HC Deb 12 March 1886 vol 303 cc713-29
MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

, in rising to call attention to the case of Henry M'Dougall; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to institute a prosecution of Mr. Henry M'Dougall, agent of the Gormanstown estate in the county of Meath, Ireland, who recovered money under the Arrears Act in a case in which no arrears were due, either under the section of the Arrears Act which is concerned with such cases, or for perjury, said: I feel it will be my duty to trespass on the time of the House for a short time for the purpose of drawing attention to the facts of this case. My principal object is to ascertain whether the administration of justice in Ireland is to be above suspicion, or whether it is to be merely used as an instrument of oppression in the hands of an unscrupulous agent. I believe I shall be able to show that the recovery of money by Mr. M'Dougall in this particular instance was a clear swindle, because no arrears were really due. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Arrears Act of 1882 provided that before any arrears could be recovered certain formalities must be observed; and, among other things, it was enacted that both landlord and tenant should make an affidavit to the effect that certain arrears were due. The Act further provided that anyone making a false affidavit should be punishable, on conviction, with fine and imprisonment, and experience has shown that this provision was not unnecessary. Swindling of the description contemplated by the Act of 1882, in Section 7, has been discovered of recent years in several cases, and it is a remarkable fact that the criminal in every instance—at least, within my knowledge—has been among that class of persons who, in Ireland, are perpetually talking of the dishonesty of the Irish tenant, and the necessity of reforming the Irish laws. The discovery was first made in the case of Mr. Henry M'Dougall. M'Dougall, unfortunately, has had under his control upon the Gormanstown Estate, in the county of Meath, a considerable number of tenants. Some of those tenants, through the operation of the villainous system of rack-renting which has been carried on for so many years in Ireland, in order to screw out the interest on the debts of bankrupt landlords, naturally fell into arrears which they could never pay. Others, by the manful exercise of thrift, which the landed proprietors have never even pretended to commiserate, have continued to this day to pay the landlord up in full. But both of these classes were equally fish to the net of the landlords' agent. Whether a tenant owed rent, or arrears of rent, or not, Mr. M'Dougall, as I am informed and believe, made all of them inducements to swear that they owed rent; and, moreover, he himself swore that they were in arrear. One of these tenants happened to be a man named Francis Carolan, and he discovered the real nature of the act he was called upon to perform in the attempt of M'Dougall to obtain arrears of rent under the Arrears of Rent Act. He absolutely declined to be a party to the fraud, and having, in a striking manner, manifested his objection, he was brought, in an ostentatious manner, before a magistrate to make an affidavit that arrears of rent were due on his holding. But, in the presence of the magistrate and of other tenants, he declined to make such a declaration, on the ground that it was false. Even that does not seem to have prevented M'Dougall from getting the arrears he claimed from Francis Carolan. This, Sir, I think, is an astounding fact, which it is the duty of the Land Commission to inquire into and explain at once. M'Dougall got the money, and from the day on which he made the false affidavit—namely, the 9th of December, 1882, down to November, 1885—he never said a word or gave a hint that he had been guilty, not only of perjury, but of fraud the year before. But, in November last, the matter fell into the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who has the reputation in Dublin and throughout Ireland of being a man whom it is dangerous to attempt to deceive. The moment it came into the hands of my hon. Friend M'Dougall was detected, and he has himself supplied the best proof of his guilt by refunding the money which he had fraudulently obtained three years before. Having done so, he found it necessary to make some excuse, and the excuse he gave was that some clerk of his had omitted to make certain entries in the ledger. He also said he had several hundred cases to deal with, and that he had not had time to take the pains in the case which it would be necessary in ordinary cases to take; and he added that he made some sort of restitution to the tenant by crediting him with the omitted half-year's rent. It seems to me—and I think the House will agree with me—that the last point of M'Dougall's defence is no answer at all to the charge made against him. A common highwayman in this country would think it a very capital arrangement if, by refunding the money he had stolen, he could avoid a prosecution, and escape the consequences of his guilt. Now, as to the other points, I must confess—and I say it frankly—that if it were true that M'Dougall had carelessly and negligently performed his work for the benefit of the tenants, and had not really had time to examine into the matter, I would be inclined to let the matter pass, and say no more about it. I would attribute it to an act of ignorance on his part, and I should say that probably he intended to be honest, but in the multitude of business transactions he had not time to be so. But, Mr. Speaker, the point in this case is that before this man got the arrears of rent his attention was specially drawn to the facts by the action of the tenant to which I have already referred. I will read a very short extract from an affidavit which has been made in this case by Francis Carolan, the tenant. He says— I further say that I was asked by the bailiff of the said Henry M'Dougall to attend before a magistrate for the purpose of obtaining money under the Arrears Act, and at the time I was not aware what the Arrears Act really meant; but when I discovered I had to swear there were arrears due I refused to do so, and walked away from the magistrate and the other tenants. Now, surely that was an incident which ought to have weighed with M'Dougall — which ought to have made him pause and examine his books to see whether a mistake had been made by himself or anyone in his behalf. That is not all. Francis Carolan was the one tenant on all the estate who never owed any arrears. He was the one tenant whom M'Dougall could never have suspected to be in arrear. He had always paid his rent to the day; and even before M'Dougall had been warned by the action of Carolan himself he could not