§
Resolutions [10th December] reported.
(1) "That a sum, not exceeding £369,288, 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 1889, for the Expenses of the Constabulary Force, Ireland.
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, he had an Amendment to propose to this Vote. It would be in the recollection of the House that the discussion upon this Vote came to a somewhat untimely end yesterday, and that he was precluded, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, from calling attention to a distinct and deliberate misappropriation of public money. He did not intend to go into the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission now sitting, or to make any observations which, if made outside the House, might be deemed Contempt of Court. What he complained of was that money granted under this Vote, and that men who were paid salaries under the Vote, were being used for the purpose, whether it was intended or not, of assisting The Times newspaper to substantiate the charges they had made against the Irish Members of Parliament and the Land League. He proposed to give three instances to prove his contention that there was a misappropriation of public money. Thomas O'Connor was a witness before the Royal Commission, and he said in his evidence that he received a letter from Mr. Houston, the Secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic League, telling him 1879 to call at the police barracks at Castle-island, and that the Inspector would then give him a ticket for London, where he was to give evidence for The Times. This was a clear case. The letter was read in court and it was not for a moment contested. He believed Mr. Houston to be a perfectly respectable gentleman, although not of his way of thinking, and he had no doubt he would admit the letter. Here they had a positive fact. Here was Mr. Houston, the Secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic League, acting for The Times, writing a letter to a man in Ireland, telling him to call at the police barracks, where the inspector would give him a ticket for London, where he was to bear witness. What was this but the use of a police barracks as a sort of office for obtaining evidence for The Times, and the use of the police as a species of bankers or monetary agents, in order to transmit money to the witnesses who come from Ireland for The Times.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)I rise to a point of Order. Questions analogous to this came up in Committee of Supply, and the Chairman of Committees said that though he could not absolutely rule them out of Order, they were to be discouraged, and I was consequently precluded in Committee of Supply from dealing with questions connected with evidence given before the Commission which is now sitting in London. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, if the hon. Gentleman is allowed to go into these questions, it will be competent for me, consistent with the Rules which regulate debate in this House, to make any reply.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E)On the point of Order, I wish to say that the question now raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) did not arise in Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly mistaken. What the Chairman of Committees remarked upon was the reference made to the evidence of a witness named Walsh, upon which evidence an argument was sought to be based. There was a question asked whether that evidence was truthful or not. The Chairman did not rule that was out of Order, but said it would be inconvenient to refer to the nature of the evidence sworn to before the Commissioners. As I understood 1880 the question brought before the House now is of a totally different character.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Northampton will be perfectly in Order if he confines his remarks to the conduct of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the question he wanted to raise was the misconduct of Constabulary officers. He had already given one case. His second case was that of District Inspector Craig, who had admitted before the Commission that he had suggested to a witness named Kennedy, when in the office of Mr. Soames, the solicitor for The Times, the names of certain Boycotted persons whom he thought Kennedy ought to bring in in his evidence. He called it misconduct for an officer who was paid out of this Vote, to go to the office of Mr. Soames, sit by while witnesses were brought in, and suggest to witnesses that they should give evidence with regard to certain persons. When peasants of Ireland were told to go to a police barracks in Ireland, and there get their expenses to London, and when they came to London and found police officers in Mr. Soames' office where they had been taken to state what their evidence was, one could understand that these ignorant peasants would be under the impression that this was a Government prosecution, and that they might therefore be frightened into saying more than they otherwise would say. His third case was that of Inspector Irwin. This also was a case of misconduct. Inspector Irwin admitted before the Royal Commission that he had taken down evidence of other constables at a room in the Inns of Court Hotel. This was the business of the solicitor to The Times; it certainly was not the business of a police constable, who was paid out of public monies, to sit in a room in the Inns of Court Hotel preparing or arranging with other constables what they were to say and what they were not to say before the Royal Commission. He would not pursue his remarks further. He did not think he had gone into any controverted matter before the Commission. He had stated three cases. He saw present one of the counsel employed in the case, and he had no doubt that hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would bear him out that what he had stated positively occurred before the Commis- 1881 sion. He had in no way exaggerated the facts. The shorthand notes could be referred to. He objected to this sort of thing. He thought hon. Members might reasonably object to it. They were asked to vote a large sum of money, and they were able to show that a portion of the money had been expended in this singular manner. If they were perfectly certain that no more would be expended in this way, then they might not think it necessary to pursue the matter further. But the House would shortly be prorogued. The inquiry was likely to go on for a considerable time, and hon. Members had reason to believe, from what had occurred, that if they did not object to the proceedings to which he had called attention, in all probability other expenditure of the same kind would take place. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£369,288," in order to insert "£364,288,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)—in-stead thereof:—
§ Question proposed, "That '£369,288' stand part of the Resolution."
