§ MR. SEXTON, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
But humbly to represent to Her Majesty that it is essential to the public interest that the Criminal Law, more particularly with regard to the composition of juries, be impartially administered to the different classes of the people of Ireland,said, that the Queen's Speech contained no reference to Ireland, and he was of opinion that one branch of the Irish case demanded the urgent attention of the House. He therefore moved this Amendment. It was characteristic of the system under which the affairs of Ireland were administered—a system combined of cruelty and evasion—that 799 there was at this moment in the House no Minister of the Crown to whom the Irish Members could look consistently for an answer to the case which he intended to make. At this critical moment the Minister who for the last two years was responsible for the administration of the affairs of Ireland had discreetly retired to the position of a mere spectator, and the Government had appointed to succeed him a Gentleman whose mind was so absolutely a virgin page in regard to the affairs of Ireland that he might fairly claim to be absolutely absolved from the duty of offering any reply to any question on that subject whatsoever. He thought he was entitled to say that the retirement at this moment of the Minister acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and his replacement by a Minister absolutely ignorant of the facts of that country, was another of the most conspicuous proofs of the mean policy of evasion on the part of the Liberal Government that had been afforded since they came into Office. The Irish Members said—"By all means let the guilty be punished and the innocent go free, but let these results be produced by the fair and due administration of the law; and let the Government not resort to fraudulent devices, and let them not put sinister designs in force, for the purpose of punishing innocent men, and of giving impunity to guilt." It might be assumed that the Amendment which he now respectfully submitted to the House contained a self-evident proposition. No doubt, in the abstract, the proposition was self-evident, if it was essential to the public interest in Ireland as in every other country that the Criminal Law should be administered impartially between different classes of the people. The Criminal Law in England and Scotland was administered impartially between different classes of the people. The humblest peasant of the Realm in the Island of Great Britain accused of any crime could assure himself of a fair and impartial trial; but many rights that were freely conceded to the meanest subject in England, in Scotland, and in every civilized country in the world, were, in his own unfortunate country, conspicuous only by their absence. It must be apparent that a fair administration of trial by jury was of last importance, both to the individual and to 800 the community at large. If it were essential in every country, it was of the very last importance in Ireland, because in Ireland there was a constant opposition and a chronic conflict between the Government and the people, and because in Ireland the fortune, the liberty, and the life of the private citizen were placed in extraordinary and special danger from the devices of unscrupulous men. He now addressed the House under a heavy responsibility, to speak the truth according to his conception of it, and he was compelled to say that in any criminal case in Ireland in which the agents of the Crown presumed that there was some connection with the movement for the social improvement and the extension of the political liberty of the people, fair trial by jury was a thing that did not exist. The system of so-called trial by jury now in vogue in Ireland was preceded by a system in which trial by jury was altogether ignored. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) caused the House of Commons to pass an Act giving to his own personal discretion the trial, or personal liberty, of every man in Ireland. In the course of a year he imprisoned, by his own mere will, 1,000 men, including some of the most considerable in the country. After the lapse of a year, it was seen that the failure of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was the most conspicuous failure exemplified in the whole course of the unfortunate dealings of England with Ireland. He aggravated popular passion without producing any compensating results. The abandonment of this system was accompanied by the political downfall of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and to those who succeeded him in the Government of Ireland he left the evil legacy of encountering an exasperated people, and the infinitely more difficult function of avenging the crimes which his blind fury and tyranny had provoked. But even after the downfall of the right hon. Gentleman the Government did not by just reforms and kindly treatment appeal to the feelings of the Irish people; on the contrary, they entered upon a career of error which they were even at this moment pursuing. They took advantage of one conspicuous crime, and availed themselves of the indignation created in the English mind for applying to the people of Ireland the most drastic and 801 the most ferocious Coercion Act that ever scourged a people nominally free. The Crimes Prevention Act of 1882 allowed the Government of Ireland to supersede the system of trial by jury, and left it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to try any prisoners charged with any one offence by a tribunal of three Judges acting without a jury. The Government had never put the provision into force. Perhaps the reason was that the moment the Act was passed the most respectable Judge upon the Irish Bench—one man who had fought his way to the position by legal ability, and not by political subservience—gave up his Judgeship rather than be put in the position and have to administer this revolting law. Then the Prevention of Crimes Act gave the Attorney General terrible power in regard to the administration of the law, and terribly the power had been used. The Act enabled the Attorney General, of his own free will, as a matter of right—to use the language of the Statute—to remove the trial of any prisoner accused of an indictable offence from anyone part of Ireland to any other part, and to confine the trial of the prisoner to a hybrid panel, partly composed of landlords from the county and partly composed of traders from the town. The tribunal was obviously the most hostile possible to the prisoner, and the most favourable to the Crown. This provision, he might observe, was smuggled through the House in the form of a Schedule after the appointed Representatives and spokesmen of the people of Ireland had been suspended. See how this Act worked, and how their powers had been used. A group of peasants were charged with the commission of some offence in the South of Ireland, to which the Crown affixed the character of complicity in a social or political movement. These peasants were thrown into goal. The Crown from the first moment intended to lead up to a verdict of guilty at any cost; and the moment these prisoners, seized at random, were placed within prison walls, the case was given into the hands of some one of the most unscrupulous and most disreputable of the agents of the Crown in Ireland, some man who had cheated his own wife, some man who had swindled his own creditors, some man who had been obliged to appeal to the tribunal of the country to protect him from his legal obligations, 802 some man of abandoned life, some man of broken fortune, some man who, if justice were done, should be placed in the dock himself instead of being a prosecuting solicitor. Such was the man who crawled around from cell to cell at night-time, and told each prisoner the false story that some of his associates had turned informers. At the same time the police spread false rumours that one or other of the prisoners had given way, and, to complete the practice, a magistrate held a secret inquisition upon the friends and relatives of the unfortunate men. Months passed, and in some cases years, one Assize Court passed by after another, and the Crown still refused to prosecute, hoping that from helpless terror, some wretch who felt his own neck in danger might make a statement not only of the guilt of his fellow-prisoners, but a statement swearing symmetrically to the whole of the story prepared for him by the agents of the Crown. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland refused, as a matter of course, to try these men in their own county, and transferred them to the East of Ireland, where they were placed before a panel of 200 special jurors, of whom three things might be said—first, they differed in birth and in creed from the accused; next, they were either landlords in the counties or traders in the towns, who conceived their interest to be summed up in those of the landlords, and who were, therefore, violently opposed to any man of whom the Crown lawyers chose to say he was concerned in the social movement of the people. Then, lastly, these jurors were hostile to the movement of the Irish people for the enlargement of their political rights. The Government resorted to the meanest expedients to pack the juries which tried such prisoners. It, therefore, happened that these poor peasants were placed upon their trial by men who regarded them with religious, political, and social prejudice of the most extreme and violent character. Surely in such a case the Crown might have allowed these men to be tried by the panel they had themselves prepared. But what happened? Some men, of the type of George Bolton, whose restoration to office, as they had heard in the maiden announcement of the Chief Secretary, was an evil omen for the official cares of 803 the right hon. Gentleman—some men, like George Bolton and his gang of obscure and sinister agents, took this special jury panel in their hands, and set about finding out every man who was a Catholic, for to be a Catholic in Catholic Ireland was to the Crown reason enough for refusing credit to any man upon his oath. They found out every man who was in any way identified with any national or patriotic object, and by the simple process of repeating the words "stand by," the 12 men whom the Crown agents desired came into the box and acted as jurors. There never was a more solemn and, at the same time, a more exasperating farce than dealing with the liberties and lives of men by the method he had described. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland might as well have found the men guilty in Dublin Castle, and then selected 12 persons from the jury panel to ratify his verdict. It was within the knowledge of every man in Ireland that the Attorney General for Ireland could get 12 men from the class he had described who would be ready to endorse any finding he chose to make. The Executive which succeeded the right hon. Member for Bradford felt themselves to be under the necessity of doing something to satisfy the cry for vengeance and for blood which had arisen in England; and his study of the events of the last two years had forced upon him the horrible suspicion that they resolved to strike terror without regard, or at least primary regard, to the guilt or innocence of the special individual whom they might select as the object of their vengeance. His conviction upon that point was the more deep when he reflected that the whole system of government in Ireland now was a system of punishing the innocent if they could not find the guilty, and, in some cases, of punishing the innocent whether the guilty were found or not. That system had produced a feeling of the most profound disquiet in the mind of every honest man even in England and Scotland. It had produced in the minds of the people of Ireland amongst whom these terrible wrongs had been perpetrated a feeling of resentment and of horror which which would continue to live and to operate long after the present generation had passed away. This system had, no doubt, enabled the Government 804 to claim that they had vindicated the law. It had enabled them to give some innocent men to the hangman's rope; but he would tell the Government that these dead men in their prison graves to-day were far more formidable to English rule than when they trod the earth, and that those who were now wrongfully confined in convict cells behind bolts and bars were far more powerful witnesses of the evils of that rule than any of them who enjoyed their liberty. Having referred to the proceedings of the Crown in regard to these humble peasants, and described the methods which had culminated in their death, he asked the House to allow him to point to a contrast. Within the last few days the Government in Ireland had a golden opportunity of proving to the Irish people and to the world that they were prepared fairly, courageously, honestly, and impartially to administer the Criminal Law. Two high officials of the Crown had to be placed upon their trial. Did the Crown in the case of these men act upon the first hint of evidence? Did they act as they did in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners? No; but, thanks to the moral courage and perseverance of a daring journalist, who knew that in entering upon that terrible enterprize he carried his fortunes and his liberties in his hand, thanks to the debates resulting from his action in that House, and to the growth of public feeling amongst intelligent and virtuous people in Great Britain, the moment arrived when the Government were no longer able to evade the issue and screen their subordinates. From the outset, however, like many other Irishmen, he felt a deep suspicion as to the course the Government would pursue. Officials in Ireland knew too much of the system of government that, no matter what crime an official committed, it was unsafe for his superior to pursue him. When the government was conducted by base tricks and sinister intrigues it was necessary that impunity should be accorded to subordinates for their crimes. No doubt, Mr. Cornwall was aware of the tampering by the Government with correspondence of certain persons; and with regard to his worthy fellow-official, James Ellis French, no doubt, he was aware of proceedings of a still more strange and questionable character. Did the Government in the case of these 805 men act on the first hint of evidence? No; it was only when public opinion in England drove them to it they consented to act. They allowed French to remain at his post in Dublin Castle for months after evidence was forced upon their notice. They paid him his salary, they allowed a committee of doctors to bring forward a plea of insanity, they rusticated him. They did not dismiss him from his office, and they only determined to proceed against him when in his retirement he attempted to commit a criminal assault upon one of the constables of his escort. So far from endeavouring to find out the truth of the case, the Government had not up to the present time used the evidence which was discovered by the hon. Member for Mallow. This was an infamous conspiracy. Did the Government apply the Law of Conspiracy to it? Did they place them all in the dock together? They did not. They placed them in the dock one by one, and having got rid of the lowest and least important members of the infamous gang, they faced the cases of the two principal persons. In the case of Mr. Cornwall they had already so fixed the date of the conspiracy, so circumscribed the ambit of time as to shut out the chief evidence from the jury; and as to the composition of the jury itself, would it be believed that, although it must be obvious that a great many of those upon the panel were likely to have strong sympathies with Mr. Cornwall, not a single one of them was ordered to stand aside as they came to the box to be sworn? The Crown were playing for a disagreement—they were angling for an acquittal. They pursued that course which made it quite impossible that a verdict of guilty should be returned. He was informed by a Dublin gentleman with great opportunities of knowledge that in this jury of Cornwall's there were 11 of his fellow-Freemasons; but so flagrant was the case that they were unable to bring in a simple verdict of not guilty—they felt themselves bound to attach the significant and remarkable rider that they had arrived at that verdict because sufficient evidence had not been brought forward by the Crown. That verdict of the Freemasons of Dublin proved in the most conclusive way that the Government, if not criminally, were at least morally, responsible for the failure of justice in this case. They 806 had confined themselves to putting forward two of the most tainted and disreputable witnesses connected with the whole trial, and they had employed counsel who were not usually intrusted with the conduct of criminal cases. Where was the Attorney General, where was the Solicitor General, and where was the tried and truculent Mr. Serjeant O'Brien? They were absent, so that it could not be said afterwards that the Law Officers of the Crown were responsible for a miscarriage of justice. Then, as to French. It would appear that he faced his trial with a light heart. He had written a letter, in which he had said that the Government would not enter a nolle prosequi in his case, as certain Irish newspapers would be down upon them, and he added that—If properly worked up, I cannot see why the jury should agree in my case any more than they did in Cornwall's.An official in Ireland, no matter how heinous the offence with which he was charged, thought himself entitled to immunity and to something more, because he had been an agent in the sharp practice and sinister business which had enabled the Government to hang innocent men. French was anxious that, in his defence, it should be pointed out that he had been concerned in the hounding on of informers, and he said that if this were done "the English Press would take it up," and added, "I should be a regular hero." Here was a fine sample of an Anglo-Irish hero manufactured for British consumption! French went on to say that if the Government would not agree to his terms as to a pension, and as to expenses for "anxiety of mind" in addition, he would "drive them out of Ireland, and will, perhaps, see some of them in the dock, too." Would the Government give their interpretation of this? Well, this letter proceeded—Maamtrasna will be a pain in their side, and Reid's letter will support the Nationalist idea of the massacre.Who was Reid, and what was in his letter? The man who for 20 years conducted the Detective Department in Dublin Castle said that if the letter of Reid, a Resident Magistrate, came out, it would support the demand, made by the Irish Party for the release of the four men now unjustly suffering penal servitude. Would the Government produce 807 this letter, or suppress it as they suppressed the dying declarations of the two men in Myles Joyce's case? No. The Crown felt that if the truth were revealed Lord Spencer would be discredited. Whatever crimes were committed, however justice might be flung to the winds, the reign of Lord Spencer must not be disturbed. But the day would come when the three so-called independent witnesses would approach the administration of the Sacrament, which they had not done since the day of the crime, and the whole of the truth of the Maamtrasna occurrence would come out, so that no man could deny it. There would be another opportunity within the next few days for the Crown to reconsider their position when 11 industrious and respectable men now in the County Sligo Gaol would be brought up for "political and agrarian" offences in the very Court where trial by jury in the case of Cornwall was made a mockery. Would the Court which had allowed a jury favourable to that gentleman keep out of the box every man of the same creed as these 11 prisoners, or every man of supposed sympathy with them? If so, the officers of the Crown would perfect their disgrace. But the demands of public policy dictated the adoption of a wiser and sounder course. It was an evil thing to drive home to the hearts of a sensitive people the feeling that hatred of the law was a moral duty, and that a favourite official need have no fear of punishment. He (Mr. Sexton) warned the House that every day in which the Government persevered in this evil policy would be a day of loss, perplexity, and danger to them, and a day of continual and increasing disgrace before the civilized nations of the world. He would conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
MR. O'BRIEN, in rising to second the Amendment, said, that what had come to light with respect to the late Inspector General and the employment of such persons as Noonan and Macdermott, would cause the House to reproach itself for its refusal to grant an inquiry which, sooner or later, would have to be granted into the Maamtrasna case. In the course of recent investigations he had reason to understand the threats which French uttered against the late Inspector General, and to learn the meaning of French's 808 statement that he was in a position to make the Castle officials "bite their nails." It would be found that Colonel Hillier would not be the only official who would have to come to terms with French. In what had come out with respect to Noonan and Macdermott would be found the strongest evidence of crime organized by police spies, and paid for out of the Secret Service money, of which French had the administration. Macdermott was a notorious police spy. It was admitted that he had had interviews with Mr. Jenkinson and the Chief Superintendent during the very period when he was organizing a dynamite conspiracy for which a number of men had been sent into penal servitude. The long correspondence between Noonan and Ball, who was French's factotum, threw a flood of light on these matters. Noonan's statement appeared at the time so astounding and incredible that he could hardly give credence to it; but now the genuineness of the correspondence had been placed beyond all doubt by the admissions in the letter of French. The allegation of Noonan was, and the correspondence could bear no other interpretation, that he was employed by French to organize the murder of one of the Judges in Cork, and that he was to implicate a number of prominent Nationalists in Cork in the conspiracy. Was it possible that charges of this kind, coming from a man who knew so much, should remain uninvestigated? These charges imputed infamy and corruption to be running through the whole official class in Dublin Castle, and was it possible that men of this class, who were at the bottom of all this business, were to continue to be shielded in that House? With regard to the trials of these men, the Crown had arranged in the most scandalous manner to procure their acquittal. The House would remember the "rider" which had been appended to the verdict in the case of Cornwall by a jury which was composed of 11 Freemasons. That rider, as his hon. Friend said, amounted to a very significant intimation from that jury that the conduct of the Crown in the case had excited their suspicion. He was of opinion that, coming from such a jury, there never was a stronger impeachment of the prosecution. He claimed no credit for his part in connection with these revelations; but he stated deliberately that he believed that 809 he had been entrapped into it by the Crown, who were under the conviction that it would be his ruin. Instead of receiving any assistance from the officers of public justice in Ireland, that House was assured up to the last moment that the charges were groundless against men that they had since been obliged to put into the dock. They had handed over their evidence to the Crown, but they had not attempted to procure a single scrap of fresh evidence; and not only that, but they had grossly misused the evidence which had been placed at their disposal. As to the discovery of fresh evidence, it was perfectly notorious that their investigations only touched the fringe of a widespread and perfectly horrible conspiracy. Even without stirring outside the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary they could find evidence enough to convict French 10 times over. They had got the names of dozens of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but they were not able to utilize their evidence, for one of the Rules of the Force forbade these men to give any information to outsiders. The Crown could, however, have easily commanded their evidence. He could give two names of Sub-Inspectors which had been conveyed to Earl Spencer and to Mr. Jenkinson's personal knowledge, who could confirm these charges against French; but not the slightest attempt was made to utilize them. He wanted to know where were the rewards for information? Where were the autograph letters from Earl Spencer preparing those who obtained it for promotion? Instead of this, a police officer whom he could mention who wrote to Earl Spencer apprising him of the charges against French was watched and dogged by the sleuth-hounds of the Government until a trumped-up charge of drunkenness had been made against him, by which unworthy means, and on that pretence, he was driven out of the Force. Considering the amount of evidence which they, unassisted and even opposed by the Government, were able to amass, what could not the Crown have obtained if they proceeded with the same zeal as they did in the Tubbercurry conspiracy cases? In their investigation they had not used any discreditable witnesses, but had four young men of Cornwall's own rank, who could have no conceivable motive in bringing ruinous shame upon themselves. 810 These young men did not depose to actual felony; but they could have satisfied a jury as to the infamous acts and criminal practices. The Crown had, however, elected to try him upon the charge of felony, only utilizing the uncorroborated evidence of two young men whose testimony they had deliberately rejected. The jury, of course, acquitted Cornwall of felony, and the Crown had so proceeded as to destroy the evidence for any other charge. They tried Surgeon Major Fernandez, of the Guards, in Dublin, but never attempted to trace up his associations in London.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
MR. O'BRIENsaid, in continuation, that in the case of the miserable old man Pillar, who was induced to plead guilty, because he was the means of exposing his aristocratic fellow-criminals, he was treated with relentless rigour. They would not accept him as an informer, they would not accept his plea to any minor charge than that of felony. If he had brazened it out, he would doubtless have been acquitted without a stain upon his character. By his sentence of 20 years' penal servitude, all the evidence which he might have given against Cornwall and his confederates was effectually got rid of. The two other miserable criminals, Considine and Fowler, were also got rid of, so that the decks were quite cleared for the trial of Cornwall and Kirwan. The whole of the overwhelming evidence which was available against these men was bevilled and mutilated by the Crown so that it was practically useless. The result was only what might have been expected from the course taken by the Government. Had the Crown been in earnest a very different result would have ensued. If, instead of trying these men one by one for felony, and thus whittling away the case that could be made against them, they had indicted them all for conspiracy, a conviction might have been anticipated. That was the course taken by the Government in agrarian cases, and if ever there was a case in which such a procedure would have been legitimate, it was this felony case. It was all but impossible to prove individual acts of felony; but there was ample evidence to convict all the men of conspiracy. Thus, although Cornwall 811 and French had no direct relations with one another, yet they had all relations with the same gang. By refraining from putting these men on trial together, when the evidence, individually insufficient, would collectively have been ample, the Government had really done its best to insure the acquittal of Cornwall and the others connected with Dublin Castle. He would ask any fair-minded man whether the whole result of these trials could be contemplated without shame by Englishmen? The Crown also, when these officials were in the dock, pursued exactly the opposite policy to that which was adopted in political cases. In Francey Hynes's case, 26 jurors were challenged; in Thomas Higgins's, 26; in Pat Higgins's, 42; in Pat Joyces's, 39; and Joe Poole's, 47. On the contrary, in Cornwall's case, two jurors were challenged only; in the last case, none; and in the case of Fernandez, two Catholics were challenged. It was no wonder, after these cases, that there should be a feeling of loathing in Ireland for the whole Administration, when the failure of justice was seen, and that the people of Ireland put no confidence in the administration of the law when they saw justice meted out in such a different manner to Connaught peasants and the officials of Dublin Castle. He charged Earl Spencer with being as much responsible for the failure of justice in these cases as he was for the miscarriage of justice in the case of Myles Joyce. Sooner or later the House would have to grant an inquiry into all the matters mentioned in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and the sooner it was granted the better it would be for Earl Spencer and for the administration of justice in Ireland.