possibly have suspected that this tenant was in arrear. M'Dougall got the money from the Arrears Court, and, as I have already said, from the time he got the money, in December, 1882, down to last November, when he was brought to book by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), he never said one word, or gave one hint, that he had got the money under the Arrears Act. The whole circumstances seem to me to be totally inconsistent with the absence of criminal intent on the part of M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), however, could not see anything wrong in the conduct of M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a keen scent for "Boycotters" in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught; but he had neither nose nor eyes nor ears for the land shark and grabber of the Gormanstown estate. His counsel, Mr. Coll, was interviewed, but all to no purpose. All he would consent to do with regard to the charmingly innocent M'Dougall was to write to the Land Commissioners and request them to get him kindly to explain whether he had any explanation to offer. I have not great experience in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] Some of the hon. Gentlemen who cheer me ironically perhaps have quite as little; but I cannot help characterizing this conduct on the part af a Law Officer of the Crown as extraordinary. I imagine that this conduct will, in the eyes of the House, appear still more extraordinary when I read a letter which was addressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) to Mr. Coll, the Crown Solicitor of Dublin, and, of course, road and answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is the letter— You will remember that some time ago I laid the papers in this matter before you with a view to a prosecution of M'Dougall. You then refused to prosecute, but asked my permission to lay the papers before the Land Commission. Subsequently you informed Mr. Friery that you did lay the papers before the Land Commission, and had not since received from them any instructions; and on your suggesting that M'Dougall had probably made some mistake, Mr. Friery undertook to give several cases in which M'Dougall received money for arrears when none were due, and that if you gave an undertaking not to prosecute the tenants who were deluded into making the joint affidavit that such arrears were due the information would be given you. No letter was received from you since, and on the 14th instant I wrote to the Land Commission to know what had been done; and, to my astonishment, I have received a letter, stating that, at the request of the Attorney General, M'Dougall was asked for an explanation, with the result that he refunded the money. I now require to know if it is the intention of the Attorney General to prosecute M'Dougall under the section in the Arrears Act which deals with such cases, or am I to assume that he declines to take any further proceedings in the matter? The letter is dated the 16th of January last, and it was answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—or, at least, by Mr. Coll—through the late Attorney General's direction, with an intimation that he saw no reason to change his previous opinions. Here was an offer which, I think the House will agree with me, ought to have set the Criminal Law in motion against M'Dougall. I hold in my hand now a list of 11 cases—and I beg the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) to the fact—in which I am informed there are receipts now in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny—receipts given in M'Dougall's own handwriting, and which receipts show that in every one of these 11 cases M'Dougall received money under the Arrears Act through fraud. I may mention that in one of these cases he received the money through the false oath of a man who was not a tenant at all; and that, in another case, he did not commit a fraud upon the Government, but upon the tenant. In order to get the money he was obliged to swear, in 1882, that all the arrears for 1881 were wiped out; whereas now I understand the hon. Member for South Kilkenny has in his office in Dublin a receipt from M'Dougall, bearing date February 23, 1883, for rent due in March, 1881. That is to say that, having got from the Government money on the representation—the false representation—that all the arrears in 1881 had been wiped out, he comes, two years afterwards, upon the unfortunate tenants for the very arrears which he had sworn had been wiped out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General would not inquire into these matters; it would have been too disagreeable, I suppose, to M'Dougall, the Loyalist. I have every reason to say that hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland will believe that if M'Dougall had been a Nationalist tenant instead of a Loyalist land agent he would now be in gaol, instead of being allowed to roam through the country committing crime and outrage by extracting infamous rack rents and burning the houses of victim tenants. I do not think anyone will be found to say it is a good thing to teach the Irish people that dissolute criminals may go free simply because they belong to the so-called loyal classes. The action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General in this case seems to me to be little short—if it is at all short—of a public scandal. The administration of justice, marked by such incidents, is, in my opinion, more calculated—infinitely more calculated—to bring law in general in Ireland into contempt than any number of speeches which could have been made in the course of 12 months in opposition to the Executive Government. I assert, without any hesitation, that it is such incidents in the administration of justice in Ireland as these which have made Dublin Castle stink in the nostrils of the Irish people, and which have made law in Ireland and its instruments to be regarded, not with veneration or respect, but with disgust and indignation. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to repair the omission of the late Attorney General for Ireland, and, by prosecuting M'Dougall, to prove that British law in Ireland has terrors not only for the poor and humble, but also for the rich and the high-placed, some of whom are to be numbered amongst the prime factors of crime and disorder in that country. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to institute a prosecution of Mr. Henry M'Dougall, agent of the Gormanstown estate in the county of Meath, Ireland, who recovered money under the Arrears Act in a case in which no arrears were due, either under the section of the Arrears Act which is concerned with such cases, or for perjury."—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. HOLMES (Dublin University)