§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)said, he also had a few observations to make which he would have preferred to make in Committee of Supply if that had not been made impossible by the unexpected application of the Rule of Closure. He had to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the practice which had prevailed during the last 12 months of inflicting needless and wanton cruelty upon prisoners under the Crimes Act. Over and over again they had had to complain of the arrest of persons of respectable condition. Men had been taken out of their beds at night and kept for the remainder of the night in the stony cells of police stations. He respectfully submitted that in the case of persons of respectable condition who were accused of quasi-political offences under the Crimes Act, there was no reason whatever why the men should be taken into custody under warrant. Every end of justice would be satisfied by the service of a summons. It could not be pretended by the Solicitor General for Ireland, or anyone else, that when a charge was brought against a respectable shopkeeper or farmer of Ireland— 1882 one of those trumped-up charges of unlawful assembly, a riot, or obstruction of the police, or holding a meeting of a suppressed branch of the League—there was any apprehension that the man, if served with a summons, would fail to appear. A number of respectable men in County Donegal were remanded again and again by "Removable" Hamilton for refusing to give evidence before a Court of Star Chamber. They were remanded to the Gaol of Derry, some 50 miles distant, and would the House believe that on each occasion that these respectable men were brought up for examination—some of them were old men, some were men in extremely feeble health—they were handcuffed and placed on outside cars, and driven in the most inclement weather from Derry to the place where the Court was held, which was 50 miles distant? What was the meaning of this? Was it intended to secure evidence, or to vindicate the course of justice? It certainly had provoked from the Bishop of Raphoe, an ecclesiastic who enjoyed the respect of men of all opinions and classes in Ireland, as eloquent and indignant and well deserved a protest as ever proceeded from an ecclesiastic or layman. That case was bad enough, but what did he read in the newspapers yesterday? Why, that a number of gentlemen, respectable residents in the town of Naas, including amongst them the Chairman of the Town Commissioners and a number of merchants in the town, were charged with an offence under the Second Section of the Crimes Act which amounted simply to this—that when some cattle were seized, and were being sold under circumstances of such hardship to the tenant that the public condemned the proceedings, there was an assembly at the sale. There was some excitement. One boy threw a stone, but there was no blow struck; no one was injured. The excitement, whatever it was—natural and excusable as it was—ended harmlessly, but these gentlemen were sent to prison. They were taken yesterday morning by the police from the prison of Kilmainham, in the City of Dublin, handcuffed two and two, and in that condition were brought by railway into their own town—in to the town where one was Chairman of the Town Commissioners. The Souse would not be surprised to hear that the result of the excitement caused 1883 in the town was that the hearing of the case had to be abruptly adjourned. He could not imagine what was meant by such proceedings. Certainly one result, one which the Government could hardly have in their minds, was produced—these proceedings created in the minds of the people, and in the minds of the people of every class, not in the minds of one set of politicians, a feeling of such excitement and natural anger that law and order were more endangered by the proceedings under the Crimes Act than they ever could be advanced by the severest punishments that could be inflicted. He passed from that, and he asked what the learned Attorney General for Ireland had determined to do in the case of Police Constable Swindell, found guilty by a Coroner's Jury of the wilful murder of the man Patrick Ahern. Let the House observe that the Coroner's Jury was summoned by the police. The Coroner did not bring the jury together, but gave his precept to the police, and the police summoned the jury. The Coroners' Juries, whose verdicts for the last 12 months the Government had ignored, had in all cases included persons who were not of the school of politics to which he (Mr. Sexton) belonged. Indeed, in most cases the majority of the juries were supporters of the Government, and therefore opposed to the Nationalists. The Coroner's Jury selected by the police found Constable Swindell guilty of wilful murder. The Government brought the case into the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Court, upon the application of the Crown, released the constable found guilty of wilful murder, upon his own recognizances, and he was returned to stand his trial, as he (Mr. Sexton) understood, in the ordinary course of law at the Winter Assizes in Cork. The Winter Assizes were now proceeding. The Lord Chief Baron was the going Judge, but the proper documents had not been sent to the Lord Chief Baron by the Petty Sessions Clerk. Such was the contempt entertained for the administration of the law by officials in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland had determined not to proceed on the inquisition of the Coroner. The Solicitor General for Ireland had declared in the House of Commons that the Attorney General would not send up a Bill. What would 1884 the Attorney General do? The Attorney General had had ample time to make up his mind. Some weeks had elapsed since the murder was committed, and he (Mr. Sexton) had to ask whether the Attorney General, since he declined to proceed on the Coroner's inquisition, would at least submit the case to a magisterial investigation. He had also to call attention to the conduct of the police in the case of John Kinsella. Kinsella was murdered in cold blood and in broad daylight, and no one had been brought to justice for the crime. In this case the emergency men and the police had been allowed to live in the same house, and had been allowed to fall into habits of daily association and cultivate feelings of intimate friendship. Upon the morning of the murder, before the expedition set out, the sergeant of police, living in the house with the emergency gang, warned Freeman, the leader of the gang, that they might have trouble in the seizure of the cattle as the tenants might probably resist. Freeman replied, "You may go to Gorey. We will be able to take care of ourselves." They were able to take care of themselves. There were 18 men armed, as Judge O'Brien stated at the trial, and Judge O'Brien was not disposed to comment severely upon the proceedings of emergency men—armed as men were never armed on this side of Texas. They went on what had since been proved on the admission of Judge O'Brien and others an illegal expedition, the taking of life in which was an act of murder. They were armed to the teeth. Every one of them had a firearm, and some had two. Did the police go to Gorey? No; neither did they go to the point of contact between the emergency men and the tenants. He submitted to the House that if the Government had not allowed the emergency men and the police to live in the same house and arrange this matter between them in the morning, the police would have felt it their duty to be upon the scene when the conflict took place between the emergency men and the tenants, and he affirmed that if the police had been there the probability was that the murder