§
Amendment proposed,
To insert in the ninth paragraph, after the word "us," the words "but humbly to represent to Her Majesty that it is essential to the public interest that the Criminal Law, more particularly with regard to the composition of juries, be impartially administered to the different classes of the people of Ireland."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he trusted that hon. Members opposite would observe that respectful silence while he was speaking which had been accorded to the two last speakers by the Gen- 812 tleman behind him. Their remarks were in the nature of accusations, and what he should have to say would be in the nature of a defence. He regretted that there was not a larger attendance of Members in the House; but he was glad to notice that the House that heard the two previous speakers was substantially the same as that now listening to him. It would, therefore, be for those hon. Members to say whether the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had substantiated the charges made in support of his Amendment, to the effect that it was essential that the Criminal Law, more especially with regard to trial by jury, should be impartially administered to the people of Ireland. He had listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo, knowing that if there was a case to be made out against the Government it would be presented in the best way by the hon. Member. First, then, with regard to the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland for the purpose of suppressing agrarian crime, the hon. Member had drawn a picture in very high colours, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should feel it his duty to draw the colours much lighter. The hon. Member went through all those charges which were so very familiar to hon. Members by that time, and he did not endeavour to bring forward any new evidence. He said that cases were withdrawn from the neighbourhood where the crime was committed, presumably that they might be tried where there was more chance of justice, though they were taken where the Government thought they were more likely to obtain a conviction. He (Mr. Trevelyan) should say, on the contrary, that they were transferred from places where public opinion was in some cases of a diseased, and in others of that unfortunate, nature which produced agrarian crime or induced timidity—taken from districts where there was no chance of a fair trial to others where prisoners would be tried without fear or favour. But whether his description or that of the hon. Member for Sligo was right or wrong, this, at all events, was—that change of venue was laid down by the Statute in the 6th section of the Act of 1882, and he maintained it would be in the greatest degree unfair if the same House of Commons which had passed that Statute, and laid 813 on the Irish Executive the obligation of seeing that that change of venue was carried into effect, if that same House of Commons passed a Vote of Censure on the Irish Executive for doing what they did to carry out the undoubted intention of the present Parliament. The hon. Member then spoke of the preliminary investigation upon oath, when there was no defendant specially charged with a crime, and compared it to the worst days of the proceedings of the Star Chamber. But this was a method of getting at the truth, which was devised—and rightly devised—in the interests of the community, and it was a mode of getting at the truth which was practised in several Continental countries, and especially in one Continental country with which Irish public opinion was supposed to be more closely in sympathy with—he would not say than with any country in the world—than any other on the soil of Europe. He alluded to France, and it was a method which, in his own opinion and that of a considerable number of persons who had given the subject a much more enlightened attention than he had been able to give, might very well extend to England and Scotland. It was obligatory on the Irish Executive under the Act of 1882 to carry out this species of examination on oath before a magistrate where they thought it ought properly to be applied. The matter was debated at great length in Parliament, and he maintained that the Irish Executive had no choice whatever except to apply it to crimes of that description which were described in the Preamble of the Act. Then the hon. Member described special juries as a tribunal to which exception had been taken. He thought that they were class juries. He (Mr. Trevelyan) said, on the other hand, that special juries were juries which were not subjected to those peculiar influences and considerations which rendered 61 murders unpunishable in Ireland, and that they were juries with which they had some chance of a fair and righteous judgment. He did not say all these murders were brought before juries under the system, though of common juries which were susceptible to those influences 61 murders went unpunished, and that argument was a most substantial one with the House of Commons in changing the law. When the House of Commons did change the law 814 after several evenings' debate, this provision was inserted in the Bill in the shape of the 6th section, and it was absolutely impossible for the Irish Executive to ignore it. The question of special juries or of common juries and of the complete inability of the system of common juries to cope with the repression of crime in Ireland was discussed on several nights in the House. Of that he was absolutely certain, as he on more than one occasion remembered making speeches, quoting suggestions, and giving statistics of crimes not made amenable to the law. The particular consideration that this scheme was passed at a time when the hon. Member for Sligo and a good many of his Friends were absent from the House—[Mr. HEALY: Driven from the House]—that it was passed under those circumstances did not, in his opinion, and in the opinion of Parliament, hinder the Irish Executive from carrying it into effect. Then the hon. Member made some exceedingly general and trenchant remarks on the character of the nameless official who was connected with the getting up of criminal cases in Ireland. No one could doubt but that he referred to Mr. George Bolton. They, at all events, were matters in dispute, and he took a different view from the hon. Member. The hon. Member supported his observations about the peculiarities of the juries with certain hearsay anecdotes as having passed between jurors and private friends of his own as to their determination to convict at all hazard. The answer to all this very brilliant, but, in this respect, very vague rhetoric, was that the verdicts had been discriminating. There had been the same proportion as they had at the English Assizes of convictions, of acquittals, and of recommendations to mercy. In Ireland at the present time they were almost free of agrarian crime, and he believed the great body of the Irish farmers were heartily glad that murderous crimes had greatly diminished. They recognized the fact that these crimes were growing with fearful rapidity up to the time of the Crimes Act coming into operation, and they looked for the peace of their homesteads and their livings rather to Acts of Parliament, which constituted a more legitimate method, than to those acts of violence which the hon. Member for Mallow said were regarded 815 by them to a certain extent as a safeguard for their property and rights. [Mr. O'BRIEN said, he said nothing of the kind.] The hon. Member might not have said so, but he indorsed the view. The hon. Member for Sligo had also complained that in the case of those persons accused of felonious practices the Government had not exercised the power of previous inquiry. But the Government could not put that power in force in such cases as those. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1882 was never intended to deal with cases such as those. What was the Preamble of that Act?
Whereas, by the recent action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision for the purpose.The hon. Member for Sligo then went to the case of persons accused of certain odious crimes, and complained that the 14th section relating to inquiries on oath was not adopted in that case. He (Mr. Trevelyan), however, said that while the Irish Government was not justified in letting that section lie dormant in cases of agrarian crimes by secret societies, he did not say it would have been justified in putting it in force in the case of these odious crimes. That special power was placed by Parliament in the hands of the Irish Executive in all cases of crimes of a particular nature. It was, indeed, part and parcel of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1882. Hon. Members opposite appeared to imagine that that Act was passed for the purpose of dealing with those odious crimes; but his opinion, and that of the Irish Government, was that it was not passed for that purpose. The hon. Member for Sligo and the hon. Member for Mallow, who supported him at greater length, and far greater detail, said that the charges against these incriminated persons were not followed up with proper zeal, energy, and efficiency; and what were the arguments which were given? The hon. Member for Sligo was told that there were 11 Freemasons upon the jury that tried them! That might be so; but it was certainly new to him that Freemasons, in matters judicial or political, were persons that ought to be excluded from court. Now, he knew something about Freemasonry, and he did not think it was a secret; but there 816 was no more offensive application that could possibly be made by an inexperienced canvasser to a Freemason than to endeavour to actuate his vote at a political election by representing him as a brother Mason. It was a fact that a Freemason resented extremely having his Freemasonry appealed to on such an occasion; and it had never crossed the mind of the most suspicious Old Bailey barrister that it was in the slightest degree to the advantage of a client of his, if he was a Freemason, that another Freemason happened to be on the jury. If it was the case even that there were 11 Freemasons on this jury, it was very difficult to imagine that the Government could be charged with having formed this very curious jury, because one of the charges made against the Government was that they refrained from challenging jurors. On this question of challenging jurors, in the matter of Cornwall and French, the Government appeared to him to stand in a very firm position. The Government was strongly and vehemently accused by both sides in this unhappy affair of having acted most unfairly. They were charged by the hon. Member with not having struck off from the jury the friends or the people who might, from political opinions or from social position, be supposed to be sympathizers of Cornwall; and, on the other hand, they were charged by the friends of Cornwall — notably by his solicitors—with having refrained from using the power of challenging jurors and with having left on the jury well-known Nationalists. In the case of French, jurors were challenged by the Government; and for what purpose? Those jurors who had served on the Cornwall jury were challenged—[Mr. HEALY: One]—and that was the only purpose for which the Government used its right of challenging, which, in his opinion, was a very proper purpose. The Government were then charged with not having brought forward sufficient or proper evidence against these men. The hon. Member for Mallow had complained that the Government tried Mr. Cornwall on the charge of felony first. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if the Irish Government had not adopted that course? The hon. Member had charged Mr. Cornwall in his paper with being a felon. If Mr. Cornwall was not a felon, that was a libel. But the jury 817 distinctly found that Mr. Cornwall was a felon, and then the Irish Government was accused of favouring Mr. Cornwall, because, after that finding, they put him upon his trial as a felon. Surely, the evidence that convinced a civil jury was the evidence to be brought before a criminal jury. [Home Rule interruption, and cries of "No!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERHon. Members must not interrupt.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that when Mr. Cornwall had been acquitted of felony, the Executive Government proceeded against him on the higher charge. The Irish Government proceeded against Mr. Cornwall for conspiring to promote immorality, and that was the only legal indictment upon which he could, have been charged with the slightest hope of a conviction. As regarded the evidence, every scrap of evidence which the Government thought was legal testimony bearing upon this charge was collected and brought forward. The hon. Member for Sligo had insinuated that the Government were afraid of proceeding against Mr. Cornwall, because he was in possession of certain secrets. That was an insinuation which could not be brought against them with any effect, because the Government in its action in Mr. Cornwall's case showed that it was not afraid of his exposing any secrets that might be in his possession. The very first moment that the Government had any evidence before them they put Mr. Cornwall upon his trial. ["No, no!"] The moment the civil action was decided, and had gone against him, no time was lost in putting Mr. Cornwall upon his trial upon charges the House might be very certain a Government did not make against a man with whom they had guilty secrets in common. Then the hon. Member for Sligo read a letter from French, and it was extraordinary that there should seem to exist in the mind of the hon. Member the belief that there was in the rhodomontade of French anything which was at all discreditable to the Irish Executive. French declared that he would put them out of Ireland, and that if they wanted to make terms with him without a pension he must get £20,000 and nothing less. That document appeared to him to be about as odious and as disgraceful to the person who wrote it as any document could possibly be, and he was extremely sorry 818 at the use which had been made of it in that House. The threat of French was one of a nature to which the Government could not pay the slightest attention. [Interruption.]
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must request that those interruptions, which were unseemly, be discontinued, or he should be obliged to take further notice of them.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo had stated that he should bewilder the House by his eloquence. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was certain that what that matter required was not eloquence, but a statement of plain facts. He had often objected to making the House of Commons a Court of Law to try cases; but it was much worse still to turn it into a sort of whispering gallery for making insinuation against individuals clearly of a criminal nature, the very name of the crime not being given, and the insinuation, too, proceeding from a foul and corrupted source. A nation whose Representatives could accept accusations against its public servants on the mere insinuation of a man driven into a corner by a criminal charge, would hardly be worthy of Representative Institutions at all. The threats of French proved nothing except that the Government, in the opinion of the man against whom they were proceeding for an odious crime, were acting in a way to provoke his apprehensions, and, with his apprehensions, his indignation. Unfair and unscrupulous the Government was not; but it would do its best to bring to justice men who never would have been placed at the criminal bar but for the belief in their guilt. There was only one other matter to which he had not referred, and that was a short passage in the letter about the Maamtrasna trials—
The Maamtrasna case will be a pain in the side, though I do not know anything about it; but if Reid's letter comes out, it would help to support the National ideas about Maamtrasna.There was one clause in that sentence he fully believed—that the writer did not know anything about the Maamtrasna case, for, if he did, he would know there was no letter from Mr. Reid that in any way could be construed to support or assent to the view the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) and his Colleagues put forward on that case. He maintained that the conduct of the 819 Government in all the cases actually referred to by the hon. Members for Sligo and Mallow had been conduct not of a nature to qualify the peroration of the hon. Member for Sligo, or the Amendment he had put on the Paper. He did not believe they would produce on the mind of the House any conviction that the Irish peasant had little or no chance, or that the paid official little or no danger, when it became the duty of the Irish Executive to prosecute the one or the other. Unless the House approved of these two propositions, he was sure they would be very slow to pass the Amendment. To use words he had only too often used in the House, it would render it difficult and even impossible absolutely to repress crime in Ireland.
§ MR. PATRICK POWERsaid, that although he belonged to a Party which had had exceptional treatment at the hands of the House, and although he bad to speak on a subject which he knew was distasteful, he trusted that he should receive the indulgence which was always extended to a new Member. He felt that the majority preferred to be informed by Gentlemen on their own side of the House, who, as they supposed, knew a great deal more about Ireland than the Irish Members sitting near him did. Representing as he did a constituency which had suffered long and much at the hands of the officials of the Government, he felt he would not be discharging his duty to them if he did not lay before the House some of the reasons which made the English rule, as administered at Dublin Castle, so hated and detested by the Irish people. In most countries the object of all wise statesmen was to rule the country according to the views of the majority, and to prove to all classes that the scales of justice were held evenly, and where that opinion did not prevail they never could have peace and order. Unfortunately, in Ireland those wise rules were completely set at naught. They had one law for the rich, and another for the poor; one law for the part of Ireland North of the Boyne, and another for the portion South of the Boyne; one law for the freize-coated trespasser, and another for the trespasser in pink. In this country, again, the Crown officials and the Judges of the land were men who conducted the business of the Crown 820 in a way which was a credit to the country and the Constitution; in Ireland, on the other hand, it was very different. There, all was given, not for merit, but for political reasons, and the Judges were thus made partizans. If the hon. and learned Members for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and Plymouth (Mr. Clarke), who, in a recent Maamtrasna debate, condemned the tone of the speech of the Solicitor General, were to hear some of the political harangues to which the Irish people were treated from the Bench, they would think the speech of the Solicitor General a very weak performance. They were expected, under these circumstances, to respect law and order. They heard that cant phrase from all quarters; but the people who spoke it forgot that the first thing necessary was to make laws worthy of respect. Neither the laws nor those who administered them were, with very few exceptions, worthy of respect. He felt certain that before very long they would have the opportunity of asking a Tory Solicitor General for those depositions and other documents which Her Majesty's present Government did not care to produce. A Catholic chaplain, who had attended at six executions in the prison to which he was attached, had informed him that he was not more certain of his own existence than of the innocence of two of these convicts. The Government officials in Ireland only consulted the public feeling of England. They had a remarkable instance of this the other evening when the Prime Minister appealed to the public opinion of England in support of Earl Spencer, and ignored the feeling in Ireland. Respect for English law had never been at so low an ebb in Ireland before. Talbot, several years ago, visited his district in the County Waterford, and by direction of Dublin Castle was guilty of the most heinous sacrilege with the view of worming himself into the confidence of the Nationalists. A priest residing in the locality had written to him on this subject—"All his villainies were perpretated under the direct supervision of the Local Authorities." With circumstances like these occurring they were asked to respect law and order. If the English Government wished to make their rule respected, and to obtain that moral support without which no Government could 821 stand, they must change their hand altogether.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not replied to some of the strongest points of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton), more especially with regard to what was a very important part of his hon. Friend's speech—namely, the packing of juries. Everybody in Ireland was anxious that the perpetrators of the Maamtrasna murders should be convicted and punished; and he was certain that a jury of the County Galway would have given as impartial a verdict upon the case as any jury in any other part of Ireland.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. BIGGAR, continuing, said, in the case of Joe Poole, tried in Dublin for murder, over 40 jurors were challenged. The duty of the Crown he believed to be, to have, so far as possible, an impartial jury; but what they actually did was to secure a conviction, and to bring about a verdict for political purposes. The result of all this was that the law, as administered, was detested. The Lord Lieutenant in the South of Ireland was received with black flags suspended from the windows, and the president of the local Land League, who shook hands with His Excellency, was turned out of his office and had to apologize. And in the North of Ireland what happened? When His Excellency went to the North of Ireland, a Presbyterian clergyman, who was also a reporter for a certain newspaper, because he shook hands with His Excellency and received him hospitably, was at once dismissed. These incidents showed the feeling that so universally prevailed in Ireland with reference to the administration of the law; and, as a matter of fact, any contempt in which the law was held in Ireland was due to the manner in which it was administered. There was an institution in that City with which they were doubtless more or less acquainted, associated with the name of "Judge and Jury," and Baron Nicholson might be said to preside with quite as much dignity and fairness at that "Coal-hole" as some of the Irish Judges, of whom a certain number were admittedly of an objectionable character.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not think that expression just used by the hon. Member is a proper one.