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member who introduced this matter to the notice of the House has not merely made an attack upon Mr. M'Dougall, but has added to it a very strong and emphatic attack upon myself, I trust the House will allow me to say a few words before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) interposes in the debate. I must ask for a certain amount of the indulgence of the House in reference to this matter, for the case of Mr. M'Dougall was one of many hundred cases that came before me during the seven months that I held Office; and it is very difficult for me at the present time, without having access to the official documents, to recollect all the facts and circumstances connected with it. At the same time, being reminded to a certain extent by what the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) has said tonight, and being further reminded by an answer of the Chief Secretary on a former occasion, I think I can recollect sufficient, for my present purposes, of the case that was brought before me. Before I go further I desire to say that whoever Mr. M'Dougall be, or whatever his position in the country may be, I never heard of him either before this transaction or since this transaction, except in connection with this present proceeding. He has been referred to by the hon. Member who moved this Resolution as one of the loyal classes. Whether he be a Loyalist or a Nationalist I do not know, for I never heard his name before I heard it in connection with the proceedings to which reference has been made. That being so, I may call the attention of the House to the fact that under ordinary circumstances, where the Attorney General is called on to interpose in a prosecution, the person who has within his knowledge the facts of the case takes steps, either by summons or by warrant, to have the matter investigated before a magistrate, and to have information taken in the ordinary form. Under no circumstances does it become the duty of that Court to return the person so charged for trial if it thinks the case has not been sufficiently established. Well, in this particular instance it so happens that that step was not taken; but what did occur was that in the year 1885 there was brought before my notice in an informal manner certain transactions which occurred in 1882. Now, it appeared tome, on looking into the matter, that the charge was made against the man, not for receiving money himself, because I believe it is true that Mr. M'Dougall never put a single penny of the money in his own pocket, but for making certain statements by virtue of which his employer received a sum of £3 10s. or £3 15s., and it occurred to me that under the circumstances it would be rather a harsh step, without further inquiry, to prosecute this gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] I use the word gentleman in the way I use it in reference to any other person who is brought to my notice under similar circumstances. Well, inasmuch as the whole transaction had occurred in the Land Court, it seemed to me that the Land Commission was the tribunal which ought to investigate it. Accordingly, I got the Crown Solicitor, who transacts business for the Attorney General, to send the matter to the Land Commission for the purpose of having it investigated. Well, Sir, in due time I got a communication from the Land Commission, to the effect that this Mr. Henry M'Dougall was the agent, I believe, of Lord Gormanstown and other persons; that he had no less than 1,500 tenants in reference to whom applications were made under the Arrears Act; that the names of these tenants were set out in long schedules; and that upon Mr. M'Dougall's attention being called to this particular case he admitted he had made a mistake in putting the name of Carolan forward. It was explained that the payment by this particular tenant had not been posted up in the ledger by the clerk who at the time was in Mr. M'Dougall's employment. The explanation seemed to me satisfactory, and, under the circumstances, it struck me that after an interval of three years it would be a most extraordinary proceeding to institute a Government prosecution. Accordingly, I intimated that, having regard to the Report I had received, I saw no reason whatever for the Attorney General to intervene. But it was perfectly open to any person, no matter who he might be, to bring this man before the magistrates to have the matter fully investigated, and to have the adjudication of a tribunal upon it. A letter has been read by the hon. Member, written on a later occasion, in which the writer, the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), said he would give instances of some other tenants who were in a similar position, provided an undertaking were given by the Crown Solicitor that the persons should not be prosecuted for joining in making a false affidavit. When that was brought to my notice, I gave the answer which I have given on every single occasion on which any suggestion of that kind was made to me during my term of Office—namely, I would make no terms whatever with any person who alleged he was party to a crime—I would make no terms whatever with him as regards the giving by him of any evidence upon the subject. If such a person chose to give evidence, well and good; but I would not be a party to making with him an antecedent agreement, a course which seemed to be most injurious to the administration of justice. Allowing that a mistake had been made in this case, which was one of 1,400 or 1,500 which had to be dealt with, it seemed to me not a case for a prosecution, at all events, without those preliminary investigations before a magistrate which are commonly made in such circumstances. I am very sorry I have been obliged to trouble the House with this explanation. Cases of this kind came before me frequently, and I assure the House that again and again I have interfered to prevent the prosecution of peasants in Ireland for perjury, because it appeared to me that the offences were committed in ignorance or in mistake; and exactly upon the same principle I acted in this particular case, without knowing anything at all about Mr. M'Dougall's antecedents.