30th of April; and there is, therefore, no necessity to pass that at present. The necessity is to pass the Votes, in order to bring in the Ways and Means Bill, and pass it by the end of the financial year. The Army and Navy Votes have never been taken as late as they will be this year.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Chancellor of Exchequer had explained pretty clearly that these Votes must be taken by Saturday; but, that being so, he would ask why he did not bring them in before? It was reducing them to a perfect farce if they were only brought in one or two days before it was absolutely necessary to pass them; and then the Committee were told that they must sit up till 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I will answer that question with the greatest ease. The only Government days since the beginning of the Session, which were not devoted to the Speech from the Throne and the Vote of Censure, have been devoted to the Supplementary Estimates, except the days which were devoted to the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill. The Government have not taken a single day during the present Session, except for the Supplementary Estimates and for the Representation of the People Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Two days.] Yes; but that was not our fault. But, whether that was so or not, I stated to the Com 1492 mittee what was absolutely correct—namely, that we have devoted every day in our power to these Votes.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the matter amounted to this—that the time of the House had been occupied in order to bring in the Representation of the People Bill considerably earlier than the Bill of 1866 was introduced, and the House had thus been precluded from giving a fair examination to the Supplementary Estimates. He did not wish, at that hour of the night, to comment on this state of affairs—perhaps he should find another opportunity of doing so—but what they now had to deal with was the position in which they were placed; and, looking to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, they might fairly assume, represented that position accurately, so far as he was concerned—and he thought he might speak for his hon. Friends near him—the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was not unfair. The four Votes the right hon. Gentleman was ready to postpone were Votes on which he and others would wish to address the Committee. It was absurd at 2 o'clock in the morning to attempt to do that; and therefore it was reasonable that Votes of that nature should be postponed until a day when they could be discussed. That day might be to-morrow, if the Government would exercise their influence with certain hon. Members who had leading places on the Paper to induce them to withdraw their Notices of Motion, so that the House might get into Supply at once. If that could not be done, a Saturday Sitting, bad as it would be, would be better than discussing these Votes at that hour.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was a very nice one, so far as the right hon. Baronet and his Party were concerned; but there was one important Irish Vote which he and his Friends would feel justified in not allowing to proceed at that hour—namely, Vote 31, referring to County Court officers in Ireland. There was a question in reference to that Vote which they certainly could not discuss at that time of night; and although the Front Treasury Bench might fancy they had arranged everything with the Front Opposition Bench, by giving the Opposition an opportunity of discussing those four Votes they only 1493 desired to discuss for Party purposes, and that they would force Vote 31, he would tell both the Front Benches that their calculations would be mistaken, and that the Irish Members would endeavour to secure a discussion on Vote 31. The arrangement between the two Front Benches would not avail them, and the Irish Members would occupy their due share of to-morrow night in discussions upon questions of public importance to Ireland. They would not feel themselves bound by the arrangement between the Front Benches, which the right hon. Baronet had suggested with regard to Motions which might stand on the Paper for to-morrow night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained the reasons why the Supplementary Estimates were put down so late. It appeared to him that the proper course to pursue would be to hold a Saturday Sitting, in the event of Supply not being reached sufficiently early tomorrow night to allow the discussion to take place on Vote 31, which Irish Members desired to discuss, and on the four Votes which the Front Opposition Bench wished to discuss.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)The hon. Member has stated that there must be considerable discussion on Vote 31, and I am quite prepared to make this proposal—not to take Vote 31 to-night, but after the other four Votes which are to be postponed. If we can take it to-morrow after these Votes we will do so. If we cannot finish them and Vote 31 to-morrow, then we must have a Saturday Sitting. I think that is a fair proposal; and if the hon. Member will assist us to get through the remaining Votes we will do our best with those who have Notices on the Paper for to-morrow to induce them to postpone their Motions, so that we may have as much of tomorrow as possible.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Harrington) whether, if there was a Saturday Sitting, he would promise that no other Government Business would be taken than the Supplementary Estimates? The House had often on Saturdays found a mine sprung upon them, Bills being put down which they did not expect, not only by the Government, but by private Members, who had taken every advantage of the opportunity. He did not complain 1494 particularly of this Government, for the same thing had been done by the last Government. He had always objected to Saturday Sittings unless for some specific object; and matters should not be slipped in on Saturday which Members did not wish to stop to discuss.