§ MR. BIGGARWhat expression?
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call on the hon. Member to withdraw it.
§ MR. BIGGARWithdraw what expression?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe expression was one reflecting on the Judges of the land. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
§ MR. BIGGARWithdraw what?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe expression made use of, and if the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw it, I will be obliged to take further notice of his conduct.
§ MR. BIGGARBut what was the expression? If I knew precisely what it was, I might explain or withdraw it.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member used an expression reflecting on the whole Bench of Judges in Ireland. He said what, according to my recollection, and, I believe, in the recollection of the House, was of a very insulting nature, reflecting on the Judges, and I ask him to withdraw.
§ MR. BIGGARIt is clear you have not understood what I said. I said a certain proportion of the Judges were of a very objectionable character. I did not say the whole of them, for I do not hold that opinion. I can name two or three of them for whom I have a great respect. There is Chief Baron Palles, for instance, a man of the highest character, and also Judge Harrison and Mr. Justice Andrews. But, on the other hand, there are several others who cannot be mentioned in the same category. The law is administered in an absurd way, and the magistrates are appointed in a way that deprives them of any respect from the people. The policy of jury-packing has become quite notorious, and the result is that juries are provided from the partizans of the Crown—men belonging to the landlord class, or whose sympathies are entirely connected with that class. The Government will do well to remove that system of jury-packing in such a wholesale manner, and also to see that there is a revision of the sentences on all those who are now in prison, and who have been convicted upon the decisions of these packed juries, and thus make some reparation for their past misconduct. In conclusion, I hope this discussion will be a caution to the Government 823 to act more wisely and more fairly.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, it appeared to him that the announcement of the Chief Secretary, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Monaghan, was a far more serious indictment of the Goment than anything that had fallen from the Irish Members. The admission that George Bolton had been reappointed to his former position showed conclusively that the Lord Lieutenant and the present Chief Secretary were not only resolved to set the National Party at defiance, but to ignore the opinion of every honest man in the country. There was one significant fact about the administration of the law under the Crimes Act—namely, that such administration obtained the approval of the Conservative class which in England denounced the Premier as a traitor to his country, and which declared that the policy of the Liberal Party—except in Ireland—was one against which every honest Englishman ought to rebel. Three weeks ago he had an experience in Dublin which he wished every English Minister had. He thought it would make them ask whether their policy in Ireland was a wise one. Going home about 8 o'clock in the evening, he heard a clattering of hoofs and a clanging of sabres. Then he saw a dragoon trotting along, and 40 yards behind him another dragoon. Then came a whole crowd of dragoons, and in the midst of them was the Lord Lieutenant's carriage, surrounded by men armed to the teeth. This was one result of the Liberal Coercion Act, for in the time of Tory rule the Lord Lieutenant was accompanied by but a few soldiers, less for service than for show. This change was owing to the policy of coercion and repression, which, if it had been practised by their political opponents, would have brought down the denunciation of the Liberal Party, whose Irish policy was the only one which was supported by the Conservatives. The late Chief Secretary had made no attempt wholly to defend the policy pursued when he was in Office. He only said that the Coercion Act was given him by that House, and that it would be unfair for the House to blame the Irish Government for the manner in which the Act had been used. He (Mr. Leamy) thought there was a want of manliness about that statement. The 824 right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to justify the manner in which the Act had been employed. Then he said that similar powers were exercised by foreign tribunals—in France, for instance. It was extraordinary to find such a lover of freedom as the right hon. Gentleman going to France to find an excuse for the policy which he was pursuing in Ireland. It was true that Irishmen sympathized with France, for France had opened her arms to their forefathers, who were driven from Ireland by these same infamous British laws, and he (Mr. Leamy) wished to God that every Irish soldier who had fallen under the English flag could have fallen under the flag of France, instead of under a flag which had brought misery and ruin and degradation into every country into which it had been carried. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had said that the Act had been employed for the purpose of eliciting the truth. The same excuse was made by the Minister of the Star Chamber, and in defence of every species of torture in the worst days of the Spanish Inquisition. The one thing remarkable about the right hon. Gentleman was the readiness with which he came forward to defend every system adopted in Ireland which was opposed to all that was Constitutional in England. Then as to jury-packing, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he could see no reason why, if a Freemason were put upon his trial, Freemasons should be tabooed from the jury. But he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he claimed that for the Freemasons, he would refuse the same independence of mind to a man who happened to be a Catholic? In all the trials that had taken place men had been ordered to stand aside; and he defied any man in Ireland to discover any reason why nine out of 10 of those men should have been so ordered to stand aside unless it was because they were Catholics. It was notorious that almost from time immemorial Catholic after Catholic had been ordered to stand aside. Supposing that an indictment resulted from the Birmingham riots, and that three or four Gentlemen of the Liberal Party—those who got over the wall—were empannelled, would any Attorney General have the hardihood to order every man whom he knew to be a supporter of Mr. 825 Chamberlain to stand aside? So long as the Government administered the Criminal Law in England in a different manner from that in which it was administered in Ireland, so long they must expect the people in Ireland to regard the administration of the law with distrust and hatred. The Irish Members, however, were speaking to a deaf House, because the Tory Party, unfortunately, was satisfied to see them put upon by the Liberals, as they knew that it caused them to hate the Liberals; and the Liberal Party was convinced that the present Ministry was incapable of doing wrong. But as the Prime Minister had been found to have blundered in Egypt and South Africa and other parts of the world, so he would be found to have blundered in Ireland.
§ MR. BARRYsaid, he conceived that in England it would be utterly impossible for jurors to be told to stand down as Catholics were in Ireland; but his special object was to refer to some of the remarkable statements made in the letter of Mr. James Ellis French. He was much struck by the light and airy manner in which the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had passed over that part of the case. On more than one occasion the right hon. Gentleman had stood up in his place and defended Mr. French, and spoken of him as a tried and trusted servant, and did everything he could to shield him from the charges of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien); and it was not until he was driven by the gathering force of public opinion that he had taken any steps to bring French to justice. That night the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of French as a "wretch," and had used the strongest terms he could in reference to him. That was a remarkable change of front, because, after all, it must be admitted that the unfortunate man had not yet been found guilty, and the cause of that change of front might be found in the letter. The letter was not written to intimidate the Government; it was written by French to a trusted friend, and by a mere accident came into the hands of the Government. Therefore, the attempt of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland to neutralize the impression made by it fell to the ground. Statements of the kind contained in the letter, coming as they did from one who had been a high and 826 trusted official of the Crown, demanded searching inquiry on the part of the Government. The letter said—
Now, as to the pension, I think from the way I am treated by the Government, I will hesitate very much before I come to any terms with them, and expose them as much as I possibly can.When a man like French was in a position to talk of exposing the Government, it subjected them to very grave suspicions. A little further on, the letter said—If Reid's letter came out, it would help to support the National idea about Maamtrasna.That was also a remarkable statement, seeing the position which Mr. Reid occupied, and considering that in all probability he would be the successor of Mr. Jenkinson. The letter also said—"Then there is Macdermott and many others." Now, this Macdermott, it was said, was a man engaged by French to get up Fenian conspiracies. He hoped they would have some explanations from the Solicitor General for Ireland by-and-bye with reference to the statements in this letter, and that he would give an assurance that the allegations would be thoroughly and fairly investigated. In this country they had been told for the last three months that it was a monstrous and intolerable thing that the will of the people with respect to the franchise should be obstructed by some 50 Peers. But if that was an intolerable thing in England, was it not still more intolerable that in Ireland the will of the people with regard to the administration of justice should be set at naught by one Peer? The Irish Members might not be able to prevent that now, but they were able to expose it; and the time would come when they would be strong enough to put an end to it.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the English people to understand the state of feeling in Ireland upon this question of jury-packing without some knowledge of the previous history of the country; and he would, therefore, proceed to give a short historical retrospect. [The hon. Gentleman then quoted some paragraphs from a work by Mr. O'Connell, passing in review some of the great landmarks in Irish history. Beginning with the period of 1612, when the Irish people were first received into allegiance—before that time they were named in 827 all legal documents and Acts of Parliament "the Irish enemy," and might be murdered by a person of English descent with impunity—he passed on to the War of the Confederation in 1641, at the close of which the property of the Native races was utterly confiscated; then to the Revolution of 1688 and the Treaty of Limerick; and on to the Reign of Queen Anne, when the Penal Laws were imposed.] The system of jury-packing was calculated to revive all those old memories and kindle them into a flame.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that his remarks are not relevant to the question before the House—the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. I must ask him to keep more strictly to the subject of debate.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he would, of course, bow to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman, and would just sum up. He proposed to make his references relevant by showing that the introduction of the doctrine of ascendency at trials in Ireland tended to raise bitter feelings with regard to the past. In addition to the testimony of Edmund Burke upon the point, he desired to quote an old Minute published by the Dublin Corporation. That Minute set forth the position of Protestants in Ireland, and advised the Catholics to rest content.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I must, for the second time, call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the irrelevancy of his speech.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, that, in deference to the ruling of the Chair, he would not pursue the matter further. All he desired to prove was that it would be wrong for the Government to do anything to rekindle the unfortunate difference which existed in the past with regard to religion. At the present time there was no commercial element in Ireland, and the result was that they had partizan juries. In such a state of things he preferred a trial before three Judges, with a right of challenge. If the selection of the jury was placed in the hands of the Judge, he should think the arrangement an equitable one; but to band it over to the Crown, to officials whose reputation and credit depended on securing a conviction, and to place in their hands an unlimited right of challenge, was plainly unfair to the prisoners. It was only by criticism in that House 828 they could call the attention of the public to the injustice worked by the present system, and the ill-feeling it created among the Catholic population, who were ordered to stand by and excluded from the jury-box. He had received great complaints on this head from many quarters. In one case, within his own knowledge, a magistrate, having considerable jurisdiction in cases where he acted both as Judge and jury, was ordered to stand aside because he was a Catholic. In this way all the old and painful associations which had collected round the difference in creed existing in Ireland were revived, and the difficulty of administering justice and of disposing the people favourably to its administration greatly increased.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he would not follow hon. Members opposite in denunciation of the Irish Judges; but he should not be doing his duty to his constituents, or to his own conscience, if he did not rise and testify to the widespread dissatisfaction which existed in consequence of the continued exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury-box. He did not so much object to a change of venue; but he deplored, in the strongest language, the trial of men of humble class before juries strictly composed of men differing from them in both class, interest, and creed. He earnestly hoped the time was near at hand when this most obnoxious system of the challenge of Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics should cease, for it was the cause of a widespead feeling of dissatisfaction among the people of Ireland. No doubt, the Royal Irish Constabulary were a highly respectable body of men; but it was desirable that they should be kept under a well-regulated system of control, especially in times of exceptional legislation. He wished to draw attention to the case of some publicans who decorated their houses on the occasion of a Nationalist meeting at Carrick-on-Suir. There was an old Statute which made such a proceeding illegal, and the publicans, on being summoned to the Court, were fined £2 a-piece by the magistrate, who, however, recommended them to appeal to the Board of Inland Revenue for a remission of the fine. A similar case arose during the visit of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts to a remote district in the South of the county of Cork. A number of publicans were 829 summoned for decorating their houses; but the magistrates refused to deal with the case, and dismissed the summonses en bloc. He wanted to know who was responsible for these frivolous and petty persecutions, which simply harassed the people into disloyalty? Even from the Government's own point of view, these prosecutions were injudicious; for they might rely upon it that they would not prevent Nationalism by summoning Nationalists for hanging out a black or any other flag. The condition of the Irish Prisons came within the scope of the Amendment, and with regard to it, the Report of the Royal Commission, which had been presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton-Cross), had caused great uneasiness as to the way in which they were managed. The Commissioners said there could be no doubt that the punishments were greatly in excess of those inflicted in English prisons. They likewise stated that the treatment of untried prisoners under remand was most unsatisfactory. Moreover, it appeared from the Report, and it was one of the most alarming features of Irish prison life, that there was an unduly large number of insane prisoners, particularly in the convict prisons at Mountjoy and Spike Island; and it turned out that in many cases insanity followed the frequent repetition of punishments, for the discipline was very harsh. He wished to know what action the Government intended to take in regard to the Report of the Royal Commission? In conclusion, he would express an earnest hope that something would soon be done to bring these institutions into a satisfactory condition.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, it was exceedingly discouraging to the Irish Members to come down to the House to discuss a subject of such importance as that, and to find no more than about half-a-dozen English Members present to hear what was to be said on the question. It was a fitting illustration of the mockery of the so-called government of Ireland by the House of Commons. It was, however, satisfactory to see on the Treasury Bench three English or Scotch Gentlemen who had been, or were still, connected with the administration of the law in Ireland. He wished to allude to one very important fact as bearing upon the question before the House. Her 830 Majesty's Government had thought fit to retain in the Public Service Mr. George Bolton; and he did not think there could be a circumstance more tending to handicap the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his career in Ireland, than that simultaneously with his first public appearance, the reappointment of George Bolton should be announced. The reason he said that was this—that there could be nothing done that would cause more indignation amongst the Irish people than the reappointment of Mr. George Bolton. If the Government were serious in their anxiety to bring about contentment and peace in Ireland, why, in the name of goodness, did the Government appoint men to positions of importance who were actually loathsome to the Irish people? Who was George Bolton? He was a man who was notoriously infamous; a man, the very breathing of whose name would call forth a burst of indignant remonstrance in any part of Ireland; therefore his reappearance in office would be taken by the people of Ireland as a challenge. They would say that the Government had supported Bolton because they were afraid of him. The letter of French, which had so unexpectedly come to light, would strengthen that impression. The phrase contained in it, "and perhaps see some of them in the dock," could only be a hint as to what it was in French's power to do if he did not receive what he considered to be adequate protection from the Government. French was on his trial, and the jury had not been able to agree. But he fully anticipated that French would be acquitted and provided with a handsome sum of money to enable him to withdraw from the country. Mr. Bolton had been liberated because the Government were afraid that he would fulfil his threat of disclosing matters which it would have been detrimental to their interests to make public. If the persona accused in the Cornwall case were guilty of any offence it was one of conspiracy, and yet the Government, instead of indicting them together, indicted them separately, the consequence being that the wealthy and influential persons got off, while those without money, friends, or position were convicted. He wished to know why the Government had not proceeded against French, 831 Cornwall, and the others charged in this conspiracy at the same time, as had been done in the case of Mr. Parnell and the officers of the Land League? If he might supply a reason, he would say it was because the Government did not wish to punish Cornwall, French, and the others, but merely to carry on what was little better than a sham trial for the purpose of keeping up the character of the Irish Administration. The rule of Lord Spencer had resulted in his being unable to cross the street unless he was protected with soldiers with drawn sabres; and even if the whole of the Royal Family of this country were to transfer their residence to Ireland, "bag-and-baggage," from Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen down to the most insignificant understrapper in Windsor Castle, there would be the same guards, the same suspicion, and the same trouble in the administration of justice. They would never rule Ireland from this House, because the people did not believe in them. He did not say that people in Ireland had made up their minds in a blind way to oppose every rule and all rulers. They were as sensible to kindness and good government as any people; but, from the past maladministration, there had been aroused suspicion and hatred of the law in Ireland which would never be eradicated from the minds of the people until an Irish Parliament on Irish soil should make the law and administer it after the hearts of the people themselves. Sooner or later, if the Government did not pay attention to the men who were sent to that House to speak on behalf of Ireland, they would be obliged to listen to men in Ireland who would perhaps command their attention more fixedly, and who would not be satisfied with evasive replies from the Treasury Bench. If anything could tend to the continuance of the Union between the two countries it would be that English Members should show more interest in Irish affairs.
