§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,041, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, or any other official, whether he would explain one or two variations in this Vote? Now, under Sub-head B, for the Crown and Treasury Solicitor, the sum has gone up from £2,000 last year to £2,600 this year; under Subhead C there is a fresh item for Sessional Crown Solicitor of £325 a-year, which does not appear in last year's Vote at all; and under Sub-head G the charge for printing briefs with the sanction of the Attorney General has gone up from £50 to £200.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)With regard to the first item, the increase in the salary of the Crown and Treasury Solicitor from £2,000 to 615 £2,600, that is to be explained in this way:—The former salary was £1,200 a-year and £800 for allowance, which made it up to £2,000; but in addition to that he received a large amount of fees which he did not account for to the Treasury, in accordance with the terms of his appointment. A Committee to investigate that and other matters was held about 1884, and one of the recommendations was that he should be paid a salary and account for all the fees he received, and we have carried out that recommendation, and having regard to the amount of fees paid hitherto the salary was fixed at £1,800. If the hon. Member will look at the Vote he will find an estimated extra receipt of £500, so that in reality this is a change to a permanent salary instead of being paid, as previously, partly by fees. The other point to which attention has been called is the sum of £325 for Sessional Crown Solicitor—Mr. Thomas Boyd, the Crown Solicitor for Tipperary. Formerly there were two Crown Solicitors for that county, which was divided into two parts or ridings; and Mr. Boyd, who has had increased duties, has frequently made application for an increase of salary, and in regard to the extent of his duties and the largeness of the county the increase has been fixed at £325. I may mention that Mr. Boyd has BOW ceased to be Sessional Crown Solicitor, and the salary will now be fixed on a different scale in accordance with recommendations which have been made. The extra payment for briefs is due to the fact that a representation has been made that the sum hitherto provided has not been sufficient, and it is very convenient that a change should now be made. An additional sum is asked for this year because there are cases in which it is necessary, and the sum asked for will not be more than is required to pay for the extra service.
§ MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)I wish to draw attention to the state of affairs which prevails in the county of Galway at the present time, where there is a clergyman at present in gaol; and I want, in doing so, particularly to allude to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Blake. I think it is generally known that it is owing to that man's conduct that this clergyman is imprisoned, and it is because of his attitude that better counsels did not prevail on the occasion of the hearing of the case. Father Fahy was summoned 616 on Friday last to the Petty Sessions to answer to a charge of intimidation made against him by Mr. Lewis, and the case was heard, and after the hearing one of the Resident Magistrates said from the Bench that he quite concurred in the view of the case put forward by Father Fahy's solicitor—that the Rev. Mr. Fahy had gone as a peacemaker, solely with the intention of guaranteeing protection and promoting the peace, and that he sincerely desired to act as a mediator between Mr. Lewis and his enemies. Well, I believe that Colonel Waring, this magistrate, suggested at the trial to Mr. Lewis's solicitor, who represented the Crown, that it would be advisable that there should be an amicable settlement, and that the result might be that Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy might be better friends. But Mr. Blake, the Crown Solicitor, persevered in insisting that Father Fahy should be bound over to keep the peace, in consequence of which Father Fahy was sent to Galway Gaol. It can easily be conceived why a clergyman would refuse to stamp himself as a malefactor by giving bail for his good conduct. He declared that he had no intention of intimidating—that it was far from his purpose—that his purpose was, by mediation, to contribute to restore peace and order in the district. But owing to the conduct of this Mr. Blake he is placed in gaol for a good while, because he desired to be a mediator and to bring peace and harmony into the district. I wish to point out to the Committee what connection Mr. Blake has with these evictions in another form. Mr. Blake is the solicitor for this Mr. Lewis, and therefore stands in a dual capacity as solicitor for Mr. Lewis and as normal legal adviser to the Government. He was instrumental in instigating more than one piece of harsh treatment against the tenantry. The condition of the affairs of the tenantry of Mr. Lewis, or Mrs. Lewis—I do not know which—is most extraordinary, and also of the tenantry of Lord Clanricarde. They illustrate how difficult it is to keep peace and order where a few unscrupulous persecuting landlords proceed to extremities. About six months ago three landlords in the district of Woodford took proceedings against their tenantry. The three were Sir Henry Burke, Mrs. Lewis, and Lord Clanricarde. Of the three landlords the only one who did not 617 repeatedly within this generation make advances to raise rents on the tenants was Sir Henry Burke. He, of the three within this generation, did not raise the rents of his tenantry. At the same time, the tenantry found they could not pay the entire rent, and they asked a reduction, which reduction he refused. So did all three. The reduction was 15 per cent—3s. in the pound—but I wish to illustrate the conduct of Mr. Blake in this matter, and how it is that by official legerdemain he manages to keep this district in hot water. Sir Henry Burke found that it was impossible for him, after obtaining decrees, to get the rents he had proceeded for, so he settled with his tenantry, giving them what they demanded, and not merely that, but paying himself the costs of the proceedings. Now, concerning the other two—Mrs. Lewis and Lord Olanricarde—the history of their property is most extraordinary. Lord Clanricarde never laid out 6d. on his property. The property is a mountain property.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must connect his observations with the Vote. He cannot enter into a general discussion of this nature.
§ MR. SHEEHYThis Mr. Blake is a Crown Solicitor, and I want to point out how this gentleman, instead of being, as he ought to be, a machine for promoting order in the district, is an inciter of disorder. And, in giving a history of these properties, I only want to point out how it is that this gentleman and other gentlemen in connection with these estates have been, for their own selfish ends, driving the tenants into a state of despair, and preventing anything like a right or good feeling between the tenantry and their landlords.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must direct attention to the action of this gentleman as Crown Solicitor.
§ MR. SHEEHYVery well, Sir; I bow to your ruling. If I cannot be allowed to illustrate the course of proceedings—if I cannot point out how it is that this gentleman is guilty, to a great extent, of much of the disturbance and much of the disorder in Galway—if I cannot go into the history of this so as to show completely to the Committee why it is that I would ask the authorities to interpose over his head to settle the breach, I may, at least, point out 618 that a number of people were arrested n consequence of the evictions which look place, and their arrest has, to a certain extent, contributed to the excitement of the district. I would not for a moment infringe on your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and if I cannot touch that which I thought I might touch I must pass from it; but what I would ask the authorities to do in this matter is this—that they would accept bail, and instruct this Mr. Blake, who, as the representative of the Crown, refused to accept bail for these poor men, that he must do so. Now, what are these men in for but resistance to eviction? There is in the breast of an Irishman, as in the breast of an Englishman, the idea that a man's house is his castle, and these men resisted their eviction as long as they could. I must say, further, that some of them ceased that resistance, after three or four hours, on the promise made by one of the Resident Magistrates that no proceedings would be taken against them. But proceedings have been taken against them since, and they, like the rest, will be placed on the roll and returned for trial, bail being refused. Now, it has been contended that these poor people committed some awful crime, for which it would be impossible that the Crown could sanction their bail. I have given a small idea of what the nature of their crime was. It is said that they poured hot lime on the officers sent against them. Well, if they did, is that a greater crime than throwing vitriol in a man's face? We had the Wicklow case a few years ago, where a lady threw vitriol in a man's face. I would point to the fact that that is at least as bad as hot lime, yet she was admitted to bail before the trial came on, and she got married to her sweetheart. The contention set up by the Crown is that these men committed a heinous crime in throwing hot lime, and that it would be bad for the peace of the district to let them out on bail. But that would really be the best assistance to the people, and would help most particularly to restore that order and that peace for which the district is looking; and I would ask that these men should be admitted to bail. It is in the power of the Attorney General to do it. He should order these men to be admitted to bail, and then Father Fahy would give bail on his own account, and that would do more to restore the 619 peace of the district than the harsh measures of this sort of vengeance which Mr. Blake is pursuing in Galway. It is because of the resistance—because of the desperate resistance—which the people made to their eviction that Mr. Blake is pursuing them now with his vengeance. He wants to establish a reign of terror in the district, so that it should be easy for him by-and-bye to carry out out a further score of evictions which he has prepared for the people of the district. I would ask that the Government should interfere with this man in his high-handed proceedings, and that they will see that milder measures shall prevail in order to restore peace in Galway. Now, Father Fahy is a respectable gentleman—a clergyman, whose only purpose was that he might bring peace and concord into his parish, and that the tyrants who would strike some of his parishioners should pause awhile, that the people should not be driven from their homes, and he went to this Mr. Lewis with the desire that he might use his influence to bring about a settlement. That was his purpose in going there. He denied that he had any other purpose. Mr. Lewis himself declined, and when Mr. Lewis refused compliance their mutual passions rose, and they had an angry altercation, the result being that Father Fahy, in a moment of excitement, might have used language which could be construed into words of intimidation; but he disavows having used them. He disavows having any intention of intimidation, and his only purpose was peace; and Mr. Blake, in having pressed him with the rigour of the law, and in insisting that he should be bound over to keep the peace—MR. Blake overstepped his office on that occasion. Father Fahy's arrest has led not to peace, not to order, not to tranquillity—it has led to excitement, and it is more likely to lead to disorder. How long will this continue? What will be the results by-and-bye? I do not think a people in a state of excitement are to the same extent accountable for their actions as they would be under ordinary circumstances. Father Fahy is looked upon, and I think justly, as a martyr to his desire to bring peace and tranquillity to the district. They say—I am sure they say, and I re-echo the sentiment—"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake." 620 He has been trying to get justice for his poor people, and for so doing his reward is to be lodged in Galway Gaol. I hope I am not appealing in vain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to look into this matter, and let the better part of his nature prevail in order that there may be a settlement of this case. Father Fahy, I am sure, in order to restore tranquillity, would also give bail, and put aside the conscientious objection that he has to doing so. I would, indeed, have wished that I could have placed before the Committee the extraordinary condition of affairs in this district. There is a one-sided view given here of all that has taken place; but as I cannot tell the whole story I will rest my case here.
§ MR. HOLMESI can assure the hon. Member that if there is any case brought before me I will most fully and fairly investigate it; and if the hon. Member has any grounds of complaint against the action of Mr. Blake or any other Crown Solicitor it shall be examined into. But in this particular matter I do not gather that Mr. Blake, the Crown Solicitor, has gone in any way outside his ordinary duties. The cases occurred at different times. As regards the case against the rev. Father Fahy, the complaint was made in the ordinary way for intimidation. The Crown Solicitor conducted the proceedings as he would have conducted the proceedings in any other case, and the order that was made was an order of the Court. As I understand it, the hon. Member does not find fault with the action of the Court. It was not necessary for either the Attorney General or the Crown Solicitor to give any consent to enable Father Fahy to be at once released from prison. The matter is entirely in the hands of the rev. gentleman himself. The Court made an order, in a way that the Government could not control, to the effect that Father Fahy should find sureties for his keeping the peace.
§ MR. SHEEHYColonel Waring, the Stipendiary Magistrate, appealed to the parties to have the matter settled amicably.
§ MR. HOLMESIn a case affecting public law, where a complaint has been made that the law has been broken, the Crown cannot make any arrangement to settle the matter. In the case in question the Crown were obliged to ask the 621 Court to give a decision; and, as I say, I do not understand the hon. Member to find fault with the Court. For myself, I can assure the Committee that no one would be more pleased than I to see the order of the Court obeyed by Father Fahy. He has only to find sureties—to comply with the order of the Court is a mere matter of form—and the reverend gentleman would be at once released. But, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, we have, officially, no power in the matter. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, admit that no distinction ought to be made between persons who have received an order of the Court, and that whether they be peasants or landlords, or magistrates or priests, or whatever their position, it is essential that the decision of the Courts of Law should be impartially carried out. When, therefore, Father Fahy refused to obey the order of the Court, the alternative had to be carried out. With regard to the other cases which have been mentioned—that is to say, the Woodford cases generally—the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the power of the Crown Solicitor to make an order. It is for the Court to consider, as a judicial act, whether or not a man is to be admitted to bail. It would be a very strange thing for any Court, with such facts as those in the Woodford cases brought before it, to make an order that the prisoners should be admitted to bail. Such a thing would not be done in England, nor in any other part of Ireland. Of course, we cannot make any distinction between Woodford and any other place. But I would point out that the matter can be brought any day before the Vacation Judge, when affidavits can be made by the persons interested. If such application were made the matter would be discussed in Court, and if a case should be made out for admitting the prisoners to bail, they will, of course, be so admitted; but if it were decided, on principles which govern Courts of Law in these cases, that bail should not be allowed, of course it will not be allowed. As far as I myself am concerned, I will read over the depositions and make myself more fully acquainted with the facts of the cases, and it will then be in my power to instruct counsel to oppose or assent to any application that may be made; but, of course, at 622 present I cannot say what my decision will be, not knowing what action the Court will take.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)I think the whole action of the Court in this matter has been extremely unfortunate. How extremely unfortunate it has been may be judged from the fact that the town of Galway was the scene of a serious riot and disturbance last night, owing to further arrests in connection with these Woodford evictions; that the police charged the people with the bayonet; that many were injured, and that one poor woman, I believe, was killed. This is certainly a very gloomy look-out for the winter—it is a very gloomy way of entering upon this trying period which is before us, when we see men and women thus maltreated in disturbances arising out of disputes between landlords and tenants. I am sure the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), and all hon. Members, will admit that the prospect is anything but re-assuring. The Crown distinctly broke faith with the tenants, because when the evictions took place on account of rents which could not be paid and the tenants resisted and threw boiling water upon the officers of the law, the officer in charge of the police stated that if all resistance of this kind were relinquished no further action would be taken against the tenants.
§ MR. HOLMESI wish to appeal to you, Mr. Courtney, as to whether it is in Order for the hon. Member to discuss what the Constabulary at Woodford did on this occasion? We are now dealing with the question of the Law Charges of the Crown, and I am responsible for the Vote before the Committee. The hon. Member, however, is now referring to matters which are not connected with the Vote, and upon which I may not speak.
§ MR. SEXTONThe rule as to rising to a point of Order would become extremely inconvenient, Mr. Courtney, if right hon. Gentlemen make a practice of rising in their places in order to cut up the sentences of a speaker into halves. I say that the Representatives of the Crown in Galway made a promise to the tenantry who were being evicted which they did not keep, and that puts a complexion upon these cases which, otherwise they would not bear. The men who were brought up charged with 623 this offence were refused bail. They offered to give very solvent bail, but it was refused; and I ask why bail was refused to these tenants in Galway who, under pressure of eviction, in their desperate extremity resorted to violent and foolish measures, no doubt in defence of their homes—I ask why bail was refused to them when it was so freely allowed to the murderers of James Curran in Belfast? There ought to be one rule and one measure of justice for these affairs in Ireland; but I find, unfortunately, that the one rule and measure of justice is this—that where the giving of bail would promote public peace and order bail is refused, and that the sanction of the Crown to the giving of bail is allowed where such bail does not tend to promote public peace and order. What harm would have been done by allowing bail to these tenants? The evictions had been carried out, and the district was no longer disturbed. Bail to the extent of £1,000 was offered, 20 times the amount which was considered sufficient in the case of the murderers of James Curran; but it was refused. In taking this course the Crown Solicitor did not act upon his own responsibility; but upon this matter two stories have been told, one here and one in the Court at Galway. These stories are not only different, but absolutely contradictory, because the Crown Solicitor in Galway said that he acted under instructions—and if he did so act there was no one to instruct him but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland opposite. That was one version; but now we have another from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who says that he did not give instructions to the Crown Solicitor.
§ MR. HOLMESI gave the Crown Solicitor instructions to conduct the case in the ordinary way. Nothing beyond that.
§ MR. SEXTONExactly; and the Crown Solicitor stated before the magistrates in Galway that he had instructions to refuse bail. That is the point I am putting here.
§ MR. HOLMESI thought at first the hon. Member was referring to the case of Father Fahy. It is true that I instructed the Crown Solicitor of Galway, when the facts of the Woodford evictions were brought before me, that if an application were made for bail, he, 624 on behalf of the Crown, must oppose it.
§ MR. SEXTONThat was what I was driving at; and if it is not satisfactory, at any rate it puts the debate on a frank footing when we understand that the responsibility lies with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Well, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain how it is that bail was accepted by the legal subordinate of the Crown in one county of Ireland for the eight men who had been charged and found guilty, so far as a Grand Jury bill could find them guilty, of the murder of James Curran in Belfast—a circumstance which caused a great sensation in the town for months—I ask why bail was allowed to these people and refused to 24 poor tenants who threw hot water on some bailiffs when they came to serve notices of eviction, but who abandoned that course as soon they were warned that such conduct was wrong and would lead to serious consequences? Bail is said to have been refused to these men because one of them pushed a policeman and struck him with a mallet. This individual referred to may have been guilty of such violence; but the Committee should know that he had been rendered desperate by the condition of his wife. The police insisted upon expelling the poor woman from her house, and in the moment she was expelled from the place in which her husband had been endeavouring to keep a roof over her head she was prematurely delivered of a child. [A laugh.] An hon. and gallant Member opposite finds this very ridiculous, no doubt, for he is laughing; but such are the incidents which accompany the administration of the law in Ireland, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have given favourable consideration to the case of this man, who must have been driven to a state of desperation by reason of the condition of his wife. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have released him on bail; but, so far from that being the case, bail was refused and the man was detained in custody. The next incident in the unfortunate sequence of these cases was that regarding Father Fahy. Father Fahy is known to be a clergyman of high character and an advocate of the administration of fair justice as between man and man. He 625 was deeply concerned in the extremity of these poor tenants. He went to see the landlord in order to intercede for them, and the landlord declares that Father Fahy used language of a threatening character to him. The rev. gentleman was ordered to find bail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the order, as to Father Fahy, was one in the discretion of the Court, and that, having required him to find bail, there was no alternative but to commit him if he refused to give it. But we know perfectly well that in the case of a Court in Ireland the magistrates take the word of command from the representative of the Crown; and all the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to do was to instruct the Crown Solicitor not to press for bail, and his instructions would have been followed. I say that the order of the Court in the case of Father Fahy will have to be cancelled. I found that claim on the language of the presiding magistrate himself. What did he say? Why, he said that Father Fahy had gone to see the landlord solely with the intention of promoting peace and harmony between himself and his tenants. I want to know what is meant by treating a rev. gentleman, whom the presiding magistrate believes to have been solely actuated by a desire to promote peace and harmony between a landlord and his tenants—what is the meaning of convicting the rev. gentleman under a Statute applicable to rogues and vagabonds? What is the meaning of binding this rev. gentleman over to be of good behavour for six months? It would be an affront to any ordinary person of good behaviour; but, in the case of a clergyman, it amounts to an indignity and an insult. Father Fahy assured the magistrates that he had gone to see Mr. Lewis merely for the purpose of promoting peace, and that he had sincerely desired to act as mediator between Mr. Lewis and his tenants, as he had previously done in the case of William and Colonel Daly and their tenants. Here, then, we have the case of a clergyman who had repeatedly acted as mediator between landlords and their tenants, and yet he is sent to gaol for six months because the landlord whom he interviews chooses to declare that violent language has been used by him. The presiding magistrate was of opinion that neither party 626 could remember everything exactly as it occurred, and he was sure that neither of them could repeat verbatim the conversation which had taken place. He (the presiding magistrate) declared that he himself had had altercations with people, and that he knew by experience that it was impossible to remember every word that was spoken at such times. Indeed, he said he would go further, and say that even if such an altercation had occurred between himself and Father Fahy, or any other gentleman, he would never have thought of bringing the matter into Court, and that probably after the whole affair was over they might have been better friends than ever. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, after that strong expression of opinion of the presiding magistrate who sat on the Bench when Father Fahy was ordered to find bail, it was expedient, or reconcilable with common sense, that a course of persecution should be pursued towards this rev. gentleman? Father Fahy has to maintain his character with his flock; he has to maintain his reputation for moderation of conduct and veracity; and after he has publicly declared in Court that he never used such language to-wards Mr. Lewis as that imputed to him, how is it possible that he can give bail for his good behaviour? If Father Fahy consented to give bail, I ask you, Mr. Courtney—I ask the Committee—whether it would not be admitting that the charge against him was well founded, and that his own denial of it was false? I do not know how the rev. gentleman could resume his clerical functions amongst his congregation if he made such an admission as that. Does not every Member of this Committee feel that what Colonel Waring, the presiding magistrate, said from the Bench was the language of good feeling and good sense? The rev. gentleman may have used indiscreet language, being carried away by his interest in the miserable and suffering tenantry; but even if that had been the case, Mr. Lewis would have followed a much more discreet and manly course if he had refrained from invoking the terrors of the law in consequence of observations made to him. I earnestly appeal to the Government now, at the beginning of the winter, to take in reference to this case some action which will tend to allay 627 public feeling. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) is well acquainted with Ireland. During his father's Viceroyalty he had some years' experience of that country, and he must be aware of the position the priesthood occupies in the affections of the Irish people. He must know, from what he has seen of Ireland, that the arrest and imprisonment of a priest, particularly when that arrest and imprisonment are unjust, are calculated more than almost anything else to excite public feeling. After the declaration from the Bench as to the conduct of Father Fahy, I earnestly appeal to the noble Lord to take such steps as may be within the control of the Government to obtain the withdrawal of the rule of bail against the rev. gentleman. As to the other prisoners, now that the eviction campaign has ceased, I appeal to the noble Lord that the most lenient attitude may be taken up in regard to them, and that they may be admitted to bail, as persons accused of murder have been admitted in Belfast and elsewhere. I would appeal to him and to the Government not to pursue a course which, if persisted in, will deprive us of the last shred of hope that during the coming winter we shall avoid an experience of riot, turbulence, and bloodshed.
