ADJOURNED DEBATE. [SIXTEENTH NIGHT.] (Hansard, 17 February 1887)

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
Sir. I believe myself compelled to refer, in the course of the remarks which I propose to make somewhat at length, to a matter in which I myself have the deepest personal interest. I know, Sir, that it will be alleged that, in the course which I am about to pursue, I am doing a thing which is most unusual and inconvenient—it will be even said that it is a course hardly decent for a Member of this House to pursue. ["Hear, hear!"] I find no fault with that expression of opinion from hon. Members opposite; but, at the same time, I am perfectly convinced that, before I have concluded the statement which I feel bound to lay before this House, even hon. Members who have just given expression to their feelings in a sense hostile to me, will admit that, whether I am right or whether I am wrong, the circumstances which surround these proceedings in Dublin fully justify a course which I admit, under ordinary circumstances, would be a most improper and a most indecent course—namely, for a man who is standing his trial, while that trial is actually pending, to leave the Court and appear before this House in order to impeach the manner in which that trial is being taken. Sir, I will now mention what the circumstances of the trial were. The first point is this: I was, in company with some friends of mine, arrested in the town of Loughrea, County Galway, on 16th December last. I was taken immediately before a magistrate and committed for trial before the Petty Sessions Court of the town of Loughrea, under bail. Two or three days afterwards notice was served upon me by the prosecutor in that case, discharging me of my bail; and, at the same time, notice was served, summoning me to appear in the police court of the city of Dublin, and after our case was heard there for a considerable time, we were duly committed to be tried before the Spring Assizes in Green Street, in Dublin—I myself, together with four other Members of this House—and the venue was laid before a city jury in the city of Dublin. Let me say, before proceeding further, that all the great National trials in Ireland for a period extending over 40 years—indeed, I believe for a much longer period—have been held in the city of Dublin before a city jury. Trials of every imaginable complexion 1827 —of the greatest possible gravity—the State Trials of 1848, the Fenian Trials, the Phœnix Park Trials, the Maamtrasna Trials, and a variety of other trials which were moved from other parts of Ireland, were held in the city of Dublin; and during that long period, during which there prevailed in Ireland the greatest and most intense excitement, no Crown lawyer has ever risen in this House to complain that in the city of Dublin they could not get a jury perfectly competent to deal with these cases. But, in the middle of January last, a rumour got abroad in the city of Dublin that the Crown were about to use their statutable power to move the venue in our cases from the city to the county. I will try to explain to the House what the cause of this move was; but, simultaneously with this rumour, there got abroad in Dublin another rumour, which was presently discovered to be founded on fact, and that was, that the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin County (Mr. Ormsby), who had been Sub-Sheriff continuously for 30 years, was to be discharged from his office, and in his place there was to be appointed Captain Hamilton, the honorary president of the Property Defence and Emergency Association in Dublin, and the agent of the Brooke estate. The High Sheriff of the County Dublin is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Harry Hamilton, a landlord, one of the most unpopular landlords, and one of the most active Tory politicians in the County Dublin. At the time at which he appointed Captain Hamilton—which he undoubtedly did, for we have the most positive proof of it—he must have known that our trial was to be shifted from the city into the County Dublin; and I dwell upon the appointment of Captain Hamilton, though I know it will be urged that his appointment was cancelled; because, at the time, Mr. Harry Hamilton appointed him, he knew that this Sub-Sheriff was to strike the panel upon which myself and my Colleagues were to be tried; and, because I want to show the House what are the ideas of the High Sheriff of the County Dublin, as to what is decent and correct in the administration of justice in Ireland. Mr. Harry Hamilton saw nothing indecent, nothing that was not right or proper in dismissing, at the very hour that he knew my trial was 1828 to come on, a Sub-Sheriff who had struck panels for 30 years in the Fenian trials and the Nationalist trials, and against whose panels no objection had been taken by the lawyers, and appointing as Sub-Sheriff in his place, a sworn personal enemy of my own, a man who, acting as the agent on the Brooke estate, had come into very nearly personal collision with me at the fair of Gorey, when he appeared walking down the far side of the street with a revolver in his belt, and with seven Emergency bailiffs also with revolvers. In the indictment of this trial, one of the speeches upon which the Crown mainly rely, and for which I am being tried, is a speech made at Arklow, County Wicklow, in which I denounced personally, and by name, in what I will admit was the strongest language, the conduct of Captain Hamilton. The speech is to be used against me at the trial, and Mr. Harry Hamilton saw no shame in putting that individual whom I was to be tried for denouncing, to arrange the panel on which I was to be tried.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)
He never was appointed.