§ MR. PLUNKETI can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. Redmond) that I do not ask the indulgence of the House in the character of an official or ex-official. I desire only very briefly to contribute my opinion and testimony on the question before the House as an Irish Member and as an Irishman. I have no intention 832 of following in detail the course of the arguments to which we have listened this evening. I cannot claim any special official knowledge on the subject, but I have taken an interest in this discussion through the common sources of information which are open to all of us in the newspapers, and I have heard to-night the whole case debated, first in the impassioned speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and then in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), and I think I am now in a position to form an impartial and independent opinion on the subject. The first thing I have to say is, that most of the points raised in the course of the debate have been discussed over and over again. The only new salient features in the case are the circumstances connected with the prosecution of French, and the very extraordinary letter which has been read this evening. It would be most unjust for me to express any opinion I may have formed on this subject, whether for or against French, and of the character of the charges now made against him, for the very simple reason that, as I understand, French is to stand his trial again; and hon. Members below the Gangway ought to bear in mind that it is impossible for these charges to be made without prejudicimg in a most unfair way the trial of French. [An hon. MEMBER: He may trust the Freemasons.] The hon. Member, I think, has Freemasonry on the brain. I say we cannot discuss this matter of French's with any degree of fairness. I am not going to argue either the case of Cornwall or the others? How on earth can we retry them here? If those gentlemen had been convicted, there would have been very little said on the sentences pronounced upon them; but they have stood their trial, they have been acquitted, and having been acquitted, are entitled to all the consequences resulting there-from, and to be regarded as innocent. Then, again, as regards the special charges made against the juries who were empannelled under the Crimes Act, why, we have often heard those charges before. Ever since the Crimes Act was passed, ever since convictions began to be had, in cases in which our own consciences as well as that of the civilized 833 world were fully satisfied of the justice of the verdicts, from time to time those complaints have been reiterated, though they have never been substantiated. But now hon. Gentlemen from Ireland bring a new charge, and complain that many of these special jurors are Freemasons, for that is what the hon. Member for Sligo says. I hope I shall not forfeit his good opinion of me when I say that I have myself been a Freemason, and have held high office in the Order, and my only regret is that I have not been able of late years to attend to those excellent and pleasant meetings of the craft as often as I once was able to do. But to charge the Freemasons with a desire to influence men in their polities, or in the discharge of their duties as special jurors, is the wildest imagination. It is no disclosure of a secret to say that both political and religious discussions are left outside the door of Freemasonry altogether, and are absolutely forbidden. ["No, no!"] I say they are absolutely forbidden so far as regards Freemasonry in Ireland. I do not know what may be the practice abroad; but no one who knows anything about Freemasonry in these Islands will venture to suggest that a man can gain or lose a single vote on the ground of his being or his not being a Freemason. Such a thing is really absurd; and, certainly, I have never expected to gain a Liberal vote or lose a Tory one on the ground of my Freemasonry. Nothing could be more odious and revolting to the spirit of Freemasonry than to shield a man guilty of such offences as were charged against these persons; and nothing could be more misleading or insulting than to make such a statement. All through the State trials, the special jurors summoned under the Crimes Act took their part in the administration of justice, and they have been exposed not only to these severe criticisms in the House of Commons and on the public platforms, but they have done their duty in the face of perpetual danger to their property and their lives, and in fact, in some instances, have almost lost their lives. This I say, that whatever improvement may have come over the face of my unhappy country in recent times has been due more to these special jurors, who have continued to do their duty in difficult times, than to any other cause. I feel it is my duty to bear my 834 testimony to the services of these men, considering they have been so severely denounced by some hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. As to the Government, they have defended themselves, and I am not going to say anything in addition to what has been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. For my own part, I must say that on most subjects connected with the government of Ireland, it is my misfortune to have strongly condemned, step by step, their public action, and much of their public policy, and the more I think of it, and as the time goes by, I feel more and more convinced that they are responsible for very much of the misfortune, difficulty, and disgrace that has fallen on my unhappy country. But that is not the question to-night. I have listened to the debate, and can only give my most independent and unbiassed opinion that the charges and attacks made in this instance have not been substantiated; and I, therefore, feel it my duty to support the Government in what I believe to have been their conscientious administration of the law in Ireland.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he was of opinion that Freemasonry had, to a considerable extent, influenced the verdicts of the special jurors. If hon. Members would refer to a letter written by French, but which had not been intended for publication, they would find the following words:—
The clerk here, a nice young fellow, is a Mason. The head porter told me so to-day, who is a Roman Catholic, in his presence; so we have a look at each other. I nearly think the clerk wished me to know it.That would show how this question of Masonry came in even in French's case. Irish Freemasonry was very different from English Freemasonry; in fact, as different as was English Freemasonry from Continental Freemasonry. He thought that the discussion was very appropriate, because it coincided with the notification made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Mr. George Bolton had been restored to his position as jury-packer-in-chief in Dublin Castle. Mr. Bolton had been whitewashed by the moral officials of Dublin Castle; and they might now look forward, in these cases of treason-felony and conspiracy to murder, to Mr. Bolton being left to pursue his ancient devices, and to packed juries being sent to try men dragged 835 from remote villages throughout the country. He would refer to two or three cases which had come within his own personal knowledge of jury-packing in Ireland within the last year or two. Although hon. Members protested against the House of Commons being used as a Court of Appeal, he thought it might very appropriately be used for the review of certain judicial proceedings, especially such as the manipulation of jurors for the purposes of the Government of the day. He remembered that, some time ago, when an analysis of the Dublin Jury List was circulated, a gentleman was arrested who was residing in Liverpool on suspicion of having manipulated the Jury List. He was tried, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for having put forward a list of jurors for the City and County of Dublin, in which he gave the names of the jurors, specified their religion, and gave other particulars about them. He also remembered, about 12 months ago, calling the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the case of Thomas J. Bower, a special juror of the same city and county, who had been employed by the Crown at the trial of certain of the Phœnix Park prisoners. He had mentioned the case in order to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what special qualification, or what qualification at all, Thomas J. Bower possessed for serving as a special juror in the City and County of Dublin, because he had found, on inquiry, that the position held by Thomas J. Bower was that of a messenger employed in the Custom House of Dublin by the Board of Works Department, with a salary of 20s. a-week. He was told by the right hon. Gentleman, in reply, that Thomas J. Bower had the necessary rating qualification which entitled him to act as a special juror, and, on making further inquiry, he ascertained that Bower's rating qualification was derived from some room he occupied over a riding-stable in Dublin, which he had advertised as an insurance office. Apart from the question whether it was legal or illegal to appoint such a man as Bower to the position of special juryman, there was this fact—that the real qualification which entitled him to be a special juryman in Dublin was that he was the secretary and paid official of three or four Orange Lodges, and that he had 836 acted as an Emergency man under an assumed name in the county of Tipperary and other places. When he (Mr. Kenny) mentioned those facts to the House, the reply of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland was that he was holding up the name of Thomas J. Bower to public odium, and that similar consequences might befall him as had happened to others who had performed their duty. He (Mr. Kenny) cited the case now, because he thought there could not be the slightest personal danger to Bower in repeating it, and he only repeated it as an instance of the manner in which the Jury List of Dublin City and County had been manipulated by George Bolton and his confrères. There had been numerous instances in which unfortunate men had fared badly owing to the manner in which George Bolton and other Crown officials had manipulated the Jury Lists. In Ireland, on the most trifling evidence, which in England would convict no one, men had been sentenced to penal servitude for life. In Cork, in one instance, two men, whose case he had brought before the House, and in regard to whom some remarkable circumstances had transpired—namely, the brothers, Delahunty—they were tried at Cork, and he wished to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary to the way in which they were arrested and tried by a jury in Cork composed entirely of Freemasons. They were transferred from a remote district in the county of Clare to the city of Cork, of which they knew nothing, and where the witnesses who were necessary for their defence were not likely to be known personally or to be credited. The chief witness summoned on their behalf was a lady of high standing belonging to a wealthy family; the men had been in her employment, and she swore a distinct and clear alibi for one of them, the evidence going to prove that it was highly improbable that the other man could have been in the place where it was alleged a certain individual was fired at. The evidence of this lady would have been fully believed if the case had been tried in the County Clare; but in Cork it was entirely discredited; and one doubtful point which was not cleared up on the trial—namely, whether a servant 837 girl had supplied one of the men with a revolver beforehand or not, was not cleared up owing to the fact that the solicitor for the defence was not present to instruct counsel. The men were convicted, and at the present moment were undergoing penal servitude for life. A remarkable fact had since transpired — namely, that a man had made a declaration that he had suborned the evidence against these men. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated to the House that this evidence, even assuming it to be suborned, was not essential to the conviction; but that was a statement very common for an Irish Law Officer to make. There were many other instances he could recite of prisoners who had been convicted by juries composed of persons opposed to the principles, the political life, and the religious sentiments of the majority of the Irish people. He wondered what Englishmen would think if it was the habit in this country to try every Protestant by a jury of Catholics! If England were only for a short time subjected to that sort of treatment—if upon every jury panel the names of Protestants were studiousiy omitted, and Catholics carefully put on—if, whenever a Freemason was brought up for trial, the jury was packed and well-known Papists were empannelled for the unmistakable purpose of securing a conviction, he wondered how long the English people would tolerate such a system. It was only by endeavouring to bring the case home to themselves that they could realize the feeling of exasperation and hatred which must be engendered in Ireland against this system, so opposed as it was to fair play and common justice. The ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland had for the second time that night trotted out the number of unpunished murders that had occurred in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that there had been 61 persons murdered in Ireland, in connection with whom the murderers had been undetected. Did that list of 61 include the name of Michael Joyce? Because it struck him (Mr. Kenny), in computing the number of murders which had taken place in Ireland, it was not only undesirable, but improper, to exclude those who had been murdered by process of law. He thought that if the total number of 838 murders which had taken place in Ireland, and the total number of innocent men who had been executed by judicial process were counted, the number of those who had been wrongfully executed would exceed the number unpunished. Unhappily, it seemed to be in that House a perfectly useless task to direct the attention of English Members to this condition of affairs. In the condition of affairs in Ireland, the administration of justice, or rather the maladministration of justice, could only be brought home to Englishmen by startling occurrences. Whenever a great crime took place in Ireland, it startled the people of this country and they directed their attention to the condition of things there. They had it from the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, when recently speaking there, that so concentrated was his attention upon other matters, that the condition of Ireland for some four or five years had practically escaped his examination. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] A statement to that effect had certainly appeared in the newspapers; but he was not surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's contradiction, because, in the first place, he knew how inaccurate the newspapers were, and, secondly, he was aware that the Prime Minister never admitted the accuracy of any newspaper report. He believed, however, that the Prime Minister was not so conversant with the condition of things in Ireland as he might have been, and that a great political crisis would come upon his Government before he was at all cognizant of the exact position of things. It was only by startling evidence that the attention of the people of England was directed to the condition of affairs in Ireland; and, for his own part, he thought it an almost useless thing to call attention to the maladministration of justice in Ireland, if he did not look forward with hope, and he would add with anxiety, to the time when they would have an opportunity of bringing about a changs in the administration of justice in that country, and of putting an end to an Administration whose policy had not been, as one of its Members boasted, to steer an "even keel," and to do justice between man and man, but to hang innocent men and to cloak and shield official reprobates of the worst type.
§ COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, he rose for the purpose of protesting against the 839 statement which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) with regard to Freemasonry in Ireland. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was totally misleading, and calculated to deceive English Members. Everyone acquainted with the verdicts of juries in Ireland, and the manner in which various appointments were given in Ireland, from that of a Petty Sessions clerk upwards, would know that Freemasonry exercised a powerful influence in that country, and that it was brought to bear in favour of Protestants. Everything that had been stated on the opposite side of the House in reference to Freemasonry was literally and strictly true. As it was known in England, it was a most honourable Society; but it was nothing of the sort in Ireland. In Ireland it simply meant Orangeism, and it was the curse and bane of the country.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, the House were naturally anxious, at that hour of the night, to hear something from a Member of Her Majesty's Government. They had had one speech already from the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan); but, as far as his (Mr. Deasy's) opinions went, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had failed to touch upon the main points of the question. Now, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had only visited Ireland for a very short time a few days ago; but he had been in communication with many of the Irish officials, and any statement he might make, or any answer he might give, to the charges which had been preferred, would be attentively listened to. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had always expressed their anxiety to ameliorate the condition of the oppressed people of Bulgaria and other places; but, with a few honourable exceptions, they never raised their voices on behalf of the oppressed people of Ireland. He thought the question raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) was one which deserved the attention of the Government. It had reference to the treatment of prisoners in the Irish gaols; but, so far, it had not been touched upon by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. He (Mr. Deasy) believed the question had been investigated 840 by a Royal Commission recently; but he fully expected that the Report of that Royal Commission would be treated with the same neglect as the Reports of other Royal Commissions. He did not think the inquiry recently entered into would have any more beneficial result than the other Royal Commissions which had sat. But with regard to the subject of their inquiry, he must say that in the South of Ireland, prisoners had been treated by the Governors of prisons in a very harsh and brutal manner. Those observations applied particularly to persons who had been sentenced to short terms of imprisonment under the Crimes Act. At Waterford, a short time ago, a man died from the treatment which he had been subjected to in prison; and it was with the utmost difficulty that one of the Members for the City of Waterford (Mr. Leamy) was able to direct the attention of the Government to the fact, and compel them to grant some kind of inquiry. What the result of that inquiry would be, he (Mr. Deasy) could not say; but he had received some information as to the way in which the Governor of that gaol had behaved to prisoners who had been sentenced to two or three months, imprisonment. He admitted that some effort had been made by the Government to remedy the old state of things with regard to Cork Gaol, and he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland for having inserted the clause in an Act passed last summer, which would, to some extent, give prisoners in that gaol a mode by which any ill-treatment they might receive at the hands of the Governor or minor officials could be made public. But it was obviously unfair to place the supervision of these persons in the hands of unpaid magistrates. The result would be that the prisoners would be neglected. The Government, if they really meant to do justice, must revert to the old system of paying independent men salaries, and compelling them to visit the prisons once or twice a-week, so that they might be able to stand independently between the prisoners and the officials. Until the Government consented to make such appointments, there would be constant and, he feared, well-founded complaints against the manner in which these prisoners were treated by the Governors of gaols. He regretted to say that the way in which the Coercion 841 Act was administered in the South of Ireland had been a cause of very great irritation to the people there. One or two cases had been mentioned by preceding speakers as to the way in which the Crimes Act had been enforced in Skibbereen, Millstreet, and other places. There was a Question put to the Government the other day as to the prosecution of a large number of the inhabitants of Skibbereen for carrying torches abont the town in honour of the Member for the Borough of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and also to celebrate the visit of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts. On that occasion, the Sub-Inspector took it into his head to prosecute men for carrying tar-barrels and torches; but, fortunately, as the House was sitting, and the case was likely to be reviewed, the Government immediately ordered the prosecution not to be proceeded with. One man was brought into Court, but the case was dismissed, probably because it was understood that the Government objected to the discussion which was likely to take place in that House. Captain Plunkett had suppressed several meetings in the county of Cork during the last few weeks. It must have been within the knowledge of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland that those meetings had been proclaimed; and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, as he was the only Irish official in the House who could throw much light on the matter, if he could give the House any reasonable excuse for their suppression, or whether Captain Plunkett had given any explanation? At Donoughmore, a meeting was advertised, at which one or two Members of Parliament were expected to attend; but the day before the meeting was to take place, he (Mr. Deasy) had been served, in one of the most crowded streets of the city of Cork, at 12 o'clock in the day, with a notice of the proclamation of the meeting. He did not think that that was a proper way in which to serve a notice upon a Member of Parliament; but it mattered little to him. What he feared was that if meetings were wantonly interfered with, the people would, some day or other, insist upon coming together; probably only to be made the victims of the bayonets and buckshot of the police. There had only been one outrage at Donoughmore for many 842 years. That occurred last year, and the learned Judge who presided at the trial of those charged with the murder, declared, distinctly and emphatically, that it had nothing to do with the present or any past agitation. On the face of that statement, and in the absence of crime at Donoughmore, he confessed that he could not understand the action of the Government. But he could understand why a meeting on the following Sunday at Millstreet was proclaimed. Only a few days before, the Lord Lieutenant had paid a visit to Millstreet, and His Excellency got the reception he might have expected, for the people closed their doors, and hung out black flags. He knew it was for that reason the meeting was proclaimed by Captain Plunkett as soon as it was announced. But he failed to see what advantage the Government gained by the proclamation; because, in this particular case at Millstreet, as well as at Donoughmore, a most successful meeting was held three or four hours before the proclaimed meeting was advertised to take place, and certainly the speeches made at it were of a far more violent character than those which would have been delivered if the meeting had been allowed to be held. There could be no doubt that the people were far more incensed against the British Government and the Executive than if the meeting had been permitted to take place. Why was it that the Government, on those two occasions, did not act as they were in the habit of acting? Why did they not send down an official shorthand writer to the platform, to take a note of the speeches; or even send a policeman, who was scarcely able to write long hand, to report the speeches? It was the easiest thing in the world to obtain a conviction against any man who made a speech on an Irish platform; and it would not be the first time that several of his hon. Friends had seen the inside of a gaol, and suffered all the tortures of a plank bed, for speeches for which, if they had been tried by an impartial Judge, they would never have been convicted at all. It was the custom under Captain Plunkett to send policemen to these meetings, who only reported isolated sentences, and then to proceed against the speakers for having used violent language. Then, again, he complained that the Resident 843 Magistrates, by whom those charged with breaches of the Crimes Act would be tried, were selected from a class of persons who did not care one jot what evidence was adduced to obtain a conviction, so long as a conviction could be recorded. Nor did he know of a single case in which a sentence had been set aside on appeal by a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He did not think it would be possible for such a thing to happen. There might have been cases where sentences had been reversed, but he did not recollect them. With regard to the Tubercurry prisoners, whose case had been mentioned in the House that day, he had one or two words to say as to the treatment which one of his constituents, Mr. Fitzgerald, had received at the hands of the Government, and of the police authorities at Galway. In the first instance, he was arrested without a warrant; and after having been detained for a long time in Sligo Gaol, without any charge having been formulated against him, the police authorities in Cork, acting, as they always did, under the direction of Captain Plunkett, sent a detective to Mr. Fitzgerald's house, in order to induce his wife to say something which might implicate her husband. It had not been denied, in answer to a Question which had been put in that House, that a detective was sent, in order, if possible, to obtain some evidence which might really open up a way to a conviction. He felt bound to say that he had never heard of a more cowardly act. But it was notorious that some officials would have recourse to any act of baseness in order to retain their present position, and secure the enjoyment of their present large salaries, with the prospect also of a further increase; for he could not forget that the House of Commons had been kept until 6 o'clock in the morning discussing a proposal to increase the salary of Captain Plunkett and the other Divisional Magistrates by £500 a-year. The manner in which police officials mannfactured offences for their own benefit was well known in Ireland. He would give one or two instances. It was reported in the newspapers one morning that the police had made a large seizure of arms in Cork, near the military barracks; but he had it on the best authority that only one or two rusty rifles had been taken, and there were strong reasons for believing 844 that those rusty rifles were placed where they were found by the very men who afterwards went to seize them. Another feat of the police occurred a short time ago, three miles from the city of Cork. In the centre of a field 200 yards from the road, the police dug up a couple of sods of earth and found a bottle, which they carried away in triumph. He was told that the bottle contained nothing more dangerous than whiskey; but he could not vouch for that fact. He did not know what it contained; but it was made a pretext by Captain Plunkett for the continuance of an extra force stationed in the city of Cork on account of the dangerous character of the neighbourhood. He had been surprised to hear the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) state that jury-packing did not prevail to any extent in Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman knew of the way juries were manipulated by Peter O'Brien & Co., he (Mr. Deasy) did not think he would have stated anything of the kind. He had been supplied from the city of Cork with several lists of jurors under the Crimes Act, in which were the names of those who had been empannelled on juries for the last year and a-half, and he found that all of them were Protestants with the exception of four or five—those four or five being magistrates who had signed the Petition protesting against the dismissal of Lord Rossmore from the Commission of the Peace, and who were more strongly opposed to the interests of the people of Ireland than the very worst Orangemen. The Crown had been in the habit, latterly, of challenging from 36 to 38 and 40 Catholics, and not one single Protestant; but they always managed to put on in every jury one or two of the Catholic gentlemen he had just referred to, to try and save appearances; so that, of course, a verdict was given in every case, no matter what the evidence might be. No doubt, last summer, Peter O'Brien had proceeded in a more satisfactory manner, in consequence of the severe strictures which had been placed upon his conduct in that House. It was now the practice of the Crown to challenge three or four Protestants, in addition to 38 or 40 Catholics, so as to show their impartiality, and he congratulated Peter O'Brien on having adopted that ingeneous expedient. He had informed the House 845 a few nights ago, of an instance which occurred at the last Assizes. In one or two cases the jury disagreed where Peter O'Brien thought a verdict ought to have been given, and, after the cases were over, he followed one or two of the jurymen into the street. One of these gentlemen said that Peter O'Brien asked him who were those who disagreed, and who were those who were in favour of a verdict. He had submitted that fact to the House the other night, and he had since received letters from the city of Cork, giving unquestionable proof that similar instances had occurred on more occasions than one. It was evidently the object of Peter O'Brien to find who the dissentient jurymen were, in order that they might be excluded from the jury panel in future. They had an admission from the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland that Freemasonry in England might be very different from what it was in Ireland. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew how different it was in Ireland, and the construction the people were likely to put upon his admission that he was a Mason, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have made it. People would now say that it was because he belonged to that Society himself, that he screened French and Cornwall when he was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. But to return to the subject of jury-packing, he thought it was extremely hard on respectable citizens of the city of Cork, and other parts of the country, that they should be brought from their business, many of them at considerable expense, and then simply told by the Crown, when their names were called, to stand aside. Those gentlemen must feel very keenly the slur thus cast upon them by such men as Peter O'Brien, because there were only two inferences that could be drawn from the action of the Crown—either that the persons challenged were unworthy of sitting upon a jury, or else it was the object of the Crown to obtain a conviction at any cost. Not content with getting convictions by the amount of evidence they were in the habit of producing, they did not hesitate to have secret inquiries of the character the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland had not scrupled to produce before the House that night. 846 Men of the most respectable character, occupying good positions in Cork, one of them a Town Councillor of the city, had been brought up before these Special Commissions, and because they refused to give evidence as to any Societies with which they might have been connected 10 or 20 years ago, they had been sentenced to imprisonment week after week. These men were determined they would not be the tools of the Government, and had made up their minds that they would remain in prison rather than state what was not true. Neither would they state anything outside the matter they were called on by summons to answer. The result was that the Inquisition had to be abandoned, and the Government had to fall back upon the Secret Service money, in order to obtain witnesses to swear against those men who were marked out for victims. He should like to know how much of that money Detective French had put into his own pocket, and what account he had given of it to the Government. French, three or four months ago, resided near a farm he had purchased; and since he had come into possession of it a great deal of money had been laid out upon it. During his suspension he (French) had remained with a relative near Cork, who was in comparatively poor circumstances up to the time of the appointment of French as Inspector Director. Since then matters had changed, and the worldly circumstances of the relatives of Mr. French had marvellously improved. Whether this was due to the employment of Secret Service money or not, he (Mr. Deasy) did not know; but he was really interested in obtaining some statement of the manner in which that money had been expended by French. Of course, the Secretary of State would consider himself quite justified in making a simple declaration that the money was spent as Parliament desired; but the Government did not know anything, he was quite sure, of the manner in which it was employed. Up to recently, the people of Cork and the police had been on good terms with each other. Latterly, Captain Plunkett, for some reason or other,t had removed most of the Catholic constables from the city, and brought down Orangemen to take their places. He did not attach much importance to that fact; but he should certainly like to have an 847 explanation. On the whole, he thought the less the people had to do with the police the better; but, no doubt, there was some motive in the course Captain Plunkett had taken. He hoped, before the debate proceeded much further, to have a full and satisfactory statement, or at least some attempt at a reply, from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to those speeches which had been made on that side of the House. It would not do for the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House to be satisfied with the speech they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). That really was no kind of answer at all to the speeches which had been made by the Irish Members; and it was not too much to hope even now, after the treatment they had received from the Government both this week and last, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would get up and frankly acknowledge that the case made out by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was unanswerable, or do the best he could to give an answer to it.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had listened with great attention to the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite in support of the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and which the hon. Member had supported in a strong and able speech; but he thought some matters had been introduced into the debate by hon. Members opposite which he did not think the House would expect him to deal with. The question of the administration of the Irish Prisons was certainly not germane to the Motion before the House, although he admitted that that question was a large and important one, and deserving of substantial consideration. Nor did he think that the question of the way in which public meetings had been dealt with in Ireland was raised in the present issue. The few meetings which had been proclaimed had been suppressed on principles which had been applied throughout the country with consistency, uniformity, and impartiality. They had been prohibited either on the ground that outrages had been committed in the district in which they were to be held, or that outrages and danger to individuals were to be apprehended, either directly or 848 indirectly, if the meetings were allowed to beheld. Anyone who had read the reports in the newspapers during the Recess must have come to the conclusion that the right of free speech in Ireland had not been abridged, but, on the contrary, had been largely exercised by many persons. But dealing with the question immediately before the House, as he understood it, there were two impeachments against the Government which, in effect, came to this—first, that the Government had used the Crimes Act and the powers which it conferred on the Executive; and, secondly, that they had used those powers in an unfair manner. ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] So far had some hon. Members gone—and not the less those hon. Members who now cheered—that they accused the Government of having deliberately, wilfully, and intentionally packed juries in order that innocent men might be convicted. He failed to understand the force of the accusation against the Government, and he did not think that any hon. Member could really believe it. With regard to the first point, the allegation as to the Crimes Act might have been a very good one before the Crimes Act left the House of Commons; but when it was proposed, under the Crimes Act, that powers should be given to the Executive to change the venue, and to examine witnesses without the presence of the accused, those matters were fully discussed, and it was only after a full discussion that these powers were intrusted to the Executive to use them and put them in force, and they would have been neglectful of their duty if, when the occasion required, they had not done so. What was the principal charge as regarded the Crimes Act? It was that this change of venue had taken place. But the change of venue had taken place under the authority of the Attorney General for Ireland by powers intrusted to him by an Act of Parliament. The object was to take away the cases from all local prejudice. If his right hon. and learned Friend came to the conclusion that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in the district in which the crime occurred, he had power to change the venue under the provisions of the Crimes Act. Why was it that the venue had been changed? As he had stated, it was to prevent anything in the shape of local prejudice, local terrorism, 849 and to bring these cases before a jury thoroughly impartial, who knew none of the parties, who had never seen them, and who for, the first time, heard the facts as they were presented to the Court by the witnesses. It was said that the special jurors of Dublin were incapable—he used the words of the hon. Member for Sligo—of trying the cases fairly, because they regarded the prisoners with political, religious, and social prejudices—because they differed from the creed of the accused, and because they were landlords in the country and traders in the towns, who were hostile to their interests. How could it be supposed for one instant that the special jurors of Dublin, comprising not only gentlemen, but its first merchants, would view with prejudice a case in which a peasant from Connemara, or Munster, or from any other part of the country, was accused of murdering another peasant? Almost all the cases which came on were trials of one peasant for murdering another. Surely it was too much to state to the House of Commons that the first merchants which Ireland possessed were, in connection with these cases, so imbued with prejudice that they were incapable of approaching such a trial fairly and impartially? Then it was stated that being a Catholic was sufficient to induce a juror to refuse to believe a man on his oath. Hon. Members opposite complained that there was only one Roman Catholic, or two Roman Catholics, or three Roman Catholics, on a certain jury; and, further, that they were selected because they shared in the prejudices of Protestant jurymen. He thought that it cast an undeserved slur upon the Catholic jurors of Dublin, many of whom were his personal friends, to tell them that they were incapable of serving with Protestant jurors, without sharing in their prejudices, and that, therefore, they were incapable of trying prisoners fairly. As for the allegation that there was a combination to put Protestants on juries, because the Crown were afraid of Roman Catholics, he would tell the House who the Law Officers of the Crown were. The Attorney General for Ireland was a Roman Catholic, and the two gentlemen associated with him in the prosecutions were Mr. Fottrell, the Clerk of the Crown, another Roman Catholic, and the Crown Solicitor, who was also a Roman Catholic.
§ MR. CALLANasked, whether at the time the jury principally referred to was empannelled the Crown Solicitor and the Crown Prosecutor were Roman Catholics?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was speaking of the state of things at present, and what he said was literally true. Hon. Members would not deny that, at this moment, every official connected with the administration of the Criminal Law in Dublin, except himself, was a Roman Catholic.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that two cases had been cited as an illustration of the mode in which the law had been administered. Mr. Cornwall had been spoken of as an official of the Castle; but it was well known that Mr. Cornwall was not a Castle official at all. He had no more connection with Dublin Castle than any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, nor had he ever had any connection with it. Mr. Cornwall was an official connected with the Post Office. Now, what was the course the Government had taken in the case of Mr. Cornwall? As soon as the prosecution against him resulted in a verdict—he referred to the case in which the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was defendant—immediately that verdict was given, proceedings were taken against Mr. Cornwall. The complaint now made by several hon. Members opposite was that all the persons accused of different conspiracies, different crimes, and different acts had not been joined in one charge. He was astonished to find that such an accusation should ever have suggested itself to the mind of anyone—namely, that persons charged with different crimes should all be joined together in one charge. Everyone who knew anything about law knew that such a course was perfectly impossible, and that each case was bound to be dealt with separately. Then it was said that the Public Prosecutor had acted from first to last with a desire to screen Cornwall. The charge was preposterous, considering that Cornwall had been tried for felony at the instigation of the Crown. 851 Let them see how the case stood. The men accused of these crimes had been tried one by one, it was true, and except in a case of conspiracy that was the only course that could be taken.
§ MR. HEALYThat was not the course pursued in the charge against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that was a case of one conspiracy. The charge against the hon. Member for the City of Cork was not at all an analogous case, and was a perfectly different thing from the cases they were now dealing with. It was said that the Government had tried to screen Cornwall; whereas, after the jury had found that Cornwall was a felon by the verdict they gave in the action brought by him against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), the Crown tried him for felony. If the Crown had not tried him for felony, but misdemeanor and conspiracy, there would have been fair ground for the charge that they had endeavoured to screen him; but, properly and naturally, they tried him for the felony the jury had found against him. The complaint on the side of Mr. Cornwall's friends was that the Crown had pressed unduly against Cornwall, not only in challenging the jury, but in the way in which they had conducted the case, and in trying him twice. Indeed, the Crown went so far as this—that, after he was acquitted on the charge of felony, they pressed the other charge, and tried him for conspiracy, and the jury disagreed. In the meantime another case was tried—that against Dr. Fernandez. Several jurors of the jury who acquitted Dr. Fernandez were challenged, and had said that he left the Court without a stain upon his character. And yet they were told in that House that they were trying to screen Cornwall. In the present Commission, Cornwall had been put upon his trial again for the same charge; and the complaint now was that no juror had been challenged. The objection on the part of Cornwall's advisers was that the Crown did not challenge men of national sympathies, who were likely to find him guilty. The complaint on the other hand was that the Crown did not challenge men who, from the social position they occupied as Freemasons, 852 were likely to acquit Cornwall. The Government were impeached in the House of Commons, because, in an important case like this, out of a panel of 400 jurors of which the special panel consisted, no challenge was made at all, and the jurors, as they came into the box, were allowed to try Cornwall. It was said that that jury was composed almost entirely of Freemasons. He was not a Freemason himself, and he knew nothing about that Body; but this he did know, that, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), there was one Roman Catholic on that jury, and if there were 11 Freemasons who would act contrary to their oath, he did not and could not believe that they would be able to find a Roman Catholic who would be ready to act with them. The statement that there were 11 Freemasons on the jury was made, he imagined, from hearsay, because he did not suppose that anything so incredible could happen as that the first 11 men out of a panel of 400 would be Freemasons, and would be allowed to be sworn without challenge.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the number was 200, not 400.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was quite incredible that of the first men who entered the jury-box out of so large a panel, 11 should be Freemasons. It had been said that a rider was attached by the jury to their verdict, in the case of Cornwall, to the effect that the evidence adduced by the Crown had not been sufficient. What was the meaning of that? The Crown examined every available witness, and, among others, Johnson and Taylor. The verdict was simply a verdict equivalent to one of "Not proven," which meant that the evidence of Taylor, Johnson, and others was not reliable. Anybody who read the evidence given at the trial would understand, having regard to the cross-examination, that the jury were unwilling to believe, or at least place implicit confidence in, the evidence of Taylor and Johnson, having regard to the mode with which that evidence had been procured, and to the fact that the man who had been employed in getting up the evidence—Meiklejohn—had reduced them to such a state of abject terror that he had compelled them to confess to their own guilt. 853 Other complaints had been made. The hon. Member for Sligo asked why the ordinary Law Officers of the Crown had not conducted the prosecution? So far as his Colleagues and himself were concerned there was an obvious answer. At the time the Commission sat, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was engaged in his Parliamentary duties, and could not possibly have been there; but it was asked why was not the Attorney General for Ireland there? In that case, also, there was an obvious reason. When the Commission sat, his right hon. and learned Friend had gone down as special counsel to conduct a very important prosecution at Sligo. With regard to Serjeant O'Brien, there was a complete answer also, as he had been one of the counsel employed in the case of "Cornwall v. O'Brien." Failing the ordinary Law Officers of the Crown, Serjeant Hemphill, one of the most eminent members of the Irish Bar, was retained to conduct the prosecution. That was the answer to the charge of not employing the ordinary Crown counsel. He came now to the case of Mr. French. The trial of French was actually going on at that moment, and had been going on during the whole of that day. It was most unfortunate, therefore, to have it discussed in that House, or that anything should be said by hon. Members opposite which might be read to-morrow by the jury engaged in trying the case. For his own part, he should abstain altogether from saying anything in reference to cases which were absolutely pending. He denied that there was any foundation for the allegation that the Crown had been any party to the absconding of one of the defendants; and as regarded the letter of Mr. French, that letter was actually used and put in by the Government against Mr. French for two reasons. It was first alleged on behalf of French that he was incapable of pleading. As the jury had found that issue against him, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could say, without injustice to him, that he was sane and perfectly capable of pleading. This letter, having come into the hands of the Crown, was used first, because it showed conclusively in the judgment of the Crown Prosecutor that French was sane; and, secondly, because it contained a threat against the Government; and, in his opinion, no Government would be 854 worthy of the name of Government, if, when they obtained possession of a letter charging them with improper conduct, under a threat to extort exceptional terms as regarded a prisoner, they had refrained from using it. French was a man who had been for some years in the Public Service, and he now suggested that he held State secrets which he would disclose against the Government. If the Government had refrained from using a letter written by a man about to be tried, containing such charges against them—if they had at all evinced a disposition to hold it back, they would have been guilty of most improper conduct. They felt themselves at once compelled to bring it forward, and as openly and as publicly as they could to meet the allegations made against them. As to the letter of Mr. Reid, which was referred to in French's letter, and upon which so much stress had been laid by the hon. Member for Sligo, according to the best information he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could obtain, there never was any such letter in existence. He knew nothing about the matter himself; but he had received a communication stating that no such letter existed containing one word in support of the statements of hon. Members opposite. He made that assertion on the best information he had been able to secure. The trial of Fitzgerald had been referred to; but French, admittedly, had no earthly connection with the case. Fitzgerald was arrested subsequently to French leaving the service of the public, and French was neither directly nor indirectly connected with it. The main charge against the Government was that of jury-packing. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo, that it should be the object of everybody to secure a jury which would be fair and impartial, thoroughly free from bias, and free from the imputation of undue influence. Men possessing those qualities were the men whom everyone wished to see performing the duties of jurors. Those being the objects every man desired, and which he believed every honest Crown Prosecutor desired, they were secured by certain safeguards as old as the law itself. In the first place, in the interests of the prisoner himself, he was given the right to challenge, and the right of "stand by" was also possessed by the Crown. In the ordinary class of cases they had to 855 deal with in Ireland no difficulty whatever arose, and it was considered that every juror as he came forward was just as capable of trying a case fairly and impartially as another. But the House must remember what the history of the country had been. Hon. Members would not forget that within a very short time the history of Ireland had been so lamentable that it was difficult to obtain men who would discharge the duty of a juror; and, in one celebrated case, a juryman, for no other reason than that he had discharged his duty fearlessly, was all but murdered. That case would be fresh in the recollection of the House, and all that this juror did was to perform his duty in the jury-box, and to give a fair and honest verdict. Another juryman had his life spared almost, as it were, by the interposition of Providence. Threatening notices had been sent broadcast throughout the City of Dublin in the case of an important trial; and with the knowledge that these influences were at work, were the Crown to be blamed for trying to secure an impartial jury, and for endeavouring to free the jury-box from the influence of terrorism and fear? Their only desire was to secure jurymen who would try to do their duty fairly, honestly, and impartially. Catholics, no doubt, had been ordered to stand aside in many cases; but there was no slur upon them. This grievance was not put forward by them, but for them, and it was a false issue altogether that was raised. There were also many persons who, for their own sakes and from the nature of their business, were ordered to stand by. [Interruptions.]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland must be allowed to proceed without interruption.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)The hon. Members opposite were, perhaps, not aware of the mode of procedure in these cases. Jurors were not placed upon the jury panel by the Crown. They were placed on it according to the rating, and the Executive had no more to do with that than any Member of that House. So much for the composition of juries. Then, under the rules laid down, persons were in some cases ordered to stand by for their own sakes, and, in many cases, from the nature of their trade. And, again, in the case of 856 persons known to be subject to fear or influence, the Crown would neglect its duty, if it did not order them to stand aside, and call in their place fair and impartial men. Anyone acquainted with criminal trials in Ireland would know that there were many persons whose trade, and whose lives, perhaps, might be endangered by their serving as jurors. But in ordinary cases, those rules did not apply, because they were laid down solely for the purpose of securing a fair and impartial jury—free from fear or influence. For that purpose they were framed, and for no other purpose were they applied; and he appealed to the record of jury trials, to the results known to that House, to the state of crime in Ireland as it was now and to that which existed some years ago, as affording the best proofs that juries in Ireland had fearlessly and impartially discharged their duties. Finally, he said that the jurors of Dublin—merchants and gentlemen—who were unpaid and unrewarded, with nothing to gain, but with much abuse, at least, and sometimes danger to fear, and who had thus discharged their duties, deserved the thanks of the community.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted." ["No, no!"]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy.)