§ MR. HOLMESI deny that, so far as I am concerned, any different action has been taken in the case of the Belfast prisoners to that adopted in the case of the Woodford prisoners. I think he will find, if he investigates the case of James Curran, that I am not responsible for what was done. In every instance which has come under my notice where I have been appealed to to allow application to be made to the magistrates to admit prisoners connected with the Belfast riots to bail, I have refused to consent to bail, with the single exception of the case of policemen committed for trial. I have, in such cases, directed that application to admit to bail should be opposed. My action has been the same on all occasions—I have treated Woodford exactly the same as I should have treated any other part of Ireland. As to Father Fahy's case, whatever the presiding magistrate may have said I know that the Bench of Magistrates, including Colonel Waring, made the order under which the reverend gentleman was arrested. When an order of 628 that kind is made it must be obeyed. The Crown has no dispensing power, neither has the Attorney General; we cannot say that we will enforce the law on one person one day, and that we will not enforce it on another person on another day. Whatever may have been the view taken by certain of the magistrates as to the altercation which took place between Father Fahy and Mr. Lewis, it is evident that in the opinion of the Bench the language of Father Fahy was sufficient to warrant his being put under a rule of bail.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as though he were entirely unaware of the course of proceeding in these magisterial cases in Ireland; he speaks as though he did not know that the magistrates are largely guided in their decisions by the action and the tone of the Representative of the Castle Authorities. Such, however, is the state of things in Ireland. Now, what are the facts of this case? The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has put them forcibly before the Committee; he has not added to them. The reverend gentleman is accused, so far as I know on the testimony of one man, of using certain language in the course of an altercation, in which it is not denied that hot words were used on both sides. Everyone seems to admit that the reverend gentleman sought this interview with the intention of making peace, and of bringing a dispute between a landlord and his tenants to a termination. We have in evidence before us the kind of reception Father Fahy met with when he arrived at Mr. Lewis's house. It is quite possible, under the circumstances, that he may have lost his temper; but is there anyone here who will say that because a man who goes out with the good intention of making peace between a landlord and his tenants may have used strong language—though, be it observed, Father Fahy strenuously denies having used the language imputed to him—on the testimony of the one man with whom he was quarrelling without corroboration from anyone else he is to be put under an insulting rule of bail, and, in default of finding sureties, is to be sent to gaol for six months? I can quite understand that no one would be more pleased than the right hon. and learned Gentleman 629 the Attorney General for Ireland if Father Fahy would give bail; but if I were in Father Fahy's position they might keep me in Galway Gaol for the whole six months, and I would not do it. The Act under which Father Fahy is imprisoned is an obsolete Act, which is specially directed against vagrants, vagabonds, and disturbers of the peace; and, I ask, is all this to be done on the word of one man with whom there has been an altercation? This is so glaring a case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is bound to tell the Committee on what grounds the magistrates made this order, and whether they had corroborative evidence, or whether they had any ground at all for believing that the reverend gentleman used strong language. Mr. Bowler, who was acting on behalf of Father Fahy, stated in open Court that nothing was farther from Father Fahy's intention than to use any language which could in any way cause terror or intimidate Mr. Lewis, and that if any unguarded expressions had escaped from his lips he very much regretted them. Surely any honourable man would have accepted such a statement as that made in open Court; but the Sessional Crown Solicitor, Mr. Blake, who represented Mr. Lewis, interfering, said, with a sneer—"I think this a queer time to make such an apology." As a matter of fact, it was not an apology, but an explanation. Mr. Bowler replied to this by reminding Mr. Blake that Father Fahy had no reason to suppose, until he received the summons, that Mr. Lewis was under any fear whatever, as he (Father Fahy) had never intended to use, or knowingly had used, language to place him under any fear. Colonel Waring again suggested an amicable settlement, evidently desiring to have the case disposed of there and then; but Colonel Waring was not the only magistrate in Court. It is a most outrageous thing that this Sessional Crown Solicitor—who is an agent, and was mixed up in these very evictions—should interfere when a settlement might have been come to. If he had had any sense of decency he would have desired to make peace and to bring this unpleasant incident to an amicable termination. But what does he do? Why, when an arrangement is proposed that would have been satisfactory to Mr. Lewis he interferes and remarks that it 630 is a queer time to apologize. The Attorney General seems to think that there is no way of getting out of the difficulty as to Father Fahy. I do not know what the reverend gentleman will do. He may be anxious to return to his clerical duties, and out of consideration for his clerical character he may wish to separate himself from the other prisoners in the gaol; but I must say, as I have already declared, that if I were in his place I would remain in prison until the end of the committal rather than give the security demanded. If he does adopt that course I must say that the Government will be very sick of Father Fahy before they have done with him. A more stupid and ill-considered act on the part of the Irish Government than this imprisonment of Father Fahy could not be conceived. Even if the statement of Mr. Lewis as to the language used by Father Fahy had been fully corroborated I doubt whether it would have been a wise course, knowing the feeling of the people of Ireland, to have put this priest in prison; but, in any case, they should not have taken that course until they were forced into it. We cannot form any other conclusion from what took place in Court than that pressure was brought to bear upon it by the Representatives of the Government. We all know how that pressure can be brought to bear upon a Court in Ireland; and it is obvious that it was in consequence of this pressure that Father Fahy was sent to Galway Gaol. Now, I contend, in the first place, taking this case altogether apart from the position of the reverend gentleman as a priest, a gross act of injustice has been done. If Father Fahy were the poorest peasant in Galway I should say that it would be most unjust to take the man and commit him to gaol under a rule of bail on the sole evidence of another man with whom he has had an altercation without any corroboration whatever. I say if he were the poorest and lowest man in the country he should have justice done to him. But what are we to say, when it is not the poorest to whom justice is refused, but a man whose sacred calling and whose position in the county all lead to the strong primâ facie presumption that he never did use the language imputed to him, and when that gentleman comes forward, and by the only means open to him—that is to 631 say, through his legal representative—makes what I feel assured every Member of the Committee, when he reads it, will acknowledge is the amplest statement that could possibly be made under the circumstances? I ask hon. Members to consider for a moment the effect of consigning a man in the position of Father Fahy to gaol. I daresay Members of this House have had altercations with other people at various periods of their lives. Well, I ask them to try to realize what their feelings would be if they were brought up in Court by a man who chose to make himself their enemy, and were accused by him with having used language that they never had been guilty of; if they found themselves, men of stainless character, called upon to give bail on uncorroborated evidence, under a long disused Act, under threat of being sent off to prison, and after a public explanation had been offered, what would their feelings be? And the Committee must remember that the position of an Irish priest in his own circle was every bit as high as theirs, and that the insult of calling upon him to find bail under these circumstances was every bit as great to him as it would be to them. I will leave it to hon. Members to judge what the feelings of Father Fahy must be, seeing that he embarked in this matter with the very best intention. There is ample evidence that Father Fahy embarked in the matter with the intention of doing good, and that his advances were not received in the same spirit by the gentleman to whom he addressed himself. No doubt there are strong reasons why Father Fahy should reconsider his position, and should decide upon giving bail. He will have a strong desire to return to his sacred duties; but, on the other hand, it will be most humiliating to a man of his character to follow a course which will practically be a confession of the justice of his sentence. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General for Ireland seems to think that the Government have no powers of remedy. Does he mean to tell us that the Executive are now tied hand and foot, and that Father Fahy will be kept in Galway Gaol for six months for not giving bail? Are we to be told that on the pure statements of Mr. Lewis, uncorroborated by anyone else, this priest is to lie in gaol for six months? A 632 more absurd statement could not be put forward. Everyone knows that the Executive could release Father Fahy tonight if they chose. If they have any common sense in them they will wire immediately to Dublin and order the Castle Authorities to liberate this man at once. [Laughter.] I hear some hon. Gentlemen distinguishing themselves—hon. Gentlemen who always notify their presence during these debates in the same way—by laughing. I tell them, Sir, they will presently find this no laughing matter. It will presently land the Government in serious difficulties; and in the embarrassed and complicated position in which they find themselves at present, and which is likely to be aggravated in the future, I tell them that they will discover that the worst stroke they have done for a long time has been to declare war against the priests. If you want peace and good order in Ireland during the coming winter, which we all know is likely to prove so critical, you should endeavour to get the priests on your side. If all appeals for common justice for the priests of that country are to be met with jeering laughter, I can assure you that you will find yourselves far from securing the sympathies of this powerful class. Gentlemen opposite are far away from the scene; but the Irish landlords are in the midst of it, and to these I would address myself, and these I will assure that unless at this time they make a strong attempt to get the priests on their side they are likely to find in the future that they have made a very great mistake. If you allow it to go forth to the priests that any attempt they may make at bringing about a better state of feeling between the landlords and the peasantry will be rewarded with six months' imprisonment, my advice to them will be to stand aside and let the tenants settle the matter with the landlords; and when that course is followed by the priests the landlords are not likely to enjoy the results. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I have not touched upon the other question—namely, the admission of the Woodford prisoners to bail, because it has been fully dealt with already. I feel, however, that a gross act of injustice has been done. In the case of Father Fahy I 633 appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is going to allow this priest to remain in gaol for six months? If he is not, the sooner he lets him out of gaol the better. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is going to take steps to release Father Fahy? If he proposes to leave Father Fahy in gaol, I think he is doing a very foolish thing; but the sooner we know definitely what he is going to do the better. So far as I am concerned, I do not know what the rev. gentleman's decision as to giving bail will be; but if I were to offer him advice it would be not to give bail to the extent of a single 1d. under any circumstances.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)I want to know what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway really mean? They seem to imagine that no clergyman has ever been sent to gaol in any other country than Ireland. I see the Lord Advocate for Scotland sitting opposite, and he will bear me out when I say that not long ago a Scottish Presbyterian minister of high character, and much respected by his flock, came into collision with a Court of Justice, was committed to prison, and the Government declined to interfere, and allowed the decision of the Court of Session to stand until one of the parties with drew the difficulty. Then the rev. gentleman was liberated. But when this gentleman was imprisoned all Scotland did not rise in rebellion; Scottish Members did not come down to this House and declare that a terrible Scottish grievance had arisen, and that if this clergyman was not liberated the landlords of Scotland would have a bad time of it. I desire to know whether hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway mean that we are to have in Ireland one law for the priests and another for the peasants? I think it will clear the air if we have an answer to that, and—
§ MR. DILLONI distinctly said nothing of the kind. I said exactly the reverse—that if it were the poorest peasant instead of a priest whose liberty was in question the Government would be bound to take steps to bring about his release.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI ask whether we are to have one law for the priest and another for the peasant? The Act under which Father Fahy has been sent to gaol is said to be an obso- 634 lete Act. As a matter of fact, it is an Act used every day in Ireland. [Mr. DILLON: In Ireland?] Yes; and in England, also, men are sent to gaol in default of finding bail. I happen to know Mr. Lewis, and that is my only reason for intervening this evening. It would be as well that the Committee should know something about the facts of this case. As a matter of fact, a notice was issued by the Lords' Justices previous to these evictions at Woodford, warning the people against assembling thereat. Well, in the church where the rev. Mr. Fahy ministers, the people, on the Sunday preceding the day of the evictions, were advised to set the Proclamation at defiance and attend these evictions. I want the Committee to put themselves in the position of Mr. Lewis in this matter. He is a man who has been—
THE CHAIRMANIt is very necessary that this discussion should be confined, as I have already pointed out, to matter affecting the discretion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the Crown Solicitor in regard to bail.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI bow to your ruling, Sir, of course. All that I wish to say, since I cannot enter into the merits of the case, is that Mr. Lewis had a great deal to put up with, and a great deal to be afraid of; at least, he thought he had. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has any power to intervene, no one would be more glad than I should be to see the rev. gentleman released; but, at the same time, I desire to say this—that I should not like this Committee or this House to sanction the idea that one law is to be meted out to priests, and another to peasants.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)The hon. Member for South Tyrone has stated that he does not wish to see one law for the priest and another for the peasant. I thoroughly agree with him; I think he has laid down very sound doctrine; but I should like to give a case, one-half of which I am thoroughly acquainted with, drawn from the county of Galway, and the other half of which I do not know so much about, drawn from the town of Belfast. With, regard to the Belfast portion of my comparison, I shall speak from statements which were made in this House, which were 635 not contradicted, and which are acknowledged to be facts. I will mention these things to show that there is one law for the clergymen in the North of Ireland, and another for the priests in the South. I know of a case in which a priest was asked to give bail, a case resembling as closely as possible that of Father Fahy. This priest pursued precisely the same course as that adopted by Father Fahy. He consulted with a number of other clergymen as to what he should do, and they arrived at a totally different conclusion to the rev. gentlemen who advised with Father Fahy. They recommended him to give bail. The charge against him was that he had spoken against the Constabulary, and the strongest point alleged against him was that he had called the Constabulary ruffians. ["Order!"] If the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has any remarks to make in reference to my speech, I hope he will get up in his place and make them.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)I ask your ruling, Mr. Courtney, as to whether the hon. and gallant Member is in Order in bringing these matters before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANI am waiting to hear the particulars from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps he will say when the events to which he is alluding occurred? If his observations do not relate to something which happened in the course of the current year they are clearly out of Order.
§ COLONEL NOLANThe case I refer to is one in which a rev. gentleman, like Father Fahy, was asked to give bail.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONWhen was it? Give the date.
§ COLONEL NOLANThe case is, I think, about three years' old; but the other case to which I wish to refer is nothing like three years' old, but is quite recent.
§ COLONEL NOLANThen I will go to the other case which occurred this year, that of the rev. Dr. Kane, who called the police murderers, and was not bound over to keep the peace. This I make the other part of my illustration. I had desired to quote a case with which I am perfectly familiar, because I was present during the whole of the proceedings; but I am precluded from going 636 into that by your ruling, Sir. I was not preseut when this other incident occurred, therefore I cannot give it on my own authority. It is reported that at a time when Belfast was in a state of great excitement the rev. Dr. Kane spoke of the police as "Morley's murderers," and was not asked to give bail to be of good conduct in the future. I believe that statement is perfectly correct. It was made in this House, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) did not contradict it.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONWould the hon. and gallant Member be kind enough to give the date when those words were used?
§ COLONEL NOLANI expressly stated that I could not give the incident on my own authority; but I say it was mentioned in this House without being contradicted. It has been repeatedly mentioned. Unlike the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I do not quote from anonymous pamphlets. ["Order!"] I will not refer to that matter further. What is this case of Father Fahy? It is notorious that in 1872 the rents were raised in Woodford, for political purposes. The Marquess of Clanricarde, on my Election Petition, himself admitted, on sworn testimony, that rents were raised for that purpose.
THE CHAIRMANI have more than once ruled that the question must be restricted to the discretion of the Crown Officer in the matter of bail. Any of these historical recollections must be beyond that question.
§ COLONEL NOLANThen I shall have to confine myself to rather a narrow argument, and one which I am not very capable of dealing with, because it is one which goes back into very old historic law. I believe the authority under which the Crown Solicitor claims to be able to bind over this clergyman or anyone else to keep the peace is contained in an Act of Parliament passed in the time of Edward III.—a fossilized law only brought to light some four years ago, dug up, I believe, in my neighbourhood by a Resident Magistrate who was thanked by the Government of the day, who thought a great deal of the discovery. I do not, as I say, feel myself capable of arguing this legal question; but if it be true that the prosecution in the case of Father Fahy 637 had to go back to an Act passed in the time of Edward III., though I do not say that it is beyond the function of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I still maintain that the course is one which it was not advisable to pursue in the present state of Ireland. I do not know, Mr. Courtney, whether you would consider it within your ruling to allude at all to the circumstances under which this clergyman was bound over to keep the peace, and the details of the offence he is alleged to have committed. I would remind you that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) spoke for a considerable time on the matter of the Scotch clergyman, and I think that I should be allowed—
THE CHAIRMANI expressly called the hon. Member for South Tyrone to Order for entering into the antecedents of Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy.
§ COLONEL NOLANHe certainly dealt with them for a considerable time—
§ COLONEL NOLANWell, for some time.
§ COLONEL NOLANWell, that is a considerable time, I should think. But I quite accept your ruling, Mr. Courtney. As it is declared to be out of Order to allude to the offence of Father Fahy, I would only point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that unless he is very sure of his law, and unless he can show a better precedent than an Act of Edward III., or even Edward VI., he ought to hesitate very seriously before he decides to allow a clergyman to remain in prison for six months for not giving bail. As this clergyman denied the use of the language in respect of which he was ordered to find bail to keep the peace, I do not see how it could have been possible for him consistently to have agreed to be bound over to keep the peace. Father Fahy has, I think, under the circumstances, taken a proper course by going to prison; but that course throws great responsibility upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I hope he will be able to show that the ordinary law bears him out for his attitude in the case of Father Fahy, without going to the old Statute of Edward III. It does not matter whether he goes back 638 to Edward VI. or Edward III., so far as I am concerned, as a layman. I certainly think that in so serious a matter as this no action ought to be taken unless it can be based upon some modern law. It may be said that I am out of Order in referring to this point; but, according to The Times account, Father Fahy seems to have been entrapped into the use of strong exclamations. He has denied using the words alleged against him, and I do not say that he did use those words; but, according to The Times account of the matter, Mr. Lewis asked him into his house, and whilst there he made use of some expressions in respect of which Mr. Lewis considered that he should be bound over to keep the peace. That is the account given in the English Times; and it is most extraordinary to find that after a man has asked another into his house to have a conversation with him he should go to the magistrates and say—"In having some conversation with this clergyman hot words were used, and I therefore wish to have the clergyman bound over to keep the peace." Whatever objectionable expressions were used, they were admittedly only used after Mr. Lewis had invited Father Fahy into his house. Why, then, did not Mr. Lewis content himself with asking Father Fahy to leave the house? That is the course I should have taken—that any reasonable man would have adopted. I hope, then, that all these facts will be looked into, and that, if possible, these proceedings, which have resulted in the imprisonment of Father Fahy, will be quashed. I can well believe that a good deal of excitement has been created in the West of Ireland by this legally injudicious proceeding. I say legally, because there has been a revival of a Statute, though an old and obsolete one. But on every other ground—considering the peculiar circumstances of the district, and the peculiar circumstances under which the altercation occurred—that is to say, Mr. Lewis having invited this rev. gentleman to his house—the proceeding is absolutely indefensible. I am very sorry, indeed, that I have been unable to go into the other case to which I alluded, where something similar occurred, because I believe I should have been able to show the Committee the injudicious manner in which the law has been already put in force, and the difference 639 between the application of the law in the North and the West of Ireland. I am also sorry that I have been unable to point out to the Committee some facts which would have shown the circumstances of Woodford to be, at the present moment, different from those of any other part of Ireland, and which would have connected it much more closely than other parts of the country with the agrarian difficulty.
§ SIR. JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has not said that it is beyond the competency of the Crown in Ireland to retrace the steps of the Law Officers in this matter. Will he state whether it is not competent for the Government of Ireland, in some form or other, to quash the order of the magistrates against Father Fahy? There ought to be some form by which it could be done. I think we should be quite satisfied if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would assure us that the subject should be reconsidered in the Council Chamber. The matter is one very deeply affecting the peace of Ireland; and if the Government wish to enlist the sympathies of the vast majority of the Members on this side of the House, they will at once set about undoing what has been done to Father Fahy. To the presiding magistrate of the Bench before whom this case was heard it was admitted that the evidence amounted to this—that Father Fahy went to Mr. Lewis with the best intention as a peacemaker. It is well known that there are peacemakers and peacemakers in Ireland; and if I stood in need of one, it certainly would not be to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that I should appeal to discharge the function. But it is beyond question that Father Fahy's motive was purely that of peacemaking. The hon. Member for South Tyrone will not deny that Mr. Lewis, though a respectable gentleman, is also rather peppery. Well, he invited Father Fahy into his house, and it is very likely that hot words were used, and that the rev gentleman may have been tempted into saying something which he would no have said in cooler moments. On the unsupported testimony of Mr. Lewis Father Fahy was called on to give bail for six months; he declined, holding that if he did so it would be an admis 640 sion of the truth of Mr. Lewis's charge, and as a result was committed to prison. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, on reflection, will see that the term of imprisonment which this rev. gentleman has before him is far beyond he period of sentence, or amount of punishment, which would be awarded even if one could imagine that the alleged offence had been committed, and leaving out of sight the important circumstance that Father Fahy went to Mr. Lewis with the intention of becoming a peacemaker.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)I do not think anyone was very much surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) imputing to Members on these Benches a desire to have one law for the Catholic priest in Ireland and another for the ordinary subjects of the Queen. Sir, such an imputation as that is only to be accounted for by the fact that the hon. Member owes his return to this House largely to the vote of the Orange Society, who are in the habit of insulting the Catholic people and their Representatives. It is precisely because we believe that the treatment received by Father Fahy was treatment such as should not have been given to the humblest person in the country that we protest against it here to-day. We protest not merely because Father Fahy is a priest, but simply because he was treated in a grossly unfair manner; and in appealing to the Government to alter the unfortunate decision which they arrived at in the imprisonment of Father Fahy, we appeal to them not merely on the ground of his being a priest, but simply because the treatment he received was such as would have been unjust to anyone. But, Sir, we appeal more particularly to Her Majesty's Government because Father Fahy is a priest; not because we regard him as anything more on that account, but we appeal to the Government in their own interest because he is a priest. And why? It is a notorious fact that such distressing circumstances as have occurred at Woodford would have been in the past multiplied in number and intensity were it not for the interference of the Catholic priests of the country. I have myself been present at places where evictions have taken 641 place under what the people have considered unjust circumstances, and where large masses of the people have assembled on the scene of eviction. I have seen dozens of cases myself where the people would inevitably have come in contact with the forces of the Crown engaged in the eviction were it not for the interference of the priests, who came to the scene strictly for the purpose of trying to calm the people and prevent riot and bloodshed. And now, Sir, Father Fahy went to the scene of these evictions in Woodford for the purpose of restraining the indignation of the people, and for the purpose of preventing bloodshed, strife, and, perhaps, loss of life; he entered into conversation with the landlord, at whose instigation these evictions were being carried out; and the landlord used very strong language to Father Fahy, who, perhaps, lost his temper, no doubt because his efforts to keep peace were met in a hostile manner by the landlord. The result of this was that the landlord, Mr. Lewis, made an accusation against Father Fahy, and Father Fahy was put into prison. Now, if there had been some good evidence to prove that the Father's language was unjustifiable, and witnesses were forthcoming, there might have been some cause to justify the Crown in keeping him in prison. But there is no proof whatever against Father Fahy, except the solitary evidence given by the landlord himself, who was engaged at the time in conversation, when Father Fahy was alleged to have used this language. The people of the district now find that the word of the landlord has been sufficient with the magistrates to cause the arrest and incarceration of Father Fahy. It is useless for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to attempt to allege in defence of the Crown that the Bench of Magistrates unanimously made out the warrant for the imprisonment of Father Fahy. It is a notorious fact that the Benches of Magistrates in Ireland are landlord partizans to a very great extent—at least, that is the opinion of the people. Well, there is no exception to that rule in the present case, for we find that the landlord went to the magistrates, and upon the word of the landlord the magistrates made out a warrant for the imprisonment of Father Fahy, with the result that he is lying in 642 prison to-day, not because he has committed any crime, for nothing of that sort is alleged against him, nor because there was weighty evidence brought forward. The people where Father Fahy lived, and who respect him, have got the bitter feeling and knowledge in their hearts that the word of a landlord was sufficient to take their priest from their midst and bring him into prison. Now, we say that the action of the Attorney General for Ireland is, to say the least of it, highly injudicious at the present time, when you cannot take up a newspaper in Ireland without reading the word "eviction"—when you cannot take up a newspaper without seeing the record of evictions which have taken place, or an account of evictions to come. It is generally feared upon all sides that during the winter there will be a great number of evictions in Ireland, and the only thing we have to uphold our belief that those evictions will not be altogether so disastrous as we fear they may be is the one hope in the interference of the priests between the exasperated people and the forces of the Crown. I tell this Committee that if it is to go forth that a priest going to the scene of an eviction for the purpose of making peace between the parties and preventing strife—that if it goes forth that a priest on this mission, like Father Fahy, is upon the word of a landlord to be summarily imprisoned, it will not tend in any degree to lessen the danger which is likely to surround evictions in Ireland during the coming winter. It is because of this fact, that the priests have always done their best to keep peace, and have always been determined to exert themselves to that end, that we appeal to the Government to release Father Fahy, so as not to discourage priests in other parts of Ireland from going forth on like missions of peace. Father Fahy was imprisoned merely upon the word of a landlord who was interested in the evictions that were taking place in Woodford. Now, Sir, what is the feeling which is likely to go abroad in Ireland?