would not have been committed, but that if it had been committed the murderer would have been brought justice. What did the police do? They placed themselves on a hill on the other side of the road, a 1885 quarter of a mile distant. They saw the murder done. They were near enough to see it done, but they were too far off to be of any use. The bullet found in the body of Kinsella did not fit the revolver found in the possession of Freeman, who, upon the testimony of five persons, fired the fatal shot. If the police had been on the spot they could have prevented an exchange of weapons. The police did not get to the emergency men until the emergency men had returned to the road. In the mean time there has been ample time for an exchange of arms. The bullet did not fit the revolver found in Freeman's hand when the police came up, but it was a curious circumstance that another man of the party was found to have in his hand a rifle, and in his pocket a revolver. The revolver was loaded, but it had been recently discharged, the inference being that the revolver had been discharged by another hand, that it had been reloaded and transferred to the man upon whom the revolver which the bullet fitted was found. What he (Mr. Sexton) maintained was that if the police had done their duty, and they would have done it had they not been associates of the emergency men, they would have been at the gate where the murder took place. Freeman would never have fired the shot, but if he had the police would have been able to collect materials to satisfy the ends of justice. What was the miserable sequel to this case? The man Freeman had the bill against him ignored by a jury of landlords, and the other emergency men charged with manslaughter were found not guilty by a jury packed by the inclusion of 12 Protestants and the exclusion of 24 Catholics. After the murder the police arrested no one; they questioned no one with regard to the evidence he could give, but they drove with Freeman and another emergency man to Gorey, where they saw Lord Courtown, the Chairman of the Property Defence Association, the very man who sent the 18 armed men to make the seizure. A friendly conversation ensued between Lord Courtown, the emergency men, and the constables, and in the end Freeman went free. He gave evidence before the Coroner's Jury as an innocent man. Now, what action had been taken in regard to Captain Brownrigg, who ad charge of the police at Mitchels- 1886 town? Three men lost their lives through the brutality of the police. Captain Brownrigg was the man to whom Captain Plunkett sent the telegram, "Do not hesitate to shoot." Captain Brownrigg was the man who gave the order to the police to force a way for the police reporter to the platform. He (Mr. Sexton) hoped the Chief Secretary was now prepared to admit that in giving that order Captain Brownrigg violated, not only the law, but the expressed and specific provisions of the Police Code. The Police Code expressly directed that in the case of a public meeting the police should not intrude their reporter, but should either arrange with the promoters of the meeting for the accommodation of the reporter, or else the reporter should take the best place available. The police failed in the attempt to force a way for their reporter, and then Captain Brownrigg sent a second batch of constables to punish the meeting for not allowing the reporter to go through. The second batch of constables made a charge of revenge with batons and rifles. Captain Brownrigg kept a safe distance away, and as soon as some sticks were raised in the crowd, but before any blow was struck, some girls on the verge of the crowd ran away, and Captain Brownrigg ran away with them. Captain Brownrigg rushed into the police barracks, and said to the policemen, "Men, load your rifles, go up stairs, and fire from the upper windows." The police rushed up stairs fired 13 shots, and three lives were taken. Here again was a violation, not only of the law, but of the Constabulary Code, the Constabulary Code laying it down that the word of command should be given for each discharge. District Inspector Irwin, the only officer who kept his head, fortunately went up stairs while the police were there. After his arrival, he only allowed the men to fire two shots, but in each instance with buckshot. If there was one man who deserved at the hands of the Government signal honour for what he did on that day it was Inspector Irwin. The firing should never have taken place. There was no attempt on the part of the people to force an entrance of the barracks; a few stones were thrown, a pane of glass or two were broken, and then the people returned to the meeting. The whole proceedings of the police was illegal. 1887 Captain Brownrigg, who in turn played the part of bully, coward, and murderer, strove to throw on the District Inspector the responsibility, not for stopping the firing, but for beginning it. He said the order he gave was—"Men, go upstairs and load your rifles; I will fire if this sort of thing continues." A likely thing that he left the men with loaded rifles kneeling at the windows! The County Inspector gave his evidence and tried to get rid of the responsibility of giving the order to fire. District Inspector Irwin gave evidence that the County Inspector gave the order to fire, and that he (the District Inspector) gave the order to cease firing. A private inquiry followed—not a public inquiry, that some Unionist Members considered essential, but a private inquiry; and this was held at the private lodgings of Captain Plunkett, the very magistrate who, by telegraph, despatched the order to Colonel Brownrigg, "Do not hesitate to shoot." District Inspector Irwin was given to understand that the Force was no place for him, and he was harassed until his position in the Force was made intolerable, simply because he had saved the lives of people at Mitchelstown. He could tell the House that if Colonel Brownrigg's intentions had been carried into effect, if the police had fired into the midst of the meeting in the Square instead of retiring into barracks, probably the deaths would have been, not three, but three score; and certainly not a policeman would have left the square alive. That might have been the unhappy result if Colonel Brownrigg had had his way. He (Mr. Sexton) heartily rejoiced the result was otherwise; but was it not a pitiful thing that this man whose action prevented such slaughter was harassed and persecuted by the Government, while the man whose cowardice and orders produced the evils of that day retained his rank and position? But this was not all. District Inspector Irwin asked leave to retire, and leave was given to him; but—and he hoped the Chief Secretary was not directly responsible, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would disavow responsibility—that honest and capable officer whose conduct was the one bright spot in the black and miserable record of official conduct at Mitchelstown, after 44 years honourable service, retired from the Force, not on the pension of £256 1888 a-year to which he was entitled, but upon £200 only. He had been fined £56 a-year for the rest of his life, because he behaved like an honest man and a gallant officer. Before sitting down he had to press home the questions put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to the relations between the Constabulary and the proprietors of The Times in reference to the inquiry now proceeding before the Royal Commission. He failed to understand, remembering what the First Lord of the Treasury told the House, that the Government would afford equal facilities to the Irish Members and to The Times newspaper, he failed to understand these relations. The