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not desire to trespass for any great length of time upon the attention of the House, although this is a case of very considerable importance. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the very clear statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who knows the details much better than I do. I know, however, the character which Mr. M'Dougall bears. I know what the people think of Mr. M'Dougall. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I have noticed a most extraordinary inclination on the part of some hon. Members to laugh; but I put it to hon. Members opposite, is it, or is it not, a matter for importance, if people look upon a given man as a tyrant? It may be subject for laughter here, but it is not a subject for laughter in Ireland. I maintain that it is of the greatest importance in a case of this kind to know how the people of the country regard the man whose conduct is complained of. I listened with surprise and astonishment to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), that, though he has lived all his life in Ireland, he has never heard of Mr. M'Dougall. We all remember the recent occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, at a critical moment in a critical debate, forgot the date of a recent shocking murder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be able to forget anything that does not suit his purpose. Sir, it is an astonishing fact that any man who has lived in Ireland for any length of time, and more especially a man who has had to do with the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland, should never have heard of Mr. M'Dougall. I have heard frequently of the gentleman. I have nothing to do with the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland; but I am in the habit of travelling about the country, and I regret to say that anybody who travels in certain districts in which this gentleman's sway extends is sure to hear from the people of his reputation. I recollect that when, on a very recent occasion, I was in the houses of some of the people who have the misfortune to live under M'Dougall, one man said to me with the greatest earnestness—"Is it true that M'Dougall is in the hands of the police?" If hon. Members had seen the delight pictured in that man's face, they would have easily understood the feeling of the people towards Mr. M'Dougall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman unconsciously let the cat out of the bag when he said it would have been a rather harsh step to prosecute a gentleman. What our friends asked him to do was not to prosecute this man for the sake of the amount—the £3 10s. or the £3 15s.—but to prosecute him because he had violated the law. The people believed that Henry M'Dougall had violated the law, and they believed, moreover, that the man could violate the law with impunity as long as such Gentlemen as the late Attorney General for Ireland were at the head of the Government; they believed that while the machinery of the law was put in motion against poor peasants this land agent could set the law at defiance. It was not a question whether M'Dougall gained £10, or £15, or £100 by this violation of the law; but it was whether he had knowingly committed the violation. If it could be shown, as we say it could, that he had wittingly and knowingly, not in this single case alone, but in 10 or 11 cases—indeed, we do not know in how many other cases out of the 1,500 with which he had to deal—broken the law, we cannot understand why the late Attorney General for Ireland should refuse to institute a prosecution. Let me say that I think it a strong argument in favour of there being a prosecution that there was this widespread feeling amongst the people that the man had broken the law. If he had made a mistake, he certainly ought not to have objected to a prosecution, because he would have had an opportunity of clearing his character. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wound up by saying, in a very impressive way, that he would make no terms whatever with the person who was ready to confess he was party to a crime. I am not sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has always carried out that principle. We know that the Irish Government are ever ready to make terms with such men, and that they are ever ready to put large money rewards into the hands of informers against the unfortunate tenantry. We find that now, when dealing with a gentleman, a totally new principle is introduced—they will not accept the evidence of a peasant against a gentleman; but they are quite ready to accept the evidence of a peasant against a peasant.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