THE CHAIRMANI must invite the hon. Member to be less discursive. I have repeatedly indicated what is the point of discussion.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI am addressing the Committee on the imprisonment of Father Fahy, and I am 643 appealing to the Government to reconsider their position in his case. I was going to show what is the feeling in Ireland as an argument why the Government should reconsider their decision. Sir, the feeling with regard to the imprisonment of Father Fahy and the circumstances connected with these Wood-ford evictions is this—that the people will get it into their heads that some persons in high places want to have outrage and crime in Ireland. The people have always known that priests like Father Fahy have, like good angels in these matters, been preventing crime and outrage; and when they see him now cut down in the midst of his attempts to calm the people and prevent crime, there naturally comes into their minds the feeling that the landlords have their friends in high places, and that the Government really want to exasperate the people, and to drive the people into acts which would give some cover for the introduction of repressive measures for Ireland during the coming winter. It is certainly because Father Fahy and priests like him have interfered to keep the peace on these occasions that I appeal to the Government; and I would appeal to them to remember, in the interests of their landlord friends, that the landlords in Ireland would have fared worse had it not been for the interference and intercession of the priests of the country. I know of cases where the people had determined to stand out to the last, and where they would probably have been evicted, and the landlord get no rent, if the priest had not brought about a compromise; and I tell the landlords that it will not be to their interest if they put in prison without reason the priests who have assisted them in collecting their rents. [Laughter.] I notice that a good many hon. Members opposite indulge in laughter at my remarks; but I say this is no laughing matter, and that it is very unbecoming of a Member of this House to treat in this way a matter which I believe the Government themselves will admit to be of the highest importance and seriousness. Now, with regard to the Woodford prisoners, they were not admitted to bail, because the landlord used his influence with the magistrates to prevent it. But in Belfast, where a young man was done to death, and a true bill was brought against nine men for the murder, those 644 men were all admitted to bail in the sum of £50 a-piece. Why do you not in Ireland apply to the West and South what you apply to Belfast? You allowed out on bail of £50 each those men who were concerned in a murder of an inoffensive man, who gave no provocation. But here you allow no bail to men who are led into extreme action, because they were driven from their homes, because their roofs were taken from their houses, and their wives and children were driven out. If the Government continue the course they are upon at present, I can tell them that they have commenced what will be a very bad time for them, and a very bad time for everybody in Ireland. They have in the case of the Woodford evictions acted in the interests of the landlord in refusing bail, simply because the landlord did not want it to be taken, and they have put a priest in prison, because the landlord raised his single voice to bring about that end. If you go on in this way you will exasperate the people. If you do so you will have disorder in Ireland, and that disorder the people of this country, as well as the people of Ireland, will see, from the protests we are now making, does not come from any action of the Nationalist Party, but from the action of the Government, who are always determined to stand by the landlords, and from the action of those hon. Members of this House who ask nothing better than the imprisonment of priests.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)I think the Attorney General for Ireland might shorten this discussion, which has certainly diverged somewhat from the point of debate, by removing what I cannot help thinking is a misapprehension with regard to the facts of this case. I think there must be some mistake, and that the facts cannot have been accurately stated to the House. As regards the question of Father Fahy being a priest, I think that ought not to enter into the matter at all. I think he should be dealt with as any other subject of the Crown. As far as my experience goes of putting priests in prison—and I have had some experience—it is that there is a very great difficulty in getting them out again; and that is one great objection to their being imprisoned. But we all agree that the same rule ought to be applied to everybody in similar circumstances. Now the facts of this case, which has 645 only come to my knowledge this afternoon, have been stated by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I understand the hon. Member to say that a person desiring to remove difficulties which have arisen in these evictions went to the house of another person who was a landlord; apparently they did not agree; there was no one present, as I understand, and they had an altercation. Well, one party to the altercation goes before a magistrate and states what the other has done; there is no corroboration whatever, and on that statement proceedings are taken, and the other party to the altercation is shut up. Now, if this can be so, it clearly lies with the first person who gets to the magistrate in cases of this kind to have the other party shut up. It seems to me that the magistrate took a sensible view of the case. He said that when two people quarrel it is very likely that neither of them recollect what has taken place very accurately—at all events, neither of them is likely to give the most favourable view of the case of the other person, or the most accurate account of their own. Now, the extraordinary part of this story is that the magistrate recommended the case to be made up, but that the Crown Solicitor, who I understand—but I cannot help thinking there is some mistake about this—was himself concerned in these evictions, prevented the course being taken which the magistrate recommended. I do not know, but I think there must be some mistake here. Well, he did that under the direct instructions of the Attorney General for Ireland. Here is a Crown Agent and agent for the landlord preventing the magistrate making up the case; where-upon the magistrate gives his decision as to finding bail, and a man is sent to prison. That is the case as stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Since the hon. Gentleman spoke I believe the Attorney General for Ireland has said nothing; and therefore, if he would make a statement which would remove the misapprehension which I believe exists, I think it would probably terminate this discussion. I think the case is one in which explanation is required.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)When this case was first noticed I did not think it desirable to 646 enter into a discussion of the facts, for the reason that any statement I might make in reference to the facts of the case must necessarily be an ex parte statement. I received certain information from Mr. Lewis, and I gave directions upon the basis of that information to the Crown Solicitor. As to whether the information received be accurate or inaccurate I can say nothing. It was, of course, for the Court to hear the case and decide, and the judgment of the Court was based upon their conclusion as to whether the information brought forward was accurate or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has asked what were the facts of the case. As far as I am acquainted with them, I shall at once tell the Committee what these circumstances are. If I am rightly informed, there was no altercation between. Mr. Lewis and the Rev. Father Fahy. Mr. Lewis is a gentleman of whom I know nothing beyond what any other Member of the House may know, except one fact which is in the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, that in the month of February last an attempt was made to blow up his house, either with dynamite or some other explosive material. It was partly successful; but if it had succeeded entirely his house and family would have been destroyed. It is perfectly true that some time ago Father Fahy came to Mr. Lewis's house—he was not invited to come—and asked Mr. Lewis what he intended to do in the case of one or two tenants. Mr. Lewis gave an explanation which I think would satisfy most reasonable men—namely, that as regarded the holding on which the man was living the rent was paid for it, and he did not wish to dispossess him; but that as regarded another holding, which was subject to a dispute between the father and son, no rent had been paid for it, and he intended to recover possession of it. Upon that Father Fahy got very indignant and excited, and told him that his house would be blown up with dynamite within six months; that he himself would probably be killed; and that he felt it his duty to denounce him from the altar. Upon these facts being brought to my knowledge I did what I think any Attorney General would have done in similar cir- 647 cumstances. I ask whether, under those circumstances, the Attorney General would have any alternative except to direct the Crown Solicitor to take charge of the case, and have Father Fahy brought up before the magistrates, and the matter fully investigated? Accordingly I gave the Crown Solicitor directions to take charge of the case, to put himself in communication with Mr. Lewis, who had given the information, to have a summons issued and heard in the ordinary way before the Court. He did so. I know nothing at all of what occurred between the magistrates and the Crown Solicitor. I gave no directions to the Crown Solicitor, either to withdraw the proceedings or to go on with them. I have no knowledge of what happened, but gave general directions to proceed. I understand that Mr. Lewis proved the facts as I have stated them to the Committee, and that he was not shaken in cross-examination. Under those circumstances the Court, consisting of more than one magistrate—I know not how many—unanimously made the order, and it was impossible for that Court to come to the conclusion of making such an order unless they believed the statement of Mr. Lewis. I ask, assuming that they believed that statement and granted the order, whether it would be proper or right for the Court to say that it was a matter for compromise and settlement? I do not know what the Crown Solicitor said; but if these facts were proved it was quite right for the Crown Solicitor to say—"I will not be a party to any such arrangement; I will leave the Court to judge." I believe that in this case the procedure has been right from first to last, as far as I know, and I need hardly say that it has been taken in the Constitutional way. The Attorney General has nothing whatever to do with the case, which is in the hands of the Court. The order made was merely that Father Fahy should give sureties for good behaviour. If he had given sureties to keep the peace the matter would have been at an end at once and for ever. But he refused to do what the Court ordered him to do. These are the circumstances of the case, and under them there was no option but to do what has been done, and I am of opinion that the course taken was the proper and legitimate course to be pursued.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I have listened with great interest to the statement of the Attorney General, and I observe some inconsistency in his account with what actually occurred in the Court. I know nothing of Father Fahy; I know nothing of the circumstances of the case, except what we read in the public Press. The Attorney General said that Father Fahy approached the landlord in an improper way, and said—"If you do not do so and so, your house will be blown up by dynamite."
§ MR. HOLMESI said that I was informed of that, and that I took proper means to deal with the case.
§ MR. DILLONThat is an important answer; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say who it was that informed him.
§ MR. HOLMESI distinctly said that this information was given me by Mr. Lewis.
§ MR. DILLONUpon the information he had, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he instructed the Crown Solicitor to press the ease; but it turns out that he proceeded on the mere ipse dixit of Mr. Lewis. When the Court had listened to the case Colonel Waring, the presiding magistrate, after having heard the evidence, expressed the opinion which had been read to the Committee—that was not denied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—the opinion was that an altercation had occurred between two gentlemen, heated language had passed, neither party could recollect exactly what had passed, and it was doubtful whether the language complained of had been used, and it was a case that ought to be settled. Those were the words of the Resident Magistrate, and now we are told by the Attorney General that the Resident Magistrate had satisfied himself that it was a case to be pressed—he had satisfied himself, he said, that it was a case the Crown Solicitor should take up, and press for judgment, and the Crown Solicitor was instructed and intervened, using all his influence to obtain the infliction of a penalty.
§ MR. HOLMESI am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me; but he is attributing to me something very different to what I said. I expressly stated to the Committee that I gave no instructions to the Crown Solicitor, except to conduct the case in 649 the ordinary way. I expressly stated that I knew nothing of what happened in Court.
§ MR. DILLONIf that is so, then the Crown Solicitor exceeded his instructions, for he did not issue the summons and proceed in the ordinary way—he pressed for the judgment of the Court, and brought distinct pressure to bear on the proceedings of the Court. He inter posed and said it was not a fair case for settlement, using that undue authority that attaches to the representative of the Crown in Irish Magisterial Courts. Further, I most distinctly claim to show—and I have the evidence to prove it—that the Crown Solicitor in this case was grossly biased, and displayed his bias. For what occurred? On the previous Thursday, when the prisoners were brought up who are now lying in Galway Prison, the Crown Solicitor refused the application for bail. Mr. Blake used language to which I will call attention, and ask was it language that should have been used considering the state of public feeling? The Chairman was addressed on behalf of the prisoners, and then Mr. Blake made the following speech:
He was glad to have the opportunity of making some reply to the very injudicious speech on behalf of some of the prisoners. They were told there was a dearth of teachers in the locality; but he was afraid there was no dearth of teachers to instruct the people to resist the fulfilment of their contracts.This, remember, was from the representative of the Crown, and how can the people believe he was the representative of justice?—He undertook to say yesterday, before he got his instructions, that he would be instructed to refuse bail, and he was glad to say he had received instructions from Dublin to refuse it.Is language such as that calculated to insure respect for the law? Here was an agent of the landlords saying—"He would undertake to say he would be instructed," and that "he was glad to say he had been instructed to refuse bail." In the name of goodness, what right had he to be glad? Did he not thereby show that he stood there as the representative of the Galway landlords, not as the representative of Her Majesty's Government? This is one of the strongest reasons we have for pushing the investigation of this matter to the bottom. Mr. Blake was plainly the agent of his masters the 650 landlords of Galway. Acting, as he believed, with the encouragement of the Attorney General he strained his authority—always too great in Magisterial Courts, for they did all the Crown Solicitor asked—and demanded that the Court should refuse bail to these men, who ought to have been bailed, and would have been admitted to bail in any other country in the world under similar circumstances. He showed his animus on the subsequent Tuesday, when the Resident Magistrate declared his opinion that the case was one that ought to be settled, and the magistrate had a much better opportunity of judging the facts than the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Dublin. The magistrate repeated his opinion three times over; but the representative of the Crown stopped him, saying, in his opinion, the case ought not to be settled, and, making some sneering remarks, brought pressure to bear which has resulted in this most lamentable state of things. It is a most lamentable state of things, and the Government have to make the best of it. They may think it an easier matter to get a priest in than out of prison than the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary found it; but if Father Fahy takes the advice I will offer he will not quit Galway Prison until he can leave it honourably. He will be thoroughly justified in telling the Government that if they are going to lock him in gaol until he dishonours himself by giving security not to act like a ruffian or a scamp, then he will continue to remain in prison.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I will not go into the facts of a case of which I know nothing but what I have heard in Committee. I quite feel the exceeding difficulty of making the Committee any kind of a Court of Appeal on the subject of the decisions of magistrates or Judges, and it would be impossible in English jurisprudence that such a case could arise; but I will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make more allowance than I think they do make for hon. Members sitting around Mr. It is clear from the statement of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland—it is clear from the knowledge we have received from listening to hon. Members who have preceded me, that all proceedings of this character are looked upon, rightly or wrongly, as being 651 taken under the direct action of the Crown. If that be so, it cannot be wondered at that the Representatives of men who are thought to be unfairly tried should be inclined to defend them by attacking the representative of the Crown in the House of Commons—it is the only fashion in which they can do so. No suspicion rests upon English justice. I have come, during a rather troubled life, very often into collision with the authorities—[Laughter]—and perhaps hon. Members who laugh at that would not have come off so well; but I have never permitted myself, when a decision has been against me, to suggest that the decision has been tainted with unfairness, however much I may have disagreed with the reasons that governed it. I knew that the Attorney General or Solicitor General, of whatever political side—except so far as human nature is potent with all—did not allow their political feelings to influence them against me, and certainly there was nothing of the kind with the Judges. I have never heard—except on one occasion, when I admit it came from a personage of high authority in the House—I have never heard it suggested that English Judges could act unfairly. I did hear it once while sitting under the Gallery, the only seat I was then allowed to occupy. I heard the noble Lord the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) say a Government could procure any decision it pleased from English Judges. I confess I did not believe that—I say it with all respect—although I have often had decisions given against Mr. But it cannot be wondered at, when a noble Lord in a high position gave utterance to such a sentiment, that Members around should express a similar sentiment in respect to friends of theirs. It is clear that in this case—we have it from the Attorney General for Ireland—that the Crown Solicitor represented the Crown and the landlords at the same time—
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)That is an entire mistake. The Crown Solicitor represented nobody but the Crown—no one has a right to say he represented anyone else. It has been stated that he was agent for Mr. Lewis; but that must have been stated under an entire misapprehension of the facts.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I have stated that Mr. Blake was agent for certain Galway landlords.
§ MR. HOLMESHe was not agent for Mr. Lewis.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI am afraid I was rather obtuse in expressing myself. I will make my meaning more clear. Mr. Blake represented the Crown in substance, but he represented the landlords in spirit, when he said he was glad he had received instructions which authorized him to oppose the granting of bail.
§ MR. HOLMESThe hon. Member is wholly wrong; the allegation does not apply to that case at all, but to a wholly different case.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHThat shows the excessive inconvenience of having to discuss such cases in the Committee at all. [Cheers.] I am glad to have that recognized, for it is an inconvenience that must continually arise until the administration of justice in Ireland is placed on the same footing as it is in England.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)I understand that during my absence the hon. Member for Northampton, who has just addressed the Committee, stated that he, sitting under the Gallery, heard me say that, in my opinion, the Crown could get any decision it wished from English Judges.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHThat is so.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI can assure the hon. Member he is under an entire mistake, and I give an unqualified denial to the statement.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHPerhaps the Committee will allow me to explain. It was a case in which I took some interest, for I was the defendant. Unless my memory quite betrays me, I heard the noble Lord make the remark, and I think the noble Lord objected to the constitution of the Court, and a special meeting of the High Court was held, and the Judges changed in consequence of the complaints of the noble Lord and a Colleague.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI can assure the hon. Member he is completely in error, and I am sure the hon. Member will not find any record of my having given utterance to such an opinion.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI shall be exceedingly glad if my memory has deceived one.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)The case is eminently one that calls for the intervention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has over and over again expressed the feeling that it was the duty of the Government rather to ameliorate than to exasperate the unfortunate state of things between landlord and tenant. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had been charged with a desire to stimulate the harsh proceedings of landlords against tenants, he had over and over again, with every appearance of sincerity, disclaimed any such intention. He had now an opportunity of carrying out his promises. Here was a case where intervention on his part would do much to remove exasperation and restore a better state of feeling. Having heard the speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) and the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, I think the Government will be most unwise if they do not act on the advice of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and order the immediate release of Father Fahy. The Chief Secretary for Ireland must know that nothing can make his difficult task in Ireland more difficult than that the impression should get abroad that the law, the Executive, and the landlords are synonymous terms. It is the duty of his high office to stand impartially between one class and the other, and see that equal justice is being done. Can any fair-minded man infer from what he has heard in Committee that the Crown does stand impartially between the classes? In the first place, there is a man filling two positions incompatible in view of the present position in Ireland—a representative of the Crown and a representative of the landlord class. Let the case be considered calmly, as if it were a case between two classes in England, and not in Ireland. What do we constantly hear from Scotch Members? What more frequent complaint is there than that in the painful struggle between crofters and landlords the same man often fills the position of Procurator Fiscal and the private position of landlord's agent? Mr. Blake was the agent of Mr. Lewis. ["No! no!"] I use the word "agent" 654 not in the technical sense of the word; if hon. Members choose to trip me up at every word and interrupt me there will be no chance of a calm consideration of the subject. Mr. Blake was acting for the landlords in these cases against the tenants. Surely everybody knows what that means? Here was a man who acted as law agent for the landlords acting as law agent for the Crown. This position imposed upon Mr. Blake the necessity of more care in the performance of his duty than if he were simply Crown Solicitor, or simply law agent for the landlords. Did he impose upon himself the restrictions of his position? By no means. The short extracts from the account of the proceedings show that he brought into this case, as the representative of the Crown, all the animus and all the passion of a representative of the landlords. That was the best way to bring the law into disrepute, and divorce the sympathies of the people from those who administered the law. Bail has been asked for the prisoners, and can anyone deny that in England or Scotland bail would have been allowed as a matter of course, and without question? Here are tenants bound to the locality by the ties of home, of family, and of farm tenancy, and yet they are not allowed bail, because the Crown Solicitor, who is the representative of the landlords, opposed it; he opposed the granting of bail with a savage glee that was altogether indecorous in his position.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLHe acted under instructions from the Government.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORSurely the noble Lord has heard the language of the Crown Solicitor quoted.
§ LORD EANDOLPH CHURCHILLI have heard the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI do not know whether the noble Lord has heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in which he quoted the language of the Crown Solicitor that he expected to receive instructions to refuse bail, and was glad he had received those instructions. I ask the noble Lord, who, with his Colleagues, share the responsibility of Government in Ireland, was it right for their representative to express this savage exultation? This conduct, so unworthy of his position, 655 became much more serious, much more unworthy, when, as the noble Lord says, he acted as the spokesman of the Government. The Attorney General for Ireland, who is a dexterous Nisi Prius advocate, produced a strong impression on the Committee by his statement of the case; but hon. Members should remember the fact that in the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman they had listened to the statement of one of the parties to the case, for in his reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo the right hon. and learned Gentleman had acknowledged that the statement upon which he acted, and which he repeated to the Committee, was the statement of Mr. Lewis, one of the parties in the case.
§ MR. HOLMESI have explained that the reason I did not desire to enter into the discussion was that necessarily my information was ex parte.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORThe right hon. and learned Gentleman began with the statement that his information was ex parte; but he concluded by giving his statement as a triumphant vindication of the action of the Crown Solicitor. He produced an effect upon the Committee that was entirely wrong by saying that the clergyman came to the man, whose house had been previously attacked with dynamite, and threatened him with a repetition of that outrage. In that he attempted to prove too much. If that suggestion had been made in the Court where the case was heard, and if it had been proved, was it credible that the presiding magistrate would have thought it a case for the gentlemen to shake hands, go out of the Court, and forget all about it? Why, if Father Fahy had threatened the plaintiff in this case with being murdered with dynamite, would Colonel Waring, the Resident Magistrate, having heard the whole case, have advised Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy, the threatened and the threatener, to "kiss and be friends," like children after a quarrel? It was evident the magistrate considered the case to be one of the most trivial character. How could the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile this recommendation of Colonel Waring that the gentlemen should go out of Court, shake hands, and forget it, with credence to the grave statement of Mr. Lewis? No; Colonel Waring did not believe Mr. Lewis. He 656 said, very properly, the two gentlemen were very excited and angry, and shouting at the top of their voices, said many angry things, as angry men do. Colonel Waring attached no importance to the statement the Attorney General for Ireland was not ashamed to bring forward to induce the Committee to come to a wrong sense of the position. Though Colonel Waring expressed his opinion, there were landlords on the Bench beside him, and the representative of landlords in the Court appealed to the representatives of landlords on the Bench, and, using all his influence as the representative of the Crown, induced them to overrule the sensible, kindly advice of the Resident Magistrate, and so perpetrated this gross injustice. This is a case for the intervention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland between the magisterial landlords and the representatives of the people; and I am sure the Committee, and the country generally, will be disappointed if many days pass over without an order for the unconditional release of Father Fahy.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway,N.)There is only one question I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, which, as Law Officer, he can readily answer, and that is under what law was Father Fahy bound over to keep the peace? I have not myself the slightest pretence to legal knowledge; but on the Bench some elementary principles of law have occasionally to be studied or looked into. Up to 1882 there was the ordinary law, the operation of which was pretty much the same in England and Ireland. But in 1882 a great change was made, and then the principle of binding over to keep the peace was extended under an old Statute of Edward III., or, at any rate, a very old Statute. I believe that these very old Statutes were sometimes considered the same as the Common Law. I am not an authority on that point; but I want the Attorney General for Ireland to go over this ground carefully, and explain this matter to the Committee, not simply to parry my question, putting me aside with superior legal knowledge, but carefully to explain under what law Father Fahy was bound over to keep the peace.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHPerhaps I may be allowed to explain that since speaking I have referred to Hansard, and find that it does not corroborate my own 657 impression of what the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) said on the occasion referred to a few minutes since. I think it is only loyal for me to say this.
§ MR. HOLMESIn answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), I may just tell him that a magistrate may bind a man in securities for the preservation of the peace under the Common Law. That was a power always exercised and approved. In addition to that, under an Act of Parliament passed a long time ago—[Colonel NOLAN: But when?] In the Reign of Edward III. Under that Statute magistrates may demand sureties for good behaviour. That Statute is not by any means obsolete; it is acted upon in England almost every week.
§ COLONEL NOLANThe Attorney General has not answered my question, under which Statute was Father Fahy bound over? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can and will answer that question put in a simple form.
§ MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)I would not have intervened except to ask for further explanation of the statement as to the action taken upon the ex parte statement of Mr. Lewis. I confess I am amazed, Sir, to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he thinks it his duty, on the mere statement of one party in a case, to order a State prosecution with all the panoply of the forces of the Crown, and where the case consists, at the outside, of alleged threatening language of one man to another. I think, Sir, that if in England an altercation, such as has been described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, took place, the parties would be allowed to fight it out for themselves. The man who made such a representation, with, a request for a prosecution by the Crown in England, would be told to issue a summons to the Magistrates' Court or the Police Court, where the case would be summarily decided on its merits, with both the parties standing on equal terms. In Ireland we generally find that, in disputes between landlords and someone else, the Crown Prosecutor mostly intervenes in the interests of the landlords. If anyone attacks the privileged classes, his case is 658 immediately made the subject of a Crown prosecution. I should like to know whether it is usual in England; and I would ask the Attorney General for England to say whether, in such a case as this of Father Fahy's, the Crown would order a prosecution? In Ireland Crown prosecutions are ordered on the smallest provocation. They are ordered on the representation of local magistrates and other individuals who have influence with the Crown; and there is nothing, in my opinion, which tends more to lower the respect for the administration of the law than the interposition of the Crown as prosecutor in in cases of this kind, which will be always found to be in the interests of the landlord class, without having investigated sufficiently the cases before they order prosecutions. In nearly all the cases where the Crown intervenes we find one class pitted against another. I maintain that nothing is more calculated to lower the law, and to bring it into contempt in the eyes of the people, than the partial administration of the law by prosecutions of this kind. On the merits of this case I do not propose to say anything, as they have been dealt with by other speakers; but I do contend that the case illustrates the general proposition I have made. I do not believe there is any similar system in England, nor would such a system be tolerated by public opinion. I believe that here, when people fall out, they are expected to settle their differences between themselves. This case was not such a one as the Crown ought to have intervened in, particularly as they intervened on the mere statement of Mr. Lewis as against that of Father Fahy.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to answer me on the point of law. He has declared there are two different branches of the law under which Father Fahy might have been convicted. I press my question, and I maintain we are entitled to the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the point of law; otherwise, what is the use of paying two Law Officers? What do the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland sit here for? I suppose the Attorney General for Ireland does not answer because he is not a responsible Member 659 of the Government. I must, therefore, put my question to a responsible Member of the Government. I will put my question to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I cannot help being struck by the absurdity of there being two Irish Law Officers, who cannot inform us as to under which of two branches of the law a gentleman has been sent to prison.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I may say that my own opinion is distinctly this—that the Attorney General for Ireland, as the Representative of the Government, has given the fullest explanation—the fullest statement of this case—that it is in the power of the Government to give. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered all the questions put to him in the clearest manner. ["No!"] That is my opinion. I was asked for my opinion, and my opinion is, further, that no Member of the Government would be justified in occupying the time of the Committee further in continuing the discussion.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)One point has been raised which I do not completely understand. I wish to know whether, since this trial took place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has examined the evidence upon which the magistrates acted; and, if he has done so, whether he approves of their action in the matter? As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all he knows about the case as yet he gathered from the preliminary ex parte information that was laid before him, and that it was upon the presumption that this evidence was true that he acted. What this Committee is asked to consider is the action of the magistrates on the evidence which was placed before them. As I understand, the Attorney General for Ireland defends that action; but he has not yet stated to the Committee, in spite of anything the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, whether he has seen the evidence upon which the magistrates acted, and whether, having seen it, he approves of what they have done. Let me say, however, that upon the statements made on the one side and on the other it is obvious that the magistrates have come to an inex- 660 plicable conclusion. If, as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say they believe, there was nothing in the case, why did the magistrates compel Father Fahy to give security to be of good behaviour for six months? That I cannot quite understand. If, as the Attorney General for Ireland says, the magistrates believe the evidence laid before them, it is inexplicable to me how, with such a charge laid before them, they, being convinced of the truth of the charge, could have satisfied themselves with such a meagre and unsatisfactory decision as, upon his theory, they have arrived at. I think the Committee has not been put in possession of sufficient information from the Attorney General for Ireland upon this point.
§ MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)In consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer we have received from the Government I feel it my duty to move the reduction of this Vote by £7,000, the amount of the salaries of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and his subordinates. We have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first duty of the Government is to assert the law. The Government have always claimed that they will have the law carried out so as to bring peace and contentment to the people; but the assertion of the law in this case does not tend to produce peace, but to produce excitement. In this case the right hon. and learned Gentleman not merely receives the information sent to him, as it is sent in other cases, by his subordinates, but he sends down before the trial special instructions. He sends special instructions before the trial that these poor men who had been arrested should not be admitted to bail, but that they should be sent to prison. He now tells us that they can, if they choose, go before one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench. If they are able to make a case before the Queen's Bench, the right hon. and learned Gentleman promises to look further into the matter with a view to ordering the acceptance of bail. Well, now, here he has all the facts already in his possession; he knows exactly what the case is; but what does he invite these poor people to do? They are mostly people holding small plots of land, and he invites them to go to Dublin to an expensive Law Court to assert that 661 they have a right to bail. I contend that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows right well that they have a right to bail; but it will not suit the policy of vengeance that he is carrying out to do them justice. The moment these people were convicted, they were conveyed from the Court as ordinary prisoners—they were handcuffed in pairs, and carried from Loughrea to Galway. It is said that this is not a policy of vengeance; that this is merely an assertion of the law; that this is not exasperating the people; that this is not creating excitement. Now, Sir, I stated, in opening this discussion, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider my proposition I thought Father Fahy would put his own feelings aside, and that he would probably, with a view of restoring peace to the district, give way if the other prisoners were admitted to bail. I may say I am not authorized to make this statement. I do not know whether Father Fahy would do as I say; but I think it is quite possible he would have done so had my suggestion been accepted. But now, in consequence of the reply we have received this evening, I think he would certainly be degrading himself if he gave any such undertaking. I hope he will not; and I believe that before six months are over Dublin Castle will see better than continue to retain this reverend gentleman in gaol. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Crown has no authority to intervene in. verdicts by the inferior Courts, but that it is open for the gentleman himself either to give bail or to remain in gaol. I can give the right hon and learned Gentleman an instance where a gentleman was committed to gaol, having refused to give bail under a similar Act. He was committed to gaol for six months. He appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench to be admitted to bail. Judge Lawson refused, and the Lord Lieutenant of the time—I think it was Earl Cowper—four weeks afterwards, on his own motion, without any other proceedings on the part of the prisoner, released the gentleman, because he found it would be better that he should be at liberty; that it was better for the peace of the district and the country that he should be out of gaol. I say it would be better for the peace of the district of Woodford that the Rev. 662 Father Fahy should be unconditionally released, and that, in consequence of the manner in which our statements have been met, I am bound to press the Amendment I have moved to a division. The statement has been made over and over again—I made it at the beginning of the discussion, and it has been repeated since—that Mr. Blake acted in a dual capacity—namely, that of solicitor for Mr. Lewis and solicitor for the Crown. That has been denied. I assert not merely that he has been for years Mr. Lewis's agent in carrying out evictions, but that he has been the main instrument in torturing Mr. Lewis's tenantry, and that this is not the first time, as I should have proved if I had had the opportunity of making my statement this evening, that this man has incessantly tyrannized over the people in South Galway. I beg, Sir, to move that the Vote be reduced by £7,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,041, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Sheehy.)