first fact to notice was that, so long ago as August last, on the morrow of the passing of the Commission Act, Head Constable Irwin, Instructor of Shorthand, and having charge of a depôt in Dublin, left his duties there and was absent for weeks and months going through the country, and taking notes of the statements of various persons who would give evidence on behalf of The Times. This constable, he was informed, had received several hundred pounds for his services from The Times. He was not disposed to make any severe comment on the conduct of any man who earned extra money in any way that he considered honest; but the question he had a right to ask was—"Why was this man, receiving pay for his services in the Force, allowed to leave his depôt and his duties, and place himself at the service of The Times?" Next, he had to observe that the ordinary form of securing the attendance of witnesses was by service of subpoena, but this practice seemed to have been entirely suspended in relation to the Irish Constabulary. There had been numerous cases of constables and head constables being brought to London, not by subpoena but by telegram from their superior officer. How came it about that the superior gave such an order by telegraph? Was it through communication from The Times solicitor? The constable received an order to come to London and report himself to the solicitor to The Times. A curious thing it was that a novel department of the Irish Police had been opened in the City of London, at a certain hotel, where for weeks past there had been an assemblage of some scores—and, indeed, he 1889 thought he should not be wrong if he said hundreds of Irish Police officials of various ranks from Captain Plunkett, who had abandoned duty altogether, down to the ordinary constable, and there, day after day, might be seen constables, under direction of Inspectors, taking down the evidence of all and sundry on behalf of The Times. If because of the state of Ireland it was necessary to have a Coercion Act in operation, how was it possible that the Irish Executive could allow hundreds of police to be thus absent from duty? If equal facilities were to be afforded to both parties, how was it that evidence for the defence had to be provided and prepared by funds from private sources, while official witnesses for The Times had their expenses paid and their pay provided from the public purse, though not performing their duties? The Under Secretary for Ireland was in London, the Divisional Magistrate from Cork, Crown Solicitors, and many other officials, were in London, but why, when merely by serving a subpoena any man who was required could be brought over by the next mail boat? In truth, it was not a matter of giving evidence at all; these people were here in position of agents for The Times and directors of the case for The Times. If anyone had the curiosity—he never had it himself, but some of his friends had been there—to go to the Royal Courts of Justice, he might see a squad of District Inspectors engaged in arranging and sorting witnesses for The Times, much as if they were training raw recruits on the parade ground in Phoenix Park. Some of the instances were very curious. Thomas O'Connor, of Castleisland, was directed to call on Sergeant Donaldson, who would give him a ticket for London. But how was it Sergeant Donaldson became financial and ticket agent for The Times? Be it remembered, too, that these proceedings were in regard to witnesses who were "interposed" in the case as it was called, taken out of the ordinary and arranged course of proceedings, and for no other motive that he could imagine except that a witness might be hustled into the box. his evidence taken, and then hustled out of the box before there could be any cross-examination into his antecedents, before any test of the value or worthlessness of the evidence hurriedly given 1890 could be applied. But perhaps he was straying beyond the limits of his subject, and would not pursue that matter. In another instance a boy named Tom Walsh was sent for by the police. This Walsh, a lad of 19 years of age, had committed a series of frauds or attempted frauds on an Insurance Company, and when the District Inspector sent for him and put questions as to evidence he could give, the Inspector remarked, "I don't know what may happen to you about that Insurance Company." The boy, of course, took this as a threat, and it was a threat and something more. It was a threat that if he did not give evidence satisfactory to the police he would be prosecuted, and it was an intimation that if he gave evidence for The Times in London he would not be prosecuted for fraud. There could be no more serious charge against District Inspector Allen than using his position as an executive officer; he had been guilty of condoning a grave crime in the interest of an official conspiracy of agents of the Government. What were equal facilities? He could understand if the Government had taken up the challenge of Irish Members; if they had instituted a criminal prosecution on their own behalf, or even if they had had recourse to a Select Committee of the House, he could understand their course and would cheerfully recognize their right to use all the resources at their disposal; but the Government had not the courage to take either course. As to the declaration about treating the parties equally, it was unfair, it was treacherous, and so public opinion would regard it, to put forward The Times as a thin veil behind which all the official forces of the Government, all the resources of the public purse, were discovered every day in full and energetic action.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped the House would pardon him if he passed lightly over certain points in the speeches of hon. Members opposite relating to topics he had often had to deal with, and at that late hour he ventured to think the House would not desire that he should again go over the details of the occurrences at Mitchelstown. Allusion had frequently been made to the telegram despatched by Captain Plunkett, and the hon. Member for West Belfast had again quoted that telegram as if it 1891 consisted of the words, "Do not hesitate to shoot," but he must surely be aware, if he had paid any attention to the proceedings, that what Captain Plunkett telegraphed was, "Do not hesitate to shoot should it prove to be necessary," or words to that effect, and it was obvious that the final words governed the whole sense of the sentence. Into that, however, there was no need for him to enter further. Then as to Inspector Irwin. He had never been quite able to understand why Inspector Irwin was made the particular pet of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for there could be no doubt whatever that he was the man who gave the least justifiable order, if any unjustifiable order was given at all, which he did not admit, the order given by Inspector Irwin was unjustifiable, or the least justifiable, because it was the last order given. [Cries of dissent and "Buckshot!"] If hon. Gentlemen would pardon him for saying it, the legality of using buckshot against a crowd which had run away was as much open to question; the legality or illegality was the same whether the firing was with buckshot or bullets. But the whole circumstances in relation to Mitchelstown had been discussed ad nauseum, and discussed under far more favourable circumstances than those of the present time. The first observation he had to make in reference to the events that resulted in the death of the man Kinsella was that the illegality committed by the Emergency men, so he was advised on legal opinion, was a technical one. He did not deny the technical illegality.