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had hoped that the House would have had the pleasure of listening to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on this question. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible by the actual tenure of his present Office for the course of the events which had given rise to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). But, still, he (Mr. Parnell thought they were entitled to assume that the right hon Gentleman had been an attentive observer of those events, and that he would not have assumed the Office which he now held, without having examined and carefully considered the nature and general bearing of all these complaints of Irish Members, at least during the two years which had elapsed since the Crimes Act of 1882 had been in force; and, therefore, he believed that the right 857 hon. Gentleman was in a position, on the present occasion, to give to hon. Members on those Benches, and the House generally, the benefit of his opinion and his judgment upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo, and upon the proceedings of the Irish Executive, which that Motion impugned. The right hon. Gentleman, by the assumption of his present Office, had, to a certain extent, made himself responsible for the doings of his Predecessor; and although they had had the able assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), yet, at the same time, he (Mr. Parnell) thought it would be more satisfactory to hon. Members around him—he did not know whether it would be so to the House generally—if they were to have the benefit of hearing the voice of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. Certainly, it was rather an unusual occurrence, when the adjournment of the debate was moved upon a question of the present magnitude, involving such important issues, and connected with such very serious charges against the Irish Executive—it was rather unusual that the Question should be put from the Chair without any observation whatever, or reply, from the Minister responsible for the defence of the Government to the charges made. He should have thought they would have heard why the Government intended, as it was evident that they did intend, to oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and that the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) might have received some reason for that opposition? Without going into the nature or the merits of the case, which, on the present Motion, it was impossible for him to do, he submitted that the questions involved were of the greatest moment and weight, that they required greater time for consideration, affecting, as they did, the lives and liberties of many persons in Ireland, which in some instances had been menaces, and in others actually taken away; and that, therefore, the Government would do well to yield to the Motion before the House. He could not understand how they expected in the long run to gain that time which they wanted to gain, or to obtain the earlier discussion of the Franchise Question, by curtailing the 858 minutes and hours asked for by hon. Members on those Benches.
MR. GLADSTONESir, I feel it my duty to offer a decided opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy). I have heard the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) urge two reasons for that Motion. One is that my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has not entered into this debate. That, Sir, is perfectly true; but the present Chief Secretary for Ireland has no special responsibility for what has occurred in Ireland up to the present moment, and the right hon. Gentleman who has such responsibility for what has occurred during the last two years has entered fully into the debate, as has also the Legal Adviser of the Crown. The other reason of the hon. Member is that the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo is most important. No doubt, Sir, it is most important; but there are other important subjects awaiting discussion in this House, which, if they were raised, might occupy us for 12 months. Sir, the debate on the Address is not the occasion for discussions merely because they are important; and if that principle is to be applied, as it is now being applied, to an extent which threatens to be fatal to the dignity and efficiency of this House, I can only say that a new revolution will have been introduced into Parliamentary practice. We have had, I believe, eight days of discussion on the Address. Parliament was called by the Crown for a special purpose, and was exhorted to give its immediate attention to that purpose; and it is impossible for us, as the Advisers of the Crown, not to appeal to the House to assist us in giving effect to that intention, which I believe to be sustained by the entire voice of the nation. Therefore, Sir, the House having exhibited great patience already, we are not able to consent to this indefinite extension of the debate on the Address, and I hope the House will by a large majority refuse the Motion before it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Prime Minister had truly stated that the subject of the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was most important. Of course, hon. Members on those Benches did not deny that, in the opi- 859 nion of the Government, the Franchise Question was of more importance; but that was not their opinion. To them the lives and liberties of their fellow-countrymen were of much greater importance than the possession of votes at quinquennial elections; and he could not but think that the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was allowed to sit down a few moments ago with an absolutely empty Treasury Bench, and that the Speaker was obliged to rise and put the Question without a word from the Government, when the whole of the Radical Party cried "No!" was most noticeable. And then they had all the occupants of the Treasury Bench trooping in by preconcerted arrangement from parts unknown, where they had remained at a time when he (Mr. Healy) thought they would have have been much better occupied in attending to the debate raised on a question which the Prime Minister himself had admitted to be most important. He would ask how the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman had shown their sense of its importance? By coming into the House at half-past 12 o'clock, when the Motion was made for the adjournment of the debate, and by their absence while the debate was going on. It was in that way hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench showed their sense of the importance of the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo. When the adjournment of the debate was moved, they had a speech from the Prime Minister, and Irish Members very well knew with what intent and purpose calculated speeches of the kind were made; they knew that, to all appearances, there was a prearranged scheme.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member (Mr. Healy) must confine himself to the Question before the House.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, while following the ruling of Mr. Speaker, he would remind hon. Gentleman opposite, even at that hour of the morning (12.35), of the words of Dr. Watts, and ask them not to "let their angry passions rise." The Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) for the adjournment of the debate had been made distinctly on the ground that hon. Members on those Benches had not had sufficient opportunity for discussion. One night only—from 5 to 12 o'clock—had 860 been occupied in the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo; and he would put it to any reasonable man whether, considering the practices which had been going on in Ireland—considering the extraordinary revelations made by Inspector French, the Motion for the adjournment of the debate after six hours' discussion was reasonable or not? They knew that, on other occasions, Motions of the kind had not been resisted by the Government, because they were made by the Tory Party; they knew it was not considered irregular to devote four nights to a discussion on matters relating to some wretched corner in South Africa; yet one night only was considered sufficient for the debate on a question affecting the lives and liberties of 5,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. He (Mr. Healy) himself had been anxious to speak earlier that evening, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). Again, there was, of course, an anxious desire to hear the reply of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, which had led the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and other hon. Gentlemen interested in the debate, to reserve their speeches. And now the proposal was that a species of garotte should be put in operation, and they were to be compelled to make their speeches at an hour when not a single word that they might say on this grave and important subject could be heard outside the House. He would not question from a Radical point of view the importance of the Franchise Bill to which the Prime Minister had referred, or the necessity of making progress with that measure; but it was for hon. Members in all quarters of the House to give their opinions as to the necessity of Motions for Adjournment, and as to the fair amount of time which should be allotted to the discussion of important questions, and he maintained that the action of hon. Members on those Benches was perfectly reasonable in asking for the adjournment of the present debate. They could not but suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary for Ireland was anxious to make his maiden speech upon an Irish question; and he said it was not respectful to that right 861 hon. Gentleman, who had just come in, that he should be compelled to address the House at that hour of the morning. Because, if this Motion for Adjournment were not acceded to, what would happen? After a prolonged wrangle, such as, unfortunately, they were becoming seasoned to, the speeches of hon. Members who had not spoken on the previous question would begin, and then, at an unreasonable hour, they would be obliged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to go into the facts of the case. Anxious as the right hon. Gentleman must be to free his soul as to his experiences at the Castle, they were unwilling to inflict that upon him on the present occasion. Nor were Irish Members desirous that the Autumn Session should begin with a wrangle of the kind he had alluded to, for the sake of saving a little of the Government time, which, after all, might not be secured. It was desirable that the Government should consider what the continuance of the debate at that hour involved. When the Franchise Bill was last before the House, he (Mr. Healy) surrendered a whole sheet of Amendments rather than have time wasted, because he found his Amendments were being used by the Tory Party for obstructive purposes. Were the Irish Party to be deprived of a few hours' debate, when, perhaps, later on, if the Amendments to which he referred were to be put down and discussed at the length their importance justified, several days would be occupied in their consideration? As they had undertaken this discussion, let them conclude it quietly. The Irish debate would, in the nature of things, close to-morrow night; the Government would be able to bring up the Report of the Address, provided they "squared" the shipowners, on Wednesday; and they could begin the debate on the Franchise Bill on Thursday. He supposed the Tory Party would not require more than three nights for the debate on the second reading of the Bill, so that the Division could be taken comfortably this night week. In his opinion, a more convenient arrangement could not be arrived at. As one who took considerable interest in the fate of the measure which would so soon be laid before the House, he respectfully urged the Government not to inaugurate the discussion on the Franchise Bill in unseemly wrangles. A 862 Division would show the sense of the House as to an adjournment of the debate; but then somebody else—some one on the Tory Benches, for anything he knew—might object to continuing the debate at that hour of the night (12.45). Thereupon, there would be another wrangle; and no doubt in the end, when they had got tired, the Government would give way as they had done on other occasions. He appealed to the Government to let the House decide the matter in an amicable and reasonable spirit. He and his hon. Friends did not ask for more than another night's discussion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork had not had an opportunity of speaking a single word on this question. It was quite unreasonable that the Leader of a great Party, not perhaps in numbers, though there was every promise that bye-and-by it would be great even in that respect, should be expected to discuss a question of this kind, after a series of wrangles, at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Once more he appealed to hon. Gentlemen to act reasonably in the matter. He supposed that after a few of his hon. Friends had spoken they would be called upon to divide. It would then be 2 o'clock. Two or three more speeches would be made, and about 3 o'clock, or possibly some time later, an hon. Member would propose a surrender, and the adjournment would be granted. He trusted the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate without any further waste of time.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that at 20 minutes to 9, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) concluded his speech, the Irish Members who were then in the House called on the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) to speak; but the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to rise. If he had risen then, and delivered his speech, it was more than probable that the debate would now have been concluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman following, he (Mr. Leamy) supposed, the example set him by a late Irish Law Officer, refused to speak because it was the dinner hour. The result was that Irish Members of no importance in the House, like himself, had to continue the discussion. The Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken at such an hour as to make it quite unreasonable to expect the hon. 863 Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and other Leaders of the Irish Party to reply to him. They asked for an adjournment, and the fault, if there was any, must be placed on the head of the Solicitor General for Ireland, who was too vain to speak in a comparatively empty House.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was at a loss to understand with what show of justice the Prime Minister asked them to cut short, or rather to suppress, this matter after a few hours' discussion, and before any of the prominent Members of their Party had taken part in the debate. He asked hon. Members opposite, who were so proud in their strength of numbers, to remember that those questions which were mere Party questions for them in England, were questions of life and death for the people in Ireland. It was very likely the Prime Minister would remind the Irish Members that they had had a couple of nights' discussion upon the Maamstrasna revelations, a couple of nights which were chiefly occupied with the protests of English Tory and Radical Gentlemen against the conduct of the Government in Ireland. Why did they have two nights' discussion upon the Maamstrasna case? Simply because the Government would not yield an inquiry which was demanded by the entire public opinion in Ireland, and which was demanded in the secret hearts of many of the Government's own supporters.
§ MR. RUSTONI rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Question before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman must confine himself strictly to the Motion for Adjournment. He is not in Order in travelling beyond the Motion.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had not been called to Order; he was simply replying to the interruption of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ruston). He know there was not much use in appealing to men who had big battalions on their side; but he reminded the House that they were engaged to-night upon as important business as could well engage their attention. They were engaged in showing that the English rule in Ireland rested on infamy and corruption—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That is not the Question before the House. The question is the adjournment of the debate.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was trying, against a good many difficulties, to show that the debate ought to be adjourned, because this was a subject they had not yet had an opportunity of discussing fully, a subject which was of vital importance to the people as well as to the Members of the Ministry in Ireland. He wished to remind the House that for three months past, Parliament not having been sitting, tyranny had had full swing in Ireland—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I have twice observed that the hon. Gentleman is speaking irrelevantly. I call upon him to resume his seat.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, it was a matter for extreme regret, regret not confined to any Party, but regret, he believed, which would be shared to-morrow by all thoughtful Members of the House, no matter to what political Party they belonged, that the Prime Minister, guided and controlled by some intelligence less competent than his own, had entered upon the course which he had announced that night. He (Mr. Sexton) did not for a moment question that the reasons existing in the mind of the Prime Minister appeared to him to be sufficient to justify the course which he had adopted. No one, indeed, ever doubted that the reasons of the Prime Minister for the adoption of a particular course always appeared sufficient for himself. But the reason which the right hon. Gentleman had assigned to-night for refusing an adjournment of the debate was not a reason concerned with the inherent importance of the question under discussion. It was not asserted that they had fully debated the question. No; the Prime Minister had set forth the importance of some question which the House was to discuss in future as a reason why the present debate should not be adjourned. Whatever that question might be—if it be the question they all had in their minds—he respectfully suggested to the Prime Minister that the chances of the rapid and complete success of that question did not depend upon one Sitting more or less. Whether 865 they adjourned the debate, or they were compelled to close the discussion on the Irish Question that night, it appeared to him the important question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred stood an equal chance of arriving at a successful issue. He submitted to the Prime Minister whether or not he increased or improved the chances of that important question by the course he had taken up to-night? No man had shown more than the Prime Minister a keen sense of the necessity of mobilizing Parliamentary force; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in refusing the adjournment of this debate, he was taking that course which was most judicious and most likely to secure permanent success for the important measure he had in mind? From the point of view of the Irish Members, the question they had been discussing was more important than the question which was in the mind of the Prime Minister. The question which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated was very much of the nature of an abstract question concerning the political rights of persons in this country — a question which would not be brought into practical operation for months or years. But to-night they had been discussing the conduct of the Government in a series of trials proceeding at this very moment. He wanted to know, before that discussion closed, what course the Crown meant to take in the case of James Ellis French? Before this discussion closed, before any attempt was made to put a gag on their mouths, he and his hon. Friends must know whether the Legal Advisers of the Grown in Ireland meant to repeat upon the second trial of James Ellis French their scandalous conduct of last Friday. He was personally interested in this discussion, because the liberties of 11 of his constituents were now at stake. The House was aware that during the last six months he had repeatedly called attention to the case of these men. He had fruitlessly endeavoured that night to extract from the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), or the Legal Adviser of the Irish Government, the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), some assurance that when these men were placed on their trial for political offences, they would get treatment as fair and as liberal, treatment as little calculated to cause a harsh verdict 866 to be given against them, as the treatment which had been extended to the officials who had been placed upon their trial in Dublin. The debate ought not to close until they knew what was done that day in the case of James Ellis French, and until they knew what course the Government intended to pursue in the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) was very academical and in genious, one in which he kept wide of the question at issue. The speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, on the contrary, went very close—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled, upon the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, to discuss the speeches delivered during the last debate.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was pointing out that, while the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was remote to the subject, the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland went close to the subject, and they, the Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Parnell), the Vice Chairman of the Party, (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and several of the important Members of the Party, had had no opportunity of replying to that, the only important and only relevant speech which had come from the Government Bench in the course of the discussion. He (Mr. Sexton) was the less disposed to yield to the dictation of the Prime Minister, because he plainly saw that there was, he would not say a plot, but would use the word arrangement, to oppose any adjournment of the debate. When his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) moved the adjournment of the debate, there arose loud cries of "Divide, divide!" which made it clear to him there was something unusual in the wind. He had never before heard a Motion for Adjournment received, at the very moment it was proposed, with such—
§ MR. SPEAKERIt is my duty again to tell the hon. Gentleman he is not in Order. [Cries of "Clôture!" from the Irish Benches.] I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be silent while I am addressing the House. For the second time, I tell the hon. Gentleman he is deviating from the point before the House. I 867 must ask him to keep to the question of the adjournment of the debate. It is a painful duty I have to perform; but if the hon. Gentleman offends again, I shall be obliged to take notice of the fact.
§ MR. SEXTONthanked the Speaker for the warning he had given him. He was aware the Speaker had twice expressed the opinion that he was deviating from the Question before the House. The Speaker, too, had very properly said that he had a duty to perform from the Chair. But the humblest Member of the House had also a duty to perform, and he (Mr. Sexton) was endeavouring respectfully, reasonably, and calmly to state his reasons for supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone. If he again incurred the Speaker's displeasure, he would gladly welcome any penalty that might be imposed upon him. He repeated that he was inclined to resist the course proposed by the Prime Minister, because it appeared to him there was a disposition on the Government side of the House to prematurely close the discussion which had been raised to-night. He maintained that that disposition was evinced and emphasized by the sudden appearance of Ministers of the Crown when the Prime Minister rose. Seeing that no valid reason had been assigned against the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone, and that it was clear there was an arrangement to prevent an adjournment of the debate, he invited his hon. Friends to resist with all their force the proposal of the Government.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) for the adjournment of the debate, he would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to look at the matter, even from their own point of view. A most important discussion had taken place in the House that night with reference to matters of the utmost consequence to the Irish people, and if Her Majesty's Government wished that the Irish people should rest in any degree satisfied with the discussion which took place they must provide that the discussion should appear to the Irish people to have been exhaustive. The Government would not be serving any good or wise purpose if they insisted upon the debate being closed that night; 868 because he could assure the Government that the Irish people would not consider as either satisfactory or exhaustive any discussion in the House upon Irish affairs which was not participated in by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the Vice Chairman of the Party, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and several other hon. Gentlemen who were regarded by the Irish people as their leaders. He did not appeal to the Government from their own point of view, or because he had any sympathy with the anxiety of the Prime Minister regarding the Franchise Bill; but he appealed to them to agree to the adjournment of the debate, because such a course on their part would be most satisfactory to the majority of the Members of the House. He appealed to the Government, not because he sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, but because he sympathized with a great number of English Members he saw at hand to support the Government, and who, he believed, if they only spoke their minds, would be very favourable to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy). It was a monstrous proposal that the discussion should close that night. What would the conclusion of the debate mean? It would mean that whenever the Government wanted to stifle debate, or to shut out of the debate the voices of the most important Members of the Irish Party, all they would have to do in the future would be to keep the Government officials on the Treasury Bench from making their speeches until the eleventh hour in the debate, and then oppose every Motion for Adjournment. If he and his hon. Friends were not to insist upon the adjournment of the debate, they would be giving their sanction to the very undesirable precedent he had described. The Prime Minister and every Member of the Treasury Bench must know that the Irish Party would not permit any debate to close to which Members such as those he had before metioned had not contributed their opinions. He appealed in this matter to whatever sense of fair play there might be amongst English Members; and he put it to those Members whether they considered he and his 869 hon. Friends were making an unreasonable demand when they asked that the Leaders of their Party might have a proper opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this burning and important question?
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the Prime Minister had told them that Parliament was called together for the transaction of very important Business—namely, the consideration of the Franchise Bill. He (Mr. Biggar) did not know whether he spoke in accordance with recognized custom or not; but, as far as his experience bad gone, it had always been a practice on the Address to draw attention to subjects which were of a pressing nature.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is wandering from the subject now before the House.
§ MR. BIGGARI think that—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman has taken no notice of my remark. I said be was wandering from the subject before the House. He must keep strictly to the question.