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)It may not be worth the while of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) or any Member of the Government to refer at further length to this question; but it is worth our while. This is a test case, because it marks a certain line of policy it is the intention of the Government to pursue in Ireland during the next six months. They have got a clergyman in gaol—we do not know how many more clergymen they may have in gaol before Parliament meets again—and we do not know whether they will even stop there, or whether they will not go on and proceed against the Representatives of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has said that the Statute of Edward III. has been used every day in England against criminals; but I would like to know how often it is used against parsons of the Established Church, or I should like to know how often it is used against Dissenting clergymen or clergymen of any denomi- 663 nation? The Statute of Edward III., as everyone knows, is a Statute directed against rogues and vagabonds; and clergymen, even in England, do not come under that denomination. There is a further point in connection with this question. The Rev. Mr. Fahy is a man well known in the South of Galway; he is well known as a man who has always been striving for peace and good order; as a man who has always endeavoured to stay the proceedings of landlords, and who has always endeavoured to induce the tenants to come to terms with the landlord party where-ever possible. He has done so recently in a most successful manner in other cases. He approached Mr. Lewis to accomplish the same object, and Mr. Lewis took occasion to pick a quarrel with the Rev. Mr. Fahy, and immediately that quarrel was picked rushed into the police station and swore an information against the Rev. Mr. Fahy for the purpose of getting him bound over to keep the peace. The main point on which this information was based was that the Rev. Mr. Fahy had stated that Mr. Lewis's house might be blown up by dynamite. Well, I believe his house was blown up by dynamite; but for a gentleman who occupies a bad house it is an extremely paying proceeding to blow it up with dynamite. We had a case in the county of Kerry, not long ago, in which Mr. Samuel Hussey blew up his own house and came down on the county and got £1,500 for the purpose of repairing it—it was as good as putting £1,500 into Mr. Hussey's pocket.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling very wide of the point before the Committee.
§ MR. M. J. KENNYAnd this gentleman, Mr. Lewis, came forward to claim compensation for the injury done to his own house.
§ MR. M. J. KENNYOh, I will not proceed further with the exploits of Mr. Lewis in regard to the blowing up of his own house; but I will say that every person is aware that the Rev. Mr. Fahy has been during his whole life, during the whole period of his ministry, the agent of peace and good order in the South of Galway, and this gentleman 664 who swore an information against the Rev. Mr. Fahy, could not get even the Resident Magistrate of the district to lend anything like a favourable countenance to the charge Mr. Lewis brought against him. During the whole proceedings in Court, Colonel Waring, who is the Resident Magistrate, kept pressing on this gentleman, Mr. Lewis, to come to terms with the Rev. Mr. Fahy and go out of Court and shake hands and become friends, because the charges on which the proceedings were based were of such a frivolous nature as not to deserve the attention of a Court of Justice. Colonel Waring, the Resident Magistrate, went further, and said if he had been in the position of Mr. Lewis he would never have dreamt of instituting such proceedings. When we find a Resident Magistrate using language of that kind, using such language in a public Court, you may depend upon it the charge brought against the Rev. Mr. Fahy must have been of a trivial nature. There is a further point. The Attorney General for Ireland directed the Crown Prosecutor of the county of Galway to refuse bail; but, in the first place, the Crown Prosecutor for the county of Galway had, on his own authority, decided to refuse bail, and when questioned in Court on this point he stated in explanation he refused bail previously on his own authority; but now he was happy to be supported in his proceedings by the recommendation and advice of the Attorney General for Ireland. Well, Sir, we know very well that if there was a serious charge, that if the charge against the Rev. Mr. Fahy was of a serious nature, the Government would not stop at that, the local magistrates would not be allowed to stop at binding the rev. gentleman over to keep the peace. The local magistrates—who I believe, in the main, have acted upon the request of the Crown Prosecutor—if the charge against the Rev. Mr. Fahy was a genuine charge and not a malicious one, would, you may be perfectly certain, have returned the Rev. Mr. Fahy for trial at the next Assizes. Well, Sir, things would have been quite different if they had taken that turn. I do not think that the rev. gentleman himself would have objected to be returned for trial at the Winter Assizes, for then, at least, he would have had an opportunity 665 of being defended properly by counsel, and tried by a fair jury of Sligo jurymen, though they might be special jurymen. But the whole proceedings of the Government point to one conclusion—that there is a desire on the part of the Government to strike terror into the people of Connaught, to endeavour to bully them in the interest of the landlords into paying rents they cannot pay. That is the kernel of the whole question, and these law proceedings are for the purpose of intimidating these men. A local leader like the Rev. Mr. Fahy is pitched upon because he has always done his duty by the people, and the Government take the first opportunity of hurrying this man off to gaol for six months in lieu of humiliating himself to the extent of giving surety to be of good behaviour, as if any clergyman would consent to so humiliating a process, conscious of his own innocence and uprightness, conscious of the honour and propriety of his own character, as to enter into a bond in a Court of Law to be of good behaviour for six months towards a gentleman like Mr. Lewis, who is well known to be a rowdy and a bully. To ask a peaceful and upright man like the Rev. Mr. Fahy to enter into his recognizances to be of good behaviour towards this man is not justice, but a travesty of justice. I may say the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) has put his case very moderately, and I shall have extreme pleasure in supporting him if he presses his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)I was in hopes that this discussion would come to a conclusion very soon. I thought after the considerate, the moderate, and very able manner in which the case was put by my hon. Friends on these Benches, that the Attorney General and the Government would consent to grant the very moderate request that was made to them; but I find I was mistaken. Complaints have been made as to occupying the time of this Committee. I must say for myself that during the debate which has occurred I have limited my observations to the narrowest space. It so happens that I am very well acquainted with most of the parties concerned in these evictions. I know a great deal about Mr. Lewis—and I do not want to say anything disparaging about any man in this House, because 666 assertions of the sort are open to question, and people are often prompted by their prejudices to use language they might not be able to substantiate—he is a small landlord, and both himself and his mother have lived together and have been a great trouble to that part of the country. As regards the tenants against whom actions have been taken on the Clanricarde estate—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I have several times stated that it is not pertinent to the Vote before the Committee to enter into all the relations between landlord and tenant. The Question before the Committee is not the action of the Government in respect to the Rev. Mr. Fahy.
§ MR. HARRISThe action of the Law Officers of the Crown, Sir, comes within the Question. In one case the rent was £25, and the law costs were laid down at £18. In the case of Patrick Conway, whose rent is £36, the costs were made out at £17 10s. In the case of James—
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. HARRISMr. Courtney, I maintain that, of my own knowledge, Mr. Blake is connected with nearly all the landlords in the county of Galway. He belongs to one of the old families, and he is land agent for several landlords. And if we consider that the law is, as I may say, entirely in the hands of the magistracy of the county and the law officers of the county, and that a close relationship such as I have described exists between them, it is very hard upon the poor people of the district to contend against the forces brought against them. From what I have read of the proceedings at the trial, it does not surprise me to know that Mr. Blake acted in a very partial and one-sided manner. He insisted upon Father Fahy giving bail. It is not only Father Fahy, but the poor people arrested in Woodford and brought before the magistrates, who have been treated in a most cruel manner. I am sorry that the Government do not seem to realize the full importance of this matter, for one of the main causes of crime in county Galway, and I believe 667 in other counties, is the want of confidence in the administration of the law. Our people are very shrewd, and if the law were to be administered in a fair and just manner I have no doubt that a better relationship would exist between the Government and the people, and that very many crimes that have been committed in the county of Galway would never have been committed. But, however, when the people cease to have confidence in the law, when they see the magistracy, the Crown Prosecutors, the County Court Judges, and officers in every department of the law arranged against them; when they see that the law is not a protecting power, or a power which will do justice between man and man, especially between the rich and the poor, but is entirely on the side of the rich, which I am sorry to say it is in the county of Galway, it is not to be wondered at that the people resort to extreme measures. The administration of the law is a very important matter. In the county of Galway, some few years ago, there was a fair amount of confidence in the law; but gradually contentions arose between landlord and tenant. Things have gone from bad to worse, and now, I might say, the people are arrayed on one side and the law and the landlordocracy on the other. I would be glad indeed if the Government could see its way to alter this state of things; and I do not know anything which would tend to this end better than the release of Father Fahy. I also think that if the Attorney General for Ireland and the other Law Officers of the Crown could see their way to allow the poor people of Woodford who are now in prison to be liberated, a better state of things would arise in that part of the country, and we might have a chance of living in a peaceable and orderly manner.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)The policy of the Law Officers of the Crown, partly owing to the work they do in the Law Courts and partly to their work in Parliament, is one open to a good deal of question, and the manner in which they are paid is very extraordinary. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland receives £1,200 a-year in lieu of patent fees. There are no patent fees taken out in Ireland; but still this payment of £1,200 continues. However, up to this evening 668 I always considered that the advantage of having two Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland was that we should be able to obtain the best possible information upon legal questions. To my astonishment I have been refused that information; failing to get it from the Law Officers of the Crown I appealed to the responsible Leader of the House (Lord Randolph Churchill). I have asked under what branch of the law a clergyman in the county of Galway has been imprisoned, and I have been met with a cool refusal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to give me the information in the first instance, and he is backed up in his obduracy by the Leader of the House. The conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland in the House tonight has been very extraordinary. I put it down to mere caprice, rather than ignorance of the law. I trust that the Solicitor General for Ireland means to speak upon this subject; if he is not acquainted with the subtleties of Irish law, I am sure the English Law Officers, who are sitting by his side at this moment, will be able to advise him. It is very important to know whether it is under the ordinary Common Law, or whether it is under the Statute of Edward III., that Father Fahy is at the present moment in gaol? I press that point. We know perfectly well that we cannot force an opinion from a Minister of the Crown upon any point. I am very glad that the Attorney General for Ireland has now returned to the House, because, perhaps, the Solicitor General for Ireland might not have liked to give an opinion in the absence of his senior Colleague, which senior Colleague has refused information. The contention of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will save time by making a totally new departure is one I cannot understand. I believe it is a well-established precedent that we may not ask information of any Minister with the exception of the Law Officers, and the information we ask from them must be upon a legal point. I am not certain whether it is under the Common Law, or under the Statute of Edward III., that Father Fahy is imprisoned. I have asked the question several times. I have appealed to the Leader of the House, and have got no satisfaction from him. I do not remember, during the five Parliaments I 669 have sat in the House, that a Committee has ever been similarly treated, and I think I am justified in moving to report Progress. I, therefore, beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress; but I state at the outset that the Motion will be withdrawn if the Attorney General will only give us a satisfactory answer to our question.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)Before you put the Question, Mr. Courtney, I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland particularly whether the proceedings against Father Fahy have been taken under 34 Edward III. c. 1., or not? If they have not been taken under this Statute, then under what Statute have they been taken? I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it within his competency to give an answer to my question.
§ MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)I think it is but reasonable, Mr. Courtney, when we have two Law Officers of the Crown in this House, that we should receive specific and definite answers to questions repeatedly put by us. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) has put his question in the most respectful manner, and yet the Law Officers of the Crown sit silent on the Benches opposite, and refuse to give him an answer. I think it is but fair and reasonable that we should ascertain from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from some other Member of the Government, under what Statute Father Fahy has been committed to gaol; and I respectfully press upon the Government, and particularly upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows quite well under what Statute Father Fahy has been committed to gaol, to give us a respectful reply to a question put frequently in the most respectful manner.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)The only reason why I have not risen again is that I have given the only reply I can give, not merely once, but twice, and that is this—that the facts proved before the magistrates justified them in putting the rev. gen- 670 tleman under a rule of bail. I have not got the evidence before me; and, therefore, I do not know all the facts. Of course, it is perfectly open to any hon. Member to refer to the record of the charge, in order to ascertain under the provisions of what Statute the charge against Father Fahy has been brought. It is impossible I should know all about the case.
§ MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)Then, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ascertain the facts?
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)Mr. Courtney, I have got an answer from the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, it is not a very satisfactory one; but it seems to be the best it is in his power to give on the present occasion. I am convinced that it would have saved a great deal of time and bad temper if he had told all this before. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it his business to ascertain under what Statute the charge has been brought, and that he will communicate the information to us as soon as he receives it. Having received the intimation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he does not know the whole of the circumstances of the case, and that he has told us everything it is in his power to tell us, I beg to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,041, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Sheehy.)
§ MR. H. CAMPBELL (Fermanagh, S.)I think that the conduct of the Government, or of the Law Advisers of the Government, in refusing to accept bail in this case is very disgraceful, and such as no Member on these Benches can help rising to express his indignation at. We had the right hon. and learned Gentleman's subordinate in the county of Galway coolly rising in Court and advising the magistrates to refuse bail, telling them that he was confident 671 that to-morrow it would be found that his action was supported by the Law Officers of the Crown. The action of the Crown Solicitor in Galway shows very plainly the magnificent system of wire-pulling which exists in Ireland in the interest of the landlord class as against the tenantry or poorer class. As I have said, the Crown Solicitor announced in Court that on the following day he would be able to prove that the action he recommended the magistrates to take would be justified by Her Majesty's Government. What happened in Galway is simply a repetition of what happens throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. In all the Irish counties the Government have chosen for their Crown Solicitors little paltry lawyers; men whom they are certain, when the necessity arises, will take the part of the landlord class against that of the humbler classes in Ireland. It is scandalous and monstrous that the Government should back up their Crown Solicitor in the county of Galway in refusing to give bail in the case of a scamp of a man like Mr. Lewis. ["Order, order!"] I do not mean the term in any way offensively, Mr. Courtney, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It is well known that this Mr. Lewis is a man, like most of his class in Ireland, without character. He does not possess anything which goes to make up what is generally comprised in the word man. It is more than probable that he spent his last half-crown in buying a few pounds of powder or a few pounds of dynamite.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Question under discussion, which I have frequented indicated to the Committee.
§ MR. H. CAMPBELLI was just going to say that the conduct of the Government in refusing bail in the case of this clergyman, as against a gentleman of the character and position of Mr. Lewis, is such as no one can justify.
§ MR. HOLMESThere has been no refusal of bail.
§ MR. H. CAMPBELLAt any rate, whether the Government refused to accept bail or not does not much matter. In this case the Rev. Father Fahy has acted as any Irishman, considering him- 672 self an Irishman, would act. He has elected to go to gaol sooner than accept the ignominious position into which Her Majesty's Government would like to force him. The other prisoners acting by his side have done likewise, and I have no two opinions as to which of the two—the Government or the rev. gentleman and his fellow-prisoners, when they return from gaol—will stand the higher in the estimation of the people of the locality. Do the Government think that by their present action in Galway they are smoothing the way for a peaceful or a quiet time in Ireland during the coming winter? Why, Sir, they are simply driving in the thin edge of the wedge, which will eventually split themselves. This is not the way in which a Government who desired to make matters go along smoothly between landlord and tenant in the different counties of Ireland during the coming winter should proceed. The arrest and casting into gaol of a clergyman of the persuasion to which by far the greater majority of the Irish people belong is certainly not the way by which you will firmly establish law and order in Ireland. I can only say what I, as a Representative of the people of Ireland, consider it my duty to say—that the action of the Government in this matter will rebound upon them, and that they will create, by the big structure which they are raising in Galway, a difficulty which, will overwhelm them before many months go by.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)Mr. Courtney, although I was not present here during the earlier part of the evening, matters of this kind are nothing new to Mr. I have had, I should think, as varied an experience as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself in the matter of Crown prosecutions. My impression is that there is not on the face of the earth, in any country pretending to the slightest semblance of civilization, such a system of misgovernment in this matter as there is in Ireland. Protest after protest has been made against the manner in which the law is administered, or rather mal-administered, in Ireland. And I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and every conscientious Member of the Government, feels in his heart a repugnance excited 673 by the state of things which has been presented to this Committee this evening. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), whom I see sitting below the Bar at this moment, stated this evening that we want one law for the priest and one law for the peasant in Ireland. Sir, that is not the fact. We do not want one law for the priest and one for the peasant; but we do want one for the landlord, priest, and peasant alike. This is our position; we want that equal law shall be dealt out to priest and peasant and landlord, to squire and labourer, in Ireland. [Ironical cheers.] The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) cheers. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member; in fact, my complaint against him is that he is more biased by prejudice than by any disposition to act unfairly. I must say I have not had much experience of the hon. Gentleman, but that the experience I have had of him is that in cases in which he has interfered he has acted with a chivalry which does him credit and a generosity which might not be expected from him. It is said of us that we are incessantly talking; our complaint is that you are incessantly silent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was asked a plain question on a matter of fact. ["Oh, oh!"] It was a matter of fact, and a matter of law. It was a matter which was within his cognizance, and I have no hesitation in saying that it was quite competent for him to stand up in his place and give us the answer we desired. What was his action? What was his action, backed up and championed by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His action was to give us a blank refusal, to tell us that he would do nothing. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) asked whether it was under the antediluvian Statute of Edward III., or under any modern Act of Parliament, that this reverend gentleman was convicted. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND: I shook my head."] He shook his head, but we did not know the meaning of it; and after a lot of screwing and drawing and bull-dosing, just like drawing a badger, we found that the meaning of the shake of the head was that there was nothing in the head. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down there with an air that 674 would have done credit to a Solomon; but when he rose he was unable to state under what Statute Father Fahy had been treated. Now, what are the real facts? The facts, I say, are disgraceful to the English Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to admit that he really did not know the whole of the facts of the case. The ugly complexion which we bear before the British public is owing to the fact that we have to ring all the changes in our endeavour to extort from a hostile, silent, and unwilling Government that which they might as a matter of decorum answer us readily and at once. The admission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman throws a lurid light on the proceedings in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that he does not know whether it was under the Statute of Edward III. or under a modern Statute that this prosecution was commenced.
§ MR. HOLMESI think I stated that there is no modern Statute on the subject, and that the law upon which these proceedings were based is put into daily force in England as well as in Ireland.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONI am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman has only got deeper in the mire. The Attorney General for Ireland is a master of technicalities, but he does not appear to be acquainted fully with this matter. The alternatives in this case are the Statute of Edward III. or the Common Law. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that we ask these questions with an obstructive object. As a matter of fact, there is real ground for the questions which we have put to the Government. Is it not a notorious fact that the Statute of Edward III. is aimed against rogues and vagabonds, and that under it a vagabond may be kept in gaol until he can find security for his good behaviour? I ask is it as a vagabond that this Irish priest has been treated? That is a reasonable question, and I maintain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to shake his head and tell us that we have no right to ask such impertinent questions. No, Sir; the fate of a poor Galway priest is nothing to us; we are to concern ourselves with nil the intricacies of the British Constitution. We are not to concern ourselves with what is done in Galway to a 675 priest of the Church to which the large majority of our people belong. Now, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in this House to-night—he will admit it now again—that it was he who directed the prosecution. Is it reasonable to suppose that when he did this he did not know under what law the proceedings would be taken? Ah, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman positively winces under my statement. He directed the prosecution against the Catholic clergyman. He is paid for doing so. We, the Irish people, are paying him £7,000 a-year for directing prosecutions, while he does not know under what Statute the prosecutions are to take place. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his peace of mind in the matter. This is a vital question for us, and we have a right to press the question which we have addressed to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also stood up in this House and has said that his deputy in the matter had no connection with the landlord. Well, my hon. Friend (Mr. Sheehy) who represents the division has asserted, in this House that the man who is in that part of the country to represent the Attorney General, and the man who is there to represent British law, the continuance of which you want to force on us, is the agent for the landlord in question. The case is not one directly between the landlord and the tenants, but between the landlord and the person who acts as mediator between the landlord and the tenants. Who is this mediator; who stands by the poor tenantry and says a good word for them in their time of trouble; who has stood by them for generations when things looked darker than, thank God, they do now—who but the priest? Father Fahy was asked to walk into his prosecutor's parlour—"Will you walk into my parlour said the spider to the fly?" He walked in; but we have only one ex parte version of what happened there, and that version, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was supplied to him, and upon that version he directed the prosecution, and in directing that prosecution he did not tell his deputy that which, seeing that that deputy was a landlord's man himself, he should have been most particular to tell him—namely, which way to proceed in the matter. Which way was he 676 to proceed? Under the Statute of Edward III.? Sir, there is a phrase, which is not Greek, and which would be very well understood in Ireland—namely, "Proceed by the law of lauv laudhir"—that is to say, proceed by the law of the strong hand. Not so long since I myself witnessed one of these extraordinary scenes which so frequently take place in the name of law and order in Ireland. I sat in the Court House whilst the case was proceeding, and saw the Clerk of Petty Sessions who was engaged there, fill up all the committals the day before the case was concluded. I ask all those hon. Members who are listening to me, who know anything about the administration of justice in England, what would be thought of the conduct of the officials in a Court who knew so well what the decision was to be that they made out the committals the day before the case was concluded? This is a matter which I may have to bring up again for the delectation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland later on in the debate. I saw with my own eyes the clerk filling up the committals the day before the prosecution had closed; and. I fancy that is a sample of the proceedings in the case of Father Fahy. I do not wonder that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) is anxious to remain silent, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is anxious to mislead him. When the sun gets into blazing force there is such a thing as sun-stroke. Well, the truth is rising like the sun; soon it will get into the meridian, and we may expect the legal arrangements of Ireland to suffer from the sun-stroke of truth. This change is coming quickly, and I say to all fair-minded Englishmen who hear me that they will believe my words sooner than they think—they will believe that in Ireland there exists a hideous state of public wrong, a constant miscarriage of justice, and that the whole system will soon be laid bare to the light of day. The administration of law in that country is polluted at its source, that source being the connection which exists between the Government and the landlord system. In the case of the committals of which I have spoken—and in this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot plead non-responsibility, for the incident occurred 677 within the past two months, neither can it be said that I am overstepping the limits of your ruling, Mr. Courtney—the legal farce which was enacted was one of a kind with which we Irish Members are thoroughly familiar. There is no such thing as even justice in Ireland; we behold either a ridiculous and outrageous farce or a dreadful tragedy which affects the lives of innocent men. I have described a legal farce I myself witnessed, the committals being made out long before the end of the case, and everyone connected with the prosecution, from the very policemen up to the highest officials there, knowing what the decision was to be. Application was made on behalf of the prisoners for bail, and the magistrates and all concerned acted their parts so well that the facts seemed to come upon them by surprise. A solemn whisper went round amongst them; they affected to hold a consultation for a moment; they looked round to the representative of the Crown, who said—"Oh, I am not yet in a position to say what is the state of mind of the Attorney General on this matter." I could have told him what the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was. It was either represented figuratively by that calm repose in which he was indulging just now, or else it was represented by that phrase I quoted just now—"Proceed by the law of lauv laudhir; go ahead as you please." The magistrates said they would be most anxious and willing to give bail, but as they did not know the mind of the Attorney General on the matter, they could not do it. All this was in face of the fact that the committals had been made out before my own eyes the day before. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it worth while to listen to how the law is administered in Ireland? He cannot stand up here and defend the action of his subordinates. ["Order, order!"] An hon. Member cries "Order!" imagine I am the apostle of order. [Laughter] You may laugh. I myself have been the victim of the law in Ireland, and I would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ask his subordinates what their opinion of that case was. I say that I and my Friends who approach in this way the purification of the law which creates disorder in Ireland are the real apostles of peace and order in that country, and 678 not you who sit on those Benches opposite and give a silent assent to the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and give an occasional un-Parliamentary growl at the representations which come from this quarter of the House. I want to eradicate the present disorder in Ireland, to take it up by the roots altogether and establish there something like that good order which ought to obtain in every civilized country in the world. Are the magistrates in Ireland who sit on the Bench and are responsible for such a case as this of Father Fahy—but I will not pursue that farther, for I see by your gesture, Sir, that I am getting out of Order. I must confess that I have indulged in these few remarks rather in the heat of the moment in consequence of my recollection of what I have seen take place in a Court of Law, and hon. Members will, therefore, not feel surprised at not having heard from me anything in the nature of a connected essay. If I cut my observations short on this matter, it is not because I do not feel a great deal, or because I have not plenty to say on the matter. I have had a long experience of the maladministration of the law in Ireland, and, notwithstanding the magnificent salaries they receive, I do not envy the position of right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have to champion such gross anomalies and such a gross caricature of law as exists there. Right hon. Gentlemen would be right well advised if they would take that sensible course that evidently was in the mind of the presiding magistrate when he said—"Let this matter drop; do not allow it to go further." The Crown Solicitor should have taken the case no further. But the Government are now responsible for the action of their deputy, who there and then interrupted the harmony of the proceedings. It would have been better for the cause of law and order in the county of Galway if that harmony had not been interrupted at that time. Here we have a priest in gaol. In what position, I ask, is such a man more likely to advance the public peace—in gaol or out of it? There is naturally a strong hostility to priests and to the Church to which they belong, in this country. ["No, no!"] I say yes. Have we not seen it ventilated in the letter which was addressed to the noble Leader of this House a few days ago? It is my duty to speak of 679 facts which I know, and I say this, that the priests in Ireland are a far more useful garrison, so far as the protection of the lives and property of the landlords are concerned, than any number of British soldiers. I declare that exasperation would have reached a much greater height than ever it has had it not been for the salutary and useful influence exerted by the priests as peacemakers in Ireland. It is a common practice in Ireland for us to warn enthusiastic friends of the Government not to venture upon a war against the priests. We tell them that if they do they will come ill out of it. The Government, however, seem only too glad of the opportunity afforded them by the over zeal of this clergyman in his desire to make peace between the members of his flock and the landlords, to make an attack upon the clerical party. Father Fahy, as has been pointed out, desired peace not war. He went to one of the landlords. Is it reasonable to suppose that, his errand being one of peace, he was seized with the desire to excite to crime? Is it likely that if he had intended to excite people to outrage and crime against this man, he would have gone into Mr. Lewis's parlour to tell him so? Is such a theory to be maintained in the light of day? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows anything at all about this case, he is aware of the fact that, when these two gentlemen met, they approached each other courteously, each one raising his hat, and that they then conversed together in regard to these evicted tenantry. The question of the eviction is not immediately before the Committee, but this is before the Committee, that the conversation grew first warm, then hot, and, I suppose, eventually got to a white heat; but, whatever was said in that conversation, it all grew out of the circumstance that the priest went there as a messenger of peace to bring about an amicable arrangement between the landlord and his tenants. I will not indulge in the rather natural suggestion which would come to the lips of most people, and say—"After all, it serves these priests right for endeavouring to throw their protection round the landlords." But that, at any rate, is the lesson the Government seem anxious to convey to the minds of the priests. That is the lesson which the silence of the Government 680 and this shielding of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland will convey to the minds of the people, if, when a man tries to make peace and it is found that his sympathies are in favour of bringing about an amicable settlement between the landlords and the tenants, he is thrust into gaol. The fact is, the Government are maintaining their old policy; they are true to their colours. There can be no doubt that the present Government is "true blue." It is maintaining its ancient reputation; it is carrying the blood-stained flag of old, and this is not the first drip of priests' blood upon it. It is the priest-hunting policy of old, and I say that, in the end, the Government will be ashamed of it, and will have much more reason to regret it than we shall.
§ MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)I rise to support the demand of my hon. Friend in relation to this matter. I must say that I deprecate, in the very strongest possible terms that I can command, any observation from any individual, even from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), or from any side of the House, that would accentuate or increase the religious differences and feelings now existing in Ireland, and that would increase ill-feeling between creed and creed, and class and class. It should be the desire of all sides of the House to diminish, rather than to increase, such a state of things. That has been my tendency and practice, and, so far as I know, the tendency and practice of my hon. Friends about Mr. It is their desire, so far as I know at present, to diminish instead of increase such feeling. We desire to live on the best possible terms with our fellow-countrymen. Our lot has been east with them, and we would rather that peace should be maintained between all parties than that a constant state of hostility and warfare should prevail. In the case of Father Fahy, I desire to join my hon. Friends in an appeal to the Treasury Bench—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. JORDANI was saying that I desire to join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in an appeal to the Treasury Bench—which was empty then, though it is full now—to take such steps, 681 as soon as convenient, as will lead to the remission of the sentence under which Father Fahy is now immured in Galway Gaol. I think it is right they should do so. In my opinion, the action of the Crown was in this case arbitrary, unjust, and impolitic. It was arbitrary in allowing the imprisonment of Father Fahy for language alleged to have been used in an altercation. I think that the presiding magistrate, Colonel Waring, who intimated that gentlemen were not likely to remember words they used in the heat of an altercation, and who recommended that an amicable settlement of the difficulty should be arrived at, took up a wise, judicious, and prudent attitude; and I trust that in future we may see a greater number of such magistrates on the Bench in Ireland. If we had had more of them in the past, to give such advice, we should have had much less trouble in that country than we have had. The action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in ordering a prosecution in such a state of affairs, was arbitrary. I think it was also unjust to pass such a sentence on the reverend gentleman on the testimony of the one man against the testimony of the other. The magistrates found Father Fahy guilty—
THE CHAIRMANOrder! The question of the justice of the sentence cannot be considered under this Vote. That has reference to the function of the magistrates.
§ MR. JORDANWell, the result, at any rate, was that the testimony of one gentleman was taken as against that of the other gentleman.
THE CHAIRMANIt is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to discuss that matter under the present Vote. It is not relevant to this Vote.
§ MR. JORDANI bow to your decision, Sir. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, on the statement of one person, ordered a prosecution, in an ex parte manner, and that he did not hear the statement of the defendant. Under the circumstances I think I may fairly say that the action of the Government was partial and one-sided, and, if so, I maintain that it was unjust, and, further, that it was impolitic. I deplore for the peace of the country that this action has been taken, and this reverend gentleman has been 682 imprisoned. I think that instead of doing good it is calculated to do a considerable amount of harm. It came out in evidence—or, at least, whether it was in evidence or not, I think the prosecution was based on the statement—that the reverend gentleman threatened Mr. Lewis, in the course of their altercation, that unless his (Father Fahy's) view of the case were taken, the house of the other would be blown up with dynamite. I think that such a statement as that would be discreditable, and I do not think it likely that any gentleman or any man would make it to another, much less is it likely that a clergyman, or a person in the position of Father Fahy, would do so.
THE CHAIRMANI have repeatedly pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that that question is not relevant to this Vote. All that can be discussed on this Vote is the action of the Crown Officer.
§ MR. JORDANThen I think that the action of the Crown was calculated to produce disorder and commotion in the country rather than peace and order. I have to say that I know, so far as my knowledge of the priesthood of Ireland goes, that the priests are the custodians of the peace of the country, and that in many parts of the country they have repressed crime and outrage rather than promoted it. I have again and again heard the Roman Catholic priests state to their people in large crowds assembled that they were neither to take offence from the opposite party nor to give offence. That is the general character of the Roman Catholic priest, so far as I know, and it is with the greatest possible pleasure that I bear testimony to it, to maintain the peace of the country, and restrain the passions of men who have very often been outraged, and who, if they were not restrained by good counsel of that kind, might be tempted to commit deeds that afterwards both they themselves and other people would deplore. I think this reverend gentleman has been placed under such a ban by being required to give bail that he is perfectly justified in refusing to assent to the sentence, and in going to gaol in preference. I would endorse the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and my other hon. Friends, that rather than admit that he had committed a fault which he was conscious of never having com- 683 mitted, and rather than admit that he was a rogue and vagabond—rather than acquiesce in the justice of such a sentence by finding bail—he did right to go to prison. I am certain that Father Fahy, after having heard of this discussion, rather than give any countenance to the legal assumption that he is a vagabond and a wanderer, by giving security for good behaviour, will continue to remain in prison until the term of his imprisonment has expired. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter. No doubt, it is exceedingly delightful to my Friends—if I dare call them so—on the opposite side of the House to find that a Catholic priest has been imprisoned for having taken sides with the people from whom he sprung as against the class to which hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches belong.
THE CHAIRMANI have already warned the hon. Gentleman; and if he is not more relevant in his observations he will come under the serious censure of the Chair.
§ MR. JORDANI have little farther to say beyond that I do not take exactly the same view as some of my hon. Friends. I would not say that the same justice should be meted out to priests and peasants; that is not exactly the parallel. I think the same justice should be meted out to the priest in the South as to the pastor in the North. That is what I would advocate. I do not think it likely, from what has already taken place, that the use of violent language, inciting to crime and breach of the peace, would be visited in the case of the pastor in the North of Ireland with the same severe pains and penalties as would be inflicted on the Roman Catholic clergyman in the county of Galway. We have had very violent language used by pastors in Belfast and the North of Ireland lately, and no action whatever has been taken by the Government; but the very moment that language is used by a Catholic priest to Mr. Lewis which Mr. Lewis chooses to consider disrespectful to his greatness, he, to score a point in popularity with the landed and ruling classes, swears an information against that Catholic clergyman, gets him indicted and prosecuted, and, contrary to the opinion and desire of the presiding magistrate, has him immured in Galway Gaol. I would join my hon. Friends on this side of the 684 House in pressing on the Government, on grounds of justice and policy, to take such steps as will bring about the liberation of Father Fahy from Galway Gaol.
§ MR. COX (Clare, E.)I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends who move the reduction of this Vote. The only regret I have is that I know very well our protests will be useless, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will get his salary. It is evident that it is through the right hon. and learned Gentleman's action that this Catholic priest has been imprisoned. I can well understand the silence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; I can understand his refusing to answer the questions which have been put to him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). If he stated the Acts or Act under which this imprisonment is inflicted, he would only be opening up a precedent for the future. He wants to have both nets. Father Fahy is probably not the only priest who will be arrested for standing between the landlords and the people, and, under circumstances somewhat similar to those of the present case, the Law Officers of the Crown may find it convenient to discontinue action under one law and to proceed in the future under another. Supposing this is only the beginning of the Marquess of Salisbury's 20 years of coercion for Ireland. If it is, the end may not be so far off as 20 years. So far as we are concerned we are prepared to meet that policy; the people of Ireland are prepared to meet it; the priests of Ireland, as the heads of the people, will be prepared to meet it; as also will the Representatives of the Irish people in this House. The people of Ireland have experienced that sort of law and order before, and the Government know perfectly well that no Irishman has ever come through an experience of that law and order a greater lover of English rule than he was before. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is a landlord partizan, and as such is not likely to be an impartial administrator of justice in Ireland. He instigated this prosecution because this Catholic priest stood between the people and a landlord. I ask the Committee, if the positions were reversed, and Father Fahy alleged that 685 he had been threatened by the landlord, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland alter his view and issue a prosecution against the landlord? I venture to say he would do nothing of the sort. As I said before, I believe this is the beginning of the Marquess of Salisbury's 20 years of coercion. The priests stood by the people in the past, and the people stood by them. The priests will stand by the people in the future, and so will the other leaders; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland desires by his attitude to-night to give us an example of the way the Government are going to meet the demands of the Irish people, and if he is shadowing forth what the government of Ireland will be in the coming winter, I venture to say that he is brewing a storm which will break with the greatest violence upon those who are responsible for its existence.
§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in the attitude he has assumed in connection with this case reminds one very strongly of the Marquess of Salisbury's "20 years of firm government." When the Marquess of Salisbury spoke those words, we, in our simplicity, thought he simply meant coercion; but the Attorney General for Ireland has found a way to get him out of the necessity of applying coercion. He has invented a new legal procedure which renders a Coercion Act unnecessary. He has invented a plan by which a person objecting either to the Government or the landlord class can be, on the testimony of one person, interested or otherwise, shut up in gaol for six months. Certainly that is a plan upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is very much to be congratulated. He deserves, too, very high congratulation in regard to the manner in which his first essay in the carrying out of his new plan has succeeded. The ease and simplicity with which the new plan works out is almost miraculous. According to the statement of the presiding magistrate on the Bench before whom Father Fahy was tried, the rev. gentleman had gone as a peacemaker between landlord and tenant. On previous occasions, according to what we are told, Father Fahy had been successful as a peace- 686 maker. In carrying out his mission of mercy he came to this Mr. Lewis, a neighbouring landlord, who was about to carry out a number of evictions. He went to this gentleman in the hope of effecting a settlement between him and his tenants. But to Mr. Lewis, and, presumably, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, this office of peacemaker assumed by Father Fahy was by no mean agreeable—as we can see it has not been agreeable to our Friends opposite. We know what steps were taken to put an. end to Father Fahy's office of peacemaker. [Cries of "Divide!"] Mr. Courtney, will you kindly keep Order, if you please? The Attorney General for Ireland has told us the history of the case. It appears that Mr. Lewis, with whom Father Fahy had some altercation, went to Dublin, and what happened? We were told in very simple language that Mr. Lewis stated his case to the Attorney General for Ireland; the Attorney General for Ireland, at once convinced by the arguments of Mr. Lewis, instructed his understrapper to conduct the prosecution, and Fattier Fahy was locked up. This case touches us Irish Members acutely, and I beg to say that the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in indulging in threats against us for discharging our duty hero is, if not unconstitutional, an outrage and a scandal. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] The committal of Father Fahy on the unsupported evidence and on the uncorroborated statement of Mr. Lewis is certainly a state of affairs which will have evil consequences in Ireland. I fear that the Government are very much inclined to go in for a policy of exasperation in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the commencement of the Session indulged in language which the Chief Secretary for Ireland endeavoured to explain away. He said that the landlords were to enforce their rights strictly, and that the Government would not shrink from recovering the land for them—a direct encouragement to them to confiscate the tenants' interests and to exterminate the people wholesale.
THE CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member to confine his observations to the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENTo my mind, at all events, it appears that the 687 action of the Government is directed to opposing the feelings and the sentiments of the Irish people. I think, on the other hand, that their action ought to be directed to the removal of the exasperated feelings produced by events which are taking place in certain parts of the country, and it is certainly lamentable to think that the action recently taken, especially that of the Attorney General for Ireland, is calculated to intensify instead of appeasing the angry feelings which they seem to have done their best to provoke. In conclusion, I desire to protest, in the strongest manner, against the conduct of the Government towards Father Fahy.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I think it is now time to go to a division; but I am bound to say that the people of Ireland will not be satisfied with the position taken up by the Government. I have just received a telegram to say that there are 70 people in gaol about this row. The gaol is so crammed that the old prisoners have had to be sent away to another part of the county, and judging from the terms of late telegrams more people are likely to be imprisoned before this row comes to an end. I do not believe that one minute more than was necessary has been taken up with this question—more than the importance of the subject demands. A more stupid and injudicious act was never committed by a Government. However, as it is plain that we are not going to get any satisfaction, we can do nothing better than go to a division.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 162: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,250, being the expenses of the Crown Solicitor on the North-East Circuit—Louth, Monaghan, Armagh, Down, and Antrim. I have to draw the attention of the Committee to the conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland—to two cases under the direction of this Crown Solicitor. There were two cases at Belfast, in one of which a person got seven years' penal servitude for firing at the police, and, in the other, two men were charged with 688 firing at a Police Inspector. By the direction of the Attorney General for Ireland the charge was withdrawn, and when it had been withdrawn the prisoners pleaded guilty to a second charge, and on the 11th of December last they got eight weeks' imprisonment. I put this case at the time to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and asked whether, the two cases being precisely similar, having regard to the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Government would not release the prisoners? But the answer which he gave me was that a Liberal Government were in Office when the sentence of seven years' penal servitude was given, and that a Conservative Government were in Office when the sentence was given of eight weeks' imprisonment. I hope the Committee will see that justice is done in this case. I do not see that there is any use in appealing to the Attorney General for Ireland or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in these cases, if they both return the same answer; but I do not think that, seeing these cases are almost identical, the Attorney General for Ireland can get up and say that justice has been done between man and man.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,791, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Alexander Blane.)
§ MR. GILHOOLY (Cork, W.)I think the action of the Attorney General for Ireland will give materials for debate in this House for some time to come. I wish to call attention to one of the grossest miscarriages of justice ever heard of in Ireland under English rule. At the Munster Assizes, Denis Murphy was tried for shooting at Mr. Cottle, a member of the National League. The Grand Jury of the county was composed of landlords and agents, and they ignored the bill sent up to them. I have already directed the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to this gross miscarriage of justice, and the cool, if not audacious, answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was—
An hon. MEMBERI rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask if the hon. Member 689 is in Order in the expressions he is using?
§ MR. GILHOOLYThe reply was that, having perused the depositions in the case, the Grand Jury were in his opinion justified in the course they had taken. Now, I have correspondence hero which I will not read, because it would occupy too much time; but I will just give a summary of the depositions in this case, and I will ask any fair-minded Member on either side of the Committee, when they have heard the case, if he will get up and say that the Attorney General for Ireland was right in propping up and endorsing the scandalous action of the Grand Jury? A man named Denis Murphy had taken a farm in the neighbourhood of Bantry, from which another man had been evicted, and in consequence he was unpopular in the neighbourhood. A young man, the secretary to the local branch of the Irish National League, it is alleged by the son of Denis Murphy, had on frequent occasions denounced Denis Murphy at the meetings of the Irish National League. But it was denied that he had ever named him.
§ MR. GILHOOLYI say it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland to send up a second indictment against the prisoner, and I beg to direct the attention of the Committee to his conduct in the matter. To proceed with the case. Mr. Cottle had left the village followed by Murphy, who fired at him with a revolver; he swore that the bullet whizzed past his ear—that he saw the flash, and in this he is corroborated by Murphy's own brother, who swore that Murphy fired the shot with the intention of frightening Cottle only. The constable swore that when Murphy was arrested he admitted that he fired the shot with the intention of frightening Cottle. We have evidence that the shot was fired from a pistol held in the hand of Murphy; notwithstanding this, the Grand Jury of Cork, composed of landlords and agents, ignored the bill. Well Sir, the Attorney General for Ireland on that occasion at once justified the action of the Grand Jury, and refused to take cognizance of their action 690 and send up a second bill. I submit that the action of the Attorney General for Ireland is not calculated to inspire confidence in the law among the people of Ireland. I submit that in this case it was the duty of the Attorney General for Ireland to see that justice was done; and I say, further, that in this case there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. I believe that, in failing to get another indictment framed against Murphy, he has acted unconstitutionally, and that his action is sufficient to make the people of Ireland defend themselves against these murderous attacks. The result of his action, in this instance, is that Mr. Cottle, whenever he leaves home, seeing that he has no chance of getting justice or protection from the myrmidons of the law, goes armed with a six-chambered revolver, and says that he will not be again attacked with impunity. The action of the Attorney General for Ireland in this and in the last case that has been before the Committee is enough to make the people of Ireland refuse to give any assistance to the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, or to magistrates and County Court Judges in vindicating, carrying out, or making the people obedient to the law. The Attorney General for Ireland is most anxious that a Catholic priest in Galway shall be imprisoned; but when an agent or instrument in the hands of the landlords strikes down an opponent, and ought to be tried for the act the right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to take action, and thereby does what is calculated to bring the law in Ireland into contempt.
§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee at any length; but as foreman of the Grand Jury in the case to which the hon. Member refers, I desire to say this—that the Grand Jury were on their oath, and that the particular case engaged their most anxious intention, I think, for a longer time than any other case which came before them. I know the circumstances and the sworn evidence brought before the Grand Jury, and I can tell the Committe that in this case the duty put upon them by their country was honestly and strictly carried out.
§ MR. GILHOOLYI forgot to mention one point. I think that the particulars of this case should be laid on the Table of the House, in order that 691 hon. Members may see how justice in these matters is administered in Ireland.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)I have to call the attention of the Committee to a case which occurred in Kerry of the police being fired at in the night. I do not want to labour this case; but I want to impress upon the Attorney General for Ireland to be very careful, and not by his remarks to say anything that may be used against the accused; because I have known expressions which were used in this House become stereotyped. The question before the Committee is the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland. We want to ascertain how he earns that salary, and how far he deserves it; and bearing upon that point I am entitled to make an appeal to him at the present moment. There are several men in goal in Kerry for whom bail is refused, I say that the exceptional circumstances in Kerry give a certain colour of right to the proceedings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the disturbed districts; but I think he will agree with me that this is a special case. There is an annual fair held in the county of Kerry which is attended by the people from the adjacent districts. On the night of the day when the fair was held, a car was passing along the road, and it is alleged a shot was fired from it; and it is the assumption of the Crown itself that this was a freak. One of the men accused of that freak is a professional man—a doctor, and he is now in prison without bail; and I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not already time to terminate this procedure of taking him up in July, and keeping him in gaol to December or January? Another of the persons in this case is an auctioneer and merchant. I do not, of course, enter into the evidence relating to this case; and that is the reason why I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether he sees anything so abnormal in it that he should keep these men in prison for six months, and practically subject them to a penalty greater than the law warrants? I feel for the right hon. and learned Gentleman in not inspiring at this time a great amount of confidence; but I hope he will be able 692 to see his way to send a word to the magistrates upon the subject. It was upon his word that the magistrates refused bail. The matter was brought before one of the Judges, and his words were that if gentlemen indulged in a freak they must suffer for their freak. Well, I think the Judge is correct in saying that they must suffer; but my contention is that they ought not to suffer before they are found guilty. I apologize for having to go into this case, but I express the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to see his way to recommend bail to be taken; and I can assure him that the acceptance of bail in cases of this kind would materially facilitate the maintenance of order by the authorities.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I wish to refer to a matter which was the subject of a Question in this House. I wish to know what answer will be given to the Memorial of the people of the town of Clonmel, who ask that the Winter Assizes should be held in that town instead of Cork? The Memorial has been very numerously signed, and I see no reason why the Law Officers of the Crown should not accede to the request.
§ Mr. W. J. CORBET (Wicklow, E.)I have a question to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to a bequest made in 1793 for the purpose of establishing a woollen factory at Wicklow. I do not make any charge against the Crown and Treasury Solicitor, Mr. Lane Joynt, or the Attorney General for Ireland, and I am bound to say that I have had some courteous letters from the former gentleman on the subject; but the fact is that this sum of money has not been made available, nor can we get any satisfaction about it. I find in the Report of the Charity Commissioners a statement in which they say that a remarkable case has arisen under the will of a lady, Miss Elizabeth Eaton, made in 1793 and proved in 1796; that the fund now accumulated in Court amounts to about £4,000. We are anxious to know whether there is any possibility of this sum being available for the purpose intended, and we have already made application on the subject to the Attorney General for Ireland. The money has lain in Court for 55 years; and my object is to ascertain from the right hon. and 693 learned Gentleman whether he will see into the matter? There has been great distress in Wicklow during the last winter; I am afraid that this distress will be emphasized during the coming winter, and I am therefore anxious that this sum may, if possible, be available for the purpose of meeting that state of things.