§ MR. SEXTON, interrupting, said, the illegality was both technical and substantial; technical in that they refused to show their authority, and substantial in that they went to destrain on a farm, the legal interest of which had passed out of the owner's hands.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was informed by his hon. and learned Friend that the second ground, the second allegation of illegality, was not a substantial one. The hon. Gentleman then went on to make an accusation against the police for not having accompanied the Emergency men on the expedition. This accusation he was sorry to hear, because it was one of the things insisted upon, and the Government were always most anxious that they should not be 1892 regarded as being in the position or having to give protection to Emergency men in the same way as they were required to give protection to officers of the law, and the police would be acting contrary to the general order. He was not alluding to any special order that might be given; they would be acting against the general spirit of their instructions if they attempted to give that kind of protection to Emergency men, who were servants of the landlord, as they were bound to give to officers of the law. He had no doubt it was upon that ground that the police abstained from accompanying the Emergency men on their expedition. Another thing should be mentioned which the hon. Member appeared to have entirely forgotten when he was attacking the Emergency man Freeman, and that was that the Judge had declared from the Bench that it was admitted on all hands that Freeman had not been identified as the man who fired the fatal shot. It was not necessary for the House to go into the evidence; it was sufficient to satisfy the Judge and Jury, and that would probably satisfy the House. The hon. Member went on to refer to disgraceful treatment he said prisoners received from the police; and here he might at once tell the hon. Member that he was extremely anxious to use the method of summons in preference to warrant, and now that he found that a summons was effective, gave directions that unless there were special grounds for supposing that a summons would not be obeyed, the method of summons should be used. But why the warrant was used rather than the summons in the early days of the Crimes Act was because many of those whom the hon. Gentleman described, and no doubt correctly, as respectable persons, Members of the House and others, refused to obey a summons, and went careering over the country, escaping from the police in every direction, until the Executive were obliged to work by the method of warrant rather than by the more lenient method of summons. Then the hon. Member asked why prisoners were handcuffed. Well, as a rule, prisoners were not handcuffed. The regulations for the Constabulary on this point were that handcuffs should only be used if the prisoner was charged with the commission of a serious crime, if he 1893 was known to be of bad or violent character, if there was reason to apprehend an attempt at escape or an attempt at rescue or violence. No prisoner was handcuffed except for one of these reasons, and no doubt in the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, the last was the very ground for the action of the police, they had reason to believe, from the state of feeling in the district, that there might be some attempt at rescue or some attempt at violence. But what the hon. Member said in regard to the Dunloe prisoners was most unreasonable. He complained that prisoners had been brought up in custody, that they did not give evidence, and they were remanded again and again, and taken back from whence they were brought. But who was to blame for this when the prisoners refused to give evidence? It was a legal inquiry held under Section I. of the Act. The men were capable of giving evidence, but they refused, and their conduct was applauded by hon. Gentlemen opposite ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "They will continue to refuse."] He did not desire to control the opinion of hon. Members in the House, but they must be aware that if they took that view it was absolutely impossible for the police to take any course other than that of carefully guarding the safety of those persons who refused to obey the obligations of the law. Passing to the next point, the hon. Gentleman asked what course the Attorney General was going to take in the matter of Constable Swindell. To this he had to say that he had that evening received a telegram from the Attorney General, informing him that Swindell was going to be examinee before a magistrate. He reminded the hon. Gentleman, who supposed an un usual course had been taken, that he was wrong, but that it would be most un usual to pursue the course he recommended. To proceed against any man under such circumstances simply on the verdict of a Coroner's Jury was not the ordinary practice in Ireland, nor, indeed in England, and the Attorney Genera had strictly followed the precedents se him by his Predecessors. There then remained only the complaint of hon. Members of the conduct of the police in reference to The Times newspaper. The Government were accused of not dealing equally as between the two parties before 1894 the Royal Commission. He absolutely denied the allegation. Let the House note that until it could be proved or shown that any demand made on the Constabulary by one party had been granted to that party, and a similar request made by the other party had not been granted, under these circumstances, and under these circumstances alone, would it be legitimate for hon. Members to say the Government did not act equally between the parties. What particular proofs were there of this general accusation of unfairness? The hon. Member for Northampton said that tickets had been sent by The Times to the police to give to persons in certain neighbourhoods. He was bound to say he saw no illegality in this use of the Constabulary in Ireland, and if the other party in the case desired similar assistance, if they desired to send a ticket to any priest whose address was not accurately known and could not readily be found in any other way, no doubt the Constabulary would act in a similar way. Then the hon. Gentleman brought forward the case of Inspector Irwin, and here the accusation was that the Inspector had taken down in shorthand the evidence of a police constable or several police constables. Again he could see no illegality in that, and really could not see what there was to complain of in one person assisting another, both living in London, to put his evidence into shape. How was it, asked the hon. Member for West Belfast, all these members of the Force were in London. Well, they were there becase they had been subpoenaed by The Times. ["Hear, hear," and cries of "Not all."] The hon. Member appeared to be of opinion that it was in accordance with his desire that these members of the Force should continue in London; but he could assure the hon. Member, and those who appeared to agree with the hon. Member, that the absence of these officers was extremely inconvenient to the Irish Government. [An hon. MEMBER: Send them back then]. He had done everything in his power to diminish the number of constables off duty, because the Executive Government was seriously hampered by their absence. They were, however, obliged to be in London under the orders of the Court, having been sub-pœnaed by The Times. So far as he. 1895 knew there were no Constabulary officers in London except under such circumstances. The last case adduced in support of the allegations made was that of the boy Walsh.