§ Mr. DILLON
I know he never was actually appointed; but why was he not appointed? The right hon. Gentleman holds in his possession to-day a letter from Mr. Harry Hamilton appointing Captain Hamilton. He was not appointed, however, because the Chief Secretary for Ireland and Lord Ashbourne saw that the thing would be too indecent, and because they knew that their influence on Mr. Harry Hamilton—

§ Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
With the permission of the hon. Member I will contradict that. Mr. Hamilton, High Sheriff of the County Dublin, had the right to appoint as Sub-Sheriff whom he chose. He did not appoint Captain Hamilton, and he never interfered in the matter at all.

§ Mr. DILLON
What the right hon. Gentleman has said may be perfectly correct; but it is also perfectly consistent with what I said [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]. I assert what is the common knowledge of the city of Dublin [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]. Yes, it is, that Captain Hamilton was offered the appointment. I know perfectly, and will and can prove it; and I will bring forward one fact in a moment which will show how correct I am in 1829 making the statement that he was offered the appointment. Though so offered the appointment, of course he was not sworn in. If he was, he would be Sub-Sheriff, and he might strike the panel. The right hon. Gentleman may not know anything about it; but I know positively that the thing was talked about in Dublin Castle, and denounced by the officials in Dublin Castle. I know it from information I received. He has not gained very much by that, because what is the result. Though he is not Sub-Sheriff, I stand to my statement of what the reasons were, that Captain Hamilton was obliged to give up the golden reward of his long services, as the Property Defence Association, being bankrupt, could not pay his salary. But he was obliged to forego his reward. If it is true that Captain Hamilton had not the appointment offered to him, why was Mr. Williamson, the present Sub-Sheriff, not appointed till the 28th of January, when he was brought up for examination as to why the panel was irregularly struck?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member in bringing forward before the House anything he thinks necessary in his own defence; but I must warn him that earlier in the evening I ruled that it was not in Order to anticipate the Motion on the Paper of the hon. Member for West Belfast with reference to the system of jury-packing.

§ Mr. DILLON
I hardly anticipate that Motion. I am being tried by a panel in Dublin deliberately and maliciously packed by my enemies [Loud cries of "Order!"]

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is acting now in flagrant violation of what I have just laid down. If the hon. Member refers to jury-packing, I shall be obliged to interfere.

§ MR. DILLON
Of course, under these circumstances, I will say no more on the subject. I understand your ruling was with regard to the packing of juries. I am now speaking with regard to the striking of the panel. I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling as to whether I am entitled—because, otherwise, there would be no use in my pretending to enter into any personal explanations or defence—but I will ask for your ruling, whether I am entitled to move this Amendment to the Address, or in any other Address, or in any other way 1830 to raise the question of the conduct of these present trials in Dublin, in the last line of the Address to insert the words— And to assure Her Majesty, that while deeply regretting the action of the Irish Executive in reference to the State trials now proceeding in Dublin. I wish to move that—

§ MR. SPEAKER
I consider the hon. Member would not be justified in moving that Amendment.

§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask, whether an hon. Member would be entitled to discuss any question connected with the Address provided he does not bring forward an Amendment, but raises it by way of Motion?

§ MR. SPEAKER
It is a distinct Rule of the House that no Motion on the Paper can be anticipated, either by general debate or by an Amendment made to the Address.