§ THE ATTOENEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)The hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) has said, at the commencement of his observations, that the question before the Committee was as to whether the Attorney General for Ireland had earned his salary, or not. I think that most hon. Gentlemen in this House who have heard the discussion of this evening will very readily admit that the Attorney General for Ireland does earn his salary. It would seem that he is responsible for the discussion of all legal matters in this House; but, under ordinary circumstances, one would think it hardly possible that the Attorney General for Ireland should get up on all occasions and discuss matters which are usually settled at the Assizes. Now, the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) referred to a charge against a man at Belfast, which, on my direction, was withdrawn. Now, I can tell the hon. Member that that was not done by my direction at all. The next case to which the attention of the Committee has been called is that of Denis Murphy. This man was sent up to the Summer Assizes, and the Grand Jury, as has been stated, ignored the bill; and in connection with this I may mention that my Predecessor was in Office three weeks after that, and he did not think it necessary to take any steps in the matter. I suppose the Committee is aware that neither the Attorney General for Ireland nor anyone else knows what takes place before the Grand Jury. The examination takes place in the room, and witnesses are called, but it is not in the power of the Attorney General for Ireland to control the decision in any way. I find that witnesses were examined in this case, and that the bill was ignored. It does not lie with me to say that the Grand Jury made a mistake, and on the contrary I have not the slightest doubt that they were justified in the action they took. The hon. Member should recollect that the evidence that comes before the Grand Jury 694 is often materially different from that which appears on the information. The Grand Jury having in this case felt justified in ignoring the first bill, I suppose that they would have done so with the second also if it had been sent up to them. The hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) said, at the commencement of his remarks upon the case which he brought forward, that he hoped I would not make any observations in replying on the case which could prejudice the accused. [Mr. E. HARRINGTON: I qualified that.] I do not impute anything to the hon. Member; I merely call attention to this for the purpose of adding that I am most anxious to avoid making observations in cases where proceedings have been instituted, or may afterwards be instituted. But it is a most inconvenient system to discuss these questions in the House at all, because it is almost impossible to avoid saying something which might possibly anticipate the course of justice. I wish, above all things, to avoid that. The case to which the hon. Member for West Kerry referred was one in which application was made to the High Court of Justice, which heard the case from beginning to end, and, upon the exercise of its discretion, declined to make an order. What was done was by the order of the High Court, and that being so hon. Members will see that it is perfectly useless to make an appeal to the Government to do anything in the matter. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has called my attention to the question of the Winter Assizes at Cork. The City of Cork is generally selected as the venue for the Winter Assizes held for Munster, because, all circumstances considered, it is not only the most convenient place, but almost the only convenient place, in which to hold the Assizes. I admit that it imposes on the jurors of Cork a considerable burden; but, at the same time, in all these matters we must weigh the conveniences of one against the inconveniences of the other, and I say that notwithstanding the burden imposed on the people of Cork, that the inconvenience might be greater if the Assizes were held elsewhere. As Attorney General for Ireland, I have nothing to do with this; it is a matter which is decided by the Privy Council, by whom any suggestion for improvement would no doubt be carefully considered. As I have said, the balance of 695 convenience is in favour of the City of Cork, and it would probably be difficult to bring forward any argument to show that any other place would be more convenient. The hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) has called attention to the sum of £4,000, which the Commissioners of Charitable Bequests discovered in 1883 was lying in the Court of Chancery. It was difficult to trace how the money came there, and the investigation occupied a considerable time. It is by no means certain that the money can be applied to the purpose to which the hon. Member refers, because it is left by the will to the heirs of a particular family in England, of whom there are no less than 38. The late Attorney General for Ireland decided to take steps to get the question settled by a Court of Law, and there is reason to believe that the case will be decided shortly by the Judges.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)In the case I have referred to, the representative of the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated to the Court that he had no instructions from the Attorney General for Ireland, and he could not accept bail, and in that case the magistrates felt themselves powerless, although they professed themselves willing, to accept bail. We all know that if the representative of the Crown says—"I am. willing that bail should be accepted; there is substantial bail offered for these men, and I am willing that it should be taken," the magistrates would consent; and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up and says he has no power, he might as well say that this House has no power. It is the same now as it was in the old Roman times—if the Attorney General holds down his thumb, the prisoner is kept in; if he holds it up, he is admitted to bail.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (3.) £38,861, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUE O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I desire to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) whether he has recently given attention to the possibility of economizing this Vote, and also the possibility of saving a considerable amount of ex- 696 penditure in connection with the District Registrars in Ireland? There was a very able Minute drawn up some two years ago, I fancy by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself—it was of such ability that I may naturally ascribe it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—in which the opinion was expressed that the Clerks of the Crown are thoroughly capable of performing the duties now discharged by the District Registrars. The writer went on to express the belief that the Revenue does not secure anything like the amount it ought to secure in respect to letters of administration and Probate generally, especially since the Land Act of 1870, and more especially since the Land Act of 1881. This is a question of considerable importance not only with, regard to the expenditure under this Vote, but also with respect to the Revenue.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)The Committee is aware that I have only been in Office a few weeks; during that time a great many matters have been brought under my notice, but amongst them there has not been that to which the hon. Member has referred. Now that he has directed my attention to it, I will give it the great consideration it deserves, with the view of carrying out as far as possible the recommendations contained in the Minute he has alluded to.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £7,835, to complete the sum for Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
§ MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)Mr. Courtney, I rise to call attention to the claims of the second and third class clerks in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin. The circumstances regarding the position of these clerks is pretty well known, as they have been more than once the subject of discussion in this House. It was admitted on all hands that those clerks had exceptional grievances to complain of; but as they have been now partially redressed, I need not go back on the question further than the year 1878. In the early part of the year 1878 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the organization of the Registry of Deeds Office. In October, 1880, that Commission issued a Report, and one recommendation, amongst others, was— 697
That the present second and third classes be united as a second class, the salaries to commence at £90, and to advance by yearly increments of £10 to £300, the present maximum of the second class.Notwithstanding that the Commission thus reported nothing was done in regard to the organization of the Office; but during the period from 1880 to 1885, various efforts were made to induce the Treasury to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission. In 1885 the Treasury appointed a Committee to inquire again into the circumstances connected with this Office, and this Treasury Committee issued a Report which confirmed the recommendations of the Royal Commission as far as the second and third class clerks were concerned. This Report was laid on the Table of the House during the last Session of Parliament, but a copy of which unfortunately I have not been able to procure in the Library. The result of the Report, however, was that the Treasury issued a Minute based upon the Report of the Committee and upon the provisions of the Report of the Royal Commission. The Minute was as follows:—The present second and third classes shall be united, the salaries of the clerks rising by £10 a-year to a maximum of £300 a-year, and from the 1st April next each clerk who was in the third class on the 30th October, 1880, shall receive the rate of salary to which he would have attained if this regulation had taken effect at the end of that financial year.The meaning of that recommendation was that the clerks should enjoy henceforth the rate of salary to which they would at this period have attained if the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1880 had been acted upon in 1880. Well, Sir, I think that the Minute of the Treasury carries with it the justification of the claim I am now about to make on behalf of these clerks. It is quite clear that the Minute issued in 1885–6 is only intended to take effect at the beginning of this financial year; but surely, if the change is reasonable now, it was reasonable in 1880, when the Royal Commission reported, and, therefore, the increments which would have accrued if the Minute had been issued in 1880 ought to be now given to the clerks, and treated, in fact, as back pay which is still due to them. The result of the reorganization generally of the Office is that the sum of about £2,000 has been saved annually, and 698 the whole amount of the arrears of pay which the clerks are claiming is only about £1,400, or considerably under one year's saving of the reorganized Office. Considering the strong claims these gentleman have, and the length of time during which these grievances remained without any redress, I hope the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will put them in the position they would have occupied if the Treasury had at once acted on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, without waiting for six years to do so. At the present time I only ask the hon. Gentleman to give some promise that he will look into the matter himself, and give it the consideration it certainly deserves. The concession desired is equitable and just, and one to which the clerks are very properly entitled.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)The hon. Member has stated very fairly what I believe is the general impression of what happened in connection with the reorganization of this Office. The only point of difference between us is this, that there has been a little misapprehension on the part of the clerks as to what really was the meaning of the Treasury Minute to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We are only at issue as to the increments which would have been paid during the two periods to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. This question has only been brought to my knowledge to-day. I will promise the hon. Gentleman that I will personally inquire into it, and see whether the clerks are fairly entitled to be allowed the increments.
§ MR. MURPHYIf the Treasury Minute had been issued at the time the Royal Commission reported, they would have been receiving this money all the time that has since passed by. That is the ground on which they make their claim.
§ MR. JACKSONI would have referred to the Treasury Minute if I had had time.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)I should just like to say that if the Treasury do not see their way to give the entire sum, they might, at all events, make some allowance to the clerks.
§ Vote agreed to.
699§ (5.) £1,163, to complete the sum for Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
§ (6.) £26,613, to complete the sum for the Irish Land Commission.
§ MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)I wish to draw attention to a great inconvenience suffered by the tenants in Ireland, owing to the fact that the Chief Commissioners of the Land Court do not hold their Courts of Appeal in convenient centres. At present, tenants have to go to Dublin, with the result that they lose very much and the landlords gain. Take the case of a tenant with seven or eight or ten acres of land, when the reduction made by the Sub-Commissioners is very small. The amount in dispute is, perhaps, only £2 or £3 a-year; but he has to bring all his witnesses to Dublin, and even then runs the risk of failure. He has to pay large fees to professional witnesses; in fact, the game is not worth the candle. It is well known that in several cases landlords have lodged appeals simply because they knew the tenants would not contest them, and the tenants have been compelled to settle out of Court at great loss, the landlords making their own terms. Surely it is quite easy for an arrangement to be made by which the Court of Appeal can hold its sittings in convenient centres. I called attention to this matter last Session, but all to no purpose. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will give his attention to the question.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)I agree with the hon. Member that appeals should be heard, as far as possible, at places convenient to the appellants. Of course, the Chief Commissioners have a considerable amount of work in Dublin, and cannot be expected to go about the country as frequently as Sub-Commissioners are sent; but still I think they ought to make arrangements to hear appeals at convenient places, and I will call their attention to the fact.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £54,4.00 (including a Supplementary sum of £8,763), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the
700
Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin.
§ MR. AETHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) if he can now do that which the Treasury official has said they will do? It was pointed out before the Public Accounts Committee that a number of Resident Magistrates in Ireland were receiving under this Vote sums which were illegally issued. The fact has been pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General in previous years, and something has been promised which was to set the matter right. This year, again, a similar Report was made and similar evidence given before the Committee, and the Treasury promised to send in a Memorandum to show the position the Treasury had taken up. At the time the Public Accounts Committee rose no such Memorandum was received; therefore, I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman what the position of the Treasury is in the matter?
§ THE SECRETAEY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)The position of the Treasury is this. In consequence of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee the Treasury thought it their duty to take the opinion of the Law Officers. The Law Officers expressed the opinion that, though the course which has been adopted is within the law, it is a straining of the law. Inasmuch as we have no power to alter the matter without legislation, we are pressing, and shall continue to press, upon the Irish Office the necessity of obtaining at the earliest moment the legislative changes requisite to legalize that which is really a straining of the law. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance that that will be done next year.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORThey come to this Committee and ask for money to be issued for the purposes of particular officers with regard to which they have already received the opinion of the Law Officers that the issuing of the money is illegal, or that at any rate it is a straining of the law!
§ MR. JACKSONThe hon. Gentleman will recollect I stated distinctly that the opinion of the Law Officers was that what has been done is within the 701 law, but that it was a straining of the law, and that, therefore, we propose to do that which we hold to be our clear duty, to put the matter right by obtaining the necessary legislation.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORWill the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the Memorandum which the Treasury official was to present, but did not present?
§ Mr. JACKSONCertainly.
§ Mr. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)It is not my intention at this late hour of the night (11.20) to occupy the attention of the Committee at as great a length as I would had the hour been earlier; but it is my intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000, the amount of the salary of Captain Plunkett, the Special Resident Magistrate of the Cork District. I do so on the ground that Captain Plunkett, by the suppression of the right of public meeting in the South of Ireland, and by his failure to bring the guilty to justice, has created ill-will, and that it is, in the interest of good government and respect for the administration of the law, expedient that he should be dismissed from his position as Special Resident Magistrate. Now, Sir, I do not think it needs any words of mine to arouse in the minds of Englishmen indignation at the suppression of the liberty of the people to indulge in free speech. The value of free speech and public meeting is well known to Englishmen. They have fought for and exercised that right, and to the exercise of that right is due the possession of those great liberties and privileges that the English people enjoy above the people, perhaps, of any other country on the face of the earth. But, Sir, in Ireland the right of public meeting and of free speech is of greater consequence and necessity than it is, perhaps, in any other country. It is well known by all hon. Members of the Committee that there are many grievances to be redressed in Ireland. To the agitation that has taken place from time to time is due the fact that some of the disabilities under which Irishmen at one time laboured have been removed; it was due to agitation and to public meeting that the recent very necessary legislation has taken place, that the land laws have been reformed, that grievances have been remedied; and it is to the right of public meeting and to the right to agitation that the Irish people look 702 for the removal of every grievance under which they suffer. Well, Captain Plunkett, who occupies the position of Special Resident Magistrate in the South of Ireland, has interfered with this right that is of so much consequence to the people. And not only has he interfered with the right of holding public meetings, but he has oppressed the people in an unnecessarily harsh and tyrannical manner. Without further preface, and in order to keep my word with the Committee, I shall relate briefly the manner in which Captain Plunkett has carried out his functions. I shall have to go back and quote from newspaper reports of as far back as 1883 in order to prove my contention—namely, that by retaining this Special Resident Magistrate the Government are doing themselves an injustice, and doing what is only calculated to bring the administration of the law into disrepute. The Cork Herald of October 22, 1883, said—
The National League meeting announced to be held at Inniscarra yesterday was proclaimed in pursuance of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation to that effect issued on Friday last.The Proclamation was issued on the Friday and posted on the Saturday. It was, therefore, utterly impossible for the people who lived widely apart from each other to know that such a Proclamation had been made.In connection with the suppression of the meeting a large force of the Royal Irish Constabulary was drafted to the place where it was intended to hold the meeting, and a Constabulary force, if required, was also at hand. In addition, Dr. Townshend was present in case it was necessary to bring his services into requisition.I shall not use the many quotations I have prepared to show how elaborate were the arrangements made by Captain Plunkett in order to scatter the people who came there in the exercise of their right, and to show the unnecessarily harsh and tyrannical manner in which Captain Plunkett acted in the suppression of the meetings of the Land League. I was announced to attend the meeting at Inniscarra. Although I knew the meeting was proclaimed I felt it my duty to go where I knew the people would be assembled. Knowing well the disposition of Captain Plunkett, knowing well that he desired to come into conflict with the people, knowing well that he was anxious to imbrue his hands in the blood of the 703 people—[Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
§ MR. J. O'CONNORWell, Mr. Courtney, I am called upon by you to withdraw the expression, and I will do so. From my knowledge, however, of the disposition of Captain Plunkett, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be with the greatest pleasure he would come into conflict with the people, in order that he might hurl the force at his disposal against them.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI appeal to you, Mr. Courtney, whether it is within the privilege of debate in this House to bring charges of this kind against a public servant?
THE CHAIRMANI think the hon. Gentleman will see he is approaching the verge of discretion, and that he might use language better befitting this Assembly.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (who was received with cries of "Withdraw!")I have, at the request of the Chairman, modified the phrase I originally used. I have fulfilled the obligation; it is the Chair I obey, and not hon. Members who sit in judgment, and who contribute nothing to the deliberations of the Committee but demonstrative shouts. I was about to say, when I was interrupted by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), that the Government will, perhaps, be thankful to me at the close of my remarks for having shown, up the character of a man in their service whose actions are not calculated to bring the administration of the law in Ireland into repute. I have already said I went to the place where the meeting was to be held, and I asked Captain Plunkett to allow me to address the people, in order that I might advise them to disperse; and what was the answer I received from Captain Plunkett? He said—
I will not; the people have been warned not to assemble, and I will not allow you to speak to them. There have been Proclamations posted up all round here, and that, along with what I have already said, is notification enough.I protested that the notification was not sufficient; that, as the meeting was only proclaimed on the Saturday, the people did not know of the Proclamation; and I added that I came specially to speak 704 to the people and advise them to return to their homes. I was anxious that the people should not give Captain Plunkett and his associates the chance which I believed they desired—of coming into conflict with them. And what was the result?County Inspector Ker rushed up, with a copy of the Proclamation, and inquired if it was wanted? Captain Plunkett said 'No; he had a copy in his pocket;' and told Inspector Ker to send up a dozen men. Mr. O'Connor said, 'There is no necessity, we know how to conduct ourselves.'A body of police then got on the west side, and drove the people away; it is not strictly correct to say they were dispersed, they were driven off bodily, as a prominent member of the National League said, "as you would drive a lot of cows." I saw the police, under the command of Captain Plunkett, use their batons and the butt ends of their rifles to drive the people away. That circumstance alone goes to prove the correctness of my contention—that the police under Captain Plunkett were not anxious that those who promoted the meeting should advise the people to disperse quietly and peacefully to their homes, as they always did under such circumstances, but that there was a desperate anxiety on the part of the authorities to bring about a conflict between the people and the police. I wish, however, to abbreviate my remarks, and will not, therefore, read the accounts of meetings at Ovens, Missadagh, Castle Lyons, Killamullet, and elsewhere. At all the meetings, under similar circumstances, I was present. At all the meetings the Proclamations were not posted until the Saturday night; and this was done, I believe, by Captain Plunkett, in order that the people might assemble and be dispersed with rigour. I have seen the police rush upon the people, and, in the most unnecessary and harsh manner, beat them with the butt ends of their rifles. Two women have had their ribs broken from that kind of treatment. Men and women have been thrown down and wounded by the constables. All these things have been done under the command of Captain Plunkett, and I mention them in support of my contention that Captain Plunkett has acted with the greatest tyranny in proclaiming meetings, and has also made use of unnecessarily harsh measures in dispersing 705 them. Why has he suppressed these meetings? Has it been because of crime committed in the district? Has it been because any violent language was indulged in by those who spoke to the people at such meetings? Has it been because murder had been committed? Nothing of the kind, as I can prove by quoting the statistics of crime for six months previous to the meetings. Besides threatening letters, there were, in August of that year, two outrages reported in the East Riding, and one in the West Riding, those two divisions comprising the whole of the county of Cork. In September there were five in the East, and two in the West; in October, two in the East, and two in the West; in November, one in the East, and none in the West; in December, one in the East, and again a virgin record in the West; and in January, one in the East, and two in the West Riding. During that period the only serious case reported was the manslaughter of a man named Spence, and that was entirely of a non-agrarian character. The unfortunate murder of Spence was altogether a family affair, a family quarrel arising out of disputes concerning land. Of this unfortunate occurrence, it would appear it was made a pretext for suppressing meetings all round the county of Cork in an unnecessarily harsh manner. Hon. Members generally have a little regard for the right of public meeting; I am sure there is not an Englishman alive who does not respect that bulwark of the British Constitution; but it would appear that hon. Members on the other side are quite satisfied to have the British Constitution outraged in any manner possible, so long as the outrage is committed on the persons and liberties of the Irish people. That was the state of the county at the time Captain Plunkett selected as the fitting one for suppressing these meetings, held for a perfectly legal purpose, for the redress of grievances, for impressing upon Parliament the necessity of passing legislation for ameliorating the condition of Ireland. The same story may be told of all Captain Plunkett's actions in connection with the suppression of meetings in Cork for a long time. But that is not the only ground upon which I call for the dismissal of Captain Plunkett. I will pass over many other peccadilloes 706 of this worthy magistrate, and only just mention that which created much ill-feeling in connection with the man named Hallisay. This man was said to have been fired at, and after a little time he got police protection; and then, in a short time, his story was found to be a bogus one. But the man was left on Captain Plunkett's hands; and, in order to get rid of him, he sought to inflict a fine on the people of the district by saying that unless they subscribed to emigrate the perjured ruffian he would put into the district a certain number of extra constables, for whom the people would have to pay. To satisfy the whim of this special magistrate, the alternative was presented to the people to be mulcted for the exportation of Hallisay, or to submit to the blood tax put upon them by police being drafted off for Hallisay's protection. This was another of the admirable modes Captain Plunkett adopted to preserve the peace of the county by the operation of law he was sent there to administer. But it is my intention to ask for the dismissal of Captain Plunkett on other grounds. Captain Plunkett has failed to bring the guilty to justice, and it is under his reign that the recrudescence of outrage has occurred in County Kerry. Is it not a fact that, all over Ireland for the last two years, there has been an extraordinary degree of peace and quietness and an absence of outrage? Except in one small spot in Kerry the state of Ireland is what we all desire. If it is not so, why does not the Government come forward and ask for special provisions to put down, as a reason for doing so, the abnormal state of things? Why do they not bring in a Coercion Bill, if the ordinary law is not sufficient to cope with the ordinary state of society in Ireland? Except in the one spot presided over by Captain Plunkett, all Ireland, under the ordinary magistrates, is in its normal peaceful condition. But under this man, who can do nothing but suppress meetings, under his administration of the law for the special protection of the district there is a recrudescence of crime, to the disgrace of the district, and the sorrow of every man who wishes well to his country. But those who know Captain Plunkett know how he performs his duties. Instead of being in Kerry, looking after the police who 707 fail to do their duty, he is promenading the streets of the capital of the South of Ireland with the fashionable people of the locality, and a train of detectives at his heels. There has been a recrudescence of crime in Kerry; but Captain Plunkett has failed to bring any of the perpetrators of outrage to justice. Why, in one remarkable case that occurred at Castlefen in the parish of Fires, when a dreadful affair ensued owing to the insensate folly of some young people of the district, if it had not been for the heroism of a young lady, the daughter of the man who was killed—but for her bravery in tearing the mask off one of the men, if it had not been for that circumstance that crime would have been unpunished to this day for anything Captain Plunkett had done to bring it to light. The restoration of order in Kerry has very properly been taken out of his hands. Major General Buller has been sent to Kerry to do that which Captain Plunkett failed to accomplish, to restore order which has become disorder under his management. Then, what is the object of keeping this special magistrate; when his occupation is gone can he not be dismissed? When a Tory Ministry was in power a short time ago, instructions were given to diminish the staff of Captain Plunkett. The detective police there had received orders to betake themselves to their respective barracks; and the lease of the house he occupied, and which he had purchased, was to have been sold. I suppose all that was for the purpose of getting rid of this man, the last remaining remnant of the special provisions introduced by Lord Spencer when he appointed special magistrates. Is there not a double reason for getting rid of him now? His functions as restorer of order in Kerry and Cork have ceased; they have been placed in far abler hands. There are now no meetings he could suppress in the manner before stated; the two purposes for which he has hitherto existed now no longer require him. Why, then, retain a man who has outraged the principles of liberty, and has failed to bring the guilty to justice; who has failed in every respect for which a special magistrate is wanted to exercise his functions? On those grounds I ask the Chief Secretary to consider the case I have made. To fulfil my promise to be brief, 708 I have curtailed many things upon which I could wish to dwell; and I ask the Government and the Committee, for their own sakes, for the sake of the Constitution I believe we respect and pretend to extend to the people of Ireland, for the sake of that sacred right of public meeting and free speech this man has outraged in every particular, and for the sake of peace and good order and respect for the administration of the law, I ask the Government to dismiss this man. In order to protest against his conduct in the past, and to prevent a repetition of it in the future, I move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £53,450 (including a Supplementary sum of £8.763), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)When the hon. Member commenced his remarks he described a state of things in Ireland at which I confess I was surprised. The hon. Member spoke of the suppression of the right of public meeting, and of free speech; but I am under the impression that the right of public meeting and of free speech exists as freely now in Ireland as in England, though I am afraid they are more frequently abused. But when the hon. Member began to explain to the Committee his main reason for objecting to the salary of Captain Plunkett, the Committee must have heard with astonishment that it related to a matter which occurred three years ago, and reflected nothing at all against Captain Plunkett. If there was anything in the statement the hon. Member made, reflecting against any person, it was against Lord Spencer, the Viceroy, under whose Proclamation Captain Plunkett acted, and whose orders, according to his duty, he carried out. I do not say whether the Proclamation or the orders were right or wrong. On the Bench opposite sits a former Colleague of Lord Spencer, and it is possible for that right hon. Gentleman to defend Lord Spencer, if it is necessary. All that happened in 1883 was 709 that Lord Spencer, in the exercise of the powers entrusted to him by the Crimes Act, proclaimed certain meetings in the county of Cork. The hon. Member insisted on attending those meetings, although they were proclaimed, and Captain Plunkett very properly and rightly put down those meetings; and, in doing so, did his duty as a magistrate and deserved well of his country. The hon. Member talks of the tyranny of Captain Plunkett, and his desire to provoke a conflict between the people and the police. I think I have never heard a more outrageous, more unfounded charge made against a public servant. If the hon. Member believed in his statement, why did he not address it to the House three years ago?