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned the case of Inspector Gray.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood that the facts put forward in that instance were not correct; he was informed that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. As to Walsh, that was the very case he was not allowed yesterday in Committee to deal with; he was sorry for it, for, had he been allowed to deal with it, it would have saved part of the present discussion. The hon. Member for West Belfast was labouring under an entire and complete misapprehension in the matter. The allegation in this instance was that Inspector Allen was examining Walsh on behalf of The Times, and, in doing this, coerced him, under a threat of prosecution for fraud, unless he gave evidence for The Times. Well, both statements were made by the hon. Gentleman under complete misapprehension of the true character of the case. To begin with, the police officer absolutely denied that he ever used any threat at all; and, in the second place, the investigation he was engaged in, the examination he was conducting, was not an examination on behalf of The Times, but an investigation preliminary to an inquiry under Section 1 of the Crimes Act for criminal conspiracy; and, in so doing, the police officer was not exceeding his duty as he would have been had he been conducting an inquiry on behalf of The Times; he was acting strictly within his right and according to the duty imposed upon him by the office he held. Under such circumstances the House would see that the serious accusation as to the manner in which the Constabulary had been used in regard to the pending inquiry before the Commission was wholly without foundation. Speaking on behalf of the Government, they were bound to give every assistance they could to the Commission to find out the truth; that duty he presumed hon. Gentlemen would not deny was imposed on the Government and on every member of the community. But while he laid this down as a general proposition, setting it forth as the rule that governed the action of the Government, that any question put 1896 to the Government by the Commission they were bound to answer, yet they held themselves absolutely equal between the parties—they would give one party nothing that they would not be prepared, under similar circumstances, to give to the other party.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, in the right hon. Gentleman's statement in reply to criticisms upon the circumstances that attended the death of Kinsella he had not met one charge made by his hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast—namely, that the police, being fully acquainted with the circumstances that led to the belief that a breach of the peace was likely to take place from the action of these Emergency men who were going on an errand of questionable legality, ought to have been on the spot, not for the protection of the landlord's servants, the Emergency men—for, as everybody knew, they were perfectly well able to take care of themselves, and knew it themselves—but to prevent a breach of the peace and for the protection of the people should a threatening state of things arise. He said instructions were given to the police that they were not in any case to protect the Emergency men, and he drew a line of distinction between armed Emergency men, the servants of the landlord, and the Sheriff's officers. To this he (Mr. Dillon) listened with astonishment, for it was only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in pointing out that a large portion of the police were permanently occupied in protecting armed Emergency men.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR, interposing, said, he must have been so unfortunate as to make his meaning obscure. What he meant was that when Emergency men were simply engaged as servants of the landlord in a seizure, that was a case very different from the duty of protecting the officers of the law. Of course, where Emergency men were in danger and asked for protection it was given.
§ MR. DILLONresumed. Did he understand that the police in Ireland, being fully armed with knowledge that a breach of the peace was likely to arise between armed men and unarmed peasants, were not to be on the spot to prevent that breach of the peace and arrest the offenders? It was admitted by the Chief Secretary that a considerable body of police were quartered in 1897 daily association with the Emergency men, and they knew the latter were going to a place where a breach of the peace was likely to occur; they had nothing to do but follow the men, but for a set purpose they abstained from doing so. If that was the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, and his idea of the use of the police force, it was singularly different from that of any other civilized Government. One of the first duties of a Police Force was to be present to prevent an anticipated breach of the peace. In this instance there was no question of protecting Emergency men, or assisting them to make the seizure; it was a question of protecting unfortunate unarmed people about to be attacked by a large force of men armed with deadly weapons. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in the course of this most unsatisfactory trial the Judge stated that everybody admitted Freeman did not fire the fatal shot, and that the learned Judge's dictum ought to be enough to satisfy the House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURGenerally conceded.
§ MR. DILLONLet the House examine the facts. On the one hand was the statement that it was generally conceded that Freeman did not fire the shot. But he (Mr. Dillon) stood by at the inquest, and heard three men swear they saw Freeman shoot the man through the heart with their own eyes. Three men swore that, and with a circumstantiality he never saw exceeded. They swore that Freeman, before taking aim, exclaimed—"By God, I'll shoot you!" and then drew a revolver. They described his action; how he put the weapon across his left wrist to take better aim; stepped to within two yards of where Kinsella stood, and shot the man through the heart, and they saw the murdered man fall. In the face of these three eye-witnesses, who swore to their evidence in his (Mr. Dillon's) hearing, and near the place where the corpse of the murdered man lay, the right hon. Gentleman said it was generally conceded that this man Freeman never fired the fatal shot. He had heard the statement of the learned Judge, but he did not know what was before the Judge to induce him to make such a statement. But in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it should be 1898 pointed out that Freeman was never tried, so that, when the right hon. Gentleman went on to say the Judge's statement evidently satisfied the jury, there was no jury in the case, for it never came to trial. The Grand Jury, the agents of Freeman's employers, interfered to save Freeman from trial; and, indeed, it was manifest that if it had come to trial the statement of the Judge, in face of the evidence of the three eye-witnesses referred to, would be a most improper one, for on matters of fact it was for the jury to decide. Therefore, he declared the explanations in this case wholly unsatisfactory. This unfortunate man was murdered in open daylight, in the presence of a number of witnesses who swore to the fact; his murder had gone unavenged, his murderer walked about the neighbourhood scorning at