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThere will not be any difficulty in giving an undertaking that the Government would give no encouragement—though the matter is not absolutely in their power—that no Business other than the Supplementary Estimates shall be taken on Saturday; and I am quite prepared to give the same undertaking with regard to Government Business, with one exception. Either the Prime Minister or I will have to-morrow to make some statement as to the course it is proposed to take with regard to a Bill in which Members on both sides of the House take great interest—namely, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. It might be found convenient, if a Saturday Sitting is held, to take the second reading of that Bill on that day. In that event we might propose to go on with the second reading; but we shall endeavour to arrange that in accordance with the wishes of the House; and certainly no other Business will be proposed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Government would find that they could not go on as they proposed to-morrow, for the Irish Members would put down Motions to make that impossible; and, therefore, there must be a Saturday Sitting. The Government, it seemed, proposed to take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on Saturday; but how could they do that after half-past 12? As far as he could see, there was no chance of the four Votes being got through before that time. He would invite the noble Marquess to abandon the idea of a Saturday Sitting; and what he would suggest was that these Votes should, in any case, go over till Saturday. The Government might as well make terms with the Irish Party. They could not come on to-morrow, because, of course, these Motions would last a long time. His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had given Notice of a Motion, which would require some discussion, respecting the death of a man in prison. That being the position, he thought the House might as well adjourn the whole thing to Saturday, be- 1495 cause they were now only wrangling, and would get no further forward, and two hours hence they would find that they might just as well have surrendered at 2 o'clock. He would advise the Government to get rid of this vision of their Bill being taken on Saturday. The Conservative Party might be anxious for it; but there would be a good deal of discussion on the exclusion of Irish cattle from English markets. The better plan now was to report Progress, and take the Votes in their proper order on Saturday. There must be a Saturday Sitting, for the four Votes could not be taken to-morrow, unless the Tory Party preferred to go on with them now.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, nobody could be more anxious to see progress made with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill than he; but he fancied there would be considerable difficulty in taking that Bill on Saturday. He thought some Gentlemen on his side, who were anxious for a discussion on that measure, had already left town under the impression that it could not possibly come on till Monday; and after what the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said, he thought there could be no benefit in putting it down for Saturday. If a Saturday Sitting was to be hold, which he still hoped might be avoided, nothing more than the Estimates should be taken.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)We shall only take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on Saturday, if that is agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in the Bill. My noble Friend only mentioned that as a reservation when he was asked to pledge the Government to no other Business. All I can say now is that to-morrow, when the House meets, we will state distinctly whether that Bill will appear on the Paper for Saturday; and if there is, as there appears to be, an unwillingness on the opposite side to have that Bill taken, I think it may be taken for granted that that Bill will not be taken. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) made a proposal as to a particular Vote to which I assented. I think we must adhere to that arrangement, and try to get Supply to-morrow, and do our best with those who have Motions for to-morrow. If we fail tomorrow to complete Supply, we will complete Supply on Saturday.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was a very fair one; but the noble Marquess had complicated matters by introducing a subject which was obnoxious to Irish Members. He asked whether the intention was to proceed with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on Saturday or not?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had only put forward the suggestion as one which would meet the convenience of the House; but as it appeared that to take the Bill on Saturday would only lead to complication, he was willing to say that the Government would make some other arrangement.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, their first duty was to give time for a proper discussion of the Estimates. Three days had already been taken up with other matters, that ought to have been given to the Estimates.
§ MR. SEXTONasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, in addition to the information asked for by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he desired to have some explanation with regard to the appeal cases before the Irish Land Court. Out of 13,784 cases, 4,500 had been disposed of, leaving about 9,000 which remained to be heard. The Irish Land Commission had been established three years, and it would take, at the rate they were deciding the cases, three years more to finish the appeals, and that was not taking into account the appeals which would accumulate upon the subsequent work of the Land Commission. Had it entered into the calculations of the Government to settle a plan by which they could deal with the question of appeals? There were a number of Judges in Ireland who had absolutely nothing to do but to spend their Long Vacation in the manner most pleasant to themselves; and he did not see why the Judges in Ireland should not be turned out to deal with this matter of appeal. He believed that no Judge on the Bench could be less fitted for the work than Mr. Justice O'Hagan. He would rather see Mr. Justice O'Brien at the head of the Land Commission; and he did not see why a short Bill should 1497 not be brought in to enable the Government to get the other Judges to decide the land cases now pending, otherwise the tenants would have to wait four or five years to know how they stood. He entirely disputed Mr. Justice O'Hagan's law, that an adequate rent was the yearly rent; besides which Mr. Justice O'Hagan had no mind of his own, and a Judge in his position ought to be able to make up his mind upon the questions that came before him. He trusted that some statement would be forthcoming to show what the Government intended to do in this matter of appeal cases.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member had hardly a right to demand from the Government an answer to his question on a Vote in Committee of Supply. The question of appeals was, perhaps, more difficult to deal with than any other part of the Land Question, although there were larger elements in the latter than the question of appeals. At present, he had reason to believe that an Amending Bill, such as the hon. Member proposed, would meet with very strong opposition. If the Government thought otherwise they would only be too glad to introduce an Amending Bill.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (12.) £18,000, Dublin Metropolitan Police.