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, it was so addressed over and over again.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHWhy did not the hon. Member bring his charges forward when the late Government were in Office? He makes his statement now upon matters with which the present Government have nothing whatever to do, and of which they can know absolutely nothing. All that he has said, if he has any cause for complaint, ought to have been made a complaint against the Government that ordered Captain Plunkett to do as he did. The hon. Member says that Captain Plunkett should not be continued in office, because he has been superseded in Kerry. He has a large and difficult district to manage—Cork and Limerick, besides Kerry, now under Sir Redvers Buller's control; and I will venture to say, what I have heard from every quarter in Ireland, that there is no more able or efficient magistrate in the county than Captain Plunkett. He has done his duty well in the past; I believe he is doing it now; and that he will do it well in the future. He has not been superseded in Kerry for any default on his part; but the Government had sent General Buller there because they think it right, in face of the grave and serious difficulties that exist, that a man of great experience and ability, coming to the work with a fresh mind, should endeavour to cope with the lawless state of the country by re-organizing and improving the force at the command of the Government, in the hope that law and order may be maintained without asking the House for extraordinary powers. That is all we have 710 done in regard to Captain Plunkett, in whom the Government still place the fullest confidence with reference to the district with which he is at present entrusted. I must conclude, as I began, by saying that a more unjust, more unfounded attack on the salary of a public servant I have never heard.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who by sufferance is trying to govern Ireland, has given a fair specimen of the spirit in which he will proceed. A more outrageous answer to a legitimate case was never given by an official in the House. It seems to be a settled tradition of the Tory policy that no Member should get up from the Tory Benches to speak on an Irish question without having a kick at Lord Spencer. I do not think that any feeling but that of disgust will meet this action of the Tory Party. I have myself opposed Lord Spencer's policy, and am an opponent at this time even of the policy he pursued. I attacked him when he followed a policy I considered wrong; but the Tory Party supported Lord Spencer when he carried out their policy, and then denounced him the moment they got into Office. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a demeanour and style of language hitherto unprecedented; and his contortions are scarcely worthy of his position. No sooner had he changed his side of the House than he got up and denounced Lord Spencer, after the latter had risked his life for three years in carrying out a Tory policy in Ireland, and now the Chief Secretary for Ireland has what I must call the effrontery to get up and denounce the policy of Lord Spencer, because it too faithfully carries out the Tory traditions in Ireland. Such conduct is ungenerous, even base. What is the answer of the Chief Secretary? He says that Captain Plunkett has not been superseded in Kerry; but is it, or is it not, the fact that Captain Plunkett was formerly the superior authority, but now has to report to Sir Redvers Buller, and is not Captain Plunkett, therefore, superseded? I can understand the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman for persons superseded by others—such an experience is not unfamiliar to the right hon. Gentleman in his own career; and, perhaps, Captain Plunkett is quite as satisfied with his position as is the 711 right ton. Gentleman with his own; but, all the same, he is superseded. The right hon. Gentleman made an excuse that it was necessary to bring a fresh mind to the consideration of the state of Kerry. We have had a fresh mind brought to bear upon the condition of this House, but are not much impressed by this sham exhibition of—
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORThe right hon. Gentleman, by his exhibition of Parliamentary passion, has sought to evade the real question before the Committee. What has he to say to the statement that, under Captain Plunkett, crime has increased in Kerry? Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that? Can he instance a single case of serious crime in which Captain Plunkett has brought the criminal to justice? Yet this gentleman, who has given gross and undeniable proofs of his incompetency as a preserver of the peace, is kept in office, merely in order that the Estimates may be swelled, so that he, whom the right hon. Gentleman chooses to regard as a deserving officer, may be pensioned at the expense of the taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman says that Captain Plunkett deserves well of the country for putting down public meetings, and that he has only carried out the views of Lord Spencer. I do not know whether that is the case or not; but I suppose Lord Spencer proclaimed meetings on the advice of local magistrates like Captain Plunkett. On the whole, I should say that, while Lord Spencer must be held responsible for the Proclamation, the advice emanated from Captain Plunkett. When the right hon. Gentleman says Captain Plunkett deserves well of his country for putting down meetings, what country does he mean? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The United Kingdom.] I must go to a somewhat higher and more reliable authority than the noble Lord. Is putting down meetings a public service? Has any Government ventured to put down meetings in this country? Yes; it was done in 1806 by Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth; but not an Englishman now but denounced the action, be he Tory or Liberal. A Government cannot carry out in 1886 what it was possible to do in 1806. I 712 hope a division will be taken, if only to teach the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that not by simulated indignation and violent language can such a case be disposed of.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)If the present Government wishes to create disorder in the South of Ireland, they have nothing else to do than persist in the course which has been inaugurated in Ireland by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Continued interruption.]
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)As a protest against the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite I move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Clancy.)
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)I beg to support that proposal. It is absolutely out of place that Irish Members, when ventilating their grievances in this House, should be met with these continuous interruptions. ["Divide, divide!"] I protest against these attempts to prevent our voices being heard in this House. ["Divide, divide!"]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI only rose to say that I supported the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin County, North (Mr. Clancy) for Progress, simply as a protest against the treatment we have received in stating our case. We have a right to be heard, and I repeat that this Motion is the only way in which we can protest against these interruptions.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI stated that I would be as brief as possible in making my speech on this question, and I point out that in doing so I only occupied 25 minutes. When this subject was introduced in 1884 by the then Member for Mallow (Mr. W. O'Brien), I find that he occupied two hours in making his statement.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)I hope this Motion will not be pressed. There is certainly a tone of impatience 713 in the Committee, which is perhaps natural; but I think that if hon. Gentlemen who support the reduction of the Vote are allowed to continue the discussion a little longer we might get to a division on the Vote. I do not agree with the view taken of Captain Plunkett's action by the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor); but I hope that hon. Gentlemen who support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote will be allowed to state their reasons for so doing.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI believe this Motion for reporting Progress will not be persisted in, and I ask my hon. Friends who support my Motion to be as brief as possible, to follow my example, and bring this discussion to a termination. I am convinced that if my hon. Friends only get fair play they will not take up the time of the House at great length. I venture to express a hope that the Motion for reporting Progress will be withdrawn.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)I have one observation to make with regard to the speeches of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) says there have been signs of impatience during the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Undoubtedly, there have been signs of impatience; but allow me to remark that this is not directed against the ventilation of grievances by hon. Members opposite, but it has arisen because speech after speech has been delivered by them exactly similar in tendency and effect. It has been the same speech made over and over again. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and gallant Member is speaking to the Question before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is replying to the arguments of those who desire to report Progress.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)I listened to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) as to the withdrawal of the Motion for Progress; but, at the same time, I am at a loss to understand a sentence in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) who has just offered his explanation of the impatience of hon. 714 Members opposite. The hon. and gallant Member says that hon. Members on this side of the House have made speech after speech of the same tendency. I understand that this discussion came on half-an-hour ago, and that my hon. Friend below me (Mr. J. O'Connor) was the only Member who addressed himself to the subject. There has been only one speech from an hon. Member and one from the Government in that time; and I cannot but think that the expressions of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh are hardly called for under the circumstances, and I hope that, the Members of the Government will not, by their demeanour and language, add to the offence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHUHCHILL) (Paddington, S.)I think it necessary to express my agreement with a great deal that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). I am not in the least surprised that the Committee should begin to exhibit some considerable signs of impatience with the immeasurable amount of obstruction to the passing of these Estimates. I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir William Harcourt) had been present throughout this week, and had noticed the character of the proceedings which have taken place, he would not have been surprised either that great impatience should be displayed on the present occasion; and, Sir, when, in addition to all that protraction of proceedings which, I say, is almost unprecedented, a public servant who is in the midst of great danger and difficulty—
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I rise to Order. I ask whether any reference to the case of Captain Plunkett is in Order on a Motion to report Progress?
THE CHAIRMANThe noble Lord is replying on a question which has arisen out of the Motion to report Progress.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI was saying, in reply to the charge brought against hon. Members on this side of exhibiting signs of impatience, that I was not surprised at it, when, in addition to all the protraction of the proceedings which have taken place, a public servant, who is endeavouring, in the midst of great difficulty and danger, 715 to perform his duty to the Sovereign and the country, is subjected to an attack which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has thought it his duty, with the assent of three-fourths of the Committee, to denounce as outrageous. We shall not be deterred by any Motion to report Progress, which I must certainly oppose, from expressing our opinion on those proceedings, in order to bring home forcibly to the mind of the public the nature of the proceedings the British House of Commons is called upon to confront.
§ MR. SEXTONI only say, in reply, that we shall not be deterred, by any language of the noble Lord, from taking any proceedings we may conceive it our duty to take.
§ MR. CLANCYMy only object in moving to report Progress was to obtain a patient hearing for those hon. Members on this side of the House who wish to speak, when it became apparent to all that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were determined to hear no more of it. ["Agreed, agreed!"] All I can say is, that if hon. Members are determined to persist in these interruptions I shall persist with my Motion to report Progress, and, if necessary, with other Motions. Allow me to say that this is a game which two sides can play at; at the same time, if these interruptions are not persisted in I shall be ready to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ DR. TANNERI was about to make a few observations on the subject-matter of this debate, and to move a reduction of the Vote by the amount of Captain Plunkett's salary, when I was met by the obstruction of hon. Members opposite. Now, the character of Captain Plunkett as a public man and an officer of Her Majesty in Ireland is distinctly well known, and thoroughly estimated at its proper worth, by the people of the city and county of Cork. I was more than surprised to hear the remarks which have this evening fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But, Sir, the known character of Captain Plunkett is savagery, for I cannot term it by any other name, and it is certainly strongly to be reprobated. [Laughter.] Eight hon. and hon. Gen- 716 tlemen opposite may laugh at this; but I will ask them, in all seriousness, whether it is for the advantage of the cause of justice in the South of Ireland, or in any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, that an officer fulfilling magisterial functions should be known as literally a savage in his character? I have seen over and over again the treatment which people in Ireland have received at the hands of Captain Plunkett. I have seen people in Ireland knocked about with the butt-end of rifles, and Captain Plunkett would have used the rifles too—
§ DR. TANNERI was speaking about the conduct of Captain Plunkett, and I understand that that is the subject of debate; but of course, Mr. Courtney, I bow to your ruling. I heard the right hon. Baronet opposite say that there is no more able and efficient officer in Ireland than Captain Plunkett. It strikes me as a very strange thing, and I do not understand how it has come to pass, that Captain Plunkett, who went down to the City of Cork as divisional magistrate for Cork, Kerry, and Limerick—how it was that when he went to that district everything was perfectly quiet, but that when he went down fishing and shooting into Castleisland and the Millstreet district outrages began to appear. It would seem that this was brought about by his presence there—by his walking about in the company of landlords who were distinctly hated and reprobated in the district. Captain Plunkett was, unfortunately, continued in command of this district where peace and tranquillity reigned, or, rather, was supposed to reign. Things kept quiet for a time; but in 1885 Captain Plunkett was still retained. What was the object of that? He was only placed there in consequence of an abnormal state of affairs; but yet we find that Captain Plunkett was kept on after the state of affairs had become perfectly tranquil, in order that he should draw his pay which we are now asked to pass in this Vote. I say that if Captain Plunkett was not wanted in the neighbourhood he should have been withdrawn; but in consequence of his being kept on outrages became paramount in the district of Castleisland, and it is in 717 consequence of his incapacity, of his want of power, of his known indolence of character, that Captain Plunkett has not been able to restrain violence and lawlessness in the district entrusted to his charge. Captain Plunkett's known idiosyncrasies are the cause of his want of power in dealing with the people. It is well known in Cork that his principal amusements are gambling, ladies' society, and German bands. Why, Sir, on the South Marina we find that his office is rendered a perfect nuisance in consequence of the attendance of these German bands morning, noon, and night. His office is equally attended by ladies; and we know that the two detectives, to whom is entrusted the horrible duty of following him about, say that they cannot keep him in sight, and that he is always trying to escape from them. I recollect one instance in Captain Plunkett's career which I will mention. Captain Plunkett actually broke his billiard cue in triumph on the night of the election of an hon. Gentleman as Member for Cork. Why do not the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord get up in their places and defend him? Simply because he is a sprig of nobility out of place; and it is in consequence of Tory partiality that they try to maintain a political tool—[Repeated cries of "Order!"] I am not going to deal with the entire career of Captain Plunkett. I only intended to say a few words about it, and that because I know it thoroughly, and have known it for years. I can only say that if the right hon. Baronet and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew as much of Captain Plunkett as I do, and as much as is known to the humblest person in the City of Cork, they would walk into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman who has moved the reduction of this Vote. I am glad that the Government have had an opportunity of saying that they will maintain law and order in Ireland, and I sincerely hope that they will achieve that by the removal of Captain Plunkett and every man like him.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)I do not like to sit and hear these charges brought against Captain Plunkett without saying a word or two upon the subject. I must say that I have not always been able to agree with the policy that Captain Plunkett has been the agent in carrying out. In fact, I have often thought it objectionable; but I do not think it quite fair to level all 718 these charges and lay all this blame on Captain Plunkett, merely because he has done what every public officer is bound to do—namely, to execute the orders and carry out the instructions of his superior officers. Whether those orders and instructions were right or wrong is not the point in debate. I do not now offer any opinion upon this question, though I should think that hon. Members below the Gangway are undoubtedly entitled to make a protest against the measures which Captain Plunkett has sometimes had to carry out. Having said that, I trust we may be allowed to proceed to a division; and, for my part, I shall undoubtedly feel it my duty to vote with the Government on this occasion.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI can assure you, Sir, that I really only wish to point out certain matters in answer to something stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in reply to my hon. Friend who moved in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, after using some very strong language, which would, it seems to me, be condemned by Members on these Benches, said he was surprised that if there were so many complaints against Captain Plunkett something had not been heard about them in the House of Commons before to-night. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it was that no explanation or complaint against Captain Plunkett was made when the Government on the Front Opposition Bench was in power? Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman will probably be surprised to learn that so far from there having been no mention made of Captain Plunkett, and no complaint raised against his conduct in this House, that on March 15, 1884, when the Liberal Party were in power, the late hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. W. O'Brien) brought forward the following Motion:—
That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Plunkett, Special Divisional Magistrate of the Cork District, by repeated and unconstitutional invasions of the right of public meeting, and by the imposition of arbitrary and unjust burdens on the people, has abused his authority and created widespread discontent and ill-will, and that, in the interests of good government and of respect for the administration of the law, it is expedient that he be dismissed from his office.And now, Sir, I think it will be admitted on all hands that it is, to say the least of it, a strange coincidence, if there 719 be nothing against this Captain Plunkett's conduct, that so far back as 1884 it was considered by the Irish Members to be their duty to bring forward a Motion respecting this gentleman exactly similar to that brought forward by my hon. Friend to-night. Sir, I will say this in conclusion—that it is very hard upon Irish Representatives, when they came here to make a complaint—as they consider a just complaint—against certain officers of the Crown in Ireland, that before they have opened their mouths—[Laughter]—yes; almost before they have spoken a word to state their case or grievance or complaint against a particular officer, that this particular officer should receive, at the outset, the support and praise and approval of the highest Ministers of the Crown. Could not the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer have waited to offer his defence of Captain Plunkett's conduct until he had heard what the Irish Members had to urge against him? He did not wait. The noble Lord complained that the time of the House was being unnecessarily occupied. What was the fact when he said that? Why, that only one speech had been made with regard to Captain Plunkett—namely, the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the subject (Mr. J. O'Connor). Surely the Irish Members—[Cries of "Divide!"]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDThe Irish Members have a right, to some extent at least, to support the speech of the hon. Member who has moved in this matter. As a matter of fact, no one had spoken save the introducer of the question when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to complain. Let the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland hold what views they may about this Captain Plunkett; but we hold that he has grossly mismanaged the affairs of his position We hold that Captain Plunkett's presence is conducive to crime; and we hold not only that, but that the position which Captain Plunkett holds, not to the people but to the Government, is a posi- 720 tion which is dangerous to the public peace. In conclusion, I will say this as to Captain Plunkett—he was sent to Cork to put down crime, and whether he did it intentionally or through ignorance and gross incapacity I do not know; but certainly, instead of fulfilling his mission and putting crime down, however it came about, crime has increased everywhere he has gone, and has multipled in connection with every position he has occupied. I go far to corroborate and endorse every statement my hon. Friends have made as to the provocation given to the people by unnecessarily proclaiming meetings as to the disturbances which have taken place in consequence, and as to the belief which largely prevails in Cork that these disturbances have been given rise to by Captain Plunkett himself in order that the Castle authorities, finding disorder still prevalent in the district, may keep him there to put it down.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHThe hon. Member who has just sat down has complained of supposed hardship to Irish Representatives. I will tell him what I think a great hardship on Members of this House—namely, that a stale story, which he tells us himself was fully debated and decided two and a-half years ago, should be hashed up again now at half past 12 o'clock at night.
§ MR. SEXTONIf the story were a stale story we should be only too glad to forget it; but, unfortunately, the story is kept constantly fresh by the conduct of Captain Plunkett himself. For my own part, however, I shall be disposed to leave the question—[Cries of "Divide!"] I will not be stopped by these interruptions. I say that, for my part, I shall be disposed to leave the question where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Morley) left it, in the few words he addressed to the House, which seem to me to be worthy of more attention than they have received. He said that though he condemned the system which Captain Plunkett had to administer, yet he recognized that Captain Plunkett was obliged, by his duty, to do certain things which we Irish Members feel ourselves called upon to criticize. I feel that to the full extent. I consider there are some officials in Ireland who consider themselves, in the name of duty, 721 bound to do many things which are most repugnant to us and to the Irish people. I am inclined to think that the system is more to be blamed than the officials. Captain Plunkett is one of the worst results of a bad system; and until you attack the system at the root, and cut it away, you will constantly have to complain of such cases. The root of the evil lies deeper than the conduct of Captain Plunkett, and by attacking such official action as that under notice we shall scarcely touch the real nature of the case. The Government have evaded the real question at issue, and I, for one, am now willing to proceed with the Business of the Committee.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 188: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant the question I desired to put to him on another Vote, when you, Sir, ruled that it would be more proper to put it on this Vote. We understand that General Sir Redvers Buller has made Reports to the Government that relate not only to the existence of crime, but also to the condition of the people, and especially to the question of their ability to pay rent. What I wish to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman is whether he proposes to extend the description "confidential" to all parts of Sir Redvers Buller's Report, or whether whilst he keeps to himself and the Government those parts of the Report which refer to crime, he will be willing to communicate to the House any remarks of Sir Redvers Buller which relate to the condition of the people, their ability to face the coming winter, and their capacity to pay rent, or which will bear in any way upon the Bill of which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) will move the second reading next week.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHSir Redvers Buller went to Ireland not to consider the question of rent or the fall in prices. These are questions which Her Majesty's Government propose to inquire into. I have received several Reports from Sir Redvers Buller; but 722 they have been purely confidential, and there is no part of them which I can communicate to the House.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORAre we to understand that Sir Redvers Buller has, or has not, reported on the ability of the tenants to pay rent in Ireland? That is a simple question. I do not see what reason the right hon. Gentleman can have for refusing to answer it. I quite admit that he could not make any communication to the House with regard to the state of crime in Ireland, because, no doubt, such information might have the effect of placing in peril the property, and even the lives, of people living in the districts of Clare, Kerry, and Cork. But I think the Committee are entitled to know whether or not Sir Redvers Buller has sent communications to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the social and agrarian conditions of the people of these counties. We have a right to ask for yes or no—whether or not Sir Redvers Buller has dealt with this question?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHThe hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the meaning of the words "confidential communications." It would be just as wrong for me to say what they are not as to say what they are.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)I happen to be in a position to thoroughly understand the meaning of Sir Redvers Buller's mission to Kerry. I thoroughly understand what are the exceptional circumstances which have occasioned that visit, and I will undertake not to delay the Committee more than a couple of minutes while I recount several facts which will throw light upon the matter. Sir, since 1880, 1,784 families, amounting to 12,000 human beings, have been evicted in the county of Kerry. Of these people a large proportion are still homeless by the wayside. Crime and outrage has, unfortunately, arisen in the county; but they have followed the track of eviction. I have been a witness of the origin of many of these crimes, and can speak to its having been the cruel exactions and exterminations carried out under the law. I have witnessed a scene of this kind—a family evicted, and amongst them a young girl dangerously ill. The agent, declaring that the girl was only shamming, went on with the eviction, and an hour after it the poor girl was a corpse. This occurred before 723 there was any crime or outrage in the district, and before there was any occasion for the services of Sir Redvers Buller. This case occurred on the 7th March, 1883. At that time the Parliament of this Kingdom was actually passing a law to prevent cruelty to pigeons—aye, on that very day the peasant girls of Kerry might be brought out to die, whilst you were protecting pigeons. Your proposed inquiry is all humbug and nonsense, a sort of Pharisaical fraud. If Sir Redvers Buller is not libelled he is a soldier, and if he is a soldier his first instincts are to be a man. [Laughter.] Well, I wish to cast no reflection on gentlemen of the Militia opposite. I say if General Buller is an English gentleman he will have a heart in his breast, and will not have been able to avoid making communications to the Chief Secretary, confidential or otherwise, concerning the condition—the social and agrarian condition—of the poor people amongst whom he is living. No doubt those communications will yet be brought into the light. This officer will find it impossible to help making Reports on the extraordinary social state of the county, and cannot fail to notice what has been at the root of all the disorder and crime which has prevailed there, and which has occasioned his mission. I said at the beginning that I would not detain the Committee long, and I do not intend to do so. I may, however, be permitted to say, in conclusion, that it would not be unreasonable of us Irish Members to occupy a great deal more of the time of the Committee and of this House, and of this nation, which persists in imposing its rule upon us, in discussing those matters, which are so vital to us, but which English and Scotch Members will not pretend to understand.
§ MR. SEXTONI have no choice but to take direct issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the claim which he has made in the face of the Committee to the right to keep the Reports of General Buller, and every part of them, under lock and key and away from us. General Buller, as I understand, was sent to Kerry, and the announcement which was made to us so short a time ago that the memory of it is still fresh in our minds was that he was despatched there to discover and put down crime. That mission was in its nature confidential. 724 We Representatives of the Irish people here do not ask either that General Buller's statements as to the condition of crime, or that his suggestions for putting an end to crime, shall be communicated to us. We admit that his mission to that extent, in order to be efficacious, must be secret. But there the need for secrecy ends. If General Buller has chosen, or has felt it to be his duty as a conscientious man, to go beyond his mission of discovering and putting an end to crime, and if he has felt it to be incumbent upon him to report to the Government as to the power of the people of Clare and Kerry to pay their rents this winter, I say that it is imperatively necessary that the Government should at this moment communicate to us at least the substance of such Report. Upon what basis can the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary endeavour to apply such a term as "confidential" to the Report of Sir Redvers Buller upon the question of rent? He says my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) does not understand the term "confidential." My hon. Friend and we understand the term perfectly; there is nothing difficult about it; but we say that the term is improperly applied by the right hon. Gentleman. We say that he endeavours to apply to an official Report the term which only applies to the secret part of it. Now, I appeal to the Committee and the public on this ground—that with the prospect before us this winter in Ireland, and with the fear we have that the forces of the law may be extremely applied, we have a right to two things. First, that the Government, when declaring their policy upon the Tenant Relief Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), shall, at the same time, enable the House and the country to judge whether their policy in regard to that vital Bill accords with the conclusions and advice of Sir Redvers Buller on the question of rent, or whether it is contrary to it? We are entitled to know whether they are acting upon, or against, the advice of their confidential agent? I, therefore, press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the duty of laying before the Committee those passages in the Report of Sir Redvers Buller which deal with the agrarian condition of the people, and with nothing else; we simply ask to know whether Sir Redvers Buller 725 is of opinion that the people can possibly pay their rents, or whether he is of opinion that it is impossible for the people to pay their rents? The Government owe this to us, in order to enable us and the Members of the House generally to see how far they are justified in the policy they may declare upon the question of land. Another thing I claim. I claim that we are entitled to know if Sir Redvers Buller this winter in Ireland is to carry out the policy of force by instruction of the Government; if he is to drive people from their homes? We claim to know, in judging upon the conduct and character of this public agent, whether the use of the soldiers and police in driving people from their homes is in accordance with the advice Sir Redvers Buller himself has given to the Government; or whether he has recommended to the Government a policy of mercy, leniency, and forbearance? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if I am making any unconstitutional demand; if I am asking anything unreasonable; if I am urging anything not demanded by imminently threatened public interest, let any hon. Member rise and tell me so. I think the claim I make is not only fair, but it is urgent; because the less we are told of what this high functionary has said on the question of rent, the less able we shall be to judge what justification there is for the policy of the Government in reference to land, and what justification there is for the course to be pursued by that officer himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in imputing to us ignorance of the meaning of the term "confidential," has grossly and fundamentally misapplied that term. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is keeping matters to himself for motives creditable, or the reverse, the future will disclose. We, however, cannot help thinking that he is keeping to himself information of a most important character to which the people and their Representatives in this House have a right of access.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)It is my duty, Sir, on account of the silence which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has observed in reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) to move the reduction of this Vote by the amount of Sir Redvers 726 Buller's salary. [Mr. GENT-DAVIS (Lambeth, Kennington): It is not in this Vote.] I did not ask for the instruction of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis), who has not been sufficiently long a Member of this House as to be able to instruct any Member of it; he is more distinguished for inarticulate interruptions than for anything else. I move to reduce this Vote by £1,000, which will represent substantially the salary of General Sir Redvers Buller; and this Motion will have the effect, too, of affording the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary an opportunity of replying to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast. I have observed closely the course of policy which has been pursued by General Sir Redvers Buller since he went to Clare and Kerry; and I am bound to say that, so far, the course which he has pursued has given him, I think, a greater title to express an opinion on the agricultural condition of those counties than as to the best means, or the most effectual means, of putting down crime and outrage. I have seen reports of certain alleged offences which have taken place in those counties since Sir Redvers Buller went there, and I am in a position to say that some of those reports of "Moonlighting" outrage are utterly false, that the offences never took place, but that the reports are simply inventions supplied to the English Press by unscrupulous local correspondents. We invite from the Government some statement as to the nature of the communications from General Sir Redvers Buller upon subjects which are apart from, and distinct from, the question of the suppression of crime and outrage. That is a fair request; it is a fair demand put forward from these Benches. We are perfectly alive to the importance of keeping confidential communications perfectly private. Let the Government keep the communications confidential which ought to be confidential; but there is a belief in the country, there is a belief in Ireland, especially among those who have observed Sir Redvers Buller, who have followed him since he went across to Clare and Kerry, that he has been deeply impressed with the utter inability of the tenants in these counties to pay the enormous rents which the landlords now seek to exact from them. And, Sir, that bears practically upon the question 727 of social order in those counties; for we know that the result of the non-payment of rent is that the occupiers are evicted by the landlords, and also that crime and outrage of necessity follow the harsh action of the landlords in driving their tenantry out on the road side. Then, if General Sir Redvers Buller reports that the agricultural depression in Clare and Kerry makes it absolutely impossible for the tenants to pay their rents, what happens? Why, General Sir Redvers Buller is called upon, as an agent for carrying the law into effect, to carry out proceedings which personally he condemns. I maintain that that is a humiliating position to force any officer of the British Army into; and I shall be greatly surprised if General Buller does not, if these things occur which I anticipate, throw up his appointment in disgust, as every English officer who has been sent across to Ireland in former times to discharge similar functions has done. We invite from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a further statement on this subject. We have pointed out clearly that we do not wish to obtain from him any information which, in the interests of law and order, he may wish to keep private; but that we are entitled to a statement from him upon the question as to whether General Sir Redvers Buller's Report as to the agricultural condition of Clare and Kerry does not go to show that the tenants are quite unable to pay the rents which have been asked of them. If we do not receive a satisfactory statement from the right hon. Gentleman I shall be bound to press my Motion to a division. Sir, I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
§ MR. M. J. KENNYThen I move to reduce the Vote by £500.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £53,950 (including a Supplementary sum of £8,763), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHThe hon. Member seems to anticipate 728 that Sir Redvers Buller would carry out in Clare and Kerry a policy of which his conscience disapproved. General Buller is not the man to do anything of the kind.