the Law, and blood cried to Heaven for vengence from the soil it stained. Then, take the case of a man with whom he was acquainted—Mr. John Malone, of Newbridge, Chairman of the Town Council, apprehended by the police with other gentlemen of the district. Mr. Malone was a gentleman who by no possibility could be suspected of being guilty of violence, or attempt to escape or interfere with the course of the most unjust law, but he, with a number of other gentlemen, well known to be peaceful, respectable citizens, and, though nothing had been alleged affording a shadow of excuse—these were subjected to proceedings only resorted to by the police in England against violent and dangerous criminals. These respectable citizens, who were charged with an offence of the lightest character—unlawful assemblage—though it was doubtful whether it was unlawful even under the Coercion Act—but, admitting it was unlawful—admitting the crime—it was but of a trifling character even in the view of the Irish Government; and to bring them through the streets of the town from Kilmainham, handcuffed like thieves or desperate criminals, was an outrage which, though it might gratify the spite of Irish officials, it would be found he was no false prophet when he said it would cause an amount of trouble in County Kildare that would not be got rid of for some years to come. Such proceedings exhibited the agents of the Government in the most odious light, more odious even than acts of highhanded oppression; they exhibited the 1899 malignant and petty desire to inflict every sort of ignominy, contumely, and disgrace of men respected by all their fellow-Citizens. The right, hon. Gentleman asked what was to be done when witnesses refused to give evidence before a Commission of inquiry under Clause 1. Let the right hon. Gentleman know this fact, that might also interest Members of the House, that these peasants did refuse to give evidence under Clause 1, and that they beat him and his clause out of County Donegal. He started an inquiry in Dunloe and other districts under Clause 1, but these Donegal peasants hunted him and his magistrates out of the County. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman this, further, from County Donegal, that he defied him to get any man to give evidence under Clause 1. He admitted that under this iniquitous and horrible Act the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to prosecute and imprison the people, but he denied that he was entitled to murder them; he could imprison them, but he was not allowed to take their lives. The law never contemplated the taking of aged men on an outside-car in inclement weather 35 miles through the cold and rain, not allowing them sufficient covering or food, to Derry, and to repeat this three times. This was for no crime whatever, but to further inquiry into an alleged combination of tenants which, if it existed, had no criminality in it. No crime were they charged with but that of living in a poverty-stricken district, striving to get together a few meals of potatoes to keep body and soul together. Treated like dogs as they had been he was proud of these poor, poverty-stricken peasants of Donegal, who had such a sound respect for liberty as to defy the right hon. Gentleman and his Coercion Act tyranny. A few words he had to say in regard to the proposed enormous evictions on the Olphert estate in Donegal. He sought to reply to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee yesterday, but was unable to do so owing to the course taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Olphert was an improving landlord, a popular landlord, and that no trouble had arisen on the estate until the agitators on whose shoulders all the disorders of Ireland were laid visited the district 18 months ago. He asked the right hon. 1900 Gentleman in debate did he mean to say that no trouble had arisen there before, and he said, "No, nothing of the kind; Mr. Olphert had always been a resident, popular, and improving landlord." Well, he confessed, taken without warning, he was astounded at the audacity of the statement, though he was accustomed to strong assurances from the right hon. Gentleman. But, as a fact, in 1884, Mr. Olphert evicted the whole of a townland, about 50 tenants, and after a protracted struggle they were reinstated on some terms of compromise through the intervention of Father M'Fadden, of Gweedore. So, then, the dispute did not begin with the action of agitators 18 months ago. But to bring home to the minds of Members the magnitude of the injury to be perpetrated at great expense to taxpayers, and by the agency of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he would be compelled to refer to a remoter period, when the House was so struck with the condition of things on the Olphert estate, in Donegal, that a special Committee was appointed to inquire into the distress that prevailed. He would read from the Report of the proceedings of that Committee, which sat in June, 1858. The inquiry was into the causes of the destitution that existed in certain districts in Donegal, within which the Olphert estate was situated. The parish priest of the time, in giving his evidence, referred to the wretched condition of the tenants; how their clothing could not be worse, how they partially existed on sea-weed.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now travelling wide of the Constabulary Vote in entering into the evidence given before this Committee so many years ago.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he was anxious to observe the Rules of Order. Yesterday he pointed out that a large Constabulary force was actually on the march to assist at the eviction of a large number of tenants on this estate, and he was met with the assertion that what was taking place was due entirely to the course taken by himself and his friends, and that the landlord of the estate had ever been kind and indulgent, and he thought this justified the reference. He was going to show that the estate had been under a merciless, rack-renting, evicting landlord for 1901 the past 30 years; that the tenants then were in a state of abject destitution, and thus he proposed to meet the allegation that the landlord never had any trouble or distress until the advent of himself and his friends.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he certainly never said that the district was prosperous.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman certainly gave the Committee to understand that Mr. Olphert was a good landlord, and that there never had been any trouble until himself and his friends intervened. Until then he gave the Committee yesterday to understand that the tenants were contented with their landlord. In view of the Speaker's ruling he would not go at length into the proceedings before the Select Committee; but he could prove beyond all question, and he invited Members to examine the evidence for themselves, the state of things that existed long years ago, when these tenants were found by visitors in such a state that they had not sufficient clothing for decency, that they had to rely on sea-weed to preserve themselves from starvation.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this has nothing to do with the present Constabulary Vote.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he would leave the subject, but he greatly feared that with 500 Constabulary marching to assist in levelling the houses of these unfortunate tenants it would very soon have a great deal to do with the Constabulary Vote.