§ MR. MAYNEsaid, it was extraordinary that the original Estimate should have been so far wide of the mark as to render necessary a Supplementary Estimate of £4,000 for pensions and compensation to a number of worn-out police officers. It appeared that 100 men had been added to the Dublin Police Force. It was difficult to understand how such a large increase of the force should be necessary, unless, perhaps, a fact which had come to his knowledge would explain it. He found there were certain members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police at present watching the proceedings of one of the Dublin branches of the Irish National League every time they met. The men employed on this useless service were five in all—namely, two constables in civilians' clothes, as well as a sergeant and two constables in uniform. Surely, if the constables in Dublin were so numerous that five men could be spared for this purpose, a very strong case would have to be made out that addi 1498 tional men were wanted in Dublin. He was sufficiently well acquainted with the working of the branch of the National League referred to, to know that it was perfectly honest and straightforward, and that the officers who were engaged in watching its proceedings were engaged in a wild-goose chase. The fact might, perhaps, be explained by stating that the branch in question was one of the most successful branches of the National League in Dublin. The constables did not go into the room where the meeting was held, but remained at the door, and took particular note of the members and their friends as they passed in and out, with the object, no doubt, of deterring them from attending the meetings. If that were so, he thought they might regard it as a testimony to the success of the branch. However that might be, the presence of five members of the Dublin Police Force on the absurd duty he had described went a long way to show that the charge of £5,000 for an additional 100 men was unnecessary. Then, again, the charge of £ 1,710 was an excessive sum for the clothing and equipment of 100 constables. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that £17 was required to provide the outfit of a policeman for one year? Next, there was the item of £8,000 for Protection Duty and Constables in Aid, over and above what was paid for pensions. The pensions alone were £4,000 more than the amount charged in the original Estimate under that head, and the money would have paid a very large number of additional men. He was quite at a loss to understand where all these pensioners came from. Had the Police Force become worn out to such an extraordinary extent in one year that it was necessary to pay this largely increased sum for pensions? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would throw some light on these questions.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the explanation which the hon. Member asked for was certainly not uncalled for, because there was undoubtedly an unusually large difference between the Estimate and the money really required. The difference of £4,000 in the item for pensions was the result of the action of the Act of last year. In the first place, a considerable number of officers and men had been waiting as long as they could to get the better terms which they 1499 thought they would be able to get under that Act; in the second place, there had been a certain number of compulsory retirements; thirdly, there had been a change in the force, and several officers had availed themselves of the opportunity offered them of going out. The retirements included three superintendents, and a large number of sergeants and sub-constables. These men were of long service and quite worn out, two superintendents having served 45 years, and the others for periods of 30 or 40 years. The large item of £8,000 for Protection Duty and Constables in Aid over the original Estimate was due to the disturbed state of Dublin early in the last financial year, when the Marines were sent there, and constables were very strongly needed.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £2,110, Prisons, Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this Vote was for the Escort and Conveyance of Prisoners to Trial. A few days ago he had placed on the Paper an inquiry addressed to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland with reference to this very subject, pointing out the difference between the law in England and that which obtained in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted the difference; but he said it was an accidental deviation in the case of the Irish Act, and expressed his desire to see the law of the two countries assimilated. He gathered that the Government did not propose to bring in a measure to effect that assimilation; but he would ask whether, in the event of a Bill for that purpose being introduced by a private Member, it would receive the support of the Government? Having failed to receive an answer to this very simple question, he begged to give Notice that he should place a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply next Saturday, which he felt sure would produce a reply.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the question of the hon. Member was a very serious one, and he was not in a position to answer it off hand.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he recognized the difficulty of the subject, and that it was scarcely in Order to ask for an immediate and categorical answer. He pointed out that the assimi 1500 lation of English to Irish law in this respect would result in this unfairness—that the money charged on Irish counties, and which the English counties, under similar circumstances, had not been called upon to pay, went into the British Exchequer, the English ratepayers benefiting in this way from Irish money. If, then, the Government assimilated the English to the Irish law, Ireland would have no redress. He should raise the question to-morrow on Report.
§ Vote agreed to.