§ MR. M. J. KENNYI did not say so.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHThen I wonder why the hon. Member made such an imputation.
§ MR. M. J. KENNYI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—I said almost exactly the opposite to that.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHGeneral Buller has been sent to Kerry to do certain work. Hon. Members choose to assume—I do not know on what foundation, but possibly on the statement of some newspaper correspondent—that he has taken up other work, and reported to the Government upon quite another subject. [Mr. SEXTON: Has he?] I wish to say, with perfect courtesy to hon. Members, that I have given my answer; and I shall neither add to nor take away from it.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (who rose amid some interruption)I claim a right to be heard, and I think the instincts of justice require me to speak, and until I become tedious and wearisome to the Committee I am entitled to be heard. If the instincts of justice will not prompt hon. Members to give me a fair hearing, I must try and do what I can in the physical contest they will force me to engage in. [Interruption] It is my intention to pay all respect to the Chair and to the Committee; but, with all deliberation, I beg to say that I shall remain on my legs until I am heard. I only desire to make a few brief comments upon what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said. He said he has given us his answer. I say he has given his answer; but it is a very bald answer. [Interruption.] Ah! it is a very bald answer when the lives of 12,000 outcast human beings are at stake. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) says "Oh!" The right hon. and learned Gentleman is supposed to have that delicate and elastic conscience which is to safeguard the lives and liberties of those condemned for crime in this country; but are the people of Kerry not human beings? Are they not entitled to our consideration as human beings? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh, oh!" 729 and seem by their manner to indicate that the people of Kerry are not entitled to such consideration. ["Fustian and bosh!"] It is fustian and bosh says one hon. Member. Well, I must say a long experience of the hon. Member shows me that nothing proceeds from him beyond a monosyllable. [Cries of "Question!"] Hon. Members sit opposite night after night there, taking their cue from the Government. [Cries of "Question!"] Ah! this is the question, and it is a burning question. It is a question which has left, as I say, 12,000 human beings by the roadside in Kerry. ["Oh, oh!"] Oh! but then if you hear a report of the smallest outrage in the county of Kerry you open your ears widely enough, though you will not listen to a statement of the real evil. [Renewed Interruption.] There is nothing to be gained by this temporary exhibition of impatience. I think it would be as decent to waste from seven to ten minutes over this matter, if it be a waste, as to persevere in these attempts to stifle the voice of suffering humanity. [Laughter.] Mr. Courtney, it is very hard for me, under the circumstances, to keep within the limits of the Question before the Chair. However, Sir, I shall make every effort to do so. The right hon. Baronet has told us that he has given us his answer. I presume he means his answer to be final. In the right hon. Gentleman's own words, the gallant General who has gone down to Kerry is to be his confidential agent, directly responsible to him. Well, if General Buller is directly responsible to the Chief Secretary, and if that right hon. Gentleman is, as he should be, directly responsible to this House, why should he shirk this question? What is this House for but to protect the interests of the people? What are we, Sir, but the Representatives of the people; and why should there be any burking of this question? Why should there be any screening of the real criminal? Oh, you throw your purple cloak over him. [Laughter.] I see, Mr. Courtney, that this excites the risibility of hon. Members; but I do not hesitate to say that the evicting and exterminating landlords of the county of Kerry are the real criminals with whom General Buller has to deal. General Buller has gone down to that county, according to instructions, to throttle 730 crime. He cannot have failed to discover already that there are two criminals before him. I am as anxious to see crime of all sort put down as the Government are, and I have given as much proof of the faith in me in that respect as anyone. I say that when General Buller went down to Kerry he found two criminals—a powerful criminal and a lesser criminal—and like a soldier and a man who went out to throttle crime, he said throttle landlordism first and we shall be able to settle the other afterwards. "Oh," says the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, "that is not convenient; that is not Tory policy; why, we should turn all the fat into the fire if we were to say anything to the Kerry landlords." The rents in the rest of Ireland are under Griffith's valuation; the rents in Kerry are 48 per cent over Griffith's valuation. "Oh," says the right hon. Gentleman, "do not ask us a word about that; that is a matter for the Tory Cabinet; we will not allow that to be drawn into the light of day; we will not think of discussing that; we will not have that part of General Buller's Report." Well, Sir, if, prompted by instincts of that policy of vengeance which, as long as man is man, will always occupy a place in the breast of suffering humanity, the Kerry peasants indulge in acts of outrage, the Government say—"Bring them to justice; but shield the landlord. Show up these criminals; show what a criminal class these Kerry peasants are; but protect the landlords." That is the policy of the Tory Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pays a very fine compliment to the dulness and opacity of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He says my hon. Friend does not understand the meaning of the word "confidential." Sir, we understand much more than the right hon. Gentleman will give us credit for. I am sure we quite understand a great deal more than many hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not seem to understand themselves when a question of this kind is being discussed. [Cries of "Divide!"] We are still on this Vote, and we will not divide until it seems right to us that we should. All we desire is a fair elucidation of matters which can reasonably and rationally be discussed on this Vote. I may remind you, Mr. Chairman, that when this matter was mentioned 731 previously you invited us to discuss it at the proper time. Now is the proper time, Sir; and I ask you, is it not more than a travesty of discussion for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to stand up in his place and say—"No matter what case you mate, I will give you no answer? We sent General Buller to Ireland, and we will tell you at the proper time the result of his mission." I suppose that will be when he has shot down a few Kerry peasants without trial, as you, no doubt, expect him to do, following out the policy—[Cries of "Divide!"] Yes; divide. I repeat, following out the policy of the noble Leader of the Tory Party when he likened the Irish people to Hottentots. Ah! when he trots the real criminal out of his lair, when he shows you that a Kerry landlord is a man who is incapable, even if the instincts of humanity were in him—is incapable from his present position of exercising them. [Cries of "Question!"] I maintain that this is the question. I see on these Benches an enlightened Gentleman who has travelled quite recently in the South of Ireland, and. I am sure that with his impartial and open mind he could throw a flood of light upon this question. [Cries of "Name!"] And he could tell you very plainly who the criminals are. I could name them; but I will not do so, because they are personages who are adorned with coronets, and it would be very distasteful to Gentlemen opposite if I were to name them. There would be instantly great cries of "Divide, divide!" and "Agreed, agreed!" and so forth. There would be a cry of anything that would stifle the voice of justice. I see opposite an hon. and gallant Gentleman from Scotland who possibly never saw Ireland or the sky over it.
THE CHAIRMANI must really ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his observations to the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONIn confining my observations to the question I would like to make an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it would be not to let themselves be carried away by the prejudice that may be inherent in them. Here are the bald facts of the case. General Buller is sent down to Kerry, because there is an abnormal state of things in that county. 732 ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Gentleman says "Oh, oh!" and that entitles me to retort that if there was not an abnormal state of affairs in the county of Kerry, why was General Buller sent down there? And is it not fair and reasonable, as we have been promised an opportunity of discussing this very Vote, that we should be able to state our reasons for the abnormal crime and disorder existing in Kerry. But, Sir, I pass from the causes altogether, and I take matters as they are—I take the action of the Government. It has been an action to sustain and maintain the Irish landlords against the Irish peasants and the average Irishman. What have the Government done? They were not content with expending £3,000 of taxes in the protection of Lord Kenmare; but as soon as General Buller was sent to Kerry the first overt act of the Government was to identify themselves with the arch evicter and exterminator of the county of Kerry. They gave him, for instance, whatever profit was to be derived from the stabling of General Buller's horses. I desire to speak of the Government with all respect; but, so far as it has to do with Ireland, it does not deserve the name of Government. It is worse than a mockery—it is an arrant sham. It does not know the duties of Government, because the first duties of a Government are to protect the people, and not any one class of the people. You do not surely call Lord Kenmare the people; you do not call Samuel Hussey the people; or Lord Ventry the people. I want you to extend to them the same law, the same protection, the same right, as you do to other people. ["Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear! "say hon. Members. Lord Kenmare has suffered by his own harsh evictions. Will the Committee bear with me while I tell them—["No, no!"] They will bear with nothing that bears on the truth. Will the Committee believe me when I say that in the worst year for the recovery of rents Lord Kenmare received £38,000 out of a possible £40,000? The Government argue that as Lord Kenmare is the victim of disorder he must get the profit arising from the stabling of the horses of General Buller. In order to show how impartially these matters are conducted in Ireland, General Buller has been entertained at the County Club of Tralee—a Club exclusively composed of the parti- 733 zans of the Government now in power. So partizan is that Club in its character that the Land Court upholder, The Times, which is your champion, your Old and your New Testament, announced that General Buller had been entertained by the Club of the county. I think we are entitled to stop supplies from General Buller until we receive some satisfactory answer from the Government. [Cries of "Divide!"] I wish to draw your attention to the interruptions of a certain noble Lord who might reasonably be in the nursery at this hour.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member, in his speech, should confine himself to the ordinary amenities of debate.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONGeneral Buller was entertained at the County Clubin Lewistown. [Cries of "Divide!"] I will give you a single instance of a different character—
§ MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)I rise to Order. I ask whether the hon. Member is speaking to the Question before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is somewhat discursive in his remarks; but I cannot say he is absolutely out of Order.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONI should very much regret if I were out of Order. It is very hard, under the present circumstances, to address oneself definitely to the subject; but my object is to point out to the Committee what is the effect of the mission of General Buller to Kerry. This is a Motion to reduce the Vote by the amount of General Buller's salary. We cannot estimate the amount of that salary, which is, perhaps, contingent on results; and I suppose that if General Buller does not produce the requisite number of convictions—
THE CHAIRMANI again appeal to the hon. Member to adhere to the subject of debate, and not discuss irritating topics which only lead to disorder.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONI shall not pursue that topic, but will give hon. Gentlemen one or two facts. I say that to give General Buller a salary is a mistake, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who denies that General Buller has gone ultra vires, is responsible for the mistakes he may make. The policy of the present Government is to screen from view the wrong-doing of the Kerry landlords, and the fact that rents there 734 have been been judicially reduced by 48 per cent, although they would have no hesitation in bringing forward any iniquities on the part of the Kerry
§ MR. SEXTONWe have no design of prolonging this discussion. I have asked the right hon. Baronet a question connected with the mission of General Buller which cannot be considered out of place. I ask him whether the gallant officer he has sent to Kerry has said that the rents cannot be paid? Why did he not answer "Yes?" Because he would have then subjected himself to attack from his Tory followers from Ireland. The right hon. Baronet was in a dilemma. He could not state anything but the fact, of course; and if he did that, he would have caused mutiny in the ranks of his Party, and the gallant officer would have had to be recalled. From the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer my simple question, every reasonable man will agree that Sir Redvers Buller has reported that the rents in the counties of Clare and Kerry are such that they cannot be paid. Why does the right hon. Baronet not answer by a monosyllable? It cannot be spoken. I am satisfied, however, just as much by the conclusion to be drawn from his eloquent silence; and I doubt whether we ought to challenge the salary of Sir Redvers Buller, because I am now convinced that he is a competent and reliable officer.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 171: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (8.) £60,632, to complete the sum for Dublin Metropolitan Police.
§ (9.) £70,886, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)There is a question with reference to the present Vote which I wish to bring under the notice of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). Some time ago it was my duty to complain of the resolution which the Irish Government arrived at during the previous Administration of closing some prisons and merging them practically in others. I refer to the case of the Northern prison centre, 735 which has been changed from Omagh to the city of Derry. Now, for a considerable time the town of Omagh was practically the prison centre for Ulster; it has the advantage of being situated in the centre of a forest; it was supposed to be a capital prison; there was no question as to the safety of the prison, or as to its capacity to retain all the prisoners that might be sent there. But there were some complaints that, owing to defective sewage arrangements, the prison was unhealthy. The magistrates responsible for the proper management of the prison made frequent complaints to the Prisons Board in Dublin about the sanitary condition of the place; they continued to do so for 18 months; and at the end of that time the Governor of the gaol, who was a retired military officer, died of typhoid fever, and the Prisons Board then saw what was the state of things, and went into this matter. A sufficient sun was expended to place the prison in a proper condition. I visited it lately, and I am bound to say that I think the most exacting person could find no fault with it at present; indeed, if I were asked in what prison I would spend six months' confinement I would name Omagh Prison in preference to any other in the country. But the moment this improvement was made the Government shut up the prison, and took the prisoners to Derry Gaol. The prisoners from Cavan and Tyrone, in the vicinity of the prison, have now to be sent to the prison at Derry, which is a distance of 100 miles. I believe that this will not effect a saving of public expenditure, but that it will be ultimately a loss to the taxpayers of the country. I do not, of course, expect that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has had an opportunity, since his accession to Office, of inquiring into matters of detail; but I would ask him to devote some attention to this subject. I would ask him to examine the Report of the Royal Commission on Prisons, in order to see whether the Commissioners actually recommended that the prison in Omagh should be shut up under the circumstances I have described. Objection was taken in their Report to the sanitary condition of Omagh Prison; but, as I have said, the sanitary defects were removed, and immediately after that the Prisons Board proceeded to shut up the gaol alto- 736 gether. In placing this question before the hon. Gentleman I suppose that he will be able to give immediate attention to it, because in the month of June last I brought it under the notice of his Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler); and there will, therefore, be some traces of it in the Treasury Office. I trust the hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Prisons Board, and say that this gaol is in splendid condition, and that it ought not to be closed, and rendered practically valueless. Not only is the closing of this prison a loss in itself, but the removal of the prisoners will throw considerable additional expenditure upon the taxpayers of the country. It is, therefore, a matter of economy which I bring under the notice of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)Before the hon. Gentleman rises to reply, I wish to urge upon the Government a matter with which I believe they will be able to deal. I do not wish to occupy the Committee at length with many remarks at this hour of the morning; but I desire to call attention to the fact that although, a few years ago, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of prisons, which Committee made many recommendations, those recommendations have been, to a great extent, utterly disregarded. The Commission was strongly constituted, under the Presidency of Sir R. Assheton Cross, having also upon it the right hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Cubitt); and I expect these two Gentlemen will be in a position to explain to the Government the serious state of things which they discovered to exist in Ireland. Among other things they refer to the necessity of having permanent medical officers to have jurisdiction over all prisons; also to the sanitation of the different prisons, the qualification of governors, and the pay and accommodation of warders, male and female. There is, in fact, hardly a single subject relating to prison management with which the Report of the Royal Commission does not deal exhaustively and thoroughly. The Report is probably one of the most able that was ever furnished, and yet it has been allowed to lie by without action being taken upon it. I hope the Government will adopt the recommendations of this Commission, which was composed of Members of their own political Party, and 737 then I think they will be able to remove almost every ground of objection to the present Vote. I do not know that it is of any use to go into detail. In that Report, as I have said, they will find almost everything it is necessary to know, and I will only urge upon them the necessity of acting with promptitude in the matter.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)I understand that a consolidation of the duties was recommended by the Commission, and that the recommendation has been adopted. A medical officer has, I believe, been appointed. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Not a superintendent.] The medical officer is charged with looking after the whole of the staff. I do not know whether that was a recommendation of the Commission. Few of the recommendations can be carried out; some, however, have been, whilst others are under consideration, and it is intended that they shall be carried out. I am obliged to the hon. Member for the reasonable character of his remarks, and I will promise to look into the matter.
§ MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)I wish to call attention to the inconvenience occasioned by the abolition of the prison at Mullingar. It is now only a Bridewell, and great inconvenience is felt by the prisoners having to be sent to Tullamore, whose terms of imprisonment exceed seven days. Mullingar is an important railway centre, and is well adapted by its position to be a prison centre. I think that if the matter is reconsidered a prison will be re-established in Mullingar. The sanitary arrangements of the gaol were complained of; but I think that the evil that exists in that respect could be put an end to by an expenditure of not more than £200. I hope the hon. Gentleman will devote the same attention to this matter as he has promised to give to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).
§ MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) says that very few of the recommendations of the Royal Commission can be carried into effect. I am sorry to say that one recommendation which has been carried into effect has caused a great deal of inconvenience. The Commission re- 738 ported in favour of closing up a good many of the minor prisons throughout Ireland. Well, I think that the closing up of some of these minor prison s and not substituting anything for them, thereby compelling prisoners condemned to short terms of imprisonment to be sent from the towns where goals were previously maintained to the few prisons now existing, is a very serious inconvenience indeed, and is attended with considerable expense to the State, and great hardships to the prisoners. I take it from the Report of the Royal Commission that they were cognizant of that fact, and were fully alive to what I have described becoming the result of the closing of the prisons, which they recommended: but they never contemplated the total extinction of the minor prisons without putting something in their place. I see that in Paragraph 20 the Commissioners recommended that there should be what are called legalized cells provided at the police stations, in the small towns, for the detention of prisoners sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, as there are in Scotland. This recommendation should be adopted out of consideration for the prisoners themselves, and also to remove the heavy strain which escort duty at present imposes upon the police, and to save the necessity of carrying prisoners, sentenced only to short terms of imprisonment, long distances away. I know that at this late hour—2 o'clock a.m.—it is desirable not to go into detail upon matters of this kind; but it is within my knowledge that great suffering and inconvenience has been caused by requiring these prisoners to be sent long distances. I know cases where prisoners sentenced in County Wicklow to 48 hours' imprisonment have had to be sent to Kilmainham, 25 miles away, in; cold, bleak weather, on an outside car, because there were no local prisons; and when they arrived at Kilmainham, late at night, finding the prison full, they had to be sent on again to another; Dublin prison. A similar condition of things exists in other parts of the country. It is certain that it was never contemplated that the minor local prisons should be shut up without substituting anything for them. I am aware that difficulties may arise in some cases in providing the legalized cells of 739 a suitable character in connection with police barracks; but I would press upon the Government the desirability of either re-opening some of the prisons which are closed up, or of adopting the recommendation of the Commissioners in its entirety. I hope the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this matter will give it his careful attention, with the view of putting a stop to the grievances which now prevail.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)In my own county prisoners are taken 50 or 60 miles to be confined in gaols, and the upshot is that in minor offences the magistrates will not convict, not desiring to see people sent so far away. This is altogether a different matter to the question of expense, and I hope the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take it into account.
§ MR. JACKSONI understand that this question of the establishment of lock-ups is to be considered. I think, however, it will be found that it will not be prisoners sentenced to short terms of imprisonment who will be confined in these places, but persons under arrest and awaiting trial.
§ MR. MURPHYI think the hon. Member will find that the Commissioners recommend that short-term prisoners should be confined in legalized police cells in the local places.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)With regard to the position of medical officers attached to prisons, I think, if the hon. Gentleman will go into the matter and give it the attention it deserves, he will find that the members of the Profession at present attached to prisons are subject to what is a considerable grievance. Nothing can better show up how these gentlemen are situated than the contents of a communication I have received during the past few days. This communication was received by me not from any Irish Nationalist, but from a member of the Medical Profession who is distinctly and indisputably a Tory. He wished, if it were possible for him to do so, to lay before this House a grievance that was felt by the Profession in regard to these prisons. When medical officers were under the old Prisons Board they were only asked to attend the prisons on certain days in the week, not daily, as they are at present. This 740 gentleman to whom I refer is in charge of a very large prison in the South of Ireland. In days gone by he only had to attend two days in the week; but he is now called upon to attend daily. This is one case; but I think, if the hon. Gentleman will take the matter up, he will find that the grievance is felt all round—that what is the case in connection with one prison is practically the case all round. The medical officer I have mentioned, in the old days, only had to attend the jail two days a-week; but, owing to prisons in other districts being closed up, the number of prisoners under his care greatly increased; in fact, as he tells me, it increased from 67 to 176, throwing increased duties upon him. A daily attendance then became necessary. Well, if increased attention and attendance on the part of the medical officers is rendered necessary by the adoption of prison reforms, it follows that these gentlemen should be paid higher salaries. I do not wish to delay the Committee; I wish to get through with this matter as quickly as I possibly can; therefore, I will only say that I hope the Government will give this point their careful attention. If they do, I think they will acknowledge the necessity of doing something to remedy the grievance I have referred to. If the hon. Gentleman desires it, I will give him the name of the prison in question, and I will also show him that the medical men in a number of other prisons in the South of Ireland are similarly situated.
§ MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the state of Galway Gaol. I have some personal experience of what I am going to say. Some of the cells are too small for the health of any person who may be confined in them, and I cannot believe that it is the desire of the Government to injure the health of the criminals whom they may send to prison. These cells are only 7 feet by 6 feet, which is a very small space indeed, and there is no proper ventilation in them. In another part of the prison the cells are fairly good, the size having been materially increased. I think about half the prisons now have these larger cells. The reform should be extended to the other half. I would also draw attention to the fact that there are no 741 books—that there is no library—in this prison. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh; but according to the regulations there should be books in the prisons for the prisoners to read—or a certain class of prisoners. It is an unfortunate thing that on the Sabbath day the prisoners can get nothing to read.
§ MR. DEASY (Mayo, W.)I desire to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question which is very important to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. I put down a Notice a few days ago, asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the sum due to the Grand Juries in Ireland under the Prisons Act of 1878 had been recouped by direction of the Queen's Bench. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply, said he did not know that the Queen's Bench had given any decision at all on the subject. Well, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have made full inquiry into the subject, otherwise he would not have given that answer. As a matter of fact, the case which resulted in the decision in question was tried in 1883 by the Queen's Bench, and a decision was given which directed the Government to recoup the Grand Juries in Ireland certain sums which had accrued due between the year 1878 and the date of the decision in the Court of Queen's Bench. The sum due to each county was small; but still there was a sum due to them in the hands of the Government, which had not been handed over to the Grand Juries. I do not wish to go into particulars at this moment; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of them, I shall be happy to furnish him with all the information in my possession.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)The answer I gave to the hon. Member the other evening was that I was not acquainted with any case tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, or any other Court, in which it was decided that the Government should recoup the Grand Juries in the manner suggested. I added that if he would furnish me with particulars of the case I should be glad to make inquiries into it, and that I now repeat. If he will furnish me with the particulars I certainly will inquire into the matter.
§ DR. TANNERI should like to receive an assurance from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, if possible, as to some step being taken to remove the grievance of the medical officers of prisons.
§ MR. JACKSONI will give the hon. Member the assurance he asks for.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress) and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I must say I am surprised at a Motion involving such a waste of public time coming from the Government. It is only a few minutes past 2 o'clock, and we on these Benches are perfectly fresh. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis) dissents from my view as to the desirability of going on with the Business of Supply. I can understand his condition; I do not suppose he is very fresh; for if I had been shouting as much as he has during the night I should be in a state of abject exhaustion by this time. I cannot understand why the Government should be so anxious to adjourn. I shall not vote against them, because, for, my own part, I am favourable to adjournments at such late hours of the night; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not stand up to-morrow, and, because of the slow progress made, object to hon. Members on these Benches criticizing the subject-matter of the Votes. We have got on very smoothly for the past hour and a-half, and perhaps we should have managed to make much greater progress than even we have made if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be a little more courteous in his manner.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)I will not say anything in reply to those observations; but if the Committee is willing to go on with the Estimates I am sure the Government have no objection. We cannot take the Irish Constabulary Vote this evening, for it has been decided to put that down for to-morrow. We must go to Class IV.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.