§ MR. SPEAKERMy interruption of the hon. Member was to point out that to allude to the past history of the estate as he was doing, and the action of the landlord then, was foreign to the Constabulary Vote. If he has anything to urge in reference to the Constabulary, that they have transgressed their duty, anything in that respect would be in Order. But he would not be in Order in entering at length into a general account of the estate and the tenantry 30 years ago.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he would not pursue the subject, but he would conclude with the hope that he had said enough to show the right hon. Gentleman that he was misinformed, and to induce him to institute some inquiry before he 1902 launched this force against these unfortunate tenants.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)said, he yesterday received a direct challenge from the right hon. Gentleman who, unfortunately, held the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the troubles that occurred in Fermoy in the past year. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently received his information from the usual sources, and made the singular statement that the police were attacked at Fermoy in consequence of the excitement arising out of the trial and committal of the Member for North-East Cork by the Resident Magistrates, Messrs. Eaton and Stokes, in Mitchelstown. He had no opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman on the previous day. Fermoy had always been a quiet town, but on the night following the trial of the Member for the district there was naturally some little excitement and a desire to know what had taken place. On his arrival there a certain number of Nationalists came to his hotel and asked him to say a few words. There was nothing unreasonable in this, though he confessed, having left Cork early that morning, he was more anxious for rest than to address a meeting. He, however, complied with the request, to give an account of what had taken place, and for the purpose went to the rooms of the Young Ireland Society. Some 300 or 400 people assembled, and to these he commenced to speak from a window. On the outskirts of the crowd he noticed some four sub-constables and a sergeant. He had not been speaking more than a minute-and-a-half when from the opposite corner of the square a large body of police appeared, wheeled into line, and advanced towards the people with batons drawn. Not unnaturally, many of the people, among whom were women and children, remembering Mitchelstown, Youghal, and other valiant deeds, under the doughty championship of the right hon. Gentleman, seeing the threatening attitude of the police, began to run. The police came up under the leadership of Sub-Inspector Jones, of Fermoy, and suddenly a policeman deliberately raised his baton and struck a man in the crowd; then there was a general scrimmage, the people ran, the 1903 police charged about, and shouts, shrieks, cries, and groans arose on all sides. Seeing this, and knowing the temper of the police, and having been twice bludgeoned himself by them, and bearing in mind the order "baton them, but don't arrest," he ran out and did what he could; but the story would have been a great deal worse but for the arrival of the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Dunstable. Mr. Dunstable behaved like a gentleman, and thanked him for what he had done to prevent the disorderly outrage by the police on the people of Fermoy. Sub-Inspector Jones, however, split up his force into three parties, leaving one party with Mr. Dunstable. There was never any trouble where Mr. Dunstable was, but trouble followed wherever Jones and his heroes went. Two incidents he would mention that came under his observation. At the corner where the bridge crossed the Blackwater he saw a little girl running and a policeman following her with baton raised. He remonstrated with the man, and asked how he dared raise his staff against a child. The policeman said she was going to throw stones; but there was no evidence of it—and Minnie Murphy was but a child of 10 years. With Mr. Dun-stable's aid the child was allowed to escape. But the police had extinguished the lights on the bridge, and were charging wildly here and there in the dark, batoning everybody they met. The right hon. Gentleman sat and smiled as Members talked of the actions of the Constabulary, but he should have liked the right hon. Gentlemen to have seen what he saw that night. He saw an old woman endeavouring to escape struck on the back by a policeman with his baton—the baton broke under the blow. Here was the baton broken with the force of the blow on the back of an old woman. [Here the hon. Member produced part of the broken staff.] 01 course hon. and gallant Members who had done a good deal of execution among "Black men," whom the Chief of the Government reprobated, could afford to smile at anything that brought pain and misfortune on their fellow-creatures; but, perhaps, if the Chief Secretary realized what it meant, he would not allow that sort of thing to go on. During last week he happened to be in Kildare 1904 He was not ashamed to say he was engaged in prosecuting the Plan of Campaign. On Monday he happened there to speak to a gentleman, a Conservative, a subscriber to the Loyal and Patriotic League—the hon. Member for South Huntingdon (Mr. Smith-Barry) would recognize the name if he mentioned it—and this gentleman said he had never seen anything more brutal, more deserving of reprobation than the conduct of the police in the streets of Naas. Such cases might be mentioned by the hundred. He could himself refer to 56 such cases, in 32 of which he was witness of the scenes, scenes some of which were enough to make even Tory blood run cold. Of course the right hon. Gentleman had always a different version, but then it was derived from the very persons who were responsible for these troubles. Murder had been committed in the name of law in many districts. Although barren of a result, it was still the duty of Irish Members to press these matters on the attention of the House and of a Minister unworthy of his position.
§ Mr. Arthur Balfour rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Much confusion; during which Dr. Tanner placed the broken bton on the Front Bench, beside the seat of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who removed it to the table.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 39: Majority 102.—Div. List, No. 341.)
§ DR. TANNER, addressing the Speaker seated, and with his hat on, said he had to call attention to a personal matter. Just now he left a broken baton near the Chief Secretary, that the right hon. Gentleman might look at it, and see how it had been broken. Since then a private Member—he did not know the Division he represented, but he gave him his name as Thomas Fielden—insisted on going into the Aye Lobby, and refused to restore the broken baton, which was his (Dr. Tanner's) property. He (Dr. Tanner) regretted the absence of the Speaker from the Chair, or he would have mentioned this at once. How 1905 came the Speaker to be absent and then present?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House is almost as tired as I am of these wretched personal disputes that circulate around the hon. Member for Mid Cork. At the same time, if any hon. Member has taken the baton referred to, I hope he will at once restore it.
§ MR. FIELDEN (Lancashire, S. E, Middleton)said, the baton was thrown upon the floor, as he understood, for examination by any Member who cared to look at it; but if the hon. Member wished to have it—
§ MR. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Member—
§ DR. TANNERHe took it off the desk.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to pursue the subject further. He will be good enough to hand the baton back.
§ MR. FIELDENthen replaced the baton on the Table of the House.
§ Question put accordingly, "That £369,288 stand part of the Resolution."
1906§ The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 39: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 342.)
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.