§ MR. DILLON
As, according to the Rules of the House, neither by personal explanation, by way of Motion, nor in any other way, can I expose the conduct of the Government in Ireland, nor be allowed to defend myself, I must, of course, submit to it in silence.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question is, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
said, he thought that, after the experience of the last few moments, it would be perfectly plain to a good number of the Members of the House that the temper of the House was scarcely such as to promise a very profitable discussion of the Question which was now about to be put from the Chair. There were a large number of questions which naturally suggested themselves, which were cognate to the matters contained in the Address, each and all of which might, under more favourable circumstances, be considered with public advantage. There were one or two important matters which he desired to bring before the House, but he, for one, at any rate, felt that if he rose to address the House upon them, he could not hope to do so with the prospect of swaying the judgment or leading the opinions of the House to the conclusion to which he desired to lead them with anything like a reasonable prospect of success; but apart from that general 1831 consideration, he must say that the circumstances, at the present moment, were so exceptional and so grave as to warrant a departure, more or less unusual, from ordinary procedure. They had had an hon. Member of the House endeavouring to lay before the House his own personal experience in a matter of the most vital importance, not only to him, but to his constituency, and to his Colleagues in the House. There were few men upon those Benches who did not stand in the same position as his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo. There were few of them who were not closely identified with his hon. Friend in his actions, both in that House and in Ireland. When he was struck, they were struck, and when he was unfairly dealt with, they were also unfairly dealt with.

§ MR. E. BECKETT (York, N.R., Whitby)
I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) justified in saying that he has been unfairly dealt with?

§ Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the House would probably not expect Mr. Speaker to trouble himself in answering that interruption. His hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo conceived, rightly or wrongly, that he would have had an opportunity of laying his case before the House. He conceived that, in his person, there had been gross injustice done. If that were so, gross injustice had been done, not only to him, but to many who were Representatives of the people. It was on the point of his hon. Friend's Membership of this House that one of the most important aspects of the present situation arose, which ought to command serious and immediate attention. It appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the hon. Member would have been perfectly within his right in bringing the matter before the House. [Cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The tendency of the hon. Member's remarks now is to dispute the ruling of the Chair.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said he could assure Mr. Speaker that he had no intention of questioning the ruling of the Chair. He was perfectly alive to the situation—he was perfectly accustomed to that kind of position; but his intentions were the other way. He was extremely anxious not only to comply 1832 with the ruling of the Chair, which he had invariably done in the past; but he was anxious to show his deference. He thought his hon. Friend would have been entitled, not after that ruling, to pursue the line of argument or exposition he had taken, but to bring before the House as a personal matter of Privilege that which had occurred in Dublin. Of course, it was clear, after the ruling of the Chair, that it would not do to bring up the matter on the Address, but he should have thought, as a matter of Privilege, it would have been competent to bring the matter before the House. In that thought he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was considering not only the hon. Member himself, but all who sat with him on those Benches, and who were in the same position. But whether he was right or not in that opinion, it was clear that the situation at which they had now arrived was a very grave situation, not only from a political, not only from a judicial, but from a Parliamentary point of view; and it was impossible at the present moment, with the Question now under discussion, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon the Question which they had just heard from the Chair. It appeared to him there was no way out of the difficulty than that which he proposed to adopt—namely, that the debate be now adjourned.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
Sir, It is impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion for adjournment. I can understand the circumstances of political excitement under which the hon. Gentleman has spoken; but I must be allowed to suggest to the House that the time does not warrant an adjournment; nor do the circumstances. There remains yet a period during which, if it is the desire of the hon. Gentleman to address the House on the question that an Address be now presented to Her Majesty—there is still space and opportunity to do so. Ample opportunity, however, has already been afforded for addressing the House on the Queen's Speech, and in accordance with the Notice which I gave only a few minutes ago, I must entreat the House to dispose of the Address this 1833 evening, and to deal with the Report to-morrow.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
said he had not intended to, and regretted to obtrude on the attention of the House; but he could not help feeling pained when a Member asking for the personal indulgence and grace of the House, in a matter of serious peril, was met as the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) had just been met by one side of the House. It should give all right-minded men some cause for pain when a Member asking for the indulgence of the House had it refused, and as it had been his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) misfortune to have laboured under the same difficulty, and to have been refused by hon. Members now sitting round him; he should deem himself wanting in the traditions of that House if he did not put, as a reason for supporting the Motion for the adjournment, that there had not been that generous treatment of a Member speaking under great difficulties which one would have expected from an assembly of English gentlemen, He was not in any fashion approaching the matter upon which Mr. Speaker had ruled the hon. Member out of Order; but he was dealing with the fact that words of earnest appeal had been met with jeers and laughter.