It is not very easy for the Attorney General for Ireland, or for anyone who has been Attorney General, to surprise an Irish Member; and I confess that the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) did not surprise me when he said he did not know whether M'Dougall was called a Loyalist or not. We all know that Irish officials have so much work that they never stop to inquire what are the politics of any person against whom complaint may be made. I shall not dwell upon that point; but I must observe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's plea that he has not been able to obtain exact information appears a lame and faltering one, in view of the fact that this Motion has been on the Paper a fortnight. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish us to understand that the present occupants of Dublin Castle would have refused him access to official documents? We know that when once a man in Ireland finds his way to Dublin Castle he very easily finds his way to return to it at any time; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had really desired in the last fortnight to investigate the figures and facts of this case, I am sure his learned and courteous Successor would have afforded him every facility to do so. As a reason for not being acquainted with the facts of this case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pleaded that he had had to deal with many cases of this kind. Why did he never prosecute in any of them?

MR. HOLMES

I did not say cases of this kind. I said I had to deal with several hundred cases; but the cases bore upon every branch of the Criminal Law.

MR. SEXTON

I suppose the rest of the cases had to do with Nationalists. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the complainants might have proceeded by way of summons. He knows very well that in Ireland, in cases of this kind, there must be initiative action by the Crown, or there would be no action at all; when the responsible officer stands up and says the Crown will take no action at all, that is equivalent to saying there would be no prosecution. Was there ever heard, in a deliberative Assembly, such an argument as that this swindler is not to be prosecuted because he did not put money into his own pocket? Are we to understand that fraud is to be condoned by the Law Officers of the Crown because the perpetrator of the fraud does not pocket the profit of it? Mr. M'Dougall was the agent, and did not pocket the rent; but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that M'Dougall pocketed the poundage, or the percentage on the amount of the collection? But whether he did or not profit by the transaction makes no difference in the case. ["Oh, oh!"] Is it the view, then, of hon. Gentlemen who adorn the Benches above the Gangway, that a man may commit frauds with impunity provided he does not pocket the proceeds? Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to understand the plea that M'Dougall made a mistake. Francis Carolan, the tenant, refused to make an affidavit that he was in arrear; and, therefore, it is perfect nonsense to say M'Dougall confounded the case with any other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland says he had a great many cases to deal with in the course of the seven months he was in Office, and that as he looked at the case through a telescope at Dublin Castle he had no opportunity of close examination. [Cries of "Order!"] There is nothing wrong in speaking about a telescope. My hon. Friend near me, the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), who will, if necessary, enlighten the House on the subject, was the solicitor for the tenant in the case. He is here, and informs me that it was, practically, a contested case; that the tenant went into Court to prove his inability to pay his rent; and that the presumption was that Mr. M'Dougall must have closely examined the facts and figures of the case. M'Dougall was a party to a series of 11 affidavits, in some of which it was stated that arrears were due, so as to enable him to make a raid upon the public money. Some of the affidavits proved that arrears were satisfied up to the date the Act prescribed they should be satisfied; and as soon as the affidavits had served his purpose, Mr. M'Dougall turned round and proceeded against the tenants for the arrears he swore had been satisfied. Will anybody say that could have been a mistake? He first committed a fraud on the Government, and then turned round and collected the arrears from the tenant. Well, the late Attorney General for Ireland has given us an effective proof to-night of the hollowness of the code of morals which governs the proceedings of the Law Officers in Dublin Castle. He admits that evidence was tendered to him, evidence of the tenants—we say 11 tenants are ready to offer evidence against this man; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indignant at the idea of his making terms with persons who are parties to a crime. He considered that such terms with such people would prove injurious to the administration of justice. Now, I ask any Member in the House whether the administration of justice is more injured by the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring these cases into Court, so that fraud may go unpunished, or by the acceptance of the evidence of one class of the criminal parties to secure the conviction and punishment of the other? I maintain it would be less injurious to the administration of justice that one class should be punished than that all the offenders should go unpunished. He will not accept the evidence of any person who has been a party to a crime. Why is there not the same rule applied when a gentleman, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman called Mr. M'Dougall, is concerned, as when a peasant is concerned? When there is a gentleman in the question, the Crown officials will take no steps; but when a peasant has been the accused party, what have they done? By day and by night Crown Solicitors have gone into the cells of the prisoners and induced them to turn Queen's evidence. We know that convictions have been procured by the acceptance of evidence of those who were tainted with crime. We know that men have been threatened with the penalty of the scaffold if they would not give evidence. If that is to be the rule with one class of criminals it ought to be the rule with all. Certainly, I think there never was a case in which Queen's evidence ought to have been more readily received and sought than the case which has been brought to the notice of the House tonight. It is a most instructive commentary upon the principles which have hitherto governed the administration of justice in Ireland, that only a very few days before the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared the great speech in which he asserted that the ordinary law was not sufficient for the punishment of peasants he refused to put the ordinary law in force against what he calls a gentleman.