§ MR. BIGGARapologized for the transgression. He had forgotten for the moment the Rule with regard to Motions for Adjournment. However, he did not intend to pursue that branch of the subject further, but to point out that the question which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was one of great importance to the Irish people. He could not help thinking that the Government would do well to agree to the Motion for Adjournment, in order that the subject might be fully and reasonably debated, instead of being cut short as suggested. It had been pointed out that there were some points in the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) which required a reply. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who was well qualified for a job of that sort, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and other influential Members of the Irish Party, were in the House ready to reply; but the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland did not give them an opportunity of replying, because he did not sit down until 25 minutes past 12 o'clock, a time when it was quite unreasonable to ask a leading Member of any Party to commence a speech in reply, seeing that a proper 870 and fair report of the speech could not appear in the morning's papers. It must be borne in mind that if the Government succeeded in closing their mouths that night, he and his hon. Friends would find other opportunities of raising the same question. He really did not see that any practical good was to be gained by the Government in forcing Irish Members to close their mouths on this particular occasion. If they were gagged now, they would feel themselves called upon to make the speeches they had intended to make that night at a not very distant time. He asked the Government whether, as a matter of self-interest, they were playing a judicious game in endeavouring to put the clôture upon the Irish Party?
§ MR. BARRYsaid, he was strongly inclined to think that if the Prime Minister had followed the course of the debate that night, he would not have opposed the Motion for Adjournment. What were the facts? After the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the speech of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), the Irish Members waited patiently for some declaration from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). Just before 9 o'clock, there were cries from the Irish Benches for the Solicitor General; but the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to rise. He (Mr. Barry) put it to the Government, as a matter of common sense, was it likely that any time would be saved during this Autumn Session if it came to protracted wrangles of this kind? Something was said about the dignity of the House. To enter upon a physical struggle at 1 o'clock in the morning, was certainly not at all likely to add to the dignity of the Assembly. He hoped that, on further reflection, and after having heard the true bearings of the case, the Prime Minister would see fit to give way, and grant the adjournment.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one observation of the Prime Minister which ought not to pass without some kind of challenge. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) moved that the debate be adjourned, whereupon the Prime Minister rose and opposed the Motion on the ground that there was very important Business of another kind 871 to be transacted by the House, and then the right hon. Gentleman said that this Parliament was assembled on this particular occasion for the special purpose, and that the Crown enjoined upon the House to do certain Business. That appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to be language of a strange and unconstitutional character. If there was one thing more largely written upon the history of the House of Commons, it was the unceasing and determined efforts made to vindicate its independence of the Crown, The Crown had no right and no power to enjoin on this House to proceed to any work at any particular time.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would like to explain. He did not speak of the Crown as enjoining that House.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he took down the word.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that word was never used. He did not speak of the Crown enjoining on this House. The word "injunction," however, did escape him, and he wished to withdraw it.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORaccepted the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, and assumed that he himself made a mistake. He thought it was the verb, and not the substantive, that he noticed. He reminded the House that at the commencement of every Session it was the constant practice to proceed with a Bill of no importance, before the debate on the Address was concluded, simply and solely because the House was determined to vindicate its independence. Under these circumstances, the House must remember that it was not bound to proceed with the consideration of any Franchise Bill. Whatever might be said in the Speech from the Throne, the House was not even bound to consider a Franchise Bill; but, having entered his protest against the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not occupy further time.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he had expected that some Irish Member sitting opposite, and giving a regular support to Her Majesty's Government, would have entered his protest against the proposal of the Government to close this debate, contrary to the unanimous feeling of the Irish Representatives. It must be borne in mind that, with one or two exceptions, only unimportant and uninfluential Members of the Irish Party had 872 expressed their views upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), besides which, not a single Member of any consequence sitting on the Government Benches had enlightened the House upon the subject. It struck him that it was extremely unwise on the part of the Government to refuse the adjournment of the debate, when it was asked under circumstances so reasonable as those which had been put forward by his hon. Friends who had already spoken. It was a strange thing that the Government should attempt to get rid of this question, which was one of vital importance to the Irish people, after only a few hours' discussion, and that at a time when subjects of very much less importance to the vast body of the people had been allowed to occupy the attention of the House for days together. A squabble or row amongst a horde of ruffians in Birmingham was debated seriously in the House for a whole night, and would have been discussed another night if only an adjournment had been proposed. He was hopeful that in the course of this discussion a gleam of light might dawn upon the Treasury Bench, and that the Government might see that resistance to the wish of the Irish Members, or an unseemly effort to close their mouths, was not the most effective way to dispose of questions which might appear frivolous to the House, but which were of the utmost importance to the welfare of the Irish people.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give way upon the question of adjournment. He did not attribute very much importance to the question whether there was another day or not occupied in continuing this debate, if debate it could be called. It could scarcely be called a debate when all the speaking had been on one side. There was one very powerful reason why the Government should agree to the adjournment, and it was this—that if they did not, whatever might be the real facts of the matter, it would be believed throughout the length and breadth of Ireland that the Government attempted to stifle discussion when subjects of vital importance to the lives and liberties of the Irish people were brought before the House. He belonged to a class of people in Ireland who strongly objected to 873 the course which the Government had pursued in the administration of the Crimes Act. Probably, there was not a peasant in that country who felt more intensely than he did the contrast between the manner in which the law was administered in this country, as compared with the way in which it was administered in Ireland. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to the adjournment of the debate for another reason. At that late hour of the night, Irish Members could not feel themselves able to discuss the Speech with that advantage and propriety which they thought its importance demanded. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would withdraw his opposition to the Motion, and not, in what the Irish people would regard as an unseemly fashion, press the Motion to a Division after what had occurred.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, he had hoped that, after the expressions of opinion which the Government had heard during the last three-quarters of an hour, they would have seen the propriety of acceding to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy). He (Mr. Deasy) was quite sure that if the Prime Minister had heard many of the speeches which had been delivered in the course of the evening, he would have felt that it was impossible for the Irish Members to conclude the debate that night. The question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was one of great importance to the Irish Members, and of great importance to Ireland. It was felt that there ought to be a further opportunity of alluding to the numerous cases of hardship and injustice which had occurred in remote localities in Ireland, and which, if the debate were brought to a premature close, there would be no opportunity of referring to during the remainder of the Session. Apart from that injustice, it was undesirable for the Prime Minister, or any other Minister of the Crown, to close the debate summarily, without having given his opponents a full and adequate opportunity of discussing questions of importance which might arise, simply because the Government, for the time being, were able to command a majority of the House. Irish Members knew very well that in any action taken by the right hon. Gentleman and persevered in, they 874 would be out-numbered at least 10 to one. ["No, no!"] He did not know what the exact number would be; but he felt confident that they would be defeated by a large majority, and that almost all hon. Members opposite, whether Radicals or Whigs, would be certain to go into the Lobby against them. The Solicitor General for Ireland had had several opportunities of speaking during the night, and he (Mr. Deasy) believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have let the debate close if it had not been that he (Mr. Deasy) intervened, against his will, for a short time, in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that the Irish Members were determined to hear him. He was followed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who did not rise until about midnight, so that his speech was not concluded until after half-past 12. Of course, at that hour of the night, the Leader of the Irish Party felt that he was unable to reply, and it would be highly improper for the debate to close until the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had had a full opportunity of addressing the House. He (Mr. Deasy) had taken the liberty, a short time ago, of pointing out how desirable it was that the House should hear something from the new Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). They were all of them anxious to know his views on the question which had been raised in the course of the debate, and it was useless for the Prime Minister to tell them, as he did a short time ago, that as the right hon. Gentleman was in no way responsible for what had taken place during the last year or two, that upon that ground they could not expect him to take part in the debate. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman undertook the Office of Chief Secretary, he also undertook the responsibilities of that Office, and should be made responsible for everything that took place before he came into Office, just as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Trevelyan) or the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have been. Whether that were so or not, he thought it was unseemly on the part of the Government to endeavour to compel the Irish Members to continue the discussion at that late hour of the night. If the Government 875 persisted, the House would be compelled to sit until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning; and, as far as he was concerned, he did not look forward to that prospect with any feeling of pleasure or satisfaction. It would not, however, be the first time, in his short experience of the House, that the Government had forced an All Night Sitting, and it would not be the first time that the Government would have come out of that All Night Sitting second best. The lives and liberties of the people of Ireland were at stake; and whatever the dignity of the House of Commons might be, the welfare and liberties of the Irish people were considered by hon. Members on that side of the House to stand far above the dignity of the House, or the convenience of any of Her Majesty's Ministers. He could not conceive for a moment what the Government expected to gain by forcing on this discussion that night. Surely, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), if the Irish Members chose to put down interminable Amendments on the Franchise Bill, and persisted in discussing them, the Government would lose more time than they would gain by closing the present debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Member that he is not discussing the Question before the House, which is the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, he was endeavouring to point out that the Prime Minister, in saying that the House had been called together this Session for the purpose of considering an important measure about to be introduced, had altogether miscalculated what the effect of his words might be, and had not taken into account the result of peremptorily closing the discussion that night. The effect of closing up the discussion that night, might make the passage of that Franchise Bill rather more difficult than it would be if the Government allowed the present debate to stand adjourned, and the discussion to continue until it was fully threshed out. The Irish Members did not propose to continue the debate much longer, and probably it would be over at an early hour to-morrow. He was therefore satisfied that if the Motion for Adjournment were agreed to, the Government Business would be greatly facilitated. He trusted that those Members of the Government who 876 were now present would come to the conclusion, on second thoughts, that they would be acting wisely, even from their own point of view, if they would allow the adjournment to be carried without any further discussion.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that it was extremely difficult, under the New Rules, to discuss a Motion for Adjournment, even although the word "strictly" had been struck out of those Rules as originally drawn, and the debate was required to be simply confined to the question of the adjournment. He hoped he would not incur the displeasure of the Speaker in any observations he was about to make. The request made to the Government seemed to extend to the delivery of two or three speeches, and probably half-a-day would be sufficient to finish the debate. The Government might then have the Address disposed of, and the Report agreed to to-morrow, so that by Thursday they might proceed with the Franchise Bill. Under those circumstances, he would ask them to extend a little latitude to the Irish Members.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he thought the Irish Members had been treated with great unfairness in this matter by Her Majesty's Government. When the prolongation of a debate was objected to by the Government, it was usually objected to on one of two grounds—either that the subject under discussion was a trivial one, which did not demand any further attention on the part of the House, or that its importance had been threshed out. Neither of those reasons could be alleged by the Government on the present occasion. Certainly, it could not be alleged that the subject which they wished to discuss further was a trivial one. As every Member of the House was aware, it was a subject which raised the whole question of the administration of the law in Ireland, and a subject which raised the whole question of the government of that country. Therefore, no one could be found who would say that that subject was a trivial one. Then the question which occurred was, had it been threshed out? He trusted, in the few words he was about to say, that he would not incur any interruptions from the Chair, because he desired to keep strictly to the question whether the debate should be adjourned or not. Had the subject been fully threshed out already, when the 877 question of the whole administration of Ireland, and of the government of that country by the present Administration, had only been debated for one night? He did not believe there had been any previous Session in which the Irish Question had been debated so little as it had been on the present occasion. It was usual, on the consideration of the Address to the Crown, to discuss at length the various phases of the Irish Question. On the present occasion, that question had only been discussed for one day; because it must be remembered that the discussion which took place last week was not the Irish Question, but a particular point in relation to a verdict which had been given in a Court of Law. He submitted that the question now tinder discussion—namely, the administration in Ireland generally; the conduct of certain officials connected with the Irish Executive in the empannelling of juries; in fact, the whole question of the government of the country, was raised by the present Amendment, and it had only occupied the attention of the House for one day. He thought it most unreasonable for the Government to attempt, on the present occasion, to limit a discussion which, on previous Addresses to the Crown, had never been attempted to be limited in a similar way. The few words addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) contained, he thought, a great deal of common sense. He did not think the Government had anything to gain by entering into a squabble with the Irish Members on a matter of this kind. He believed they would facilitate the passage of the important Business to which the Prime Minister had alluded much better by enabling the Irish Members to thresh out thoroughly to their satisfaction the question raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend, than by bringing it too summarily to a close. During his short experience of the House, he never remembered any attempt being made by the Government to close an important debate immediately after the only important speech delivered in their behalf. He remembered, on a somewhat similar occasion—namely, an Amendment to the Address—that an important speech was delivered late at night which did not conclude until half-past 12. The speech to which he referred was the speech of 878 the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) at the time when the right hon. Gentleman had certain Irish Members under lock-and-key in Ireland. On that occasion, he (Mr. Redmond) rose himself to move the adjournment of the debate, and, although the discussion had then lasted for several days, the Prime Minister at once got up and stated that the important speech which had been made on behalf of the Government deserved the consideration of the Irish Members, and therefore the debate ought at once to be adjourned, in order that they might see the speech in print, and have an opportunity of answering it. He (Mr. Redmond) now claimed the same right of seeing the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland in print, and also the right of the Irish Members to answer that speech. He would frankly say that he believed it to be the duty of Members on that side of the House, if the Government persisted in their present attitude, and prevented them from discussing this matter, further to avail themselves of the opportunity to-morrow of bringing forward another Amendment to the Address, which would enable every one of them to continue the discussion. It was beating the air in vain to attempt to smother this discussion, and he believed the Government would find in the result that they had only wasted their time, their patience, and the temper of the House. In the end they would have to listen to the speeches which his hon. Friends were ready to deliver on important points connected with Irish administration, and which no section of the Government, or of the officials in that House, would be able to suppress.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, he thought the proceedings which had taken place that night fully justified the opinion which he had formed when he first entered the English Parliament — namely, that it would be an utter impossibility to get anything from that Parliament; and when he had the honour of addressing his constituents, he told them, plainly and frankly, that he did not believe they would ever get anything from Parliament by simply coming over here and arguing out their case. If anything could prove the truth of that assertion, it had been proved by the proceedings which had taken place that night. Ten Irish Members had spoken upon this 879 question, and only two English Members had replied to them, notwithstanding the fact that this was a case of the greatest importance to their country, and a question which the whole Irish people took the deepest interest in. He asked English Members to show fair play to Ireland. He regretted to say that the people of Ireland did not believe that fair play was displayed towards them. He would ask them, was it fair play, when they had presented their views of the question in the best possible manner, that only two hon. Gentlemen from the Treasury Bench should get up and reply to them? English Members had always said that they were anxious to study this Irish Question, and to arrive at a true solution of the difficulty. So were the Irish Members. But how were they to come to a solution of the question, when the Leader of their Party and the principal men among them had not been able to speak that night, and when only two hon. Members on the other side had got up to defend the policy of the Government—what he would call their vile and infamous policy—in Ireland?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is quite out of Order in using language of that kind, and he must confine himself to the question of the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, the intimation of the Speaker was quite sufficient. He would at once withdraw the words "vile and infamous," and allow the Irish people to form their own opinion about the matter. It was, however, a remarkable fact that when the debate was over, the new Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) walked out of the House, and since it had closed, he had been absent. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to understand anything about Ireland, ought to have been there to listen to the remarks of the Irish Members. He (Mr. R. Power) was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would know very little more in 12 months, or in 12 years, than he knew already, for it was an impossibility—
§ MR. SPEAKERI must again point out to the hon. Member that he is not discussing the question of adjournment, which is the only question before the House.
§ MR. R. POWERsaid, that again he would bow to the decision of the Chair. 880 He would ask if that was the Government idea of English fair play? Were hon. Members, who boasted that they were prepared to see fair play all over the world, not going to allow the adjournment of this debate to take place in order that they might continue their arguments in support of the Motion tomorrow, and show how erroneous had been the statements of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker)? He earnestly appealed to the Government not to bring forward at that moment their physical-force argument, because, although their supporters had come down in their numbers, and hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion were comparatively few, they would find that it was not in their power to stifle the discussion of that question. Although the Motion of his hon. Friend for adjournment might be negatived by an overwhelming majority, the Government might depend that, even if discussion were stifled that night, as it might perhaps be to-morrow, he and his hon. Friends would bring up the question again and again, and would not rest until they had proved finally, as they were constantly doing, that the Government rule in Ireland had been to them not only ruin, but disgrace.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he could excuse the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) for expressing a wish that some of the nominal Home Rulers, or Whig Irish Members on the Ministerial side of the House, would stand up and support this Motion. He could excuse him on the ground of the frankness and innocence of youth.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is not confining himself to the Question before the House.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he withdrew the expression "frankness and innocence of youth." They had had a discussion on an important subject relating to Ireland, and they had heard one of the scare-crows of the Castle—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is trifling with the House. I ask him to resume his seat.
§ MR. CALLANresumed his seat accordingly.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the Government would allow themselves to be convinced of the uselessness of the 881 struggle they were forcing on Irish Members, and that they would agree to the adjournment of the debate. If hon. Members had taken the trouble to follow the course of the debate of that evening, they would be aware that the Government had really made no effort whatever to answer the more serious charges made against them, but had hung their defence on matters of altogether secondary importance. Under those circumstances, and, further, owing to the lateness of the hour at which the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Mr. Walker) replied, hon. Members on those Benches had had no fair opportunity of discussing the position taken up by the Government on this question, and he thought that the Government would only be doing justice to themselves if they were to agree to the adjournment of the debate. Unless they did so, it would be within the power of hon. Members to take the hours which the Government proposed to save now, tomorrow, by having recourse to the practice of the House. Under the circumstances, there was nothing to be gained from the struggle on which the Government proposed to enter, and he would, therefore, repeat his appeal to them to give way to the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the manner in which the Motion for Adjournment had been treated by Her Majesty's Government was characteristic of the whole of their treatment of the question that was under debate. A number of hon. Members had supported the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but not a single Member of the Government had spoken, with the exception of the Prime Minister, whose speech he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not the opportunity of hearing, but to which he understood that the most extravagant computation would not assign a longer duration than four minutes. Here, then, was a question of the gravest importance, as the Prime Minister admitted it to be, and it was to be disposed of by the right hon. Gentleman in four minutes. The situation was clear; the Prime Minister found it impossible to give any answer to the arguments of hon. Members infavour of the Motion for Adjournment. The first of the two arguments of the right hon. Gentleman was, that Irish Members should cease to debate 882 the question, because there was an injunction from the Crown to debate the Franchise Bill; and the second was, that there were other questions of importance awaiting settlement. But with regard to those two arguments which the Prime Minister put forward in the course of his four minutes' speech, the right hon. Gentleman had, so to speak, been obliged to swallow one of them, because the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been able to show that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his long acquaintance with the affairs of the country, had taken upon himself to recommend to the House a doctrine completely at variance with Constitutional Law. The right hon. Gentleman had then abandoned that argument, for the very obvious reason that it was an insult to the intelligence and historical knowledge of hon. Members to put it forward as a ground for closing the debate. The second argument was, that although the question was important, there were other questions quite as important remaining behind.