THE CHIEF SECERTARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle)

It was said in the early portion of this evening's proceedings that it was indispensable for hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to have the opportunity of bringing the affairs of their country from time to time before the attention of the House, and from that doctrine I do not now dissent. But I have felt, since the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy), who has made this Motion, began his speech, what I have often felt before in the House—that there is no place in the world less fitted to discharge the functions of a Court of Justice than the House of Commons. We have not all the facts before us, and we are not all, perhaps in so judicial or impartial a frame of mind as to enable us to arrive at a proper and just conclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) assumed that I should interpose in the debate; but I hardly see what part I have to take in it. The answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) on, I think, the 25th of last month, really summed up all I have to say on the subject. It was to the effect that if the hon. Gentleman has the material on which the Government could found a prosecution, it surely is his business to bring that material before the Attorney General (Mr. Walker). If it is so brought, I can promise, on behalf of the Irish Government and of the Attorney General, that it shall be considered. This invitation was addressed to the hon. Gentleman now more than a fortnight ago, and I do not quite see why he should have taken the course of bringing the subject before the House in this form, instead of bringing it before the notice of the Law Officers.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misapprehension. I did not ask any Question on this question, and I got no answer.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I ought to have said the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). Upon the information at present before the Government there does not appear to be evidence of criminal intent on Mr. M'Dougall's part; but if a case can be made out the Attorney General for Ireland will consider it. That is the offer I made the other day, and by that offer I still abide.

MR. CHANCE

The right. hon Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) commenced his speech by saying that there was no place less fitted to discharge the functions of a Court of Justice than the House of Commons. I think there is one place less fitted, and that is Dublin Castle. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no evidence of a criminal intent on the part of Mr. M'Dougall. It seems to me that he would not have made such an observation if there had been any Law Officers on the Treasury Bench. I should say that if a person stole a watch from the right hon. Gentleman the Crown officials would not pause before arresting him. There would be no suggestion of an inquiry as to the existence of a criminal intent. In this case it has been admitted, not only by the late Law Officers, but by Mr. M'Dougall himself, that the money was obtained, and that he had no right to obtain the money. Is it not a question for a jury whether there was any criminal intent on his part? I think it is. Moreover, I think a jury would be more fitted to ascertain whether or not there was any criminal intent on the part of Mr. M'Dougall than the Law Officers of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. CLANCY

I beg to withdraw my Amendment. I will take care that the information in the case is laid before the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Supply—Committee deferred till Monday next.