MR. GLADSTONEI beg pardon; that was not my argument. I said there were questions of importance which, if they were debated on the Address, would occupy the entire time of the House for 12 months.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that he had misrepresented the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was glad that he had given him an opportunity of correcting the impression he was under. But he took issue upon the argument of the Prime Minister as now presented, that there were other questions of importance which, if discussed, would occupy the time of the House to the exclusion of all other Business. In the first place, what were those questions; and, in the second place, what other opportunity was there open to Irish Members for bringing forward questions of this kind? If the Prime Minister were to have his way, and the programme which he had laid down for the guidance of the House of Commons were strictly followed, immediately the debate on the Address was closed, the attention and time of the House would be entirely occupied with the consideration of one piece of legislation. However, the right hon. Gentleman must know that there were other occasions 883 than the Address on which this question could be raised; and he had moreover been told and received warning, in no unintelligible or obscure language, that those opportunities would be taken advantage of. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was sure his hon. Friends would be driven, with great reluctance, to take that course, and if the Government were to see their way to adopt wiser counsels, that they would get rid in an easier way of the troublesome question of the Franchise, which was now vexing hon. Members. Having had experience of prolonged discussions on similar questions to that immediately before the House, he believed that no one who had been engaged in them would wish to go through the ordeal again. If the Government would yield to the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), he did not think that their concession would be taken undue advantage of, but that the debate to-morrow would be kept within reasonable and fair limits, which would enable the House to get on to other Business sooner than they were likely to do if the present attitude of the Government were maintained.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he trusted the Government would see their way to accede to the appeal which had been made to them so temperately by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. T. P. O'Connor); if not, he thought they would be doing a very unfair thing in a very ungracious way. He would remind the Prime Minister that they had not had any opportunity of discussing the general question of Irish Administration up to that moment, because it would be in the recollection of the House that, in the course of the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), certain words were struck out which referred to that general question, and the discussion was, consequently, confined altogether to the one question of the Maamtrasna investigation. He had himself been anxious to offer some observations on the present question; and he wished for the adjournment of the debate on that ground, and also in behalf of other hon. Members who had not had an opportunity of speaking.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, there was one other reason in favour of the Motion for Adjournment made by his hon. 884 Friend (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), which, he believed, had not yet been laid before the House. It was that they had in the House, for the first time during the debate, a new Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that the speech which they had heard from his Predecessor in Office was not a speech pertinent to the arguments put forward from those Benches, inasmuch as it was more in the nature of a personal defence, or, as he (Mr. Molloy) would call it, that sort of self-defence which consisted in having the last word. It was irrelevant in the last degree, and throughout the whole of it the right hon. Gentleman did not touch the subject under discussion, so much so that hon. Members who were interested in hearing a speech from the Government on the subject before the House waited until the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) arose. He (Mr. Molloy) would not repeat the argument so ably put by his hon. Friends—that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman required an answer, which could only be given to it after further consideration, but would return to the point which he wished to press on the attention of the House. They had all waited to hear the voice of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the speech that he would make would have afforded an indication of the policy which he intended to adopt in future with regard to Irish matters; it would, in short, have shown whether his advent to Office was to mark the continuance of the old, or the commencement of a new policy. They knew, from past experience, that changes did take place in the policy of Governments at such times. Now, the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have affected, to a large degree, the continuation or otherwise of this debate. Hon. Members on those Benches were, therefore, asking nothing that was unreasonable; indeed, it was only fair that they should on this occasion, probably the last opportunity they would have during the Franchise Session, hear the voice of the new Chief Secretary on this important question. He would put it to the Prime Minister, and, if the right hon. Gentleman did not hear him, to the Government generally, whether it was not fair, upon an appointment like the present, which affected the whole 885 policy of the Government in Ireland, and the welfare of the whole people—whether it was unreasonable that Irish Members should ask that the new Chief Secretary should be permitted, or have the opportunity afforded him, of informing the House with regard to his views and policy? Now, if the debate were closed without a speech from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it seemed to him that the construction would be put upon it that the arguments of Irish Members were of such a character that the Government thought it wise to curtail the debate, and get rid of the subject before any further discussion could take place. For these reasons he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Athlone for the adjournment of the debate; and he begged to assure the Chief Secretary for Ireland that his observations with regard to him had been made with absolute sincerity and conviction, and from no desire to occupy the time of the House. He thought it very hard that the speech asked for was denied them by Her Majesty's Government. Had it been intended to occupy the whole of to-morrow with the remainder of the debate, there might have been some ground for the view taken by the Prime Minister, which, however, did not exist, for it had already been indicated by several hon. Members on those Benches, who were cheered by others, that the debate would be confined within reasonable and fair limits. He hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to granting the request which had been made to him, and which he (Mr. Molloy) would make again with all respect and with all sincerity. He thought that in a question of this sort, even if the Prime Minister considered the debate had continued long enough, seeing that the difference between them was so small—that was to say, seeing that the question was not one of a whole day, but only of a few minutes—a concession might well be made to the Irish Members to enable them to continue the debate, with satisfaction to both sides, and to enable the House to proceed in an amicable spirit, and with that calmness, good feeling, and kindliness which should characterize all their discussions, to the consideration of the next question before it. [Cries of "Order!" and "Divide!"] He was making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the question of ad- 886 journment, and in so doing was perfectly in Order. He would continue that appeal. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that only two or two and a-half hours would be necessary for the conclusion of the debate, and that it could not be a satisfactory policy in its present effect, nor lead to satisfactory results in the future, to allow so small a question to continue to stand between them. He earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to form a different opinion to that he had expressed. He appealed to him, in all sincerity, for the sake of peace and the progress of Business generally, and for the sake of the satisfaction it would give, not only to hon. Members on those (the Irish) Benches, but in all parts of the House. An adjournment was desirable, in order to allow the now Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was the only Minister—if he might call him so—they had connected with Irish affairs, to say something on the subject they had been engaged all night in discussing. He (Mr. Molloy) would ask the Prime Minister to consent, not to the prolongation of the debate to unnecessary length, not to Obstruction, but to the continuation of the discussion for an hour or two longer to enable it to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman with some confidence, as he could not believe that, for the sake of a couple of hours or two and a-half hours, the right hon. Gentleman would allow an unpleasant feeling to be engendered between the Irish Party and the Government on a matter of importance. He hoped the Prime Minister would pay some little attention to the appeal he had made, and which he had urged with all sincerity.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that the Irish Members were placed at great disadvantage during the present discussion. In consequence of the Rules of the House, it was not open to them to call in question or discuss the ruling of Mr. Speaker; and the great majority of Members and Ministers now present, including the Prime Minister, had not been present during the debate, and, therefore, were not in a position to form any kind of judgment or estimate as to whether the question had or had not been adequately discussed, and as to whether the claim of the Irish Members for a little more 887 time to discuss it to-morrow was or was not a reasonable one. He himself believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gladstone) had been present during the debate, he would see that the claim was a most reasonable one, that the Irish Members had not been met in a fair way during the debate, and that it was impossible for them to carry on the discussion satisfactorily until a late hour. It was late when they became possessed of the arguments of the Irish Government, and knew what they had to answer; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and others who were entitled to speak for the Irish Party—and who, he believed, the House desired to hear on the question—had not been able to speak in such a manner as to make their speeches effective, for the reason that it was too late for the newspapers to report what fell from them. It was very late when the Prime Minister came in, accompanied by a large number of his Colleagues, and announced that they had determined to close the debate. That was a somewhat peremptory course. He (Mr. Gray) would not go into the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in support of it, because they had been answered more than once. Practically, however, they amounted to this—that the Government wished to save the time of the House. Now, was that really the sole motive which was guiding the Government on this occasion?—and he would put the question to the Prime Minister or any other Member of the Government—because, if it were, he would point out that it would be far easier to attain that object by the adoption of an opposite line of policy. If the Government consented to the suggestions of the Irish Members, and gave them two or three hours to-morrow, on the understanding that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would use his influence with his Colleagues to limit the duration of the debate to two or three hours, instead of leading to a waste of time such a concession would eminently conduce to its economy. If the Government persevered in their present course, apart altogether from the question of exasperating a small minority, and strengthening in them the feeling that they were not treated as any other section of the House would be under similar circum- 888 stances and apart from the question whether such treatment was not calculated to stimulate the minority to exercise their rights to the utmost, quite irrespective of the loss of time it might involve, they would be unwise, because, if the adjournment were conceded, only a limited number of Irish Members would speak to-morrow, and the discussion would be concluded; whereas, if the Prime Minister's policy were carried out, and some form of clôture were applied to the Irish Members now, it would be open to every one of them to rediscuss the question on the Report of the Address. If there was to be warfare, it would be well to understand that the provocation had not come from the Irish Members. The conduct of the Treasury Bench throughout this debate was eminently calculated to exasperate and provoke. He (Mr. Gray) did not wish to incur any censure from Mr. Speaker—any movement on that right hon. Gentleman's part would quite suffice to stop him. The Irish Members had discussed the Motion for Adjournment with an earnest desire to apply themselves to the facts. They desired now only to obtain a reasonable time for the purpose of enabling the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and one or two other Members, to make speeches which they deemed to be necessary to the full elucidation of the subject under discussion; and before the present debate reached an acrimonious pitch, they appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to say whether it would not be more fair and more reasonable, and whether it would not better conduce to the attainment of the objects he had in view—if his avowed objects were his sole objects, and if there were not behind them something which he had not given expression to—if he assented to the proposal of the Irish Members and permitted an adjournment, on the understanding that not the whole of to-morrow should be given, but that after two or three hours' discussion the Division should be taken? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciated, at that moment, what the result of perseverance in his determination summarily to terminate the debate would be. In the course of a very few minutes, a decision must be had on the particular Motion now before it. It might be open 889 to some of the Irish Members then to move the adjournment of the House, and that Motion might be fully debated. Then a third Motion might be made for the adjournment of the debate, and it would be open to anyone to put an end to the discussion, and, judging from the crowded state of the Ministerial Benches, some such course—which would terminate this discussion in a forcible manner—was in contemplation. It was perfectly easy to put an end to these debates in that way. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had only to propose it to have it done. The Irish Party, at the present moment, did not number 40 Members—they were only about half that number—and were powerless in the face of the Rules the right hon. Gentleman had given himself so much trouble to pass in the Autumn Session two years ago. What would be the effect outside the House of the course the Government were now pursuing? That would be the first time that Session, that this form of summary closure—whether it were the formal clôture or not—
§ MR. SPEAKERI must point out to the hon. Member that he is now discussing the clôture, on the Question of the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member is not entitled to do that.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was inviting the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to consider what the effect of closing the debate that night would be. He had used the word clôture, but not with the least desire or intention of discussing that method of putting an end to discussion. He wished to invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what would be the effect of perseverance by him in his determination to refuse to permit further discussion on the subject just now before the attention of the House. The effect—to put it in a few words—would be this—to show that, at the invitation of the Prime Minister of England, backed by every Member of his Government, the House was determined to put an end to a discussion raised by the whole body of the Irish Members, and determined to do it for the purpose of screening James Ellis French, Bolton, and Cornwall. That would be the conviction of the Irish people at home; and he could not suppose that, when the right hon. Gentleman came calmly to consider the matter, he would 890 not believe that the nominal saving of some three or four hours by the success of his Motion was dearly purchased at such a price.
§ MR. COMMINSsaid, that at that late hour of the night it was not his intention to add more than a sentence or two to what had been already said in support of the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He did not exactly know what the arguments against the Motion had been. He had not had the pleasure of hearing the speech of the Prime Minister, neither had he had the pleasure of hearing the speeches which had been made in answer to the terrible indictment which had been brought by the Irish Members against the administration of justice in Ireland. He had sat here for three or four hours, waiting in vain for some answer to come from the Treasury Bench, or from the Irish Law Officers—the hon. and learned Solicitor Goneral for Ireland—or someone else capable of speaking for the Government on the question of this terrible indictment. The indictment was one which filled the public mind in Ireland, and had been debated in the House for some hours. He had not heard the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, as he had been obliged to leave the House for the purpose of dining; but he should like to have an opportunity of reading it, and, in his weak way, of answering the arguments in it—such as they might have been. It would be an advantage in the way of satisfying public opinion outside the House, if a proper opportunity for the continuation of the debate were afforded. He did not know whether the object of the Prime Minister was the saving of time. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had told them that a couple or three hours to-morrow would enable them to complete the debate, to the satisfaction of both sides of the House, and of the people of Ireland, who were deeply interested in the matter. This debate on the adjournment commenced nearly two hours ago, and those two hours might just as well have been used in continuing the debate, if the Government had only conceded that it should terminate to-morrow. The Government had not gained anything by the attitude they had taken up, for they would have to face this subject to-morrow, or the day after. The matter would have 891 to be fought out—if not to-morrow, then on some other occasion—and other two hours might be lost in useless debates, as they had been lost to-night. He was entirely of the same opinion as hon. Members who had preceded him—namely, that the Irish Members represented the feelings of the people of Ireland. They were told they were not representing the opinions of Ireland—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member is now travelling beyond the Question before the House.
§ MR. COMMINSsaid, he should be very sorry to exceed what Mr. Speaker considered the fair and proper discussion of the Motion before the House. It was a subject which would have to be discussed outside as well as inside the House, and he had been merely pointing out the importance of satisfying the opinion of the public outside, as well as the opinion of Members in the House. If it were not too late, and all opportunity of concession were not entirely lost, he would again appeal to the Government whether they could not now mate a concession? If a concession were made, the Irish Members surely would not abuse it to-morrow, but would confine their remarks within the narrowest limits.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he only wished to make one or two observations in order to call attention to two important points which hon. Members must have overlooked—at any rate, they had omitted to refer to them. One of these points related to Party tactics, and the other to the question of Party courtesy; and they were, he thought, worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. In the first place, with regard to courtesy, if it had been intended, from an early period, to summarily close the debate, it would only have been just to have hinted, through the Parliamentary Secretary, or some other subordinate, to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that such was the case, so that the hon. Member might have had an opportunity of rising to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He did not blame the Prime Minister for that. Probably the right hon. Gentleman did not know that no intimation had been given to the Irish Party of the intentions of the Government; but, whoever was to blame, it was a curious 892 omission. He had made every inquiry amongst his Friends to find out whether any suggestion as to the course to be adopted had reached them, and he was assured that not so much as a hint had been dropped. When one of his Friends had endeavoured, in other ways, without going to the Parliamentary Secretary, to find out what was the intention of the Government, he had not been informed that the debate would be closed to-night. Seeing, then, that in this case there had been a breach of ordinary Party courtesy, he would put it to the Prime Minister, whether it was right to hurry the debate to a conclusion? If the right hon. Gentleman had taken measures to advise Irish Members of his intention early in the evening, no doubt those hon. Gentlemen would have made their arrangements accordingly. Fancy the Prime Minister, on a question of interest to the Conservative Party, telling the Leader of the Opposition, the last thing at night, that the Government intended to insist upon a Division being taken without an Adjournment. If the right hon. Gentleman had done such a thing, the whole of the Opposition would have been up in arms in a minute to denounce such a breach of Party courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had dealt in this way with the Irish Party—or some other Members of the Government had done so, for he (Colonel Nolan) did not like to think that the Prime Minister was responsible for this information having been kept back from the Irish Members. Whoever had done it, had invited the House to enter upon a serious Constitutional struggle. They wished to trample the Irish Party under their feet. It was all, no doubt, owing to simple negligence, or to the whole of the Liberal Party being so set up with the result of the Scarborough election, that they forgot ordinary politeness to the Irish Party. He had always noticed that when the Irish Members were not treated with the same courtesy as the great Conservative Party, there was trouble in the House. He had said the same thing over and over again to the Conservatives when they were in Office—that whenever the Irish Members were accorded less consideration than the Liberals, there was trouble—and he had told them, as he now told the Liberal Government, that his Colleagues would use the Forms of the House to 893 compel ordinary courtesy. With regard to the second point which he wished to refer to as a piece of Party tactics, it was so conspicuous that he wondered no one had noticed it. The Prime Minister was in his place, and, no doubt, it was more his business than his (Colonel Nolan's); but still he would take upon himself to bring it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to the conspicuous absence of the Conservative Party. As a rule, he observed that when the Irish Members were to be crushed—
§ MR. SPEAKERThis is really not germane to the Motion before the House. The absence of the Conservative Party has nothing to do with the adjournment of the debate.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, and, in making his apologies for having been irrelevant, he would only say that the point he had intended to deal with was that he had generally observed that whenever the Irish Party was to be suppressed, there was a combination between the Liberals and Conservatives. As Mr. Speaker had ruled him out of Order, he should reserve his observations on this subject to another occasion.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he rose for the purpose of preventing the Government using the argument that the Irish Party were not unanimous on this qnestion. If no deference was paid to the Irish Members in the House of Commons on this occasion, when they were asking for the adjournment of the debate, at least some deference ought to be paid to the constituents of those Irish Members. Their constituents, he could assure hon. Members opposite, were more exacting than might be supposed. They were not so educated to the ways of Parliamentary life as hon. Members, and they naturally thought that their Members ought to express their sentiments, even if their speeches only amounted to reiteration. It was owing to this fact that they frequently found nearly all the Members of the Irish Party anxious to speak on the same subject—as they had all been anxious to speak on the subject now before the House. The Amendment before the House said—
It is essential to the public interest that the Criminal Law, more particularly with regard to the composition of juries, he impartially administered 894 to the different classes of the people in Ireland.Already, in the debate which had taken place in regard to the Maamtrasna case, the great interest they took in these matters and the vital importance they attached to them had been abundantly manifested. On that subject he should not be, he thought, within the line of the strict rule which Mr. Speaker applied to them, in confining them to the question of the adjournment, if he were to refer to what had fallen from his Colleagues who had preceded him and the two speakers who had addressed themselves to the subject on the side of the Government.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is trifling with the House.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he would not detain the House further than to say that he entirely concurred with the Members of his Party in the question which they had unanimously addressed to the Prime Minister, requesting that, in view of the early stage of the Session and of the important Business which had to be gone through, he would not commence with a policy of exasperation against the Irish Party. If the right hon. Gentleman took no notice of that request, probably it would not facilitate the transaction of Business in the future.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 118: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had felt it their duty to take the sense of the House, not with reference merely to the particular debate that was before them, but as the most practical protest that they could make against the growth of a system which appeared to be more obstructive of the order and proper transaction of the Business of the House than any other system which could be imagined—the system of accumulating so much discussion on the Address.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question is, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is in possession of the House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was speaking to an amicable purpose. He wished to explain that the Government did not wish to press hon. Gentlemen too hardly upon matters in which they took a deep interest; and having, as he had said, taken the sense of the House with regard to the general practice, he was himself prepared to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the House negatives a Motion for the adjournment of the House, it would then be competent to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and negatived.
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.